I propose that we discuss a bit about how totally interrelated Watergate is to 11/22/63, and the resultant "government" we have had since that horrific Friday in Dallas.
I am too busy with work- literally 18 hour days- at the moment to do any more than bring this up as a topic of discussion.
Have much to say, but no time at this moment except to start the thread.
( Oh, I agree with Terry on Ashton's post -(letter to W)- that if we are gonna have this twit Dunne (NOT RCD!!) tho other one) - posting his innane comments to Ashton's serious work, we might as well bring back Tim G. With apology to John here, as I know TG was banned for threats to sue John, so I am agreeing with Terry here in jest. )
FWIW.
Dawn
Full Version: JFK assassination: From Dallas to Watergate
QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Jul 20 2006, 08:34 PM) 
I propose that we discuss a bit about how totally interrelated Watergate is to 11/22/63, and the resultant "government" we have had since that horrific Friday in Dallas.
On "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" comment, I still don't believe that it was some euphimism for the Kennedy assassination, because I don't think Nixon himself ever figured out exactly who did that. If he had, he never would have allowed himself to get set up and cut down the way he was. I think it was Nixon's very pointed commentary about Helms and Hunt (and CIA Deputy Directors Vernon Walters and Robert Cushman) and others at CIA having intentionally sabotaged the Bay of Pigs operation. I don't think there's any question that they did, and since Nixon had been in on the ground floor of its planning, I believe that he was able to see how CIA had sabotaged it. So I believe that when he said "Bay of Pigs," he meant "Bay of Pigs," and Helms knew exactly what Nixon was referring to, which is why Helms went nuclear.
(NOTICE to the first idiot who is tempted to demand that I explain why CIA would sabotage the operation: first you explain to me a rational reason why John Wayne Gacy killed men, then hacked up their dead bodies and buried them under his house. Then I might bother entertaining your nonsense.)
Of course the same CIA crew also was behind the JFK assassination. It's impossible that they weren't involved. It's simply impossible, that's all. Ten seconds of rational thought is all it takes. It also eradicates about 30,000 false trails. (Okay, I haven't counted the false trails. Maybe my estimate is conservative.)
Most of the JFK assassination evaluation I've seen falls short of the Ivy League sophistication of the snakes in Brooks Brothers suits who did JFK. As I posted briefly in the JFK forum recently, Kennedy named the manner of his dying when he stated his intention to "splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."
Dealey plaza is a mockery of a Greek amphitheatre in which they did to him exactly what he had threatened to do to them, and the Greek theatre setting was a visual pun to ridicule his hubris.
This isn't some obsession of mine with imagery and symbolism: it's how these scum think, and it's everywhere throughout their spoor. Wherever you track them you find this same kind of convoluted, perverted, sick, twisted "intellectualism," and you ignore it or miss it at your peril.
I also believe that the kill shot came from the last place in the world anyone ever would suspect, and that they put it in the world's face later that afternoon in the biggest way possible—another part of their modus operandi that they cannot escape. But that's all I'm prepared to say on this at the moment.
And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible.
Ashton Gray
Ashton Gray wrote:
In another thread I quoted an excerpt from Gaeton Fonzi's book The Last Investigation. Fonzi describes his conversation in 1975 with Vincent Salandria:
"Dealey plaza is a mockery of a Greek amphitheatre in which they did to him exactly what he had threatened to do to them, and the Greek theatre setting was a visual pun to ridicule his hubris."
In another thread I quoted an excerpt from Gaeton Fonzi's book The Last Investigation. Fonzi describes his conversation in 1975 with Vincent Salandria:
"I'm afraid we were mislead," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were mislead very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one--not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official--no one can do anything about it.'(Emphasis added) It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.
The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face the fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and eventually, they'll wear you down."
QUOTE (Michael Hogan @ Jul 21 2006, 12:15 AM)
In another thread I quoted an excerpt from Gaeton Fonzi's book The Last Investigation. Fonzi describes his conversation in 1975 with Vincent Salandria:
"I'm afraid we were mislead," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were mislead very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one--not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official--no one can do anything about it.'(Emphasis added) It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.
The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face the fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and eventually, they'll wear you down."
And a magnificent, astute, and prophetic quote it is. Just a brief visit to the JFK forum is grounds for a nap.
With the open admission that I've taken only the most cursory look, I see very little about how Kennedy got located in Dealey Plaza and by whom. I've seen some research analyses of when and how the itenerary and route might have been known and by whom—as in pursuit of a "target of opportunity" approach—but have not seen that string pulled all the way back to the influences that put him there in the first place.
If anyone has any pointers to what exists on that, I'd be grateful.
Ashton
QUOTE (Ashton Gray @ Jul 21 2006, 03:53 AM)
On "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" comment, I still don't believe that it was some euphimism for the Kennedy assassination, because I don't think Nixon himself ever figured out exactly who did that. If he had, he never would have allowed himself to get set up and cut down the way he was.
I think the opposite is true. It was because Richard Nixon knew about the role the CIA played in the assassination of JFK, that he was removed from office. His attempts at blackmail failed because the CIA had more on him than he had on them. That is the same reason why J. Edgar Hoover was never sacked by Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Jul 21 2006, 01:46 AM)
QUOTE (Ashton Gray @ Jul 21 2006, 03:53 AM)
On "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" comment, I still don't believe that it was some euphimism for the Kennedy assassination, because I don't think Nixon himself ever figured out exactly who did that. If he had, he never would have allowed himself to get set up and cut down the way he was.
I think the opposite is true. It was because Richard Nixon knew about the role the CIA played in the assassination of JFK, that he was removed from office. His attempts at blackmail failed because the CIA had more on him than he had on them. That is the same reason why J. Edgar Hoover was never sacked by Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon.
Well, of course it could be, John, but to me it's one of the biggest, fluffiest, pinkest pieces of cotton candy in all of Watergate—and that's a mouthful. (Pun intended. Unfortunately.)
What foundation is there for it? What evidence is there for it? What connections did Nixon have after he lost the election to Kennedy that would have put him in the loop enough to know who did the JFK murder op and any details of it, even if he might have suspected?
On the Bay of Pigs, per se, he unquestionably was in on the ground floor, and knew the whole Intel Cult command structure while he was V.P., so would have certainly had enough information on that to have known where the bodies were buried.
But when it comes to his means of knowing on the JFK assassination, foundation is just flatline as far as I can see.
It's a whole Rube Goldberg contraption of theory built in the air, and even the air it's built on was the breath spent on an off-hand opinion opined by Haldeman, which, as far as I can tell, he pulled out of his nose. Or out of somewhere.
If there's some actual foundation—any foundation—I'm completely open to it. Till then, it seems just an added level of complication to me that, really, goes nowhere. It doesn't resolve anything. It doesn't fit into the picture in any way that makes any sense. In fact, the exact time where it occurs, 23 June 1972, happens to be one of the days that the current article I'm working on in the "CIA Watergate Bait-and-Switch" series covers, and the fact of this being brought up by Haldeman in the meeting with Helms and Walters and Cushman has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what already had been completely set up by the time the meeting happened. It doesn't change anything. It has no effect, except Helms gets to exhibit some of his haughty, arrogant righteous indignation.
I hope you'll read the article when I get it posted (hopefully by the end of this weekend), and see if you can tell me how it had any bearing whatsoever in the ensuing events. I can't. The events had already been set up with the traceable $100 bills linking back to Ogarrio and Dahlberg, plus the planted electronic "evidence," plus the "loaded safe," and the planted links to Hunt and Liddy. Every single one of those traps of the operation was cocked and ready to spring by the time "the whole Bay of Pigs" phrase was mentioned, and it didn't have the slightest influence on the outcome.
All that said, I sure would love to see any evidence or foundation for believing that Nixon had some inside skinny on the Kennedy assassination, or any evidence or foundation for deducing that when he said "goddamn" he meant "bless your heart." I think he meant "goddamn." And I think when he said "Bay of Pigs," he meant "Bay of Pigs."
Ashton
[quote name='Ashton Gray' post='69508' date='Jul 21 2006, 04:53 AM']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='69500' date='Jul 20 2006, 08:34 PM']
I propose that we discuss a bit about how totally interrelated Watergate is to 11/22/63, and the resultant "government" we have had since that horrific Friday in Dallas.[/quote]
On "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" comment, I still don't believe that it was some euphimism for the Kennedy assassination, because I don't think Nixon himself ever figured out exactly who did that. If he had, he never would have allowed himself to get set up and cut down the way he was. I think it was Nixon's very pointed commentary about Helms and Hunt (and CIA Deputy Directors Vernon Walters and Robert Cushman) and others at CIA having intentionally sabotaged the Bay of Pigs operation. I don't think there's any question that they did, and since Nixon had been in on the ground floor of its planning, I believe that he was able to see how CIA had sabotaged it. So I believe that when he said "Bay of Pigs," he meant "Bay of Pigs," and Helms knew exactly what Nixon was referring to, which is why Helms went nuclear.
(NOTICE to the first idiot who is tempted to demand that I explain why CIA would sabotage the operation: first you explain to me a rational reason why John Wayne Gacy killed men, then hacked up their dead bodies and buried them under his house. Then I might bother entertaining your nonsense.)
Of course the same CIA crew also was behind the JFK assassination. It's impossible that they weren't involved. It's simply impossible, that's all. Ten seconds of rational thought is all it takes. It also eradicates about 30,000 false trails. (Okay, I haven't counted the false trails. Maybe my estimate is conservative.)
Most of the JFK assassination evaluation I've seen falls short of the Ivy League sophistication of the snakes in Brooks Brothers suits who did JFK. As I posted briefly in the JFK forum recently, Kennedy named the manner of his dying when he stated his intention to "splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."
Dealey plaza is a mockery of a Greek amphitheatre in which they did to him exactly what he had threatened to do to them, and the Greek theatre setting was a visual pun to ridicule his hubris.
This isn't some obsession of mine with imagery and symbolism: it's how these scum think, and it's everywhere throughout their spoor. Wherever you track them you find this same kind of convoluted, perverted, sick, twisted "intellectualism," and you ignore it or miss it at your peril.
I also believe that the kill shot came from the last place in the world anyone ever would suspect, and that they put it in the world's face later that afternoon in the biggest way possible—another part of their modus operandi that they cannot escape. But that's all I'm prepared to say on this at the moment.
And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible.
Ashton Gray
[/quote]
ohmygod, stop the presses. I agree with 100% of the above post. Someone must have drugged my morning coffee. Or perhaps I am not really yet awake.
I believed at 14 it was LBJ but by the time I was 22 I knew it was CIA. (And by CIA I mean it in the generic sense as there is also DIA and even more secretive "IA's") I believe LBJ was involved, and had pre-knowledge. But when JFK fired Dulles and Cabal and threatened to splinter the CIA "to a thosand winds" he signed his death notice. Viet Nam as motive has been PROVEN, As has been Cuba. That he and Castro were to meet "after a brief trip to Dallas" . This has been established long ago. We even have here on this forum a member who made sure Lisa Howard made those trips to Cuba. Until he's ready to come back and say hello to us I shall not name him. Of course Lisa committed suicide, as usual.
Dawn
[quote name='Michael Hogan' date='Jul 21 2006, 07:15 AM' post='69530']
Ashton Gray wrote:
In another thread I quoted an excerpt from Gaeton Fonzi's book The Last Investigation. Fonzi describes his conversation in 1975 with Vincent Salandria:
[/quote]
Michael:
That is my all time favorite quote on this case. I have copied that page for so many people and I have posted those words here on the forum. I highly recomment this book by the wonderful Gaeton Fonzi. The Last Investigation.
