What about Watergate?

Moderators: Project Willow, DrVolin, Wombaticus Rex, Jeff

Re: What about Watergate?

Postby Simulist » Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:22 am

chiggerbit wrote:With regards to the theory of a gradual coup, I forgot to mention the stolen elections of 2000 and likely 2004. Luttwak has argued that a military coup d'etat wouldn't work with such an entrenched democracy as we have here in the US. It didn't need to be a military one, and well he knows it.

In fact, our "democracy" here in the US has become so "entrenched" that it's often easy to overlook any credible evidence of its real existence.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Daniel Schorr interviews Fletcher Prouty on CBS News

Postby MinM » Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:12 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Lt. Co. L. Fletcher Prouty, the Air Force liasson between Pentagon and CIA from 1955-64, said that Gen. Alexander Haig was part of the 'Secret Team' of CIA insiders running the government during Watergate. That opens up a can of Watergate worms regarding Pentagon spying on the Nixon Oval Office known as the Moorer-Radford Affair...

Daniel Schorr interviews Fletcher Prouty on CBS News - (7/11/75)
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Schorr

Postby MinM » Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:19 pm

Image

Probably not coincidentally Daniel Schorr was fired from CBS News shortly after that interview...

http://www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_8_review.html
The year after the Warren Report was issued, Ford published his own book called Portrait of the Assassin. Ford arranged for John Stiles, his first campaign manager and Nixon's campaign field director, to be his assistant while on the Commission. Their book was essentially a rehash of the Commission's view of Oswald. It made for dull reading. Consequently, the publisher told them to spice it up. So they added a section about the report from Texas of Oswald being an FBI informant. (See this review, Pt. 7, Section 6) The problem was that at the time the book was published the records of that Warren Commission executive sessions were classified. Evidently, Ford had little problem with violating the law in order to smear Oswald and make a little money in the process. But in 1973, Nixon chose Ford to replace Spiro Agnew as his Vice-President. Ford was now questioned about his use of classified material. He lied under oath about what he had done. He said he only used material in the Warren Commission volumes for that book – which he clearly had not. When later exposed, Ford apologized for his misdeed. (Marrs, p. 467) Six months after he became president, Ford declassified the material in question. (ibid)

While a congressman, Ford developed a reputation for being one of the CIA's best friends. (ibid, p. 466) In 1974, when Nixon resigned under the pressure of the Watergate scandal, President Ford immediately began to prove his reputation. Many people on the Watergate Committee, like Sen. Howard Baker, suspected that the CIA had played a role in that affair and that Richard Helms had manipulated the FBI inquiry. (Daniel Schorr, Clearing the Air, p. 139) Consequently, there was a movement to investigate the crimes of the CIA and FBI. Ford gave a speech at the time in which he defended the Agency against the rumors that they had overthrown Salvador Allende in Chile the year before. Which turned out to be true. When asked if this action was not in violation of international law, the new president replied with "I am not going to pass judgment on whether it is permitted or authorized under international law. It is a recognized fact that historically as well as presently, such actions are taken in the best interest of the countries involved." (Time, 9/30/74) In other words: Uncle Sam Knows Best. Time commented "Ford's words seemed to represent an anachronistic, cold-war view of national security reminiscent of the 1950"s. Complained Democratic Senator Frank Church of Idaho: 'Its tantamount to saying that we respect no law save the law of the jungle.' " (ibid)

In late 1974, even more friction came between President Ford and Sen. Church. James Angleton had badly divided the CIA over the Yuri Nosenko affair. In order to force him to resign as counter-intelligence chief, Director Bill Colby had given a story to the CIA friendly Sy Hersh. This story uncovered some of the illegal surveillance operations Angleton had run out of his shop. When exposed at Christmas time in the pages of the NY Times, the story created a sensation. Angleton resigned. Ford called Colby for a briefing. Realizing this would give Frank Church the opening he needed for a full-scale inquiry into the intelligence community, Ford tried to divert that by appointing his VP, Nelson Rockefeller, to run his own inquest. (Schorr, p. 143) Called the Rockefeller Commission, this was seen as something of a whitewash. The report contained an annex on the JFK assassination. But since Ford brought back Warren Commission assistant counsel David Belin as Executive Director, this was viewed as something of a joke: two original cover-up men redoing the cover-up. In fact, the report deliberately distorted the testimony of Dr. Cyril Wecht. (See Cover-Up, by Gary Shaw and Larry Harris, p. 29) It was also the first official JFK inquiry to use the goofy "neuromuscular reaction" as a way to explain Kennedy's violent rearward action at the time of the head shot (ibid)

