Dawn Meredith

[quote name='Jack White' date='Jun 28 2006, 01:59 AM' post='66627'] Thanks for the directions, but I have no time nor desire to restudy Watergate. I am too busy. Time is short when one is 80. Jack At last, the truth. You just don't give a damn about it. Why were you not just upfront from the start? Guess it was just easier to join in the demand that someone's membership be revoked huh? I'm now beginning to believe there WAS a moon landing. Dawn

[quote name='Jack White' date='Jun 28 2006, 01:10 AM' post='66622'] Thanks for the brief summary. You could have used the extra 34 words to tell us what you mean by FIRST BREAK-IN. I do not know what this means. Jack Jack: Directions: Go to Watergate part of forum. Read thread re "NO first break-in". Then ask yourself this: Why did all the Watergate felons admit to said "first" break-in? And then ask yourself: If there was no first break-in, what were they really doing that Memorial Day weekend. And in the days leading up to said weekend. I like the KISS method myself too, so I've attempted to break it down as simply as possible (but I did not count the words, sorry). Dawn

Those who are interested in actually participating in this debate- rather than demanding a certain poster be forever bansihed from this forum- might do well to actually read this post. Start here, then go to the questions being asked in these posts and THEN and ONLY then judge if said poster is in violation of said forum rules. In the meantime, I eagerly await John's return to the forum, as perhaps THEN Attorney Caddy will respond to the questions he has been asked. He posted that he has no time, busy writing a book, but he clearly has time to post on this part of the forum and the jfk assassination debate, noting that "infiltrators" have "taken over" said forum. Then updates on those posts demanding that said "infiltrator"- Ashton Gray- be banned for violation of forum rules. Seems to me it would take less time to just answer the questions than all these off- with- his- head posts. For the record: I am on no one's "side" here. I am on the side of truth. I would like to believe that all here are share this quest. But I do agree with Jack White that there are infiltrators on every forum. I just don't happen to agree with Mr Caddy that Ashton is one. Dawn

[quote name='Mark Stapleton' date='Jun 27 2006, 08:41 AM' post='66554'] John, Just two conclusions can be drawn from your post: 1. You are now leaning towards Sicilian Mafia involvement in the assassination or 2. You have been misinformed as to where the World Cup is being played. Thanx Mark. You can always make me laugh. Good for the soul. Dawn

Dawn I totally agree, tho am not sure just WHO gave the order, only that it was given and that it worked. Tho Hunt has said a few things. Some of which are in Ashton's posts. Others are in comments made two or so years back in either Slate or Salon mag. Then of course there is the information in the Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby lawsuit. Sure would be nice to ask Mr Hunt some questions, but the murder of his wife, mother of their 5 children pretty much guarenteed his silence. I agree about the Bohemian Grove, as well. Dawn ps Sorry to post this again. When I did it before it got stuck at the end of my prior post and it was my intent that this be a totally sep. post responding only to Jack's comments re Dorothy and Howard Hunt.

[color=#999900] [/color]Yes, yes yes!!! But he will not answer the questions. (And you "don't have the time" to READ them, just make assumptions, based on only having read one side. Pretty unfair.) Dawn I totally agree, tho am not sure just WHO gave the order, only that it was given and that it worked. Tho Hunt has said a few things. Some of which are in Ashton's posts. Others are in comments made two or so years back in either Slate or Salon mag. Then of course there is the information in the Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby lawsuit. Sure would be nice to ask Mr Hunt some questions, but the murder of his wife, mother of their 5 children pretty much guarenteed his silence. I agree about the Bohemian Grove, as well. Dawn

I have responded above beginning with ****prior to my words. ****Since you have read ONLY his comments what makes you so certain it's the "truth" that he is interested in? If so why does he post long complaints, while saying he is too busy writing a book TO post, yet totally avoids answering the questions that have been asked of him.? By your own admission you are siding with Mr Caddy because of attacks made on YOU. Assuming the arguments/ questions etc posed by Ashton Grey are without merit. Yor "don't have the time" to read a word of it, but you sure have the time to post like some cheer leader, on now several threads. Dawn

oh here we go agian, you attack my friggen profession... Never mind Jack. Typical! I have no more to say to you. If you don't take the time to read posts then why should I bother to appeal to a sense of logic or fairness that is completely lacking? I never ONCE attacked YOUR profession (whatever it is) NOR have I attacked Mr. Caddy, EVER!!! But you would not know this since you "don't have the time" to actually READ, you just post "get em" responses to someone who has called for someone to be banned. Dawn

[quote name='Jack White' date='Jun 27 2006, 02:13 AM' post='66529'] Dawn...I have not read ANY of "Ashton's" postings...not that I am not interested in Watergate... WHAT???? So you are calling for his being banned without so much as reading a word? I am incredulous!!!. Whatever happened to the concepts of "benefit of the doubt" or "fair play"? Pardon me for not butting into the Ashton-Caddy hair-pulling. Jack But you have done EXACTLY that, and rather unfairly so I now see. Dawn

