Christopher Hall

Just one more Gerry Hemming "story". When Gaeton Fonzi met with David Atlee Phillips' family (brother, wife and daughter) and showed each of them the artist's sketch of "Maurice Bishop" they all responded that it was David Phillips. Veciana all but admitted this to Fonzi. And the shot to Veciana's head was a remeinder that the CIA does not like it when one of its covers is blown. (Even tho Veciana SAID this was Castro retaliation it's clear he knows it's CIA). Do good old Gerry provide a photo of Jake Esterline for comparison? I agree that Fonzi covers this material quite well. I think that, at a minimum, Veciana was involved with the perps of the assassination. Perhaps he was more involved. When I was a boy (in the mid to late 1960s) a young man whose last name was Veciana joined our class at the Catholic boys' school I attended.. He said that his family had fled Cuba a few years earlier. His father was a doctor, but I forget his name. I don't know whether he was related to Antonio Veciana.

I recently watched "An American Affair", which is largely based on JFK's affair with Mary Pinchot Meyer. The names are changed, but she, Cord Meyer and James Jesus Angleton are easily identifiable. They referred to a sort of Cuban henchman who did dirty work for the CIA, but they didn't show him and I couldn't determine who they were talking about. Do yourself a favor and watch this movie - it's quite enjoyable. The following is its IMDB listing: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0899138/

I wish that some scholar or author (not mutually exclusive terms, I note) would write a book about Cord Meyer. Ditto for James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips and E. Howard Hunt (I have read and enjoyed St. John Hunt's book about his father, but I would like to see a lengthy biography of this fascinating man). Jeffereson Morely did a great job with his book on Win Scott, but we need more books like this.

I am mixed up about the debate within a debate regarding the hole (or alleged hole) in the front windshield. The pictures that I have seen posted look authentic. Apparently, someone thinks they have been altered. Assuming the pics are authentic, from what shooting position do you think they originate? 1. Overpass (this seems most likely); 2. TBSD (the missed/Teague shot?); 3. DalTex Bldg (possible); or 4. GK (this seems like an odd (or impossible) angle)?

I am reading this book and will post a report about it when I have completed it. Thus far, it is quite enjoyable. I enjoy reading about some ancillary figures relating to the Kennedys and the political dynamics of the 1959s and 1960s. Roy Cohn was a man about town who had an impressive Rolodex, but who usually turned up in less than flattering circumstances. When I was in law school, I remember reading how he was somewhat of a pioneer in the securities fraud class action litigation arena. Lawyers called the practice "greenmailing" back then and it was looked down upon by most lawyers. Now it is simply class action litigation, usually based on lies, contrived causes of action, extortion and settlements awarding vast sums to the law firms and pennies to the shareholders. I would think that the least the trial lawyers could do would be to erect a statue of Cohn. As an aside, there is only 1 picture of RFK, which is, of course, in the McCarthy hearings.

I would approach this issue from a different perspective. Namely, is OBL dead or is he alive? If he is dead, how, when and where did he die? If one's goal is to perpetuate a WOT, is it better to have a live OBL or a dead OBL? Other questions also arise, like whether it is relevant if a hit squad was assembled on the drawing board but never deployed, whether Panetta's diclosure of this issue is a transparent attempt to deflect attention from what Nancy Pelosi know about enhanced interrogation techniques and when she new it, and the legal effect of an executive order (as Paul Begalla famously said "Stroke of the pen - law of the land. Kind of cool!"). I probably take a different view than most of the people on the EF about matters like this (I trust the CIA more than I trust Congress), but these questions should be important to everyone. The problem with buying into Sy Hersch is that, if you do, you also have to explain some of the utter silliness contained in "The Dark Side of Camelot". Same way with decrying the JFK assassination-related fiction of Vincent Bugliosi when he writes about the SBT and then believing him when he writes a book critical of GWB. Authors are either credible or unbelievable, but they can't be both.

Why so many investigators assigned? Probably the same reason the US government deployed such a huge maritime effort to try to find the wreckage - because Jr was rich, famous and an important member of a politically influential family. The government would do the same thing for a Clinton or a Bush or for Warren Buffett, but a few flyovers for the rest of us. It's rather ironic that power and influence even matter at death. I remember there being some outcry at the time as to how much the government was spending to find wreckage and bodies.