In a recent communication with someone here on the forum I used those last words: "they'll wear you down". Vince Salandria remains the best there is on this case. (Along with others of course, but he's long been a personal favorite of mine as well as a personal friend since 1998. )
Dawn
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='69500' date='Jul 20 2006, 08:34 PM']
I propose that we discuss a bit about how totally interrelated Watergate is to 11/22/63, and the resultant "government" we have had since that horrific Friday in Dallas.[/quote]
On "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" comment, I still don't believe that it was some euphimism for the Kennedy assassination, because I don't think Nixon himself ever figured out exactly who did that. If he had, he never would have allowed himself to get set up and cut down the way he was. I think it was Nixon's very pointed commentary about Helms and Hunt (and CIA Deputy Directors Vernon Walters and Robert Cushman) and others at CIA having intentionally sabotaged the Bay of Pigs operation. I don't think there's any question that they did, and since Nixon had been in on the ground floor of its planning, I believe that he was able to see how CIA had sabotaged it. So I believe that when he said "Bay of Pigs," he meant "Bay of Pigs," and Helms knew exactly what Nixon was referring to, which is why Helms went nuclear.
(NOTICE to the first idiot who is tempted to demand that I explain why CIA would sabotage the operation: first you explain to me a rational reason why John Wayne Gacy killed men, then hacked up their dead bodies and buried them under his house. Then I might bother entertaining your nonsense.)
Of course the same CIA crew also was behind the JFK assassination. It's impossible that they weren't involved. It's simply impossible, that's all. Ten seconds of rational thought is all it takes. It also eradicates about 30,000 false trails. (Okay, I haven't counted the false trails. Maybe my estimate is conservative.)
Most of the JFK assassination evaluation I've seen falls short of the Ivy League sophistication of the snakes in Brooks Brothers suits who did JFK. As I posted briefly in the JFK forum recently, Kennedy named the manner of his dying when he stated his intention to "splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."
Dealey plaza is a mockery of a Greek amphitheatre in which they did to him exactly what he had threatened to do to them, and the Greek theatre setting was a visual pun to ridicule his hubris.
This isn't some obsession of mine with imagery and symbolism: it's how these scum think, and it's everywhere throughout their spoor. Wherever you track them you find this same kind of convoluted, perverted, sick, twisted "intellectualism," and you ignore it or miss it at your peril.
I also believe that the kill shot came from the last place in the world anyone ever would suspect, and that they put it in the world's face later that afternoon in the biggest way possible—another part of their modus operandi that they cannot escape. But that's all I'm prepared to say on this at the moment.
And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible.
Ashton Gray
[/quote]
ohmygod, stop the presses. I agree with 100% of the above post. Someone must have drugged my morning coffee. Or perhaps I am not really yet awake.
I believed at 14 it was LBJ but by the time I was 22 I knew it was CIA. (And by CIA I mean it in the generic sense as there is also DIA and even more secretive "IA's") I believe LBJ was involved, and had pre-knowledge. But when JFK fired Dulles and Cabal and threatened to splinter the CIA "to a thosand winds" he signed his death notice. Viet Nam as motive has been PROVEN, As has been Cuba. That he and Castro were to meet "after a brief trip to Dallas" . This has been established long ago. We even have here on this forum a member who made sure Lisa Howard made those trips to Cuba. Until he's ready to come back and say hello to us I shall not name him. Of course Lisa committed suicide, as usual.
Dawn
[quote name='Michael Hogan' date='Jul 21 2006, 07:15 AM' post='69530']
Ashton Gray wrote:
"Dealey plaza is a mockery of a Greek amphitheatre in which they did to him exactly what he had threatened to do to them, and the Greek theatre setting was a visual pun to ridicule his hubris."
In another thread I quoted an excerpt from Gaeton Fonzi's book The Last Investigation. Fonzi describes his conversation in 1975 with Vincent Salandria:
"I'm afraid we were mislead," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were mislead very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one--not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official--no one can do anything about it.'(Emphasis added) It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.
The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face the fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and eventually, they'll wear you down."
[/quote]
Michael:
That is my all time favorite quote on this case. I have copied that page for so many people and I have posted those words here on the forum. I highly recomment this book by the wonderful Gaeton Fonzi. The Last Investigation.
In a recent communication with someone here on the forum I used those last words: "they'll wear you down". Vince Salandria remains the best there is on this case. (Along with others of course, but he's long been a personal favorite of mine as well as a personal friend since 1998. )
Dawn
QUOTE (Ashton Gray @ Jul 21 2006, 03:53 AM)
(NOTICE to the first idiot who is tempted to demand that I explain why CIA would sabotage the operation: first you explain to me a rational reason why John Wayne Gacy killed men, then hacked up their dead bodies and buried them under his house. Then I might bother entertaining your nonsense.)
John Wayne Gacy was crazy, that's why he did those things.
Psychotic, multiple personalities, consumed with guilt about his homosexuality. John didn't even do the work, his buddy Jack (another personality) did. Check out 'Buried Dreams' by Tim Cahill and Russ Ewing. And he didn't hack them up, he buried them whole after he raped and killed them.
What does that perverted clown have to do with Watergate?
QUOTE (Norman T. Field @ Jul 21 2006, 03:59 PM)
QUOTE (Ashton Gray @ Jul 21 2006, 03:53 AM)
(NOTICE to the first idiot who is tempted to demand that I explain why CIA would sabotage the operation: first you explain to me a rational reason why John Wayne Gacy killed men, then hacked up their dead bodies and buried them under his house. Then I might bother entertaining your nonsense.)
John Wayne Gacy was crazy, that's why he did those things.
Psychotic, multiple personalities, consumed with guilt about his homosexuality. John didn't even do the work, his buddy Jack (another personality) did. Check out 'Buried Dreams' by Tim Cahill and Russ Ewing. And he didn't hack them up, he buried them whole after he raped and killed them.
What does that perverted clown have to do with Watergate?
Forgive my ignorance folks, but I, along with many others, happen to belive that 11/22/73 and 6/17/72 are so inter-related that a person could write several books on this issue alone. In fact a few have already been written. And much has been written here on the forum. John is scanning Carl Oglesby's magnificant Yankee and Cowboy War. I believe there are at least 2 chapters here on the forum (It's sub-titled Conspiracies from Dallas to Watergate.) Altho published in 1976, this book covers the gammit, but is in need of updating. Tim Carroll did an excellent update here on the forum two years ago, and it has been re-posted in the "seminars" portion of the forum. I highly recommend anyone interested in these two events and how they are really one huge event, begin with those two postings: Oglesby and Carroll.
Ashton Gary has also done some very good investigative work on the Watergate issue.
The late, great Mae Brussel was another who did terrific work on these events, and how each leads back to the other.
Of course there are also the books by the Watergate felons themselves, and while these texts are probably of little value, save for entertainment purposes, perhaps a kernal of truth is found in these writings as well.
Gacy was a nut. The people who killed JFK and set-up Tricky Dick for Watergate were/are evil. I happen to believe there is a difference.
Dawn
QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Jul 21 2006, 05:09 PM)
Gacy was a nut. The people who killed JFK and set-up Tricky Dick for Watergate were/are evil. I happen to believe there is a difference.
Dawn
Dawn
Then again, they're wonton murders, they're pathological liars, and they hide what they do in a crawl space of "national security."
Of course, they don't wear clown suits. (Well, actually, sometimes they do.)
Ashton
QUOTE (Ashton Gray @ Jul 21 2006, 07:39 AM)
QUOTE (Michael Hogan @ Jul 21 2006, 12:15 AM)
In another thread I quoted an excerpt from Gaeton Fonzi's book The Last Investigation. Fonzi describes his conversation in 1975 with Vincent Salandria:
"I'm afraid we were mislead," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were mislead very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one--not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official--no one can do anything about it.'(Emphasis added) It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.
The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face the fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and eventually, they'll wear you down."
And a magnificent, astute, and prophetic quote it is. Just a brief visit to the JFK forum is grounds for a nap.
With the open admission that I've taken only the most cursory look, I see very little about how Kennedy got located in Dealey Plaza and by whom. I've seen some research analyses of when and how the itenerary and route might have been known and by whom—as in pursuit of a "target of opportunity" approach—but have not seen that string pulled all the way back to the influences that put him there in the first place.
If anyone has any pointers to what exists on that, I'd be grateful.
Ashton
Yes, those who 'rubbed-out' JFK and our legitimate government with that had the means to kill him silently, quietly or even make it look like an 'accident'. They chose a public display - for the public and, perhaps more, the others in political power to let know who was running the 'show'. Classic 'Mafia' stuff [not saying the Mafia did it - I don't believe that even if a few bit players were connected to them]. The figleaf of normalicy, legitimacy and law, checks and balances, et al were replaced to calm the public afterwards. Why does, for example, Ted Kennedy not do anything or call for an investigation...simple...he wants to live. Same for the others. Johnson, Nixon...the whole bunch, Congress....you name it. We don't have a democracy anymore. The levers [and now the touch screens] on the voting booths/machines don't connect in any real way to anything..they are simply to keep everyone calm and distracted - pacifiers like for a baby. Since Dallas things have only gotten worse. Much worse! But if you have cancer and you don't excise it it usually spreads and then destroys the entire corpus.
Ashton, to answer your question on JFK in DP and the exact route change, as far as I know that is one of the black holes. Prouty always made a big point in my talks with him that things like that were the most important and the magic show of the exact shooters et al. minor compaired to it. The cover-up is IMO the next most important thing and that it clearly continues to this day shows [to me] that the heirs to, and a few older members of the gang are as much in control as they were 11/23/63...in fact more so.
Lastly, that you cringe and withdraw from much on the JFK threads doesn't surprise me. I'm sure thousands who come from the search engines here do also....too much in-fighting; too much battling with the disinformation and disruption agents; too much detailed analysis [though also important] without sometimes stepping back and looking at the larger picture and interconnections; and very inbred.
Nevertheless, all those of good intention here have much work to do....but please keep in mind the need to use the information to make a change in 'things' and not just score points on how many assassins did dance on the head of a pin.
[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jul 21 2006, 04:53 AM' post='69508']
And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible.
Ashton Gray
It's a dirty job Ash but someone had to do it.
"Impossible"? Probably.
John G. I agree with your comment to little boy Dunn
he needs to find a thread where he has some knowledge .
(I know I am mixing and matching threads here- (with apologies) - but just saw your
post on Ashton's letter to WH thread.
Dawn
QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Jul 20 2006, 08:34 PM)
And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible.
Ashton Gray
It's a dirty job Ash but someone had to do it.
"Impossible"? Probably.
John G. I agree with your comment to little boy Dunn
he needs to find a thread where he has some knowledge .
(I know I am mixing and matching threads here- (with apologies) - but just saw your
post on Ashton's letter to WH thread.
Dawn
QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Jul 22 2006, 01:25 AM)
Ashton, to answer your question on JFK in DP and the exact route change, as far as I know that is one of the black holes. Prouty always made a big point in my talks with him that things like that were the most important and the magic show of the exact shooters et al. minor compaired to it.
Prouty spake sooth. If you never get the overview, the details have no form to adhere to, so will stick to anything. With insufficient major pieces, somebody assembles the little pieces to make a gryphon and somebody else assembles the pieces to make a giant rat-like creature with hooves, and somebody else assembles the pieces to make Marilyn Monroe. (In all cases, though, pieces are left out, or non-pieces are postulated in.)