THE "WHOLE BAY OF PIGS THING": FROM DALLAS TO WATERGATE In the year following the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy took measures that led some to conclude that he had experienced an epiphany as a result of his joust at the abyss. A hot-line was installed between Washington and Moscow to provide for better communication in the event of some future crisis. The superpowers entered into a limited test ban treaty, ending their testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, oceans, and space. During the last year of his presidency, Kennedy had also taken measures to shut down CIA-sponsored operations involving the exile community. This resulted in a schism between the FBI and the CIA, and generated new antipathy toward the Kennedy administration. The President's public assurance about what was "understood by the anti-Castro exiles" was more wish than fact.[1] Following incidents in March of 1963 when powerboats manned by anti-Castro exiles roared into Cuban harbors shooting up two Soviet freighters, President Kennedy began to take official steps to terminate U.S. support for groups like Alpha 66 that had become out of control. When Bobby Kennedy wrote his brother a memo promoting new efforts to "cultivate" an "internal breakup in Cuba," the President uncharacteristically did not respond, at least in writing. Apparently the brothers held a private discussion which led to an immediate turn-around, reflected in a presentation to the National Security Council in which Bobby dutifully played his prescribed role of informing the President that "a decision had been made to formulate a plan to shut down the hit-and-run attacks from Florida locales." The following day, the President publicly declared that he would "take every step necessary" to terminate the exile raids against Cuba. Shortly thereafter, mirroring the Kennedys' earlier turn against the Mafia, the Justice Department began prosecuting exile leaders for "violating U.S. neutrality laws."[2] At the same time, the CIA was ordered to cut off funding for the groups, leaving them to fend for themselves or draw on other sources. The President's public statement regarding the exiles' activities was unequivocal: "There will not be, under any circumstances, an intervention in Cuba by the United States armed forces. The government will do everything it possibly can; I think it can meet its responsibilities, to make sure that there are no Americans involved in any actions inside Cuba.... The basic issue in Cuba is not one between the United States and Cuba. It is between the Cubans themselves. I intend to see that we adhere to that principle and as I understand it this administration's attitude is so understood by the anti-Castro exiles from Cuba in this country."[3] Bobby Kennedy held a meeting to formulate plans to implement the new policy. It included two FBI agents, "officials of the CIA, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Navy, Coast Guard, Customs Service, the Internal Security Division of the Justice Department, and the State Department." He explained that the President "wanted to put a halt to the exile raids" and that "sixteen of the officials present" were to leave immediately for Miami "to decide what measures could be taken." Among the steps later taken were: "... serving restriction notices on certain exile leaders to prevent them from leaving the United States, refusing reentry to the United States to any exile who went beyond the 3-mile limit offshore, increased surveillance by the Coast Guard of the Florida coastline, and intensified FBI intelligence coverage of Cuban exile groups to ascertain and abort plans for future raids."[4] Following the Miami conference, the combined forces of the federal government clamped down on the same anti-Castro groups and activities that had previously been given such encouragement and support. Numerous raids were conducted in which agents of the FBI closed down exile training camps, seizing large amounts of weapons, ammunition, and explosives. While it is clear that the President was serious about doing nothing to disturb the fragile peace following the Missile Crisis, and had great reason to fear provoking disclosure of his Secret Deal with Khrushchev, it is not so clear that his brother was going along fully. Having little choice but to support the President's policy publicly, there is ample evidence that in private he continued to support the proscribed activities. The no-invasion pledge and withdrawal of support for exile activities ushered in a particularly bitter season of discontent within the anti-Castro Cuban community. A flyer dated April 18, 1963, and decorated with a profile of the Alamo, was distributed to Cubans in Miami's Little Havana. It stated: "Only through one development will you Cuban patriots ever live again in your homeland as freemen, responsible as must be the most capable for the guidance and welfare of the Cuban people." This blessing could only come to pass: "If an inspired Act of God should place in the White House within weeks a Texan known to be a friend of all Latin Americans...though he must under present conditions bow to the Zionists who since 1905 came into control of the United States, and for whom Jack Kennedy and Nelson Rockefeller and other members of the Council of Foreign Relations and allied agencies are only stooges and pawns. Though Johnson must now bow to these crafty and cunning Communist-hatching Jews, yet, did an Act of God suddenly elevate him into the top position [he] would revert to what his beloved father and grandfather were, and to their values and principles and loyalties." Obviously encouraging support for the forcible removal of the President among the anti-Castro exiles, the broadside was signed, "A Texan who resents the Oriental influence that has come to control, to degrade, to pollute and enslave his own people."[5] The least known of the measures taken by President Kennedy was a peace overture made toward Castro. To many, including top officials at the CIA and the State Department, the very idea of any sort of dialogue with Castro was heresy. Nevertheless, Kennedy authorized William Attwood, Special Adviser to the United States delegation at the United Nations, to begin informal talks with the Cuban Ambassador aimed at eventual normalization of relations between the U.S. and Cuba. He also set up a back channel communication with Castro through journalist Lisa Howard, who was flown to Cuba a number of times in 1963 using a covert operative pilot. A message had been received through U.N. personnel that Castro was displeased about the degree to which Cuba was becoming tied to the Soviet Union and was seeking to redress the balance by finding an accommodation with the United States. There was evidence that a rift had developed between Castro and some of his Communist colleagues, including Che Guevara. The Cuban leader had given an interview in which he expressed satisfaction over Kennedy's crackdown on exile raiding parties. It was at this same time that the CIA made its first contacts in nearly a year with Rolando Cubela, a high-ranking traitor in Castro's inner circle. Without the knowledge of the President or CIA Director John McCone, a small group of CIA officers, led by Desmond FitzGerald, an intimate associate of Bobby Kennedy's, prepared to use Cubela to assassinate Castro. Cubela requested a meeting with Bobby so that he could be sure that the scheme had the approval of the President. What he got was a meeting with FitzGerald, who claimed to be a U.S. Senator and Bobby Kennedy's personal representative. Government reports reveal that Cubela was in Paris being handed a poison pen and a gun at precisely the moment that President Kennedy was assassinated. In 1978, Arthur Schlesinger noted: "The whole Cubela thing raises even deeper questions. The CIA was reviving the assassination plots at the very time President Kennedy was considering the possibility of normalization of relations with Cuba-an extraordinary action. If it was not total incompetence-which in the case of the CIA cannot be excluded-it was a studied attempt to subvert national policy."[6] Although the President had specifically ordered that the U.N. discussions be kept secret, "it seems inconceivable that the CIA knew nothing about it. American intelligence had Cuban U.N. diplomats under incessant surveillance."[7] It tapped their phones, intercepted their mail, and followed their every movement. Schlesinger has noted that "if word leaked of President Kennedy's efforts, that might have been exactly the kind of thing to trigger some explosion of fanatical violence."[8] Ambassador Attwood, who subsequently realized that his telephone conversations and private meetings were insecure, agreed. He has said, "If the CIA did find out what we were doing this would have trickled down to the lower echelon of activists, and Cuban exiles and the more gung-ho CIA people who had been involved since the Bay of Pigs. If word of a possible normalization of relations with Cuba leaked to these people, I can understand why they would have reacted violently. This was the end of their dreams of returning to Cuba, and they might have been impelled to take violent action. Such as assassinating the President."[9] In an historical irony, one of the President's personal messengers, French journalist Jean Daniel, and Castro were together at the moment they learned of the President's assassination. This initiative was later described by the Cuban leader "as a gesture, as an indication of a desire to establish contact, to explore what our thinking was on all of this-and, furthermore, to establish a certain kind of communication." Castro continued, "We needed a kind of bridge, some sort of communication. Since Kennedy had such great authority in his own country after the crisis, he could have done things that he had not done before. In my view, he had the courage to do them. You had to have courage to defy the state of opinion on all these questions."[10] Castro's view of Kennedy's performances, as well as the Cuban historical view as a whole, is very interesting given the realities of the Bay of Pigs, the Secret War, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Listening to Castro's remarks at an oral history conference in Cuba, James Blight concluded: "Kennedy is by far the most respected-even loved-U.S. president since the triumph of the revolution in 1959." He recorded the statement of one Cuban official: "You see, by not attacking Cuba in April 1961 and October 1962, we believe Kennedy's anti-Cuban machinery turned against him, like Frankenstein's monster. Those forces-the Mafia, the radical Cuban exiles, and the CIA-afterwards conspired successfully to assassinate him, because he prevented them from assassinating Fidel and destroying the Cuban Revolution. In a strange way, we believe, Kennedy had to die so that the Cuban Revolution could live."[11] Blight's impression is that when Castro discusses Khrushchev and Kennedy, "one senses that the respect is highly qualified with respect to his old friend Khrushchev, but uncomplicated and sincere regarding his old enemy, Kennedy." Castro feels that because of the "boost in the authority he got after the October crisis, when his leadership was consolidated in the United States," Kennedy was "one of the presidents-or perhaps the president best able-to rectify American policy toward Cuba"[12] At the moment of his death President Kennedy was on his way to deliver a speech in which he would address the kinds of dangerously false constructions so popular at that time in Dallas, a city which had become the epicenter of right-wing jingoistic criticism. The speech presented an almost transcendental world view which is particularly relevant to the "What would Kennedy have done?" debate over Vietnam. While recognizing that dissent is inevitable, the speech was to go on to say: "But today other voices are heard in the land-voices preaching doctrines wholly unrelated to reality...doctrines which apparently assume that words will suffice without weapons, that vituperation is as good as victory and that peace is a sign of weakness.... I realize that this Nation often tends to identify turning-points in world affairs with the major addresses which preceded them. But it was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe away from this hemisphere-it was the strength of the British fleet and the width of the Atlantic Ocean."[13] Political constructions gain a life of their own, making it difficult to harness the released energies. Like the proverbial genie out of the bottle, these manufactured realities are resistant to subsequent containment. Constructions require a special kind of devotion and loyalty; it may be hazardous to one's health to try to change course. President Kennedy knew that by reversing himself on his support of efforts to eliminate Castro, by arousing and then easing tensions against the Soviet Union, and by accepting the assistance of organized crime figures and then allowing his brother, the Attorney General, to vigorously pursue and prosecute them, he was making himself vulnerable to serious physical danger by those most disposed to lash out violently upon feelings of hatred and betrayal. During those same months of 1963 when the Cubela operation was implemented, a strange scenario was being acted out in the southwestern U.S. An ex-Marine who had previously posed as a defector to Russia was being constructed as a pro-Castro Communist. Records reveal that all of his associations were actually of the anti-Castro persuasion. He was intimately involved with the anti-Communist "White Russian" community, shared an office with the coordinator of anti-Castro activities in New Orleans, and was known to have been present at one of the exile training camps that was closed down by the FBI that summer. His name was Lee Harvey Oswald. The day after his brother's murder, Bobby Kennedy sought answers from Harry Ruiz-Williams, a CIA agent staying at a CIA-operated safe house used by Cuban exiles. Afterward, speaking with journalist Haynes Johnson, Bobby said that he "suspected CIA-backed anti-Castro forces of having been involved in his brother's death." He was later quoted as telling one of the investigators from his Senate committee days: "Those Cuban cunts are all working for the mob. They blame us for the Bay of Pigs, and they're trying to make this look like a Castro-Communist hit. I don't buy it. And I don't trust those guys at the CIA. They're worse than the Mafia."[14] Of course, Bobby knew better than anyone what had transpired beneath the surface of the administration's use of the exiles. More personally, he knew the dark side of his own role in the unleashing of elements he now considered responsible for his brother's death. Many of those close to Bobby who saw in him a classic case of survivor's guilt were unaware that a much deeper level of responsibility may have informed his anguish. Bobby had personally entertained Cuban exiles at his house, Hickory Hill, and kept in touch with them at their apartments at the Ebbitt Hotel in downtown Washington, where they were housed by the CIA. Even Desmond FitzGerald, Bobby's replacement for Wild Bill Harvey, was concerned about the directness of Bobby's involvement with the Cuban exiles. The Attorney General's freelancing with the the Cuban exile community was a formula for disaster. Peter Collier and David Horowitz have written poignantly about Bobby's anguish over what may have been an unintended consequence of his own actions: "It was Bobby who had led the administration into dangerous places, daring the gods of the underworld and seizing the fire that finally erupted into anti-Kennedy hatred. He had done it in the service of his brother's presidency, yet he had gone past duty or necessity, using his special status as the brother within to justify what had become at times an almost perverse exploration of self. While Jack was alive, everything was justified; now that he was dead, it was all called into question. Had his acts created an environment for assassination? Had his zeal helped create the concatenation of forces that wanted Jack dead?"[15] Four years after the assassination of the President, the CIA Inspector General conducted an internal investigation which was forwarded to Lyndon Johnson, who told newsman Howard K. Smith: "I'll tell you something that will rock you; Kennedy was trying to get Castro, but Castro got to him first."[16] In March 1967, columnist Drew Pearson wrote, "President Johnson is sitting on a political H-bomb-an unconfirmed report that Senator Robert Kennedy (Dem. N.Y.) may have approved an assassination plot which then possibly backfired against his brother." The source for the Pearson article was the original mafioso hired by the CIA to kill Castro, Johnny Roselli. The spin being placed on this new round of stories was, like the Oswald promotion, aimed at leading the public to believe that Castro was behind the conspiracy in Dallas. Roselli had revealed to Pearson, through his attorney, Edward Morgan, that "One of our assassination teams was captured and tortured until they told all they knew about our operation which they said was ordered by the White House." Roselli asserted that "the team was turned around, you know, brainwashed, and sent back into our country to kill Kennedy." All good lies contain a good measure of truth, and such may be the case with Roselli's attempt at history-making. Although this colorful rendition is compelling, given the source, it should be recognized that contained in this version is the admission that it was an anti-Castro hit team that had killed Kennedy. But this secret "team" would hardly have required anything so exotic as brainwashing to retarget its skills against the President. By November of 1963, Kennedy was clearly a foe to the extreme anti-Castro elements; they believed he had cancelled the airstrikes and betrayed the Bay of Pigs operation, then compounded the betrayal by giving the no-invasion pledge, and finally sealed the antipathy by shutting down the exile camps and beginning negotiations directed toward the normalization of relations with Cuba. When Roselli's well-connected lawyer asked him how he had contained such explosive information, Roselli noted that "all phases of this operation were approved by Allen Dulles and President Eisenhower." He questioned why neither Dulles, who was a member of the Warren Commission investigating the Kennedy assassination, nor Eisenhower, who had full knowledge of the plots, ever came forward. "So what was I supposed to think?" He inferred that the President "wanted to keep the lid on." Roselli speculated that perhaps Johnson "thought it'd be bad for the country to know about this operation-you know, the government of the United States involved with the so-called Mafia to kill the leader of a foreign country and then it boomerangs."[17] A possibility that may never be resolved is Johnson's notion that some action taken by Bobby Kennedy "backfired against his brother." There is ample evidence of Bobby's continued encouragement of anti-Castro efforts during a period of time when his brother, the President of the United States, was pursuing a very contrary policy. Because of the closeness of the brothers it is generally assumed that Bobby was fulfilling one aspect of a multi-track approach on the part of the Administration. While it is understandable that some token support for the exiles might be considered prudent as a way of co-opting more radical elements, the extent to which one approach represented the direct undermining of the other presents a historical conundrum regarding the brothers' coordination of authority. The possibility must be considered that Bobby crossed the line of plausible deniability into a realm in which he was acting in his own highly unofficial capacity apart from any directed intention on the part of the President. Had he, like King Henry II's henchmen, acted on his own to eliminate his brother's Becket? Consistent with Michael Beschloss' observation that "the most likely explanation for the cause of Kennedy's death lies in his policies,"[18] the convergence of CIA-Mafia-Cuban exile operations with the events surrounding the President's assassination provides strong circumstantial evidence of the motive and means for that crime. But there is more direct evidence. In a 1985 libel trial, E. Howard Hunt ("Eduardo") filed suit contesting an assertion in an article written by former CIA officer Victor Marchetti implicating him in the assassination, including an alleged 1966 memo initialed by CIA Director Richard Helms and Deputy Director for Counterintelligence James Angleton, which discussed Hunt's presence in Dallas and the possibility that "a cover story, giving Hunt an alibi for being elsewhere the day of the assassination, 'ought to be considered.'" Speculating on why such an extraordinary cover-up would be put in writing, a high level CIA source said, "The memo is very odd. It was almost as if Angleton was informing Helms, who had just become director, that there was a skeleton in the family closet that had to be taken care of and this was his response."[19] Castro's former mistress-turned-CIA agent, Marita Lorenz, testified of her direct knowledge of Hunt's participation, as well as that of other anti-Castro Cubans, in the events in Dallas leading up to November 22, 1963. She claimed to have been in a two car caravan with Frank Sturgis, Orlando Bosch and others traveling from Miami carrying numerous weapons. Upon their arrival in Dallas they were met at their motel on November 21st by their old paymaster, "Eduardo." An hour after Hunt delivered the money and departed, another character out of history arrived: Jack Ruby. In that trial, an amazing exchange took place after Hunt testified that, "like thousands of other Americans, millions," he, his wife and children had huddled together at home that fateful weekend, "and watched the burial services."[20] Yet, despite providing his own children as alibis, he had also asserted his legal damages to be the doubts in their minds about their own father's activities. The question was asked: "Mr. Hunt, why did you have to convince your children that you were not in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, if, in fact, as you say, a fourteen-year-old daughter, a thirteen-year-old daughter, and a ten-year-old son were with you in the Washington, D.C. area on November 22, 1963, and were with you at least for the next forty-eight hours, as you all stayed glued to the T.V. set?" After a long pause, Hunt lamely asserted that. "it was less a question of my convincing them that I was in Washington, D.C. with them-rather, reminding them that I was-than it was to assure them that none of the charges...had any substance to them at all." The magazine's attorney followed up with: "What I want to know is since they knew how outrageous the lies were, why did they have to be convinced by you that you weren't in Texas?" Hunt simply replied: "Reminded, reminded."[21] Hunt had failed to anticipate that the two elements of his story-that his children were with him the entire weekend and that his children were unsure of where he had been at the time-were mutually exclusive. Hunt lost his lawsuit. The jury did not even debate the malice issue because the truthfulness of the assertion had been sufficiently proven. On the tenth anniversary of the invasion fiasco, April 17, 1971, E. Howard Hunt had traveled to the Bay of Pigs Monument in the Little Havana area of Miami to recruit exile veterans for a new operation. Resurrecting the dream of overthrowing Castro, Eduardo had assured them that "the whole thing is not over."[22] Subsequent events would expose a high level role played by these terrorists when a team of Bay of Pigs veterans was caught burglarizing the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. Found among the burglars' effects was evidence that they were being coordinated by E. Howard Hunt, who had an office in the White House. In addition to political burglary, Hunt had been given the high-level assignment of manufacturing evidence of President Kennedy's complicity in the assassination of South Vietnam's leader in 1963, Ngo Dinh Diem. President Nixon subsequently managed to remain in power for more than two years, withstanding remarkable disclosures, until the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that he had to turn over tape recordings of certain Oval Office conversations. Nixon was out of office within two weeks, primarily because of the disclosure of a taped discussion about Hunt that occurred a few days after the break-in. This tape recording has become known in history as the smoking gun conversation. During that incredible exchange that would topple a presidency, Nixon ordered his Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman, to meet with Richard Helms, the Director of the CIA, and tell him to call off the FBI's investigation of the burglary for national security reasons. Nixon suggested that Hunt's involvement be used as a lever to make sure the CIA would cooperate. The transcripts of President Nixon's rantings about Hunt are perhaps the most factually revealing evidence of deep politics in history: "Hunt...will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things.... Tell them 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. When you get the CIA people in say, "Look, the problem is that this will open up the whole Bay of Pigs thing again." So they should call the FBI in and for the good of the country don't go any further into this case. Period. Just say (unintelligible) very bad to have this fellow Hunt, ah, he knows too damned much.... If it gets out that this is all involved, the Cuba thing would be a fiasco. It would make the CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and it's likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs which we think would be very unfortunate-both for the CIA, and for the country, at this time, and for American foreign policy. Just tell him to lay off....[23] Haldeman recorded Helms' dramatic reaction to the threat: "Turmoil in the room, Helms gripping the arms of his chair leaning forward and shouting, 'The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this'" Despite this, Helms acquiesced and Haldeman was able to report to the President that "his strategy had worked," that Helms would be "very happy to be helpful." But the remarks and Helms' behavior raised the question in Haldeman's mind: "What was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story?" The more innocuous explanation is that Nixon, as the chief White House official involved with the Eisenhower administration's Cuba invasion planning, knew of the government's use of Mafia assassination assets in the efforts against Castro. However, following years of study, analysis and reflection, along with his personal knowledge of the players involved, Haldeman asserted a more astonishing answer to that question: "It seems that in all of those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination." Given his reaction, it is apparent that Helms clearly understood Nixon's message.[24] Aside from such an interpretation of the dark secret to which Nixon was alluding, he and the CIA director had a more current mutuality of interests. Helms wanted to suppress the CIA-Hunt relationship because it violated the Agency's charter regarding domestic spying. Nixon wanted to suppress the White House-Hunt relationship because it would reveal precisely for whom the chief Watergate burglar was working. E. Howard Hunt clearly represented a problem for more than one major Washington power center. Nine months after the smoking gun conversation, when Hunt was about to be sentenced, Nixon was told that Hunt had issued a blackmail demand in lieu of revealing some of the "seamy things" he had done for the President. Nixon's response was unequivocal: "Well, for Christ's sakes...get it."[25] Notes 1. Michael R. Beschloss, The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khrushchev, 1960-1963, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991), 687. 2. William B. Breuer, Vendetta: Castro and the Kennedy Brothers, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997), 209. 3. James Reston, "Top U.S. Advisers in Dispute on Aid to Castro's Foes," The New York Times, April 11, 1963. 4. Breuer, 210-211. 5. William Manchester, The Death Of A President, (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 46. 6. Anthony Summers, Conspiracy, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1980), 426. 7. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Robert Kennedy and His Times, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1978), 557. 8. Summers, 427. 9. Ibid., 426. 10. James G. Blight, Bruce J. Allyn and David A. Welch, Cuba On The Brink. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1993), 237. 11. Ibid., 191. 12. Ibid., 191-193. 13. Gaddis Smith, Gaddis, The Last Years of the Monroe Doctrine. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1994), 111-112. 14. David C. Heymann, RFK. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc., 1998), 10. 15. Peter Collier and David Horowitz, The Kennedys, (New York: Summit Books, 1984), 317. 16. New York Times, June 25, 1976. 17. Ovid Demaris, The Last Mafioso. New York: Bantam Books, 1981), 235-241. 18. Jefferson Morley, "November 22, 1963: Why We Need The Real History Of The Kennedy Assassination," Washington Post, (November 24, 1996). 19. Joe Trento and Jacquie Powers, "Was Howard Hunt in Dallas The Day JFK Died?" Wilmington Sunday News Journal, (August 20, 1978). 20. Mark Lane, Plausible Denial, (New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1991), 282. 21. Ibid., 283-284. 22. Carl Oglesby, The Yankee and Cowboy War. (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1976), 277. 23. H. R. Haldeman, The Ends of Power, (New York: Times Books, 1978), 33. 24. Ibid., 38-39. 25. Theodore H. White, Breach of Faith, (New York: Reader's Digest Press, 1975), 199-200. Great, I did not realize this had been re-posted. Yea. Now I want to see Tim posting here again- miss his brilliant "Oglesby-like" posts. Dawn I was trying to bring this forward, but it has not moved, so sorry for the double post. as I am doing it again, for the same reason.

