‘Eyewash’: How the CIA deceives its own workforce about operations

Senior CIA officials have for years intentionally deceived parts of the agency workforce by transmitting internal memos that contain false information about operations and sources overseas, according to current and former U.S. officials who said the practice is known by the term “eyewash.”

Source: ‘Eyewash’: How the CIA deceives its own workforce about operations – The Washington Post

53 comments

  1. Neil says:

    Just one more reason not to take any CIA statement or document at face value

    • Well . . . for decades conspiracists have been shouting “release the documents!”

      But of course, if the documents don’t show what they want, they’ll just say “the documents, they are all just a bunch of lies.”

      • “for decades conspiracists have been shouting “release the documents!”~McAdams

        So would you advise keeping them all secret for ever and ever Mr Professor dood?
        \\][//

        • No, I would advise releasing them all so you folks have to move on and bitch about something else.

          • JohnR says:

            Professor McAdams, you are the living embodiment of the phrase : “a caricature of himself.”

          • Paulf says:

            John:

            Why exactly do you care what any of us think? You spend half your life correcting us as if our opinions mean anything to you. It’s strange.

          • Why exactly do you care what any of us think?

            Why do you care what I think?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Speaking of bitching, would you care to elaborate after you look in the mirror?

          • ‘No, I would advise releasing them all so you folks have to move on and bitch about something else.’ — John McAdams

            So in fact when you signed the August 11, 2005 letter to the editors of the New York Review of Books, you were disingenuous in your alleged support of the release of the files for the reasons stated very clearly in this paragraph in particular:

            “As published authors of divergent views on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, we say the agency’s position is spurious and untenable. Its continuing non-compliance with the JFK Records Act does no service to the public. It defies the will of Congress. It obscures the public record on a subject of enduring national interest. It encourages conspiracy mongering. And it undermines public confidence in the intelligence community at a time when collective security requires the opposite.”

            http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2005/08/11/blocked/

            Which is it professor? Do you support the release of the files so that ‘folks’ will move on to ‘bitch about something else’, or do you support the release of the files because for one, ‘the agency’s position is spurious and untenable. Its continuing non-compliance with the JFK Records Act does no service to the public.’

            If it is the former, I challenge you to withdraw your name from this letter; if it is the latter, I challenge you to retract your comment dated February 4, 2016 at 8:08 pm.

          • If it is the former, I challenge you to withdraw your name from this letter; if it is the latter, I challenge you to retract your comment dated February 4, 2016 at 8:08 pm.

            Nonsense. I’m no fan of bureaucracy, and that includes the national security bureaucracy. I think they keep secret a lot of stuff that should be released.

            But I also look forward to you folks not being able to bitch about withheld documents.

            I look forward to you folks not being able to claim that, somewhere in the withheld documents, is the “smoking gun” you’ve been wanting to find.

            All that is perfectly consistent.

            Are you scared that, after the documents are released, I will get my wish?

          • J.D. says:

            There is something baffling about Professor McAdams’s tone. To read his remarks, you’d think that JFK assassination skeptics were an inescapable presence in 2016. The mainstream media treats skeptics of the official story with amused contempt. Even prominent people who have suggested that they don’t believe the official story, like John Kerry, have not had their suspicions taken very seriously.

            When the professor says that he “(looks) forward to you folks not being able to bitch about withheld documents,” one has to wonder why he spends so much of his time talking to “folks” who hold opinions that he considers so silly and unfounded, considering the fact that it is very easy to avoid them. I think the belief that Shakespeare’s plays were written by Edward de Vere is preposterous, but I don’t spend my free time arguing with anti-Stratfordians on the Internet.

          • Paulf says:

            John, I don’t care what you think. That’s why I don’t spend endless hours every day following you around the internet correcting every jot and tittle that you say.

            Why do you do that here? Obviously your actions imply that you care. Or that you have something to gain.

          • John, Why would you sign this letter if you have no interest in Joannides’ role as guide and monitor of a Cuban exile group in the lead up to the assassination and who deliberately deceived – that is the only appropriate terminology – the HSCA? If you sincerely believe those facts to be insignificant, why even involve yourself? Why not decline the invitation to sign a letter meant for public consumption? One could argue it’s no ones business why you chose to sign, but if your signature as spokesperson for the ‘other side’ in the Kennedy investigation was intended to bring balance in the eyes of the (interested) general population, shouldn’t it have been added in good faith, not with the cynical and mocking motive you have revealed in the last few days? Or are your taunts intended only for the second balcony and you apply decorum in the company of your perceived peers? For instance, in the direct company of Scott Armstrong – who has dedicated a large portion of his professional life to ensuring transparency in government – would you say, “I also look forward to you folks not being able to bitch about withheld documents.” The question could be posed, ‘Whose team are you on anyway?’

