tv National Security and President John. F. Kennedy CSPAN July 9, 2017 12:00pm-3:06pm EDT
the entirewatch program sunday 9 p.m. eastern on american history tv. only on c-span3. >> >> american history to be -- up next on american history tv, historians and authors look at the american history state and presen present can these speech -- and james angleton to leav lee harvey oswald. three-hour session was part of a conference hosted by the future of freedom foundation. [applause] >> all right, here we go.
michael swanson is the founder and editor of the website wall street window.com where he writes about the financial market. that site, heded commands the hedge fund from 2003 two 2006. he has written works of 20 century american history, including danville virginia and the coming of the moderate south. one of the greatest books that you will ever read, the cold war origins of the military-industrial complex in the power elite. he is working on the book covering the u.s. involvement in the vietnam war from 1945 to 1963. just a personal anecdote -- we get a lot of books that people send us to look at and review. when i got to mike swanson, i did not know who he was. i thought it was another one of those books.
i was stunned. i start really looking through it and i take it home at night and i was just overwhelmed with the power of this book. i contacted him and we met at a conference on the jfk assassination and we have become good friends. i cannot recommend this book to highly. he donated several copies. you have this book in your packets and that is compliments of mike swanson . the title of mike's talk is what is the purpose of the national security state? michael swanson. [applause] thanks for that kind introduction. it's a great day to be here, everybody could we have already the same books and even talked on the internet at times or watched each other's youtube
.hows for that matter coul you know, i was thinking about that, because i was watching ron paul do an interview and it's real relevant for this topic because in that interview they talk about the national security state and the decisions to intervene in other countries and why the people who make these decisions never seem to disappear or get fired or anything. his answer in this interview is because the have no skin in the game. that is one answer. provide ano try to additional answer to it. let's not to say i disagree with everything he says. it is someone i have been influenced a lot by, but a lot of studying a topic like this is about asking the right questions
and going from deeper questions as time goes on. when i wrote the book that you have in your hands, i was focusing on the idea that the united states have become an empire basically after world war ii. we flipped to the statement right here, this is david petraeus february 1 at the armed services committee. he is not saying the word empire, but he is sort of stating that we have an international order that we seek if we stop doing so, he says it will collapse and obviously that will be some bad consequences to that. so that is his answer. one of the things i'm going to do is show what people such as the trace in the past have said the purposes of the national
security state is paid the . the question that has gripped me is how are decisions actually made. it's not that people can't make mistakes and they are not published, but there is a repeating pattern of the type of decisions that seem to result in the last presentation that you heard with doug horn. you hear something like that and you can think of other events that we don't know all the circumstances of or events that we do. you can wonder what the heck is going on and what are people thinking. i'm going to try to give them their argument in this presentation. of the things when you research stuff is that you will take something that and say what the world is this? this has a name to it.
it's like out of "dr. strangelove." it's something called project control. it was a study done from the air force from 1953 to 1954. was is that the u.s. air war college, there was a and they should be a dissertation on air power and how to win the next war is the air force might fight. he looked back at world war ii in 111 and he wanted to make the next war one that the air force would win fisher. he came up with this idea of project control. what was was to go to the soviet union. at the time, they had a huge this advantage and nuclear weapons in regards to the united they did not have
any nuclear missiles that could reach the continental united states. it would be dubious if they would have been able to drop anything. huge advantage in the 50's and it continued to the mid-60's, really. his plan was we will go to the soviets. we want them to surrender. we will do an intensive to intimidate them and scare them. we will drop a couple of bombs and then issue them an ultimatum. better surrender now and if you don't, we will start dropping atomic bombs until you do. it is sort of a heightened up version of what happened to the japanese. what was interesting about the this was a guy
doing a dissertation and it goes up to the top levels of the air force and they hear about it and they get all excited. this is not just a dissertation. we are going to devote huge resources to make this a workable plan. they've even got people in the cia to work on it and people outside the air force, even civilians. hundred people spent a year working on it and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff's told him he liked the idea and he briefs allen dulles and the secretary of defense and wilson and it was mentioned into national security council meetings that you can read that they do not use the word project control and the minutes. in the two latter meetings i have listed, it is discussed. what should we do about the soviet union at this point in
time going forward with present -- president eisenhower and his joint chiefs of staff? they debate if they should just bomb them and do the first strike. control -- project interestingly enough john foster dulles argues no. i find that interesting because in the public imagination, he is the one associated with rollback nuclear retaliation and so forth. he says this is a bad idea. his reasoning is that he says this would be strategically pointless that we will not really win anything out of this. he talks about eastern europe and he says we really don't even need to roll back in eastern europe. this is amazing because this is a guy that in public is saying this all the time in his argument is that if we roll them
back, we are not going to get anything because the soviets are still going to be there. in five or eight years, they will have nuclear weapons so there's nothing to gain. was that af this month inside the air force and him saying the entire pentagon was on board with this, but inside the defense department and the air force, there was a move to get a program like this trickled up. they got briefed to the highest people at levels. nothing like this ever comes up again as far as i know from looking at these documents. all the sounds wacko. it's the crazy john foster dulles who projected it. [laughter] , what i'm trying to figure out and i'm going to show
you my answers here is how to argue this make sense to people. how does operation northwoods or this project control makes sense to people in the national security state or at least some of them? wrote and ibook i just want to emphasize that to go back to the david for trace petraeus -- david statement, when i talk about is really the creation of the american national security state after world war ii up to the end of the kennedy presidency. it did not exist before world war ii. now we take it for granted. it's an everyday part of our lives. the question on tv is going to be soon -- a donald trump send troops to afghanistan?
it's always about where should we intervene next basically? if you go back to the david for etraeustatement -- portrap statement, he seems to suggest that if we do not maintain order throughout the world, everything would collapse. that would imply that intervention or aggressive foreign-policy is necessary. i think that is the real purpose of the national security state. -- tos other purposes defend us against china. or defending us against terrorism, which is slightly higher odds. on the individual basis, not very likely. what are the cost of intervention? are the intervention themselves creating terrorism that we hear
about now most every week somewhere in the world. i would assert that fighting terrorists or stopping terrorists is objective of the national security state, but it's not the primary objective. the primary objective would be basically to maintain its view of international order or world order. that is you end up creating a statio essentially endless wars. topics and ifse you look at something like cia regime changes in the 1950's and iran and elsewhere, you can conclude, what is the purpose of the national serious state? you could say it's to protect the united fruit company.
the oil and just in iran and maybe to protect the clients of the dulles brothers running the cia at the time. andgo to the vietnam war you read about laos and cambodia and you find books about drug smuggling. there's drug smuggling in the united states during the nicaraguan war. the contra covert operations. you might think it's all about drug smuggling. people are making money from drugs and they did as whole deep state involved in doing that. where is about -- or is it really about the defense industry and making profits for general dynamics and race yacht that are just up the road here and getting campaign contributions to congressman to get more contracts and so forth? these are more the side effects of different historical periods of war operations, covert
operations, national security state operations. i cannot find any evidence though that any of those things motivated the people i'm looking at primarily in the pentagon that are making decisions or making proposals. i don't think they care about those things. those are really the people at the top who are the most important people running it. it's become so much a part of our life that if you look at this conference that we are at right now, we are in the fairfax virginia area. because the ironic cia headquarters is in fairfax county. the headquarters for army intelligence, which is actually
larger than the central intelligence operation. and a history of this county, it is tied up with the national security state and the american economy. in 1950, there will hundred thousand people living in this county. 1955, 65,000 people were employed here. 30,000 of them worked for the federal government and 11,000 for the essential intelligence agency. the 1950's, there is a complete boom tied in with an arms race that was really nonexistent with the soviet union, which i will talk about in a minute. , the population of this county tripled. in the vietnam war, it doubled again. the economy of it is directly tied into the national security of the state.
if you look at average income per person in the united states, this county is number two in the entire country. i guess that's where all the bosses work at. [laughter] there are costs to all this. i would say that the history that we are studying in regards to the kennedy era is the direct consequence of the rise in national security state. to put it real simple, political instability in the 1960's and 1970's. whether you look at simple riots in the streets, antiwar marches, it's political instability. the debt story piled up.
in 1967, got to be so large that there is a crisis. 1967 was really a crisis for the national security state. it has really not been studied in that way. hopefully someone will pick up that project, but what happened that theyame clear were not winning the vietnam war. at the same time riots in the ghettos across america were breaking out. the unitedeeing states and flowing into europe. there is a quote where the head of army intelligence is writing to members of joints chiefs of staff and saying the empire of america's in crisis because of the things i listed. up ands kind of cracking then we had watergate and
the house select committee on assassinations attempts to reform some successfully and some not. era andhad the reagan he ran on making america great again and turning the page on these times of troubles. of the country, i think he did succeed in that. the economy boomed in the stock market boomed and so forth. and we are today after 9/11 seeming tos wars and turn to some strange fashion of political instability but we have the media on tv comparing donald trump to richard nixon and so forth. just crazy times. no matter what'
what side of the political spectrum you're on, you feel it coul. if i can recommend one book, i will recommend david stockton's book. now i will go over to statements of some of these national security officials on the purposes of the national security state. this is from the pentagon papers written in 1967. it is that euro crisis. -- year of crisis. robert mcnamara commissioned them to look for the reasons why we got into this war. he got this answer back. 70% of the reason was to simply avoid defeat. it's not to help a friend. that was not on the list. 10% was to help south vietnamese determination, to help that government survive.
