Steven Gaal Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) ############### XXXXXXXXX PART ONE XXXXXXXXXXXX######## It is absurd to say (as COLBY has a want to do) that we have the final word on Vietnam oil reserves and as "I" have said is partially political situation RE: oil development. CLICK A MAP ON THIS LINK TO SEE OIL IN NOTHERN VIETNAM THAT HAS POLITICAL PROBLEMS BEING FULLY DEVELOPED. http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/02feb/vietnam.cfm DOES OIL AREA SEEM,"small" per Mr. Colby ? ####XXXX ALSO XXX####### Vietnam and China tussle over oil resources Updated Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:27am AEST Two of the world's largest oil companies are taking on China in a dispute that involves Vietnam and the South China Sea. This week Vietnam's state oil group Petrovietnam announced the resumation of oil exploration with two joint venture partners BP and Exxon Mobil. Beijing responded by telling Exxon Mobil to pull out of the deal. Last year BP suspended its planned seismic surveys following chinese criticism Presenter: Claudette Werden Speakers: Dr Fereidun Fesharaki i chairman and CEO of FACTS Global Energy consultancy; Dr Kang Wu - senior research fellow at the Hawai based East West centre; Victor Shun -Singapore based oil analyst WERDEN: The South China Sea is ringed by Vietnam, The Phillipines, Malaysia, Brunei and China. Each country lays claim and most have fought over some parts of the sea and Spratly Islands which lie in the middle and are thought to contain large oil and gas deposits. In recent years there's been an escalation of oil exploration and survey activitiy mainly by China and Vietnam with the help of foreign joint venture partners, including two of the world's largest oil companies Exxon Mobil and BP. This week Beijing told Exxon to pull out of the deal with PetroVietnam, claiming the activity infringed on Chinese territory.....an example of Beijing's bully boy tactics according to leading international energy consultant Dr Fereidun Fesharaki. He suggests it may be an attempt by Beijing to fast track a territorial agreement between China and Vietnam. FESHARAKI: Vietnam is one of the last bastions left, everything else is closed to the national oil companies who control everthing so they are kind of desperate to get in, the Chinese are trying to scare them off and this all pushes the Vietnamese to some kind of agreement in favour of China. WERDEN: Vietnam says its dealings fall entirely within the country's sovereign rights. For its part, Exxon Mobil says it hasn't signed any exploration contract in Vietnamese waters but is looking at offshore projects with PetroVietnam. A similar situation occured last year involving BP, it halted plans to conduct exploration work off the southern Vietnamese coast, because of territorial tension. But this week BP announced it was resuming its exploration activity with PetroVietnam. Singapore based oil analyst Victor Shum says both companies are taking a calculated stand in going against Beijing's wishes despite their large investments in China. SHUM: At this stage it seems prudent on the part of the international majors to stand up to political pressure. If they yield in one country say China and if they go to other countries, lets say Russia or other Latin American countries, every time a country say hey you have to yield to me, then they have to do so I think the western oil majors now have to stand up to more political pressure. This is not the first time for Exxon Mobil, Exxon Mobil remains in a face off with Venezuela, and in the case of BP its involved with a face of with Russia, so this is not new to the international majors. WERDEN: The increased exploration activity comes at a time of high oil prices and limited supplies. Dr Fereidun Fesharaki says the global oil companies could win more from walking away from any deal with Vietnam. He suggests they may be rewarded by Beijing for bowing to its pressure. FESHARAKI : BP and Exxon Mobil have millions and millions of dollars of assets in China, Exxon Mobil, joint venture just finished a multi billion dollar refinery petro chemical plant, I think they have at least 2 billion dollars of interest there, in terms of service stations, in terms of the gas interests there, they are really really heavily in there they can't afford to upset the Chinese, they're hope is to go there and say look I want to participate and the Chinese say don't do it and then if they don't do it they expect some goodies from China from China for not doing it. WERDEN: Dr Kang Wu senior research fellow at the Hawai based East West centre says China has no choice but to officially protest because the area concerned is disputed territory. He says for all sides its the start and not the end of diplomatic maneouvring. WU: For China, its very important for China to show its position. Maybe both sides which means the international oil companies, Exxon Mobil and the Chinese probably feeling the water to see how to find a solution to this. I'm not sure both sides in the end will be firm on their positions. ####### ALSO ############## ALSO ######### ALSO ################### China to explore 38 oil and gas sites in South China Sea 17 Jan 2011 Chinese geologists have found 38 oil and gas basins under the South China Sea and plan to explore them this year, state media said Monday. The government geologists located the 38 basins in 'super-thick oil and gas-bearing strata' in the northern South China Sea, the official China Daily quoted Wang Min, a vice-minister of land and resources, as saying at a national geological conference. Wang said his ministry would conduct 'comprehensive geological and environmental inspections at key offshore areas' including the northern South China Sea, the southern Yellow Sea and areas near the southern Chinese island of Hainan. The newspaper did not give the exact location of the oil and gas deposits in the South China Sea, much of which is subject to competing claims between China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan and the Philippines. China and Vietnam both increased patrols in disputed areas last year, amid regular spats over alleged incursions by fishing vessels from the two nations. Wang said geologists also found onshore oil and gas deposits near the Songliao Basin and the Yin'e Basin in northern China, and the Qiangtang Basin on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. They discovered natural gas hydrate for the first time in the northern South China Sea and in permafrost areas of the Qilian Mountains in north-western China, he was quoted as saying. 