I read, in some book during the last year, that RFK and Jackie had an affair after JFK's death and that they had even gone to a Carribean island together. I think that it was Antigua. I don't know (or really care) whether it is true. Nor do I know whether RFK was a faithful husband to Ethyl or, instead, a cad like his brother and like his father. Except for "The Other Side of Camelot", I try not to read hit pieces, because they don't help me with my ultimate objective of discovering who perpetrated the assassination of JFK. I could speculate as to which book I read the above story/rumor, but I have read so many JFK assassination books that I wouldn't want to wrongly attribute it to an author who had nothing to do with the story. JFK strikes me as the accidental President (in that Joe, Jr. was supposed to run for the office and that the role kind of descended to him after Joe's death). RFK strikes me as, by far, the most intense of the brothers and, according to one book I read, the one who had the moxey to stand up to Joe, Sr. EMK seems a born introvert who had the unenviable position of following in the footsteps of extrovert brothers and a father who had very high expectations.

This is an aritcle about MCNamara's days at Ford Motor Company. http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/07/robert-...con-dead-at-93/ I didn't know that he developed the Falcon.

Michael Jackson was an important artist in the history of popular music but he clearly did not deserve this amount of media publicity. The music industry have used this opportunity to sell some records. I also find it difficult to understand why a pedophile has received so much good publicity. Our music stations are not allowed to play the music of the UK's pop pedophile, Gary Glitter. His problem was that he did not have enough money to buy off the victims. "Our music stations are not allowed to play the music of the UK's pop pedophile, Gary Glitter." Not allowed by whom or by what? The Government? I have tried to learn about personal liberties and freedoms in the UK after reading an article about stops and frisks and stops and searches. What can you direct me to on this topic? Thanks.

Please post any proof you have to support your assertion that Sen. Ted Stevens "was acquitted" of the bribery and corruption charges he was tried in court for. My understanding is that one of the first official acts of newly confirmed US Attorney General Eric Holder was to determine that there was prosecutor misconduct committed in the prosecution of Stevens extensive enough to warrant overturning his conviction and sentence, and that Holder's DOJ further determined that it would not retry Stevens. Stevens seems to have committed the crimes for which he was prosecuted: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Corruption_c...ainst_0401.html You are correct, Tom. My memory failed me. My feelings regarding Stevens were good riddance, but I forgot that he was convicted and then had his conviction withdrawn (they didn't teach me anything about withdrawing convictions in law school) by Holder for prosecutorial misconduct.

The FBI says it's not investigating Palin for anything: http://www.adn.com/palin/story/854318.html And Ted Stevens (whom I pulled against, I might add) was acquitted.

This is a new Crime Magazine article on the above topic. http://crimemagazine.com/richard_nixon_kennedy.htm I don't vouch for its accuracy or know anything about the author. Maybe some other forum members can offer some insights on the topic.

LNs will tell you that the above displayed accusation of a former S&L regulator cannot be true....too many would have to be involved, it just couldn't happen. Despite his personal tax problems and his complicity in what has already happened, Tim Geithner did get confirmed in the senate to be US Treasury Secretary, the former chairman of Goldman Sachs, the recent US Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, did appear to give Goldman "special treatment" and access during the final six months of the Bush admin., and Obama did invite into his administration, Bush secretary of defense, Robert Gates and his top military appointees in their Bush era positions. Military funding is still growing, even during financial crisis, and a "Vietnam like" escalation policy in Afghanistan has been put into motion, topped with an "Iraq like", troop surge..... This is some good info. I am waiting for an "insider account" book to reveal some of the particulars of the massive bailout/sellout/fraud. I would add that it is no small coincidence that Warren Buffett agreed to inject Goldman Sachs with $5 billion the week that Congress was considering passing the bailout legislation, contingent on the passage of such $700 billion bailout. And then Buffett went on national television shows to assure us that life as we knew it would stop if the legislation wasn't passed. We now find from the TARP Special Inspector General that the total TARP program needs, not the paltry amount of $700 billion, but $2.6 - 2.9 trillion. Everyone who supported this multi-generational throwaway of money (GWB, Paulsen, Bernanke, Obama, McCain, approximately 75 Senators and I forget how many Congress members) is complicit in the fraud.

The following link has some FBI files re threats made against Ted Kennedy: http://foia.fbi.gov/jpkenn/jpkenn1a.pdf They are contained in the FBI file on Joe Kennedy.

This is great news. It is a classic example of the Federal government running roughshod over a private citizen in a politically motivated attack which leaves the victim exhausted and penniless at the end of the day.

Thanks, Douglas. This was well worth the read. It's the elite being kind enough to set the global agenda for the unwashed masses for the ensuing year. Doug, From my standpoint someone like William F. Buckley, Jr. was the classic Bilderberg elitist and he was so well connected into this millieu that he is in my Dirty Dozen who are directly responsible for the JFK hit... Would you agree or disagree after browsing some of these postings...? Did you read my posts on: 1) The Buckley associations with the Carlist Catholics under "Killing Commies for Christ the King..." 2) His friends from Brown University: E. Howard Hunt, Anastase Vonsiatsky and George Lincoln Rockwell head of the ANP 3) His history with The Coudert Brothers Law Firm who ran Buckley's 1965 NYC mayoralty race who were immigration lawyers for all the ROCOR Fascists and Nazis including people like George de Mohrenschildt, Adrian Arcand, Boris Brasol and Anasatase Vonsiatsky among others. The Rapp-Coudert Committees actually were the forerunner of McCarthyism. Shouldn't Buckley actually get as much credit for founding McCarthyism as was given to Robert J. Morris by Whittaker Chambers? Do you think Buckley was short-changed by Chambers on this score? 4) His association with Clendenin J. Ryan, during the founding of YAF, who had worked with Ulius Amoss and Carleton Coon of the OSS on programmed assassination squads which were later turned over to Ray S. Cline of WACL and the CIA. Ryan, Coon and Amoss basically originated the concept of Murder, Inc. in Latin American "banana dictatorships" for United Fruit 5) His father's history with Pantapec Oil in Mexico, the Cristeros Rebellion and the Gang of Four who rode after Pancho Villa into New Mexico for John J. Pershing's cavalry: Angleton's father, James Hugh Angleton, Buckley's father, William, Sr., a young Charles Willoughby and Wickliffe Draper's uncle, George Otis Draper. This was the paradigm for all United Fruit coups in Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatamala and Cuba for the next 75 years. 6) Buckley's mention in The Manchurian Candidate by Richard Condon as "...that fascinating younger fellow who wrote about men and God at Yale." Of course Buckley wrote "Man and God at Yale" in maybe 1952 for the Regnery Press who published more anti-Semitic and Holocaust Denial material than anyone in that period. Just seems like he was involved with Edward Hunter and his "Brainwashing" ventures as early as 1952 with American Mercury where Buckley worked. Why do you think Richard Condon mentioned "men and God at Yale?" What was he possibly trying to warn us all about here? John- You try hard (and perhaps successfully) to associate WFB with McCarthyism, but completely fail to mention RFK. When I think of Joe McCarthy, the 2 people who come to mind are RFK and Roy Cohn. Chris

Thanks, Douglas. This was well worth the read. The secrecy and security surrounding the Bilderburg Group throwdowns lends credence to its (well-denied) significance. It's the elite being kind enough to set the global agenda for the unwashed masses for the ensuing year. What are the identity cards he refers to in the article? Is Great Britain trying to impose a national id card system? Perhaps to assist law enforcement with its warrentless stops and searches?

What has always bothered me about the Oswald assassination is the fact that Ruby shot him only once (I believe) and didn't squeeze off a few extra quick shots to ensure that he had done the job. Am I correct that Ruby shot Oswald once? If so, it looks like he got lucky by disposing of Oswald fairly quickly. From what I have read, most mob-style hits leave little to luck (by emptying a magazine or cylinder in the victim). I understand that Ruby was working in close quarters and put himself at great risk. Thanks for any comments that any of you may have.

Documents from the Clinton Adm. missing from the National Archives. Sounds familiar. Kind of reminds me of Sandy Berger, who is presently serving a modest period of time in the penalty box before resuming his multi-million dollar lobbying business. If Obama insists on transparency, why doesn't he demand that Congress and the CIA release any and all documents relating to the CIA's briefings of Congress (including the Speaker of the House) on interrogation of captured prisoners? What could possibly be wrong with that?