20% was to keep south vietnam out of the hands of china. tot that statement shows is me that the reasons for continuing the war were simply to continue the war. why was it necessary to simply continue this? say -- skipping ahead a little bit -- but i would say that there is a fear that if any element of the national security state were to pull back from a war or a confrontation or even pull faces that that that is a sign of what they call provocative weakness. that is a statement you can find in national secure the speeches and documents. i have a quote of donald rumsfeld saying this at his
retirement speech. with john f. kennedy, that is essentially what he was doing. he was pulling back from confrontation with the soviet union in the last year of his life. his famous piece speech and so forth. even trying to limit the defense budget. he explicitly said that we do not want a pax americana, which we arepudiation of same going to maintain order around the world with the use of nuclear power and our weapons . the thing about the vietnam war though, for kennedy himself, he sent advisers in 1961. schoolprimarily in his to describe it as a nationbuilding project to help build the south vietnamese
defeat an insurgency and develop the nation. was skeptical it would succeed, but that is the mission he sent people to do. ideas that you have advisers over there and they are trainers. they will stay by the end of the term. that will be their mission. for the joint chiefs of staff, who really pushed kennedy to intervene in vietnam in the first place, they do not see vietnam as a nationbuilding project at all. they saw it primarily as competition with china. china was the dominant power in land in asia and they were going to grow in influence. it was going to be an influence in china.
who's going to be the big bad player in southeast asia? and they determined it would be this august 1954 meeting of dwight eisenhower, thee was discussion after french effort fell there. what do we do now with china? the same proposals came up. one question was should we just bomb them? eisenhower says we are not going to do that. they're basically settled on the idea that we will give them threat. if they going to another country, we will bomb them. we will develop and defend south vietnam in southeast asia. oft was the initial genesis u.s. direct involvement in south vietnam. eisenhower sums a small handful of people over there.
vietnamp the south premier get a whole power entertainment. it becomes a militarized operation completely by the time lyndon johnson is in there. china is the big thing. the joint chiefs of staff of view was that they are going to develop this country. it's who is going to rule the world really -- the u.s. or china? that is what vietnam was about for them. mcnamara himself wrote a sayingto lbj basically this is the reason we got involved in the first place. his national security adviser was george bundy and he wrote the famous memo telling lbj he needed to intervene in south
vietnam war aggressively. he has china as the main reason. he said in his memo that he do not think we had a better than the 50% chance of even when it winning, but it would still be worth doing to show china how serious we were about using military force. if we look at really the founding document of the cold , it was written in 1950. it was a lobby effort really by the secretary of defense. -- secretary of state. truman was uneasy about signing it because what they are aiming to do and what they did with this document was justify the huge arms race of the 1950's. talking at the end shows me that it's more about
cold war communism and about maintaining order around the world. document, they were not looking to contain the soviet looking for first strikes or even rollback. it justify treating every other country in the so-called third world and any neutral country as in any but they're not now i. neutrality inllow a kind of justified the cia to working? it is it the battery? should i just talked loud? i will just do that. [indiscernible]
michael: you never know. [laughter] i will jump -- ok, thank you. [applause] to go back to relate this to today, national security state did not go away, but it still with us. a buzzword used today is full-spectrum dominance. you see that in the pentagon papers coul. there was a document similar to the strategic overview of what we were doing. it was called vision 2020. it was the first to use the line full-spectrum dominance and it . this is the definition of that according to the department of defense.
, theye a long story short want total control basically of any potential battlefield on the planet, including your cell phone for that matter. now we have information wars. if there's anything that's going to come out of the controversy of russia and trump and what did trump do, one side effect of this is going to be an intensive onus by the pentagon information wars, which really had not been there at all. i was watching a hearing about the cia report on whether russia intervened in the election or not. the whole hearing was mostly about we need more money to start doing this ourselves and then build a base at nato to do this and central europe. that was really an interesting thing.
another key phrase i used earlier was provocative weakness, which really applies to the kennedy era and what some members of the joint chiefs of staff had seen as the problem with kennedy. any weakness could be interpreted as provocative by any potential enemy and therefore risks us of our own security. that's the mindset that can justify a lot of things. but what they really meant -- if you go through the kennedy era is that even though the u.s. had this huge advantage at the time in nuclear arsenal compared to the soviets and the chinese had they were worried that if the soviets did not believe that we would use them, the
meaningless fairly in a certain sense that it was probably true. what is the answer to that? it's just the way the world is. what are you going to do? uses weapons? is if you take these types of thinking to their logical conclusion, you will get a dangerous situation like the cuban missile crisis and the demands among the joint chiefs of staff for kennedy to bomb cuba during the cuban missile crisis. desire to have a more aggressive posture and take advantage of opportunities when you can get them coul. during the cuban missile crisis, some members of the joint chiefs of staff socgen these blockade
or hesitation to make a decision as provocative weakness. they actually wrote memos to robert mcnamara asking him not to flinch before turned out to be necessary, say that they could even win. here's one such memo. i'm not going to read the whole thing, but it is no time to run scared. this is during the depths of the cuban missile crisis. a fascinating moment in the cuban missile crisis, which i think provides light on all this is what i'm trying to do is what are the motivations of the joint chiefs of staff? confrontationus when kennedy is meeting the joint chiefs of staff in person and he gets into an argument and
doug foreign mentioned that at the end of his talk, but the next day after that meeting, there is a very fascinating final meeting of not the end of the crisis, but a decision meeting in which kennedy and the numbers of the group talk about the cuban missile crisis with them and they make the final decision on whether to do a blockade or an airstrike. now they have a final argument. unfortunately this is one meeting that we do not have tips of. word not have word by transcript of the meeting, but we have notes. they do decide to do the , but one of the most fascinating parts of this whole discussion is this line from the note where general taylor explains why they need to bomb cuba. namely if we do not destroy the missiles and the
bombs, we will have to change our entire military way of dealing with external threats. what does that mean? [laughter] i'm not trying to say that taylor is crazy. at some point you do have to laugh at these things because it is dark stuff. project control or nuking the soviet union basically and here's a really strange line. we can understand how someone could think or say something with this. understandk we can how the national security state works and how the joint chiefs of staff for in the pentagon. president eisenhower sphere about what he called the military-industrial complex and that famous speech is that his
fear was that the next president would be hemmed in by the or that security state we are going to have the vietnam war or anything like that. oft you primarily was scared was our former government actually changing completely our way of life. in a series of national security council meetings, his final one, he expressed the fear that the spending that the military was going to demand was going to overwhelm the government budget and just completely bust it. he thought the result of that would be inflation that would get out of control. how is that myself over the years that we have a giant and maybeicit everything is going to go broke and that will be how the empire
ends. we just go broke. it seems sort of logical, but that is not what eisenhower thought what would happen. he thought inflation we get out of control and it would never end. men -- meanasically the end of private enterprises we know it and everything would just be consumed by this. it's hard to imagine this kind of scenario. i can't really imagine it. obviously didn't happen, but then again it did happen because states went united off the gold standard. before when we were on the gold standard, there was an actual limit to the size of the budgets we can make. around 1967, the flow of gold started to go out of the united states and into europe because
the deficits got bigger. no one knew what was going to happen. books predicting this would mean the complete collapse of western civilization basically and the end of the gold standard. off andext and took us one result was there was inflation in the 1970's. not as bad as eisenhower feared, but it did happen. the situation settles down eventually with ronald reagan. farmers across the whole country and put lots of people out of work. to the economic policies that were necessary as a result of the whole mess of the vietnam war financially. the fears that eisenhower had coming to root and the way that you don't really think of unless you read those notes and hear him talk about how he is worried about
government spending. now i like to recommend one book to read about the subject of bureaucracy. because in the and, that is what the national security state is. it's a bureaucratic institution. and that is the best way i think to understand it. a bureaucracy operates differently than a private enterprise does and that sort of links back to the nicholas to that these people had no skin in the game . they had enough financial loss at stake if they made the decision to send people to war, but i think there's more to it than that. wayas to do with the decisions inside of a bureaucracy are made, which is not an easy thing to understand even if you are in one.
i think that is how general taylor could speak about we got to use these weapons to bomb or also weapons are no good and i have no purpose in the more. what are we going to do? the book is pretty easy to read and he's not saying all bureaucracies are bad. andikes the police force the postal service, but if you look at postal service or think about the pony express, that's a small bureaucracy. they have a very simple and defined mission. that's just deliver the mail and that's it. go home at night and take the paycheck. with the national security state, they do not have a simple mission. andr mission expands
expands and expands with two purposes to keep the united states say for a safe and also and that therder primary mission. i wanted to them that that makes perfect sense and that is completely in their mind this is -- in their mind necessary, but i wonder if that really is? the way of the bureaucracy works and the size of the pentagon, most of the decisions are made at a lower level but they are trying to do things that they think this appears want them to do basically. they create proposals that they think will get pastore excepted, not any proposals that will be rejected. and they can take on basically in their own mind the objectives
of the organization. any organization or bureaucracy such as the national security state, it comes into being with a good purpose at first. they came into being to win world war ii essentially. time we are bombed at pearl harbor, it is hard to argue against that. any bureaucratic organization , it will comeime to have its own purposes that go beyond the original purpose. that is one of the key insights of this book here and also this book. forget about reading my book. read this one. if you are going to read one book, it is written by james donovan with a forward by david chute. ofid chute was a commander
the marine corps under john f. kennedy. he was on the joint chiefs of staff. james donovan was one of his assistants. this makes all the arguments i made today in a more eloquent manner and by someone who was there at the highest levels. he won the medal of honor. you cannot really argue with his life experience. one thing he shows in that book though is that he breaks down how the decisions of the joint chiefs of staff are made. they are made on the planning staff, which one mentioned. it consists of 400 individuals from all branches of the service, mostly colonels. their whole job is to come toge ther to create war plans. they have to incorporate every branch of the service into the
plan because they help to please everybody that they are working for. own're coming from their organizations and they have to divide up the budgets and make sure everyone has a role and so forth. i will go back to that project wer control as a case study of bureaucracy. it goes up to the highest levels of the air force and nowadays we and eisenhower's advisors. why now did this go up? i was reading about this in the air force history of this project. after the french were defeated in south vietnam, the air force had a problem.