'As a big developing country, we must make more efforts in exploring domestic supplies to ensure our energy security,' Wang said. Source: Deutsche Presse-Agentur NOW ++++also see link below which shows oil in AREA that COLBY SEEMS TO IGNORE (to quote him 'small') THAT IS POTENTIALLY VERY,VERY LARGE. http://www.chinahourly.com/bizchina/3169/ . ################################################################### #################### ########### XXXXXX PART TWO ###########XXXXXXX######################XXXXXXXXXXXX########### People were definitely looking for oil in Vietnam. (see below) (see comments also NAVY Pilot) ################################################# Sunday, March 22, 2009 Oil Exploration & The Vietnam War Conspiracy theories 'R' us. The other day at Thursday lunch, Don told us a good, nay, a great one. Dennis, slacker that he is, hasn't uploaded the recording yet, so I guess it falls to me to tell the tale. It's a story about the Vietnam War and why it ended when it did. Oil companies were looking for oil under the continental shelf off the coast of South Vietnam. They couldn't go in and do regular seismic exploring because, well, there was a war going on. But they could use the seismic waves generated by the bombing to map the structure of the ground underneath the continental shelf, and they did. When they had completed their mapping, they had no further need of any more seismic wave generators, so the bombing was called off. Shortly thereafter the war ended. Like any good conspiracy theory there is just enough truth in it to make you wonder if this could possibly be what really happened. It might make you wonder for a minute anyway. People were definitely looking for oil, although it is only recently that they seem to be making any real progress in producing oil. Posted by Charles Pergiel at comments: Anonymous said... I am in the middle of a book by Clara Black which ties together the French Occupation of Vietnam and the search for oil in a very indirect way. This book was first published in 2005. Based on this hint I decided to search Google to see if there really was a connection and voila. April 10, 2009 4:24:00 PM PDT Anonymous said... I was a Navy Pilot during the Vietnam War flying P-3's. We flew patrol missions along the coast of Vietnam looking for gun boats. Prior to each mission we received a secret brief telling us the location of the oil exploration rigs. We were forbidden to go anywhere near them, talk about them or photograph them if we accidentally came across one.I never gave it a second thought until recently. It's now becoming clear what it was all about. February 25, 2010 4:22:00 PM PST #############################XXXXXXXXXXXXX PART THREE A XXXXXXXXXXX########################################### I,STEVEN GAAL contend that ELLSBERG is not what he seems to be. March 8, 2003 Will the Real Daniel Ellsberg Please Stand Up! The Clash of the Icons By DOUGLAS VALENTINE Political activist Daniel Ellsberg became an icon in 1971 after he leaked The Pentagon Papers. This "act of conscience" helped turn public opinion against the Vietnam War, and contributed to the demise of President Richard Nixon, whose felonious minions, the infamous Plumbers, sent CIA officer E. Howard Hunt, and former FBI agent (and self-professed rat-eater) G. Gordon Liddy, to burglarize confidential files from Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. Hunt and Liddy thought they could trump the anti-War movement by showing that Ellsberg was a mentally deranged LSD-abuser, but their slap-happy plan backfired, and instead opened up the Pandora's box of the CIA inspired dirty tricks the Republican Party relied upon (and still uses today) to wage political warfare. Starting on March 9th, the Pentagon Papers story will be broadcast as a made-for-TV movie on the popular F/X network. Based partially on Ellsberg's autobiography, the movie will star quirky James Spader as Ellsberg, and will feature Hayley Lochner as "the wife," Jonas Chernick as CIA connected New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, and Paul Giamatti as Anthony Russo, the man who went to prison on Ellsberg's behalf. Be forewarned: nowhere in this revisionist history will be audience be presented with the cast of Corsican drug smugglers and CIA agents that shaped Ellsberg's sensibilities and sent him on his path to New Left notoriety. But as the reader shall see in this article, somewhere between the official Pentagon Papers story, and the CIA's involvement in international drug trafficking, is a disturbing clash of facts from which Ellsberg will not emerge with his icon status intact. Ellsberg And the Quiet American The first thing the reader needs to know is that Ellsberg was not always a pacifist "dove" intent on ending the Vietnam War. At first he was an aggressive "hawk." His militant approach to the Cold War he was all for nuking the Soviet Union was shaped during a tour of duty as a Marine lieutenant, and precisely because of his hard-line attitude, and his ability to articulate it, he was offered a job as a Defense Department analyst. Then in 1965 he was assigned as a Pentagon observer to the CIA's Revolutionary Development (RD) Program in South Vietnam. Here Ellsberg came under the influence of his mentor, CIA officer cum Air Force General Edward Lansdale. The mass murderer Graham Greene used as the model for Alden Pyle in "The Quiet American," Lansdale was the architect of the CIA's anti-terror strategy for winning the Vietnam War. When not engaged in typical RD Program "Civil Affairs" activities, such as helping the local Vietnamese build perimeter defenses around their villages, Ellsberg and his fellow RD advisors, under the tutelage of Lansdale, dressed in black pajamas and reportedly slipped into enemy areas at midnight to "snatch and snuff" the local Viet Cong cadre, sometimes making it appear as if the VC themselves had done the dirty deed, in what Lansdale euphemistically called "black propaganda" activities. Functioning as a gruesome "shadow warrior" was not Ellsberg's only claim to fame in South Vietnam. It will not be addressed in the TV docudrama, but Ellsberg was exceedingly charming and possessed with the uncanny ability to reproduce conversations verbatim--talents that made him a highly prized asset of John Hart, the CIA station chief in Saigon. Hart and the CIA's foreign intelligence staff wanted to know what influential Vietnamese citizens and officials were privately thinking, and plotting, so they introduced Ellsberg into Saigon's elite social circles, and he began reporting directly to station chief John Hart on matters of political importance. And if what his CIA colleagues say is true, Ellsberg was not only as a superb spy, he was also as a swashbuckling swordsman who romanced numerous women, including the exquisite Germaine. One part