Hot new book "Against Them" by Tegan Mathis

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I just discovered this book tonight:

"Against Them: How & Why Alexander Haig, Bob Woodward, Donald Rumsfeld, & Richard Cheney Covered Up the JFK Assassination in the Wake of the Watergate Break-In" by Tegan Mathis.

http://www.amazon.com/Against-Them-Assassination-Break--ebook/dp/B006A1L8E0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327575195&sr=1-1

You can buy it on Amazon Kindle for $9.99. I skimmed parts of it and it looks to be excellent so far. Buy this book immediately; I did.

The author spends a lot of time deconstructing Lynne Cheney's book Executive Privilege. Lynn Cheney is the wife of Dick Cheney, the Vice President under George W. Bush and former Defense Secretary under George Herbert Walker Bush and former chief of staff under Gerald Ford.

I have only skimmed parts of this book but it looks to be excellent.

I always thought that crowd under Ford and Nixon knew what had happened in the JFK assassination. Notice how they kept showing up in high level politics for decades after Watergate.

Product Description:

"In 1974, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein published All the President's Men, the real-life whodunit that introduced Deep Throat to the American people. A White House insider turned confidential informant, Deep Throat had provided the young Washington Post reporters with enough insider information about the Watergate break-in to force President Richard Nixon from the Oval Office. As a condition of receiving the information, they promised not to reveal Deep Throat's identity until after his death.

In the summer of 1999, Bob Woodward dropped in on a retired FBI official named Mark Felt at his home in Santa Rosa, California. During that visit, Woodward convinced Felt to assume the role of Deep Throat. Mired by health issues, the elderly Felt made his belated Deep Throat debut in the spring of 2005, telling the world, "I'm the guy they used to call Deep Throat."

By any cursory examination of the facts, Mark Felt was not Deep Throat. Felt had been a straight-laced FBI man, hopelessly loyal to J. Edgar Hoover's "Seat of Government." Deep Throat had been a chain-smoking Scotch drinker, supposedly disillusioned by the trappings of Washington politics.

In Against Them, Tegan Mathis reveals for the first time anywhere that Deep Throat was actually a hard-partying White House aide named Richard Bruce Cheney. When Bob Woodward asked Mark Felt to assume the role of Deep Throat, he only did so to provide cover for the next vice president of the United States of America. A few loose ends had to be tied down before the 2000 presidential election, so Bob made the extraordinary trip to Santa Rosa to cut a deal.

But that's just the beginning of the story. The author goes on to explain, through a meticulous examination of rather bizarre new evidence, how and why Alexander Haig, Bob Woodward, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Cheney used their bogus Deep Throat story to cover up the John F. Kennedy assassination in the wake of the Watergate break-in.

This is the book Americans have been waiting for since November 22, 1963."

Edited January 30, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Pat Speer]

I just discovered this book tonight:

"Against Them: How & Why Alexander Haig, Bob Woodward, Donald Rumsfeld, & Richard Cheney Covered Up the JFK Assassination in the Wake of the Watergate Break-In" by Tegan Mathis.

http://www.amazon.com/Against-Them-Assassination-Break--ebook/dp/B006A1L8E0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327575195&sr=1-1

You can buy it on Amazon Kindle for $9.99. I skimmed parts of it and it looks to be excellent so far. Buy this book immediately; I did.

The author spends a lot of time deconstructing Lynn Cheney's book Executive Privilege. Lynn Cheney is the wife of Dick Cheney, the Vice President under George W. Bush and former Defense Secretary under George Herbert Walker Bush and former chief of staff under Gerald Ford.

I have only skimmed parts of this book but it looks to be excellent.

I always thought that crowd under Ford and Nixon knew what had happened in the JFK assassination. Notice how they kept showing up in high level politics for decades after Watergate.

Product Description:

"In 1974, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein published All the President's Men, the real-life whodunit that introduced Deep Throat to the American people. A White House insider turned confidential informant, Deep Throat had provided the young Washington Post reporters with enough insider information about the Watergate break-in to force President Richard Nixon from the Oval Office. As a condition of receiving the information, they promised not to reveal Deep Throat's identity until after his death.

In the summer of 1999, Bob Woodward dropped in on a retired FBI official named Mark Felt at his home in Santa Rosa, California. During that visit, Woodward convinced Felt to assume the role of Deep Throat. Mired by health issues, the elderly Felt made his belated Deep Throat debut in the spring of 2005, telling the world, "I'm the guy they used to call Deep Throat."