Jack I agree that certain perple do come to these forums for the sole purpose of disinformation. And I have long known that this IS an intel MO. I agree also that there are people who engage in these practices for money. BUt, that said, I think Ashton has a legitimate concern about Watergate. In a different thread I stated that it would be very good if we had all the people associated with Watergate here to question. Not to attack. If you know anything about me you know that since I joined this forum I have tried to have people who care about these matters do so in a united manner. I detest the flame throwers. Flaming as disinformation has hardly escaped my attention. I have a question for you: If Ashton made his inquiry in a different manner, sans the sarcasm, would you consider his questions legitimate? Have you actually read the first post: "There was no first Watergate breakin"? I have seen you attacked on these pages and it has angered me because I agree with most of what I have seen you write. I know from my associations with other people in the research community that you are an honest and dedicated researcher. And that you CARE about these matters. So I repeat my question: If Aston's TONE were different would this make any difference to you? "Caring" is why I am here and I believe it is also why Ashton is here. In fact I am positive of it. I harbor no ill will against Mr. Caddy. He is a friend of my friend Barr McClellan. And my dear friend J Harrison respected Mr. Caddy. BUT Watergate happened to this nation and, like with much of our history, we did not get the full truth. Do you think we DID???? Do you have no questions about- for example- the ill fated plane crash of Dorothy Hunt 12/8/72? If Watergate is a "resolved" issue then why is there even a "Watergate" section here on this forum.? Respectfully, Dawn