French and three parts Vietnamese, Germaine was the object of every red-blooded American man's desire, and when Ellsberg met her at a swinging Saigon party, the hot-blooded cocksman immediately rose to the occasion, heedless of the fact that she was engaged to an opium-addicted Corsican drug smuggler named Michel Seguin. It is here, with Ellsberg's love affair with Germaine, that the discrepancy between fact and fiction has its origins. According to Professor McCoy, at the time Ellsberg met Germaine, Ellsberg's close friend, CIA officer Lucien Conein, was negotiating a "truce" with the Corsican gangsters who supplied South Vietnam's top military officers and government officials with that most lucrative of black market commodities, heroin. Ellsberg's Perilous Peccadilloes Legendary CIA officer Lou Conein was an Old Vietnam Hand. As a member of Detachment 202 of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), Conein had fought with the French Special Forces in Indochina in World War II. After the war he married a Vietnamese woman and remained in Vietnam. He joined the CIA upon its creation and after a tour of duty in Europe, he returned to South Vietnam in 1954, as an aide to the aforementioned Ed Lansdale, to help organize the CIA's anti-communist forces in North Vietnam. As a measure of his knack for deceit and deception, it is worth noting that one of Conein's favorite "dirty tricks" was "to stage funerals without a corpse, and bury the coffin filled with weapons for later use by the anti-communists."1 "Black Luigi" Conein departed South Vietnam in 1958 after Lansdale had safely ensconced his Catholic protégé, Ngo Dinh Diem, as President of South Vietnam. Conein spent the next few years in the opium rich outlands of Iran as a military advisor to the Shah's special forces. In 1962 he returned to Vietnam as a "floating emissary," reporting directly to the Kennedy White House, while secretly coaching the cabal of generals that murdered President Diem and his opium-addicted brother Nhu on 2 November 1963. After the bloody coup d'etat, Conein remained in South Vietnam, but not without further controversy. As noted, professor McCoy contends that Ellsberg and Conein formed a fast friendship at the exact same moment Conein was arranging a "truce" between the CIA and unnamed Corsican drug smugglers in Saigon. Conein, however, adamantly denied the allegation that he arranged a drug-related "truce." In a 1972 letter to McCoy's publisher, he insisted that his meeting with the Corsicans, "had to do with ameliorating a tense situation engendered by Daniel Ellsberg's peccadilloes with the mistress of a Corsican." Here we return to enchantress Germaine, her opium-addicted Corsican fiancé, Michel Seguin, and a new character in our passion play, Frank Scotton. In 1965 Scotton was ostensibly employed by the U.S. Information Service, though his undercover job as a CIA officer was forming assassination squads around Saigon in what was the prototype of the CIA's infamous Phoenix Program. Through this experimental "counter-terror" program, which fell under Lansdale's RD Program, Scotton and Ellsberg met and became the best of friends. In fact, it was Scotton who invited Ellsberg to the party where the fateful encounter with Germaine occurred. What happened next is subject to conjecture--and it must be emphasized that in order to understand how the Discrepancy might occur, the reader must need be aware that rumors, whisper campaigns, and half-truths are the preferred weapons of political warriors. CIA dirty tricks and deceptions are meant to misdirect and discredit, so one must examine these statements closely to discover what is being concealed, and why. Complicating the already convoluted situation is the fact that Ellsberg's closest friends, Lou Conein and Frank Scotton, were CIA officers. Which is not meant to cast guilt through association on Ellsberg, but it is intended to warn the reader that one must carefully study their conflicting stories. Scotton and Conein, in separate interviews with this writer, claimed they warned Ellsberg to sever his relationship with Germaine. But Ellsberg, they said, would not be kept from his lover's embrace. Scotton and Conein claimed that Michael Seguin hired a Vietnamese assassin to kill Ellsberg, but, they said, they were able to intercept the assassin before he could carry out his contract. In an interview with this writer, Ellsberg admitted to having had the affair with Germaine, and he confessed that Seguin put a gun to his head and warned him to stay away from the woman they both cherished. But Ellsberg vehemently denied that either Scotton or Conein intervened on his behalf. Their stories, he said, were standard CIA disinformation, designed to make him seem beholden to former CIA comrades, and thus cast doubt on his motives for leaking The Pentagon Papers. Ulterior Motives Theoretically, it seems logical to conclude that one of the conflicting stories hides an ulterior motive. And in a search of the recorded history of the time, there is only one source that sheds any light on the situation. All we know, according to Professor McCoy, is that CIA agent Lou Conein met with Corsican gangsters to arrange a "truce" regarding drug smuggling in South Vietnam, and that after this "truce" the Corsicans (including, one would presume, Michel Seguin) continued to serve as "contact men" for the CIA in the drug smuggling business. This is where The Discrepancy reaches critical mass, for Ellsberg denies that his CIA mentor, Edward Lansdale, or his CIA friends, Lou Conein and Frank Scotton, were involved with Corsican drug smugglers. Recapping: McCoy claims that Conein arranged a" truce" with the Corsican gangsters over drug smuggling in South Vietnam; Conein denied the allegation and said the meeting concerned Ellsberg's affair with Germaine; and Ellsberg denies (1) that Conein and Scotton intervened on his behalf, and (2) that Conein, Lansdale and Scotton were involved with drug smugglers. Who is telling the truth? Could a CIA officer with a photographic memory not be aware that his colleagues were involved with drug smugglers? Or is McCoy's research fatally flawed? Did the alleged "truce" occur? Was the good professor, who has prompted so many people to question the CIA's role in international drug smuggling, misled by dirty trickster Conein. Was the ulterior motive to move McCoy toward the Corsicans and away from the CIA's unilateral drug smuggling operation? Thinking the Unthinkable It was 1970 when the mainstream American press first reported the CIA's involvement in international drug trafficking, and it was 1970 when the U.S. Senate launched a potentially explosive investigation into the CIA's Phoenix "assassination" Program, a