By any cursory examination of the facts, Mark Felt was not Deep Throat. Felt had been a straight-laced FBI man, hopelessly loyal to J. Edgar Hoover's "Seat of Government." Deep Throat had been a chain-smoking Scotch drinker, supposedly disillusioned by the trappings of Washington politics.

In Against Them, Tegan Mathis reveals for the first time anywhere that Deep Throat was actually a hard-partying White House aide named Richard Bruce Cheney. When Bob Woodward asked Mark Felt to assume the role of Deep Throat, he only did so to provide cover for the next vice president of the United States of America. A few loose ends had to be tied down before the 2000 presidential election, so Bob made the extraordinary trip to Santa Rosa to cut a deal.

But that's just the beginning of the story. The author goes on to explain, through a meticulous examination of rather bizarre new evidence, how and why Alexander Haig, Bob Woodward, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Cheney used their bogus Deep Throat story to cover up the John F. Kennedy assassination in the wake of the Watergate break-in.

This is the book Americans have been waiting for since November 22, 1963."

You wasted your money, IMO. I'm 99.9% positive Cheney was not in a position to know what Deep Throat knew. It boggles my mind that people are always looking beyond Felt. Having the number 2 man in the FBI conspire against a sitting President is a HUGE story, but just not juicy enough for some, I guess.

[Patrick Block]

Nixon's Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman inadvertantly blew the lid off Nixon's knowledge of the CIA's ivolvement in the assassination in his book "The Ends of Power". I always find it much more convincing when someone reveals something like this without even realizing he is doing so, rather than someone who is directly trying to pound his little round pegs into square holes to force a conclusion.

Nixon had the nerve, once he was in trouble over his merry little CIA burglars breaking-in to the Watergate, of trying to throw JFK's assassination into Helms face. He sent Haldeman and Ehrlichman to Helms to clearly threaten the CIA with what he knew about the crime, and inferred that Hunt was involved in JFK's death and might cause a real ruckus for everyone.

This, of course, is part of the famous tape Nixon did himself in with. Some of the tape remains, and quite a lot has never been revealed.

"The Ends of Power" is a mind blowing little book that quite a lot of researchers have missed. Nixon treats the JFK Assassination like it's just another political tool- secret information that he has had laying around to use as a leverage with the CIA when he gets himself in trouble.

Haldeman assumes in the book that Nixon's information has to do more with the CIA withholding information or lying about minor details in their role in the crime, instead of directly planning the hit....but anyone well read on the actual subject will be astute enough to put 2+2 together and come up with the correct answer here.

Helms nearly has stroke when Haldeman brings up the subject at Nixon's request. Haldeman never does understand exactly what it is Nixon is getting at.

Super interesting book, written from the point of view from an insider never quite altogether "in the loop". It's history, and it's my favorite sort o book to read...full of the "edges of the truth" rather than an attempt to prove something from the outside looking in with an agenda that might color one's perspective.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Nixon's Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman inadvertantly blew the lid off Nixon's knowledge of the CIA's ivolvement in the assassination in his book "The Ends of Power". I always find it much more convincing when someone reveals something like this without even realizing he is doing so, rather than someone who is directly trying to pound his little round pegs into square holes to force a conclusion.

Nixon had the nerve, once he was in trouble over his merry little CIA burglars breaking-in to the Watergate, of trying to throw JFK's assassination into Helms face. He sent Haldeman and Ehrlichman to Helms to clearly threaten the CIA with what he knew about the crime, and inferred that Hunt was involved in JFK's death and might cause a real ruckus for everyone.

This, of course, is part of the famous tape Nixon did himself in with. Some of the tape remains, and quite a lot has never been revealed.

"The Ends of Power" is a mind blowing little book that quite a lot of researchers have missed. Nixon treats the JFK Assassination like it's just another political tool- secret information that he has had laying around to use as a leverage with the CIA when he gets himself in trouble.

Haldeman assumes in the book that Nixon's information has to do more with the CIA withholding information or lying about minor details in their role in the crime, instead of directly planning the hit....but anyone well read on the actual subject will be astute enough to put 2+2 together and come up with the correct answer here.

Helms nearly has stroke when Haldeman brings up the subject at Nixon's request. Haldeman never does understand exactly what it is Nixon is getting at.

Super interesting book, written from the point of view from an insider never quite altogether "in the loop". It's history, and it's my favorite sort o book to read...full of the "edges of the truth" rather than an attempt to prove something from the outside looking in with an agenda that might color one's perspective.

The "Ends of Power" is indeed a mindblowing book and it is extremely important. Nixon knew that the CIA had murdered JFK and he was using that firewall knowledge as a defense against further investigation of himself.

