Bye Bye Miss American Pie

Intro

“Given that external reality is a fiction, the writer's role is almost superfluous. He does not need to invent the fiction because it is already there.”
(J. G BALLARD)


“To the victor go the spoils,” which usually includes getting to write the history of the period. So who were the winners in 1960’s America and could we trust them to write an objective version of events? Well given the conservative status quo was the victor, probably not.

But is there such a thing as an objective historical account or is it all polemics? And what about photographic evidence? The “camera never lies” but doesn’t that depend on where you point it?

It’s often said that if you can remember the sixties, you weren’t there. So who was? Bob Dylan, Sam Cooke, Nina Simone, Joan Baez, Phil Ochs and Don McLean certainly were because the events of that turbulent decade clearly resonate through the lyrics of their songs. And then there were the bands, the Byrds, the Doors, the Beatles and the Stones all picking up on the vibes around them to record the soundscape to the decade.

Therefore my history of America from 1955-75 is related through 30 tracks on a jukebox, songs that helped shape the social and political landscape of the period. It is a work of “faction” where fictional characters interact with real life characters during actual historic events.

At the start of the sixties when Kennedy came to power and Martin Luther King was leader of the civil rights movement young people were confident positive change would follow. It was during this period that Bob Dylan wrote “Blowing in the Wind” which inspired Sam Cooke to write, “One day a change is gonna come.” But there were people in America determined to stop any such change and within a few years the two leaders had been assassinated. Phil Ochs graphically describes this in his song “Crucifixion.”

Throughout the sixties America was increasingly drawn into what was basically a civil war in Vietnam. As the body count on both sides climbed higher the protests got ever louder and one of the rebel chant’s of the period became Country Joe’s song “Feel like I’m Fixin to Die Rag.” In 1967 there was the “Summer of Love” with its emphasis on “make love not war” backed up by conspicuous consumption of the drug LSD, which, if nothing else spawned a great song in “If you’re going to San Francisco.” The love affair with this hippy idyll would continue for another two years culminating in the Woodstock Festival with its fantastic array of counter culture talent on display. But this honeymoon period came to an abrupt end two years later when a young man was stabbed then kicked to death by Hells Angels at Altamont, just after the Stones had finished playing “Sympathy for the Devil.”

The realisation that America was never going to win in Vietnam probably dawned in 1968 when Charlie Company perpetrated one of the worst atrocities of the war at the village of Mai Lai. Men, women and children were bayoneted and shot in an orgy of violence as American soldiers, frustrated at their inability to locate the enemy, took their anger out on the villagers.

By the end of the decade the war had been brought home to the streets of America with groups like the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground, using the atrocities perpetrated against civilians in Vietnam to excuse their own violent tactics in attempting to bring about radical change in America. And then there were the drug related deaths of three of the biggest stars of the counter culture movement when, in the space of 12 months Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison all departed the stage.

If the start of the decade belonged to the Kennedys and Martin Luther King, the end of the decade belonged to Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. The idealism of radical youth had been replaced with the cynicism of reactionary old age as the two men conspired to destroy the subversive elements in US society and get out of Vietnam with something resembling a victory. They would become so paranoid in the process that they came to believe the Democrats were the enemy within. This resulted in the Watergate break in and the resignation of Nixon before he could be impeached.

Don McLean in his song “American Pie” graphically illustrates this descent into anarchy and chaos at the beginning of the 70’s which is why it is the final track in my book.

“BYE BYE MISS AMERICAN PIE” BY DAVE MORT

IS NOW AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD FROM THE AMAZON KINDLE STORE