The appointment of Belin indicated Ford's stance during the entire 18 months of what one author has called "the season of inquiry". This refers to the two investigative committees set up in congress: the Pike Committee in the House and the Church Committee in the Senate. They ended up replacing the Rockefeller Commission. This is as close as the USA has ever come to explaining to the public just what the CIA and FBI have done in the name of national security. Who knows what they would have achieved if Ford had not fought them. Why did he resist an open-ended inquiry? It might be that he understood that his work on the Commission could have been exposed for the sham it was. Why do I say that? Because Ford did.

On January 16, 1975 he held a White House luncheon for the editors of the NY Times. Someone asked why Ford had picked such a conservative and defense minded panel to make up the Rockefeller Commission (e.g. Ronald Reagan was a member). The president said he needed people who would not stray from the straight and narrow. If they did, they could stumble upon matters that might hurt the national interest. The editor asked "Like what?" Ford replied with, "Like assassinations!" (Schorr, p. 144) Ford added that this was off the record. But reporter Daniel Schorr deduced that since the Rockefeller Commission was investigating domestic matters, Ford must have meant American assassinations. (ibid) But later CIA Director William Colby effectively spun Ford's comment . He told Schorr that the CIA had run assassination plots abroad, but not in America. (ibid) This deftly neutralized Ford's slip. The committees would now look at CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders. In regards to the JFK case, the Church Committee would only investigate the performance of the intelligence agencies in investigating Kennedy's murder.

But even Colby was too much for Ford. He was deemed too open with congress. After all, when mobster Sam Giancana was murdered before testifying, Colby went out of his way to say the CIA had nothing to do with it. (ibid, p. 155) Colby was later fired for being too forthcoming. Ford picked George Bush to replace him. And as further signal of his new "get tough" policy, Ford made a young Dick Cheney his Chief of Staff, and moved Donald Rumsfeld into the Pentagon.

With all these elements in place, Ford decided to use the 1975 murder of a CIA officer as a way to squelch and smear any further investigation. Richard Welch was the CIA station chief in Athens. The CIA and Ford blamed his death on the fact that his name had been exposed by an American journal called Counterspy. In fact, the leftist rebel group who killed him had issued a communiqué beforehand that revealed they knew his name then. (Schorr, p. 191) In a classic case of political propaganda, Ford and the CIA pulled out all the stops in using Welch's funeral as psychological warfare against the committees. Welch's body was flown into Andrews Air Force Base. But the plane circled the base for 15 minutes to time the landing for the morning news shows. (ibid) Ford attended the chapel service. But the press was barred in order to suggest that they were to blame for Welch's murder. Colby issued a statement saying that Welch's death was the result of a "paranoiac attack on ... Americans serving their country." David Phillips was interviewed by CBS and said, American agents are in less danger today from the KGB than from the "moral primitives" who "condemn my label". (ibid) Welch's body was buried at Arlington with full military honors. His coffin was carried on the same horse-drawn caisson that carried President Kennedy's. Colby gave the flag draped over it to Welch's widow. As Schorr wrote, "This is the CIA's first secret agent to become a pubic national hero." (ibid)

It worked. Henry Kissinger jumped on the committees: "I think they have used classified information in a reckless way ... " (ibid p. 194) Both committees closed up shop shortly after. Ford and the CIA held veto power over what could be published. When Otis Pike defied that agreement, Congress bottled up his report. A copy was smuggled to Daniel Schorr. As he was arranging to have it released, his boss, Bill Paley, lunched with Bush. (ibid, p. 201) The Pike Report was published in a special issue of The Village Voice. Forgetting his own use of classified material for his Oswald book, Ford now proposed an FBI investigation to find out who gave the report to Schorr. (ibid, p. 208) After Paley's meeting with Director Bush, Schorr was taken off the air by CBS. After a two hour impromptu interrogation – during which he was not represented by counsel – Schorr was fired by the network. He was later investigated by the House but refused to reveal his source for the report.