Oral History Interview with DON HEWITT

October 8, 2002, New York, NY, By Vicki Daitch

For the John F. Kennedy Library

HEWITT:

. . .

And then, I’ll tell you on tape, I was sitting in Howard Baker’s office. . . .

He said to me--I think I told him that story. He said,

“You know, I once said to Richard Nixon, “What do you know about the Kennedy assassination?”

And he said to me, ‘You don’t want to know.’” That frosted me.

I think about that a lot.

I think about that, and I think about the fact that when the Warren Commission had its last meeting, Earl Warren said, publicly on the steps of the Congress where they were meeting--I’m pretty sure that’s where they were meeting. I don’t think it was the Supreme Court--he was coming out, and he said, “We may never know the truth in our lifetime.” And I keep thinking, what did he mean by that?

DAITCH:

Right. After just spending all that time searching for….

HEWITT:

That’s exactly right. I don’t…. I’m not a conspiracy buff. I’ve always believed that there was a rogue CIA operation somewhere in the Everglades who were going to get even for the fact that Jack Kennedy had denied their comrades air cover during the Bay of Pigs, and a lot of them were killed on those beaches. And I think a lot of those rogue CIA guys who were part of that were determined to get even.

The Ends of Power:

NIXON: When you get in to see these people, say: "Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing, and the President just feels that..." ah, I mean, without going into the details of, of lying to them to the extent to say that there is no involvement. But, you can say, "This is sort of a comedy of errors, bizarre," without getting into it, "The President's belief is that this is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again. And, ah because ah these people are playing for, for keeps and that they should call the FBI in and we feel that ... that we wish for the country, don't go any further into this case, period!"

....Following instructions, Haldeman informed CIA Director Richard Helms of Nixon's concern that the Watergate investigation would "open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again." Haldeman gives this account of what transpired next: "Turmoil in the room. Helms, gripping the arms of his chair, leaning forward and shouting, 'The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs.' "Silence. I just sat there. I was absolutely shocked by Helms' violent reaction. Again I wondered, what was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story?"

Here is the "smoking gun" tape of Watergate...(Remember the "nuclear bomb" tape of Watergate was the 18 minutes that got erased. I think that Nixon may have been explicitly talking about the JFK assassination on those 18 minutes)

http://www.watergate.info/tapes/72-06-23_smoking-gun.shtml Richard Nixon’s smoking gun tape

AND DON'T FORGET GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSHS' REACTION to the incriminating "smoking gun tape:"

http://www.google.com/search?q=Timmons+asked.+%E2%80%9CHe+broke+out+in+a**holes+and+sh*t+himself+to+death%2C%E2%80%9D+was+Burch%E2%80%99s+answer%2C+confirming+that+anytime+Nixon+referred+to+%E2%80%9Cthe+Texans%2C%E2%80%9D+he+meant+George+Bush+Sr.&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe

Burch replied, “Yes.” “Well, what did he do?”, Timmons asked. “He broke out in a**holes and sh*t himself to death,” was Burch's answer, confirming that anytime Nixon referred to “the Texans,” he meant George Bush Sr

(Sorry for the profanity - I don't know how to quote this without it. Basically GHW Bush went hysterical at reading the transcripts of the smoking gun tape. GHW Bush was hysterical because he saw that Nixon was using the CIA's participation in the JFK assassination as a firewall defense in Watergate. In other words, Nixon was threatening to go "nuclear" by implying that he would reveal the CIA's role in the JFK assassination and the FBI's role in the coverup.... IF Nixon kept being investigated.)

Edited January 26, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Pat Speer]

Nixon's Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman inadvertantly blew the lid off Nixon's knowledge of the CIA's ivolvement in the assassination in his book "The Ends of Power". I always find it much more convincing when someone reveals something like this without even realizing he is doing so, rather than someone who is directly trying to pound his little round pegs into square holes to force a conclusion.

Nixon had the nerve, once he was in trouble over his merry little CIA burglars breaking-in to the Watergate, of trying to throw JFK's assassination into Helms face. He sent Haldeman and Ehrlichman to Helms to clearly threaten the CIA with what he knew about the crime, and inferred that Hunt was involved in JFK's death and might cause a real ruckus for everyone.

This, of course, is part of the famous tape Nixon did himself in with. Some of the tape remains, and quite a lot has never been revealed.

"The Ends of Power" is a mind blowing little book that quite a lot of researchers have missed. Nixon treats the JFK Assassination like it's just another political tool- secret information that he has had laying around to use as a leverage with the CIA when he gets himself in trouble.