To find out more please go to

www.byebyemissamericanpie.net

THE TRACKS OF OUR YEARS

It’s often said that if you can remember the sixties, you weren’t there. So who was?
Bob Dylan, Sam Cooke, Nina Simone, Joan Baez and Phil Ochs certainly were because the events of that turbulent decade clearly resonate through the lyrics of their songs. And then there were the bands, the Byrds, the Doors, the Beatles and the Stones all picking up on the chaos around them to record the soundscape to the decade.
Therefore my story of sixties America is chronologically sequenced through 28 tracks on a jukebox, the tracks of our years. All these songs have become symbolic of the events and movements of that period, and the time frame used is the one covered by Don McLean’s song “American Pie.”
The narrator is a photojournalist sent to investigate the death of Buddy Holly in a plane crash in 1959. The sight of the wreckage evokes memories of the Korean War where he discovered something he shouldn’t during a friendly fire incident and ended up wounded in a MASH unit.
He’s visited by Military Intelligence who try to discredit his story but he refuses to accept their version and is flown home to a New York Military Hospital. Over several months he is supposedly being treated using hypnosis and electric shock therapy.
During his convalescence he falls in love with one of the nurses, a young black woman named Lavinia Beaux who is heavily into music and active in the Civil Rights Movement. They move in together and although supposedly blacklisted he manages to get assignments as a photojournalist using fake ID.
He and Lavinia attend many political events and demos throughout the decade which he records in words and pictures. When Kennedy comes to power and Martin Luther king assumes leadership of the civil rights movement they are confident positive change will follow. Sam Cooke is also convinced and writes the song “One day a change is gonna come.” But there are people in America determined to stop any such change and within a few years the two leaders are assassinated. Phil Ochs graphically describes this in his song “Crucifixion.”
America becomes increasingly drawn into what is basically a civil war in Vietnam and pays a very high price for intervening. As the body count on both sides climbs higher and higher the protests get ever louder and one of the rebel chants of the period becomes Country Joe’s song “Fixin to Die Rag.” The narrator covers these anti-war protests.
In 1967 there’s the summer of love with its emphasis on make love not war backed up by conspicuous consumption of the drug LSD, which, if nothing else spawns a great anthem, “Let’s go to San Francisco.” The love affair with this hippy idyll would continue for another two years culminating in the Woodstock Festival with its fantastic array of counter culture talent on display. But the honeymoon period comes to an abrupt end when a young man is allegedly stabbed and kicked to death by Hells Angels at Altamont, just as the Stones finish playing “Sympathy for the Devil.”
The realisation that America is never going to win in Vietnam dawns in 1968 when Charlie Company perpetrates one of the worst atrocities of the war at the village of Mai Lai. Men, women and children are bayoneted and shot to death in an orgy of violence as American soldiers, frustrated at their inability to locate the enemy, take their anger out on the villagers. The Door’s song “The End” seems to reflect the brutal futility of the conflict.
By the end of the decade the war has been brought home to the streets of America with groups like the Black Panthers and the “Weather Underground” using the atrocities perpetrated against civilians in Vietnam to excuse their own violent tactics in attempting to bring about radical change in America.
If the start of the decade belonged to the Kennedys and Martin Luther King, the end of the decade belongs to Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. The idealism of youth has been replaced by the cynicism of old age as the two men conspire to destroy the radical elements in US society and get out of Vietnam. Don McLean in his song “American Pie” graphically illustrates this descent into anarchy and chaos at the end of the decade which is why it is the final track in my book.

Dear President Bush

Dear President Bush,

Most people around the Globe, on hearing the news that Fidel Castro was stepping down after almost fifty years in power, welcomed your request for Cuba to now progress to an open democracy. Many would also welcome a new openness in American society, and in keeping with this spirit lots of people around the world would like you to answer the following question.

“Was Lee Harvey Oswald being used by US Intelligence in a plot to kill Castro and was your father involved?”

During your father’s election campaign his team had to deny claims that he had been a member of the CIA at the time of Kennedy’s assassination in ’63, even when presented with this memo from FBI chief, J Edgar Hoover, written shortly after the shooting, which supposedly mentions him.

“The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency.”