THE "WHOLE BAY OF PIGS THING": FROM DALLAS TO WATERGATE In the year following the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy took measures that led some to conclude that he had experienced an epiphany as a result of his joust at the abyss. A hot-line was installed between Washington and Moscow to provide for better communication in the event of some future crisis. The superpowers entered into a limited test ban treaty, ending their testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, oceans, and space. During the last year of his presidency, Kennedy had also taken measures to shut down CIA-sponsored operations involving the exile community. This resulted in a schism between the FBI and the CIA, and generated new antipathy toward the Kennedy administration. The President's public assurance about what was "understood by the anti-Castro exiles" was more wish than fact.[1] Following incidents in March of 1963 when powerboats manned by anti-Castro exiles roared into Cuban harbors shooting up two Soviet freighters, President Kennedy began to take official steps to terminate U.S. support for groups like Alpha 66 that had become out of control. When Bobby Kennedy wrote his brother a memo promoting new efforts to "cultivate" an "internal breakup in Cuba," the President uncharacteristically did not respond, at least in writing. Apparently the brothers held a private discussion which led to an immediate turn-around, reflected in a presentation to the National Security Council in which Bobby dutifully played his prescribed role of informing the President that "a decision had been made to formulate a plan to shut down the hit-and-run attacks from Florida locales." The following day, the President publicly declared that he would "take every step necessary" to terminate the exile raids against Cuba. Shortly thereafter, mirroring the Kennedys' earlier turn against the Mafia, the Justice Department began prosecuting exile leaders for "violating U.S. neutrality laws."[2] At the same time, the CIA was ordered to cut off funding for the groups, leaving them to fend for themselves or draw on other sources. The President's public statement regarding the exiles' activities was unequivocal: "There will not be, under any circumstances, an intervention in Cuba by the United States armed forces. The government will do everything it possibly can; I think it can meet its responsibilities, to make sure that there are no Americans involved in any actions inside Cuba.... The basic issue in Cuba is not one between the United States and Cuba. It is between the Cubans themselves. I intend to see that we adhere to that principle and as I understand it this administration's attitude is so understood by the anti-Castro exiles from Cuba in this country."[3] Bobby Kennedy held a meeting to formulate plans to implement the new policy. It included two FBI agents, "officials of the CIA, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Navy, Coast Guard, Customs Service, the Internal Security Division of the Justice Department, and the State Department." He explained that the President "wanted to put a halt to the exile raids" and that "sixteen of the officials present" were to leave immediately for Miami "to decide what measures could be taken." Among the steps later taken were: "... serving restriction notices on certain exile leaders to prevent them from leaving the United States, refusing reentry to the United States to any exile who went beyond the 3-mile limit offshore, increased surveillance by the Coast Guard of the Florida coastline, and intensified FBI intelligence coverage of Cuban exile groups to ascertain and abort plans for future raids."[4] Following the Miami conference, the combined forces of the federal government clamped down on the same anti-Castro groups and activities that had previously been given such encouragement and support. Numerous raids were conducted in which agents of the FBI closed down exile training camps, seizing large amounts of weapons, ammunition, and explosives. While it is clear that the President was serious about doing nothing to disturb the fragile peace following the Missile Crisis, and had great reason to fear provoking disclosure of his Secret Deal with Khrushchev, it is not so clear that his brother was going along fully. Having little choice but to support the President's policy publicly, there is ample evidence that in private he continued to support the proscribed activities. The no-invasion pledge and withdrawal of support for exile activities ushered in a particularly bitter season of discontent within the anti-Castro Cuban community. A flyer dated April 18, 1963, and decorated with a profile of the Alamo, was distributed to Cubans in Miami's Little Havana. It stated: "Only through one development will you Cuban patriots ever live again in your homeland as freemen, responsible as must be the most capable for the guidance and welfare of the Cuban people." This blessing could only come to pass: "If an inspired Act of God should place in the White House within weeks a Texan known to be a friend of all Latin Americans...though he must under present conditions bow to the Zionists who since 1905 came into control of the United States, and for whom Jack Kennedy and Nelson Rockefeller and other members of the Council of Foreign Relations and allied agencies are only stooges and pawns. Though Johnson must now bow to these crafty and cunning Communist-hatching Jews, yet, did an Act of God suddenly elevate him into the top position [he] would revert to what his beloved father and grandfather were, and to their values and principles and loyalties." Obviously encouraging support for the forcible removal of the President among the anti-Castro exiles, the broadside was signed, "A Texan who resents the Oriental influence that has come to control, to degrade, to pollute and enslave his own people."[5] The least known of the measures taken by President Kennedy was a peace overture made toward Castro. To many, including top officials at the CIA and the State Department, the very idea of any sort of dialogue with Castro was heresy. Nevertheless, Kennedy authorized William Attwood, Special Adviser to the United States delegation at the United Nations, to begin informal talks with the Cuban Ambassador aimed at eventual normalization of relations between the U.S. and Cuba. He also set up a back channel communication with Castro through journalist Lisa Howard, who was flown to Cuba a number of times in 1963 using a covert operative pilot. A message had been received through U.N. personnel that Castro was displeased about the degree to which Cuba was becoming tied to the Soviet Union and was seeking to redress the balance by finding an accommodation with the United States. There was evidence that a rift had developed between Castro and some of his Communist colleagues, including Che Guevara. The Cuban leader had given an interview in which he expressed satisfaction over Kennedy's crackdown on exile raiding parties. It was at this same time that the CIA made its first contacts in nearly a year with Rolando Cubela, a high-ranking traitor in Castro's inner circle. Without the knowledge of the President or CIA Director John McCone, a small group of CIA officers, led by Desmond FitzGerald, an intimate associate of Bobby Kennedy's, prepared to use Cubela to assassinate Castro. Cubela requested a meeting with Bobby so that he could be sure that the scheme had the approval of the President. What he got was a meeting with FitzGerald, who claimed to be a U.S. Senator and Bobby Kennedy's personal representative. Government reports reveal that Cubela was in Paris being handed a poison pen and a gun at precisely the moment that President Kennedy was assassinated. In 1978, Arthur Schlesinger noted: "The whole Cubela thing raises even deeper questions. The CIA was reviving the assassination plots at the very time President Kennedy was considering the possibility of normalization of relations with Cuba-an extraordinary action. If it was not total incompetence-which in the case of the CIA cannot be excluded-it was a studied attempt to subvert national policy."[6] Although the President had specifically ordered that the U.N. discussions be kept secret, "it seems inconceivable that the CIA knew nothing about it. American intelligence had Cuban U.N. diplomats under incessant surveillance."[7] It tapped their phones, intercepted their mail, and followed their every movement. Schlesinger has noted that "if word leaked of President Kennedy's efforts, that might have been exactly the kind of thing to trigger some explosion of fanatical violence."[8] Ambassador Attwood, who subsequently realized that his telephone conversations and private meetings were insecure, agreed. He has said, "If the CIA did find out what we were doing this would have trickled down to the lower echelon of activists, and Cuban exiles and the more gung-ho CIA people who had been involved since the Bay of Pigs. If word of a possible normalization of relations with Cuba leaked to these people, I can understand why they would have reacted violently. This was the end of their dreams of returning to Cuba, and they might have been impelled to take violent action. Such as assassinating the President."[9] In an historical irony, one of the President's personal messengers, French journalist Jean Daniel, and Castro were together at the moment they learned of the President's assassination. This initiative was later described by the Cuban leader "as a gesture, as an indication of a desire to establish contact, to explore what our thinking was on all of this-and, furthermore, to establish a certain kind of communication." Castro continued, "We needed a kind of bridge, some sort of communication. Since Kennedy had such great authority in his own country after the crisis, he could have done things that he had not done before. In my view, he had the courage to do them. You had to have courage to defy the state of opinion on all these questions."[10] Castro's view of Kennedy's performances, as well as the Cuban historical view as a whole, is very interesting given the realities of the Bay of Pigs, the Secret War, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Listening to Castro's remarks at an oral history conference in Cuba, James Blight concluded: "Kennedy is by far the most respected-even loved-U.S. president since the triumph of the revolution in 1959." He recorded the statement of one Cuban official: "You see, by not attacking Cuba in April 1961 and October 1962, we believe Kennedy's anti-Cuban machinery turned against him, like Frankenstein's monster. Those forces-the Mafia, the radical Cuban exiles, and the CIA-afterwards conspired successfully to assassinate him, because he prevented them from assassinating Fidel and destroying the Cuban Revolution. In a strange way, we believe, Kennedy had to die so that the Cuban Revolution could live."[11] Blight's impression is that when Castro discusses Khrushchev and Kennedy, "one senses that the respect is highly qualified with respect to his old friend Khrushchev, but uncomplicated and sincere regarding his old enemy, Kennedy." Castro feels that because of the "boost in the authority he got after the October crisis, when his leadership was consolidated in the United States," Kennedy was "one of the presidents-or perhaps the president best able-to rectify American policy toward Cuba"[12] At the moment of his death President Kennedy was on his way to deliver a speech in which he would address the kinds of dangerously false constructions so popular at that time in Dallas, a city which had become the epicenter of right-wing jingoistic criticism. The speech presented an almost transcendental world view which is particularly relevant to the "What would Kennedy have done?" debate over Vietnam. While recognizing that dissent is inevitable, the speech was to go on to say: "But today other voices are heard in the land-voices preaching doctrines wholly unrelated to reality...doctrines which apparently assume that words will suffice without weapons, that vituperation is as good as victory and that peace is a sign of weakness.... I realize that this Nation often tends to identify turning-points in world affairs with the major addresses which preceded them. But it was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe away from this hemisphere-it was the strength of the British fleet and the width of the Atlantic Ocean."[13] Political constructions gain a life of their own, making it difficult to harness the released energies. Like the proverbial genie out of the bottle, these manufactured realities are resistant to subsequent containment. Constructions require a special kind of devotion and loyalty; it may be hazardous to one's health to try to change course. President Kennedy knew that by reversing himself on his support of efforts to eliminate Castro, by arousing and then easing tensions against the Soviet Union, and by accepting the assistance of organized crime figures and then allowing his brother, the Attorney General, to vigorously pursue and prosecute them, he was making himself vulnerable to serious physical danger by those most disposed to lash out violently upon feelings of hatred and betrayal. During those same months of 1963 when the Cubela operation was implemented, a strange scenario was being acted out in the southwestern U.S. An ex-Marine who had previously posed as a defector to Russia was being constructed as a pro-Castro Communist. Records reveal that all of his associations were actually of the anti-Castro persuasion. He was intimately involved with the anti-Communist "White Russian" community, shared an office with the coordinator of anti-Castro activities in New Orleans, and was known to have been present at one of the exile training camps that was closed down by the FBI that summer. His name was Lee Harvey Oswald. The day after his brother's murder, Bobby Kennedy sought answers from Harry Ruiz-Williams, a CIA agent staying at a CIA-operated safe house used by Cuban exiles. Afterward, speaking with journalist Haynes Johnson, Bobby said that he "suspected CIA-backed anti-Castro forces of having been involved in his brother's death." He was later quoted as telling one of the investigators from his Senate committee days: "Those Cuban cunts are all working for the mob. They blame us for the Bay of Pigs, and they're trying to make this look like a Castro-Communist hit. I don't buy it. And I don't trust those guys at the CIA. They're worse than the Mafia."