Douglas Caddy

From Bill Myers: Having monetization turned on means even if your YouTube [JFK Assassination] videos don't go viral they can still earn you a few cents each time they're viewed. And over time, those few cents per view can add up. So don't miss out. Turn on YouTube monetization. http://www.bmyers.com/public/monetize_YouTube_videos.cfm

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/a-scandal-at-the-c-i-a-maybe/

http://watergate.brightpixelstudio.com/Content/Colodny%20Collection%20tape%20Interview%20list.pdf Here is a list of the Watergate files compiled by Len Colodny that are being transferred to the archives of Texas A&M University under an agreement between the two parties. These files will be open to the public.

BOOK REVIEW: ‘The Nixon Defense’ By Tom Huston - Special to The Washington Times - - Wednesday, August 27, 2014 THE NIXON DEFENSE: WHAT HE KNEW AND WHEN HE KNEW IT By John W. Dean Viking, $35, 746 pages According to John Dean's new book, "The Nixon Defense: What He Knew and When He Knew It," President Nixon knew a lot more about Watergate a lot sooner than he ever admitted. However, the question one should ask before plowing through Mr. Dean's 746-page "definitive" history is, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Nixon admitted he engaged in activities that amounted to obstruction of justice. His guilt was fixed within a few days of the break-in. The rest of the story, as Mr. Dean tells it, answers no important questions and solves no lingering mysteries. Mr. Dean has transcribed 1,000 Watergate-related taped conversations, many of them previously ignored. These he has digested and condensed to tell the story of the president's involvement in the evolving scandal from June 17, 1972 (the day G. Gordon Liddy's crew was arrested at the Watergate) to July 16, 1973 (when the taping systems were shut down). It is a story from which Mr. Dean purports to absent himself, which is quite a trick for the guy who recruited Mr. Liddy to run the campaign committee's intelligence operation and who orchestrated the cover-up. That Mr. Dean is the central figure in the Watergate narrative is grounds for caution when weighing his evidence of presidential perfidy. Sensitive to the inverse relationship between his reputation and that of his former boss, the author has reason to supplement his original false-flag narrative. Shading here, omitting there, falsifying as necessary, Mr. Dean from the beginning has relied on his superior command of the facts to spin a tale that is completely plausible but fundamentally dishonest. Mr. Dean expects his readers to take his word for the accuracy of his transcriptions and the fairness of his editing. If you're unwilling to do so, his solution is simple: listen to the tapes yourself. In refusing to share his transcriptions, he wagers that few are going to undertake the effort necessary to determine how closely he has hewed to the record. A similar wager carried him scot-free through his Ervin committee testimony. As Frank Gannon has noted, Mr. Dean omits a number of mitigating statements made by the president during their "cancer on the presidency" conversation of March 21, 1973. This should not be a surprise. Mr. Dean's purpose here is to discredit the president and to deflect attention from his own role. In realizing this purpose, omission is a necessary tool. A number of assertions by Mr. Dean are demonstrably false. For example, he claims that he knew "almost nothing" about the Kissinger wiretaps prior to the president instructing him on April 16 that they were a national security matter not to be discussed. To the contrary, Mr. Dean was briefed on the details of the operation at a Feb. 29 meeting in his office with former FBI Associate Director William Sullivan. Mr. Dean says he was only "vaguely aware" of the June 23 meeting of H.R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman with CIA Director Richard Helms and Deputy Director Vernon Walters. This is strange since Mr. Dean proposed the meeting, and the effort to use the CIA to limit the FBI investigation was integral to Mr. Dean's containment strategy. Of marginal historic interest, Mr. Dean disavows any knowledge of the 1970 Huston Plan until after Huston left the White House staff in June 1971 and insists he did nothing to implement it although instructed by Haldeman to do so. Neither of these assertions is true. While Sen. Howard H. Baker Jr.'s reduction of the purpose of the Ervin Committee investigation to two questions may have appeared incisive at the time, three other questions have subsequently become critical to understanding the president's role in Watergate: From whom did he learn what he knew, how truthful was what he was told, and did he understand the significance of the information he was given? These questions can't be answered based solely on the transcripts. Much of the information the president received was hearsay: Mr. Dean told Mitchell who told Haldeman who told Nixon. Moreover, much of the information was vague, conflicting and filtered through the president's eagerness to hear what he wanted to hear. More critically, much of the information he was given was untruthful, deliberately shaded to mislead or maliciously designed to shift blame. Two things, however, are clear from these tapes: The president sought from the beginning to contain the political damage, and the president was badly served by his staff. Mr. Dean's book is agitprop, not history. Self-righteous and self-serving, this latest contribution to a 40-year misinformation campaign will gather dust on the shelves of Nixon-hating masochists. It is, as the title confirms, a work of deception: He affords Nixon no defense. His is a prosecutor's brief. There is, however, a credible defense of the president to be made — a defense which, while conceding the failures, is nuanced, fair and places Watergate in the larger context of the Nixon presidency. Such a defense will put Mr. Dean back where he belongs: at the center of scandals he orchestrated and in the pantheon of world-class snitches. Tom Huston served on the White House staff from Jan. 20, 1969, until June 18, 1971. From September 1970 until his departure, he was associate counsel to the president and a member of John Dean's staff. He is mentioned in the book.