Haldeman assumes in the book that Nixon's information has to do more with the CIA withholding information or lying about minor details in their role in the crime, instead of directly planning the hit....but anyone well read on the actual subject will be astute enough to put 2+2 together and come up with the correct answer here.

Helms nearly has stroke when Haldeman brings up the subject at Nixon's request. Haldeman never does understand exactly what it is Nixon is getting at.

Super interesting book, written from the point of view from an insider never quite altogether "in the loop". It's history, and it's my favorite sort o book to read...full of the "edges of the truth" rather than an attempt to prove something from the outside looking in with an agenda that might color one's perspective.

I agree that The Ends of Power is a good book, but think you misrepresent the nature of the "Bay of Pigs Thing." While the CIA may very well have had a hand in Kennedy's death, there is little evidence to suggest Nixon believed they'd PLANNED it. The "Bay of Pigs Thing" comment was made BEFORE the CIA's hit attempts on Castro became public knowledge, and are most logically a reference to these attempts and the possibility they blew back on Kennedy in particular, and the CIA's assassination capacity, in general. Nixon, as Eisenhower's VP, knew of these attempts. He probably even authorized them. By reminding Helms that Hunt was involved in the "Bay of Pigs Thing" Nixon was trying to get Helms to stall the FBI's Watergate investigation. It worked, for a spell. Just long enough to get himself re-elected.

[Mark Wengler]

Is this out in regular form hardback or softback?

[Patrick Block]

From my copy-

The Ends of Power H.R. Haldeman with Joseph DiMona. Times Books. 1978.

I would search on eBay for a copy. It's not a rare or expensive book.

[Douglas Caddy]

And yet another new book:

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Order-Investigating-Synchronicity-Assassination/dp/1936296551/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327634107&sr=1-1

[David Andrews]

Jim Hougan's view of Haldeman and Erlichman in Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat, and the CIA is well worth considering alongside Haldeman's own book, whatever you feel about Hougan's pick for Deep Throat.

Thomas Powers' look at Haldeman/Helms in The Man who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms & the CIA is a more slippery read, since the author is protecting Helms, but he does examine Haldeman's revelation of Nixon's "Whole Bay of Pigs thing" tape when it was newly published.

Edited January 27, 2012 by David Andrews

[Pat Speer]

I agree that The Ends of Power is a good book, but think you misrepresent the nature of the "Bay of Pigs Thing." While the CIA may very well have had a hand in Kennedy's death, there is little evidence to suggest Nixon believed they'd PLANNED it. The "Bay of Pigs Thing" comment was made BEFORE the CIA's hit attempts on Castro became public knowledge, and are most logically a reference to these attempts and the possibility they blew back on Kennedy in particular, and the CIA's assassination capacity, in general. Nixon, as Eisenhower's VP, knew of these attempts. He probably even authorized them. By reminding Helms that Hunt was involved in the "Bay of Pigs Thing" Nixon was trying to get Helms to stall the FBI's Watergate investigation. It worked, for a spell. Just long enough to get himself re-elected.

Pat,

I think you're off base here and am a little surprised by that. Do you honestly

think that Nixon was simply being cute? Explain Helms's reaction then? Few

presidents have understood power politics more than Nixon and Nixon was

clearly trying to poke at the CIA using information that Nixon certainly was

in the loop for. If your argument hinges solely on *planning* culpability then

I don't think you have much to go on.

When you look at it all in context, it makes perfect sense. The CIA considered its assassination capacity, and its attempts on Castro, Top Secret #1, so much so that its internal IG report on its attempts on Castro was locked up in a safe only accessible to the Director. Helms was extremely defensive of the CIA's secrets. So was Hunt, at least then. It seems more than a coincidence that Hunt and Liddy discussed killing Jack Anderson, the one journalist pushing the "Kennedy and the CIA tried to kill Castro but Castro got Kennedy first" story.

So, in essence, I don't feel Nixon was being "cute." He was, as ever, playing HARDBALL politics, in effect telling Helms "You help us keep Hunt out of it, or we'll be sure your role in the assassination attempts on Castro gets blown, and well, y'know, Congress won't like that, will they? They might even cut your funding. Or, perhaps, just perhaps, re-open an investigation into Kennedy's death. Which nobody really wants. Capiche?"