Ford's performance with the Pike and Church Committees reveal his character in extremis. When it came to the intelligence community and their role in covert operations – including coups and assassinations – Ford joined whole-heartedly in the cover-up. This sheds retrospective light on his performance for the Warren Commission. But you would never know that from Reclaiming History. Because you will find not one reference there to either Daniel Schorr or Richard Welch. Therefore you are not informed of how Ford engaged in warfare with the Pike and Church Committees. The Pike Committee is mentioned four times in the book, but only as a source. Bugliosi never chronicles what happened to it at the hands of Ford and the CIA. The influence of Colby's leak about Angleton to Hersh and Ford's creation of the Rockefeller Commission is dealt with in a footnote. (p. 1236) In the references to Ford in the book, I could find no mention of the lunch with the Times and his blurting out the word "assassination" as the reason why he picked who he did for the Rockefeller Commission...

More » http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black468c.mp3
Last edited by MinM on Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Fox News reports 9/11 and Watergate Truth

Postby MinM » Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:39 pm




:offair: Ironically, since Schorr was taken off CBS 35-years ago, Fox News has done the only worthwhile reporting on Watergate, and 9/11 too, for that matter...

Video: Israel Is Spying In And On The U.S.? Part 1
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about Watergate?

Postby MinM » Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:35 am



So while watching All the President's Men last night there was a scene, not from the clip above, which shows the CIA's favorite newspaper (Kurt Nimmo™) in an editorial staff meeting.
Image
In that editorial meeting the subject of Arthur Bremer came up with regard to his Diary...
Image
In his book, The Taking of America, Richard E. Sprague argued that Donald Segretti and Dennis Cassini, supplied money to Bremer before he attempted to assassinate George Wallace. Others have claimed that Bernard L. Barker, one of the Watergate burglars, was used to pass this money to Bremer. Gore Vidal has also suggested that Bremer's diary was a forgery and had been written by E. Howard Hunt.

How 'appropriate' that within a movie that promotes a phony cover story. They would also stealthily stick in that piece of the Bremer Legend.

rigorousintuition.ca - View topic - Arthur Bremer to be released
***
BTW the clip from "All the President's Men" at the top of the page is the most historically sound scene from the movie. :thumbsup001:
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about Watergate?

Postby DrVolin » Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:30 pm

In a sense, I separate the JFK hit from Watergate. Yes, they were both part of the same 50 year violent struggle for control of the executive branch, but they belong to different phases of it. Both Kennedy hits (and only just possibly the death of Joe Jr as well) belong to the phase of open bloodfeud between the two successor clans of the Roosevelt Hegemony, the Bushes and the Kennedies. Once the Kennedies had been effectively removed from the competition through assassination and other forms of violent intimidation, the Bush clan really went to work on grabbing control of the executive. Their first attempt, Watergate, was premature and somewhat amateurish. There was still some form of organized republican opposition, whose dying breath was the Carter presidency. Their second attempt, the near assassination of Reagan, was much more successful and led to the gradual take-over of the White House, which was uninterrupted until 2008. Now they again have to share power and have accepted the installation of a comprimise candidate with the resurgent Kennedy clan and its allies of convenience, the republican remnants. But they probably see this as a temporary setback. Even Augustus had to negotiate his succession.
all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars

--Guns and Roses
DrVolin
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about Watergate?

Postby hanshan » Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:05 pm

DrVolin wrote:In a sense, I separate the JFK hit from Watergate. Yes, they were both part of the same 50 year violent struggle for control of the executive branch, but they belong to different phases of it. Both Kennedy hits (and only just possibly the death of Joe Jr as well) belong to the phase of open bloodfeud between the two successor clans of the Roosevelt Hegemony, the Bushes and the Kennedies. Once the Kennedies had been effectively removed from the competition through assassination and other forms of violent intimidation, the Bush clan really went to work on grabbing control of the executive. Their first attempt, Watergate, was premature and somewhat amateurish. There was still some form of organized republican opposition, whose dying breath was the Carter presidency. Their second attempt, the near assassination of Reagan, was much more successful and led to the gradual take-over of the White House, which was uninterrupted until 2008. Now they again have to share power and have accepted the installation of a comprimise candidate with the resurgent Kennedy clan and its allies of convenience, the republican remnants. But they probably see this as a temporary setback. Even Augustus had to negotiate his succession.