i read this for the first time and it's amazing. when eisenhower is president, he actually gave the air force more money than he did the other branches of service with a new look policy, but what it said was is you are going to use these weapons as a mass of retaliation if they do something to us and that left the air force at a plans of what to do in the next war in vietnam and elsewhere with atomic weapons or anything else. how are we going to win a guerrilla war in south vietnam or laos? what is the role of their power? this goes to show tatian salt that. -- this guy's dissertation salt that. it will be world war iii and they loved it because there isn't. at the time. [laughter] thanks for being here and being
[laughter] >> thank you. peter jamie has been a consultant for over 35 years. he is author of "mary's mosaic." if you buy the book, which i highly recommend, it is a true life murder mystery and page reading,ce you start you will not be a will to put it down. it provides a real up-to-date recapitalization of what he is talking about in the book. he details the many years of investigation into washington's most famous unsolved murder of
mary meyer. it was the general nonfiction winner of the 2012 hollywood book festival and received honorable mentions at the northeast book festival and the 2012 london book festival. hollywood producer and director al altar stone called the book of fascinating story and said, "peter janney's unsparing analysis moves us closer to a reckoning." he earned a doctoral degree in 1981. he currently resides by the sea in beverly massachusetts. the title of his talk is jfk and mary meyer: relationship as redemption. [applause]
peter: ok, great. very nice to be here. very taken with what is taking place today and the things that have been set. this is going to be a little bit of a different talk. i'm not a journalist by trade. i am not a historian by trade. i'm a clinical psychologist, but i bring a wealth of what i told call intensive research how this story unfolded because . was part of it indirectly as most of you who have read the book no, i've come to the conclusion that my own father was part of the conspiracy to murder mary meyer in 1964.
i want to say a few things about the study of history. having spent a lot of time iading history books, i think personally have come to the --lusion that today conclusion that today we are still on the battlefield of memory of what took place in dallas in 1963. history isthat always going to be revisionist to one degree or another. the judgment of history is never set because history is ultimately in moving dialogue. even today many historians are fighting over the american revolution. history therefore to one degree or another ultimately is subjective. it comes through the mind of a particular historian.
while historical accuracy and objectivity must always remain the historians holy grail, it can only be approximated and never fully consummated. still there is much good that historians can achieve, particularly in exposing those facts that any society tends to hide about itself -- facts about wealth and poverty, tierney and lies, and then assassination and murder. closest that we can come to exclusive objectivity is to record accurately all the subjectivities. honestyuires scrupulous and recording the past when we compare the government's self proclaimed benevolence and devotion to democracy to its actual policies, thereby exposing the hidden ideological
pretences that pervade our culture. therefore in terms of telling our history, we have to tell it ourselves. it's an ongoing and never ending struggle. wrestleeration has to with the history of what came , whoseand then ask interest does this history serve? how does it advanced a legacy it serves? for instance, the power of the peace movement in the late 1960's changed the entire national security apparatus, including the cia and the pentagon. we have to resist their military occupation of our minds and the minds of future generations. culturee forces in our that stanford and -- stand for or the proof of into
indigenous people before your americans arrived to conquer them, but generations of denial that create a historical denial. our national forgetting is basically pathological from a psychologist point of view because our systems, or politics, our media, our culture are totally unbalanced. our collective refusal to admit that the vietnam war, for instance, was wrong and antiwar peace movement was right is a very important example of that. now a really good example of what i'm talking about is if we look at what is taking place in germany today and how they have integrated the holocaust into the fabric of the nation's history. as filmmaker michael moore pointed out in his recent film, ," everyo invade next?
day in school, they teach their predecessors what they did. they do not whitewash it. they treated as original sin, a permanent mark on their collective german soul, one for which they must always secret redemption, make reparation, and most important we never forget. and they can't forget because outside of their homes on the sidewalks and on the walls of the streets are little engravings that remind them of the jewish families that used to live in those houses and who were taken away and killed. local artists have installed around town little signs that say jews for bid and signs from the 1930's to continue to remind today's generation in germany that to be german is not just chout beethoven and ba but also about genocide and evil.
what would our signs look like if we were to look back at the assassinations that took place in the 1960's? what would our schools teach this we wanted to truly teach our young the whole story of what it means to be an american? the first step in any psychological healing to be a better person, and in a larger sense a better country, is to stand up and say honestly who and what we are. i'm an american. i live in a great country that was born in genocide and built on the back of slaves. that is just the truth. if there's one thing we should take from germany, it is the idea that it is to acknowledge your dark side, come to terms with it, and face it honestly. immense -- amends for it, that way you can free yourself of the past and move into something more whole and
integrated. they are becoming a better person, a better nation, and be a better fellow citizen to all those on planet earth. now in my exploration of the cold war era, specifically the understanding of how the cia operated, given my father was in fact a high level cia official, no other cold war historian other than l fletcher probably was the one that warned us that the greatest casualties of the cold war had been the truth and the pursuit of truth. at no time in our history has the general public been so misled, so the trade, and so deceived as it was in the last 20 century. tumorn lies the cancerous upon the soul of america. , theia's inception
entrance into the macon american landscape from the mentally altered our function in government and access to the real truth of what was actually really taken place. , the cia's rain has contaminated historical truth. dismantling of the american republic did not begin in dallas in 1963, that day surely marked an unprecedented coloration of the erosion of our democratic republic. the cia was from its inception virtually unaccountable to any authority. it was subject to little if any congressional oversight. that would increasingly hot presidents howard, truman, and eisenhower. by the agencybled having a carte blanche get out of jail card free for anything
they attempted. this came out of the 1948 meeting into what is called -- forgive me, i get a little parched. remember that the late elder american-statesman george can can and would publicly come out to deeply regret it and that his life the power that had been given to the agency, part of which he signed off on. freeget out of jail card known as plausible deniability was that he told yale historian john lucas, the greatest mistake i ever made in my life. in the mid-1970's, he reiterated that statement before u.s. senate subcommittee. of course today, it continues. here's the statement of my friend john, who most of you know was recently in the not-too-distant past put into
prison for a couple of years. this is what he says. this was as late as this past march. one of the things that most observers don't understand is that the cia will do anything, anything to survive. all cia officers are taught to live. they lie all the time about and theyg to everybody justify it by trying to convince themselves that they are doing it in the national interest, for national security. from my very first day in the , as it was drilled into me it is to every other employee, that "the primary mission is to protect the agency." that was the mantra. couple that with the cia's ability to intercept and take over virtually any communications device, and you have a frankenstein monster. it is really hard to believe that such an organization would
resist a president who challenged it. that goes for jfk and donald trump. is it hard to believe that it would do so surreptitiously? i don't think so, says mr. uriacu. let me turn to marry my. most of you who are familiar with my book or story know that this was an exceptional human being and an incredibly beautiful woman who had a very significant influence not unjust husband.nitially her she was born in new york city in 1920, the your women got to vote. she grew up in a family upon which there was quite a bit of wealth and privilege. she was encouraged to explore and become independent. her father was the leader of the
progressive wing of the republican party. he always worked toward industrial and labor reform. he would become one of the founders, along with norman thomas and roger baldwin, of the american civil liberties union. always outspoken, her mother the journalist ruth pickering was also bought it -- born in new york city. college and vassar columbia university. she too came from a family of courageous liberal thinkers. she was the kind of rare woman who dared to define herself even back in the 1920's. she resisted the prescribed roles that most women found playing.
active and the suffrage movement and four years shared a house with a political socialist, max eastman and his sister. fast-forward to february 1936. this woman is now 15 years old and is already physically stunning and is a beautiful young woman to behold. years she was -- at her beck and call where the debutante balls. out at many of the clubs. it she was the belle of the ball. the weekends were full of parties at prep schools. now while attending the winter festivities weekend in 1936 in
connecticut her date for that weekend was the young dashing william atwood who she had been seriously dating. he would eventually become president kennedy's ambassador to ginny. he would also become a part of a secret mission in 19 63 to approach fidel castro. behind the backs of the pentagon and the cia. 1936 he was the guy with the prettiest date. what he did not know that ofurday night and saturday 19 36 was that jfk having already graduated had decided to return to the winter festivities weekend and i tend the gala saturday evening dance. it was a black tie with tales
event. we do not know what drove jfk back at this time. a mystery.s when we look at the situation, havear could a time cap navigated the confines of a heavily chaperoned new england dance. will would heoy want with a parochial school function anyway? he returned unaccompanied, he was a stagnant. perhaps he thought the homecoming was going to be good for his self-confidence which had liked and forced them to take a medical leave of absence at princeton. what ever the force that drew him back to that evening or forward if we look at the forces at work here. that is not known, something propelled him.
during that winter festivities mary he would encounter for the very first time. etching into his being a unforgettable moments. gracious as she was when he kept cutting in on the dance floor with atwood guarding the list are in because he had a sore throat. there was no romantic interest at that time. were other men who would first crossed her trajectory. at what being another. shortsessop and bob finally her husband court meyer. the encounter in 1936 was for both of them a major life of event. when we look to history to help us understand events and circumstances that shape theonal life as well as fate of a entire country.