It was then claimed that the George Bush referred to in this missive was not your father but instead a lowly Agency pen pusher. This was refuted however when the gentleman in question came forward and denied the memo referred to him.
We now know from the release of a CIA internal communiqué dated 29. 11.75 that your father’s oil company Zapata, which had a platform just off the coast of Cuba, was set up in 1953 in collaboration with Thomas Devine, a man with more than a passing acquaintance with the CIA. So when Castro came to power in ’59 and proceeded to seize American assets in the region, he must have been perceived as an enormous threat to your fathers’ interests.
Even those babyboomers whose memory cells are impaired by sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll, can still remember where they were and what they were doing on 22nd November 1963, but your father’s account is at best hazy. Many also recall events of the following day when another cold blooded murder was perpetrated in front of TV cameras in a police station, of all places.
And one year later when we were handed a jigsaw puzzle by a bunch of shady looking men in suits, with a picture of a young “commie” on the front of the box and half the pieces missing, by way of explanation, we tried to look grateful.
By the end of its investigations in ’64, the Warren Commission that had kindly given us the picture of Lee Harvey Oswald to stick on the front of our jigsaw box, plus some more pieces with which to assemble his portrait, followed their offering with a pronouncement that the puzzle had been solved. But most people in America and around the World realised the pieces of the jigsaw still didn’t fit no matter how big the hammer you took to them.
Many have continued to demand the rest of the pieces but have been fobbed off by successive American Governments and US Courts protecting the right of the CIA not to issue any more, citing the age old excuse of National Security. But now that Castro has stepped down from the stage, and before our generation goes to the grave with him, hopefully we will finally get to solve the greatest mystery of the twentieth century. So what do we know already?
Over the last few years the CIA has continually promised to come clean about its illegal covert activities conducted throughout the post war decades. It refers to these hitherto unreleased files as its “family jewels.” In keeping with its record of disinformation and obfuscation the Agency has reluctantly put some of these gems on public display.
We now understand the term “executive action,” the assassination of foreign leaders deemed dangerous to American interests. We have also learned about “plausible deniability,” the euphemism for framing a group or an individual to cover up US involvement in these deaths. It has been revealed that the biggest perceived threat to American business assets in Latin America was the regime of Fidel Castro.
The CIA has finally acknowledged its role in attempting to invade Cuba and kill America’s nemesis, albeit over forty years late. It has also had to admit to their Agents not being up to the job and having to sub-contract the hit out to the Mafia, who also failed. Their candour on these matters has to be applauded but as usual they’re being economical with the truth. There is one gem they’re still refusing to put on public display, the “Jewel in the Crown.” It concerns US Intelligence links with Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of John Kennedy, which has necessitated the biggest cover up in modern history.
After the assassination in 1963 the Warren Commission was convened to investigate. And even though one of the men on the Committee was ex-CIA chief Allen Dulles, who’d been sacked by Kennedy only two years before over his incompetent handling of the invasion of Cuba, now known as the Bay of Pigs, the Agency still managed to keep the attempts on Castro’s life and other key information from the Commission.
So they were not aware at the time of the CIA’s attempts to kill Castro, their links to the Mafia nor the man who shot Lee Harvey Oswald dead, Jack Ruby, and his mobster connections. We now know Ruby was invited to Cuba on at least one occasion to meet with mobster and casino owner Lewis McWillie, a man who was later involved in Mafia plots to eliminate Castro. And in another affront to the Commission’s credibility, their final report stated Ruby had no links to organised crime, when one his so called friends making that statement turned out to be Dave Yarras, a Mafia hitman. Their final report predictably concluded that neither Oswald nor Ruby was part of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy and therefore Oswald acted alone.
However the majority of the American public was not taken in by their findings and various Senate Committees were convened in the mid-seventies to launch further investigations. It was then discovered that CIA chief Richard Helms had perjured himself when he told the Warren Commission that the Agency had no knowledge of, or contact with, Lee Harvey Oswald before Kennedy’s assassination, saying

“I had all of our records searched to see if there had been any contact at any time prior to the assassination by anyone in the CIA with Oswald. We checked all of our card and personnel files and all our records. The search turned out to be negative. In addition I got in touch with those officers in positions of responsibility at the time to see if they had any recollection of any contact having been suggested with this man. They also turned out to be negative so there is no CIA material, either in the records or in the minds of individuals, of any contact had or even contemplated with him.”
(Warren Report Vol.5 p.120)

However the truth was revealed when this declassified memo, written by Helms himself the day after Oswald had himself been shot by Jack Ruby, was finally published during the House investigations of the mid-seventies

“As soon as (blacked out) heard Oswald’s name, he recognized him as a potential recruit.”
The name of the government Agency, recruiter and operation had all been blacked out. (HSCA Report Vol.x1 p.64)


So if their prior knowledge of Oswald was entirely innocent why did they lie? It is now clear that the Warren Commission report was a cover up of breathtaking proportions, because even allowing for the fact that the CIA hid their Mafia connections and their covert attempts to invade Cuba and kill Castro from the Committee, the Commission deliberately ignored key witness statements pointing to a conspiracy.
These included the sworn testimony of a Dallas Police Officer, Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, who reported seeing a white man, matching Oswald’s description, running down the grass verge outside the Book Depository in Elm Street, and getting into a Nash Rambler car driven by a man of Latin appearance, some fifteen minutes after the shooting. His account was corroborated by no less than four other independent witnesses, whose statements were all subsequently dismissed by the Commission.
We now know the CIA held a pre-assassination 201 file on Oswald and a special group within the Agency known as the Special Affairs Staff (SAS) had been receiving FBI reports on his movements in the months leading up to the assassination. And it’s also highly likely that, as he was an ex-marine, US Naval Intelligence also held a file on him.
By the late seventies the CIA was continuing to be unhelpful and attempting to frustrate the ongoing investigations into the assassination, so much so that the Chairman of one committee, G R Blakey, was moved to comment,

“I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission.
We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency. Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp.”