Cool précis. Allies of convenience. (heh)
hanshan
 
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:04 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about Watergate?

Postby hanshan » Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:17 pm

Elvis wrote:I recommend "Silent Coup: The Removal of a President" by Len Colodny & Robert Gettlin.

http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Coup-Presi ... 0312927630

The authors have a website, with followup articles etc., here:
http://www.silentcoup.com/

One of things that was going on, it seems, was that Nixon and Kissinger's secret "back channel" negotiations---bypassing the State Dept. and Pentagon etc.---caused the Joint Chiefs to wonder, "What the hell is this guy up to?" Nixon was making them extremely nervous. I won't go into the detailed theses of the book here, but I think the authors did some great work. E.g. their analysis of Bob Woodward's Watergate reporting---and his past as a Naval intelligence officer and his relationship to Haig---is interesting to say the least.

(I think it was Haig's "job" as Nixon's Chief of Staff to put Nixon into a position where he had no choice but to resign.)

I followed Watergate closely when it was happening, and continued studying it off & on over the years; "Silent Coup" really opened up a lot of intriguing stuff.

I'd be interested on anyone's take of this work, e.g. has it been rebutted to any effective degree?

(btw for some great new(ish) material on Nixon, I recommend "President Nixon: Alone in the White House" by Richard Reeves. It focuses on Nixon as a loner, mostly based on Nixon's copious daily "memos to self" and of course the 1000s of hours of White House tapes.)

(PS I've always had a special fascination with Nixon, ever since my mother told me about him in the early '60s. So I was delighted to use the Nixon/Elvis photo as my avatar. I have no similar fascination with Elvis Presley; "Elvis" was just an easy-to-remember and light-hearted name to use here.)


Questions hanging in space are the sometime bummer of boards.
No. Their work has never been rebutted; hell, hasn't even been debated.

Could be argued that Nixon's extraordinary paranoia & advancing psychopathy
made too many folks
w/ a stick in the fire too nervous; so artfully arranged as graceful an exit
as someone of his contemptible character deserved.



....
hanshan
 
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:04 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

WashingtonPost: Judge orders Nixon grand jury testimony unse

Postby MinM » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:15 pm

Posted at 11:53 AM ET, 07/29/2011
Judge orders Nixon grand jury testimony unsealed
By Del Quentin Wilber

A federal judge has ordered the government to unseal grand jury transcripts of testimony by former President Richard Nixon about the Watergate scandal.

Ruling in a lawsuit brought by a historian and several historical associations, Chief U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered the transcripts to be unsealed.

The testimony was taken near Nixon’s California home in 1975 – after he had resigned in the wake of the scandal.

The Watergate scandal, which began with a June 1972 burglary in Washington, eventually led to the President’s resignation after investigations linked the burglars to top White House operatives.

“The special circumstances presented here – namely, undisputed historical interest in the requested records – far outweigh the need to maintain the secrecy of the records,” Lamberth wrote. “The Court is confident that disclosure will greatly benefit the public and its understanding of Watergate without compromising the tradition and objectives of grand jury secrecy.”

The government is entitled to appeal the ruling.

By Del Quentin Wilber | 11:53 AM ET, 07/29/2011
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about Watergate?

Postby MinM » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:21 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpaineM.htm
Jim Garrison later suggested that Ruth Paine might have been involved in setting Oswald up as the "patsy". Garrison points out that Paine's father " had been employed by the Agency for International Development, regarded by many as a source of cover for the C.I.A. Her brother-in-law was employed by the same agency in the Washington, D.C. area." He also claims that he had tried to "examine the income tax returns of Ruth and Michael Paine, but I was told that they had been classified as secret.... What was so special about this particular family that made the federal government so protective of it?"