certain individuals seem to up here at the most extraordinary moments when the stakes could not be possibly higher. americaworld war ii with a new reality of what it might mean to live in the nuclear age read there were two young promising young men who were emerging as potential leaders of the new era. one of the fascinating elements would become used by both of them. the july 1947 issue of glamour magazine. in this issue is a major feature , it was called top 10 young men who care. o y were ranked in order of
importance. john f. kennedy was on the right. now court meyer was in many ways a wounded man. just as jfk was old and his and he was fundamentally a poet. one of his teachers like to say that when he exploded he would blue -- blow like a half tail. in his earliest years he was decidedly a pacifist. forfather feared the worst world war ii, like all of his he asked them to talk about the pressures of for the least. saying if any of them crack up under it it will be him.
on july 22 a 1944 japanese grenade rolled into his foxhole exploding in his face killing the sergeant. he lay mortally wounded contemplating death and bleeding everywhere. teeth in his mouth with blood. with horror he realized that he was blind. still conscious he searched for his 44 -- 45 caliber pistol to end his misery. why had he not follow his conscience and refused military service he bemoaned as he lay dying. cursing nation state savagery. lived and two years later he would write a award-winning short story called
wave of darkness which he articulated that night and that foxhole. this was his up for world peace as he emerged from the second world war. there is art story paragraph that i want to read because it is fundamentally who why he was ake jfk believer in world peace. what he wrote was this. get out of hisld plots hole and explain the matter reasonably to both sides. fellow human beings he would begin. there are very few of us here ao are private who would kill man for any reason whatsoever. the fact that guns have been placed in our hands and some where one uniform and others where another is no excuse for
the mass murder we are about to commit. there are differences between us. none of us are worth the death of one man. most of us are not here by our choice. we were taken from our peaceful lives and our not understanding the reasons. surely we have more in common that temporarily separate us. fathers go back to your children, husbands go back to your young wives. who cry and the night and count the anxious days. fathers return to the fields , the onlygrain rots certain fruit of this insanity will be there rotting insanity of which the sun will partially shine tomorrow. let us throw down these guns that we hate. with the morning we will go together in charity and hope and
build a new life and a new world. convalescence cord began seeing a lot of mary. they had never really dated seriously. him she became the roman candle that not only demanded and supported his vision of a world without war. she also shared a emerging focus on how to convince the masses on the rightness. drew herreally what together. interested iny the united nations and its charter meeting in 1945 in san francisco. he knew it was not going to go far enough. that is when he got involved
with united federalist. they wanted to take united nations principle to a much higher level. where they could monitor hotspotst the globe and intervene in a appropriate way. unfortunately this effort failed was starting to be seduced by the cia. he did not join until the 19 30's. it was not his first choice. you really wanted to be a writer and he could have easily been a outstanding writer. not have courage, in my opinion, to take this stream and follow his own accord with it. in his diary if i had more faith in my creative talent i would write. he did not.
washe early 1950's he allowed to be seduced by allen dulles like many people of his generation and that is where the beginning of the end of that marriage and relationship to place, they finally divorced in 1957. cord as we know went on to deeper and darker proceeds in the agency. eventually i think that killed his soul. it is very interesting that one wrote inose friends her book early on in the 1980's. was a dynamic that she who came with the men
out of world war ii. she wrote something very perceptive, i am going to read it. confronted by the probability of their own deaths it seems to me that many of the most recipient men of my generation killed off those parts of themselves which were most vulnerable to pain. lost forever a delicacy of feeling of which intimacy depends. we women tragic extent also had to harden ourselves and stood to lose with them the vulnerability that is one of the guardians of the human spirit. misfortunesof the of the kennedy era as we know jfk had a of difficulty with
emotional intimacy. he had a lot of difficulty with women. from a psychologist point of aew he would have what i call bona fide sexual addiction. there was a clearing that was taking place. with maryationship was not one of redemption, that is what i like to call it sometimes. understood that jfk's conflicted hunger as perhaps known by a uniquely enlightened woman. she viewed some of his sexual wanderlust for what it was. a symptom of his unresolved anger and hatred of the rejection that he had been forced to endure from an angry and cold distant mother. it was clear in my research and
that inhat i talked to their relationship together mary really lay down the law so to speak. it was not a situation of anything goes. hisdemanded self-examination, she commanded that he opened his eyes, his heart, his soul, his core of the being to the artifice and the reality of the existence including his sexual promiscuity. she would have refused to allow his capacity,hind his sense of obligation to the kennedy family, his public ridicule or any indifference to such issues like civil rights and the dangers of the cold war. taskould have taken him to that some part of him would have actually longed for.
knowing the emotional pain he would have to confront in order to reclaim himself he would've had to be willing to experience the grief and emotional dependency to experience what she had faced with the loss of her son. mary knew the drill. the crashing surf of unbearable sorrow and what was required to survive it. this was a woman who would have been once tender and firm with him yet demanding that he show up engage and keep running. i think for jack she likely represented the hope of lost love. passion, the erotic chemistry he had once experienced with ingrid.
with a noble bond that he had shared with his departed sister. aware of her multidimensional beauty from across the room at one of the white house dances in february 1962. jack had leaned in and commented to ben bradley. saying she would be rough to live with. according to bradley this was not the first time he made that comment. he agreed. that was not any doubt jfk's remark reveals something about the nature of his relationship with mary. there were undoubtably moments when she was in fact rough to live with. something had been awakened in him by her. , entrance into her life something that kept him engaged and kept him wanting more. such was the fire and hope emma but ofy of redemption
clearly defined reclamation of himself. of a president he wanted to become. confidedst advisor had in the late author leo damore that mary had been quite outspoken and confrontational when he was about to resume nuclear testing in 1962. she openly challenged him to do something different. not fall into the trap of getting into a contest with the russians. based on what o'donnell had said to him. faced thato the more she fear the power she had over him. he would feverishly paced around the oval office and he was not able to get in touch with mary. durability ability is not always a sign of weakness.
she had the emerging strength of a heart crying out for connection. the serenity surrounded by her. person and sheus fell in love with somebody that i suspect was really loved. when we look at what other people have written about her 1983to the groundbreaking biography of jack. he had interviewed a close confident source, he said this. with hertalk in ways in which she understood and their trust with mutual. when he was with her the rest of the world could go to hell. he could laugh with all of the absurdity that he saw around the center of our.
striking to the end of 1962 after the end of the cuban missile crisis inside the white house mary had become almost a part of the furniture. in the words of the white house council according to what he told me not early. unlike some of the other women in the white house the president did not as her to leave the room. so frequent was her proximity to the president and so obvious kennedy's admiration to her that he felt he might make a good conduit to the president's ear if and when it was unavailable to discuss matters. presence was documented in the entry logs. i would walk out of the office
all of the time and i would see p.m. when the0 day was over i would walk over to the residence and she would be sitting there. there was that any attempt to hide their like there was the other women. just as fascinating was hurt you balding position within the kennedy white house. the senior staff -- she was never regarded as second tier. even may ber name considered advantageous for employment in the opinion of arthur/danger. here is a memorandum that he wrote. 1962 when they were discussing writing the history that they wanted written. saying was -- he
was talking about what he knew and the clear indication that she could become from her all about whether it would be suitable or not. as we talk about today, june 10, 1963. it was a major life event for jfk himself and for probably our country as well. what we know is what happened that evening after giving that the american university commencement address had become a watershed moment in dividing this president who decided to take the world and a profoundly different direction. it is breathtaking to behold the kind of courage and leadership
that our president began to embrace that day. had the views of very found its true object of transformation? that evening of june 10 had also brought with it a small kind of celebration. p.m. withe 8:00 jackie onassis away. hisecided to stop by friend's house in georgetown. drink to come just for a the president was stay for more than one hour as there was also a dinner party beginning to arrive. you can imagine who was also there. there it was already there. i almost certain that jfk knew she would be. a gay mood that evening. you can bet mary herself must
have been ablaze not just because of the flowers in bloom that were coaxing her to smile. on that day he had ventured to go where court meyer had never ventured. his vision had been woven into her mosaic. just fate melodies had premiered for all mankind earlier that day. guardedocktails in the she sat with jack on one side and will atwood her prep would -- prep school beau on the other. he would recall three years later that on that evening the three of them had turned to the enjoyable recollection of past events. reminiscing about our old school days with mary as his date and how jack had happily recalled having cut in on them on the
dance floor. atwood said it was hard at times like that to realize that he was president of united states. it was impossible to imagine that inside of one year both of them would be murdered. he and dallas and she in georgetown. told that ibeen only have five minutes. that is unfortunate. time flies when you are having fun. -- wanted to say is that the next part of my talk and this will be posted is talk about the focal point of the cia. the allen dulles arranged and to underscore the fact that there was a copycat assassination attempt on jfk on november 2 in chicago. it was a exact replica of what
happened in dallas three weeks later. it was suppressed. we never learned about what took place until the assassination review board demanded that the secret service turnover the records and at the very point the secret service destroyed all of the records so we never knew from their point of view about what actually happened. in my wanted to say pursuit of the story to get to where i have gotten and there will not be another addition i -- i had to jump through a lot of hoops and make a lot of sacrifices. i could never have really gotten to the bottom of who william mitchell was and what his role in the assassination was if i not had some help from a very
special person who came into my life who helped me since 2004 get to the bottom of how to look at the story and what was really going on. i will not spoil it by telling you the story, i think it is a genuinely interesting read article in the last two chapters. that is where you will learn that there was a focal point office where william mitchell worked in the office of the pentagon. boss who was-- part of the operation to take mary out as well as mitchell. on the team and that was to frame rate crop which he attempted to do very professionally. he failed. what he did not -- what they did
the incredibles african american attorney who realized that he was being railroaded in this case. finally when we procured the weuments that we procured were able to realize that mitchell's oath of office to place in june of 1962, the same day as his cornell graduation. absent, he was in suit went, he had a used car salesman sign his oath of office because the street there was a secret office of the cia where we believe he was getting inducted so to speak in terms of what his actual role would be. that is his oath of office.