            Or perhaps you have an undisclosed suspicion that the files might lead to a smoking gun; if so, why not disclose those suspicions on this forum . . . or do you have a reputation to defend? To my knowledge you have never offered your opinion of Joannides’ deception while he liaised with the HSCA. As an expert in political science and a concerned American would that not be egregious activity and behaviour, in your opinion?

          • Bogman says:

            “But I also look forward to you folks not being able to bitch about withheld documents.”

            What a tone deaf response considering the top spy agency is on record of running an operation against a federal investigation into the assassination of a president.

            Like there’s never ever been a reason for outrage, inquiry or accountability.

            You are an American, right?

          • John, Why would you sign this letter if you have no interest in Joannides’ role as guide and monitor of a Cuban exile group in the lead up to the assassination and who deliberately deceived – that is the only appropriate terminology – the HSCA?

            You seem to be saying that one should not want documents released unless one believes there was a conspiracy.

            Morley has no evidence at all that Joannides had any sinister involvement in anything connected to the assassination.

            So I don’t think the documents are going to give any comfort to conspiracists.

            But I can’t see any harm in releasing them, either. So I favor doing so.

          • JohnR says:

            McAdams wrote: “Morley has no evidence at all that Joannides had any sinister involvement in anything connected to the assassination.”

            Nor has Mr. Morley ever made that assertion. Please post some evidence to the contrary.

          • John, that’s fair enough … as far as it goes.

            ‘You seem to be saying that one should not want documents released unless one believes there was a conspiracy.’ — John McAdams

            I think the failure is yours, John, to differentiate between questions of Joannides’ role (or not), and questions of government transparency. So I’ll say it for you. You don’t argue with the essence of the letter but you dismiss the validity of the fundamental question woven into argument, ie: ‘Morley has no evidence at all that Joannides had any sinister involvement in anything connected to the assassination.’

            And still, on this forum – although most likely not in the polite company of your fellow signatories – you are willing to belittle the expensive and time-consuming effort on the part of Jeff Morley et al and those who support those efforts, yet you’re willing to endorse that effort in a letter meant for public consumption? It seems to me you are conflicted, John. Either that, or you are drawn to the theatrics – or better said, the “fun” – of the debate rather than the spirit.

            So I don’t think the documents are going to give any comfort to conspiracists. — John McAdams

            Who would find “comfort” were a smoking gun to surface that proves a conspiracy behind the murder of our president? Perhaps it would engender a degree of satisfaction that one’s intuition and rigorous research for years was not in vain, and for those on the front line, perhaps a degree of financial restoration. But in honesty, I personally would be even more aggrieved than I’ve been for decades because it would say to me that our democracy is the lie we fear that it is. I admit to having held out a certain level of hope along the way.

            ‘But I can’t see any harm in releasing them, either. So I favor doing so.’ — John McAdams.

            Fair dues to you for that.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            J.D.
            February 6, 2016 at 1:46 am

            “Even prominent people who have suggested that they don’t believe the official story, like John Kerry, have not had their suspicions taken very seriously.”

            I would find it very hard to take anything John Kerry said seriously. He has been a flake since the late 1960s.

        • I don’t spend endless hours every day following you around

          Actually, that’s what you are doing.

          Are you disturbed at getting challenged when you post factually inaccurate material?

          You would rather be in a forum where you would never be challenged? Such places exist.

          • paulf says:

            I do what? What a crazy assertion. do you have any evidence to back that up?

            You post on this site constantly. I don’t.

            I have never seen your name anywhere else, and have no interaction with anything else to do with this topic except for the few minutes a day I read this site.

            Your response though is telling, you just insult people and argue anything no matter how trivial.

      • Neil says:

        The explanation of “eye washing” makes it seem more probable that misleading information was entered into the records intentionally…

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Neil
          February 4, 2016 at 7:56 pm

          “The explanation of “eye washing” makes it seem more probable that misleading information was entered into the records intentionally…”

          I think your statement is correct but I don’t think we should ignore this explanation given in the article.

