Jump to content


Spartacus

The selection of Ford as VP after Agnew's resignation


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Mark Gorton

Mark Gorton

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 August 2012 - 10:10 PM

According to Spiro Agnew in his book "Go Quietly or Else", Nixon's first choice for VP to replace Agnew was John Connally. Here is the relevant text from the book:

"His favorite, I had long ago known, was John Connally. As early as October 6, four days before my resignation, the President had asked the former treasury secretary to accept the vice presidency. Both men knew it would give Connally a clear track to the White House in 1976. Connally wanted it, but he backed away when his enemies in both parties threatened to block his confirmation by the House and Senate and to drag the hearings on for many months. He was too new a boy in school to muster support from the Republicans in Congress, and his recent defection from the Democratic party did not endear him to those on the other side of the aisle.

By choosing Connally, Nixon would have become embroiled in another vicious partisan dispute, exactly the thing he was trying to avoid. So, with reluctance, he had to drop his favorite. He feared controversy would also rage if he chose Nelson Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan, or Barry Goldwater, all of whom were being strongly recommended by their friends. So he quickly settled on Gerald Ford, the amiable Michigan congressman who had acheived popularity, if not great distinction, as the House minority leader"

Agnew's tale is consistent with my theory that Agnew was forced out to put a member of the cabal (Bush, Ford, Rockefeller) in the white house. I would be interested in hearing who was putting Ford forward as a choice for VP.

#2 Rodney Rivers

Rodney Rivers

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 August 2012 - 10:58 PM

I was not around back then, but before Ford became VP, what was his reputation?

Also, usually when there was no VP in the past, the office was just left vacant until the next election. What was the basis of installing/choosing a VP after Agnew resigned instead of following the traditional path of having no VP (consitutionally correct??)? If no VP, the next in line have been the Speaker of the House when Nixon resigned.

Edited by Rodney Rivers, 02 August 2012 - 10:59 PM.


#3 Douglas Caddy

Douglas Caddy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,990 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Texas

Posted 03 August 2012 - 02:20 AM

I was not around back then, but before Ford became VP, what was his reputation?

Also, usually when there was no VP in the past, the office was just left vacant until the next election. What was the basis of installing/choosing a VP after Agnew resigned instead of following the traditional path of having no VP (consitutionally correct??)? If no VP, the next in line have been the Speaker of the House when Nixon resigned.


I am a little biased in favor of Gerald Ford because the day that he became President, he told the media in answer to a question that he was reading my first book that had just been published, The Hundred Million Dollar Payoff. He declared that he reading my book for 15 minutes every night before going to bed. The Washington Star gave his statement a big play. Ford also sent me a letter when he was Vice President indicating how much he enjoyed the book. As a result of all this I was later a featured luncheon speaker at the 1976 GOP Presidential Convention in Kansas City where Ford was nominated to carry the GOP banner. He lost to Jim Carter that November.

I previously had communication with Ford when he was a key leader in the House of Representatives after I published a book about Abe Fortas and why he should be forced to resign from the U.S.Supreme Court. Fortas later did so in 1969 as the scandal surrounding him intensified.

With Agnew's departure, the office of Vice President had to be filled. I had told my closest political friends in Washington from the first day of Watergate that it was likely Nixon would be forced out of the presidency. It was always considered a possibility by many others and that is why the office had to be filled and why Agnew, who was too controversial, had to be forced to resign so that someone else could assume the mantle if Nixon, too, had to resign.

Edited by Douglas Caddy, 04 August 2012 - 03:59 PM.


#4 Rodney Rivers

Rodney Rivers

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 August 2012 - 07:32 AM


I was not around back then, but before Ford became VP, what was his reputation?

Also, usually when there was no VP in the past, the office was just left vacant until the next election. What was the basis of installing/choosing a VP after Agnew resigned instead of following the traditional path of having no VP (consitutionally correct??)? If no VP, the next in line have been the Speaker of the House when Nixon resigned.