He went further, virtually accusing the keeper of the CIA files on the assassination, George Joannides, of having played a part in Kennedy’s death. And with good reason.
In the months leading up to the shooting the CIA was fronting a militant anti-Castro group known as the DRE (Student Revolutionary Directorate), under a covert operation known as AMSPELL. Agency Psychological Operations expert, Joannides, was liaison officer to the group. Several witnesses testified to seeing Oswald in the company of the DRE’s New Orleans leader, Carlos Bringuer, before the assassination. Indeed Oswald gave Bringuer his signed textbook “Guidebook for Marines” as a present, which was later discovered amongst the recipient’s personal possessions. The two men even got into a well publicised fight whilst simultaneously giving out pro and anti-Castro hand bills. They then ended up on TV arguing their supposedly opposing political positions on the question of Cuba. Many now believe that fight to have been staged.
And the links to the CIA don’t end there.
Before he died, Joannides’s CIA colleague and fellow psyops expert, David Atlee Phillips, left a manuscript intimating that Oswald was being used by them in a plot to kill Castro. Because of his secretive psyops role for the CIA, Phillips was known to use many aliases, one of which was believed to be Maurice Bishop. Tony Veciana, leader of the anti-Castro terrorist group known as Alpha 66 testified to his CIA liaison officer having that name, and his description of him matched that of David Atlee Phillips. He also stated that he had seen Bishop in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald on several occasions. He went on to write that someone or some group turned the mission round and Kennedy was assassinated instead. But he didn’t identify the perpetrators.
It is now looking exceedingly likely that Oswald, or his double, was being manipulated by US Military Intelligence to play a key role in, or to take the blame for, the assassination of Castro. This is presumably why he, or someone posing as him, was used to visit the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City in the September of ‘63. So if this was the case the second question for you Mr. President is

“Who turned the plot around to kill Kennedy instead?”

Number one suspect has to be Fidel Castro. Secret Agents of his, G2, were known to have infiltrated anti-Castro groups in Miami and may well have got wind of a plot to kill their leader, which was then turned round. So Oswald could have been working both sides of the fence. If this is the case, now that Castro has quit the stage why not just come out with it?
However Kennedy was also hated by rogue elements within the CIA/Mafia who could also have orchestrated the “hit” or at the very least turned a blind eye. Is this the “jewel in the crown,” the gem the CIA won’t disclose? It is high time you allowed the CIA, FBI and US Naval Intelligence to come clean about their links to Oswald and the alleged role psychological warfare experts, David Atlee Phillips and George Joannides played in manipulating him. Or would this disclosure implicate your father? In the meantime read my book “Play it Again Uncle Sam” which is a novel based on these events.
Go to www.playitagainunclesam.com

Yours Sincerely
David Mort
Please E Mail to the White House comments@whitehouse.gov

