Posted on 02/26/2007 5:38:10 PM PST by Interesting Times
ping
If you knew the whole truth about Jack Anderson (and Drew Pearson and his boss Barnes), you'd puke.
Anderson was a lying SOB, and a draft-dodger during WW2.
He regularly published pure Communist/Soviet propaganda/disinformation, and refused to correct it when it was pointed out to him.
He totally lied about the true Marxist nature of the Sandinista factions during their fight against Somoza, characterizing two of the three factions as minor (both were hardcore Maoist oriented), while proclaiming that the Tereceristas of the Ortega brothers/Borge (the murderer) was NOT marxist. He was wrong all the way around.
Even a fool gets something right once in a while, but Anderson was an ego with a column and not interested in the welfare of America.
I'm crushed ... and to think a decade, no, two plus decades ago I used to look for his column to read. I guess it's true that people can change ... I've come a long way to become a full blooded conservative. I'm crushed, crushed.
John Kerry’s Red Roots: Richard Kerry’s Left-Wing Legacy
A 1945 FBI wiretap investigation of leaks from the Soviet ambassador to journalist Drew Pearson revealed that Frankfurter was colluding with Pearson. Follow-up wiretaps on Pearson and Brandeis-Frankfurter apparatus member Thomas Corcoran revealed that Corcoran and Rauh-Prichard-Graham Goon Squad member Laughlin Currie had conspired to protect State Department official John Stewart Service from being prosecuted in connection with the leaking of classified government documents to the pro-Communist publication Amerasia.11
Theoharis and Cox, 258-269, esp. 266; John Earl Haynes, Red Scare or Red Menace? American Communism and Anticommunism in the Cold War Era, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1996, 52-55; Romerstein and Breindel, 168
Anderson also had a close relationship with Johnny Rosselli and some other mob guys. What I've read leads me to believe they would leak him political dirt that he would use in his investigative reporting.
I still sonder why the FBI was so hot to get Jack Anderson's papers from his family. What secrets lie therein? This issue faded quickly from the headlines.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650220234,00.html
...wonder...
What did Jack find out from his mob associates about the Kennedy assassination?
Woodwardgate: Deep Throat or Shallow Reporting?:
. . .in February 1972 Hughes’ security man Bill Gay called Bennett to arrange for Mullen to suppress a story by journalist Jack Anderson. Anderson was a protege of muckraker Drew Pearson, who along with Anderson had helped put together a hit piece during the 1960 campaign on a Hughes bribe to Nixon’s brother Donald. More recently Pearson and Anderson had been investigating the CIA-Mafia assassination operation against Castro, a topic involving Hughes’ disgruntled former employee Maheu. Following an alleged new assassination plot against Castro in Chile in October 1971, Anderson reported in February 1972 that the CIA/Hughes-linked company International Telephone and Telegraph had paid $400,000 towards the 1972 Republican National Convention in return for favors from John Mitchell’s Justice Department in an antitrust suit. To discourage further reporting on this subject, Gay’s request was relayed by Bennett to CRP deputy director Jeb Magruder, who sent Hunt on March 15 to intimidate the source of Anderson’s story into repudiating Anderson’s report. Hunt and Liddy also considered murdering Anderson. Hunt later told Bernard Barker that he had been in touch with Hughes throughout the preparations for Watergate and that Hughes would provide him with a flight out of the country and employment after the job was done, Barker said in a 1992 taped interview with author Charles Higham. McCord also claimed that he was promised a job by Hughes.
But word of Hughes’ plans got back to O’Brien and Anderson through the Democrats’ contacts with Maheu’s associates. A former employee of Maheu’s security organization, British intelligence agent A.J. Woolston-Smith, had gone on to form his own security company, which did work for Democratic publisher William Haddad. Woolston-Smith’s secretary was the daughter of a partner in a detective agency which worked with private investigator Lou Russell, who in turn worked for both McCord and Anderson. In December 1971 Woolston-Smith began informing Haddad about information he was overhearing from meetings of the November Group, a New York group of Nixon supporters linked to Liddy and McCord. On March 23, 1972, Haddad wrote to O’Brien that “sophisticated surveillance techniques” were being used against the Democrats. On March 30 O’Brien sent a memo DNC communications director John Stewart telling him to follow up on Haddad’s information, and on April 26 Stewart met in New York with Haddad, Woolston-Smith, and others. At the meeting, Woolston-Smith recalled, Haddad took the floor and told Stewart of a plan involving Liddy, McCord, and some Miami Cubans to burglarize and bug DNC headquarters and collect information to prove Castro was contributing to the Democrats. Towards the end of the meeting Woolston-Smith produced what appeared to be a bugging device and demonstrated how the bugging operation would work. After the meeting Haddad gave his entire file on the subject to Anderson, Haddad later testified to a Senate subcommittee. Anderson testified that he had not been able to generate any further information from Haddad’s tip and did not do anything with it, a story Senate investigators familiar with Anderson’s muckraking proclivity found suspicious. Anderson did write after Watergate that he subsequently discovered McCord had confided his bugging plans to old FBI friends and from there the information had spread throughout the investigative community.