          “Agency veterans described the tactic as an infrequent but important security measure, a means of protecting vital secrets by inserting fake communications into routine cable traffic while using separate channels to convey accurate information to cleared recipients.”
          Source: ‘Eyewash’: How the CIA deceives its own workforce about operations – The Washington Post

          • Neil says:

            I don’t have a problem with intelligence agents trying to protect secrets. I agree that secrecy is necessary.

            My problem is, Eyewashing is a technique that can easily be used to hide corruption or criminal activities. It’s very dangerous and probably illegal in some instances…

          • Indeed, if one believes there might be moles somewhere in the CIA, or that inadvertent leaks might happen, what the Agency did makes perfect sense.

            This shouldn’t be an excuse for the conspiracy crowd to simply ignore any document they find inconvenient.

            But in fact, they have already gone far down that road.

          • Tom S. says:

            Ahh, yes! The politically correct, and the conspiracy crowd, something must be done about both of them.

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-855470
            Photon – February 1
            ……
            As such, any claim that you make that the CIA records support your interpretations (such as the claim that Baldwin was a covert agent) must be taken with a large dose of skepticism.

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54933&relPageId=2

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=30248&relPageId=2

            Now, everyone will know who you are…..

          • Ahh, yes! The politically correct, and the conspiracy crowd, something must be done about both of them.

            Do you understand that you just posted a document that shows Core not to be any sort of CIA spook?

            The CIA, trying to figure out the connection of a bunch of New Orleans characters to the Agency, will only speculate that Core might have been a friend of a CIA who was drummed out the Agency in 1952.

            No mention of any connection to the Agency.

          • Tom S. says:

            John McAdams – February 5
            ……
            This shouldn’t be an excuse for the conspiracy crowd to simply ignore any document they find inconvenient.

            But in fact, they have already gone far down that road.

            Tom S. – February 5:
            Photon – February 1
            ……
            As such, any claim that you make that the CIA records support your interpretations (such as the claim that Baldwin was a covert agent) must be taken with a large dose of skepticism.

            John McAdams – February 5
            Do you understand that you just posted a document that shows Core not to be any sort of CIA spook?

            The CIA, trying to figure out the connection of a bunch of New Orleans characters to the Agency, will only speculate that Core might have been a friend of a CIA who was drummed out the Agency in 1952.

            https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=4wy1VvSxJNaK-gXbsK2YAw#q=obfuscate
            verb: obfuscate; 3rd person present: obfuscates; past tense: obfuscated; past participle: obfuscated; gerund or present participle: obfuscating

            render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
            bewilder (someone).
            “it is more likely to obfuscate people than enlighten them”

          • John McAdams – February 5

            So what’s your point? That you’ll simply refuse to believe any CIA document that you find inconvenient?

            All the while, touting any CIA documents that you think prove your point?

            (Even though the invariably don’t?)

          • According to DiEugenio, it was Core who called the TV station soon after Oswald started leafleting outside the Trade Mart:

            If that’s true, so what?

          • Tom S. says:

            Dr. McAdams,
            You’ve made it glaringly apparent you’ve never encountered a blatant undisclosed conflict of interests
            you would not defend. See – http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/eyewash-how-the-cia-deceives-its-own-workforce-about-operations/#comment-856663
            “Morley had no evidence…” (despite the CIA bringing this agent out of retirement and presenting him
            to the HSCA, as “here to help”….)

            If you recall, and I know your ability to do so is quite selective, one of the most interesting and
            troubling issues related to Mr. Core and his friend David Baldwin, is that GQ magazine writer Nicholas
            B. Lemann wrote his Garrison “hit piece” without disclaimer, and gave the court adjudicating the Perry Russo
            defamation lawsuit triggered by Lemann’s GQ article, to put it charitably, a “misleading answer” as to
            his motive and slant. Again, if you recall, Mr. Baldwin was the son-in-law of Nicholas’s grandfather,
            Monte Lemann, and Mr. Baldwin’s brother, Edward, was quite active in interfering with Garrison’s witnesses and in defending members of the “news” media engaged in parallel endeavors against Garrison.

            Do you recall the documentation posted describing what was in the last page of Garrison’s June 18, 1967
            letter of complaint to the chairman of the FCC?
            (see – http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-851707 )
            Do you understand that “the station” Garrison complained
            about, and “the station” Jesse Core called, was the one mentioned below, and that Thomas is Nicholas
            Lemann’s father, and Stephen was Nicholas’s uncle?