[14] Of course, Bobby knew better than anyone what had transpired beneath the surface of the administration's use of the exiles. More personally, he knew the dark side of his own role in the unleashing of elements he now considered responsible for his brother's death. Many of those close to Bobby who saw in him a classic case of survivor's guilt were unaware that a much deeper level of responsibility may have informed his anguish. Bobby had personally entertained Cuban exiles at his house, Hickory Hill, and kept in touch with them at their apartments at the Ebbitt Hotel in downtown Washington, where they were housed by the CIA. Even Desmond FitzGerald, Bobby's replacement for Wild Bill Harvey, was concerned about the directness of Bobby's involvement with the Cuban exiles. The Attorney General's freelancing with the the Cuban exile community was a formula for disaster. Peter Collier and David Horowitz have written poignantly about Bobby's anguish over what may have been an unintended consequence of his own actions: "It was Bobby who had led the administration into dangerous places, daring the gods of the underworld and seizing the fire that finally erupted into anti-Kennedy hatred. He had done it in the service of his brother's presidency, yet he had gone past duty or necessity, using his special status as the brother within to justify what had become at times an almost perverse exploration of self. While Jack was alive, everything was justified; now that he was dead, it was all called into question. Had his acts created an environment for assassination? Had his zeal helped create the concatenation of forces that wanted Jack dead?"[15] Four years after the assassination of the President, the CIA Inspector General conducted an internal investigation which was forwarded to Lyndon Johnson, who told newsman Howard K. Smith: "I'll tell you something that will rock you; Kennedy was trying to get Castro, but Castro got to him first."[16] In March 1967, columnist Drew Pearson wrote, "President Johnson is sitting on a political H-bomb-an unconfirmed report that Senator Robert Kennedy (Dem. N.Y.) may have approved an assassination plot which then possibly backfired against his brother." The source for the Pearson article was the original mafioso hired by the CIA to kill Castro, Johnny Roselli. The spin being placed on this new round of stories was, like the Oswald promotion, aimed at leading the public to believe that Castro was behind the conspiracy in Dallas. Roselli had revealed to Pearson, through his attorney, Edward Morgan, that "One of our assassination teams was captured and tortured until they told all they knew about our operation which they said was ordered by the White House." Roselli asserted that "the team was turned around, you know, brainwashed, and sent back into our country to kill Kennedy." All good lies contain a good measure of truth, and such may be the case with Roselli's attempt at history-making. Although this colorful rendition is compelling, given the source, it should be recognized that contained in this version is the admission that it was an anti-Castro hit team that had killed Kennedy. But this secret "team" would hardly have required anything so exotic as brainwashing to retarget its skills against the President. By November of 1963, Kennedy was clearly a foe to the extreme anti-Castro elements; they believed he had cancelled the airstrikes and betrayed the Bay of Pigs operation, then compounded the betrayal by giving the no-invasion pledge, and finally sealed the antipathy by shutting down the exile camps and beginning negotiations directed toward the normalization of relations with Cuba. When Roselli's well-connected lawyer asked him how he had contained such explosive information, Roselli noted that "all phases of this operation were approved by Allen Dulles and President Eisenhower." He questioned why neither Dulles, who was a member of the Warren Commission investigating the Kennedy assassination, nor Eisenhower, who had full knowledge of the plots, ever came forward. "So what was I supposed to think?" He inferred that the President "wanted to keep the lid on." Roselli speculated that perhaps Johnson "thought it'd be bad for the country to know about this operation-you know, the government of the United States involved with the so-called Mafia to kill the leader of a foreign country and then it boomerangs."[17] A possibility that may never be resolved is Johnson's notion that some action taken by Bobby Kennedy "backfired against his brother." There is ample evidence of Bobby's continued encouragement of anti-Castro efforts during a period of time when his brother, the President of the United States, was pursuing a very contrary policy. Because of the closeness of the brothers it is generally assumed that Bobby was fulfilling one aspect of a multi-track approach on the part of the Administration. While it is understandable that some token support for the exiles might be considered prudent as a way of co-opting more radical elements, the extent to which one approach represented the direct undermining of the other presents a historical conundrum regarding the brothers' coordination of authority. The possibility must be considered that Bobby crossed the line of plausible deniability into a realm in which he was acting in his own highly unofficial capacity apart from any directed intention on the part of the President. Had he, like King Henry II's henchmen, acted on his own to eliminate his brother's Becket? Consistent with Michael Beschloss' observation that "the most likely explanation for the cause of Kennedy's death lies in his policies,"[18] the convergence of CIA-Mafia-Cuban exile operations with the events surrounding the President's assassination provides strong circumstantial evidence of the motive and means for that crime. But there is more direct evidence. In a 1985 libel trial, E. Howard Hunt ("Eduardo") filed suit contesting an assertion in an article written by former CIA officer Victor Marchetti implicating him in the assassination, including an alleged 1966 memo initialed by CIA Director Richard Helms and Deputy Director for Counterintelligence James Angleton, which discussed Hunt's presence in Dallas and the possibility that "a cover story, giving Hunt an alibi for being elsewhere the day of the assassination, 'ought to be considered.'" Speculating on why such an extraordinary cover-up would be put in writing, a high level CIA source said, "The memo is very odd. It was almost as if Angleton was informing Helms, who had just become director, that there was a skeleton in the family closet that had to be taken care of and this was his response."[19] Castro's former mistress-turned-CIA agent, Marita Lorenz, testified of her direct knowledge of Hunt's participation, as well as that of other anti-Castro Cubans, in the events in Dallas leading up to November 22, 1963. She claimed to have been in a two car caravan with Frank Sturgis, Orlando Bosch and others traveling from Miami carrying numerous weapons. Upon their arrival in Dallas they were met at their motel on November 21st by their old paymaster, "Eduardo." An hour after Hunt delivered the money and departed, another character out of history arrived: Jack Ruby. In that trial, an amazing exchange took place after Hunt testified that, "like thousands of other Americans, millions," he, his wife and children had huddled together at home that fateful weekend, "and watched the burial services."[20] Yet, despite providing his own children as alibis, he had also asserted his legal damages to be the doubts in their minds about their own father's activities. The question was asked: "Mr. Hunt, why did you have to convince your children that you were not in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, if, in fact, as you say, a fourteen-year-old daughter, a thirteen-year-old daughter, and a ten-year-old son were with you in the Washington, D.C. area on November 22, 1963, and were with you at least for the next forty-eight hours, as you all stayed glued to the T.V. set?" After a long pause, Hunt lamely asserted that. "it was less a question of my convincing them that I was in Washington, D.C. with them-rather, reminding them that I was-than it was to assure them that none of the charges...had any substance to them at all." The magazine's attorney followed up with: "What I want to know is since they knew how outrageous the lies were, why did they have to be convinced by you that you weren't in Texas?" Hunt simply replied: "Reminded, reminded."[21] Hunt had failed to anticipate that the two elements of his story-that his children were with him the entire weekend and that his children were unsure of where he had been at the time-were mutually exclusive. Hunt lost his lawsuit. The jury did not even debate the malice issue because the truthfulness of the assertion had been sufficiently proven. On the tenth anniversary of the invasion fiasco, April 17, 1971, E. Howard Hunt had traveled to the Bay of Pigs Monument in the Little Havana area of Miami to recruit exile veterans for a new operation. Resurrecting the dream of overthrowing Castro, Eduardo had assured them that "the whole thing is not over."[22] Subsequent events would expose a high level role played by these terrorists when a team of Bay of Pigs veterans was caught burglarizing the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. Found among the burglars' effects was evidence that they were being coordinated by E. Howard Hunt, who had an office in the White House. In addition to political burglary, Hunt had been given the high-level assignment of manufacturing evidence of President Kennedy's complicity in the assassination of South Vietnam's leader in 1963, Ngo Dinh Diem. President Nixon subsequently managed to remain in power for more than two years, withstanding remarkable disclosures, until the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that he had to turn over tape recordings of certain Oval Office conversations. Nixon was out of office within two weeks, primarily because of the disclosure of a taped discussion about Hunt that occurred a few days after the break-in. This tape recording has become known in history as the smoking gun conversation. During that incredible exchange that would topple a presidency, Nixon ordered his Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman, to meet with Richard Helms, the Director of the CIA, and tell him to call off the FBI's investigation of the burglary for national security reasons. Nixon suggested that Hunt's involvement be used as a lever to make sure the CIA would cooperate. The transcripts of President Nixon's rantings about Hunt are perhaps the most factually revealing evidence of deep politics in history: "Hunt...will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things.... Tell them 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. When you get the CIA people in say, "Look, the problem is that this will open up the whole Bay of Pigs thing again." So they should call the FBI in and for the good of the country don't go any further into this case. Period. Just say (unintelligible) very bad to have this fellow Hunt, ah, he knows too damned much.... If it gets out that this is all involved, the Cuba thing would be a fiasco. It would make the CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and it's likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs which we think would be very unfortunate-both for the CIA, and for the country, at this time, and for American foreign policy. Just tell him to lay off....[23] Haldeman recorded Helms' dramatic reaction to the threat: "Turmoil in the room, Helms gripping the arms of his chair leaning forward and shouting, 'The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this'" Despite this, Helms acquiesced and Haldeman was able to report to the President that "his strategy had worked," that Helms would be "very happy to be helpful." But the remarks and Helms' behavior raised the question in Haldeman's mind: "What was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story?" The more innocuous explanation is that Nixon, as the chief White House official involved with the Eisenhower administration's Cuba invasion planning, knew of the government's use of Mafia assassination assets in the efforts against Castro. However, following years of study, analysis and reflection, along with his personal knowledge of the players involved, Haldeman asserted a more astonishing answer to that question: "It seems that in all of those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination." Given his reaction, it is apparent that Helms clearly understood Nixon's message.[24] Aside from such an interpretation of the dark secret to which Nixon was alluding, he and the CIA director had a more current mutuality of interests. Helms wanted to suppress the CIA-Hunt relationship because it violated the Agency's charter regarding domestic spying. Nixon wanted to suppress the White House-Hunt relationship because it would reveal precisely for whom the chief Watergate burglar was working. E. Howard Hunt clearly represented a problem for more than one major Washington power center. Nine months after the smoking gun conversation, when Hunt was about to be sentenced, Nixon was told that Hunt had issued a blackmail demand in lieu of revealing some of the "seamy things" he had done for the President. Nixon's response was unequivocal: "Well, for Christ's sakes...get it."[25] Notes 1. Michael R. Beschloss, The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khrushchev, 1960-1963, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991), 687. 2. William B. Breuer, Vendetta: Castro and the Kennedy Brothers, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997), 209. 3. James Reston, "Top U.S. Advisers in Dispute on Aid to Castro's Foes," The New York Times, April 11, 1963. 4. Breuer, 210-211. 5. William Manchester, The Death Of A President, (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 46. 6. Anthony Summers, Conspiracy, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1980), 426. 7. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Robert Kennedy and His Times, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1978), 557. 8. Summers, 427. 9. Ibid., 426. 10. James G. Blight, Bruce J. Allyn and David A. Welch, Cuba On The Brink. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1993), 237. 11. Ibid., 191. 12. Ibid., 191-193. 13. Gaddis Smith, Gaddis, The Last Years of the Monroe Doctrine. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1994), 111-112. 14. David C. Heymann, RFK. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc., 1998), 10. 15. Peter Collier and David Horowitz, The Kennedys, (New York: Summit Books, 1984), 317. 16. New York Times, June 25, 1976. 17. Ovid Demaris, The Last Mafioso. New York: Bantam Books, 1981), 235-241. 18. Jefferson Morley, "November 22, 1963: Why We Need The Real History Of The Kennedy Assassination," Washington Post, (November 24, 1996). 19. Joe Trento and Jacquie Powers, "Was Howard Hunt in Dallas The Day JFK Died?" Wilmington Sunday News Journal, (August 20, 1978). 20. Mark Lane, Plausible Denial, (New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1991), 282. 21. Ibid., 283-284. 22. Carl Oglesby, The Yankee and Cowboy War. (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1976), 277. 23. H. R. Haldeman, The Ends of Power, (New York: Times Books, 1978), 33. 24. Ibid., 38-39. 25. Theodore H. White, Breach of Faith, (New York: Reader's Digest Press, 1975), 199-200. Great, I did not realize this had been re-posted. Yea. Now I want to see Tim posting here again- miss his brilliant "Oglesby-like" posts. Dawn