that mitchellsee is being sent to the defense intelligence agency after swearing in a deposition that he had no connection with any kind of intelligence agency ever. locator card showing that he arrived at the defense intelligence agency. so, i just want to take one you to theintroduce person who was just indispensable to me and figuring all of this out. his name is roger charles. near 30 year career as a journalist. he has investigated such diverse subjects as the detainee abuse of abu ghraib. he is a peabody a warning journalist. the author of the definitive book on the oklahoma city bombing and he is a whiz kid
when coming to looking at intelligence documents and military documents and understanding what was really taking place and what roger said you can read right there is at the very end of my book. onputs his stamp of approval -- journeyjournaling finally took me. he believes that it is pretty clear that mr. mitchell was in some way connected to the cia. roger, i was wondering if you could stand up and let people see you. [applause] thank you.
is theerson morley moderator at jfk faqs.org which i consider one of the best websites relating to the kennedy assassination. he worked as a editor and reporter at the washington post, and harper's magazine. his work has appeared and the new york review of books and the new york times book review. the washington book world can reader's digest, rolling stone and slate. our man andok was
mexico, winston scott and his -- and the hidden history of the cia. his book snowstorm in august describes what happens when the antislavery movement came to washington dc during andrew johnson's residency. the author of the best-selling book jfk's secret assassination files. cianewest book a biography chief town or intelligence from 1954 to 1975 will be published by saint martin's press later this year. cubaitle of his talk is and assassination. jeff morley. [applause]
jeff: thank you all. thank you, jacob for that presentation. for heading up this marvelous event where i find myself learned something new with every speaker. i hope to reward and thank you all for coming. of people i had only met by email, it is gratifying to me people in person. coming.u for i hope to reward your interest by telling you a story about james ingle 10 the chief of counter intelligence of the central intelligence agency during the kennedy administration. this story speaks directly to some of the things that we have already heard. this describes the actions of the cia and the pursuit of peace. reality oftes the government that michael glennon talked about. abouts some new details what doug horne talked about.
i've could not have given this presentation without the help of several people and i want to thank them. whot of all, john newman introduced me to the oswald file. malcolm who came from england who talked about some of what we found. as well as another man for alerting me to one of the key files. that nothinghasize i say in this talk depends on a thepiratorial notion of assassination. whatever your opinion i will not dissuade you from a great or try to convince you of something else. the not have a theory of kennedy assassination at least that one i think about in public. if you buy me a drink later maybe i will share one. if you buy me to drinks i will share two. that is that what i can to talk about.
i did not come to talk about. i can to talk about fact. everything i say is empirical fact. the fact is that james angleton embodiment of cold war -- he is a historic person that you may think you made -- know something about. theshould, you should buy book the secret life of james angleton which will be in book es in october. he was a influential figure in american government. a veritable founding father of the cia. when the cia was founded in 1947. he spent the next three decades elevatedshing himself himself to a position of transcendental government. contactsvast array of
from the masons to the massage. he cultivated a deep knowledge of the soviet intelligence service. you knew how to ingratiate himself like allen dulles and j edgar hoover and richard nixon. of the agency's counterintelligence staff in 1954 from 19th avenue four. he established a fiefdom of operations and the cia, a cia within the cia that virtually no one and the elected government knew about and he ran it for 20 years. find chillinge cold war drama and a pivotal moment in the government with the emergence of the american national security stake. the gist of my argument will strike most people as more common sense than original. ae kennedy assassination was
decisive moment and the evolution of the american national security stake. i only want to take this time to make that slightly more precise. it is the aftermath of what was , angleton wasart a key figure in that moment. the assassination and dallas was one of great danger for the cia. if any of them had been held responsible for that its power may have been incurred. the clandestine service may have been a polished -- abolished as president truman urged. the event's roles in leading up to that had been shared with the american people the ambitions of the national security state may have been checked. that did not happen. thanks in no small part to james angleton.
my story has three strands and i is.going to summarize in th as he hunted for a mole in the defectornitored the from the kgb. that was lee oswald. unknown role and the cuba policy. he discussed the assassination with fidel castro as early as 1961. he advised the pentagon and regime change in 1963. the two strands intersected in the fall of 1963 when oswald showed up in the consulate. his staff was immediately notified. -- third strand goes out and why he had what he knew about oswald from the warren commission, the public and congress with consequences we are still grappling with today.
we know.in with what were born at six months apart and 2016 as with jfk 2017 is the centennial of his birth. angleton and kennedy both came from families that were newly wealthy and had inherited privilege of money, travel and the ivy league education. the both embodied aspirations and the fears of the american elite after world war ii. indeed they knew each other. had livednd his wife just off of arlington. there were social fronts with john and jackie kennedy. like many others they found the kennedy's attractive. when kennedy was elected president in november she wrote to a friend that prince hamlet
is in the white house. at the time of his election he was already knowledgeable about this. he had been prompted by the arrest of one of the most able spies and that soviet union. he was a soviet intelligence officer who had been feeding the agency a stream of information for years. popoff wasof 1959 arrested and later tried and executed. there office of the cia were temporary buildings along the reflecting pool on the national wall the cia debated what had gone wrong. berlinrvey the chief of saw he had been exposed for one of his moscow handlers. so did bill hood another senior officers with the man. angleton disagreed he suggested
that he is been betrayed from within by what he called a mole, a spy within the ranks of the cia itself. soon partedpicions into a fixed idea which fueled his legendary mole. it all began with peter popoff angletonter that became fixated on the ball. it was not coincidentally two weeks after his arrest that the paper trail connecting angleton to oswald begins. one of his most trusted staff members was a woman named jane roman. she handle all communications with other federal agencies. hurtvember 2, 1959 and a man asked her about a story that appeared in the post did a expiration and with
citizenship. the former marine from texas had shown up at the u.s. embassy and muska and announce his intention to become a soviet citizen. we wouldled on top like to know about this marine who recently defected into the ussr. was a obvious target of the counterintelligence staff. it was unheard of for a american to move to moscow. it was certainly unusual. routed the cable to her colleagues the chief of a office known as the special investigations group. it was responsible for keeping files on defectors. she supervised the staff of eight people. she was the author of the office filing system. she described the special investigations group as the
office that spied on spies. the operational office behind the mole hunt and controlled oswald file. the proof of his this can be seen in the cia's handling of his affection. procedure called for opening the handler profile as a 201 file. the central file registry have thousands of those. some of them fat and some of them thin. some of them full of classified some of them holding only a couple of newspaper clippings. a x marine who threatened to share military secrets certainly qualified for a 201 file. nonetheless the special investigations group chose not to open the 201 file and instead 1959 they opened
a different file. this file became the repository for all of the information received about oswald. needless to say the office of security did not create his file without consulting angleton liaisoney served as a office between the office of security. we worked very closely with the office of security. a unusuale of oswald procedure had to be approved at the highest level. the deputy director of the that jimld historians angleton was in on this. interests district -- in oswald was finely tuned. the difference of file was to enter the b about the x marine was held her tightly. if someone inside the agency
like the kgb mole that angleton thought was working in his midst heted to mow -- no more would have to ask for the file and writing. provide a name, office and phone number. if there was a 201 file that paper trail would not have been created. creating a restricted os file and not a 201 file he could determine who in the ranks of the cia was interested in him. the unusual handling of the oswald file was one of angleton's techniques for searching for the mole who he thought have betrayed your popoff. in 1960 the state department noticed the records on all defectors made that missive forced theo the cia counterintelligence group to act. one year after his defection that he created the paperwork to
create the 201 file for us all. in that created one dozen items. for the next three years all reports on oswald from anywhere in the federal government would g anduted to the sic controlled by betty. now let's turn to cuba. after the election of john kennedy in november of 1960 angleton became more involved in than anymore involved other scholars and journalists have known until now. unlike his liberal friend he was immune to that threat that cuba was a reformer with which the united states to do business. after the humiliation of the bay of pigs angleton was drawn more
deeply into cuba operations. on may 4 the national security council asked him -- cast him with a new job to train and support a highly motivated and competent apolitical and career security service that would be dedicated to the preservation of the democratic form of wasrnment angleton in short creating a government for post-castro cuba. to that end he discussed assassinating castro. ofnovember 1961 the chief the cuba task force and him met with a scientist to work for the british equivalent of the ebb the eye. -- fbi. they grill him about how the fbi pursuit assassination bid angleton took such careful notes that they began to have second thoughts.
