Six Questions, Washington Babylon — April 17, 2008, 2:52 pm

Six Questions for Jefferson Morley on Our Man in Mexico

How many Mexican presidents did the CIA have on the payroll?

A veteran Washington journalist, Jefferson Morley is the national editorial director of the non-profit Center for Independent Media in Washington, which sponsors a network of statewide online news sites, including WashingtonIndependent.com. He previously worked for 15 years as an editor and staff writer for the Washington Post, and has also published stories in publications such as New York Review of Books, The Nation, The New Republic, Slate, Rolling Stone, and the Los Angeles Times. He recently replied to six questions about his new (and first) book, Our Man in Mexico, a biography of CIA spy Winston Scott. Edward Jay Epstein, in a review of Morley’s book for the Wall Street Journal, wrote: “He uncovers enough new material, and theorizes with such verve, that Our Man in Mexico will go down as one of the more provocative titles in the ever-growing library of Kennedy-assassination studies.”

This interview was edited for length and clarity.

1. How did you come across Winston Scott and what prompted you to write an entire book about his career?
I was working at the Washington Post in 1995 when a lawyer friend, Mark Zaid, introduced me to a client with an interesting story. Michael Scott was a movie director in Los Angeles whose deceased father, Winston Scott, had served in the CIA. As Michael told me his father’s story, I realized that Win Scott, the chief of the CIA’s Mexico City station during the 1960s, embodied a dimension of the Agency’s rise to power from 1945 to 1970 that most historians and journalists have neglected, avoided, or simply not known about. Win Scott wasn’t one of “the very best men” of the CIA, as Evan Thomas called them, the kind of Ivy-League scion portrayed by Matt Damon in the movie, “The Good Shepherd.” He was a different kind of spy. Scott grew up in a converted railroad boxcar in rural Alabama. He came to the Agency not via Yale, but a stint at the FBI. He rose rapidly at CIA headquarters in the 1940s and 1950s. But he did not excel in the salons of Georgetown where a lot of Agency business was conducted. In 1956, Scott asked for a transfer to Mexico City where he rose to covert glory as a virtual proconsul. Along the way, he was deeply involved in some of the biggest intelligence fiascos of the 20th century.

2. Such as?
Kim Philby and Lee Harvey Oswald, to name two. The book documents the previously unknown story of Scott’s friendship in the late 1940s with Philby, a genial British intelligence official who was actually a Soviet spy. Michael Scott showed me his father’s pocket calendars from 1946. “Drinks with Kim,” his father had scrawled. They had dined out together, arranged play dates for their kids, and, at the office, organized covert operations against the Soviet Union. The book also provides the most detailed account yet of how Scott supervised the surveillance of Oswald, as Oswald was making contact with communist diplomatic officials in Mexico City in October 1963, six weeks before he allegedly killed President John F. Kennedy. When Scott died of natural causes in 1971, his longtime friend, James Angleton, the Agency’s legendary counterintelligence chief, went to Mexico City and seized the memoir and a trove of other material from Scott’s home office. (Angleton specialized in such ghoulish work. In October 1964, he had snagged the personal diary of Jack Kennedy’s favorite girlfriend, Mary Meyer, after she was murdered in Georgetown.) Angleton seized the manuscript and tapes because he wanted to make sure that Scott’s account of Oswald’s actions, before and after Kennedy was killed, never came into public view.

maninmexico

3. Oswald’s visit to Mexico City has long been grist for the JFK conspiracy mills. Did you uncover new information about what Oswald was doing there?
I decided early on I could not solve JFK’s assassination but would try to do something more modest and achievable: to describe what the events of 1963 looked like through the eyes of a trusted top CIA official. And they looked very suspicious, which is to say conspiratorial. Scott himself seems to have been duped about Oswald. The book documents how Jim Angleton’s counterintelligence staff cut Scott out of the loop on the latest FBI reports on Oswald six weeks before JFK was killed. This was a deliberate deception that has never been explained. The book reveals that after Kennedy’s assassination, Scott hid a surveillance tape containing Oswald’s voice from Warren Commission investigators. The Oswald tape was probably among the material seized by Angleton. It was destroyed by the CIA in 1986. Win Scott certainly didn’t believe the Warren Commission report. When the Agency in 1967 ordered all hands to pledge allegiance to the finding that Oswald, alone and unaided, killed JFK, Scott responded by ordering a comprehensive review of his Oswald files. Then he retired and wrote his memoir disputing the Warren report and offering his theory that the Soviets were behind Oswald.