From the article: Recently, I interviewed former CIA operative, Dr. Jim Garrow, on The Common Sense Show, and he stated that he had intelligence information that several malls were going to be attacked at the same time. Garrow’s warning predated the inundation of the fact that ISIS “is everywhere”. ISIS, a CIA creation, is being championed as both the planner and executioner of a series of false flag operations designed to enflame the American public to accept going into Syria. Doesn’t this just smell like post 9/11 America when we used the emotion of the event to sell the American people on the need to invade Iraq who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks? But the upcoming football season is looking mighty good and the average American can’t be bothered with events so far away. It won’t be until the country has their football game pre-empted by news that 1,000 malls have been attacked as per Jim Garrow. I have no doubt this is how WW III will commence. For 18 months, I have discussed all the ancillary variables which will comprise the coming war. In my next article, I will lay out the unfolding chronology of events in both the path to WW III and the course of the war itself. I would caution America to be mindful of the fact that ISIS is indeed everywhere, just like al-Qaeda was once everywhere, and that is because the CIA is everywhere! http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/08/21/the-goal-of-the-isis-psyops-is-world-war-iii/

I posted the above insightful article to pose the following query: Does the assassination of JFK in 1963 that was truly a seminal event fit into Anthony Sutton's Theory of Elite Action and if so, how?

Sutton’s Theory of Elite Action Posted on August 21, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog Preface by Washington’s Blog: While we frequently write about the deeper currents underlying world events - we know nothing about Anthony Sutton. But reader and guest poster D. Senti has a sent us a well-written piece summarizing Sutton’s theories … and their possible application to the ISIS jihad in the Middle East. Given that the first time we’ve heard Sutton’s theories is right now – when we read Mr. Senti’s post – count us as agnostic about the whole thing. However, this has enough of the “ring of truth” about it that we are amenable to considering the possibility. Guest post by D. Senti. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/suttons-theory-elite-action.html Background Antony Sutton is likely a familiar figure to those who peruse this site. For those who haven’t had the privilege to hear of him, Sutton was a well-respected establishment scholar for a time. He was a research Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford as well as a professor of economics. His career would have been unexceptional, were it not for two particular quirks: he chose to research the elite, and he was honest. Beginning with his analysis of Western involvement in the creation and support of the Soviet Union, he minced no words in accusing the most powerful families, bankers, and corporations of assisting Communism, Nazism, Socialism, and their own power over that of America’s self-interest. And more than that, he was exceedingly careful. He did not make accusations lightly, did not let his ideological views cloud his careful research methods, and was never afraid to say he didn’t know the answers when he lacked the resources to support a claim. In some ways, he is a “founding father” of the modern anti-statist movement. All of this, of course, made him persona non grata to the establishment, who admonished him frequently to back off lest his career suffer. He chose to leave the Hoover Institution in 1973, to continue his work unmolested, and published a number of books on the actions of elite families that sold quite well. His book on the Skull and Bones, which he considered his most important work, was a scathing indictment of the families at the heart and height of power; Sutton openly accused them of conspiracy, of playing the right and left against each other for their own gain, and of instigating war for the benefit of both their ambitions and the military-industrial complex. Ideology And what was the drive behind this? Was it blind power for power’s sake? If Sutton and others can say definitively that these families and organizations do not act based upon a left or right-wing ideology, then how could it be anything beyond self-interest? Yet Sutton had an answer to this: “Left” and “right” are artificial devices to bring about change, and the extremes of political left and political right are vital elements in a process of controlled change. The answer to this seeming political puzzle lies in Hegelian logic. Remember that both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of “left” and “right” presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. The dialectical process did not originate with Marx as Marxists claim, but with Fichte and Hegel in late 18th and early 19th century Germany… This conflict of opposites is essential to bring about change. Today this process can be identified in the literature of the Trilateral Commission where “change” is promoted and “conflict management” is termed the means to bring about this change. The elite ascribe to a brand of Hegelianism, where the dialectical process brings about an ideal synthesis out of conflict. Hegel himself had strong statist streaks to his philosophy and approach, and his philosophy could be considered as actualization through contradiction. It bears a striking similarity to the gnostic traditions of chaos bringing about perfection by manifesting opposing forces. As the Enlightenment cults borrowed heavily from Gnosticism, both in their belief in an “enlightened few” and in the universe as self-ascending toward some quasi-divine perfection, it’s fitting that this dialectical process be the mentality of the elite. Indeed, one could argue that this whole approach is a product of their occult views, instead of merely being adapted to it. Those who aid this process – who move society toward its final actualization and unity – have a sort of “divine right” to rule by law of nature. This very line of thinking is the inspiration for the Communist Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and their “ends-justify-the-means” thinking for their cause. Sutton again: “Furthermore, the Illuminati principle that the end justifies the means, a principle that Quigley scores as immoral and used by both The Group and The Order, is rooted in Hegel.” Moral absolutes, to them, do not exist, except insofar as an action aids the inevitable course of history. To the elites, the inevitable course of history is a final synthesis of all contradicting political ideas: freedom and tyranny, individualism and collectivism, agency and slavery, and so on. It is in their view neither of these things. The final society transcends these things. What that means in short is simple. If you like any of the things on this list, the elites want them to go away and become merged with their contraries. And this process cannot be theoretical or abstract, no – all of these dialectical philosophers that Sutton mentions, from Hegel to Fichte to Marx to Engels – held that the abstract was meaningless of itself and only the first step in the process. It is the thesis or the abstract, which must be followed by the antithesis or negation, and then from conflict be synthesized or concretized into something greater. A Model So each idea, and its contrary, must be manifested really and separately from its contrary, and then forced into conflict. There is no way to “transcend” the Western model without creating a nation that is the antithesis of the Western model. For representation its enemy must substitute dictatorship; for freedom the enemy must enslave; for a theistic system of rights the enemy must have an atheist principle of amoral action. This was the USSR. And it too needed to be opposed in other ways, which necessitated Nazism. The conflict between these two would create a form of purer collectivism and Statism. After this, the Western liberal democracy must confront the collectivist system, and the victor in that conflict subsume the elements of the loser into itself. One could perhaps convincingly argue that China is a manifestation of the synthesis. This is not completed in any few number of steps, mind you. Anywhere that the elites can create antithesis and conflict, it believes it can “actualize” some element of human society, allowing it to manifest as the synthesis by which the problem is eventually solved. We see this very same approach being taken with Islam today. Everywhere that two groups of people can be brought to struggle against one another, the elites would argue for its merits. And by an astounding coincidence, these same people are positioned to profit immensely from it, both through financial and military systems. No doubt the Statist elements are incorporated into their final ideal vision will put them in positions of great power (especially since Statism is the only real consistent element of their proposed systems, both on the “left” and on the “right”). They work both sides. They foment the conflict. But they are not seeking a total conflagration, which would undermine their work; only war and conflict on a manageable scale. The development of nuclear weapons makes World War-style conflict very dangerous, so their approach has become regionalized. Until nuclear disarmament can be accomplished, that is. Sutton proposed this way of thinking as an explanation for the developments of modern history. The elites are not necessarily well-understood, according to him. There are people and groups and organizations whose motives and methods are not known, and perhaps there is even internal dissension between them. But their driving philosophy is clear: perfect the world through opposition and conflict. Promote their goals by a chain of influence, united by a small cadre with a core philosophy. They need not be presidents, premiers and prime ministers. They need only be considered their trusted advisors. I too am very much inclined to this way of thinking. The operations of the elite are self-interested, but only in the greater sense. They have worked toward consistent goals over timescales that surpass many lifetimes, which is the one thing pure narcissism is incapable of doing. They are selfless in the cause of their own collective selfishness, in a word, which requires some deep belief in the rightness of their cause. Whether the philosophy merely justifies the actions or the actions are driven by the philosophy, I can’t say. Sutton’s schema also allows for alternative views to be encompassed into our efforts. Any hope of opposing their efforts requires the broadest possible umbrella to envelope as many people who would be willing to join us. The best example that comes to my mind is, of course, 9/11. Under what I’ve labeled here “Sutton’s Theory of Elite Action,” (or STEA) 9/11 would like Pearl Harbor before it most certainly be attributed to the actions of the elite. But it can be understood in two senses. The traditional (anti-establishment) view is that people within our government actively assisted or outright ordered and carried out the attack, to excuse actions in the Middle East (for fun and profit, no doubt). This view is tenable under STEA, but the consequences are the same if you think their actions were more subtle. There is no doubt that we funded and supported terrorists in the Middle East. It was just as certain that these jihadists hated us, and that they would try to act against us if possible, and that we did virtually nothing to prevent terrorist action against the US. Any idiot with his eyes open could tell you that would end in tears. And those tears are exactly what the elite wanted. And if word reached US intelligence agencies that terrorists were about to attack, the message would simply have to be lost in transmission, or downplayed, or ignored. It is the very same tactic used by FDR to get the US into WW2: the Japanese needed American oil no matter the cost; FDR cut off supply to Japan at any price; the Japanese were forced to attack to hopefully gain leverage; FDR ignored reports of an incoming attack. Why send fake Japanese planes to attack Pearl Harbor when a few low-visibility actions can make them do it for you? It’s genius, albeit diabolical. So it’s enough for people to understand that the elite wanted a 9/11 and acted in such a way to make it happen. How they went about it is just squabbling over details. Past and Future The same picture is appearing today with ISIS. Those in power fomented conflict, created the conditions to strengthen jihadists, funded and armed these same people, and then departed for greener pastures. There are only two explanations here that make sense: either our leadership is so mind-numbingly incompetent that they need someone to dress them every morning, or they want this conflict. Sutton’s Theory of Elite Action could have tentative predictive power in this case. Sutton himself made some missteps, particularly regarding China (though he may just have been a few decades early in his predictions), so it’s by no means certain that their intentions can be understood beforehand. But STEA would predict that this is an effort to create a synthesis out of the divisions in Islamic society. By maximizing the strength of the jihadist element in Islam and forcing them into direct conflict with the Muslims of a more moderate bent (in spite of the Koran’s calls to violence, I might add), they believe they are providing the only true path for synthetic unity in the Middle East. No doubt this synthetic solution would then be positioned as an enemy against some other regional bloc. The EU is a perfect example. Europe was sorely divided along political and ideological lines. Sutton’s research shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the three competing ideologies of the 1940s (American-style socialism under FDR, Nazism under Hitler, and Communism under Stalin) were all established and supported by the core banking families, as well as other American and British corporations. Sutton: World War II was the culmination of the dialectic process created in the 1920s and 1930s. The clash between “left” and “right,” i.e., the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, led to creation of a synthesis – notably the United Nations, and a start towards regional groupings in the Common Market, COMECON, NATO, UNESCO, Warsaw Pact, SEATO, CENTO, and then the Trilateral Commission. A start towards New World Order. They built the Soviet factories for armament production, funded and stabilized the Reich, and propped up a fragile, newly-developing US political system. Only two theories here can fit the facts: pure sociopathic self-interest and the dialectical STEA. I believe the first is ruled out by multi-generational action along the same lines. It is, of course, possible that this situation or others have simply grown beyond their control. That risk is the nature of the beast. But the funny thing about true believers in a cause is that they’re predictable. ISIS is an organization run by men bent on restoring the Caliphate that crucifies their own jihadists for being too moderate and blows up Islamic holy sites. If ever there were a group fit for their dialectical purpose, it’s ISIS. They are absolutely guaranteed to antagonize every Muslim who is not a part of their particular brand of belief, which is exactly what the elite would need to create an Islamic synthesis. They only lacked money and armaments, yet lo and behold! The US government armed them and then abandoned oil-rich Iraq, leaving a vacuum of power. Again, is this unparalleled incompetence or design? There are no other viable options. (And all this is without mentioning how Fed action, among others, created the Arab Spring which plays perfectly into the pre-end times Islamic traditions, which is too much to explain here.) So STEA could perhaps make the following prediction: the Middle East is about to see the regional equivalent of World War II. And the timing could not be more fortuitous. The (alleged) actions of Iran have spooked enough countries into pursuing their own nuclear ambitions, which would render the Middle East too volatile for dialectical synthesis. If they were going to act, it had to be now. If I had to summarize Sutton’s Theory of Elite Action in a paragraph, I would explain it just so: The powerful elite families, consisting of bankers, a few powerful businessmen, and second-level politicians, have an end goal of a unified Statist society. They operate through a chain of influence and a number of closed-door organizations to impose their ideas on society by controlling key positions of power. Using the dialectic method of Hegel, Marx, Fichte and Engels, they foment conflict by funding and arming antithetical organizations to create a synthetic unity, as seen in the EU. This process will continue – thesis, antithesis, synthesis – on greater scales until a one world Statist system is established, or they are stopped. To many this may seem simple and even obvious. But the ideological framework provided by Sutton allows us to understand the actions of the elite with greater precision. I’ve posted this, above all, in hopes of facilitating discussion and opening up a wider, more welcoming umbrella for anti-Statists to gather under. The above has been proposed and extensively researched by Sutton (and others) to the degree that most honest parties should see its truth. If they don’t, I think they must be either ill-informed (and likely new to the cause) or believe our leaders to be spectacularly incompetent. (All quotes are taken from Antony Sutton’s “America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones“) [And see this interview.]