special unit of which was providing security for the CIA's unilateral drug smuggling operation. The House of Representatives launched deeper probes into CIA drug smuggling and the CIA's Phoenix Program in early 1971, and, naturally, the CIA at this critical time took extensive countermeasures in a concerted effort to conceal these facts. What is relevant to the discrepancy is the that in June 1971, Daniel Ellsberg leaked the aptly named Pentagon Papers, shifting blame for the increasingly unpopular Vietnam War from the CIA to the military, while distracting public attention from the investigations of the CIA's Phoenix Program and the CIA's involvement in drug smuggling. Ellsberg is aware of the rumor that Conein and Scotton asked him to leak the Pentagon Papers as part of the CIA's disinformation campaign. But he shrugs off the insidious rumor as yet another instance of CIA disinformation designed to cast doubt on his motives for leaking The Pentagon Papers. While it is definitely politically incorrect within what passes nowadays for the New Left to even make the suggestion, is it unthinkable that Ellsberg might have suffered such a whisper campaign in order to prevent his CIA friends from being indicted for drug smuggling and mass murder? The Politics Of Heroin (And War Crimes) In America After Ellsberg leaked The Pentagon Papers, the CIA's plot to cover-up its unilateral drug smuggling operation moved forward with greater gusto. According to the Justice Department's still classified DeFeo Report, Conein in the spring of 1971 was called out of retirement by CIA officer E. Howard Hunt and asked to become an advisor to President Nixon's "drug czar" (and Plumber) Egil Krogh, on matters regarding "problems of narcotic control in Southeast Asia and the Pentagon Papers." Consider that in 1971 the relationship between the French intelligence service and Corsican drug smugglers in its employ was exposed after a series of spectacular drug busts made in America with the assistance of the CIA. Concurrently, Conein was called out of retirement and immediately, in June 1971, told McCoy about the "truce" with the French-connected Corsicans, one of who put a gun to Ellsberg head. Consider also that Egil Krogh's investigators stumbled upon the CIA's unilateral drug smuggling operation at this time, and that in July 1971, President Nixon declared the burgeoning war on drugs to be a matter of national security. Nixon went after the CIA and quick as a flash, E. Howard Hunt (Conein's comrade from OSS Detachment 202) bungled the bugging of the Watergate Hotel. Washington Post reporter and former Naval Intelligence officer Bob Woodward, then assigned to cover Nixon's war on drugs, was approached by the still anonymous Deep Throat, and based on unsubstantiated rumors, incrementally engendered the Watergate scandal and effectively neutralized Nixon, and his war on drugs. In the summer of 1972 came the publication of McCoy's book, which implicated the CIA in Corsican drug smuggling operation in Thailand, Vietnam, Burma and Laos. But no CIA officer was ever indicted for drug smuggling. In fact, the CIA boasted that it was actually helping, by infiltrating the Corsican operation, to wage the war on drugs. Amazing as it may sound, McCoy's exposure in 1972 of the French Connection drug smuggling operation also helped to divert public attention from the CIA's unilateral drug smuggling operations. That same summer of 1972, Lou Conein became a consultant to the newly created Office of National Narcotics Intelligence (ONNI) at the Department of Justice. After the Drug Enforcement Administration was formed in July 1973, Conein became chief of a special operations unit that in 1975 was investigated by the U.S. Senate for the dubious distinction of assassinating drug lords. The Pentagon Papers, Drugs, and Political Assassinations Today only questions remain. Why did Conein meet the Corsicans in 1965? Was the rumor of an assassination attempt on Ellsberg concocted to provide Conein with a plausible cover story for his "truce" with the drug smuggling Corsicans? If so, why does Ellsberg deny that his CIA comrades, Lansdale, Conein and Scotton, were involved in drug smuggling, as McCoy contends? And, finally, was McCoy deliberately led by Conein in a wide circle around the CIA's unilateral drug smuggling operation? Unless these questions are resolved, the truth about Watergate and the Pentagon Papers will continue to elude historians, and this quiet discrepancy will serve, like the TV movie based on Ellsberg's autobiography, only to perpetuate the myths, mysteries, and half-truths that define American history--a history that hauntingly reflects standard CIA operating procedures. Douglas Valentine is the author of The Hotel Tacloban, The Phoenix Program, and TDY. His new book The Strength of the Wolf: the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 1930-1968 will be published by Verso. Valentine was an investigator for Pepper on the King case in 1998-1999. For information about Valentine and his books and articles, please visit his website at www.douglasvalentine.com. He can be reached at: redspruce@attbi.com Notes 1 Bart Barnes, The Washington Post, obituary section, 6 July 1998 ############################################## XXXXXXXXX PART THREE B XXXXXXXXXX############################ THE FALSE LEGEND OF THE PENTAGON PAPERS HELPS CIA ANTI NIXON PSY-OPS. I ask Mr. Colby a second time,"Do you consider Mr. Simkin a loon ??" [NOTE: There is no physical evidence that either Liddy or Hunt had been in Los Angeles at all for the Fielding office break-in. Only the anecdotal claims of the co-conspirators account for the whereabouts of Hunt and Liddy that weekend. This is similar to the later purported Watergate first break-in that involves the same personnel.] CIA-PENTAGON PAPERS-WATERGATE TIMELINE Friday, 10 April 1970 Richard Helms has rubber-stamped E. Howard Hunt's "early retirement" and has written a letter to Robert R. Mullen on behalf of Hunt, urging Mullen to hire him. Mullen is head of a public relations firm in D.C. that is a front company for CIA. One of the Mullen offices, in Stockholm, Sweden, is "staffed, run, and paid for by CIA." Also at the Mullen firm is Douglas Caddy. Monday, 13 April 1970 Daniel Ellsberg quits Rand in California, flies to Boston and signs a contract at MIT. He remains, though, a "consultant" for Rand. Friday, 1 May 1970 E. Howard Hunt ostensibly "retires" from CIA. He goes to work for the Mullen company in D.C. There, he is told by Robert Mullen that he and Douglas Caddy have been selected by Mullen to take over running the CIA front company soon, when Mullen retires. Tuesday, 5 May 1970 Daniel Ellsberg flies to Washington, D.C. and