My apology Mr Caddy. YOu are correct. I did say "one" question. And it was asked hastily at that. So I shall try this again: How did you come to write letters on Bilie Sol's behalf to AG Trott? As to question 2, the press conference, I was told by Barr, as well as J Harrison and Richard Bartholomew that you were to do the DC press conference. If, as you say Barr neglected to hire you for such, then I truly aplologise and stand totally corrected. Dawn

Excellent summation of the evidence in ths case Pat. I too would like to see an explanation from our resident lone nutters - Tom and Slattery- as to how to reconcile these many contradictions. Without resorting name calling, which Mr. Slattery seems unable to do. By the way BS, I stand by those remarks I wrote and you re- posted. Last time I checked I still had some 1st amendment rights left- of free speech, at least. And our freedoms have eroded under this administration FAR worse than any prior to it. You pretend not to notice, but probably more likely is that you simply do not care. But if YOU were locked up and not told why, given no right to an attorney, for several YEARS, and were forced to submit to torture, having no idea when, or even IF , you would ever have your day in court, I daresay you'd THEN care. With people like you it takes actually experiencing what is occurring under this administration to finally GET IT. Dawn

Pat: There has been some hostility, but it has been between both you and Ashton. Ashton's writing style employs sarcasam. Only after pointing out discrepancies in what Hunt says vs. what Atty Caddy says does Ashton say one of the "realities" cannot be true. Doug Caddy could just answer the questions and be done with all this....Perhaps he is too busy, but since he posted the thread on"inflitrators" in both Watergate and JFK assasination, that tells me he read the posts, thus the questions and has chosen not to answer. So we have to wonder why? This does not mean that his reply would reveal something sinister. Said reply could be perfectly innocent. We know that Mr. Hunt in all likelihood has a GREAT deal to hide.. I would like to see these questions answered as one who watched every second of the Watergate hearings, read every article and knew we were only getting a part of the truth. I wish we had others here TO ask questions of. Don't you think it would be terrific to have, for example Haldeman to ask him WHY- (what basis)- he told us in "The Ends OF Power" Nixon's use of the tern "whole Bay of Pigs thing" (6/23/72 tape) was a term Nixon employed when referring to the assassination of JFK? But he's dead and gone, so we cannot ask. I am sure there are many questions you would have of other participants as well. Ashton is merely asking questions of those participants in the event we call "Watergate" in an effort to arrive at a deeper knowledge. If you don't believe there was more to Watergate than we got, then you may not be interested in questioning anyone else. But from where I sit, I see the two events linked and have LOTS of questions. IN fact I shall ask one myself: My Caddy: How did Billie Sol come to ask you to represent him before the Grand Jury in 1984? Given that your law practice was not in criminal defense, this seems to be a legitimate question. Were you hired by Barr McClellan in May 1998 to attend a press conference in DC, re the fingerprint match? You did not go. IF you recall could you tell me why not? I realize that this was several years ago but I have been curious about these two questions since then. I appreciate your reply. (And I promise that I WON"T utilize sarcasm, regardless what your response may be.) Dawn