Edited January 27, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I agree that The Ends of Power is a good book, but think you misrepresent the nature of the "Bay of Pigs Thing." While the CIA may very well have had a hand in Kennedy's death, there is little evidence to suggest Nixon believed they'd PLANNED it. The "Bay of Pigs Thing" comment was made BEFORE the CIA's hit attempts on Castro became public knowledge, and are most logically a reference to these attempts and the possibility they blew back on Kennedy in particular, and the CIA's assassination capacity, in general. Nixon, as Eisenhower's VP, knew of these attempts. He probably even authorized them. By reminding Helms that Hunt was involved in the "Bay of Pigs Thing" Nixon was trying to get Helms to stall the FBI's Watergate investigation. It worked, for a spell. Just long enough to get himself re-elected.

Pat,

I think you're off base here and am a little surprised by that. Do you honestly

think that Nixon was simply being cute? Explain Helms's reaction then? Few

presidents have understood power politics more than Nixon and Nixon was

clearly trying to poke at the CIA using information that Nixon certainly was

in the loop for. If your argument hinges solely on *planning* culpability then

I don't think you have much to go on.

When you look at it all in context, it makes perfect sense. The CIA considered its assassination capacity, and its attempts on Castro, Top Secret #1, so much so that its internal IG report on its attempts on Castro was locked up in a safe only accessible to the Director. Helms was extremely defensive of the CIA's secrets. So was Hunt, at least then. It seems more than a coincidence that Hunt and Liddy discussed killing Jack Anderson, the one journalist pushing the "Kennedy and the CIA tried to kill Castro but Castro got Kennedy first" story.

So, in essence, I don't feel Nixon was being "cute." He was, as ever, playing HARDBALL politics, in effect telling Helms "You help us keep Hunt out of it, or we'll be sure your role in the assassination attempts on Castro gets blown, and well, y'know, Congress won't like that, will they? They might even cut your funding. Or, perhaps, just perhaps, re-open an investigation into Kennedy's death. Which nobody really wants. Capiche?"

Pat Speer, the CIA considered its ASSASSINATION OF JOHN KENNEDY as Top Secret #1, not it's assassination attempts on Fidel Castro. They had already pretty much tried to kill Casto with the Bay of Pigs invasion in April, 1961. That was public knowledge, the other assassination attempts could hardly be more scandalous.

There was no report on the CIA's role in the JFK assassination locked up in a safe at Langley. They just did it.

The "whole Bay of Pigs thing" - in my interpretation - refers to the Bay of Pigs fiasco along with the CIA getting even with - i.e. killing - John Kennedy, who wanted to smash the CIA into a 1,000 pieces and cast it to the wind, over not just the April 1960 Bay of Pigs failure, but for his entire policy, and RFK running roughshod over Agency professionals (or loose cannons, cowboys) like William King Harvey.

Evelyn Lincoln knew who JFK's enemies were and here is who she listed on the plane ride back from Dallas as suspects in order:

"Lyndon, KKK, Dixiecrats, [Teamsters boss Jimmy] Hoffa, [the] John Birch Society, Nixon, [south Vietnam President Ngo Dinh] Diem,Rightist, CIA in Cuban fiasco, Dictators [and] Communists."

Note "CIA in Cuban fiasco."

She later wrote this letter:

Evelyn Lincoln

4701 Willard Avenue

Chevy Chase, Maryland 20816

(301) 664-3670

October 7, 1994

Dear Richard,

It was a pleasure to receive your kind letter concerning your

desire to obtain my assessment of President Kennedy's administration

and assassination to pass along to your students.

I am sending along to you and article which was written by

Muriel Ressman for the "Lady's Circle" October 1964, and was recent-

ly reprinted in a current issue of that magazine, which will give you

an insight into my impression of the man.

As for the assassination is concerned, it is my belief that there

was a conspiracy because there were those that disliked him and felt

the only way to get rid of him was to assassinate him. These five con-

spirators, in my opinion, were Lyndon B. Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover, the

Mafia, the CIA and the Cubans in Florida. The House Intelligence

Committee investigation, also, came to the conclusions that there was

a conspiracy.

My very best wishes to you and your students.

Sincerely,

Evelyn Lincoln

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Scroll down this link (to Cliff Varnell's post #57 in this link) and read what co-author Joe Dimona says about H.R. Haldeman writing that Richard Nixon's code for the JFK assassination was the "whole Bay of Pigs" thing.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17411&st=45

Gary Aquilar interviewed Joe Dimona who said CLEARLY that Haldeman had checked his book script the Ends of Power multiple times and that Haldeman was saying that Nixon was referring to the JFK ASSASSINATION whenever he mentioned the "whole Bay of Pigs" thing. Nixon was not referring to the CIA's death attempts on Casto; Haldeman says Nixon was referring to hte JFK ASSASSINATION.

