As the author of the book being critiqued, I read John Sullivan's letter with interest. I normally don't argue with quacks or CIA apollologists, but in this case I felt I had to respond.
Yes, Mr. Sullivan was a CIA polygrapher, but that raises two interesting points.
1) A polygrapher does not have unrestricted access to operational files.
2) As a "loyal" CIA retiree, Mr. Sullivan is acting on the agency's behalf, doing what the agency itself will not do, i.e., calling me a liar.
Now, to the meat of his letter. Mr. Sullivan states that the "fact that the CIA doesn't assassinate people is a fact." Yet in June, 2007, all of the major news outlets reported that "... the agency (CIA) has declassified hundreds of pages of long-secret records that detail some of the agency's worst illegal abuses during about 25 years of overseas assassination attempts, domestic spying and kidnapping. The documents are known in the CIA as the 'Family Jewels'" So is Mr. Sullivan discounting the files released by the CIA itself? Or is it just that he doesn't keep up with the news?
Yes, "the East Germans had the best intelligence service." I said as much in my book. By not sneaking in by ground, I did not trigger any Stassi (East German Intelligence) interest. To "roll (me) up within hours," they would have to had some indication that I entered the country. Howe many terrorists have managed to infiltrate the U.S. just recently because there is no 'trigger' to prompt suspicion - this despite the great leaps and bounds in sophistication of counterespionage techniques since I operated?
The CIA would not recruit 19 year old to be assassins? Why not? We recruit 18 year old by the thousands every year to become soldiers, sailors, airmen etc. Many of them immediately go off for special operations training. Many of them end up killing the enemy and many of them die. Is Mr. Sullivan questioning the qualifications of these fine men and women in uniform? Is the CIA somehow more 'elite' in whom they recruit?
Would I go in under my own name? Why not. Some times the best way to hide is right out in the open.
I notice that Mr. Sullivan didn't counter my claim of having worked in Cuba to, according to my orders which were reproduced in my book, "coordinate intelligence activities."
I recently had my Top Secret clearance revalidated (Fact). This involves an extensive investigation into everything I have said or done. A person who would fabricate the story I wrote WOULD NOT, under any circumstances, be granted a Top Secret clearance.
I currently work as the Deputy G2 (Intelligence) for the U.S. Army Reserve Command (Fact). Do you think that I would still be serving in that capacity if there were any doubt about my story?
The kind of 'verification' Mr. Sullivan is calling for is either:
1) acknowledgment of what I did by the CIA, as if that would ever happen. The CIA NEVER comments about things like that.
2) pictures of what I did. I'm sorry, but I am not like some Senators who brought their own camera crews along in Viet Nam to document exploits.
What really bothers this desk-jockey polygrapher is that I might have shattered some idealistic fairytale persona that the agency has tried to maintain, i.e., other countries resort to dirty deeds, but the U.S. is a nation of laws that fights wars by following rules and regulations which would hamstring any efforts to truly defend our political system and way of life. This totally insults the American public in suggesting that they are that naive. Yes, they were dirty jobs, and yes they were necessary, and yes, somebody had to do them. I was as qualified as any long-term veteran - AND THAT IS A FACT.