the sight of his notebook was beginning to unnerve me. determined and so convinced that this was the way to handle castro, i was slightly went out and i could not see more. presidentuestioned kennedy's cuba policy especially after the missile crisis. cia confirmed the construction of missile silos kennedy went public with the intelligence and demanded their removal. annoying survivors recommended a immediate invasion kennedy quietly promised he would not invade the island to the soviets. brink of what may have been a nuclear holocaust kennedy .ad produced piece his popularity search, the democrats did much better than expected in the 1962 midterm elections but kennedy also
encountered a rip tide of resentment in military intelligence agencies. the president emerged with his credibility and prestige measurably enhanced with pentagon historians and in his official history with the strengths of staff. he madehe crisis compromises and concessions that his military advisers considered in many ways unnecessary and excessive. the consensus on the joints chief of staff is that they came up the poor and of the bargain. angleton share this view. tosaid he had fumbled deliberate with cuba. it was his unmistakable fault of will at the bay of pigs followed 18 month later to reluctantly make good on a showdown with forcing castro's exposure -- expulsion from cuba. his analogy ton
hamlet was apt. the the danish prince president was intelligent, absorbed and indecisive. in angleton's view he lacked the will and the united states was weaker for it. 1763 -- mid-1963 he made his most important work. cuba control and action probability. this was not provided by the cia , it was found in the pentagon records by the assassination records review board and was declassified in 19 97. with advocates of overthrowing castro this was a fiery time. on art the fbi to crack down human exile that were using software to as a base of attack.
the human county and miami exploded and outrage. whenevolutionary council of a row organization's that was supposed to constitute a new government and have been a acrimoniousth towards the president. many officials were concerned that the soviet union was solidifying their foothold in the western hemisphere while and the joint chiefs of staff but was on advice. in a meeting of 1963 to joint chiefs of staff they had the bucolic name blue woods. it was explained earlier developed after the bay of pigs sought to have a justification for a invasion. the pentagon planners in 1963 recommended what they call a engineered provocation saying that a violent incident that can
be blamed could have a controlled timing, specificity and security. it, heff who ignored knew president kennedy and his mother were not interested and would not want to overthrow castro by invasion. reports autonomous operation against castro. attacks from outside the united states. with u.s. policy and flux looked at a assessment of the target. what was the weaknesses, but with the u.s. military have to overcome in order to retake you from the communist? angleton study the files and he thereup his findings, were three documents, two other attached documents as well. on may 23, he distributed this documented this document to the joint chiefs of staff and 15 federal agencies.
in his cover letter angleton stated that this was not merely a provisional statement on the cuba situation but this was a assessment of the communist controlled system. angleton said that served as nothing less than a new national policy to eliminate the castro regime in 1963 from 1964. the human capabilities memo is one of the most important to ever surface. it confirms the leading role in cuba in 1963 while demonstrating his intellectual power grid is analysis of the castro government was listed detailed, historical and comprehensive. that the noerted invasion pledge had demoralized the vote. the cuban leader came out stronger from the crisis. with up 400,000 men and women serving in the militia and the
navy. another bulwark of support for the regime he noted a friendship society and united states and other countries which sent sympathizers to the island who returned and documented with missions ofperhaps sabotage, espionage and assassination. in the course of his research he had multiple travelers who wish to conceal their visit to cuba. they could enter mexico with a tourist card, not a passport and receive a separate visa to travel to cuba from mexico city. returnld go to cuba and without any indication that he had been there. this was remarkably precious. that is exactly what the defector lee harvey as a would attempt to debate you enter mexico with a tourist card, go
to the cuban consulate and seek a visa to travel to cuba. thus angleton's memo is also a important document with the assassination of president kennedy. the memo reveals angleton's knowledge and interest and americans traveling to cuba via mexico and via the cuban consulate in mexico city particular. it illuminates and confirms the fact that angleton hit for the rest of his life when we harvey oswald showed up at the cuban consulate in 1963 angleton was not surprised, he was not uninformed, he was prepared. let me pause here. this moment here in 1963. angleton was also fighting efforts to assassinate castro. this was one of the best stories, i like this story because angleton himself is the
source. in june 1963 a surveillance team thatollowing a mafia boss the cia had enlisted and the plot to kill castro. he got off his plane and into his car, agents were astonished to learn that the driver was none other than bill harvey. chief of the cuba task force and was now serving allegedly as a station chief in rome. the fbi agents called the liaison to complain, why was the bossonsorting with a mafia ? who was suspected and no less than 13 murders. theythe fbi agents called discover that he was at angleton's house having dinner. and asked whatl he should do. angleton said let's go easy on this.
the fbi surveillance team was called off and people wondered did angleton know what they were talking about at the restaurant? when angleton was asked that wastion he said i knew he not a frivolous man. they had never definitely harvey as all. now that that file contained a state department cable on a wasian woman in 1961 there a memo about his plans to return to the united states which is why in 19 62. there was a fbi interview with a clearly an uncooperative oswald in 1963. if oswald was indeed a loan not he was that rare isolated sociopath with a key interest in
the cia intelligence. needless to say angleton paid attention when mover said to him great more reports and the fall of 1963. the first a fbi member from andas drove to his office jane roman sent for it. he drank to excess and beat his wife. he had one of those friendships is said is that angleton had identified in his human capabilities memo. jane roman sent for another fbi report. oswald had been arrested and new orleans while passing out a leaflet. a argument with members of the castro organization and was arrested for disturbing the east. oswaldthird report on
came clattering and by teletype on october 8 angleton paid attention. from mexico city the station chief sent a man calling himself lee as well had contacted the consulate office of the soviet union. the cable if we can get that here. labeled at the top. that was the codename for counterespionage involving soviet intelligence services worldwide. angleton's undisputed domain. georgeables read by polaris rp that he is the cuban consulate. in other words this was a national security event. the former defector to the soviet union known to the counterintelligence staff for four years and now active on behalf of a pro-castro organization that have been targeted for the destruction by
the fbi and cia had visited the cuban consulate in mexico city which angleton himself had cited his cuban regime activity. angleton had not forget them about the cuban consulate in the form on and she had written the memo. when a character like him showed up at the consulate, this is very important. angleton's staff responded within 48 hours. on -- reporting that oswald, wrongly defined -- wrongly described as six-foot tall. later that afternoon roman and betty draft a second cable. this one addressed to mexico city.
this is the bottom of the cable indicating who signed on it. she wrote that and showed that to betty. then they took it to the chief of the mexico desk. and he signed off as well. then they took it to bill hood, who was serving chief of operations for the western hemisphere. trustedy took it to the assistant to deputy director and he signed off. the five subordinates who produced it did not act in his wishes or knowledge, not if they cared about their security clearances, their job security, pensions or
reputation. curiously the second cable grow -- easingly -- cable to not with the latest fbi reports, his people could have described oswald as a lawbreaking communist. the cable to scott was curiously reassuring. the agency had not received many new information on oswald since he returned from the soviet union a year and a half ago. the latest headquarter information was a state department report dated may 1962. they determined oswald as a citizen.
if the october 10 cable was to the cia gathered no information on oswald since his return from the soviet union 17 months before. the cable was deceptive, as jane roman would later admit, when i showed her a copy of the cable -- said i'm signing on signing off on something that is improved. then asked him about the cable, why didn't the cia share the most recent reporting with scott? after a brief silence he said, i don't think there's anything smelly in it, which i thought was a curious comment. added i don't see a master hand in it. the latest cia headquarter was not 17 on oswald
months old, it was less than two weeks old. angleton's omission would be justified. if oswald's cupid -- oswald cuba related activity were part of a covert operation, then there was no need to know about them. was angleton running oswald as an agent for some intelligence purpose? mole. searching for a he and his staff had a granular of his movement, families and political views. he articulated a vigilant anti-communism and apocalyptic terms. he participated in discussions of assassination and worked in a
pet number of cutting that his admirers did not fail to mention three at angleton possessed a unique grasp of operations. level buto a higher to another dimension. in 1963, 1964 and into the 1970's james angleton denied an operation involving oswald. as to the nature and purpose of this operation, we are only left to speculate. i can only say it most likely concerned angleton. was the mole hunt and the effort to change the regime in cuba via an engineered provocation. cable -- amp on the it is 5:29 p.m. washington time.
president kennedy was finishing up a busy day in the oval office. he spent the morning with his national security advisers and and the day conferring with two liters of newly independent african nations. he had 42 days to live. within a week, and this is new, this is what we were alerted to, angleton launched a mole hunt in new mexico. -- in mexico. that's largely underscores the reality that people knew about angleton. some hunt extend beyond the soviet division. it reached into mexico city into the very offices that had been watching and reporting on the oswald. 1963 these of declassified records showed angleton was worried about the
-- that the cia's mexico operations may have been informantd by an fbi who was actually a soviet double agent. chief of operation in the western hemisphere ordered an officer security king to interrogate mexican employees at the cia offices in mexico city and monterey. the first three employees were the three men who manned the surveillance points who launched the soviet and cuba diplomatic offices. the very offices oswald visited the week before. whether these man were -- these men were asked about oswald is unknown. interrogators filed a report on resultestion, and the was 21 reports on 21 different
employees. and what each report and an attachment to describe the contents of the interview. of the 21 reports found in the jfk records collection, the attachments are missing on 18 of them. mexico city was completed between -- the results were analyzed in washington. and the results were sent to bill hood. the office of security found some security breaches, some loose talk among family members, but no type of compromise. as far as the office of security was concerned, there was no mole in mexico city. all the while lee oswald remainder figure of interest. for the latestn fbi report on oswald. a more detailed memo on
ostwald's protest will activity. he learned that oswald had gone back to texas after his trip to xcode city -- to mexico city. angleton always thought to give the impression that he knew very little. for the chief of the agencies counterintelligence staff, that was a frail defense. the staff had monitored oswald movements to fort worth, to new orleans to mexico city area every step of the way. by the time president kennedy was apparent for a trip to dallas -- you can interpret that however you want.