It is a VERY critical point. Haldeman started backtracking and LYING post publication of his book because of the peer pressure of the Nixonites.

Here is Gary Aquilar May 13, 2003:

I demolished this Matthews myth when it was first published in my

local paper. How? By calling Haldeman's co-author, Joe DiMona, on the

phone myself. He was so incensed at what Matthews had written, he

wrote a letter to the SF Examiner in response. Did they publish it?

No, but that doesn't mean that Matthews was right.

DiMona said that Haldeman was an exceedingly fastidious man, that he

went through all five, prepub revisions of his book with a fine tooth

comb. The notion that by "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" Helms

interpreted it to be about the Kennedy assassination would never in a

million years have ever occurred to DiMona. Even if it had, the

punctilious Haldeman would have excised it in one of his careful

reviews if he'd not wanted it in his book. But DiMona said it was

Haldeman's idea, not DiMona's.

DiMona offered a commonsense explanation for Haldeman's backing away

from this part of the book. It seems that backing away from

embarrassing parts of the book was Haldeman's common practice, DiMona

told me. Haldeman, it turns out, was shunned by Nixonites after his

book was published. In order to ingratiate himself with Nixonites

furious with him at what he'd written, Haldeman had a bad habit of

passing off anything offensive onto DiMona.

I don't just have this from DiMona by memory, DiMona sent me a fax

[he's since died], rewriting a letter to the Op-ed page I'd submitted.

In his letter he laid this explanation out in full.

So, who are we to believe? I know that McAdams believes a man known

for lying, Haldeman. I'm more sympathetic to a man not known for

lying, Joe DiMona.

Perhaps we can clear this up, if McAdams is game, by asking DiMona's

son. [bet McAdams didn't know DiMona had a son!]

Gary

Edited January 27, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Pat Speer]

I agree that The Ends of Power is a good book, but think you misrepresent the nature of the "Bay of Pigs Thing." While the CIA may very well have had a hand in Kennedy's death, there is little evidence to suggest Nixon believed they'd PLANNED it. The "Bay of Pigs Thing" comment was made BEFORE the CIA's hit attempts on Castro became public knowledge, and are most logically a reference to these attempts and the possibility they blew back on Kennedy in particular, and the CIA's assassination capacity, in general. Nixon, as Eisenhower's VP, knew of these attempts. He probably even authorized them. By reminding Helms that Hunt was involved in the "Bay of Pigs Thing" Nixon was trying to get Helms to stall the FBI's Watergate investigation. It worked, for a spell. Just long enough to get himself re-elected.

Pat,

I think you're off base here and am a little surprised by that. Do you honestly

think that Nixon was simply being cute? Explain Helms's reaction then? Few

presidents have understood power politics more than Nixon and Nixon was

clearly trying to poke at the CIA using information that Nixon certainly was

in the loop for. If your argument hinges solely on *planning* culpability then

I don't think you have much to go on.

When you look at it all in context, it makes perfect sense. The CIA considered its assassination capacity, and its attempts on Castro, Top Secret #1, so much so that its internal IG report on its attempts on Castro was locked up in a safe only accessible to the Director. Helms was extremely defensive of the CIA's secrets. So was Hunt, at least then. It seems more than a coincidence that Hunt and Liddy discussed killing Jack Anderson, the one journalist pushing the "Kennedy and the CIA tried to kill Castro but Castro got Kennedy first" story.

So, in essence, I don't feel Nixon was being "cute." He was, as ever, playing HARDBALL politics, in effect telling Helms "You help us keep Hunt out of it, or we'll be sure your role in the assassination attempts on Castro gets blown, and well, y'know, Congress won't like that, will they? They might even cut your funding. Or, perhaps, just perhaps, re-open an investigation into Kennedy's death. Which nobody really wants. Capiche?"

Pat Speer, the CIA considered its ASSASSINATION OF JOHN KENNEDY as Top Secret #1, not it's assassination attempts on Fidel Castro. They had already pretty much tried to kill Castro with the Bay of Pigs invasion in April, 1961. That was public knowledge, the other assassination attempts could hardly be more scandalous.

There was no report on the CIA's role in the JFK assassination locked up in a safe at Langley. They just did it.

Robert, the highlighted statement of yours is remarkably ill-informed. If you actually read about the assassination plots of the sixties and seventies, you'll find that there was a willful naivete among the vast majority of Americans--including the Kennedy family--that led them to believe one could authorize military action and the overthrow of a government, but that this would not be the moral equivalent of committing a MURDER. They separated the two. Most people today separate the two.