I am a little biased in favor of Gerald Ford because the day that he became President, he told the media in answer to a question that he was reading my first book that had just been published, The Hundred Million Dollar Payoff. He declared that he reading my book for 15 minutes every night before going to bed. The Washington Star gave his statement a big play. Ford also sent me a letter when he was Vice President indicating how much he enjoyed the book. As a result of all this I was later a featured luncheon speaker at the 1976 GOP Presidential Convention in Kansas City where Ford was nominated to carry the GOP banner. He lost to Jim Carter that November.

I previously had communication with Ford when he was a key leader in the House of Representatives after I published a book about Abe Fortas and why he should be forced to resign from the U.S.Supreme Court. Fortas later did so as the scandal surrounding him intensified. This all occurred while Watergate was still raging.

With Agnew's departure, the office of Vice President had to be filled. I had told my closest political friends in Washington from the first day of Watergate that it was likely Nixon would be forced out of the presidency. It was always considered a possibility by many others and that is why the office had to be filled and why Agnew, who was too controversial, had to be forced to resign so that someone else could assume the mantle if Nixon, too, had to resign.


Wow that is cool you had a POTUS read your book and acknowledge you like that. You must have made some serious dough back then :)

I just checked your profile on this forum Mr. Caddy and you've had an incredible life! Excuse me for the next type but HOLY S@#T! You knew William F. Buckley, all these CIA guys like Hunt, and the WAtergate people, and even worked for Nixon! That's amazing. I don't think people like you exist much anymore, at least in my generation. Don't take this the wrong way, but if you died today, I would say you have lived a full life :)

Ok, I got to ask, just tell me straight out, I know it's not the right forum, but Mr.Caddy, who killed John F. Kennedy?

#5 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 03 August 2012 - 01:47 PM

According to Spiro Agnew in his book "Go Quietly or Else", Nixon's first choice for VP to replace Agnew was John Connally. Here is the relevant text from the book:

"His favorite, I had long ago known, was John Connally. As early as October 6, four days before my resignation, the President had asked the former treasury secretary to accept the vice presidency. Both men knew it would give Connally a clear track to the White House in 1976. Connally wanted it, but he backed away when his enemies in both parties threatened to block his confirmation by the House and Senate and to drag the hearings on for many months. He was too new a boy in school to muster support from the Republicans in Congress, and his recent defection from the Democratic party did not endear him to those on the other side of the aisle.

By choosing Connally, Nixon would have become embroiled in another vicious partisan dispute, exactly the thing he was trying to avoid. So, with reluctance, he had to drop his favorite. He feared controversy would also rage if he chose Nelson Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan, or Barry Goldwater, all of whom were being strongly recommended by their friends. So he quickly settled on Gerald Ford, the amiable Michigan congressman who had acheived popularity, if not great distinction, as the House minority leader"

Agnew's tale is consistent with my theory that Agnew was forced out to put a member of the cabal (Bush, Ford, Rockefeller) in the white house. I would be interested in hearing who was putting Ford forward as a choice for VP.


So you uncritically accept the self serving comments of a corrupt politician?

How was Ford any more tied to Rockefeller and Bush than most Republicans?

#6 Norman T. Field

Norman T. Field

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Posted 03 August 2012 - 05:13 PM

Regarding Ford's abilities, there is a LBJ quote alledging that the Ford was unable to urinate and chew gum at the same time.

#7 Mark Gorton

Mark Gorton

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 August 2012 - 10:37 PM

So you uncritically accept the self serving comments of a corrupt politician?

How was Ford any more tied to Rockefeller and Bush than most Republicans?


Len,

I certainly do not take Agnew's comments uncritically. It is very hard to get any info on Agnew, so I am forced to rely on his book more than I would like. He backs up his own words with documents obtained under the freedom of information act from the justice department and the FBI. (I am assuming that he did not forge these.) And there are certain facts that are fairly clear. The main people making accusations against him were facing jail time and offered immunity if they would make claims against Agnew. Now these claims may or may not be true, but at least there is a very good reason to question these claims. For a guy supposed on the take, Agnew did not have much money and could not even pay his own legal bills arising from the claims against him. The statements make by government officials to the press and other leaks about the merits and the strengths of the case against Agnew certainly did not match the actual evidence against Agnew at all. And at the end of the day, no one was convicted in any of the crimes that Agnew was supposed involved.