In 2002 Thomas Mallon wrote a book about Ruth Paine's involvement in the case, Mrs. Paine's Garage and the Murder of John F. Kennedy. Unlike Jim Garrison Mallon took the view that Paine was completely innocent of any involvement in the Kennedy assassination conspiracy.

Ruth Paine is currently working for a Nicaraguan relief group in St. Petersburg, Florida.


Nicaraguan 'relief group?' Funny. That's the kind of cover that Oliver North's fronts used to help with the Reagan Wars in Central America...

viewtopic.php?p=120202#p120202

One decade after his literary attempt to mitigate Ruth Paine's role in the JFK assassination. Thomas Mallon is back to reinforce the Bob Woodward - Carl Bernstein - Seymour Hersh myth that is "Watergate".
Image
Mallon has been all over NPR the last few days to reindoctrinate the unwashed masses:
'Watergate' Revisited: Inside The Criminal Minds
February 25, 2012

This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. I'm Scott Psymon.

Almost any scandal in the world these days is described as a something-gate. The phrase dates back to the summer of 1972, when five men were arrested in the middle of the night during a break-in at Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate Office Building in Washington, D.C.

The subsequent scandal brought down Richard Nixon's administration, made him one of the most notorious men in American history. Anytime someone observes: what did they know, and when did they know it; it's not the crime, it's the cover-up; follow the money, or third-rate burglary, it's a Watergate reference - whether they know it or not.

The Watergate crime and scandal have been exhaustively documented. But now, a great historical novelist has run it through his imagination. Thomas Mallon's new book is called "Watergate: A Novel." Tom Mallon joins us in our studios.

Thanks for being with us.

THOMAS MALLON: Thanks for having me.

SIMON: With so much on the record, what's left to be imagined by a novelist?

MALLON: Mostly how it felt, I think. I thought if you were going to do this as a novel, you had to get inside the people who were there. And so, I tried to tell the story from essentially seven different points of view and see what it felt like. And I avoid most of the big events that people - they certainly occur. But I don't tell the story the way you would tell it in nonfiction. I tell it more as a series of private dramas and try to give certain intimacy.

SIMON: As you will learn on tour, there are Watergate buffs...

MALLON: Oh, yes.

(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)

SIMON: ...like there are Civil War buffs and jazz buffs who will catch you on the smallest bit of misinformation, or imagined information. How important was historical accuracy to you?

MALLON: I refer in the acknowledgements of the book to the always sliding scale of historical fiction. And I think you really have to make these decisions book-by-book and almost scene-by-scene. I don't violate any of the big historical moments, dates. You know, Richard Nixon still resigns at the end of this book.

(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)...
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/25/147262946 ... inal-minds

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/23/147063867 ... rnate-take
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Chuck Colson Dies at 80

Postby MinM » Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:31 pm

Image
Remembered for Dramatic Faith Conversion, Life

By Michelle A. Vu , Christian Post Reporter
April 21, 2012|3:56 pm


Chuck Colson, who became a born-again Christian amid the Watergate scandal and later became the most prominent advocate for the spiritual transformation of prisoners, died Saturday afternoon, according to Prison Fellowship ministry. He was 80.

"Evangelical Christianity lost one of its most eloquent and influential voices today with the death of Charles W. 'Chuck' Colson. The Prison Fellowship and Colson Center for Christian Worldview founder died Saturday afternoon from complications resulting from a brain hemorrhage," said Prison Fellowship ministry in a statement.

Colson had suffered from intracerebral hemorrhage, which resulted in him undergoing surgery about two weeks ago to remove the blood clot on his brain. Initially, his condition improved and he was able to talk to his wife and children. But late Tuesday, his condition took a turn for the worse and doctors had advised the Colson family to gather by his bedside in preparation for his departure.

Prayers for Colson's condition and for his family have flooded Twitter as news spread Wednesday that "God may be calling him home," according to Liske's update Wednesday morning.

Eric Metaxas, author of Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, had tweeted, "My friend Chuck Colson is reportedly near death. Join me in praying for a miracle. God can do ALL things – and we pray 'They will be done!'"

And the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference had tweeted, "Chuck Colson's journey speaks to a man who fell into grace rather than falling from."