[quote name='J. Raymond Carroll' date='Jun 24 2006, 12:08 PM' post='66346'] [ Besides, the weapon fired from behind the fence on the grassy knoll may have been a handgun. Probably was. I can't see them being stupid enough to risk using any kind of rifle from a location where it could be seen. The murder was an in- our- faces- conspiracy, but some minor precautions were taken. And utilization of a smaller weapon for the frontal shots was one such precaution, I suspect. DAwn

Dawn, aren't you the same flake who likened the US attorney general to a Nazi? After a slur like that, you think I care what you have to say? Go grab your copy of Mein Kampf and take a hike. What the hell are you talking about? I am no fan of the POLICIES of the present administration including the POLICIES if the AG. So, answer the damn question. And quit calling me names. At least I post a real bio. What's your damn claim to fame around here? "PR". That really tells us a lot. Oh I know "PR: for the WC and their apologists. Fortunately this forum has an ignore function for people like you. So long. YOu're just another wanna be disinformationist. They only call names. LIke you did with John G. Nothing at all to add to the debate. Take your own advice why don't you? A hike might just do you some good. Dawn

[quote name='John Gillespie' date='Jun 23 2006, 10:54 PM' post='66311'] [ When you get that reaction you know, you just know) that you're on to them. So please don't relent. Yours Truly, JG Hi John Great to see you here. I agree with your posts and I have the feeling that our new "Columbo" is NOT about to "relent". In fact I have the feeling he's only warming up and look forward to more of the same. If people "can't take the heat....." Tho, these are two men who went before COngressional committees, and other questioning by attorneys...so what's the problem answering some questions? Ashton is a bit confrontrational, but he is also 100% SINCERE, and after now 34 years of lies on these matters, I for one am damn glad someone is finally asking some very relevent questions. As for Pat Speer: He once posted that he believed what James McCord wrote in his book "A piece of Tape". Pleeeeease!!!. (There's a bridge in Brooklyn that may still be for sale Dawn

A far more realistic alternative given the breadth of this forum is for members to use the Report facility when they think a member has violated board guidelines. This sends the post and the complaint to all administrators and we can respond more effectively. Since when is asking questions, posting testimony, pointing out discrepancies in said testimony any kind of violation???? Did I miss something here? Oh, sarcasm, that must be it. Well I don't recall that being a violation either. If it were most of us would have been kicked off a long time ago. With all due deference to Attorney Caddy's post: why not just answer the questions, instead of complaining about the questioner. I mean no disrespect here Doug. I have truly enjoyed your posts, and as I said yesterday copied and pasted many of them to my right-wing cousin in an effort to show him that sometimes conservatives actually "see the light" and leave behind the repugnant thinking that now controls the Republican party. So I do not think that the "questionalbe" (by you and Pat) posts are meant to offend, at least I do not read them that way, but to try to reach a deeper understaning of this thing called "Watergate". Sincerely, DAwn

Do you have a real job, or do you just get paid to harrass forum members? You are certainly nasty. What's JOhn ever done to you? Aside from your belief that LHO killed JFk, why are you REALLY here? (Not that I expect a truthful answer.) Rhetorical question I guess. Dawn