Agnew goes into pretty great detail about the events surrounding his downfall. I expect that at the time he wrote the book, he could not have just made up stuff that completely conflicted with reality. I am not familiar enough with the details of his case to know if his tale is totally off the mark. But it lines up with the little other that I have been able to find, and it rings true. In addition, I went looking for information on him suspecting that he was taken down by a false plot, and then I get his book and that is exactly what he says. So to me, this is an out of sample confirmation of my theory.

#8 Douglas Caddy

Douglas Caddy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,990 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Texas

Posted 04 August 2012 - 04:06 PM



I was not around back then, but before Ford became VP, what was his reputation?

Also, usually when there was no VP in the past, the office was just left vacant until the next election. What was the basis of installing/choosing a VP after Agnew resigned instead of following the traditional path of having no VP (consitutionally correct??)? If no VP, the next in line have been the Speaker of the House when Nixon resigned.


I am a little biased in favor of Gerald Ford because the day that he became President, he told the media in answer to a question that he was reading my first book that had just been published, The Hundred Million Dollar Payoff. He declared that he reading my book for 15 minutes every night before going to bed. The Washington Star gave his statement a big play. Ford also sent me a letter when he was Vice President indicating how much he enjoyed the book. As a result of all this I was later a featured luncheon speaker at the 1976 GOP Presidential Convention in Kansas City where Ford was nominated to carry the GOP banner. He lost to Jim Carter that November.

I previously had communication with Ford when he was a key leader in the House of Representatives after I published a book about Abe Fortas and why he should be forced to resign from the U.S.Supreme Court. Fortas later did so as the scandal surrounding him intensified. This all occurred while Watergate was still raging.

With Agnew's departure, the office of Vice President had to be filled. I had told my closest political friends in Washington from the first day of Watergate that it was likely Nixon would be forced out of the presidency. It was always considered a possibility by many others and that is why the office had to be filled and why Agnew, who was too controversial, had to be forced to resign so that someone else could assume the mantle if Nixon, too, had to resign.


Wow that is cool you had a POTUS read your book and acknowledge you like that. You must have made some serious dough back then :)

I just checked your profile on this forum Mr. Caddy and you've had an incredible life! Excuse me for the next type but HOLY S@#T! You knew William F. Buckley, all these CIA guys like Hunt, and the WAtergate people, and even worked for Nixon! That's amazing. I don't think people like you exist much anymore, at least in my generation. Don't take this the wrong way, but if you died today, I would say you have lived a full life :)

Ok, I got to ask, just tell me straight out, I know it's not the right forum, but Mr.Caddy, who killed John F. Kennedy?


I have always believed that the ultimate decision to kill JFK was made by LBJ who was cunning and smart enough to insulate himself from the actual operation. Howard Hunt, who in his deathbed video revealed that he was a "benchwarmer" in the assassination operation, declared that at the top of the pyramid was LBJ who had an almost maniacal intent to become President.

#9 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 05 August 2012 - 02:04 AM


So you uncritically accept the self serving comments of a corrupt politician?

How was Ford any more tied to Rockefeller and Bush than most Republicans?


Len,

I certainly do not take Agnew's comments uncritically. It is very hard to get any info on Agnew, so I am forced to rely on his book more than I would like. He backs up his own words with documents obtained under the freedom of information act from the justice department and the FBI. (I am assuming that he did not forge these.) And there are certain facts that are fairly clear. The main people making accusations against him were facing jail time and offered immunity if they would make claims against Agnew. Now these claims may or may not be true, but at least there is a very good reason to question these claims. For a guy supposed on the take, Agnew did not have much money and could not even pay his own legal bills arising from the claims against him. The statements make by government officials to the press and other leaks about the merits and the strengths of the case against Agnew certainly did not match the actual evidence against Agnew at all. And at the end of the day, no one was convicted in any of the crimes that Agnew was supposed involved.

Agnew goes into pretty great detail about the events surrounding his downfall. I expect that at the time he wrote the book, he could not have just made up stuff that completely conflicted with reality. I am not familiar enough with the details of his case to know if his tale is totally off the mark. But it lines up with the little other that I have been able to find, and it rings true. In addition, I went looking for information on him suspecting that he was taken down by a false plot, and then I get his book and that is exactly what he says. So to me, this is an out of sample confirmation of my theory.