A second interview of me on The Power Hour on August 20, 2014: http://archives2014.gcnlive.com/Archives2014/aug14/PowerHour/0820142.mp3 The interview of me continues for the first five minutes in this segment: http://archives2014.gcnlive.com/Archives2014/aug14/PowerHour/0820143.mp3

Dr. Gary North writes on www.garynorth.com today: The advantage that big institutions possess is that citizens don't pay much attention to them most of the time. They can operate behind the scenes, and there is no single opposition group that gets the ear of the public. Opposition is diverse. Opposition is dispersed. Opposition is decentralized. Alternatives are numerous, but major alternatives are few in number, and therefore governments can buy off the leaders if the members pose a threat. This is why the government's official version of anything can probably secure acceptance of up to 40% of the population. Alternative views are too widely dispersed to gain traction. Thus, the government's official view predominates, not because everybody accepts it, but because nobody has presented an alternative interpretation which gains anything like the acceptance of the official interpretation. There are lots of alternative interpretations, but only a few people accept any one of them. So, it's a question of replacement. The old rule holds true: you can't fight something with nothing. It is very difficult to fight something that has 35% or 40% of the public's acceptance, by means of a position that has only 5% or 10% commitment. The Kennedy assassination is the classic example. Over the past 20 years, the percentage of people who believe that one person acted alone to kill Kennedy has increased from about 10% to about 30%. In other words, the conventional government account has increased acceptance. In contrast, the number of people who think that more than one person was involved was as high as 80% in 1975. Today, that is down to about 60%. In other words, the government's version has gained traction because it is the default view. There are too many rival views. It is too confusing to figure out how Kennedy died. So, while the government has not been able to persuade about 70% of the population, its version has the largest percentage of believers. Some of this is acceptance by default. There is acceptance because it is too difficult to come to an agreement regarding a single rival account of the assassination.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/pat-buchanan-remembers-richard-nixon/

James Forrestal and John Kennedy by DC Dave August 7, 2014 http://buelahman.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/james-forrestal-and-john-kennedy/ Note: Ted Rubinstein originally posted this article on Facebook with an advisory "treat with caution."

Iraq Policy: Washington’s Puzzle Palace Keeps Getting Curiouser By David Stockman From David Stockman’s article: “The more interesting mystery is how the ISIS fighters learned how to use Uncle Sam’s advanced weaponry so quickly. Perhaps the CIA knows. It did train several thousand anti-Assad fighters in its secret camps in Jordan in preparation for Washington’s “regime change” campaign in Syria. Undoubtedly, in the fog of war—-especially the sectarian wars in the Islamic heartland that have been raging for 13 centuries—it is difficult to have friend and foe vetted effectively.” http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/iraq-policy-washingtons-puzzle-palace-keeps-getting-curiouser/