Jewel in the Crown

Over the last few years the CIA has continually promised to come clean about its illegal covert activities conducted throughout the post war decades. It refers to these hitherto unreleased files as its “family jewels.” In keeping with its record of disinformation and propaganda the Agency has finally put some of these gems on public display.
We now understand the term “executive action,” the assassination of foreign leaders deemed dangerous to American interests. We have also learned about “plausible deniability,” the euphemism for framing a group or an individual to cover up US involvement in these deaths. It has been revealed that the biggest perceived threat to American interests in Latin America was the regime of Fidel Castro.
The CIA has acknowledged its role in attempting to invade Cuba and kill America’s nemesis, albeit forty years late. It has also had to admit to their Agents not being up to the job and having to sub-contract the hit out to the Mafia, who also failed. Their candour on these matters has to be applauded but as usual they’re being economical with the truth. There is one gem they’re still refusing to put on public display, the “Jewel in the Crown.” It concerns US Intelligence links with Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of John Kennedy, which has necessitated the biggest cover up in modern history.
After the assassination in 1963 the Warren Commission was convened to investigate. And even though one of the men on the Committee was ex-CIA chief Allen Dulles, who’d been sacked by Kennedy only two years before over his incompetent handling of the invasion of Cuba, now known as the Bay of Pigs, the Agency still managed to keep the attempts on Castro’s life and other key information from the Commission.
So they were not aware at the time of the CIA’s attempts to kill Castro, their links to the Mafia nor the man who shot Lee Harvey Oswald dead, Jack Ruby, and his mobster connections. We now know Ruby was invited to Cuba on at least one occasion to meet with mobster and casino owner Lewis McWillie, a man who was later involved in Mafia plots to eliminate Castro. And in another affront to the Commission’s credibility, their final report stated Ruby had no links to organised crime, when one his so called friends making that statement turned out to be Dave Yarras, a Mafia hitman. Their final report predictably concluded that neither Oswald nor Ruby was part of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy and therefore Oswald acted alone.
However the majority of the American public was not taken in by their findings and various Senate Committees were convened in the mid-seventies to launch further investigations. It was then discovered that CIA chief Richard Helms had committed perjury when he told the Warren Commission that the Agency had no knowledge of, or contact with, Lee Harvey Oswald before Kennedy’s assassination. We now know the CIA held a 201 file on Oswald that was several years old and a special group within the Agency known as the Special Affairs Staff (SAS) was monitoring his movements. And it’s also highly likely that, as he was an ex-marine, US Naval Intelligence also held a file on him.
The CIA continued to be unhelpful and sought to frustrate the ongoing investigations into the assassination, so much so that the Chairman of one committee, G R Blakey, was moved to comment,

“I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission.
We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency. Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp.”


He went further, accusing the keeper of the CIA files on the assassination, George Joannides, of having played a part in Kennedy’s death. With good reason. In the months leading up to the shooting the CIA was fronting a militant anti-Castro group known as the DRE. Agency Psychological Operations expert, Joannides, was the liaison officer to the group. Several witnesses testified to seeing Oswald, or someone very much like him, attending DRE meetings shortly before the assassination.
And the links to the CIA don’t end there.
Before he died, Joannides’s CIA colleague and fellow psyops expert, David Atlee Phillips, left a manuscript intimating that Oswald was being used by them in a plot to kill Castro. He then went on to say that someone or some group turned the mission round and Kennedy was assassinated instead. But he didn’t identify the perpetrators.
Because of his secretive psyops role for the CIA, Phillips was known to use many aliases, one of which was believed to be Maurice Bishop. Tony Veciana, leader of the anti-Castro terrorist group known as Alpha 66 testified to his CIA liaison officer having that name, and his description of him matched that of David Atlee Phillips. He also stated that he had seen Bishop in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald on several occasions.
But number one suspect in any conspiracy to kill Kennedy has to be Fidel Castro. Secret Agents of his, G2, were known to have infiltrated anti-Castro groups in Miami and may well have got wind of a plot to kill their leader, which they then turned round. So Oswald could well have been working both sides of the fence. However Kennedy was also hated by elements within the CIA/Mafia who could have orchestrated the “hit” or at the very least turned a blind eye. Is this the “jewel in the crown,” the gem the CIA won’t disclose? It is high time the CIA, FBI and US Naval Intelligence came clean about their links to Oswald and the role psychological warfare experts, David Atlee Phillips and George Joannides played in manipulating him. In the meantime read my book “Play it Again Uncle Sam” which is a novel based on these events.
Go to www.playitagainunclesam.com

ONLY A PAWN IN THEIR GAME

In the summer of 63 there was yet another racial murder. Black activist Medgar Evers was shot in the back as he got out of his car in his home town of Decatur, Mississippi. The good ol boys knew the perpetrator and eventually local Klansman Byron le Beckworth was arrested and tried. Disgustingly the all white jury twice acquitted him and Medgar’s family had to wait another 30 years for justice to be done. Both Phil Ochs and Dylan were moved to write a song about his murder, with Bob’s being titled “Only a pawn in their game.” But only a pawn in whose game?
Meanwhile Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested after getting into a fight with an anti Castro Cuban exile. He was giving out leaflets for the New Orleans branch of the “Fair Play for Cuba Committee” a pro Castro organisation, at the time. The two protagonists went on TV to explain their animosity and Oswald admitted he had Marxist leanings and was a fan of Fidel. He also went on a local radio show to explain his political beliefs. Many people now believe that fight was staged, especially when you discover that Oswald was the only member of the New Orleans branch of the Committee and the address on the leaflets was the office block of ex FBI man and anti communist Guy Bannister. Was Oswald also being used as a pawn in a game?