Interesting have you found any independent confirmation of his claims? Also you failed to answer my 2nd question:

"How was Ford any more tied to Rockefeller and Bush than most Republicans?"

#10 Mark Gorton

Mark Gorton

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 August 2012 - 02:21 AM

Interesting have you found any independent confirmation of his claims? Also you failed to answer my 2nd question:

"How was Ford any more tied to Rockefeller and Bush than most Republicans?"


Len,

I have not yet found any independent confirmation of Spiro Agnew's claims outside of what he provides in his book. This now gets added to my list of things to try to find. I am afraid that it will take someone really digging into old newspapers and really interviewing people to do this, and I do not have the time to do this. This would be a great research project for someone. I am more of a synthesizer of research that hase been done by other people. Unfortunately, the Spiro Agnew angle has been overlooked by pretty much everyone, so it will take some new research to flesh this area out.

Regarding how Ford, Rockefeller and Bush are linked, it all comes down to the JFK assassination. They are all part of the cabal. Bush was operationally involved in the assassination. I have not yet been able to figure out his exact role, but it is certainly significant. His family had been close to the Rockefellers for generations, his dad was very, very close friends with Allen Dulles. He was Yale, Phi Beta Kappa, Skull and Bones. In a world that valued social ties and accomplishment, he was a prince. There is some evidence pointing to Bush having a very senior role as a planner of the assassination. I need to work to see if there can be found any more confirmation on this.

Rockefeller was happy to support the assassination and probably had prior knowledge and was supportive of killing Kennedy. Ford was one of the main guys covering up the conspiracy on the inside of the Warren Commission. Each of these guys had a lot to lose (their reputations, their careers, their freedom, maybe even their lives) if the truth ever got out. They were all very active in working over the years to keep the truth behind the JFK assassination hidden. The cabal crossed party lines (LBJ was a democrat), but most of the leaders of the cabal were Republicans, and over time, the political force of the cover up got embedded within the Republican party.

In order to understand the network of people working to bring down Nixon, you need to understand who was a member of the cabal that took down JFK. By 1970, practically, the only people allowed in senior roles in the CIA was plotters in the assassination. And the business establishment is tied to these guys. That is part of the reason that Bush and Dulles are such a key figures, they cross both worlds.

Spiro Agnew is a pretty conservative guy. He is a hard liner on Vietnam, etc., etc. If standard, liberal vs. conservative distinctions mattered, he would seem well suited to represent the right wing. But as conservative as Agnew was, he was not part of gang that took down JFK, and thus he could not be counted on to work hard to maintain the cover-up. Not being on the inside, he probably didn't even understand what he was supposed to cover up. And the guys who took down JFK could not afford to take chances, they could not risk a president who decided to do the right thing. They had too much on the line. And they also owe Ford for his good work on the Warren Commission and as a good soldier in congress for the next decade. So giving Ford the presidency is both self serving for the cabal and also a pay off to Ford. And Ford was nice enough to bring along his cabal mate Nelson Rockefeller as his VP.

George H.W. Bush's rise can also be seen in the same terms. Bush is a guy who can't win when he runs for the house and then again the senate. But somehow he keeps getting put forward. There are literally dozens of Republicans who have won races for the house and senate who want to be president and logically should easily blow past Bush in any contest for a senior office. But Bush is on the inside of an incredibly power network of people who need to insure that one of their own gets put forward. So he somehow gets put into job after job without any other plausible explanation.

#11 Mark Gorton

Mark Gorton

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 August 2012 - 02:56 AM

I have always believed that the ultimate decision to kill JFK was made by LBJ who was cunning and smart enough to insulate himself from the actual operation. Howard Hunt, who in his deathbed video revealed that he was a "benchwarmer" in the assassination operation, declared that at the top of the pyramid was LBJ who had an almost maniacal intent to become President.


It does get hard to draw a line between the JFK assassination and Watergate. It is impossible to understand Watergate without understanding the JFK assassination, and the actions of players in Watergate fleshes out and provides confirming information on the JFK assassination.