4. Was Scott right about that?
He didn’t offer any especially compelling inside evidence to support his theory. Scott knew how vulnerable the Agency was on Oswald. He knew that top officials–including himself, Angleton, and another colleague, an anti-Castro operative named David Atlee Phillips—had far more knowledge about Oswald’s travels and intentions than the American people could imagine. I think Scott wrote his JFK conspiracy theory mainly to protect himself. He concluded that Oswald was not a “lone nut” but rather someone more sinister, an agent who had been used by enemies of America. Scott wrote his memoir because he wanted to say publicly that he was not responsible for the intelligence failure that culminated in Dallas.

5. The CIA’s destruction of the Oswald tape can’t help but bring to mind the recent story of the agency’s destruction of a videotape of the torture of Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubayda…
Both stories reflect the same underlying reality: When a clandestine service is assigned the dirty work of a democratic power to combat a real threat (communism in 1963, Islamist terrorism today), that agency is loathe to disclose its sources and methods to those who seek real accountability. It’s worth noting that Jose Rodriguez, the covert operations chief that destroyed the torture tape, previously served as chief of station in Mexico City. Like Win Scott, he preferred to cover up material evidence in a criminal investigation rather than come clean for history.

6. You report that Scott had three Mexican presidents on the CIA payroll. Does the CIA still maintain significant influence in Mexico?
One of the best Mexico City newspapers, El Universal, ran two front-page stories about “Our Man in Mexico.” There were no denials–not about the CIA’s relationship with top Mexican officials from the U.S. government, nor from Luis Echeverria, one of Scott’s agents who later became president, and who is still alive. To be sure, the Mexican government has changed in fundamental ways in recent years but the military, strategic, and intelligence relationship with the United States has only become deeper and closer than it was in Win Scott’s heyday. The agency’s role in Mexico in the last 20 years–other than Jose Rodriguez’s tenure as station chief–is largely unknown. When it comes to the CIA, the safest conclusion is that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Share
Single Page

More from Ken Silverstein:

Commentary November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm

Shaky Foundations

The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

From the November 2013 issue

Dirty South

The foul legacy of Louisiana oil

Perspective October 23, 2013, 8:00 am

On Brining and Dining

How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

November 2018

Rebirth of a Nation

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Tragedy of Ted Cruz

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Combustion Engines·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On any given day last summer, the smoke-choked skies over Missoula, Montana, swarmed with an average of twenty-eight helicopters and eighteen fixed-wing craft, a blitz waged against Lolo Peak, Rice Ridge, and ninety-six other wildfires in the Lolo National Forest. On the ground, forty or fifty twenty-person handcrews were deployed, alongside hundreds of fire engines and bulldozers. In the battle against Rice Ridge alone, the Air Force, handcrews, loggers, dozers, parachutists, flacks, forecasters, and cooks amounted to some nine hundred people.

Rice Ridge was what is known as a mega-fire, a recently coined term for blazes that cover more than 100,000 acres. The West has always known forest fires, of course, but for much of the past century, they rarely got any bigger than 10,000 acres. No more. In 1988, a 250,000-acre anomaly, Canyon Creek, burned for months, roaring across a forty-mile stretch of Montana’s Bob Marshall Wilderness in a single night. A few decades on, that anomaly is becoming the norm. Rice Ridge, for its part, swept through 160,000 acres.