is there for three days, flies to St. Louis for a day, then flies back to D.C. [FORUM NOTE: Caddy wouldn't answer the question of whether he or Hunt had been in touch, either directly or through intermediaries, with Ellsberg.] Thursday, 28 May 1970 A CIA Covert Security Approval is requested under Project QK/ENCHANT for the "retired" E. Howard Hunt. August 1970 Just four months after E. Howard Hunt, James McCord "retires" from CIA. September 1970 Daniel Ellsberg stops seeing Beverly Hills psychiatrist Lewis Fielding. November 1970 Douglas Caddy leaves the Mullen firm to work for Gall, Lane, Powell and Kilcullen. Around the same time, E. Howard Hunt becomes a "client" of Caddy and of Gall, Lane. Caddy consults with Hunt regarding wills and "other matters." Around the same time, G. Gordon Liddy is approached by Robert Mardian, asking Liddy to take a position that Mardian describes as "super-confidential." February 1971 A hidden taping system is installed in the Oval Office of the White House. Saturday, 17 April 1971 E. Howard Hunt is in Miami and meets with Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez, and Felipe De Diego. Bernard Barker has a history of almost seven years with CIA. Eugenio Martinez is on "retainer" with CIA. [NOTE: A little over four months later, these same three men will be involved with Hunt in a purported break-in of the offices of psychiatrist Lewis Fielding, ostensibly in response to Daniel Ellsberg having leaked the Pentagon Papers. But the Pentagon Papers haven't been leaked to the press yet, and won't be for almost two months.] Early June 1971 Daniel Ellsberg makes "a series of phone calls" to psychiatrist Lewis Fielding shortly before the Pentagon Papers are published. Around this same time, Douglas Caddy meets with E. Howard Hunt and Bernard Barker at the Army-Navy Club in Washington, D.C. [NOTE: Caddy will claim that this is the one and only time that he ever met Bernard Barker.] Saturday, 12 June 1971 The day before the "Pentagon Papers" are published, Morton Halperin, Leslie Gelb, and Defense Department official Paul Nitze make "a deposit into the National Archives" of "a whole lot of papers." [NOTE: This turns out later to be copies of the not-yet-published Pentagon Papers that will make Daniel Ellsberg famous and launch everything that later comes to be known as "Watergate."] Sunday, 13 June 1971 Daniel Ellsberg, having highest possible clearances from CIA, leaks the "Pentagon Papers." The New York Times publishes the first of three installments of secret documents that have been passed to Times reporter Neil Sheehan by Daniel Ellsberg. [NOTE: Ellsberg had been connected to Sheehan in Viet Nam by CIA's Edward Landsdale and CIA's Lucien Conein.] Tuesday, 15 June 1971 G. Gordon Liddy is abruptly transferred from being "Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury" to "Staff Assistant of the President of the United States," part of the White House Domestic Council. Liddy is supplied with White House credentials. Monday, 28 June 1971 Daniel Ellsberg is indicted for the leak of the Pentagon Papers. Wednesday, 30 June 1971 The Supreme Court rules 6-3 that the government has not shown compelling evidence to justify blocking further publication of the Pentagon Papers. Thursday, 1 July 1971 David Young—who is with NSA—is appointed to the White House Domestic Council to work with Egil Krogh. On or about the same date, Carol Ellsberg, Daniel Ellsberg's ex-wife, calls the FBI. She tells them that Daniel Ellsberg had seen a psychiatrist. She says that Ellsberg has "assured her" that he "had told this analyst all about what he had done" (referring to the Pentagon Papers). She volunteers the name of the Beverly Hills psychiatrist: Lewis Fielding. [NOTE: Daniel and Carol Ellsberg have been living apart since January 1964, divorced since 1966. Daniel Ellsberg didn't begin with Fielding until two years after the divorce, in March of 1968 (see), and had quit seeing Fielding in September 1970 (see)—nearly a year before "what he had done."] On or about the same date, John "Jack" Caulfield, Staff Assistant to President Nixon, has created a 12-page political espionage proposal called "Sandwedge." Ostensibly as part of it, Anthony Ulasewicz has rented an apartment at 321 East 48th Street (Apartment 11-C), New York City. G. Gordon Liddy is given the complete "Sandwedge" plan. [NOTE: The apartment is in close proximity to the lab and school of CIA's Cleve Backster. It provides a backstopped New York address and phone. Note, too, that the reference for date of Sandwedge is a document in the National Archives titled "7/71 Sandwedge proposal," despite most anecdotal accounts placing it later in 1971.] Friday, 2 July 1971 CIA Director Richard Helms is pushing behind the scenes to get E. Howard Hunt into a position connected with the White House in response to the Pentagon Papers having been leaked. H. R. Haldeman tells Nixon that Helms has described Hunt: "Ruthless, quiet and careful, low profile. He gets things done. He will work well with all of us. He's very concerned about the health of the administration. His concern, he thinks, is they're out to get us and all that, but he's not a fanatic. We could be absolutely certain it'll involve secrecy... ." On the same day, Charles Colson sends a memo to H. R. Haldeman with a transcript of a phone conversation he had with E. Howard Hunt the previous day—which he happened to record. Colson says: "The more I think about Howard Hunt's background, politics, disposition and experience, the more I think it would be worth your time to meet him." Wednesday, 7 July 1971 E. Howard Hunt is hired as a "White House consultant" while keeping his full-time job at CIA front company Mullen. Hunt is supplied with White House credentials. Thursday, 8 July 1971 The day after starting with the White House, E. Howard Hunt has a private meeting with CIA's Lucien Conein, Hunt's acquaintance of almost 30 years. [NOTE: Conein had been part of the team that Daniel Ellsberg had gone with to Vietnam, headed by CIA's Edward Landsdale, where Ellsberg had been connected up with reporter Neil Sheehan.] Tuesday, 20 July 1971 E. Howard Hunt has a private meeting with CIA's Edward G. Landsdale. [NOTE: Landsdale had taken Daniel Ellsberg and Lucien Conein to Vietnam in 1965-66, where Ellsberg had been connected up with reporter Neil Sheehan.] Thursday, 22 July 1971 E. Howard Hunt goes to CIA headquarters and meets privately with Deputy Director of CIA Robert Cushman. Friday, 23 July 1971 The CIA supplies E. Howard Hunt with counterfeit ID in the name of "Edward J. Warren." Hunt meets CIA's Stephen Greenwood in a CIA safehouse where a fake driver's license and other ID material, plus a disguise, are given