The one question of whether Kennedy had been set up to go to Dallas prior to 14 October 1963 or not is absolutely crucial. Central. Pivotal. That's the tea party with Ruth Hyde Paine and Marina and Linnie Mae Frazier after which Paine does the set-up for Oswald being hired at the TSBD.
If plans for Kennedy to go to Dallas were made prior to 14 October 1963, that's the end of all "lone assassin" theories. Their dust can be put into an urn and scattered at sea, and the JFK Assassination forum will be entirely deloused of that whole faction of disinformation scum.
There also would be some relevance and point of reference to the "route change" that would then fit into a whole.
We'd also then know that the Paine track will connect with the instigators for the Dallas trip somewhere, somehow, and you're on the hot trail. It might even run into Southwestern as yet another CIA front.
Yet I go to look for that one absolutely crucial piece of information about when and by whom the decision to go to Dallas was made or planted, and can't find it anywhere. It's this giant, yawning, gaping Grand Canyon where an eight-lane highway of crucial information should be. But by God there's 40 million man-hours of arguing over crap that can never possibly have any resolution, specifically because it was set up just that way.
It's Bedlam, just like Watergate was before somebody did an actual timeline of it—only exponentially worse in the JFK assassination case.
I'm willing to bet the farm that the answer to my question can be found in the available literature somewhere, but I'll also predict that the date has been heavily obfuscated, since this is another primary psy-op tool (which I can't believe I left out of the article I did on those techniques, and which I am going to correct).
For any worthwhile timeline to be done where CIA has been involved, it always is necessary to compute important dates that they want hidden, and the computation inevitably can be done from clues that inevitably are in the record, but it takes one hell of a lot of work. That's because it's almost always in terms of "several months earlier" or "in early 1962" or some other vague, obscure time reference. That's why multiple sources are vitally important, because by putting multiple accounts of the same event into one timeline, however imprecisely to begin with, they ultimately nudge each other into line, and—when placed against known time-located events—ultimately can be clicked into place, even when there's been a lot of effort expended to keep the dates as hazy as possible.
I touched on this in the CIA Psy-Ops article when I said that timelines are "the single most neglected and misused tool of investigative research." The entire subject really could have a whole book devoted to it, but I'll just say here that from my observation one of the biggest failures people make is to fail to compute omitted or vague dates as accurately as possible, and then to use multiple sources to continue to narrow the dates (and in some cases even time of day) of those events down as precisely as possible.
QUOTE
The cover-up is IMO the next most important thing and that is clearly continues to this day shows [to me] that the heirs to, and a few older members of the gang are as much in control as they were 11/23/63...in fact more so.
Ayup.
QUOTE
Lastly, that you cringe and withdraw from much on the JFK threads doesn't surprise me. I'm sure thousands who come from the search engines here do also....too much in-fighting; too much battling with the disinformation and disruption agents; too much detailed analysis [though also important] without sometimes stepping back and looking at the larger picture and interconnections; and very inbred.
Nevertheless, all those of good intention here have much work to do....but please keep in mind the need to use the information to make a change in 'things' and not just score points on how many assassins did dance on the head of a pin.
Nevertheless, all those of good intention here have much work to do....but please keep in mind the need to use the information to make a change in 'things' and not just score points on how many assassins did dance on the head of a pin.
If anything I've said has seemed to be any kind of gratuitous criticism of the many fine people and the enormous and admirable industry that has been honorably and selflessly devoted to unraveling the great mystery of Dealey Plaza, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. I'm simply focusing my efforts and attention elsewhere at the moment, and am not ready to launch into the JFK assassination.
The JFK forum is invaluable. So are all the other sites and forums carrying all that data. Every bit of it is important.
As with any body of data, though, when it all is equally important, then it's a land fill. That's the definition of "land fill": everything in it has the same importance.
A prime example is the exchange I've had with John Simkin in this very thread about this "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" quote from Nixon. It's achieved blimp-sized stature in the annals of Watergate, while the fact that the "first break-in" was nothing but a massive CIA hoax gets completly missed for 34 years.
Every Watergate researcher without exception has tripped over the inconsistencies in this "first break-in" hoax and fallen flat on his face, then gotten back up and gone on chasing colorful blimps without bothering to see what he tripped over.
And from my evaluation, Nixon's blimp-sized comment is nothing but hot air. It wouldn't have mattered if he'd been referring to a secret NASA mission to Uranus. Once it's timelined it becomes glaringly obvious that it was so far into the whole CIA operation that no matter what he'd been referring to, it was the equivalent of putting a penny on the tracks trying to stop a freight train.
To switch analogies, by the time Nixon uttered that banality, the gallows had been built long since by CIA, and Nixon was standing on the trap door with his neck in the noose and the hood over his head, and he didn't even know it. All that remained was for CIA to do was pull the lever. Then haul him back up, reset the trap door, and pull the lever again. Then haul him back up, reset the trap door, and pull the lever again. Which they did, repeatedly. John Dean was Lord High Executioner, and L. Patrick Gray his assistant. Hunt was the obligatory witness-to-execution, having built the gallows.
The point to this harrangue is simply that no matter how large an ocean of data is available, it doesn't, and can't, assume its rightful value until that data has been carefully organized and evaluated and sorted for proper sequence and importance. Getting it into proper sequence is a primary step, and that, alone, usually sorts out at least the paramount importances. The others sift down into line then.
I told John Simkin weeks ago my very strong opinion that no new analysis ever would emerge from the Kennedy assassination evidence until it has been meticulously timelined, as Watergate has been. If and when it is, just such grossly misplaced and misaligned importances will right themselves. Also, glaring vital omissions and undetermined or incorrect sequences like the "Dallas trip planned vs. Oswald hiring at TSBD" will light up like a winning Vegas dollar slot.
I never heard anything back. I stand by that opinion.
And now I've used up my entire week's posting quota.
Sorry for the unsolicited essay, but all these things go to the very heart of the matter from my view.
Ashton
[color=#000066][quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jul 22 2006, 07:09 PM' post='69792']
[quote name='Peter Lemkin' post='69711' date='Jul 22 2006, 01:25 AM']Ashton, to answer your question on JFK in DP and the exact route change, as far as I know that is one of the black holes. Prouty always made a big point in my talks with him that things like that were the most important and the magic show of the exact shooters et al. minor compaired to it.[/quote]
,
The one question of whether Kennedy had been set up to go to Dallas prior to 14 October 1963 or not is absolutely crucial. Central. Pivotal. That's the tea party with Ruth Hyde Paine and Marina and Linnie Mae Frazier after which Paine does the set-up for Oswald being hired at the TSBD.
If plans for Kennedy to go to Dallas were made prior to 14 October 1963, that's the end of all "lone assassin" theories. Their dust can be put into an urn and scattered at sea, and the JFK Assassination forum will be entirely deloused of that whole faction of disinformation scum.[/color]
Plans were definately made prior to 14 October. I will try to locate the exact cite later today. It originated with Connolly, and LBJ who stated that Jack needed to drum up some support in TX. Adlai Stevenson had been to Dallas prior to October and saw that it was far from friendly and strongly urged JFK to abandon this trip to Dallas.
Indeed that morning -11/22/63- Wanted for Treason signs were being passed out. Nellie Connally's last word's prior to the first shot-"Well you can't say Dallas doesn't love you" have always seemed very creepy to me. Like she knew. I know that sounds overly paranoid, that coincidences do occur, but the timing was very weird.
In Blood Money and Power, How LBJ Killed JFk, Barr McClellan writes:
"ON June 5th , 1963 Kennedy Johnson and Connolly met in El Passa Texas and agreed the Texas trip whould be in the fall...to raise money for the 1964 election (p 183) ...the details for the Texas trip were announced November 3" (p 189) including trips to Fort Worth, Dallas and Austin.
We'd also then know that the Paine track will connect with the instigators for the Dallas trip somewhere, somehow, and you're on the hot trail. It might even run into Southwestern as yet another CIA front.
Many have long considered the Paines "help" to both Lee (job at TSBD) and Marina overtly suspicious. Ruth and Michael Paine's CIA ties made for a most strange and intriuging " friendship" to the young couple.
Attorney Craig Zirbel, writing in The Texas Connection states: "On April 23, 1963 Johnson announced that the Presidnet would visit in the near future. Less than 45 days after this announcement the basic outline for a November trip to Texas was agreed upon in a private meeting between Kennedy, Johnson and Connolly at the Cortez Hotal in Texas" (p 185) (There is no cite for this quote however, a problem overall for much of this book, published in 1991)
Dawn
[quote name='Peter Lemkin' post='69711' date='Jul 22 2006, 01:25 AM']Ashton, to answer your question on JFK in DP and the exact route change, as far as I know that is one of the black holes. Prouty always made a big point in my talks with him that things like that were the most important and the magic show of the exact shooters et al. minor compaired to it.[/quote]
,
The one question of whether Kennedy had been set up to go to Dallas prior to 14 October 1963 or not is absolutely crucial. Central. Pivotal. That's the tea party with Ruth Hyde Paine and Marina and Linnie Mae Frazier after which Paine does the set-up for Oswald being hired at the TSBD.
If plans for Kennedy to go to Dallas were made prior to 14 October 1963, that's the end of all "lone assassin" theories. Their dust can be put into an urn and scattered at sea, and the JFK Assassination forum will be entirely deloused of that whole faction of disinformation scum.[/color]
Plans were definately made prior to 14 October. I will try to locate the exact cite later today. It originated with Connolly, and LBJ who stated that Jack needed to drum up some support in TX. Adlai Stevenson had been to Dallas prior to October and saw that it was far from friendly and strongly urged JFK to abandon this trip to Dallas.
Indeed that morning -11/22/63- Wanted for Treason signs were being passed out. Nellie Connally's last word's prior to the first shot-"Well you can't say Dallas doesn't love you" have always seemed very creepy to me. Like she knew. I know that sounds overly paranoid, that coincidences do occur, but the timing was very weird.
In Blood Money and Power, How LBJ Killed JFk, Barr McClellan writes:
"ON June 5th , 1963 Kennedy Johnson and Connolly met in El Passa Texas and agreed the Texas trip whould be in the fall...to raise money for the 1964 election (p 183) ...the details for the Texas trip were announced November 3" (p 189) including trips to Fort Worth, Dallas and Austin.
We'd also then know that the Paine track will connect with the instigators for the Dallas trip somewhere, somehow, and you're on the hot trail. It might even run into Southwestern as yet another CIA front.
Many have long considered the Paines "help" to both Lee (job at TSBD) and Marina overtly suspicious. Ruth and Michael Paine's CIA ties made for a most strange and intriuging " friendship" to the young couple.
Attorney Craig Zirbel, writing in The Texas Connection states: "On April 23, 1963 Johnson announced that the Presidnet would visit in the near future. Less than 45 days after this announcement the basic outline for a November trip to Texas was agreed upon in a private meeting between Kennedy, Johnson and Connolly at the Cortez Hotal in Texas" (p 185) (There is no cite for this quote however, a problem overall for much of this book, published in 1991)
Dawn
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Jul 22 2006, 03:34 PM' post='69759']
[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jul 21 2006, 04:53 AM' post='69508']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='69500' date='Jul 20 2006, 08:34 PM']
And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible.
Ashton Gray
[/quote]
Ashton. I expect that by 11/22/06 you will have solved this case. That's an order)
Best of luck with all your projects, here in cyberspace and in real life.