At this scale, the firefighting operation is run by an incident management team, a group of about thirty specialists drawn from a mix of state and federal agencies and trained in fields ranging from aviation to weather forecasting and accounting to public information. The management teams are ranked according to experience and ability, from type 3 (the least skilled) to type 1 (the most). The fiercest fires are assigned to type 1s. Teams take the name of their incident commander, the field general, and some of those names become recognizable, even illustrious, in the wildfire-fighting community. One such name is that of Greg Poncin, who is to fire commanders what Wyatt Earp was to federal marshals.

Smoke from the Lolo Peak fire (detail) © Laura Verhaeghe
Article
Rebirth of a Nation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Donald Trump’s presidency signals a profound but inchoate realignment of American politics. On the one hand, his administration may represent the consolidation of minority control by a Republican-dominated Senate under the leadership of a president who came to office after losing the popular vote by almost 3 million ballots. Such an imbalance of power could lead to a second civil war—indeed, the nation’s first and only great fraternal conflagration was sparked off in part for precisely this reason. On the other hand, Trump’s reign may be merely an interregnum, in which the old white power structure of the Republican Party is dying and a new oppositional coalition struggles to be born.

Illustration by Taylor Callery (detail)
Article
Blood Money·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Over the past three years, the city of South Tucson, Arizona, a largely Latino enclave nestled inside metropolitan Tucson, came close to abolishing its fire and police departments. It did sell off the library and cut back fire-truck crews from four to three people—whereupon two thirds of the fire department quit—and slashed the police force to just sixteen employees. “We’re a small city, just one square mile, surrounded by a larger city,” the finance director, Lourdes Aguirre, explained to me. “We have small-town dollars and big-city problems.”

Illustration by John Ritter (detail)
Article
The Tragedy of Ted Cruz·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

When I saw Ted Cruz speak, in early August, it was at Underwood’s Cafeteria in Brownwood. He was on a weeklong swing through rural central Texas, hitting small towns and military bases that ensured him friendly, if not always entirely enthusiastic, crowds. In Brownwood, some in the audience of two hundred were still nibbling on peach cobbler as Cruz began with an anecdote about his win in a charity basketball game against ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. They rewarded him with smug chuckles when he pointed out that “Hollywood celebrities” would be hurting over the defeat “for the next fifty years.” His pitch for votes was still an off-the-rack Tea Party platform, complete with warnings about the menace of creeping progressivism, delivered at a slightly mechanical pace but with lots of punch. The woman next to me remarked, “This is the fire in the gut! Like he had the first time!” referring to Cruz’s successful long-shot run in the 2011 Texas Republican Senate primary. And it’s true—the speech was exactly like one Cruz would have delivered in 2011, right down to one specific detail: he never mentioned Donald Trump by name.

Cruz recited almost verbatim the same things Trump lists as the administration’s accomplishments: the new tax legislation, reduced African-American unemployment, repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, and Neil Gorsuch’s appointment to the Supreme Court. But, in a mirror image of those in the #Resistance who refuse to ennoble Trump with the title “president,” Cruz only called him that.

Photograph of Ted Cruz © Ben Helton (detail)
Article
Wrong Object·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

H

e is a nondescript man.

I’d never used that adjective about a client. Not until this one. My seventeenth. He’d requested an evening time and came Tuesdays at six-thirty. For months he didn’t tell me what he did.

The first session I said what I often said to begin: How can I help you?

I still think of what I do as a helping profession. And I liked the way the phrase echoed down my years; in my first job I’d been a salesgirl at a department store counter.

I want to work on my marriage, he said. I’m the problem.

His complaint was familiar. But I preferred a self-critical patient to a blamer.

It’s me, he said. My wife is a thoroughly good person.

Yawn, I thought, but said, Tell me more.

I don’t feel what I should for her.

What do you feel?

Photograph © Joseph S. Giacalone (detail)

Chance that a homeless-shelter resident in a major U.S. city holds a full- or part-time job:

1 in 5

Turkey hunting was deemed most dangerous for hunters, though deer hunting is more deadly.

The unresolved midterms; Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III replaced; the debut of the world’s first AI television anchor

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today