Within the Church Committee's papers--I can't remember which interview--it was brought up that CIA Director John McCone was a Catholic, and would not stomach assassination (as it was murder!!!). This is a recurring theme of the Church Investigation--WHO believed they were covertly overthrowing Castro vs. WHO KNEW they were trying to MURDER him. The evidence suggests that the Kennedys believed they were trying to covertly overthrow Castro, but that cynical members of the CIA chose to see this as an implicit authorization to MURDER him. They then tried to blame the Kennedys for this--saying stuff similar to "Well, if Bobby hadn't pushed us so hard we wouldn't have tried to kill Castro". But this was self-serving nonsense. Documents exist that prove both RFK's and Hoover's disapproval of the CIA's plots using the mafia, and the CIA's promise to get approval before continuing on this course. William Harvey, who hated Bobby with a burning passion, then started them up again, WITHOUT telling RFK. The revelation of this skullduggery, moreover, led to Senator Church's denouncing the CIA as a "rogue Elephant" and to new rules outlining that assassination targets must be specifically designated such by the President and in writing.

Read the Church Reports and testimony. They're on the Mary Ferrell website.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Greg Kooyman]

I agree that The Ends of Power is a good book, but think you misrepresent the nature of the "Bay of Pigs Thing." While the CIA may very well have had a hand in Kennedy's death, there is little evidence to suggest Nixon believed they'd PLANNED it. The "Bay of Pigs Thing" comment was made BEFORE the CIA's hit attempts on Castro became public knowledge, and are most logically a reference to these attempts and the possibility they blew back on Kennedy in particular, and the CIA's assassination capacity, in general. Nixon, as Eisenhower's VP, knew of these attempts. He probably even authorized them. By reminding Helms that Hunt was involved in the "Bay of Pigs Thing" Nixon was trying to get Helms to stall the FBI's Watergate investigation. It worked, for a spell. Just long enough to get himself re-elected.

Pat,

I think you're off base here and am a little surprised by that. Do you honestly

think that Nixon was simply being cute? Explain Helms's reaction then? Few

presidents have understood power politics more than Nixon and Nixon was

clearly trying to poke at the CIA using information that Nixon certainly was

in the loop for. If your argument hinges solely on *planning* culpability then

I don't think you have much to go on.

When you look at it all in context, it makes perfect sense. The CIA considered its assassination capacity, and its attempts on Castro, Top Secret #1, so much so that its internal IG report on its attempts on Castro was locked up in a safe only accessible to the Director. Helms was extremely defensive of the CIA's secrets. So was Hunt, at least then. It seems more than a coincidence that Hunt and Liddy discussed killing Jack Anderson, the one journalist pushing the "Kennedy and the CIA tried to kill Castro but Castro got Kennedy first" story.

So, in essence, I don't feel Nixon was being "cute." He was, as ever, playing HARDBALL politics, in effect telling Helms "You help us keep Hunt out of it, or we'll be sure your role in the assassination attempts on Castro gets blown, and well, y'know, Congress won't like that, will they? They might even cut your funding. Or, perhaps, just perhaps, re-open an investigation into Kennedy's death. Which nobody really wants. Capiche?"

Pat,

I have read many of your posts, and respect your opinions regarding the assassination. However, I must agree with most of what the others have posted here previously regarding Nixon's and Helms' knowledge of the assassination. Helms knowledge of the Castro assassination attempts had to run much deeper than that. He HAD to know that Angleton was running a special op with Oswald as a intelligence dangle down in Mexico and other places.(sheep dipping him as a Communist/agent provocateur) Helms almost certainly had to know that (even if it was after the fact) David Atlee Phillips was setting up Oswald as a patsy in places like New Orleans and Dallas and that the possiblity existed that a)a rogue plot involving CIA officers like Dave Phillips, David Morales, Carl Jenkins, etc. had turned an assassination team meant for Castro against JFK.(which I doubt) or b.)The operation was tasked to Helms by Allen Dulles at the behest of very highly influential, vested interests who wanted Kennedy gone for a whole host of reasons. Helms was a "Patriot" in his own mind, and I believe he surely felt that private corporations and the ruling elite of the United States were the true "interests" he was tasked with protecting in the "Free World". IF he was told thru Allen Dulles that the majority of the ruling elite felt that Kennedy was a "threat to National Security" and had to go, then I believe he would have willingly taken part in an operation run by CIA and Cuban Exiles to facilitate the assassination.

I think that Nixon either heard it was coming down, or saw the tell tale fingerprints of an assassination team and figured the rest out on his own about the CIA's culpability.