to Hunt. Saturday, 24 July 1971 Based on a memorandum by Egil Krogh and NSA's David Young, the Special Investigations Unit is established at the White House under them. It comes to be known as the White House Plumbers. [NOTE: David Young gives the unit its nickname, supposedly because it is there to "stop leaks." It never stops a single leak, or accomplishes anything effective regarding security leaks. Liddy and Hunt are already established in their positions weeks before the unit is created. The creation of the Special Investigations Unit does nothing to alter the operational status or position of either of them. Young is running everything that leads to the Fielding office break-in. Young will later be given immunity by Watergate prosecutors, then will report the Fielding "burglary," backed up by CIA-supplied photos] Friday, 30 July 1971 A highly secure facility has been set up in Room 16 of the Old Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House that G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt use. It includes a secure phone used "mostly to talk to the CIA at Langley." Early August 1971 G. Gordon Liddy is in regular communication with "State and the CIA," having direct conversations with CIA Director Richard Helms. Liddy is briefed by CIA on "several additional sensitive programs in connection with his assignment to the White House staff." Liddy is also making regular trips to the Pentagon. E. Howard Hunt is making regular trips to the State Department. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations at the time is George H.W. Bush (Sr.) Monday, 2 August 1971 CIA psychiatrist Bernard Malloy comes to Room 16 and meets privately with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt. Friday, 6 August 1971 E. Howard Hunt again meets clandestinely in a CIA safehouse, this time with CIA's Stephen Greenwood and also with CIA's Cleo Gephart. Hunt purportedly discusses CIA providing a "backstopped address and phone" in New York city. Hunt also asks for CIA to provide phony ID and a disguise for "an associate"—G. Gordon Liddy. [NOTE: Hunt is asking for ID and disguise for Liddy prior to any proposal to break into Lewis Fielding's office. Also, there's already a backstopped address and phone in New York city at 321 East 48th Street, Apartment 11-C, New York City, set up by Anthony Ulasewicz as part of the Sandwedge proposal, which Liddy and Hunt have. See 1 July 1971.] Wednesday, 11 August 1971 CIA psychiatrist Bernard Malloy again comes to Room 16 and meets privately with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt. Soon after, Liddy and Hunt recommend an attempt at surreptitious entry for "acquisition of psychiatric materials" on Daniel Ellsberg from the files of psychiatrist Lewis Fielding. They claim the need, first, for a "feasibility study" of Fielding's Beverly Hills office Friday, 20 August 1971 The CIA supplies G. Gordon Liddy with counterfeit ID in the name of "George F. Leonard." Hunt and Liddy meet CIA's Stephen Greenwood (called "Steve" in Hunt's account) in a CIA safehouse where a CIA-created fake driver's license and other ID material, plus a disguise, and a camera are issued to Liddy. Thursday, 26 August 1971 E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy fly to Los Angeles. Hunt takes pictures of Liddy, in his CIA-issued black wig (which doesn't disguise him), standing in front of psychiatrist Lewis Fielding's office door, with Fielding's name on the door. Liddy also takes pictures of Hunt in his CIA-supplied non-disguise. The photos are taken with the camera supplied to them by CIA. Friday, 27 August 1971 E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy fly back to Washington, D.C. CIA's Stephen Greenwood meets them at the airport, where Hunt gives Greenwood the film for developing by CIA. Greenwood delivers prints to Hunt the same day. The CIA keeps a copy of the photos of Liddy and Hunt (in CIA-provided "disguises" that don't disguise them at all) mugging in front of Lewis Fielding's identifiable door. [NOTE: The CIA later turns their copies of the photos over to Watergate investigators, which results in all criminal charges against Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon Papers to be dropped.] Saturday, 28 August 1971 On a Saturday, Hunt and Liddy purportedly are in Room 16 when Liddy tells Hunt that the plan to do a break-in of Fielding's office is approved, but that the two of them are not "to be permitted anywhere near the target premises." [see 27 August 1971, immediately above.] E. Howard Hunt then purportedly calls Bernard Barker in Miami and asks if Barker can "put together a three-man entry team." Barker calls back to say it will be Barker, Eugenio Martinez, and Felipe De Diego. [NOTE: As luck would have it, this happens to be the same three men Hunt had met with in Miami two months before the Pentagon Papers were published. See 17 April 1971.] Friday, 3 September 1971 A break-in takes place at the office of psychiatrist Lewis J. Fielding in Beverly Hills, California. The break-in is made obvious by the smashing of a window. Accounts of the break-in are irreconcilably conflicting. According to Bernard Barker, E. Howard Hunt, and G. Gordon Liddy, the three Cubans—Barker, Martinez, and De Diego—had entered the office and searched thoroughly, and there was no file on Daniel Ellsberg anywhere. According to Lewis Fielding, there was a file on Ellsberg in his office, which Fielding says he found on the floor the next morning. Fielding claims it was evident that someone had gone through the file. The same night, Hunt and Liddy are in New York City—where Hunt has made an issue of needing "a backstopped address." They check into the Pierre hotel and remain in New York through at least Sunday, 5 September 1971. [NOTE: There is no physical evidence that either Liddy or Hunt had been in Los Angeles at all for the Fielding office break-in. Only the anecdotal claims of the co-conspirators account for the whereabouts of Hunt and Liddy that weekend. This is similar to the later purported Watergate first break-in that involves the same personnel.] October 1971 E. Howard Hunt is in telephone contact with CIA Chief European Division John Hart, and has several telephone conversations with CIA Executive Officer European Division John Caswell. [NOTE: L. Patrick Gray will later order FBI to hold off on interviewing Caswell.] Friday, 15 October 1971 E. Howard Hunt meets privately with CIA Director Richard Helms. Early November 1971 CIA's James McCord, purportedly retired in August 1970, signs a contract with the Republican National Committee to handle "security." The contract is in the name of "McCord Associates, Inc." [NOTE: The corporation will not be created