Like us on Facebook

While many descriptors apply to Colson – evangelical leader, cultural commentator, prolific author, and Prison Fellowship founder – he was once fearfully known as President Richard Nixon's "hatchet man," or "evil genius" as Slate magazine writer David Plotz once described him.

But while Colson was facing arrest for his involvement in the Watergate scandal in 1973, a friend gave him a copy of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, which led to his dramatic conversion. He published the memoir Born Again in 1975 – two years after becoming a born-again Christian. The memoir was made into a film in 1978 carrying the same title.

Since his faith conversion, Colson has dedicated his life to helping prisoners experience the radical transformation possible in Christ through his non-profit Prison Fellowship. For over 30 years, Colson kept the tradition of ministering to prisoners in jail every Easter Sunday. This year was the first time in 34 years that Colson did not spend Easter Sunday ministering in prison due to his hospitalization for the blood clot.

"Whatever good I may have done is because God saw fit to reach into the depths of Watergate and convert a broken sinner," said Colson in a statement in 2008 in response to receiving the Presidential Citizens Medal. "Everything that has been accomplished these past 35 years has been by God's grace and sovereign design."

President George W. Bush in 2008 awarded Colson the Presidential Citizens Medal – the second highest honor to a private citizen – for his Christian-based outreach to prisoners, ex-convicts, crime victims and their families. The award was created by President Richard Nixon to recognize citizens "who have performed exemplary deeds of service for their country or their fellow citizens."

"Through his (Colson) strong faith and leadership, he has helped courageous men and women from around the world make successful transitions back into society," the White House had stated in the recipient citations. "The United States honors Chuck Colson for his good heart and his compassionate efforts to renew a spirit of purpose in the lives of countless individuals."

Prison Fellowship currently has programs in some 1,300 correctional facilities in all 50 states in the United States. The ministry partners with some 7,700 churches and has some 14,000 volunteers nationwide. Globally, Prison Fellowship's programs reach prisoners and their families in 110 countries.


http://www.christianpost.com/news/chuck ... ife-73496/

Image
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about Watergate?

Postby Hunter » Sat Apr 21, 2012 6:22 pm

Nixon was not a member of the club and knew about all the conspiracy stuff and commonly spoke out against it and tried to take some of those players down. He was very much an outsider and didnt play by their rules. Not that he was a good guy but he wasnt one of "them."
Hunter
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about Watergate?

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:04 am

Colson declared that CIA was involved in the December 8 1972 'Watergate plane crash' that killed CIA-Dorothy Hunt in a 1974 Time Magazine interview.

He was demonized in his CIA-NPR/MI6-BBC radio epitaph today.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about Watergate?

Postby Stephen Morgan » Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:19 am

Alchemy wrote:Nixon was not a member of the club and knew about all the conspiracy stuff and commonly spoke out against it and tried to take some of those players down. He was very much an outsider and didnt play by their rules. Not that he was a good guy but he wasnt one of "them."


He was a member of the club, he was a made man in the Bush crime family. He just got too big for his boots. They wanted him to be a tool, he wanted to be the boss.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
User avatar
Stephen Morgan
 
Posts: 3735
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:37 am
Location: England
Blog: View Blog (9)

Dorothy Hunt

Postby MinM » Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:53 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Colson declared that CIA was involved in the December 8 1972 'Watergate plane crash' that killed CIA-Dorothy Hunt in a 1974 Time Magazine interview.

He was demonized in his CIA-NPR/MI6-BBC radio epitaph today.

Dorothy Hunt - The Education Forum
Posted 01 May 2005 - 05:39 PM

In their book, All The President’s Men, Bernstein and Woodward make several references to Dorothy Hunt being involved in negotiating the silence of the burglars. However, they mention her death without comment. This includes the fact that she was carrying a large sum of money that was to be paid to the “Cubans”. Nor do Bernstein and Woodward mention that a fellow victim was Michelle Clark, who was working on a story with Hunt about Watergate at the time. Very strange behaviour from these so-called “investigative journalists”.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... topic=3856

Image
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhuntD.htm

viewtopic.php?p=458262#p458262
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests