Deep Throat Revealed?

[Ron Ecker]

Tim,

I take back the things I said about Tricky Dick. He was really a pretty swell guy who got a lot of bum raps. I would have been honored to be on his enemies list.

But I must take exception to this on Nixon's "whole Bay of Pigs thing":

When Helms did not put a lid on Watergate, what ultimately came out was the CIA alliance with the Mafia to kill Castro.  That was clearly what Nixon was talking about

That was clearly not what Nixon was talking about. I refer you to the "smoking gun" Watergate tape of June 23, 1972. Nixon tells Haldeman to say that "the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again." How could the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro be opened up "again"? When were they "opened up" before? (Remember, Nixon said this in 1972.) Plus how could investigating Hunt, Sturgis, and the rest of the Watergate crew lead to the CIA/Mafia plots when these guys, as I recall, had nothing to do with those plots? But what these guys may well have had something to do with was Dallas, which Nixon could have been legitimately worried about. (Nixon to Dean: “That Hunt knows a hell of a lot of things.”)

Ron

[Mark Knight]

Ron, I've been a bit busy, but I think you've covered things quite well. Nixon's selective amnesia during the '60's as to whether he'd even been in Dallas on November 22, 1963 started raising red flags in my mind. At least there were more witnesses to Nixon's presence in Dallas that to Escalante's.

[Hmmm...both left town that day, too...and on different planes, so it wouldn't arouse suspicion. OF COURSE I'm being facetious here...aren't I?]

I think Tim is following the Republican Commandment--"thou shalt speak no evil of a fellow Republican"--rather than following the evidence. Nixon was a crook, and the evidence contained on the tapes shows that he was, indeed, guilty of obstruction of justice. [And Clinton, by lying to a grand jury, was ALSO guilty of obstruction of justice...despite the fact that Clinton is a Democrat, I still know that the evidence proves his guilt. A crook is a crook, no matter what political party they belong to. May as well accept that little fact, Tim.]

Ever read Liddy's book, "WILL"?? Liddy talks of how he was prepared to shoot this one or that one if necessary to keep the covert operations covert. And Colson?? The man who said he'd run over his own grandmother if the situation required it? To say these people weren't capable of murder is to ignore the evidence...including the evidence from their own mouths!

I'm with Pat and Ron on this one, Tim.

Edited June 3, 2005 by Mark Knight

[Tim Gratz]

In a deposition of Hunt v. weberman, Liddy testified that he and Hunt seriously discussed methods of murdering Jack Anderson. Hunt denied it, but Liddy was was testifying truthfully.

Hunt thought Jack Anderson should be killed because, after giving assurances to Richard Helms that he would not do so, Anderson published in his column information re CIA surveillance methods in Moscow, potentially endangering CIA operatives in Moscow. (I guess this was part of Operation Mockingbird.)

In the same suit, Hunt testified neither he nor the CIA had reason to want to see Anderson dead. The facts supported Liddy's position. Hunt probably committed perjury when he died discussing a conspiracy to murder.

Edited June 3, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Ron wrote:

That was clearly not what Nixon was talking about. I refer you to the "smoking gun" Watergate tape of June 23, 1972. Nixon tells Haldeman to say that "the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again." How could the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro be opened up "again"? When were they "opened up" before? (Remember, Nixon said this in 1972.) Plus how could investigating Hunt, Sturgis, and the rest of the Watergate crew lead to the CIA/Mafia plots when these guys, as I recall, had nothing to do with those plots? But what these guys may well have had something to do with was Dallas, which Nixon could have been legitimately worried about. (Nixon to Dean: “That Hunt knows a hell of a lot of things.”)

Ron, I think you are wrong here.

The plans for the BOP included the assassination of Fidel. Had that happened, possibly (emphasis) the BOP might have worked. (I am sure you know of Allen Dulles' oblique reference on "Meet the Press".) Surely Hunt must have been aware of those plans. As you know, it was Hunt who told Tracey Barnes in June of 1960 that the only way to get rid of Castro was to kill him. It was the very next month that Richard Bissell ordered his assistant to engage the Mafia to kill Castro.

And Sturgis was involved in the plot to have Marita Lorenz poison Castro.

So both Hunt and Sturgis were aware of plots to kill Castro, plots tied directly to the BOP.

So, logically, the reference to "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" is a reference to the plots to kill Castro. In other words, to understand the BOP one needed to understand the integrated plots to murder Fidel, plots of which BOTH Hunt and Sturgis were aware of (and one of which directly involved Sturgis).

[Tim Gratz]

Mark Stapleton wrote:

Game, set and match to Ron. Tim, forget defending the reputations of LBJ and RMN--it's hopeless. They both stink.

Wrong again, Mark. There is a difference in kind, not in degree (I assume you understand what that means) between political corruption and murder.

My point is that I believe it is morally WRONG to accuse LBJ and RN of being involved in the murder of JFK with in LBJ's case scant evidence and in RN's case none.

I assume had you lived in the fifties you would have been a supporter of Joseph R. McCarthy since you approve of labeling people as murderers and traiors with no evidence to support the charge.

And, by the way, did you ever hear me defend either LBJ or RN as a fine moral politician? So why do you mix apples and oranges? Why did you write that I was "defending the reputations of LBJ and RMN" when all I said was there was no evidence they were assassins?

I hate to put it this way, but I wonder if you were being cleverly disingenuous in the posting, or if you are so intellectually lazy you are incapable of making distinctions?

[Mark Knight]

Tim, I think I've figured out where the communications problem lies. You believe that Ron, Mark, Pat and I are saying that Nixon or LBJ was an actual assassin. That is, of course, patently false. We know that LBJ had no weapons in his possession when JFK was killed, and we know that Nixon was at that moment on a plane from Dallas to NYC.

We all, I think it's safe to say, agree on these two points.

Where we disagree is on whether LBJ and Nixon were INVOLVED in the assassination plots. While no "smoking gun" has been uncovered, there is also no "smoking gun" that Fidel was behind it, either. But there is circumstantial evidence in the cases of ALL three of these suspects being involved. In the final analysis, the primary disagreement is the weight that the circumstantial evidence carries. Based upon the material I've read, I'm not willing to say that LBJ or Nixon either one would draw the line at ordering--or helping plan--a murder. Both exhibited questionable moral values, and to say that either would veto a murder plot is jumping to a conclusion that, in my view, isn't sustainable by the evidence. However, I believe that BOTH Nixon and LBJ would be reluctant to pull the trigger themselves; they were, after all, executives, and effective executives DELEGATE the detail work to others.

And I'm just not prepared to say that LBJ or Nixon had enough moral fiber to rule out a murder, if the stakes were sufficiently high.

Edited June 4, 2005 by Mark Knight

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, of course I did not understand any of you to say that LBJ or RMN pulled the trigger any more than I assert that Fidel was personally in Dealey Plaza.

But you are wrong. There is no circumstantial evidence that either LBJ nor RMN was involved in the assassination in any way. Ron argued that Nixon's oblique reference to "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" refered to the JFK assassination; I demonstrated, conclusively, I think, that it clearly related to the CIA plots to murder Castro. This was Ron's ONLY datum to show Nixon's involvement.

And there is no evidence to show that Nixon would authorize a murder.

I understand there is SOME evidence that LBJ may have authorized Malcolm Wallace to murder Henry Marshall but I don't think it sufficient for anyone to morally conclude LBJ was a murderer. The evidence is fairly persuasive that he was politically corrupt as it related to financial matters and ballot box corruption.

There is evidence that I have not even posted here that Fidel in his student days was a murderer and an assassin (he was even charged several times as I recall). But I do not argue that Fidel killed JFK because he was a big, bad Communist (the line of Martino and Booth etc in the immediate aftermath of the assassination). Rather, if he did it, he did it to stop the US efforts to murder him, which sooner or later would surely have succeeded--and while one can never condone an assassination, if Fidel acted out of desperation to save his own life (since even his Soviet friends seemed unwilling or unable to stop the plots) his action is certainly understandable. For four years, the USA shot bullets at him. He may finally have decided to shoot back.

Edited June 4, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Nancy Eldreth]

Perhaps if true reports were out about LBJ death one would find that maybe just maybe he did take his own life. I know it sounds off the wall but we talked about this not to long on this forum.

WHY?

For what reason?

What went on in the timing of his death?

I do think if LBJ had lived and Nixon got the chance to do the Watergate issue different things would tell a lot more.

LBJ left Nixon in a heap of problems and this was his only way out.

Was poison in his system. I read someplace that it was.

Would he do this well maybe he pulled more triggers than we know of even to himself.

On another thread I read about the Texas businessmen I do feel that it was from them that worked on the facts surrounding the murder of JFK. I also think it is more that should be added to the list. We don't have the full picture of each person's involvement if we did this would be solved in a heartbeat. Yes, quote from Stone's remark with Nixon threat from the Dallas groupie gathering.

Whenever the government doesn't want us to come close they put out flags to stop issues and one is to the attacks of Stones movie. Even though Oliver Stone did check in facts with Nixon to help the movie. Even though in the movie JFK he had a great deal of help from Fletcher Prouty to do Mr. X. By the way it was three that made up Mr. X they combined information and made it just one man.

[Ron Ecker]

There is no circumstantial evidence that either LBJ nor RMN was involved in the assassination in any way.  Ron argued that Nixon's oblique reference to "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" refered to the JFK assassination; I demonstrated, conclusively, I think, that it clearly related to the CIA plots to murder Castro.  This was Ron's ONLY datum to show Nixon's involvement.

Tim,

Here are some things that in my mind make Nixon a suspect. (One of several, of course. I don’t believe that Nixon masterminded the assassination. LBJ was in a better position for that, not to say that he did.) First, Nixon obviously benefited (as did many, but obviously not as much as Nixon and LBJ in terms of subsequent executive power). Nixon could now look forward to being president, there would be no Kennedy dynasty. (That would be made certain in 1968.)

Revenge is also a motive in many a murder, and Nixon, who was not very exemplary in terms of moral character, is the only man I’ve ever heard of who listed his enemies. (I do remember Mark Antony in “Julius Caesar” damning someone with a spot on a list, but that’s the closest I can think of.) Consider how much Nixon must have hated JFK. The playboy didn’t steal Nixon’s girlfriend (there’s a weird thought) or swipe his lunch pail, JFK stole the U.S. Presidency from him. (So thought Nixon and a lot of others.) Such fraud was bad not just for Nixon (who of course would never do such a thing himself) but for the country. And as soon as he stole it, JFK took Nixon’s BOP project, with which Nixon would have liberated Cuba, and botched it, bringing death and misery to a lot of Cuban exiles.

JFK was an enemy, and it wasn’t good to be an enemy of Nixon. It means you were put on a list. That could mean anything from an IRS audit to death. (I remember Nixon telling Haldeman on one of the tapes that “now that we have the power we’re going to use it” and someone was “going to have damnable, damnable problems.”) Hell, Nixon probably even blamed JFK for his losing the 1962 race for governor in California. When it rains it pours, JFK had put Nixon on the skids to political ruin.

But I think someone then told Nixon to cheer up, some powerful voice must have told him what to be cheerful about, as I think it was not coincidence that Nixon showed up in Dallas when he did. He was there tacitly cheering on the people who were giving him something to be cheerful about, and letting them know that he wouldn’t forget them when he had the power and could start giving his enemies damnable, damnable problems, like the one JFK was given in Dallas.

Finally, consider also the lack of ambiguity in the term “Bay of Pigs thing” to Helms. While it is clearly ambiguous among us researchers (thus you take it one way, I take it another), Helms’s immediate, violent reaction when Haldeman conveyed the message means that Helms knew exactly what Nixon was talking about. If there was any doubt, if Helms couldn’t be sure if Nixon was talkng about the CIA whacking JFK or the CIA getting Mafia help to whack Castro, he would not have exploded as he did. And which would be more likely to make him explode? Which would America find more unforgiveable if it were exposed? Which would more likely mean prison and possible death sentences? I think that Haldeman came to the right conclusion about what the “turmoil in the room” was all about.

Ron

[Pat Speer]

I hate to break ranks, but Tim might be right about the meaning of the "Bay of Pigs thing." Summers collected significant evidence, even from Hunt himself, that Hunt's early suggestions of whacking the beard made their way to Nixon, who was the action officer in the White House and probably approved the action. Since LBJ told intimates, including almost certainly John Connally, that Castro got JFK first, and since Connally became Nixon's heir apparent, and since Nixon told Haldeman the Warren Commission was the biggest fraud ever perpetuated, it's reasonable to believe that Nixon subscribed to the Castro did it theory but felt guilt because it was originally his order to kill Castro.

While he may have been referring to the Kennedy assassination, the part he thought was damaging to the CIA could very well have been the attempts on Castro. I believe Helms insisted to the end he had no idea what Nixon wasa talking about.

[Tim Gratz]

Hey, we agree!

It does seem to me that when Hunt returned from Cuba he put the pressure on the CIA to assassinate Castro, and the assassination became part and parcel of

the planning for the Bay of Pigs. The questions that seem unresolved are whether Dulles and above him Eisenhower approved the assassination. Dulles' complicity seems apparent from his remark on "Meet the Press". I also suspect that Nixon was aware of the plots against Castro.

Pat is astute in suggesting that the "Bay of Pigs" thing may have tied into the Kennedy assassination because Nixon thought (rightly or wrongly) that the assassination was a "blowback" of US efforts to kill Castro. And he is also very astute in suspecting Nixon may have felt guilty since he set the plots in motion.

As I said before, clearly Hunt and Sturgis were aware of the plots to kill Castro. Nixon did not want the plots revealed not only because they would reflect badly on the US and might destroy the CIA but also because his own encouragement of the plots would probably surface.

It is hard to believe Helms did not know what Nixon was talking about.

[Ron Ecker]

Pat and Tim,

First, on the "Bay of Pigs thing," Nixon could have been talking about both, the JFK hit and the Castro attempts. If the CIA had a hand in Dallas, which seems likely, I think Nixon knew it. If Hunt and Sturgis had their hands in both, which is possible, Nixon knew it. Nixon stated that "Hunt knows a hell of a lot of things." So while there's ambiguity in Nixon's "Bay of Pigs thing," Helms could have taken it as a double whammy.

Second, I find the idea that Nixon could feel guilty about something as bizarre, but maybe that's just me. Nixon was a paranoid with a list of people who were out to get him. There were some convenient deaths in Nixon's political career, JFK being only the first (that I know of). I don't think Nixon lost any sleep about it, unless it was from worry about getting caught.

Ron

[Nancy Eldreth]

Boy of Pigs thing to me I think Nixon was talking about JFK assassination each time but it is more of the group that did it he is referring to rather to get into all of the facts surrounding it.

He makes it as more of the source of problems that just kept going down the line of events one after the other. Bay of Pigs, JFK and then into his own problems of Watergate.

They did fear the possible opening up of the Cold War under it again and didn't wish to cause any more problems in with that to happen again. So, they had their hands tied not to try to get into that area.

No doubt about it, Nixon hands was tied from a lot in the past.

I know many think that Nixon was involved in JFK murder and for the problems that could swing into Bay of Pigs flub up's. It was Bobbie Kennedy that messed up there or was it more of Hoover's mess up's?

Love to see a book that was told to me that existed and that is a book that would explain a lot more than what we know now. It isn't something that you can buy in a store either. Wish we could it is a hidden journal. ONE book alone. It is evidence that would help open a door to all of this.

The Bay of Pigs register. Never has been seen to us and someone holds it and no one knows who for sure.

[Shanet Clark]

I believe Mark Felt turned to Woodward because he knew the new FBI director was corrupted and irresopnsible. Since Patrick Gray was convicted of destroying the contents of Hunt's White House safe, it is obvious that he was not a "real" criminal investigator.

Personally, Felt believed he had been passed over for a job he deserved and replaced by a political hack.

Nixon's anti-semitism (which was rampant -- and confirmed by the tapes) probably played a role in Felt's failure to be named FBI Director.

Felt turned the tables on Nixon, Dean and Gray, and more power to him.

[Ron Ecker]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski112.html