On right: Raul Castro and the CIA’s Robert Weicha shake on a deal in 1958 (the “deal” was a scheme concocted by Raul and Che Guevara’s KGB case-officer (Nikolai Leonov) which made monkeys of the CIA and opened the path for the Communist takeover of Cuba.)
Upon instructions from his KGB handler Nikolai Leonov in June of 1958, communist terrorist Raul Castro dutifully kidnapped 47 American hostages from the Moa Nickel plant and Guantanamo base in Oriente. The KGB-mentored plan was to blackmail the U.S. government to further pull the rug out from Batista and ease the way for the Sovietization of Cuba–and it worked splendidly. Above we see crackerjack CIA officer in Santiago, Cuba Robert Weicha and Raul Castro shake on the deal that freed the U.S. hostages. (i.e. that saw a clueless U.S. submitting to shameless KGB-directed blackmail.)
(Above left: Raul Castro eagerly employing the state of the art equipment provided to his KGB-directed terror-group by the CIA to launch Radio Rebelde, where these Stalinist-terrorists broadcast their fervent abhorrence of Communism and anything related to it. On right: retired KGB-officer Nikolai Leonov is a frequent guest on Cuban TV where he and Raul fondly reminisce (we imagine) about the monkeys they made of the CIA, especially (we imagine) CIA officer Robert D. Chapman who was assigned to the area where Raul Castro operated.
Top left: Che Guevara takes his turn broadcasting his fealty to liberty, justice and and democracy on radio equipment provided him by our crackerjack CIA (i.e. your taxpayer dollars, amigos.) On right. Raul Castro and his old KGB case-officer Nikolai Leonov continue fondly reminiscing–between guffaws.
Writing in the prestigious International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence (Volume 27, Issue 2, 2014) the man who served as the CIA’s crackerjack station chief in Santiago Cuba (the area where Raul Castro operated) from 1957-60 Robert D. Chapman bashes my book The Longest Romance pretty severely. In the official journal of American Center for Democracy he titles the same review: “Righting Cuban History.”
Gee? Now what could possibly have motivated him?
Well, let’s see; my earlier book Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant included a chapter very subtly titled, “Stupid Liberals in the CIA.” My latest book includes the following items:
“Me and my staff were all Fidelistas,” boasted Robert Reynolds, the CIA’s “Caribbean Desk’s specialist on the Cuban Revolution” from 1957-1960.
“Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State was pro-Castro, except (Republican) ambassador Earl Smith.” (CIA operative in Santiago Cuba 1957’59, Robert Weicha.)
“Don’t worry. We’ve infiltrated Castro’s guerrilla group in the Sierra Mountains. The Castro brothers and Ernesto “Che” Guevara have no affiliations with any Communists whatsoever.” (crackerjack Havana CIA station chief Jim Noel 1958.)
In the fall of ’57, the CIA smuggled into Cuba the state-of-the-art transmitters that became Castro and Che’s “Radio Rebelde” From these mics, the Castroites broadcast their “guerrilla victories” island-wide, along with their plans to uplift Cuba into a Caribbean Shangri-La.
“Without U.S. help Fidel Castro would never have gotten into power,” flatly testified former U.S. Ambassador to Cuba, Earl T. Smith during Congressional testimony in 1960… “The State Department played a large part in bringing Castro to power. The press, and the Chief of the CIA Section and other U.S. Government agencies also responsible…we (the U.S.) are responsible for bringing Castro in power. I do not care how you want to word it.”
Interestingly, former Santiago CIA station-chief Robert D. Chapman–while claiming I’m rewriting Cuban History–does not directly challenge the veracity (much less refute) any of the quotes or other items about the CIA which I expose in my book!!!
Here’s Mr Chapman’s rebuttal to my fully-documented charges: “This information (Fontova’s) conflicts with everything ever written about Herbert Matthews’s journey to Castro.”
Yes, Mr Chapman: THAT’S THE ENTIRE RATIONALE FOR MY BOOK!!!–(i.e. correcting the commonly-accepted media bullshit regarding the Cuban Revolution.)
My sources for the items that (so understandably offend and embarrass Chapman) are the sworn testimony of a U.S. ambassador to Cuba and the accounts from one of pre-Castro’ Cuba’s most respected political figures (Carlos Marquez-Sterling.)
But apparently crackerjack CIA intelligence sleuth Robert D. Chapman still prefers the word of the Julio 26 Movement! Apparently nothing in the intervening 57 years has caused Mr Chapman to question the veracity of the claims made by the folks (The Castro brothers, Vilma Espin, and the rest of Castro’s 26 Julio movement operatives in Oriente) he believed wholeheartedly from 1957-60!
Chapman also questions many other fully-documented items in my book, most notably the Castro regime’s death toll. True to form, Chapman still prefers the word of the Julio 26 Movement to the documentation of such as the Cuba archive.
Here’s some background on Chapman as provided by NPR, where he was a guest Cuba “expert” :
Robert Chapman, the chief CIA officer in Santiago, was on his first field assignment when he arrived in 1957 and found himself in the center of a revolution.
“I knew everybody in town, more or less,” Chapman says. “The press was coming through. I would brief them on security, and I later found that my name was posted in the New York Press Club. If you’re going to see Castro, see Bob, you know?”
In other words, CIA station chief Chapman was probably the official facilitator/travel agent for such as Herbert Matthews, Robert Taber, etc. to “interview” Castro!
People like this guy will no more admit the truth and come clean on their role in Cuba’s tragedy than the New York Times will. It’s not just a CYA thing, or a pride thing, or even a dirtbag thing; it’s that they simply don’t have to–the prevailing conditions are still perfectly permissive and accepting of blatant BS, and that’s when they don’t actively promote it. The only real challenge to the entrenched lies and mythology is from “those people,” and they’re stuck in a kind of Cassandra syndrome, so that no matter how many documented facts they cite or how much evidence they produce, they’re dismissed or ignored anyway.