Dawn
[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jul 21 2006, 04:53 AM' post='69508']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='69500' date='Jul 20 2006, 08:34 PM']
And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible.
Ashton Gray
[/quote]
Ashton. I expect that by 11/22/06 you will have solved this case. That's an order
)Best of luck with all your projects, here in cyberspace and in real life.
Dawn
QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Jul 22 2006, 02:34 PM)
[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jul 21 2006, 04:53 AM' post='69508']
And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible. :rolleyes:
Ashton Gray
It's a dirty job Ash but someone had to do it. :)
"Impossible"? Probably. :)
John G. I agree with your comment to little boy Dunn
he needs to find a thread where he has some knowledge .
(I know I am mixing and matching threads here- (with apologies) - but just saw your
post on Ashton's letter to WH thread.
Dawn
QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Jul 20 2006, 08:34 PM)
And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible. :rolleyes:
Ashton Gray
It's a dirty job Ash but someone had to do it. :)
"Impossible"? Probably. :)
John G. I agree with your comment to little boy Dunn
he needs to find a thread where he has some knowledge .
(I know I am mixing and matching threads here- (with apologies) - but just saw your
post on Ashton's letter to WH thread.
Dawn
____________________________
Thanks Dawn,
Peter is quite eloquent and quite correct (I'm one of the offenders): "I'm sure thousands who come from the search engines here do also....too much in-fighting; too much battling with the disinformation and disruption agents; too much detailed analysis [though also important] without sometimes stepping back and looking at the larger picture and interconnections; and very inbred."
Yeah, the word internecine comes to mind, n'est ce pas (a few others, I'm sure)?
I'm turning over a new leaf...I won't even respond to the name callers who resent so much when one offers a different perspective.
JG
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Aug 3 2006, 12:12 PM' post='71230']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Jul 22 2006, 03:34 PM' post='69759']
[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jul 21 2006, 04:53 AM' post='69508']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='69500' date='Jul 20 2006, 08:34 PM']
And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible. :rolleyes:
Ashton Gray
[/quote]
Ashton. I expect that by 11/22/06 you will have solved this case. That's an order :))
Best of luck with all your projects, here in cyberspace and in real life.
Dawn
[/quote]
_____________________________
Not without me he won't...Oh, I'm quite serious.
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Jul 22 2006, 03:34 PM' post='69759']
[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jul 21 2006, 04:53 AM' post='69508']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='69500' date='Jul 20 2006, 08:34 PM']
And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible. :rolleyes:
Ashton Gray
[/quote]
Ashton. I expect that by 11/22/06 you will have solved this case. That's an order :))
Best of luck with all your projects, here in cyberspace and in real life.
Dawn
[/quote]
_____________________________
Not without me he won't...Oh, I'm quite serious.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I'd like to share something. I gave Bob Bennett (now senator of Utah) and Bob Woodward an article to respond to. It forwarded my theory that Bob Bennett was Deep Throat.
There was no reaction. Within 2 weeks the "Mark Felt = Deep Throat story" broke.
What are 2 weeks on 32 years? Well, I guess it's one of those coincidences.
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/bennett.htm
Wim
I'd like to share something. I gave Bob Bennett (now senator of Utah) and Bob Woodward an article to respond to. It forwarded my theory that Bob Bennett was Deep Throat.
There was no reaction. Within 2 weeks the "Mark Felt = Deep Throat story" broke.
What are 2 weeks on 32 years? Well, I guess it's one of those coincidences.
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/bennett.htm
Wim
QUOTE (Wim Dankbaar @ Sep 13 2006, 06:43 PM)
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I'd like to share something. I gave Bob Bennett (now senator of Utah) and Bob Woodward an article to respond to. It forwarded my theory that Bob Bennett was Deep Throat.
There was no reaction. Within 2 weeks the "Mark Felt = Deep Throat story" broke.
What are 2 weeks on 32 years? Well, I guess it's one of those coincidences.
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/bennett.htm
Wim
I'd like to share something. I gave Bob Bennett (now senator of Utah) and Bob Woodward an article to respond to. It forwarded my theory that Bob Bennett was Deep Throat.
There was no reaction. Within 2 weeks the "Mark Felt = Deep Throat story" broke.
What are 2 weeks on 32 years? Well, I guess it's one of those coincidences.
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/bennett.htm
Wim
Wim:
Very interesting. Many of us have long thought that- if there actually was a "deep throat"- it was Bennett.
Dawn
QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Jul 21 2006, 11:09 PM)
...I highly recommend anyone interested in these two events and how they are really one huge event, begin with those two postings: Oglesby and Carroll.
Ashton Gary has also done some very good investigative work on the Watergate issue.
...
Ashton Gary has also done some very good investigative work on the Watergate issue.
...
Unfortunately it looks like all of Carroll's posts have been deleted. And I didn't find any seminars or watergate related material Oglesby. Disappointing 'cause I'm extremely interested in the Kennedy assassination-Watergate tie in. So if you have resources to point to--books, articles, posts--that'd be great.
QUOTE (Myra Bronstein @ Nov 14 2006, 07:05 AM)
QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Jul 21 2006, 11:09 PM)
...I highly recommend anyone interested in these two events and how they are really one huge event, begin with those two postings: Oglesby and Carroll.
Ashton Gary has also done some very good investigative work on the Watergate issue.
...
Unfortunately it looks like all of Carroll's posts have been deleted. And I didn't find any seminars or watergate related material Oglesby. Disappointing 'cause I'm extremely interested in the Kennedy assassination-Watergate tie in. So if you have resources to point to--books, articles, posts--that'd be great.
Myra,
John has begun scanning Carl Oglesby's book The Yankee and Cowboy War. It's on the jfk assassination debate part of the forum. He started this over July 4th and is up to I believe chapter 4-5 now. YOu will have to page forward to find it. Carl steadfastly refuses to get online so is not able to join us here.
I do have some fantastic news about him tho: his SDS book that he worked on for the last 17 or so years is going to be published by Simon and Shuster (sp?).
Did not know Tim's stuff had been deleted again. That's really too bad.
Dawn
ps Myra: If you have the next week free - (: - I suggest you read all of Aston Gray's posts from this past summer. Great stuff.
QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Nov 14 2006, 02:49 PM)
QUOTE (Myra Bronstein @ Nov 14 2006, 07:05 AM)
QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Jul 21 2006, 11:09 PM)
...I highly recommend anyone interested in these two events and how they are really one huge event, begin with those two postings: Oglesby and Carroll.
Ashton Gary has also done some very good investigative work on the Watergate issue.
...
Unfortunately it looks like all of Carroll's posts have been deleted. And I didn't find any seminars or watergate related material Oglesby. Disappointing 'cause I'm extremely interested in the Kennedy assassination-Watergate tie in. So if you have resources to point to--books, articles, posts--that'd be great.
Myra,
John has begun scanning Carl Oglesby's book The Yankee and Cowboy War. It's on the jfk assassination debate part of the forum. He started this over July 4th and is up to I believe chapter 4-5 now. YOu will have to page forward to find it. Carl steadfastly refuses to get online so is not able to join us here.
I do have some fantastic news about him tho: his SDS book that he worked on for the last 17 or so years is going to be published by Simon and Shuster (sp?).
Did not know Tim's stuff had been deleted again. That's really too bad.
Dawn
ps Myra: If you have the next week free - (: - I suggest you read all of Aston Gray's posts from this past summer. Great stuff.
Thank you Dawn. I've just started reading Oglesby's stuff now that you kicked it to the surface. I was only looking in the Seminar section.
What's "SDS"? Regardless, if a major publisher will finally print something besides the myth, and authors don't have to go thru what Mark Lane went thru, thats great.
Re: Ashton Gray's posts, I've read quite a few. And I'm not very knowledgable about Watergate, tho' I want to remedy that, in particular how it relates to President Kennedy's murder. And from what little I do know I believe they were closely related. So I'm surprised to see him say that the Bay of Pigs was just the Bay of Pigs (and a cigar is just a cigar) in Nixon-speak, and that Nixon had no hand in JFK's death. (I hope I'm not misrepresenting his opinions.) I'll read more (uh, maybe not for a solid week
, but so far I'm leaning in the opposite from Ashton direction.
Hello, Ms. Bronstein.
Careful, now; I fear you may be drifting somewhat toward the Ashton direction. Better furl the jib and trim the sheets.
Oh, dear me. I'm a bit surprised myself to see you have "read quite a few" of my posts, then have elected to make an issue of a mere opinion I expressed concerning a very smoky opinion issued by H.R. Haldeman years after the fact—and have done so to the complete exclusion of a mini-encyclopedia of exhaustively researched solid and incontrovertible facts that I have posted.
With all due respect, from where I sit this is somewhat on the order of razing the cornfield to find a weed.
Now that you've found one, though, I'm happy to pull at it with you. I'd be very entertained to hear not only the foundation, but the relevance—to you—for divining what Nixon meant when he said "the whole Bay of Pigs thing."
And I'll even start the pulling: I for one think "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" goes much, much deeper than thee or we currently know, and by "Bay of Pigs," I mean as the Bay of Pigs, of the Bay of Pigs, and for the Bay of Pigs. Amen. And I have very solid foundation, indeed, for not just believing, but knowing damned well, that Nixon was dead center in the initial planning of the Bay of Pigs—literally. In fact, where I've discussed this before, I've documented that fact, including Nixon's liaison with the CIA factions who engineered that infamous international fiasco—a few things you omitted in your maize-razing and weed-pulling.
In the same post I very overtly and decisively drew the connection from Bay of Pigs straight through the Kennedy assassination to Watergate, and I invite your attention to that post in a topic I started: Nixon, Cushman, Hunt and the Bay of Pigs
Then I would be absolutely enthralled to hear from you what Nixon "really meant" when he mouthed the words "Bay of Pigs," and to learn your sources and foundation (hoping dearly that it eschews tea leaves, telepathy, or embarrassing references to "body language").
The administrators thoughtfully have provided a search function and quoting capabilities. The use of them in tandem will completely obviate the possibility of such misrepresentation. Perhaps you would be kind enough to use them and quote what you're referring to in some semblance of context.
Well, now, I sure never said a cigar is just a cigar. Monica Lewinsky settled that question once and for all.
Pleasure to make your acquaintance.
Ashton
QUOTE (Myra Bronstein @ Nov 14 2006, 09:46 PM)
Re: Ashton Gray's posts, I've read quite a few. And I'm not very knowledgable about Watergate, tho' I want to remedy that, in particular how it relates to President Kennedy's murder. And from what little I do know I believe they were closely related.
Careful, now; I fear you may be drifting somewhat toward the Ashton direction. Better furl the jib and trim the sheets.
QUOTE
So I'm surprised to see him say that the Bay of Pigs was just the Bay of Pigs (and a cigar is just a cigar) in Nixon-speak...
Oh, dear me. I'm a bit surprised myself to see you have "read quite a few" of my posts, then have elected to make an issue of a mere opinion I expressed concerning a very smoky opinion issued by H.R. Haldeman years after the fact—and have done so to the complete exclusion of a mini-encyclopedia of exhaustively researched solid and incontrovertible facts that I have posted.
With all due respect, from where I sit this is somewhat on the order of razing the cornfield to find a weed.
Now that you've found one, though, I'm happy to pull at it with you. I'd be very entertained to hear not only the foundation, but the relevance—to you—for divining what Nixon meant when he said "the whole Bay of Pigs thing."
And I'll even start the pulling: I for one think "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" goes much, much deeper than thee or we currently know, and by "Bay of Pigs," I mean as the Bay of Pigs, of the Bay of Pigs, and for the Bay of Pigs. Amen. And I have very solid foundation, indeed, for not just believing, but knowing damned well, that Nixon was dead center in the initial planning of the Bay of Pigs—literally. In fact, where I've discussed this before, I've documented that fact, including Nixon's liaison with the CIA factions who engineered that infamous international fiasco—a few things you omitted in your maize-razing and weed-pulling.
In the same post I very overtly and decisively drew the connection from Bay of Pigs straight through the Kennedy assassination to Watergate, and I invite your attention to that post in a topic I started: Nixon, Cushman, Hunt and the Bay of Pigs
Then I would be absolutely enthralled to hear from you what Nixon "really meant" when he mouthed the words "Bay of Pigs," and to learn your sources and foundation (hoping dearly that it eschews tea leaves, telepathy, or embarrassing references to "body language").
QUOTE
...and that Nixon had no hand in JFK's death. (I hope I'm not misrepresenting his opinions.)
The administrators thoughtfully have provided a search function and quoting capabilities. The use of them in tandem will completely obviate the possibility of such misrepresentation. Perhaps you would be kind enough to use them and quote what you're referring to in some semblance of context.
QUOTE
so far I'm leaning in the opposite from Ashton direction.
Well, now, I sure never said a cigar is just a cigar. Monica Lewinsky settled that question once and for all.
Pleasure to make your acquaintance.
Ashton
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 15 2006, 05:46 AM' post='81197']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='81126' date='Nov 14 2006, 02:49 PM']
]
Thank you Dawn. I've just started reading Oglesby's stuff now that you kicked it to the surface. I was only looking in the Seminar section.
What's "SDS"?
Myra:
SDS stands for Students for a Democratic Society. Carl was its first national president. It was the student anti Viet Nam group. When they turned violent and became the Weathermen Carl, to his everlasting credit, left.
Dawn
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='81126' date='Nov 14 2006, 02:49 PM']
]
Thank you Dawn. I've just started reading Oglesby's stuff now that you kicked it to the surface. I was only looking in the Seminar section.
What's "SDS"?
Myra:
SDS stands for Students for a Democratic Society. Carl was its first national president. It was the student anti Viet Nam group. When they turned violent and became the Weathermen Carl, to his everlasting credit, left.
Dawn
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 16 2006, 02:11 PM' post='81290']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 15 2006, 05:46 AM' post='81197']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='81126' date='Nov 14 2006, 02:49 PM']
]
Thank you Dawn. I've just started reading Oglesby's stuff now that you kicked it to the surface. I was only looking in the Seminar section.
What's "SDS"?
Myra:
SDS stands for Students for a Democratic Society. Carl was its first national president. It was the student anti Viet Nam group. When they turned violent and became the Weathermen Carl, to his everlasting credit, left.
Dawn
[/quote]
Thanks very much Dawn. Wonder if the SDS was Operation CHAOSed. Wasn't that Johnson's baby? Friggen thug.
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 15 2006, 05:46 AM' post='81197']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='81126' date='Nov 14 2006, 02:49 PM']
]
Thank you Dawn. I've just started reading Oglesby's stuff now that you kicked it to the surface. I was only looking in the Seminar section.
What's "SDS"?
Myra:
SDS stands for Students for a Democratic Society. Carl was its first national president. It was the student anti Viet Nam group. When they turned violent and became the Weathermen Carl, to his everlasting credit, left.
Dawn
[/quote]
Thanks very much Dawn. Wonder if the SDS was Operation CHAOSed. Wasn't that Johnson's baby? Friggen thug.
QUOTE (Ashton Gray @ Nov 15 2006, 09:34 AM)
Hello, Ms. Bronstein.
Careful, now; I fear you may be drifting somewhat toward the Ashton direction. Better furl the jib and trim the sheets.
Oh, dear me. I'm a bit surprised myself to see you have "read quite a few" of my posts, then have elected to make an issue of a mere opinion I expressed concerning a very smoky opinion issued by H.R. Haldeman years after the fact—and have done so to the complete exclusion of a mini-encyclopedia of exhaustively researched solid and incontrovertible facts that I have posted.
With all due respect, from where I sit this is somewhat on the order of razing the cornfield to find a weed.
QUOTE (Myra Bronstein @ Nov 14 2006, 09:46 PM)
Re: Ashton Gray's posts, I've read quite a few. And I'm not very knowledgable about Watergate, tho' I want to remedy that, in particular how it relates to President Kennedy's murder. And from what little I do know I believe they were closely related.
Careful, now; I fear you may be drifting somewhat toward the Ashton direction. Better furl the jib and trim the sheets.
QUOTE
So I'm surprised to see him say that the Bay of Pigs was just the Bay of Pigs (and a cigar is just a cigar) in Nixon-speak...
Oh, dear me. I'm a bit surprised myself to see you have "read quite a few" of my posts, then have elected to make an issue of a mere opinion I expressed concerning a very smoky opinion issued by H.R. Haldeman years after the fact—and have done so to the complete exclusion of a mini-encyclopedia of exhaustively researched solid and incontrovertible facts that I have posted.
With all due respect, from where I sit this is somewhat on the order of razing the cornfield to find a weed.
Glad to hear that...Mr. Gray. I will read more of your writings on the subject of Watergate. It's critical to establish what that was all about in order to turn on the light for 'Merkans in general.
QUOTE (Ashton Gray @ Nov 15 2006, 09:34 AM)
Now that you've found one, though, I'm happy to pull at it with you. I'd be very entertained to hear not only the foundation, but the relevance—to you—for divining what Nixon meant when he said "the whole Bay of Pigs thing."
And I'll even start the pulling: I for one think "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" goes much, much deeper than thee or we currently know, and by "Bay of Pigs," I mean as the Bay of Pigs, of the Bay of Pigs, and for the Bay of Pigs. Amen. And I have very solid foundation, indeed, for not just believing, but knowing damned well, that Nixon was dead center in the initial planning of the Bay of Pigs—literally. In fact, where I've discussed this before, I've documented that fact, including Nixon's liaison with the CIA factions who engineered that infamous international fiasco—a few things you omitted in your maize-razing and weed-pulling.
In the same post I very overtly and decisively drew the connection from Bay of Pigs straight through the Kennedy assassination to Watergate, and I invite your attention to that post in a topic I started: Nixon, Cushman, Hunt and the Bay of Pigs
And I'll even start the pulling: I for one think "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" goes much, much deeper than thee or we currently know, and by "Bay of Pigs," I mean as the Bay of Pigs, of the Bay of Pigs, and for the Bay of Pigs. Amen. And I have very solid foundation, indeed, for not just believing, but knowing damned well, that Nixon was dead center in the initial planning of the Bay of Pigs—literally. In fact, where I've discussed this before, I've documented that fact, including Nixon's liaison with the CIA factions who engineered that infamous international fiasco—a few things you omitted in your maize-razing and weed-pulling.
In the same post I very overtly and decisively drew the connection from Bay of Pigs straight through the Kennedy assassination to Watergate, and I invite your attention to that post in a topic I started: Nixon, Cushman, Hunt and the Bay of Pigs
Thanks for the URL; I'll read it much more thoroughly.
QUOTE (Ashton Gray @ Nov 15 2006, 09:34 AM)
Then I would be absolutely enthralled to hear from you what Nixon "really meant" when he mouthed the words "Bay of Pigs," and to learn your sources and foundation (hoping dearly that it eschews tea leaves, telepathy, or embarrassing references to "body language").
The administrators thoughtfully have provided a search function and quoting capabilities. The use of them in tandem will completely obviate the possibility of such misrepresentation. Perhaps you would be kind enough to use them and quote what you're referring to in some semblance of context.
Well, now, I sure never said a cigar is just a cigar. Monica Lewinsky settled that question once and for all.
Pleasure to make your acquaintance.
QUOTE
...and that Nixon had no hand in JFK's death. (I hope I'm not misrepresenting his opinions.)
The administrators thoughtfully have provided a search function and quoting capabilities. The use of them in tandem will completely obviate the possibility of such misrepresentation. Perhaps you would be kind enough to use them and quote what you're referring to in some semblance of context.
QUOTE
so far I'm leaning in the opposite from Ashton direction.
Well, now, I sure never said a cigar is just a cigar. Monica Lewinsky settled that question once and for all.
Pleasure to make your acquaintance.
Likewise fer sure.
I'm much less flowery in my prose.
Hope that's not offputting for an articulate gentleman such as yourself.QUOTE (Ashton Gray @ Nov 15 2006, 09:34 AM)
Ashton
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 20 2006, 02:10 AM' post='81720']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 16 2006, 02:11 PM' post='81290']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 15 2006, 05:46 AM' post='81197']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='81126' date='Nov 14 2006, 02:49 PM']
]
Thank you Dawn. I've just started reading Oglesby's stuff now that you kicked it to the surface. I was only looking in the Seminar section.
What's "SDS"?
Myra:
SDS stands for Students for a Democratic Society. Carl was its first national president. It was the student anti Viet Nam group. When they turned violent and became the Weathermen Carl, to his everlasting credit, left.
Dawn
[/quote]
Thanks very much Dawn. Wonder if the SDS was Operation CHAOSed. Wasn't that Johnson's baby? Friggen thug.
[/quote]
Ya they were definately inflitrated, in fact Carl believes that the violence was a result of this infiltration. Works all the time. The scum.
BTW, I checked on the seminars page and Tim Carroll's paper is still there. You just have to page thru to get it. I advanced it for you a couple of days ago.
Dawn
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 16 2006, 02:11 PM' post='81290']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 15 2006, 05:46 AM' post='81197']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='81126' date='Nov 14 2006, 02:49 PM']
]
Thank you Dawn. I've just started reading Oglesby's stuff now that you kicked it to the surface. I was only looking in the Seminar section.
What's "SDS"?
Myra:
SDS stands for Students for a Democratic Society. Carl was its first national president. It was the student anti Viet Nam group. When they turned violent and became the Weathermen Carl, to his everlasting credit, left.
Dawn
[/quote]
Thanks very much Dawn. Wonder if the SDS was Operation CHAOSed. Wasn't that Johnson's baby? Friggen thug.
[/quote]
Ya they were definately inflitrated, in fact Carl believes that the violence was a result of this infiltration. Works all the time. The scum.
BTW, I checked on the seminars page and Tim Carroll's paper is still there. You just have to page thru to get it. I advanced it for you a couple of days ago.
Dawn
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 20 2006, 03:30 PM' post='81804']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 20 2006, 02:10 AM' post='81720']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 16 2006, 02:11 PM' post='81290']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 15 2006, 05:46 AM' post='81197']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='81126' date='Nov 14 2006, 02:49 PM']
]
Thank you Dawn. I've just started reading Oglesby's stuff now that you kicked it to the surface. I was only looking in the Seminar section.
What's "SDS"?
Myra:
SDS stands for Students for a Democratic Society. Carl was its first national president. It was the student anti Viet Nam group. When they turned violent and became the Weathermen Carl, to his everlasting credit, left.
Dawn
[/quote]
Thanks very much Dawn. Wonder if the SDS was Operation CHAOSed. Wasn't that Johnson's baby? Friggen thug.
[/quote]
Ya they were definately inflitrated, in fact Carl believes that the violence was a result of this infiltration. Works all the time. The scum.
BTW, I checked on the seminars page and Tim Carroll's paper is still there. You just have to page thru to get it. I advanced it for you a couple of days ago.
Dawn
[/quote]
I saw the Carroll material you kicked up Dawn, thank you.
Hey, interesting that you mention SDS. I just read this:
"The voices the Kennedys symbolized are now squelched. Collier and Horowitz are intent on never letting the ghost of the sixties reappear. The poor, the weak, minorities, and the left’s intelligentsia must not be unsheathed again. (As Todd Gitlin notes in his book The Sixties, on occasion, the Kennedy administration actually had SDS members in the White House to discuss foreign policy issues.)"
http://www.copi.com/articles/probe/pr1197_jfk.html
Amazing. We could have had great leaders. 'Cept the CIA didn't want us to.
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 20 2006, 02:10 AM' post='81720']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 16 2006, 02:11 PM' post='81290']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 15 2006, 05:46 AM' post='81197']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='81126' date='Nov 14 2006, 02:49 PM']
]
Thank you Dawn. I've just started reading Oglesby's stuff now that you kicked it to the surface. I was only looking in the Seminar section.
What's "SDS"?
Myra:
SDS stands for Students for a Democratic Society. Carl was its first national president. It was the student anti Viet Nam group. When they turned violent and became the Weathermen Carl, to his everlasting credit, left.
Dawn
[/quote]
Thanks very much Dawn. Wonder if the SDS was Operation CHAOSed. Wasn't that Johnson's baby? Friggen thug.
[/quote]
Ya they were definately inflitrated, in fact Carl believes that the violence was a result of this infiltration. Works all the time. The scum.
BTW, I checked on the seminars page and Tim Carroll's paper is still there. You just have to page thru to get it. I advanced it for you a couple of days ago.
Dawn
[/quote]
I saw the Carroll material you kicked up Dawn, thank you.
Hey, interesting that you mention SDS. I just read this:
"The voices the Kennedys symbolized are now squelched. Collier and Horowitz are intent on never letting the ghost of the sixties reappear. The poor, the weak, minorities, and the left’s intelligentsia must not be unsheathed again. (As Todd Gitlin notes in his book The Sixties, on occasion, the Kennedy administration actually had SDS members in the White House to discuss foreign policy issues.)"
http://www.copi.com/articles/probe/pr1197_jfk.html
Amazing. We could have had great leaders. 'Cept the CIA didn't want us to.
QUOTE (Myra Bronstein @ Nov 19 2006, 06:20 PM)
I will read more of your writings on the subject of Watergate.
If I may recommend a starting point, it would be these two posts:
The "Pentagon Papers" leak was a CIA op
And:
There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate
The second article contains links to five other related articles that I believe are crucial to an understanding of Watergate. As told there, it decidedly is not, though, a Robert Redford-Dustin Hoffman vehicle.
QUOTE
It's critical to establish what that was all about in order to turn on the light for 'Merkans in general.
Yes, ma'am. The ones you can get out from in front of "Survivor."
Ashton
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 21 2006, 10:01 AM' post='81899']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 20 2006, 03:30 PM' post='81804']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 20 2006, 02:10 AM' post='81720']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 16 2006, 02:11 PM' post='81290']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 15 2006, 05:46 AM' post='81197']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='81126' date='Nov 14 2006, 02:49 PM']
]
Thank you Dawn. I've just started reading Oglesby's stuff now that you kicked it to the surface. I was only looking in the Seminar section.
What's "SDS"?
Myra:
SDS stands for Students for a Democratic Society. Carl was its first national president. It was the student anti Viet Nam group. When they turned violent and became the Weathermen Carl, to his everlasting credit, left.
Dawn
[/quote]
Thanks very much Dawn. Wonder if the SDS was Operation CHAOSed. Wasn't that Johnson's baby? Friggen thug.
[/quote]
Ya they were definately inflitrated, in fact Carl believes that the violence was a result of this infiltration. Works all the time. The scum.
BTW, I checked on the seminars page and Tim Carroll's paper is still there. You just have to page thru to get it. I advanced it for you a couple of days ago.
Dawn
[/quote]
I saw the Carroll material you kicked up Dawn, thank you.
Hey, interesting that you mention SDS. I just read this:
"The voices the Kennedys symbolized are now squelched. Collier and Horowitz are intent on never letting the ghost of the sixties reappear. The poor, the weak, minorities, and the left’s intelligentsia must not be unsheathed again. (As Todd Gitlin notes in his book The Sixties, on occasion, the Kennedy administration actually had SDS members in the White House to discuss foreign policy issues.)"
http://www.copi.com/articles/probe/pr1197_jfk.html
Amazing. We could have had great leaders. 'Cept the CIA didn't want us to.
[/quote]
Myra:
I would not read anything by Collier and Horowitz. They are just pigs in my opinion. They did a book on the young Kennedy's in 1984 that was partially serialized in Playboy. They did a total number on Robert Kennedy's young son David. Horrible. He ended up dead in a hotal room in Miami on 4/25/84. Drug overdose, but I balme them. I stopped reading Playboy as a result.
No, the CIA never wanted anything good for this country. Crack dealers- (and worse)- that they are. Pond scum.
"Only in America"
Dawn
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 20 2006, 03:30 PM' post='81804']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 20 2006, 02:10 AM' post='81720']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 16 2006, 02:11 PM' post='81290']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 15 2006, 05:46 AM' post='81197']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='81126' date='Nov 14 2006, 02:49 PM']
]
Thank you Dawn. I've just started reading Oglesby's stuff now that you kicked it to the surface. I was only looking in the Seminar section.
What's "SDS"?
Myra:
SDS stands for Students for a Democratic Society. Carl was its first national president. It was the student anti Viet Nam group. When they turned violent and became the Weathermen Carl, to his everlasting credit, left.
Dawn
[/quote]
Thanks very much Dawn. Wonder if the SDS was Operation CHAOSed. Wasn't that Johnson's baby? Friggen thug.
[/quote]
Ya they were definately inflitrated, in fact Carl believes that the violence was a result of this infiltration. Works all the time. The scum.
BTW, I checked on the seminars page and Tim Carroll's paper is still there. You just have to page thru to get it. I advanced it for you a couple of days ago.
Dawn
[/quote]
I saw the Carroll material you kicked up Dawn, thank you.
Hey, interesting that you mention SDS. I just read this:
"The voices the Kennedys symbolized are now squelched. Collier and Horowitz are intent on never letting the ghost of the sixties reappear. The poor, the weak, minorities, and the left’s intelligentsia must not be unsheathed again. (As Todd Gitlin notes in his book The Sixties, on occasion, the Kennedy administration actually had SDS members in the White House to discuss foreign policy issues.)"
http://www.copi.com/articles/probe/pr1197_jfk.html
Amazing. We could have had great leaders. 'Cept the CIA didn't want us to.
[/quote]
Myra:
I would not read anything by Collier and Horowitz. They are just pigs in my opinion. They did a book on the young Kennedy's in 1984 that was partially serialized in Playboy. They did a total number on Robert Kennedy's young son David. Horrible. He ended up dead in a hotal room in Miami on 4/25/84. Drug overdose, but I balme them. I stopped reading Playboy as a result.
No, the CIA never wanted anything good for this country. Crack dealers- (and worse)- that they are. Pond scum.
"Only in America"
Dawn
[quote name='Ashton Gray' post='81937' date='Nov 21 2006, 04:37 PM']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' post='81721' date='Nov 19 2006, 06:20 PM']I will read more of your writings on the subject of Watergate.[/quote]
If I may recommend a starting point, it would be these two posts:
The "Pentagon Papers" leak was a CIA op
And:
There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate
The second article contains links to five other related articles that I believe are crucial to an understanding of Watergate. As told there, it decidedly is not, though, a Robert Redford-Dustin Hoffman vehicle.
[quote]It's critical to establish what that was all about in order to turn on the light for 'Merkans in general.[/quote]
Yes, ma'am. The ones you can get out from in front of "Survivor."
Ashton
[/quote]
Oh yeah. Here I am wondering about Ellsberg and all his contradictions, sorta like Hersh..., and he's the first thing you mention in the first link. Yeah, there were warning bells with him. Interesting too how outspoken he is nowdays. I saw him at the same event I saw Hersh at, and it seemed like Ellsberg was almost boasting about being on Nixon's "enemy list" and being targeted for "liquidation" and so on. I guess he thinks it gives him street cred. Well, I'm sorta curious about his current intentions, given that he does seem to be speaking some truth about the US plans for Iran (or is he?). Not that it can erase the fact that he's a mouthpiece.
On the upside, maybe that means I don't have to suffer thru a reading of the pentagon papers.
I'm reading thru the Watergate stuff now. Hugely helpful. Thanks for posting both links. I've only read a little, but it's sure looking like the CIA just decided to get rid of Nixon and set him up. If that's true I'm not sure why, tho' I've read some buzz about them not liking his financial policies or something. Well, maybe I'll find out. Gotta know the "why" or things don't click.
Hm, I wonder if the Hunt blackmail of Nixon was for real. And did the CIA really turn on Hunt. They killed his wife, unless the Hunts really were getting a divorce and Hunt was happy to be rid of her. At least Watergate is sorta satisfying to research 'cause, for once, it's an asshole that's the victim. Then again another asshole became prez in his place.
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 21 2006, 10:11 PM' post='81992']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 21 2006, 10:01 AM' post='81899']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 20 2006, 03:30 PM' post='81804']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 20 2006, 02:10 AM' post='81720']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 16 2006, 02:11 PM' post='81290']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 15 2006, 05:46 AM' post='81197']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='81126' date='Nov 14 2006, 02:49 PM']
]
Thank you Dawn. I've just started reading Oglesby's stuff now that you kicked it to the surface. I was only looking in the Seminar section.
What's "SDS"?
Myra:
SDS stands for Students for a Democratic Society. Carl was its first national president. It was the student anti Viet Nam group. When they turned violent and became the Weathermen Carl, to his everlasting credit, left.
Dawn
[/quote]
Thanks very much Dawn. Wonder if the SDS was Operation CHAOSed. Wasn't that Johnson's baby? Friggen thug.
[/quote]
Ya they were definately inflitrated, in fact Carl believes that the violence was a result of this infiltration. Works all the time. The scum.
BTW, I checked on the seminars page and Tim Carroll's paper is still there. You just have to page thru to get it. I advanced it for you a couple of days ago.
Dawn
[/quote]
I saw the Carroll material you kicked up Dawn, thank you.
Hey, interesting that you mention SDS. I just read this:
"The voices the Kennedys symbolized are now squelched. Collier and Horowitz are intent on never letting the ghost of the sixties reappear. The poor, the weak, minorities, and the left’s intelligentsia must not be unsheathed again. (As Todd Gitlin notes in his book The Sixties, on occasion, the Kennedy administration actually had SDS members in the White House to discuss foreign policy issues.)"
http://www.copi.com/articles/probe/pr1197_jfk.html
Amazing. We could have had great leaders. 'Cept the CIA didn't want us to.
[/quote]
Myra:
I would not read anything by Collier and Horowitz. They are just pigs in my opinion. They did a book on the young Kennedy's in 1984 that was partially serialized in Playboy. They did a total number on Robert Kennedy's young son David. Horrible. He ended up dead in a hotal room in Miami on 4/25/84. Drug overdose, but I balme them. I stopped reading Playboy as a result.
No, the CIA never wanted anything good for this country. Crack dealers- (and worse)- that they are. Pond scum.
"Only in America"
Dawn
[/quote]
Well you and James DiEugenio seem to be in agreement Dawn. He named them in his article as an example of propagandists.
So they went after a young guy with problems who's father they murdered. Figures. CIA goons must be the most cowardly lowlifes ever. Thanks Mr. Truman for conjuring the CIA. Yup, thanks.
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' post='81721' date='Nov 19 2006, 06:20 PM']I will read more of your writings on the subject of Watergate.[/quote]
If I may recommend a starting point, it would be these two posts:
The "Pentagon Papers" leak was a CIA op
And:
There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate
The second article contains links to five other related articles that I believe are crucial to an understanding of Watergate. As told there, it decidedly is not, though, a Robert Redford-Dustin Hoffman vehicle.
[quote]It's critical to establish what that was all about in order to turn on the light for 'Merkans in general.[/quote]
Yes, ma'am. The ones you can get out from in front of "Survivor."
Ashton
[/quote]
Oh yeah. Here I am wondering about Ellsberg and all his contradictions, sorta like Hersh..., and he's the first thing you mention in the first link. Yeah, there were warning bells with him. Interesting too how outspoken he is nowdays. I saw him at the same event I saw Hersh at, and it seemed like Ellsberg was almost boasting about being on Nixon's "enemy list" and being targeted for "liquidation" and so on. I guess he thinks it gives him street cred. Well, I'm sorta curious about his current intentions, given that he does seem to be speaking some truth about the US plans for Iran (or is he?). Not that it can erase the fact that he's a mouthpiece.
On the upside, maybe that means I don't have to suffer thru a reading of the pentagon papers.
I'm reading thru the Watergate stuff now. Hugely helpful. Thanks for posting both links. I've only read a little, but it's sure looking like the CIA just decided to get rid of Nixon and set him up. If that's true I'm not sure why, tho' I've read some buzz about them not liking his financial policies or something. Well, maybe I'll find out. Gotta know the "why" or things don't click.
Hm, I wonder if the Hunt blackmail of Nixon was for real. And did the CIA really turn on Hunt. They killed his wife, unless the Hunts really were getting a divorce and Hunt was happy to be rid of her. At least Watergate is sorta satisfying to research 'cause, for once, it's an asshole that's the victim. Then again another asshole became prez in his place.
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 21 2006, 10:11 PM' post='81992']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 21 2006, 10:01 AM' post='81899']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 20 2006, 03:30 PM' post='81804']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 20 2006, 02:10 AM' post='81720']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 16 2006, 02:11 PM' post='81290']
[quote name='Myra Bronstein' date='Nov 15 2006, 05:46 AM' post='81197']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='81126' date='Nov 14 2006, 02:49 PM']
]
Thank you Dawn. I've just started reading Oglesby's stuff now that you kicked it to the surface. I was only looking in the Seminar section.
What's "SDS"?
Myra:
SDS stands for Students for a Democratic Society. Carl was its first national president. It was the student anti Viet Nam group. When they turned violent and became the Weathermen Carl, to his everlasting credit, left.
Dawn
[/quote]
Thanks very much Dawn. Wonder if the SDS was Operation CHAOSed. Wasn't that Johnson's baby? Friggen thug.
[/quote]
Ya they were definately inflitrated, in fact Carl believes that the violence was a result of this infiltration. Works all the time. The scum.
BTW, I checked on the seminars page and Tim Carroll's paper is still there. You just have to page thru to get it. I advanced it for you a couple of days ago.
Dawn
[/quote]
I saw the Carroll material you kicked up Dawn, thank you.
Hey, interesting that you mention SDS. I just read this:
"The voices the Kennedys symbolized are now squelched. Collier and Horowitz are intent on never letting the ghost of the sixties reappear. The poor, the weak, minorities, and the left’s intelligentsia must not be unsheathed again. (As Todd Gitlin notes in his book The Sixties, on occasion, the Kennedy administration actually had SDS members in the White House to discuss foreign policy issues.)"
http://www.copi.com/articles/probe/pr1197_jfk.html
Amazing. We could have had great leaders. 'Cept the CIA didn't want us to.
[/quote]
Myra:
I would not read anything by Collier and Horowitz. They are just pigs in my opinion. They did a book on the young Kennedy's in 1984 that was partially serialized in Playboy. They did a total number on Robert Kennedy's young son David. Horrible. He ended up dead in a hotal room in Miami on 4/25/84. Drug overdose, but I balme them. I stopped reading Playboy as a result.
No, the CIA never wanted anything good for this country. Crack dealers- (and worse)- that they are. Pond scum.
"Only in America"
Dawn
[/quote]
Well you and James DiEugenio seem to be in agreement Dawn. He named them in his article as an example of propagandists.
So they went after a young guy with problems who's father they murdered. Figures. CIA goons must be the most cowardly lowlifes ever. Thanks Mr. Truman for conjuring the CIA. Yup, thanks.
Why did Robert Kennedy help to cover-up the assassination of JFK. This included denying access to JFK’s brain and the autopsy photos.
Why did the Robert and Edward Kennedy respond to the death of Grant Stockdale in the way that they did?
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKstockdale.htm
Soon after the assassination RFK told other members of the Kennedy family that he believed that senior members of the CIA organized his brother’s assassination. However, he was not willing to disclose this at that stage because he was being blackmailed. The information that the CIA had would destroy the reputation of JFK. His plan was to go along with the cover-up. The “Camelot Myth” would enable him to be elected in 1968. He would then appoint Ted Sorenson as head of the CIA. Sorenson would carry out an investigation into the assassination. In this way, the CIA would be exposed and the reputation of JFK and RFK would be protected.
This was why the CIA leaked the story in 1967 that JFK and RFK were involved in assassination plots against Fidel Castro. When this did not work the same men who assassinated JFK had no option to take out RFK.
It has to be remembered that when JFK was elected in 1960 he was judged to be more right-wing that Richard Nixon on foreign policy issues. For example, John Foster Dulles and Richard Bissell both provided JFK information about the proposed invasion of Cuba during the election campaign. As a result, JFK was able to attack Nixon for being soft on communism as the Eisenhower administration had done nothing to get rid of Castro. Nixon was of course unable to reveal what was really going on behind the scenes.
Nixon believed that the CIA leadership played a vital role in his defeat in 1960. He never forgave the CIA for this treachery and this is why he attempted to sort out the agency when he became president in 1968. The CIA fought back and set up Nixon over Watergate. When Richard Helms, refused to help him cover-up Watergate, he threatened Helms with exposing him for the role he played in the cover-up of the JFK assassination.
Richard Helms was in overall control of the CIA investigation into Oswald and replaced John Whitten as chief investigator with James Jesus Angleton when he got too close to the truth.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwhitten.htm
William Sullivan, the man who carried out the FBI investigation into Oswald, worked for the Nixon administration and had told him the full story of the Warren Commission cover-up. Sullivan was murdered before he could appear before the House Select Committee on Assassinations but his heavily censored autobiography, that were published after his death, makes clear that in his opinion Oswald was not a lone gunman.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsullivan.htm
When Helms refused to help, Nixon sacked him and replaced him with James Schlesinger. On 9th May, 1973, Schlesinger issued a directive to all CIA employees: “I have ordered all senior operating officials of this Agency to report to me immediately on any activities now going on, or might have gone on in the past, which might be considered to be outside the legislative charter of this Agency. I hereby direct every person presently employed by CIA to report to me on any such activities of which he has knowledge. I invite all ex-employees to do the same. Anyone who has such information should call my secretary and say that he wishes to talk to me about activities outside the CIA’s charter.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKschlesingerJ.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhelms.htm
This was dynamite and the CIA now had to destroy Nixon before he destroyed them. This is why the CIA, in the form of Richard Ober (Deep Throat), provided information on Watergate to Bob Woodward at the Washington Post.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKober.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwoodward.htm
This is why the CIA felt so betrayed by JFK over the Bay of Pigs. Before his election he had assured Dulles he would fully support the plan. Not only did he not do this, he punished the CIA by sacking Dulles and Bissell for trying to carry out a plan he approved.
An important ingredient of the Bay of Pigs plan was the assassination of Fidel Castro. In fact, without the death of Castro, the plan stood no chance of success. JFK allowed these assassination plots to go ahead. In fact, he put RFK in charge of them. As CIA officers testified later, RFK put them under a great deal of pressure to carry out this assassination. However, this was called off by JFK after the Cuban Missile Crisis. One of the reasons that JFK was assassinated was because in 1963 he was carrying out secret negotiations with Castro via Lisa Howard. She was murdered in 1965 but the documents about these secret talks have now been released:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhowardL2.htm
This was one of the stories that RFK was being blackmailed with. The original plan was to blame Castro for the assassination (motivation – retaliation against JFK for the attempts on his life) in order to trigger an invasion of Cuba. This would have got rid of Castro and blackened the reputation of the Kennedys.
The other thing RFK was being blackmailed over was the death of Marilyn Monroe. Of course, he had nothing to do with it, but they had collected a great deal of evidence to suggest that RFK had organized the killing. For example, see Dorothy Kilgallen’s report in the New York Journal American the day before Monroe died. Kilgallen was murdered in 1965.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKkilgallen.htm
Why did the Robert and Edward Kennedy respond to the death of Grant Stockdale in the way that they did?
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKstockdale.htm
Soon after the assassination RFK told other members of the Kennedy family that he believed that senior members of the CIA organized his brother’s assassination. However, he was not willing to disclose this at that stage because he was being blackmailed. The information that the CIA had would destroy the reputation of JFK. His plan was to go along with the cover-up. The “Camelot Myth” would enable him to be elected in 1968. He would then appoint Ted Sorenson as head of the CIA. Sorenson would carry out an investigation into the assassination. In this way, the CIA would be exposed and the reputation of JFK and RFK would be protected.
This was why the CIA leaked the story in 1967 that JFK and RFK were involved in assassination plots against Fidel Castro. When this did not work the same men who assassinated JFK had no option to take out RFK.
It has to be remembered that when JFK was elected in 1960 he was judged to be more right-wing that Richard Nixon on foreign policy issues. For example, John Foster Dulles and Richard Bissell both provided JFK information about the proposed invasion of Cuba during the election campaign. As a result, JFK was able to attack Nixon for being soft on communism as the Eisenhower administration had done nothing to get rid of Castro. Nixon was of course unable to reveal what was really going on behind the scenes.
Nixon believed that the CIA leadership played a vital role in his defeat in 1960. He never forgave the CIA for this treachery and this is why he attempted to sort out the agency when he became president in 1968. The CIA fought back and set up Nixon over Watergate. When Richard Helms, refused to help him cover-up Watergate, he threatened Helms with exposing him for the role he played in the cover-up of the JFK assassination.
Richard Helms was in overall control of the CIA investigation into Oswald and replaced John Whitten as chief investigator with James Jesus Angleton when he got too close to the truth.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwhitten.htm
William Sullivan, the man who carried out the FBI investigation into Oswald, worked for the Nixon administration and had told him the full story of the Warren Commission cover-up. Sullivan was murdered before he could appear before the House Select Committee on Assassinations but his heavily censored autobiography, that were published after his death, makes clear that in his opinion Oswald was not a lone gunman.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsullivan.htm
When Helms refused to help, Nixon sacked him and replaced him with James Schlesinger. On 9th May, 1973, Schlesinger issued a directive to all CIA employees: “I have ordered all senior operating officials of this Agency to report to me immediately on any activities now going on, or might have gone on in the past, which might be considered to be outside the legislative charter of this Agency. I hereby direct every person presently employed by CIA to report to me on any such activities of which he has knowledge. I invite all ex-employees to do the same. Anyone who has such information should call my secretary and say that he wishes to talk to me about activities outside the CIA’s charter.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKschlesingerJ.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhelms.htm
This was dynamite and the CIA now had to destroy Nixon before he destroyed them. This is why the CIA, in the form of Richard Ober (Deep Throat), provided information on Watergate to Bob Woodward at the Washington Post.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKober.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwoodward.htm
This is why the CIA felt so betrayed by JFK over the Bay of Pigs. Before his election he had assured Dulles he would fully support the plan. Not only did he not do this, he punished the CIA by sacking Dulles and Bissell for trying to carry out a plan he approved.