until several weeks after the contract is signed; incorporation papers are not filed until 19 November 1971 (see) in Maryland.] Friday, 19 November 1971 CIA's E. Howard Hunt contacts CIA's Office of Security Director Robert Osborne. On the same day, CIA's James McCord files incorporation papers in Maryland for McCord Associates, Inc., ostensibly a security company, but the incorporation papers say nothing about providing security, and the company is not licensed for security. Included on the board are McCord, his wife, and his sister, Dorothy Berry, who works for an "oil company in Houston." [NOTE: Berry later claimed she had "no idea" she had been listed on the board. Also, the Gulf Resources and Chemical Corporation—an "oil company in Houston" that controls half the world's supply of lithium—will later provide checks that get converted to traceable $100 bills for part of what becomes known as Watergate. See 15 April 1972.] Wednesday, 8 December 1971 E. Howard Hunt is in touch with senior CIA officer Peter Jessup, who is with the National Security Council staff. On or about the same day, Hunt meets privately again with CIA's Lucien Conein. Sunday, 12 December 1971 NSA's David Young meets with Egil Krogh and CIA psychiatrist Bernard Malloy. Thursday, 16 December 1971 CIA's E. Howard Hunt is in Dallas, Texas—an airline hub. Lt. George W. Bush is living in Houston, Texas. He is a pilot trained on T-38 Talons, a type of plane used as a chase plane. January 1972 G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt are collaborating on a "political espionage" plan to replace the Sandwedge proposal. One of the items they have factored into the budget, ostensibly for "political espionage," is a chase plane. [NOTE: Budgeting and planning for this "chase plane" comes up over and over, but it is utterly ludicrous for any kind of "political espionage" purposes.] Monday, 10 January 1972 G. Gordon Liddy is in New York city at the apartment Ulasewicz has established at 321 East 48th Street, Apartment 11-C. Early February 1972 G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt fly to Miami, home of Bernard Barker and other CIA-connected Cubans. Around the same time, G. Gordon Liddy "recruits" CIA's James McCord as a "wire man," purportedly to be able to do electronic eavesdropping for "political espionage" purposes. [NOTE: At the time, Liddy has no approved budget for any such activities, nor are there any approved plans for, or targets for, any such activities.] Thursday, 17 February 1972 E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy again fly to Miami, ostensibly to meet with Donald Segretti (a.k.a. "Donald Simmons"). While there, Hunt is in contact with CIA's Bernard Barker. Tuesday, 22 February 1972 G. Gordon Liddy meets with CIA personnel at Langley in connection with CIA "special clearances" he has been granted. Thursday, 24 February 1972 G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt meet with a "retired" CIA doctor, introduced by Hunt to Liddy as "Dr. Edward Gunn," to get briefed by him on various covert means of murder for a possible assassination. Late February 1972 E. Howard Hunt travels to Nicaragua on an "undisclosed mission." [NOTE: See entry for 3 March 1972.] Wednesday, 1 March 1972 Douglas Caddy, who has E. Howard Hunt as a client, begins to do "legal tasks" for John Dean and G. Gordon Liddy. Friday, 3 March 1972 Gary O. Morris, psychiatrist of E. Howard Hunt's wife, Dorothy, vanishes while on vacation on the Caribbean island of St. Lucia. No trace is ever found of the pleasure boat he had left on for a cruise with his wife and a local captain, Mervin Augustin. Monday, 27 March 1972 G. Gordon Liddy's job abruptly changes to general counsel of the Finance Committee to Re-elect the President. Wednesday, 29 March 1972 Two days after Liddy's job changes, E. Howard Hunt "terminates" in his paid capacity as a White House consultant—yet he keeps his office and the safe he'd used as such, and keeps his White House credentials because he continues to "work there a few hours each week." Early April 1972 CIA's E. Howard Hunt flies to Chicago and delivers an undisclosed amount of cash in a sealed envelope to W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone Foundation. [NOTE: Dorothy Hunt later will die in a plane crash en route to Chicago carrying an envelope of cash.] Saturday, 15 April 1972 E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy fly to Miami and deliver checks drawn on a Mexico City bank to CIA's Bernard Barker. [NOTE: Several of the checks have originated from Gulf Resources and Chemical Corporation in Houston, which at the time controls half the world's supply of lithium, used in the making of hydrogen bombs and in psychiatric drugs.] Monday, 24 April 1972 CIA's Bernard Barker cashes a cashier's check for $25,000 at his bank in Miami. [NOTE: This $25,000, from the Dahlberg check, plus two later withdrawals by Barker will equal $114,000. See 2 May and 8 May 1972.] Monday, 1 May 1972 CIA's James McCord contacts an ex-FBI agent, Alfred Baldwin, who is living in Connecticut. McCord purportedly doesn't know Baldwin, but wants Baldwin to come to Washington, D.C. that night. Tuesday, 2 May 1972 FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover is found dead in his home in the early morning hours. L. Patrick Gray—who has no background in law enforcement—is appointed as Acting Director of FBI. [NOTE: Hoover's death is attributed to a heart attack, and no autopsy is done. L. Patrick Gray will steer the FBI investigation of Watergate, destroy material taken from the White House safe of E. Howard Hunt, then will resign.] Alfred Baldwin meets with James McCord. McCord issues Baldwin a Smith & Wesson .38 snub-nose revolver. Baldwin is assigned to travel as a bodyguard with Martha Mitchell on "a trip to the midwest." On the same day, CIA's Bernard Barker withdraws an unspecified amount of cash from his bank in Miami. [NOTE: This is the second of three transactions by Barker that will total $114,000.] Thursday, 4 May 1972 Lt. George W. Bush is ordered to "report to commander, 111 F.I.S., Ellington AFB, not later than (NLT) 14 May, 1972." [NOTE: Bush does not report as ordered. See 19 May 1972.] Friday, 5 May 1972 CIA's James McCord rents room 419 of the Howard Johnson's motel across the street from the Watergate. The room is registered in the name of McCord Associates. Monday, 8 May 1972 Alfred Baldwin returns to Washington, D.C. from his trip with Martha Mitchell. He is told by James McCord to keep the .38 revolver because "he might be going on another trip." G. Gordon Liddy, in D.C., calls CIA's Bernard Barker in Miami. Bernard Barker withdraws another unspecified amount of cash from his bank in Miami