I was very influenced by E Howard Hunt's deathbed confession. Over time, I have developed a more nuanced view of his confession. Hunt spends decades working to conceal the truth about the JFK assassination. Most of his career is spend spreading lies and disinformation. It seems a bit out of character that he would suddenly lay out the truth. But he is on his deathbed, most all the other guys are dead, so he does have the freedom to talk a bit. He is also being pressed by his son for answers. So he can see why he might tell the truth.

He is my take on E Howard Hunt's confession: Hunt is acting as a good loyal CIA man to the death. What he is trying to do is cover up the roles of Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, Jim Angleton and other possible very senior CIA guys in the conspiracy. He also tries to minimize his own role. He is certainly more than a benchwarmer. Edwardo (his code name) is seen dispensing cash the day before the assassination. They have his picture as one of the tramps. He was a full player.

So what Hunt does is standard CIA operating practice. He does what is called a "limited hangout". First, he confirms a bunch of stuff that people already knew. All the low level/mid level CIA guys that he names had been outed for 25 years. He knows if he denies this stuff, he will appear to be a liar and his confession will be discarded. And he needs to give up a piece of new information. That makes his confession seem real and genuine. So he gives up Cord Meyer. Cord is certainly a senior guy in the assassination. He runs the media cover up side of things which in many ways is larger than the shooting side of things. But Hunt can't plausibly claim that Cord Meyer is behind the assassination. That just does not make sense. So he gives up LBJ and Hoover. They certainly have the clout to pull off a job like the assassination of JFK, and it also happens to be true. They are both long dead, so there is not much harm in naming them.

But naming the chain of command as LBJ -> Cord Meyer, Hunt creates a pseudo-plausible scenario that insulates the highest level players at the CIA. He cuts out Allen Dulles, Jim Angleton, Richard Helms and others. Hunt is a good soldier to the end.

The book LBJ, Mastermind of the JFK Assassination does the best job that I have seen making the case against LBJ. The evidence that LBJ's people were the ones orchestrating the secret service protection pull back is the smoking gun, and there is so, so much more. Of course much of the actual shooting part of the assassination is a CIA operation. However, LBJ is the main and original driver of the assassination. Harry Dean's tale (told on other parts of this forum) points to an assassination attempt in 1962 that was all LBJ (and friends of course) but pre-CIA involvement. Now LBJ could not get the job done without CIA involvement, but it took Dulles getting fired for LBJ to be able to get Dulles on board. And the CIA buy themselves would not account for the right wing Texan oil interests in the assassination. Those are LBJ's buddies.

A combination of LBJ: The mastermind of the JFK assassination along with JFK and the unspeakable gets you 80% of the way to understanding the general outline of the assassination. Robert Morrows essay is the best short summary I have seen. I have quibbles with small parts of it, but for the most part it is right. Enough evidence has now been gathered that it is possible to know with a high degree of certainty what happened. There can be lots of arguments over the roles of individuals, etc. But the main outlines of the assassination can be confirmed from many, many sources.

#12 Rodney Rivers

Rodney Rivers

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 August 2012 - 05:53 PM

Mr.Caddy - thank you for sharing your thoughts on the JFK hit. With your years in government and the big names you were assoicated with, any credible rumors or information that was passed to you that you can share pointing to LBJ?

Mark Gordon - I think you read my mind, I was just about to post something similar as your last post.

-----

When Hunt's confession came out, some questioned if he was being a deceiver down to the end of his life. Cord Meyer was a real shock to the system once he said that name. If you remember, when Cord Meyer's wife was murdered and they asked him who he thought was behind it, he said something to the effect of 'the same bastards that killed John F. Kennedy'. IF you believe Hunt, then why would Meyer take the risk of implicating himself, even if he meant the quote as a diversion, it's still a risk he would not had if he decided just to keep his mouth shut. Also JFK cheating on Meyer's wife and the angle of a vengful husband may have been something Hunt considered would be a good sell.

With all that said, I think I do believe Hunt's overall theory about LBJ. I do believe he was invovled on the higher levels of the conspiracy or knew of it and let it happen since it served his own goals. The Kennedys were definately going to throw LBJ off the 64 ticket and RFK was feeding the Justice Dept. all the dirt on LBJ which may have landed him in jail if JFK wasn't killed.