So, in the final analysis, its IMHO that Nixon knew he was pushing Helm's buttons by stating this would open up the "Whole Bay of Pigs thing"..

-Greg

[Greg Kooyman]

I agree that The Ends of Power is a good book, but think you misrepresent the nature of the "Bay of Pigs Thing." While the CIA may very well have had a hand in Kennedy's death, there is little evidence to suggest Nixon believed they'd PLANNED it. The "Bay of Pigs Thing" comment was made BEFORE the CIA's hit attempts on Castro became public knowledge, and are most logically a reference to these attempts and the possibility they blew back on Kennedy in particular, and the CIA's assassination capacity, in general. Nixon, as Eisenhower's VP, knew of these attempts. He probably even authorized them. By reminding Helms that Hunt was involved in the "Bay of Pigs Thing" Nixon was trying to get Helms to stall the FBI's Watergate investigation. It worked, for a spell. Just long enough to get himself re-elected.

Pat,

I think you're off base here and am a little surprised by that. Do you honestly

think that Nixon was simply being cute? Explain Helms's reaction then? Few

presidents have understood power politics more than Nixon and Nixon was

clearly trying to poke at the CIA using information that Nixon certainly was

in the loop for. If your argument hinges solely on *planning* culpability then

I don't think you have much to go on.

When you look at it all in context, it makes perfect sense. The CIA considered its assassination capacity, and its attempts on Castro, Top Secret #1, so much so that its internal IG report on its attempts on Castro was locked up in a safe only accessible to the Director. Helms was extremely defensive of the CIA's secrets. So was Hunt, at least then. It seems more than a coincidence that Hunt and Liddy discussed killing Jack Anderson, the one journalist pushing the "Kennedy and the CIA tried to kill Castro but Castro got Kennedy first" story.

So, in essence, I don't feel Nixon was being "cute." He was, as ever, playing HARDBALL politics, in effect telling Helms "You help us keep Hunt out of it, or we'll be sure your role in the assassination attempts on Castro gets blown, and well, y'know, Congress won't like that, will they? They might even cut your funding. Or, perhaps, just perhaps, re-open an investigation into Kennedy's death. Which nobody really wants. Capiche?"

Pat Speer, the CIA considered its ASSASSINATION OF JOHN KENNEDY as Top Secret #1, not it's assassination attempts on Fidel Castro. They had already pretty much tried to kill Castro with the Bay of Pigs invasion in April, 1961. That was public knowledge, the other assassination attempts could hardly be more scandalous.

There was no report on the CIA's role in the JFK assassination locked up in a safe at Langley. They just did it.

Robert, the highlighted statement of yours is remarkably ill-informed. If you actually read about the assassination plots of the sixties and seventies, you'll find that there was a willful naivete among the vast majority of Americans--including the Kennedy family--that led them to believe one could authorize military action and the overthrow of a government, but that this would not be the moral equivalent of committing a MURDER. They separated the two. Most people today separate the two.

Within the Church Committee's papers--I can't remember which interview--it was brought up that CIA Director John McCone was a Catholic, and would not stomach assassination (as it was murder!!!). This is a recurring theme of the Church Investigation--WHO believed they were covertly overthrowing Castro vs. WHO KNEW they were trying to MURDER him. The evidence suggests that the Kennedys believed they were trying to covertly overthrow Castro, but that cynical members of the CIA chose to see this as an implicit authorization to MURDER him. They then tried to blame the Kennedys for this--saying stuff similar to "Well, if Bobby hadn't pushed us so hard we wouldn't have tried to kill Castro". But this was self-serving nonsense. Documents exist that prove both RFK's and Hoover's disapproval of the CIA's plots using the mafia, and the CIA's promise to get approval before continuing on this course. William Harvey, who hated Bobby with a burning passion, then started them up again, WITHOUT telling RFK. The revelation of this skullduggery, moreover, led to Senator Church's denouncing the CIA as a "rogue Elephant" and to new rules outlining that assassination targets must be specifically designated such by the President and in writing.

Read the Church Reports and testimony. They're on the Mary Ferrell website.

Pat,

Using John McCone's own personal feelings of assassination (while I am sure was accurate) doesn't let the CIA's Prateorian Guard off the hook. People like Dulles, Helms, James Angleton, Tracy Barnes, & William "Bill" Harvey certainly felt differently about assassination as a means to effect a change in government. McCone was never a CIA insider and it has been noted in several books and testimonies of former CIA officials that McCone was purposely kept in the dark about alot of what the CIA was truly doing.