Notes on a Scandal ‘Hack Attack,’ About a Rupert Murdoch Paper’s Trials, by Nick Davies By DAVID CARR AUG. 14, 2014 The New York Times Book Rewiew In the United States, most of us fall for the movie version of Britain — horsy, obsessed with propriety and full of hard stares of unfulfilled longing between the genders. And then there is the Britain of Nick Davies’s “Hack Attack: The Inside Story of How the Truth Caught Up With Rupert Murdoch.” This version is less Jolly Olde England than a country gone mad, drunk on prerogative, a tiny treehouse of a place where people lie just for practice and trash the law for sport and gain. There is so much excess and human pathology on display here, it makes “Bonfire of the Vanities” seem restrained. The book traces Davies’s three-year campaign to bring to account News Corporation and its British subsidiary News International, along with its owners, the Murdochs, and various enablers in Britain. It is a travelogue of a relentless pursuit, detailing how Davies, an investigative journalist, refused to accept the common wisdom of the political, media and law-enforcement establishment that hacking at the Murdoch-owned News of the World — breaking into the voice mail messages of public and private figures — was an isolated instance of tabloid excess. As it turned out, the practice was exceedingly common and casually deployed to create villains in order to sell papers and, when it was useful, to persecute enemies of the Murdoch empire. The Britain that emerges in “Hack Attack” is a festering petri dish where, as Davies puts it, “everything is for sale. Nobody is exempt.” While Davies is a populist and a partisan who loves catching out the rich and punishing elites, he clearly believes that the common folk of Britain have gotten exactly the government and media they deserve. Not only are they willing to lay down a hard-earned quid for one of the tatty papers Murdoch and much of the rest of Fleet Street sell, but the voice mail and email boxes of those newspapers are always jammed with proffers from waiters, hotel clerks and trainers who are more than eager to spill dirt for a few pounds. If, as Janet Malcolm has said, journalists are always selling someone out, the public in Britain seems happy to serve as their wingmen. In that cultural context, the hacking of phones on an enormous scale by The News of the World, Britain’s most popular newspaper, seems like just one more part of how business gets done in a country where the cruelty of the press is chronic and callous. There’s a long, florid history of tabloid excess in Britain, hardly restricted to the Murdoch-owned papers. This part of the tale began in 2006, when Clive Goodman, the royals editor at The News of the World, and Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator the newspaper had hired, were arrested and charged with hacking the phones of the British royal family. The pair eventually pleaded guilty and went to prison, and Andy Coulson, the editor of The News of the World at the time, resigned. News Corporation officials insisted it was an isolated incident spawned by a rogue reporter, an assertion that turned Davies into something of a rogue himself because he knew better. On July 8, 2009, Davies published the first of what would be many articles in The Guardian about the extent of hacking at The News of the World, writing that News Corporation had paid out more than £1 million to settle hacking cases that would have led to embarrassing exposures, and pointedly noting that Coulson, by then the Conservative leader David Cameron’s communications director, had served as deputy editor and then editor of The News of the World while much of the hacking had gone on. There were many attempts to knock down and minimize the story, but working in concert with the attorneys of several victims, Davies published a series of reports over the next few years suggesting that hacking was rife and that knowledge of the practice went right to the top of the newspapers and the political establishment. As an old hand in journalism, Davies knew the dimensions of the cesspool and was more than willing to stand in the muck for years to figure out what was at the bottom. He is, as it turns out, just the kind of person you don’t want to have on your tail. It’s less about his strategic brilliance and more about an innate refusal to give up — ever. That which cannot be known is precisely what Davies wants to know, over and over again. He wages a ground war to get at the truth, which comes less in one single “aha” moment than as a slow drip of facts penetrating a tissue of lies. Evidence is destroyed just before he gets his hands on it, the police redact documents so as to denude them of value. Then, just in the nick of time, a confidential source or secret document arrives. In that sense, the book moves right along, from cliffhanger to cliffhanger. Davies is, as these things often go, the lonely hero of his own telling, though Alan Rusbridger, the bespectacled editor of The Guardian, is given credit for backing him when others thought he was a bit off his rocker. But as is frequently the case in books by investigative reporters, everything the editor made him leave out of his coverage for the sake of clarity and narrative momentum now becomes string for the book. And since every misdemeanor is a potential felony to Davies, he chases them all down. However, those exhausting tendencies are really not a deal breaker for the reader, given how good a story Davies uncovered and now is in a position to tell. For a time that story seemed stuck, but then in September 2010, The New York Times Magazine published an article that included on-the-record confirmation, by former News of the World reporters, of widespread hacking. Much of the British press were bystanders to a huge story that took place right in their midst. Davies’s depiction of Fleet Street, and in particular the thuggish deputies who ran The News of the World, is great industry portraiture. It was a hellish place, where editors waved magic wands until reporters made stories come true. The fairness of that reporting was so much beside the point that the question barely arose. British journalism is a ferociously competitive industry where success is measured on the newsstand and in getting consumers to part with their money. As such, it is a place of campaigns, with targets caricatured to the point that much of any given newspaper seems like a comics page. The brutal pressure to win in the British press, to get the story no matter what, has curdled the civic impulse of journalism into something far more bloody and less enlightening. Or as Davies pithily explains it, “In the newsroom without boundaries, there was one thing which was not tolerated: failure.” Hypocrisy is a frequent star of this book. The popular press was going after all manner of public peccadilloes even as journalists spent their own nights drinking, drugging and sleeping with one another. Police officers buried evidence because they were either on the take or had cozy relationships with News International that led to their own columns in the newspapers after they retired. “Hack Attack” is a very British book, to the good, I think. It teaches the reader a whole new lexicon of skulduggery. Politicians who fail to support the editorial line of the Murdoch newspapers are “monstered,” their personal lives taken apart with an amalgam of facts, lies and trumped-up scandal. The toolbox of the sleazy reporter includes “blagging,” “muppeting” and “double whacking.” Without getting bogged down in the tawdry details, all involved various degrees of false identities and impersonation. The cloak-and-dagger activities of the lawyers and journalists pursuing the Murdoch empire make for delicious reading, as when the attorneys routinely pull the batteries out of their phones when they meet to discuss strategy. This unseemly state of affairs might have continued to this day were it not for Milly Dowler, a 13-year-old schoolgirl who had gone missing and was found dead. The voice message case had been motoring along under the radar as various sports and entertainment celebrities sued, and were sometimes paid off, for instances of hacking. But all that changed in July 2011 when it came out in The Guardian that The News of the World had hired investigators to hack Milly Dowler’s voice mail messages. (At the time, Davies got a significant fact wrong, which he acknowledges in the book, by reporting that agents of The News of the World, while hacking, had erased a voice mail message.) Whereas hacking royals and various celebrities may have been a bit of good old-fashioned fun, there was a huge public outcry over the news that a murdered child and a bereaved family were targeted. The uproar engaged heretofore indifferent public officials and compromised police officers sitting on a huge mound of hacking evidence. Other newspapers jumped in, and News International found itself in the middle of a scandal that could no longer be contained. The News of the World was shuttered, a hugely important bid for the satellite broadcaster BSkyB was scuttled and eventually Rupert Murdoch was forced to spin off his beloved newspapers to contain that damage. Coulson ended up paying dearly for encouraging and tolerating hacking with a guilty finding, but his predecessor at The News of the World, Rebekah Brooks, who went on to edit another Murdoch publication, The Sun, and to run his British newspaper operation, was acquitted on all charges. She is, in Davies’s account, the white whale, always just out of reach and eluding the various harpoons he lobs at her. Perhaps it is a quirk of British justice, and great lawyering, that she got away. In the book, she comes off as a particularly ambitious, particularly British version of the professional social climber. She is an extremely cinematic character, menacing various politicians about their extramarital affairs even as she has her own with Coulson. As an editor, Brooks went on various campaigns — Britain must build prison ships! — less as a matter of civic conviction than because the campaigns moved copies at the newsstand. She shared drinks and horses with police officers, and her newspapers’ ability to make and end the careers of prime ministers meant that they frequently courted her, instead of the other way around. Despite the book’s subtitle, the truth never catches up with Murdoch. True enough, he loves newspapering and has been known to become deeply involved in editorial matters, but no real case is made that he knew the specifics of how his papers were coming up with very private facts about public figures. His son James — the pair are frequently depicted at odds — was closer to the action, and was called to account both in Parliament and in the book. But one need only note his subsequent ascent to understand that the dents have been hammered out and he continues to roll along. It is, in the best way, an old story. A lone gunslinger takes on a dishonest town, and in the end the bad guys flee. It is both more complicated and a bit less satisfying in reality, but that would be another book, and probably a less enjoyable one. HACK ATTACK The Inside Story of How the Truth Caught Up With Rupert Murdoch By Nick Davies Illustrated. 430 pp. Faber & Faber. $27. David Carr writes the Media Equation column for the business section of The Times and is the Lack professor of media at Boston University.