As for Watergate linked to JFK, I don't know how anyone with a rational mind cannot see the connections, mainly the players being the same people - Hunt, Sturgis, etc.... I guess this team did such a great job in the JFK hit, that they were given 'rock star' status within their own organizations. Who knows what other things they did that we dont know about. In that old boys network, they were probably protected and given carte blance on anything to deal with company standing.

I also agree about Agnew not being part of the inner circle, and I think it's pretty easy to know why - he wasn't WASP enough. In those days, thinking back in the late 60s, early 70s, that was the culture we lived in. The guys running things were the East Coast Establishment WASP families and Agnew just didnt qualify based on his breed of being Greek. I think that is one big reason that he was not in the inner circle.

#13 Mark Gorton

Mark Gorton

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 August 2012 - 03:18 AM

Rodney,

It is interesting to ask how Hunt knew LBJ is at the top of the pyramid. I very much doubt that Hunt ever met with LBJ, at least in the context of talking about the assassination. But Hunt was very close to Allen Dulles. Hunt was the guy who ended up writing Allen Dulles' memoir. So Hunt was in the tight inner circle at the CIA who were part of the assassination team. I think all the real inner guys at the CIA (this had to be 10,20, maybe 40 guys) knew LBJ was involved. They had to know this in order to give themselves the confidence that they would be able to get away with it. I suspect this was not really spoken openly, but they had to know that the cover-up would have major help at the highest levels. The whole Warren Commission is a contingency built into the plot. They had to know. So Hunt giving up LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover is significant. It also makes the CIA seem less like a rogue beast and more part of a larger machine. And that is true too.

#14 Mark Wengler

Mark Wengler

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 226 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:missouri
  • Interests:Here is a small list to many to list in full
    History's Mysteries
    Paranormal
    Political Assassinations
    Clive Cussler
    Elvis Presley
    Enjoyed being part of the Nuclear Freeze Movement

Posted 23 August 2012 - 03:53 PM

I always thought there was a Quid pro quo deal between Nixon and Ford
Nixon would resign making Ford president and Ford in return would Pardon Nixon of all crimes

#15 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 28 October 2012 - 03:05 PM

Mr.Caddy - thank you for sharing your thoughts on the JFK hit. With your years in government and the big names you were assoicated with, any credible rumors or information that was passed to you that you can share pointing to LBJ?

Mark Gordon - I think you read my mind, I was just about to post something similar as your last post.

-----

When Hunt's confession came out, some questioned if he was being a deceiver down to the end of his life. Cord Meyer was a real shock to the system once he said that name. If you remember, when Cord Meyer's wife was murdered and they asked him who he thought was behind it, he said something to the effect of 'the same bastards that killed John F. Kennedy'. IF you believe Hunt, then why would Meyer take the risk of implicating himself, even if he meant the quote as a diversion, it's still a risk he would not had if he decided just to keep his mouth shut. Also JFK cheating on Meyer's wife and the angle of a vengful husband may have been something Hunt considered would be a good sell.

With all that said, I think I do believe Hunt's overall theory about LBJ. I do believe he was invovled on the higher levels of the conspiracy or knew of it and let it happen since it served his own goals. The Kennedys were definately going to throw LBJ off the 64 ticket and RFK was feeding the Justice Dept. all the dirt on LBJ which may have landed him in jail if JFK wasn't killed.

As for Watergate linked to JFK, I don't know how anyone with a rational mind cannot see the connections, mainly the players being the same people - Hunt, Sturgis, etc.... I guess this team did such a great job in the JFK hit, that they were given 'rock star' status within their own organizations. Who knows what other things they did that we dont know about. In that old boys network, they were probably protected and given carte blance on anything to deal with company standing.

I also agree about Agnew not being part of the inner circle, and I think it's pretty easy to know why - he wasn't WASP enough. In those days, thinking back in the late 60s, early 70s, that was the culture we lived in. The guys running things were the East Coast Establishment WASP families and Agnew just didnt qualify based on his breed of being Greek. I think that is one big reason that he was not in the inner circle.


Rodney why do have a photo of Harry Balafonte as your avatar?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users