          • Jean Davison says:

            “According to DiEugenio, it was Core who called the TV station soon after Oswald started leafleting outside the Trade Mart”

            No, Core heard a rumor there was a demonstration going on and called the TV station to find out if it was true:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60405&relPageId=54&search=wdsu-tv_AND oswald

          • “According to DiEugenio, it was Core who called the TV station soon after Oswald started leafleting outside the Trade Mart”

            “No, Core heard a rumor there was a demonstration going on and called the TV station to find out if it was true”~Jean Davison

            But Jean, even with the added detail in between it is still true that it was Core who called the TV station soon after Oswald started leafleting outside the Trade Mart.

            It is also interesting that according to John Alice, “four or five men” began handing out “Hands off Cuba” handbills in front of the entrance to the International Trade Mart.

            This is interesting because it has always been insisted that Oswald was the sole member of the ‘Free Play for Cuba’ committee that he claimed run or be part of.
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            I suspect it was Jesse Core who William Martin did not name but described as his CIA source
            in his May 24, 1967 memo to Jim Garrison.

            Excerpt from William Martin memo of May 24, 1967.:

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-855528
            …During his operations in India Mr. Baldwin used as a cover his employment as a
            correspondent for North American Newspaper Alliance, the Louisville Courier Journal,
            and the New Orleans Item.

            The number of people who would have known that David Baldwin was a covert CIA agent
            operating in India under cover as correspondent for the Louisville Courier Journal,
            and who matched the rest of Martin’s description in his memo, former CIA, lifelong
            NOLA resident seems rather limited.

            Jesse Core was supporting his recent employer, Shaw, as Harold Weisberg has documented,
            and it is reasonable to think Core was sending a message to Garrison through the information
            Martin attributed to his source, formerly of CIA. See Baldwin letter to Shaw, dated March 2,
            1967.:
            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/review/who-was-the-only-man-to-ever-face-legal-charges-in-jfks-assassination/#comment-856847

            I have to amend this comment. Jesse Core did not live in New Orleans until approximately 1947. Martin’s informant is still unknown but provided no information that has yet been refuted.
            Link to Core’s 1997 obituary image.:
            http://image2.findagrave.com/photos250/photos/2012/146/76922100_133806329596.jpg

            Martin’s informant could have been Clay Shaw, himself, (b. Kentwood, LA, 1913, NOLA resident since age 5) sending a
            message to Garrison to back off.

          • FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 232 – pg. 57

            FBI Memeo of February 25, 1967, 2:02 PM CST

            “xxxxxxxxxx [name whited out] advised this date that Aura Lee (last name unknown), Clay Shaw’s former secretary at the International Trade Mart, New Orleans, who is employed byt the Heart Fund at Ochsner Clinic, stated in front of Dr. Charles B. Moore and others at Ochsner Hospital (31 last) after Shaw’s press conference where he advised he had never met David Ferrie, that she had seen Ferrie go into Shaw’s office in the International Trade Mart Building on a number of occassions, and believed Ferrie had privileged entry into Shaw’s office.”

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60405&search=wdsu-tv_AND#relPageId=57&tab=page

            \\][//

          • This is interesting because it has always been insisted that Oswald was the sole member of the ‘Free Play for Cuba’ committee that he claimed run or be part of.

            He hired some guys for day labor.

          • David Ferrie, that she had seen Ferrie go into Shaw’s office in the International Trade Mart Building on a number of occasions,

            IIRC, Shaw never had a secretary names “Aura Lee.”

          • “IIRC, Shaw never had a secretary names “Aura Lee.”~McAdams

            And you know this how?
            \\][//

  2. Anthony Martin says:

    So was Mr. Dulles, a master fabricator of fiction, sincere or mocking when he had inscribed in stone the following: “For ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free,”

    • “So was Mr. Dulles, a master fabricator of fiction, sincere or mocking when he had inscribed in stone the following: “For ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free,”~Anthony Martin

      I would propose that Dulles, a character concerned with Realpolitik, and the meme of “knowledge is power”, used that phrase rather sardonically to mean that those within CIA would know the truth, and the general population would not be granted access to that truth; and therefore CIA was “free” to act on its own without outside interference.
      \\][//

      • Anthony Martin says:

        To wit; a more accurate inscription would have been: ” If the People knew the ‘Truth’, there would be blood in the streets.” In any case, information collected and actions performed on behalf of the American citizen and paid for by the American citizen should be propriatery to the American citizen (and not to any one institution of government).