Anybody wanna bet above request to rescind the Bush ban of FOIA requests to the white house OA will be approved anytime soon? We've just come from eight years of a secretive, far right presidential administration. By too many emerging measures we are burdened with yet another one. Do you think it will be any easier to successfully demand the initiation of impeachment investigation of this "poser" and hypocrite in the white house, a year or two from now? Obama only took his oath of office four months ago, and he acts as if he's forgotten what it is he swore to "preserve and protect". Bob Gates at the Pentagon was supposed to "stay on" for "six months", but..... not enough difference between the old Bush and this new Bush, to matter much, IMO. "Meet the new boss - same as the old boss." Pete Townshend, The Who (1971) Won't Get Fooled Again

This is outstanding news. It is a victory for Dr. Wecht and for the 4th Amendment.

Mr Hougan, Very interesting to hear that you find Rosen's conclusions on target and well supported. I had ignored his book, under the impression that it was rehash of Silent Coup -- which I'd always seen as COUNTER to your own views. That is: Secret Agenda's prime thesis (if memory serves) was that the Wgate team, unbeknownst to its masters and (goofy pawn?) Gordon Liddy, was actually a CIA team employed (opportunistically, it seems, perhaps by Helms himself) to assist Nixon to early retirement. Then along came Silent Coup to protect the Company's honor -- by pointing fingers at the Pentagon (the Radford business) and John Dean instead. Perhaps memory ISN'T serving me perfectly well here. But let me ask: 1. Have your views changed much on Watergate since you wrote Secret Agenda -- in particular re institutional CIA involvement & manipulation? 2. Do you see important differences between Rosen's book and Silent Coup? 3. Even if John Dean pushed the button on the Wgate break-ins -- what of import follows? For myself: -- The Radford business seems important to understanding the Nixon White House's siege mentality: to an extent, the famous Enemies that fed their paranoia were on the Right, pissed off for being cut out of the China and North Vietnam talks and determined to protect turf (to put it kindly). -- The Wgate team is indeed best thought of as a CIA team. And the particular history of Nixon and Helms -- which Prouty (re Indonesia 1958), Ehrlichman (in his roman a clef The Company) and Haldeman (memoir and posthumous diaries) throw light on -- is relevant. So I guess I carry around large chunks of Secret Agenda and select bits of Silent Coup. But I no longer think it very important (nay, possible) to understand how precisely the Wgate burglaries got authorized. To a good extent the money has to talk there, and doesn't that mean Mitchell? Beyond that, winks and nods (and nodding-offs misconstrued as such) go a long way with eager beavers like Liddy. I guess the "level of organization" at which the Dean question resides doesn't trigger my own (rather robust) paranoia. So maybe the guy was trying to find his wife ... (Disclosure: I've found a lot of Dean's topical writing at FindLaw valuable over the years. If he's Guilty as Rosen apparently charges, I reckon he's Paid His Debt to Society ...) I don't think Rosen's book is a "rehash" of anything, though I'm certain he's read everything on the subject - and then gone out to do his own work. Which is why he's been able to move the story forward. The biggest obstacle to understanding "Watergate" is unquestionably getting past the myth in which the story is embedded. We are told that a couple of hard-working journalists, abetted by their self-effacing secret source and intrepid editors, saved the republic by exposing the misdeeds of a quintessentially evil president. It's a grand story in the David & Goliath tradition, and anyone who would revise it is likely to find himself reviled as a conspiracy-theorist and/or as a "revisionist" (you know, like those guys who deny the reality of the Holocast). At a minimum, any investigative reporter who would dare to suggest that there is more to the Watergate story than the Post has revealed or, worse, that the Post's coverage was inaccurate, incomplete or (Zooks!) manipulated, will likely be dismissed as an apologist for Nixon (Mitchell, Ehrlichman, etc.). Which is upsetting. But make no mistake about it: the stakes are huge, as are the equities of people like Woodward and Bernstein, Ben Bradlee and Katherine Graham, John Dean and the Democratic Party - not to mention the many reporters, pols and lawyers who have built successful careers on the basis of some slim connection to the story. Watergate is an industry. (There I go again...but I think you had some questions about a book I'd written.) "Have (my) views changed much on Watergate since (I) wrote Secret Agenda?" Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the Watergate mythos has begun to fray over the years. John Dean's role in the affair has become much clearer. For this, we may thank the authors of Silent Coup and The Strong Man - as well as Dean himself. The litigation that he's initiated or encouraged, first against Len Colodney and then against Gordon Liddy, has been the political equivalent of an own-goal - for which he should be thanked. In addition to the wealth of new information generated in the aftermath of my own book, I have come to understand that the affair was even more complex than I realized when I was writing Secret Agenda. It now seems to me that John Dean's manipulation of Gordon Liddy and his client, Richard Nixon, not to mention the Ervin Committee's staff had a profound effect on the way in which the affair unwound in the courts and the Congress, and on the world stage. This was not apparent to me when I wrote Secret Agenda, or if it was apparent, it did not interest me. It should have. That said, I would add that my views of Watergate have not changed - not, at least, in the sense that I would retract anything that I have written about the affair. The book is correct in all details, and in its central thrust: Watergate was a set-up. The CIA and the Pentagon were spying on the White House (through Howard Hunt and Adm. Thomas Moorer's minions) - and James McCord sabotaged the break-in. He did this - apparently in an effort to protect an extremely important CIA operation involving DNC Chairman Larry O'Brien - with the help of a man named Lou Russell, a former FBI agent who was also, and in particular, the former chief investigator of the House Committee on Un-American Activities ("HUAC"). The point being that Secret Agenda ought to have recognized the fact that there were several agendas at work - not one. To understand Watergate, we need to consider not only the CIA's "agenda," but John Dean's, as well. And we need, also, to recognize that the intelligence community is not a monolith. The Pentagon had its agenda, as the Moorer-Radford affair proved, but so also did the CIA's counterintelligence staff, particularly where it intersected with the interests of the Security Research Staff (under Gen. Paul Gaynor) and the private-sector American Security Council. These are people who see themselves as an Elect, charged with the sacred mission of saving the Republic not only from its foreign enemies, but from its own citizenry and elected officials. I would suggest that the agenda of the Security Research Staff, with which James McCord was intimately connected, was far more radical than any "institutional agenda" that the CIA may have had. Your second question: "Do (I) see important differences between Rosen's book and Silent Coup?" Well, yeah. "The Strong Man" benefits massively from the litigation that Dean and his attorneys instigated against Colodney, Gettlin and Liddy. Depositions and other evidence in those cases did much to focus and bolster Rosen's argument(s). It seems to me, as well, that Rosen's book is unusually well-written. And, of course, it's a biography - which Silent Coup is not. But as for any substantive differences between the two books, with respect to the actual meaning of Watergate, I don't know of any. There may be some. Your third question: "Even if John Dean pushed the button on the Wgate break-ins -- what of import follows?" Well, our perception of Watergate would certainly be different if it were shown that the affair was initiated by a minion in the White House, acting without authority, rather than by a government official acting with the presumed, if tacit, approval of the President and/or his immediate subordinates. So, too, "if John Dean pushed the button on the Wgate break-ins," a great injustice has been done to a string of people, including Dean's client (Nixon) and his boss, Mitchell (who was left to take a very hard fall). In your post, you make the point that "The Radford business seems important..." Indeed, it is/was. One of the best things about Secret Agenda is that it was the first book to relate the Moorer-Radford affair to Watergate - this, because while the Moorer-Radford affair preceded Watergate, it was not made public until after Watergate unfolded. You write that "The Wgate team is indeed best thought of as a CIA team." Actually, it was more of a conglomerate than a team. Hunt and McCord had an agenda that was very different than Liddy's. Hunt and McCord were carrying water for one of the darkest corners of the CIA, while Liddy was simply "following orders" - orders that he mistakenly thought had come from John Mitchell. Regards, Hougan Could you please offer some details of the CIA operation involving Larry O'Brien and its relation to the break-in that you believe was a sabotage? Thanks. Chris

The following is an interesting article about 10 failed assassination attempts: http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/200...able-aspec.html It is easy to forget about these.

I have spent a fair amount of time on No Name Key (mostly eating hamburgers in the No Name Bar and watching the Key Deer (which are dog-sized deer)), and I had heard rumors about CIA activity there before getting interested in the JFK Assassination. I can only imagine how primitive No Name Key was when Hemming, Roselli, et al. were there. I have a hard time reading the article linked in Wade's post, because the print is so small.