I regret the sources cited do not meet your subjective criteria.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/12/Study-You-Have-Near-Zero-Impact-on-U-S-Policy

CBS insulted the intelligence of its viewers last night when it introduced on its Evening News its new national security consultant, Mike Morell, who used to be the no. 2 man at the CIA. Former CIA Deputy Director Morell declared the rise of ISIS was due to the mal administration of outgoing Iraq Prime Minister Malaki. Morell failed to disclose that ISIS was trained by the CIA and the Mossad in Jordan and entered Iraq via Syria from Turkey. The CIA's goal in using ISIS is to split Iraq into different nations and break its bond with Iran. If a million people are killed in the process, the U.S. and CIA could care less. The CIA used to control the American media from behind the scenes. Now it puts its agent upfront in the media. http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/how-will-iraqs-change-of-leadership-affect-the-civil-war/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-trained-by-israeli-mossad-nsa-documents-reveal/5391593

Nixon’s Bay of Pigs Secrets Posted on April 23, 2012 by Brittany Leddy — No Comments ↓ By Don Fulsom www.thehistoryreader.com http://www.thehistor...y-pigs-secrets/

Nixon’s Bay of Pigs Secrets Posted on April 23, 2012 by Brittany Leddy — No Comments ↓ By Don Fulsom www.thehistoryreader.com http://www.thehistoryreader.com/contemporary-history/nixons-bay-pigs-secrets/

The Power Hour radio show has invited me for another guest interview on March 20. I hope at that time to provide additional information about Watergate and its relationship to the JFK assassination. I also plan to discuss events that happened after I moved from Washington, D.C. back to Texas in 1979, including the Billie Sol Estes - LBJ saga.

The Power Hour radio show has invited me for another guest interview on March 20. I hope at that time to provide additional information about Watergate and its relationship to the JFK assassination. I also plan to discuss events that happened after I moved from Washington, D.C. back to Texas in 1979, including the Billie Sol Estes - LBJ saga.