FROM WITCH HUNTS TO WATERGATE

From “If I had a Hammer” to “American Pie”
We all use music as reference points in our lives usually a song that reminds us of a special relationship or event. But some lyrics seem to take on a deeper significance and come to represent political, cultural or social upheavals in society. And there were plenty of those in fifties and sixties America, especially the rise of the civil rights and anti Vietnam War movements. These two struggles succeeded in mobilising hundreds of thousands of people, black and white, onto the streets of America, in such a show of strength that the powers that be were terrified into using the weapons of the totalitarian state to try and stop them. These included burglary, wire taps, surveillance, and the use of agents provocateur to foment violence and assassination. But why use such fascistic tactics to destroy two perfectly legitimate democratic movements? Because they had one thing in common. The leaders of both struggles recognised that radical political change was required in America to bring about the type of society that wouldn’t treat blacks as second class citizens and wouldn’t send boys to foreign shores to kill people fighting for their own independence, as ironically Americans had once done against the British. And there was one man in particular whose magnetism and charisma managed to bring together these two movements and mould them into one. Martin Luther King.
Forty years later it is still the received wisdom that Martin was killed by a racist because of his fight for equality for black people. Yes James Earle Ray was a racist and yes he did play a part in the killing. But as in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald he didn’t have the logistical back up needed to pull off a hit of this magnitude and was therefore part of a wider conspiracy. And more to the point, Civil rights had been enshrined in law in 1964; Dr. King was executed in 68, a year to the day after he made a speech at the Riverside Church against the Vietnam War later concluding,

Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong… with capitalism There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.

Martin had crossed the line and uttered the dreaded S word “socialism,” guaranteed to get the rich and powerful foaming at the mouth. So after getting rid of the Kennedy bothers and Martin Luther King his antithesis was brought to power, a man called Richard Nixon. And when he became superfluous to requirements he also had to go.
The struggle for civil rights and the anti Vietnam War protests which Martin personified created great music from the likes of Sam Cooke, Nina Simone, Curtis Mayfield, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Phil Ochs and Tom Paxton and many of their songs are on my jukebox. My story “Play it again Uncle Sam” takes a satirical look at the hidden history of post war America that the CIA has only recently begun to shed light on, and is related through sixty tracks that have come to denote the era. It starts with the hysteria of the witch hunts and the rise of Richard Nixon and ends with the hysteria surrounding Watergate and the fall of Richard Nixon. And if there is one song that captures this “death of innocence” in America more than any other, it is Don McLean’s American Pie. I use the chronology of his song in my book, so Track one “That’ll be the day” starts us off with the death of Buddy Holly in 59, the story then goes back in time to the start of the fifties then forward again through the sixties and ends in the mid seventies with Watergate and the defeat in Vietnam. Please go to www.playitagainunclesam.com

Who shot President Kennedy? It's a sick game of cluedo.

When CIA veteran of pychological warfare, David Atlee Phillips died, he left behind a manuscript indicating that Lee Harvey Oswald was being manipulated by the intelligence community to play a key role in, or to take the blame for, the assassination of Fidel Castro. This is presumably why Oswald, or someone posing as him, visited the Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico City to manufacture that link and why the CIA has continued to deny any knowledge of the event. Phillips also intimated that their plan to frame Oswald was then turned against them and the same plot used to kill Kennedy. But who turned it? It is possible that Castro, who'd probably learned of the plot, could have been behind it but its far more likely it was a home grown conspiracy, especially given the CIA's symbiotic relationship with the Mafia. US and Cuban mobsters were heavily involved with "the French Connection" through which large quantities of heroin was being imported into America. And in 1963, Robert Kennedy,in his capacity as Attorney General, was getting ever closer to arresting and deporting its ringleaders, notably Carlos Marcello of New Orleans and Santos Trafficante of Tampa, Florida. The problem was these were the same men the CIA had involved in the plotting to kill Castro and men who thought they were doing their patriotic duty by killing commies for Uncle Sam. They were therefore underwhelmed by the treatment they were receiving from the Kennedys. So they had the motive and the logistical know how to carry out the hit and frame Oswald. But their partners in crime, namely in the attempts to kill Castro, were the CIA. So were agents of theirs involved in Kennedy's death. Was David Atlee Phillips being coy when he intimated he didn't know who had turned his plot to kill Castro. Was he involved. Its like a sick game of cluedo. So was it Miss Scarlet of Havana, Colonel Mustard of the CIA or Reverend Green of the Mafia? Read my latest novel on the subject "Play it again Uncle Sam" and go to
www.playitagainunclesam.com for further details.