An important ingredient of the Bay of Pigs plan was the assassination of Fidel Castro. In fact, without the death of Castro, the plan stood no chance of success. JFK allowed these assassination plots to go ahead. In fact, he put RFK in charge of them. As CIA officers testified later, RFK put them under a great deal of pressure to carry out this assassination. However, this was called off by JFK after the Cuban Missile Crisis. One of the reasons that JFK was assassinated was because in 1963 he was carrying out secret negotiations with Castro via Lisa Howard. She was murdered in 1965 but the documents about these secret talks have now been released:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhowardL2.htm
This was one of the stories that RFK was being blackmailed with. The original plan was to blame Castro for the assassination (motivation – retaliation against JFK for the attempts on his life) in order to trigger an invasion of Cuba. This would have got rid of Castro and blackened the reputation of the Kennedys.
The other thing RFK was being blackmailed over was the death of Marilyn Monroe. Of course, he had nothing to do with it, but they had collected a great deal of evidence to suggest that RFK had organized the killing. For example, see Dorothy Kilgallen’s report in the New York Journal American the day before Monroe died. Kilgallen was murdered in 1965.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKkilgallen.htm
Very interesting post, John, in which I see various streams of data beginning to merge into a far more cohesive channel flowing together instead of dispersing all over the landscape.
Still, I have to comment on a few bits of flotsam and jetsam that I feel continue to attempt to float upstream:
What actions do you see as an attempt by Nixon "to sort out the agency" while leaving Richard Helms in place as DCI?
Cite? I have a vague feeling that you are referring here to the 23 June 1972 "whole Bay of Pigs thing" comment made by Nixon.
Now, personally, I don't mind, ever, seeing anyone interpret that statement by Nixon just as broadly as they like, not only to include the Kennedy assassination, but even to include the alleged Big Bang (or the alleged Tree of Life, if you prefer), by their own lights.
However: the thing that does just curdle the cream while still in the cows whenever I see such reference made is the almost predictable omission of the following statements made by Richard M. Nixon—who had been central to the planning of the Bay of Pigs—just moments before he made the "whole Bay of Pigs thing" statement. And it is this (my emphasis added):
And if you are, indeed, referring to the "whole Bay of Pigs thing" comment as your foundation for stating that Nixon "threatened Helms with exposing him for the role he played in the cover-up of the JFK assassination," please, please—if on no other basis than kindness and mercy—provide this pilgrim with some kind of rationale in response to the following pregnant questions:
1) If Nixon had some specific knowledge of "the role [Helms] played in the cover-up of the JFK assassination," then why didn't Nixon play this trump card publically right then, and sack Helms and put the CIA on trial for the murder of a president? It would have made Watergate look exactly like the "two bit burglary" that it was, and Nixon would have become the hero of the world instead of the most loathesome president in history.
2) The comment by Nixon was made on 23 June 1972 in a private meeting with Haldeman, so why was Helms allowed by Nixon to sit in the DCI seat for seven more months, not only past the Watergate indictments pointing to the White House; not only past the 1 October 1972 secret CIA Remote Viewing contract Helms and Gottlieb engineered; not only past Hunt purportedly "blackmailing Nixon"—of all the people Hunt could blackmail (please note that I'm refraining from laughing out loud right there); not only past Helms and Gottlieb destroying a still-unknown number of truckloads of damning CIA documents; not only past CIA's handing over of the Hunt-Liddy-Fielding photos that would spring Ellsberg and drive the final nails into Nixon's coffin; but even until after Hunt and "the Cuban contingent" had pleaded guilty? What possible "motive" could Nixon have had for sitting passively in his chair for seven months allowing Helms and the CIA cruds to bleed him from every artery, if Nixon had the goods on these same people in relation to the JFK assassination? How can anybody be that stupid and feed himself?
3) Why were payments purportedly of "White House funds" from LaRue given to Hunt's lawyer, Bittman, after Hunt had pleaded guilty to all counts?
None of it adds up. None of it.
<Head in hands> John, I appreciate your enthusiasm for this scenario. I mean that sincerely. But please, please consider the following incontrovertible facts, and please, please provide some rationale in response for the questions:
1) William Colby, not James Schlesinger, wrote the directive. Schlesinger signed as he was picking up his hat and coat and walking out the door as DCI, being replaced by Colby. And the entire idea had come from Colby.
2) Schlesinger hadn't been in the DCI chair long enough even to get it warm: three months. He was nothing but a placeholder, since Colby himself had been (hear me, now, please) CIA Director for Covert Operation throughout the CIA's Watergate hoax, and throughout the simultaneous set-up by Helms and Gottlieb of the super-covert Remote Viewing program.
So please, please help this poor pilgrim better understand this scenario by providing some kind of rationale and substantive fact in response to these other pregnant questions:
1) From whence comes the idea that Schlesinger was some kind of loyalist Nixon puppet instead of the die-hard CIA veteran slimebag he was? This reads almost like Mother Goose to me. What is the foundation? What do you feel is the invisible and mysterious thrall that Nixon had Schlesinger in?
2) What benefit did Nixon ever derive from the CIA's "Family Jewels"?
3) Do you have any record at all of Nixon ever even seeing the "Family Jewels"?
While I'm very heartened indeed to see new evaluations of data going in new and interesting directions, I am loath indeed to see old and tiresome myths—many of them written and disseminated by the very Operation Mockingbird that you rightly expose and decry—continue to be perpetuated in the public consciousness when they have no foundation in material fact, and so I cannot do otherwise than call them to attention with an invitation for close and sober analysis and inspection.
Ashton
Still, I have to comment on a few bits of flotsam and jetsam that I feel continue to attempt to float upstream:
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Nov 23 2006, 01:40 AM)
Nixon believed that the CIA leadership played a vital role in his defeat in 1960. He never forgave the CIA for this treachery and this is why he attempted to sort out the agency when he became president in 1968.
What actions do you see as an attempt by Nixon "to sort out the agency" while leaving Richard Helms in place as DCI?
QUOTE
The CIA fought back and set up Nixon over Watergate. When Richard Helms, refused to help him cover-up Watergate, he threatened Helms with exposing him for the role he played in the cover-up of the JFK assassination.
Cite? I have a vague feeling that you are referring here to the 23 June 1972 "whole Bay of Pigs thing" comment made by Nixon.
Now, personally, I don't mind, ever, seeing anyone interpret that statement by Nixon just as broadly as they like, not only to include the Kennedy assassination, but even to include the alleged Big Bang (or the alleged Tree of Life, if you prefer), by their own lights.
However: the thing that does just curdle the cream while still in the cows whenever I see such reference made is the almost predictable omission of the following statements made by Richard M. Nixon—who had been central to the planning of the Bay of Pigs—just moments before he made the "whole Bay of Pigs thing" statement. And it is this (my emphasis added):
- RICHARD NIXON ...we protected Helms from one hell of a lot of things. ...Of course, this is a— this is a— Hunt: you will- that will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things and that we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves.
And if you are, indeed, referring to the "whole Bay of Pigs thing" comment as your foundation for stating that Nixon "threatened Helms with exposing him for the role he played in the cover-up of the JFK assassination," please, please—if on no other basis than kindness and mercy—provide this pilgrim with some kind of rationale in response to the following pregnant questions:
1) If Nixon had some specific knowledge of "the role [Helms] played in the cover-up of the JFK assassination," then why didn't Nixon play this trump card publically right then, and sack Helms and put the CIA on trial for the murder of a president? It would have made Watergate look exactly like the "two bit burglary" that it was, and Nixon would have become the hero of the world instead of the most loathesome president in history.
2) The comment by Nixon was made on 23 June 1972 in a private meeting with Haldeman, so why was Helms allowed by Nixon to sit in the DCI seat for seven more months, not only past the Watergate indictments pointing to the White House; not only past the 1 October 1972 secret CIA Remote Viewing contract Helms and Gottlieb engineered; not only past Hunt purportedly "blackmailing Nixon"—of all the people Hunt could blackmail (please note that I'm refraining from laughing out loud right there); not only past Helms and Gottlieb destroying a still-unknown number of truckloads of damning CIA documents; not only past CIA's handing over of the Hunt-Liddy-Fielding photos that would spring Ellsberg and drive the final nails into Nixon's coffin; but even until after Hunt and "the Cuban contingent" had pleaded guilty? What possible "motive" could Nixon have had for sitting passively in his chair for seven months allowing Helms and the CIA cruds to bleed him from every artery, if Nixon had the goods on these same people in relation to the JFK assassination? How can anybody be that stupid and feed himself?
3) Why were payments purportedly of "White House funds" from LaRue given to Hunt's lawyer, Bittman, after Hunt had pleaded guilty to all counts?
None of it adds up. None of it.
QUOTE
When Helms refused to help, Nixon sacked him and replaced him with James Schlesinger. On 9th May, 1973, Schlesinger issued a directive to all CIA employees: “I have ordered all senior operating officials of this Agency to report to me immediately on any activities now going on, or might have gone on in the past, which might be considered to be outside the legislative charter of this Agency. I hereby direct every person presently employed by CIA to report to me on any such activities of which he has knowledge. I invite all ex-employees to do the same. Anyone who has such information should call my secretary and say that he wishes to talk to me about activities outside the CIA’s charter."
...This was dynamite and the CIA now had to destroy Nixon before he destroyed them.
...This was dynamite and the CIA now had to destroy Nixon before he destroyed them.
<Head in hands> John, I appreciate your enthusiasm for this scenario. I mean that sincerely. But please, please consider the following incontrovertible facts, and please, please provide some rationale in response for the questions:
1) William Colby, not James Schlesinger, wrote the directive. Schlesinger signed as he was picking up his hat and coat and walking out the door as DCI, being replaced by Colby. And the entire idea had come from Colby.
2) Schlesinger hadn't been in the DCI chair long enough even to get it warm: three months. He was nothing but a placeholder, since Colby himself had been (hear me, now, please) CIA Director for Covert Operation throughout the CIA's Watergate hoax, and throughout the simultaneous set-up by Helms and Gottlieb of the super-covert Remote Viewing program.
So please, please help this poor pilgrim better understand this scenario by providing some kind of rationale and substantive fact in response to these other pregnant questions:
1) From whence comes the idea that Schlesinger was some kind of loyalist Nixon puppet instead of the die-hard CIA veteran slimebag he was? This reads almost like Mother Goose to me. What is the foundation? What do you feel is the invisible and mysterious thrall that Nixon had Schlesinger in?
2) What benefit did Nixon ever derive from the CIA's "Family Jewels"?
3) Do you have any record at all of Nixon ever even seeing the "Family Jewels"?
While I'm very heartened indeed to see new evaluations of data going in new and interesting directions, I am loath indeed to see old and tiresome myths—many of them written and disseminated by the very Operation Mockingbird that you rightly expose and decry—continue to be perpetuated in the public consciousness when they have no foundation in material fact, and so I cannot do otherwise than call them to attention with an invitation for close and sober analysis and inspection.
Ashton
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.