It's time for John Dean to tell the truth about Watergate By Roger Stone Published August 06, 2014 FoxNews.com http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/06/it-time-for-john-dean-to-tell-truth-about-watergate/ Saturday, August 9 marks the fortieth anniversary of President Richard Nixon’s resignation over the scandal known as Watergate. It’s hard to believe but 40 years after Nixon’s resignation the American public still does not know who ordered the Watergate break-in, what the burglars were looking for and why they did it. The mainstream media narrative about Watergate is a grotesque and fantastic distortion of historical fact. No one has sought to control this narrative more than former White House Counsel John Dean. Through his books, interviews, paid speeches, lawsuits and litigation Dean has spun the myth that he was a naïve and ambitious young man sucked into the Watergate cover-up by the evil Nixon and his men. Only Dean can supply the full story of the Watergate break-in and cover up now by releasing the transcripts of all of his conversations with Nixon on March 13,16, 17, 20 and 21. Now Dean is back with a brand new book "Nixon's Defense: What He Knew and When He Knew It" in which he seeks to write the "authoritative" narrative of Nixon and Watergate. Dean claims his book is based on 1,000 hours of tapes that only he has had transcribed. Missing from the July 27 New York Times review of the book by presidential historian Robert Dallek is the fact that Dean refuses to submit these transcripts for independent review. Although Dean says his goal to "reconstruct the full history of the scandal" his book is anything but the full or complete story. Truncated or entirely missing are recordings of Dean and Nixon discussing the cover-up on March 13, 16, 17, 20 and 21, 1973. The full audio and transcripts for these tapes can be found at http://www.nixontapes.org/watergate.html "In assembling this story," Dean writes in "Nixon's Defense," "I have not, except in a few instances, recounted my own involvement." Indeed, Dean has air-brushed himself out of the picture although these tapes clearly show Dean coaxing Nixon into the cover-up and coaching him on the talking points for their planned lies. What kind of lawyer urges his client to commit crimes? What did Dean mean when he closes the conversation with Nixon of March 16, 1973 by saying "we will win"? By omitting any information about tape recordings on these dates, Dean has actually obscured what the president knew and when he knew it rather than revealing it. The one-week gap in the tapes has the effect of hiding Dean's true role and omitting a number of statements Nixon made which he could have used in the president's defense. On the tapes that Dean mischaracterizes or completely ignores, the former White House counsel tells Nixon for the first time on March 13 that the Watergate break-in is connected to the White House through Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman's aide Gordon Strachan -- who is receiving transcripts of the Watergate bugs. It's clear that Dean has lied to Nixon for nine months about what he knows about White House involvement in Watergate. During hearings of the Senate committee investigating Watergate in the months to come, Mr. Dean would falsely testify that there had been no prior White House knowledge of the break-in. On March 16, Dean and Nixon discuss putting out a false statement in "The Dean Report" to cover up White House involvement in the burgeoning scandal. On March 17, Dean explains his discovery that Nixon aide John Ehrlichman had used CREEP (Committee to Reelect the President) lawyer Gordon Liddy for the break-in at the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist and that the arrest of Liddy would eventually lead the investigation to Ehrlichman. Dean also tells Nixon that beyond Strachan more people in the White House are "vulnerable" including Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, Colson and even himself ("since I have been all over this thing like a blanket") long before his "Cancer on the Presidency" speech (more on that in a moment) mentioned on the March 21 tape. On the March 20 tape, Dean and White House aide Richard Moore are heard in a meeting with Nixon in the oval office to discuss composing that phony statement. But wait, there's still more. In Dean's meeting with the president on March 21, in which he informs Nixon that there is "a cancer on the presidency," the president concludes a discussion about granting clemency to the burglars by saying: "No, it's wrong, that's for sure." Dean excises this quote from his latest book. Why should we believe Dean now? When confronted, under oath in litigation, with discrepancies between his sworn testimony and the facts alleged in his book "Blind Ambition" Dean claimed that his ghost writer, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Taylor Branch, "made up out of whole cloth" key parts of his book. He later blamed his editor the well-respected Alice Mayhew. Yet Mayhew said "I never told John Dean what to put in his book, that's a lie, L-I-E. I, would never have been party to, and if John Dean wants to say that Alice Mayhew and Taylor Branch, ah, are parties to such dishonest behavior ... He's got serious problems, period." In fact we now know that it was Dean who ordered Liddy to produce the Gemstone plan that included the break in at the Watergate hotel. It was Dean who ordered the Watergate cased six weeks before the first break-in, and it was Dean who was the self-described "case officer for the cover up," who pressured the CIA to post bail for the Watergate burglars, and arranged for and ordered the payment of hush money for the Watergate burglars. Dean began the cover-up shortly after the 1972 election by telling Nixon he had concluded that the White House had nothing to do with the break-in. Nixon would announce this in a press conference. Dean, in his own words, admitted to the president that he was involved in "an obstruction of justice." Only Dean can supply the full story of the Watergate break-in and cover up now by releasing the transcripts of all of his conversations with Nixon on March 13,16, 17, 20 and 21. I challenge him to do so. These transcripts will prove that Dean was a progenitor of the Watergate cover-up who sought immunity and a plea bargain with Watergate prosecutors only when he saw the cover-up he was running would not hold. Roger Stone is author of “Nixon's Secrets: The Rise, Fall and Untold Truth about the President, Watergate, and the Pardon” (Skyhorse Publishing) which will be released on August 11.

I was interviewed on The Power Hour radio show on August 5, 2014, about the key to understanding Watergate is the JFK assassination. I advise skipping the first 8 minutes that are part of an interview of a prior guest. http://archives2014.gcnlive.com/Archives2014/aug14/PowerHour/0805143.mp3

Andy Coulson, Former Murdoch Editor, Accused of Perjury By ALAN COWELL AUG. 6, 2014 The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/world/europe/coulson-former-murdoch-editor-is-indicted-again.html?_r=0

Nixon reframes Watergate scandal in rereleased 1983 interviews The Los Angeles Times August 6, 2014 http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nixon-watergate-20140806-story.html

http://archives2014.gcnlive.com/Archives2014/aug14/PowerHour/0805143.mp3