epiclain fact is an counterintelligence failure culminated on his watch. there is no evidence he knew that his presence life was in danger. there is overwhelming evidence angleton had much to hide. no doubt that angleton succeeded in hiding most of that evidence. nationnedy's incessant -- deputy director dick allen's was in charge of collating all reports for oswald. any theories of kgb involvement. he tried to thwart john wotton. he was not able to influence the course of the investigation. he was extremely embittered that
i was entrusted with the investigation. meeting in 1963, and attend attacked the latest draft. whitman on the spot and put angleton in charge of oswald investigation. reached theower had peculiar apex. when the japanese attacked pearl harbor, it happened on angleton's watch. up in charge wind of the agency's investigation of the accused assassin. angleton -- after the president
was dead angleton orchestrated the cover-up of what the cia knew. the warren commission trust at the cia. in february 1964 the cia provided the secret service with cables on the night of the excess and nation. cable.ng the october 10 he needed homes support to rebuff the investigators. he decided not to respond to his homes in the memo. jim would prefer to wait out the commission. why on earth would a senior cia official readout the investigators of a presidential assassination.
of course intelligence work, the source of the information matters as much as content. the cables included photographs of people coming and going from the cuban embassy. a passenger manifest from people flying to mexico city. the cia had the ability and desire to photograph every consulate to mexico city. the october 10 cable -- in order to explain the cia's interest in oswald. particularly the visit to the cuban consulate. particularly some kind of covert operation. angleton feels you would be
somewhat prepared to go to the them inon and pass copy. see the original document. i consider the cia representatives to be among the more competent people that i ever dealt with. are --ticulate, they they have specialists. deceiving him on the fundamental fact leading to the deaths of the president. he realized he had been duped. comments -- comments about the cia were naive. the cia did have access to grind. angleton participated in that cover-up.
on may 8, 1964 angleton received a memo, chief of counterintelligence for the cube operation. castro had probably known about the cia's recruitment in 1963. the --ename for operation may have been the a secureay have been operation prior to the assassination of president kennedy. the implications were obvious. killing motive for kennedy. angleton chose not to investigate this breach of security. he seems to have destroyed it. one angleton was called to
testify about these events later he lied. when asked of all love had ever been interrogated if he ever returned from russia angleton fumbled for words. i just don't know whether the military would fall within the jurisdiction of the military. angleton babbled. i don't know the answer to that. interview in the summer of 1962 had been sent to his office. when the attorneys for the house select committee pressed up about his information of the castro assassination, the question i want to ask is do you recall approximately when you learn the information about the castro assassination plot? was before after the warren commission? i'm certain he said it is well after the warren commission compiled its work. angleton's willingness to violate the law is hard to
defend. but it is not hard to understand. a serious counter espionage investigation would have uncovered his abiding interest in him, the various operations to castro, it would have revealed a damming fact that no matter who fired the fatal shot, angleton had failed as counterintelligence chief. helms and angleton fed the warren commission the cover story that they knew very little about oswald before the incessant nation. that the cia did not even know he visited the cuban consulate until after jfk was dead. it was a small but telling lie. of intense interest in the fall of 1963. it had to be denied, suppressed and erased from the record to sustain the cover story. lost hisshould have
job after november 22 had the public, the congress and the warren commission known about his pre-assassination assistant to oswald. he surely would have. abetted by dick allen's went undetected. he would remain in a position of supreme power for another decade. and so jim angleton came to embody the intelligible power of the american national security state after november 1963. thank you. [applause]
what of the ardent defenders of , andom, peace, free market sound money. he has also been an ardent defender of civil liberties and a vocal critic of the patriot act. a graduate of gates per college, paul was a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist. the founder of the ron paul institute, he wrote several books in economics and classical liberalism. , foreign policy of freedom pillars of prosperity, a manifesto and defined liberty.
hero an absolute personal of every libertarian in the libertarian movement, especially me. the title of his talk is enemies, foreign and domestic. please welcome ron paul. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you for inviting me. back in washington i would give occasional speeches. the one thing that happened with those speeches, i did my very best but i never had any applause. i'm glad to come here and get a
little applause once in a while. i need to boost my ego. it's great that you put this together, this is fantastic. the only thing is i have a little bit question about him, he has all these fantastic speakers. you did have a little competition for me to get here. i had this other invitation that was a really tough choice. at her know if you know what is but i wasver there, tempted to do that. thinking it would be much better to be among friends
and feel safe and secure. at that other place i may not have felt so safe. it is great to be here. the title of my talk is defending and supporting the constitution of the united states. of course many people take that both. went to washington i thought i had a good understanding about the constitution. we would go back and forth. it turns out my understanding was completely wrong. they told me something about the constitution should be more flexible and should be a living document. i struggled with that tremendously.
i kept thinking one compliment -- how did you go there you -- go there? to do that you have to sell your soul, you have to raise your money. in my case i do believe lena joining the game was true. the more i became very skeptical about government and the more i became rigidly determined that the problem is not with the people as much as it is with the government and the government is way too big, too intrusive.
that is the reason i believe it is important -- for that reason i left congress much more adamant, being opposed to big government than the motivation i had to go to congress. issue, we talkle about all that is going on today and foreign policy, and the bickering that is going on is a lot of that. the bickering has nothing to do with the important issues. bipartisan, everything done by party partisanship, the two parties have to agree.
not even examining the security it is always bipartisan going to war. it is always a bipartisanship. those would frequently get the criticism that i am overly rigid. time one of the members of congress said he was working to get a credential that he was against corporate welfare. he wanted to cut it at 5%. the next to vote, i wanted to abolish this.
i supported the other gentleman's amendment to cut it a little bit. i said why aren't you voting for this? he said your trouble is you always go too far. whether foreign policy or domestic policy, if you can see the principle, i think you can see what hundred percent on it. to say we have to do such and such type of welfare program, you can see this whole principle that we are supposed to do it. you should take this principle and much has been said about non-interventionism. non-interventionism tells you what liberty is all about. if we believe in the cause of liberty we should be
noninterventionist. a government doesn't intervene in peaceful activity of all citizens. let us mind our own business. have a government that if you believe in markets you should have a non-interventionist government that tries to regulate the economy. just think of the thousands and thousands of pages of paulation. of course for -- of course for foreign policy it way too overblown. there is a time that bothered me when you start reading revisionist history. there was supposedly knowledge possibly of what was going to happen at pearl harbor. just didn't want to believe that about my government.
it took a longtime to soften my stand on that. during the cuban crisis, which was discussed here today. i was actually inducted in the service in 1961. i was a flight surgeon at the antonio the day before kennedy was killed. there was a note -- no way at our time i would say government may have well been involved. of course things like the andting up of the liberty the 9/11 commission, but i have come to a conclusion that this is -- have commissioned study
all this. look at what they have said and decide if exactly the opposite is the truth. we had briefings all the time to tell us what is going on. i thought it was all propaganda. it was trying to endorse a policy. i just didn't go. you could read it in the washington post the next day. the propaganda was usually a distortion of what was going on, especially in foreign art and policy.
this whole idea of defending and supporting the constitution, pretty important. there's not a whole lot of support in defense of the constitution. i have concluded that if you want to do that you only have 50% of that responsibility because it is hard to figure out who is going to invade us and destroy our constitution. look at the loss of liberty since 9/11. there are a lot of enemies that are internal. that should be our job as much as anything.
how do we get to this point where we are so out of whack of what the intent was with our costs to tuition. one of our most important issues is the educational system. if you look at the last 60, 70 years, it even started under eisenhower with the department , andalth education welfare now we have this bizarre evil monstrosity and cultural marxism pushed by our universities. what kind of university do we have what you can send a kid off, get a fancy degree, and study something in social and he can't get a job and he is supposed to be educated.
the longer the federal government has been involved the worst the educational system has become, i think it is an indoctrination system. it's very simple and this is why i like the simple answers. for the no authority federal government to be involved in education and it should be taken out. maybe something much better could replace it. because of the system and what goes on this is a great influence. many are considered very decent but confused. they didn't understand economics. how many universities teach interventionist cannot as a --
iterventionist economics? had nothing to do with money and free markets. that's why the majority of the people who come to washington are going to do what they do. once they accept this notion that there is something wrong with an overly rigid constitution and they have this excuse that you should be ready to adapt the constitution, and they get in dr. needed in the educational system, then we end up with this mess that we have. i spend a lot of time leading up to the iraq war. pointing out all the reasons we shouldn't do it. i listed 34 reasons why we shouldn't do it.
overall it is the principle of the thing, should we be involved? the founders gave us a hint. don't need internationalism, we need more emphasis on personal liberty and personal responsibility. there was no prohibition about the states or local communities being involved. the communities got bigger, than the state took over, then the federal government took over, now it is the united nations and everybody else that wants to get in on the act. if you take a firm principle and say they shouldn't be involved, things would be much better. if you look at our foreign policy you would say how do they do this?
they have a neat little system to finance this. the welfare state is very real and deadly. years go back to a few prior to world war i, prior to 1930, they were setting the stage. it all belongs to the government and will allow you to keep it if you do what we tell you. prove you areto going to be considered guilty until proven innocent. along with the that we had the viciousness of another instrument that i think we should be concerned about. that is another enemy of liberty. you cannot solve these problems unless you deal with the monetary issue.
you need to get rid of the federal reserve system. all of the agencies and internal weenue, the whole works, just don't need that. the conditions that excite people, we have to be an international leader. it, i like the idea. their idea of a world leader is we own it. we have an empire and we support it. i have another idea about supporting world leadership.
a country't we have based on personal liberty, ,onintervention in our lives nonintervention with other people's affairs, sound money and be the real leader of the world, not because we are telling them what to do, but maybe they would like to emulate because of our success. that is my idea of being a world leader. [applause] the chances of that good. like so many things there is a good and bad part. easy to talkis about all the bad things. past 100 years has not been all that kind to liberty. if you own stock you should feel really good.