    • The Dulles’ were faithful Protestants for generations so that quote would be instilled in their psyches, and most likely Allen Dulles used it with heartfelt conviction. The question is, who determines the truth? If an underlying conflict – for instance control of nuclear armaments or the broadest definition of worldwide democracy – surfaced and the Dulles family and their ilk were in opposition with an administration that advocated for both- ‘the truth’ became subjective. We are witnessing this drama at present … the aberration of Ted Cruz insisting that America should be “feared” as in “God Fearing”?

      Maybe if Americans of all race, creed, etc. in the collective had done our housecleaning in 1964, we would be pursuing the will of our higher angels rather than debating the semantics of “the truth shall set you free”.

  3. Bogman says:

    The CIA approaches EVERYTHING like that… and that’s why piecing together what their true role was — and it’s obvious to me they played a role – in the Kennedy assassination.

  4. Jordan says:

    Ahh Yes… They call it eyewash, cuz it was supposed to “get the Reds out”…See what I did there..?

  5. It seems to me that as is everything CIA, ‘Eyewash’ is hogwash.
    \\][//

  6. Bogman says:

    I firmly believe that if Hinckley had half the intel connections of Oswald, and the national security state was as violently opposed to Reagan’s foreign policy as they were JFK’s, LNers would be changing their stripes.

    • “John Hinckley Jr., who shot Ronald Reagan in 1981, is about to be partially released from confinement after testimony from government psychiatrists. Hinckley’s family and the family of President George W. Bush have long, complicated ties that have been little reported. Hinckley’s brother was scheduled to have dinner at the home of the current President Bush’s brother the day after the assassination attempt.” -2003 article
      http://www.rense.com/general45/hink.htm

      John Warnock Hinckley, Sr., president of World Vision. Mark Chapman, the assassin of John Lennon, worked at a WORLD VISION

      http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/HinckleyAndBush.htm
      \\][//

      • Bogman says:

        Interesting links to check out, Willy. Thanks.

      • Photon says:

        And Natasha Richardson, who co-starred with Jody Foster in “Nell” died under very mysterious circumstances-I mean, a fatal ski accident on a bunny hill? An epidural hematoma-usually caused by blunt force trauma , so she really was clubbed by someone on the Snowy Knoll. Obviously she was a loose end the CIA had to remove. After her mother starred in the movie “Camelot” and portrayed Jackie Kennedy it became necessary to remove her. Within a few short months Richardson’s aunt and uncle also died almost simultaneously from “natural causes” . Richardson’s mother and uncle were vocal opponents of the Iraq wars, anybody can see the hand of the Bush family in this.

        • That’s right folks anybody that thinks there might be more to the story, or that intrigue by covert forces in certain stories are obviously, “parry-noidal-skitzee-freenecks and ten-gallon-hat-grassy-no-no-leers on a showboat to Topeka; Cuz the wise ol’Dr Photon of nonentity infinity continuum on the high tower on the high mountain in the salty town of Anonymousville, hath sayeth verily unto thee.
          \\][//

  7. LIST OF WITHHELD JFK ASSASSINATION DOCUMENTS
    SOURCE: RUSS BAKER

    Now we can at least get a peek at what they have been hiding.

    The list was obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request by FOIA specialist Michael Ravnitzky, who alerted us.

    The complete list is below. You’ll note that some documents are briefly characterized by subject, while others are less clearly identified.

    The government has promised to release as many documents as possible in October, 2017, the 25th anniversary of the JFK Records Act, in which Congress mandated that all efforts be made to release everything in Washington’s possession unless an overriding case can be made for withholding in the national interest.

    Some — perhaps most — of these documents could be released at that time. Then again, they may be further withheld. The CIA in particular is likely to argue that some are just too sensitive to be made public.

    Still, knowing their subject matter makes it easier to press for disclosure, and to hold the government accountable by insisting it justify any continued withholdings.

    Those who wish to look at the list should be forewarned that it’s a bit like looking at hieroglyphics. Most of the names and brief references will mean something only to a very few.

    Among the documents that caught our eye:

    • Lee Harvey Oswald’s CIA “201 File.” 201 files contain personality assessments….

    http://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/JFK-List-of-Denied-Docs-redacted.pdf

    \\][//

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more