More accurately, "is suspected to have shared", I should say. For details see Fred Thompson, At That Point in Time, 216-220.
Conyers is now Chair of the House Judiciary committee. He can block needed legislation to deal with terrorists. Or move repeals of current laws or put more restrictions on surveillance of suspected or even known terrorists.
He can also move gun control legislation, and he's notoriously anti arms rights... at least for ordinary Americans.
He is the personification of the enemy within.
NBC = Nothing But Crap.
BTTT
Send 'im into surgery!
Fascinating amnd intriguing stuff.
Anderson is lucky--he's among those "in the know" who lived long and died a natural death.
Thanks for posting this "light reading" (enlightening reading) about William Arkin and other enemies of America.
I have never understood why the U. S. Government doesn't prosecute exposure of classified information.
Several things to comment on.
1. Prosecuting leakers is hard because of the difficulty in proving that someone deliberately leaked classified information to hurt the country rather than to "inform" us as to what the govt is doing in the name of national security.
In other words, our laws stink, are inadequate, outdated, and based on the wrong premises. We need a complete overhaul of our internal security laws to meet present and future threats and violations, esp. in the cybeworld. This AIN'T gonna happen under the Democrats, esp. when the House Judiciary Committee is run by a veteran red, and the Sen. Judiciary Committee is led by an idiot (Leahy), aided and abetted by Ted "Moscow" Kennedy and other excuses for human excrement and ignorance.
2. The govt has almost always failed to mount really quality prosecutions against leakers and have caved in to the ACLU and their communist counterparts in the NLG, NECLC, and CCR. Taking them on in every case where there is a good chance of winning is crucial to beating the crap out of the Left.
3. As a journalist of almost 40 years, I appreciate the confidentiality of sources, but when it comes to national security, screw it. Our country comes before anything else and our sources must understand it. I'm talking about the stealing and leaking of confidential information which undermines our morale, exposes our plans, strategies, troop movements, weapons developments/testing, etc. This does not apply to documentation about who is ripping off the govt thru fraudulent bids and payoffs.
Fedora: Thanks for providing the Jack Anderson infor. I suspect that his files will be a goldmine of journalist scandal and illegalities if they are obtained intact. Barnes and Pearson's ties to the far-left have not yet been documents enough. A book is clearly necessary to show that they often collaborated to protect the Communists, no matter what their motives might have been.
Ah, Tommy the Cork, Cochoran. met him a long time ago. Could charm the clothes off a woman in five minutes. The whole issue of the "Red China Lobby" is worth another book updating how it has worked since the 1940's thru the Clintonistas/Gore fundraising illegalities.
The failure of the mainstream media to explore any of these issues is indicative of their bias and selectivity. Thanks to www.frontpagemagazine.com, Ron Radosh, Dave Horowitz & Dave Collier, Steven Powell, Mitrokhin, Herb Romerstein/Eric Breindel, John Haynes and Harvey Khler, etc. we are beginning to get a better documented insight into how Communism operated around the world and here in the U.S. Getting the liberals to accept the truth is another herculean task, but we must try.
It is through good, documented scholarship, often from communist archives (USSR, E. Germany Stasi, Czech STB, Poland - just being released), etc), that the truth will findly come out (Sorry, Mulder, but this is a great line for our side to use).
Also, thanks to FreeRepublic for publishing so many useful articles, links, and readership posts, because they all add to our knowledge in our fight for survival.
When all is said and done, use good documentation and take no prisoners.
Thanks for your reply. Here are a few responses to your comments:
1. It should not be necessary to prove that a leak of classified information was deliberate, or that it was intended to hurt the country. The fact that national security was broken should be sufficient to prove those who leaked the information knew what they were doing.
2. I know the government routinely caves in to the ACLU and their comrades. I don't understand why they do that, but I suppose it is because there are so many left-wing judges who routinely decide cases in favor of the ACLU.
3. "Confidentiality of sources" should not be allowed to protect any perpetrator of a crime. There is precedent for over-ruling confidentiality. For example, even the confidentiality of what a priest hears in confession is over-ruled by the law that requires priests to report any indication of child sexual abuse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.