for some reason owning stocks is superficial. reveal what is going on in this country. doing itok at who is and who is the enemy, you have some sorting out to do. i am convinced at least half of our population are in trouble financially. even the economic statistics this week revealed this. they have 95 million people out of the workforce. people considered to be workers and the unemployment rate is now at -- does that make everybody feel when they ran into trouble, what did they have? they had a real financial crisis. they can doat because it is their responsibility.
saying they are going to solve that problem, but it didn't do any good. doubled.d actually while the congress is tinkering around, the fed is tinkering with 15 or $17 trillion and passing it out to make the economy great. there is a 500% increase in the balance sheet of the federal reserve. it is thankfully not going to last. there was a male distribution of wealth. so when the liberals complained about that, why is this group over here?
it's a consequence of their government, of the federal reserve, of what happens when you destroy a currency. this througho do the federal reserve's system. what they need is inflation and money supply. the report this past week tells us a little bit about what is going on. new york city has a tremendous number of people who are homeless. they talked to some of the people who were homeless.
it wasn't like they weren't working. some were trying to pay the bills. my cost of living is too high. and i can't afford the rent. cost-of-living going up, rent is going up. what does our federal reserve -- wantwe want to enter we needize the economy, to take the price inflation right up to 2%. as pricesre inflation go up and rising prices to them is a sign of prosperity. it didn't help zimbabwe. this is the ridiculousness of the system. we have been able to capture position ofg in a
creating the reserve currency of the world. that came out as some speakers alluded to the strength of the united states after world war ii. it has been very strong and trusting. we had the military and the wealth and they trust us to a degree. we have been able to do this and deficits can be handled to the point that it is all an illusion. i think it goes back to this idea that we as americans should really question who the enemies are. what are the odds of some country coming in here and invading and taking over? may be after the chaos who knows what is going to happen. gulf. in the persian if you vessels over there and planes and bombs and drones.
and we are very much involved in making sure that nobody drags up a lot of sand. we do? ld in our country, they generally don't want to look and put the same calculation on ourselves as on others to readily accept this idea that we are -- that we have goodness to spread and all you have do is look at where that goodness is and ask whether or industrialitary complex is in joining this goodness because they are part of the real problem. this is sort of inherent in the system and until we look at this
from an intellectual viewpoint and decide what our country should be about, should we pretend that we know how to run people's lives? are you going to let people die in the streets? we know that is all a fraud. more people are suffering from lack of medical care since the government has been involved. get the government out of that the government's responsibility to distribute medical care, they shouldn't be doing it. one thing that has motivated many to support our foreign idea thatthis whole there is a danger of terrorism.
they are rather minor. if you looked at city crime and inner-city crime and how many people died, i think it is like 88 in a day. you are talking a dozen or two or three. the fear of an economic collapse. the same way on militarism, they are dangerous, they are coming, they are going to get us. the other biggest hoax on often doolicy -- how you hear on why we have to be over there.
to defend our constitution and defend our freedom. it was an undeclared war. we have made ourselves so much less free that people buy into this. we have the future of freedom foundation and a few others that is going to get this message out. it can be changed. to be a lot more optimistic than you believe. the chances are going to be numerous. the system we have, and less spending, and was inflation of , the big supply problem is how is it going to
going to be chaotic where there are decades of real chaos? i think it will be an opportunity. we have more groups giving out information and others. there were a lot of people who study in austrian economics. even though the campus is a mess, i still go to the campus to get people out. there are a lot of people there on the right track. i never look and say i need to go out there. it was huge. i have to get 51% of the people of berkeley agreeing with this, it would just be too devastating, but there is always
some there. a young person, if they get the right information, they get a lot of stake. there is reason to believe some good can come of it. for literally hundreds if not thousands of years. not much really happened in the sense of economic development. that butt was before there were a lot of fancy things. even today technology is improving the living condition. we improve the living condition it seems like we use the technology not only for some people living condition and
improving, but it is also used to fight wars and kill people more efficiently. the people who understand this realize there could be a different way. if we made this great change in the human race by technology. fantastic technological advances. what about the human race advancing otherwise? why can't we advance on how we get along together? i still come down on the side that most people are decent. but not in washington. washington is a different story.
my wife and i are raising kids. we live in the six different houses. once where iber worried about my neighbor. we never had to worry about them. i think there is more goodness in people than we give them credit for. the problem is people who liked authoritarianism, they know it is illegal for an individual to go into your house and take what they want. that moral standards still exists. you can't personally take from people and hurt people. it is not illegal for the government to do it. is so important, if there are good rules for us to have a good community, we as
a country and as a people, what we have to do is hold the feet of the fire to the government -- feet to the fire of the government. we will not use violence to have their way are any way whatsoever. that, i think will make a difference. there really is only one rule you have to think about. what do the keynesian interventionists and people who you have to have a lot of rules and figure out what you are doing. there is only one rule that you need, and that is a rule we apply ourselves. traditions.cient
yet we have governments involved probably in killing. we certainly have our government involved in killing these undeclared illegal immoral wars. millions of iraqis have died since we went into their session went in there to save their country. it is tragic what goes on. i think the founders tried to solve that problem. they advised us to stay out of entangling alliances. how do you do it if it is natural for people who love authoritarianism to go or they can use authoritarianism? what is the other option? need tor option is we change the very idea of what the nature of government is.
people do so much better. it's not like all government is wiped out in a minute with medical care. fees would come down a whole lot. and the joint companies wouldn't be abusing the system. all that expense that we experienced for less not only on obamacare. it is government intervention that causes all these prices to believe me, it would be so much better. even under these conditions there people who stake out a private hospital. and it actually worked.
when you have difficult situations like this, trying to figure out who the real enemies are, what you have to do is make sure there is a loophole for everybody to opt out. was probably the most onerous thing about obama, that you couldn't get out. you ought to always be able to opt out. the educational system has an opt out in it. they did try to make sure you couldn't homeschool your kids and their was an attack on homeschool and private schooling and they want to regulate private school. if they eliminate any options to get out, whether it is medical care or education, that is very bad. opting out is more difficult. this is one thing we could do.
i believe this is a nonviable system we have. and the enemies are more philosophic than they are individuals who are misled. there is a philosophy behind it and i think cultural marxism -- they have goals that cause cultural chaos for a strategy to destroy the culture that we have upee of sometimes we caught that sometimes we come up with these questions of how you protect civil liberties. the best way is to get rid of the public institution. is a private institution, if it is a religious institution or private institution you get to write your own rules. that introduces some other problems.
you may have to make choices on who can comment who can go. you are allowed to pick your choices. we are all discriminatory. here,de a choice to come i made a choice to stay away. we always make these choices. they want to make you believe there's not allow -- there's not a lot of pick and choose. it is constantly making choices. some of the else is supposed to make those decisions for us. that is what is hard for people to understand. if people use their liberties to do things we may not like, how can we tolerate them? thing, don'te one
use force. want, but you cannot take your standard and forced them on somebody else. the people who are in opposition to us, they are not looking for peace and tranquility. they are on the verge of getting chaos. a have to look for getting solution and the opportunity. the other thing i want to touch the privacyclose is issue. we do want to be safe and we want to be secure and there is room for a little bit of surveillance. it should be strict. the founders thought about this. this massive surveillance of all americans. this is atrocious. if you had a whole system of having search warrants.
so many solutions, there is one agency. i don't know if anyone else has been annoyed by the tsa? i would like to get rid of them. -- voted against them. it should be private. it should be private dealings with the customers. that means there is technology now where they can scam people so fast. technology part of that would not destroy productive jobs because the tsa would have to go get a productive job and we would have better security than ever before. privacy is very important and that is a principle of liberty. understandings the importance of our life, liberty and our property. right and it is coming to us in a beneficial way. if we have enough people, we cannot need 51%, it needs 10% of the most to change people's
attitudes and that is what you are here and that is what you are part of that group. that is why you will have a lot of influence and that is why i am optimistic, i want to thank you very much today. [applause] >> we will have a 25 minute break and we have appetizers in the hallway. >> you are watching american history tv. all weekend every weekend on c-span3. to join the conversation like us on facebook at c-span history. >> tonight on q and a.
i am not asking anybody to compromise their values or belief, i am asking them to open their eyes to other peoples. so that you can figure out your place and this infinite world. this author of the managing editor of wnyc on the media. thediscusses her book trouble with reality, a rumination on moral panic in our time. as itch she looks it look is reality today and how the criteria has changed over the years. >> i set up at the beginning of the book our biological wiring. show how we had evolved as a culture that was designed to validate us and not to challenge us. certainly not to contradict us. they gave us the illusion that our reality were watertight when
reality they were riddled with weak spots and places that would crunch in. >> tonight in :00 p.m. eastern. 8:00 eastern. someone like steve jobs can come in and sell this product and be associated with it. that is just a shade of the story. he was certainly hands-on. even the iphone, even before it was so help by apple it would not of had scores of people working around the clock. on theerboard and are creation and development of the iphone in his book. he is interviewed by a new york times reporter. >> part of the story is that the iphone was born at the software interaction paradigm and it was born behind his back. this crew of guys called the honorary team who i documented
experimenting. it was fun. it was wild kind of stuff. they had crazy projectors that they were using to put different products together with what would become the iphone. >> warren burger was u.s. supreme court chief justice. up next, new york university law professor john sexton talks about his legacy. he served as nyu's president and law school dean. the event was hosted in the supreme court chamber. gregory: good evening. welcome to our 42nd annual lecture. before we do anything else, i will ask ery