which, with two other transactions, now totals $114,000. James McCord receives $4,000 in cash from G. Gordon Liddy. Tuesday, 9 May 1972 Alfred Baldwin leaves Washington, D.C., ostensibly going to his home in Connecticut to "get more clothes." He takes the .38 revolver with him, purportedly because he has been told by James McCord that he might be going on another trip with Martha Mitchell that is scheduled for 11 May 1972. [NOTE: Baldwin doesn't return until 12 May 1972.] Wednesday, 10 May 1972 CIA's James McCord is in Rockville, Maryland. He pays $3,500 cash for a "device capable of receiving intercepted wire and oral communications." [NOTE: Rockville, Maryland is about six miles from Laurel, Maryland. Five days later presidential candidate George Wallace will be shot in Laurel, Maryland by Arthur Bremer with a .38 calibur revolver. See 15 May 1972.] Friday, 12 May 1972 Alfred Baldwin returns to Washington, D.C. James McCord tells Baldwin he won't be going with Martha Mitchell so he can "turn in his gun." Baldwin purportedly gives the .38 revovler to McCord. McCord tells Baldwin to move from the Roger Smith hotel, where Baldwin has been staying, into room 419 at the Howard Johnson's motel. Monday, 15 May 1972 Presidential candidate George Wallace is shot by Arthur Bremer in Laurel, Maryland, ending his presidential campaign and partially paralyzing him. Wednesday, 17 May 1972 CIA's Bernard Barker makes two calls from Miami to G. Gordon Liddy, and two calls to CIA's E. Howard Hunt. Friday, 19 May 1972 Lt. George W. Bush (Jr.), a chase plane pilot, contacts a superior officer in the reserves to discuss "options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November." The memo recording the conversation says that Bush "is working on another campaign for his dad." The memo writer thinks Bush is "also talking to someone upstairs." [NOTE: George H. W. Bush (Sr.) is U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. at this time.] On the same day, President Richard M. Nixon, about to embark on an historic trip to the Soviet Union, writes the following in a letter to Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig: "The performance in the psychological warfare field is nothing short of disgraceful. The mountain has labored for seven weeks and when it finally produced, it produced not much more than a mouse. Or to put it more honestly, it produced a rat. We finally have a program now under way but it totally lacks imagination and I have no confidence whatever that the bureaucracy will carry it out. I do not simply blame (Richard) Helms and the CIA. After all, they do not support my policies because they basically are for the most part Ivy League and Georgetown society oriented." On the same day, E. Howard Hunt makes two calls to Bernard Barker in Miami. Saturday, 20 May 1972 Richard Nixon leaves Washington, D.C. on his trip to Austria, the Soviet Union, Iran, and Poland. He will not return until 1 June 1972. James McCord sends Alfred Baldwin to Andrews Air Force Base, where Nixon is leaving on Air Force One, purportedly because there might be demonstrations and McCord wants Baldwin to be there for more "surveillance activities." [NOTE: The "reason" supplied by McCord in testimony for this trip by Baldwin is too thin to slice, particularly in light of the amount of security surrounding Nixon's departure. Besides Air Force One, there is a fleet of White House planes at Andrews for use by VIPs and various staff connected with the White House.] On or about the same day, CIA's E. Howard Hunt flies to Miami and meets with Bernard Barker. Monday, 22 May 1972 Richard Nixon arrives in Moscow and is toasting Soviet leaders at a dinner. On the same day, the CIA "Cuban contingent" arrives in Washington, D.C. from Miami: Bernard Barker, Frank Sturgis, Eugenio Martinez, and Virgilio Gonzalez. They are in D.C. purportedly to carry out a "first break-in" on the following weekend of Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate with G. Gordon Liddy, CIA's E. Howard Hunt, and CIA's James McCord. [NOTE: There is no physical evidence that any such "first break-in" ever took place. For full coverage, see The Watergate "First Break-In Dilemma. Note also that while E. Howard Hunt claims that six Cubans arrived on 22 May 1972, the referenced criminal appeals court ruling names only four.] Tuesday, 23 May 1972 Alfred Baldwin leaves Washington, D.C. again, purportedly going to his home in Connecticut again. No reason is given for his departure. Friday, 26 May 1972 G. Gordon Liddy, Alfred Baldwin, CIA's E. Howard Hunt, CIA's James McCord, and several Cuban CIA contract agents purportedly are engaged in a failed attempt to break into the Watergate—the "Ameritas dinner" attempt. [NOTE: There was no such attempt at a break-in See 26 May 1972: The "Ameritas Dinner" and Alfred Baldwin.] Saturday, 27 May 1972 G. Gordon Liddy, Alfred Baldwin, CIA's E. Howard Hunt, CIA's James McCord, and several Cuban CIA contract agents purportedly are engaged in a second failed attempt to break into the Watergate. [NOTE: But there was no such "second attempt." See 27 May 1972: The "second failed attempt" and Alfred Baldwin.] Sunday, 28 May 1972 G. Gordon Liddy, Alfred Baldwin, CIA's E. Howard Hunt, CIA's James McCord, and several Cuban CIA contract agents purportedly are engaged in a successful "first break-in" at DNC headquarters at the Watergate. According to their later claims, McCord placed two electronic bugs in the DNC headquarters during the "first break-in," and Bernard Barker purportedly had photos taken of the office of the Chairman, Lawrence O'Brien, and of documents on his desk. [NOTE: There is no physical evidence that any such "first break-in" ever took place, or the purported two earlier failed attempts on the same holiday weekend. Barker later testified that he never was in O'Brien's office at all, and a telephone company sweep found no electronic bugs in the DNC at all (see 15 June 1972). For full coverage, see The Watergate "First Break-In Dilemma and There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate. There is nothing to account for the whereabouts of Liddy, Hunt, McCord, and Baldwin over the entire Memorial Day Weekend except the conflicting and contradictory anecdotal accounts of the co-conspirators themselves, which they volunteered when "caught" inside the building on 17 June 1972, while being represented by Douglas Caddy. See also 3 September 1971 for similarities in the purported "Fielding office break-in," including personnel involved and the use of a holiday weekend, in that case the Labor Day weekend.] AFTERWORD: Douglas Caddy will later appear in court ostensibly representing all four of the arrested CIA-connected Cubans, plus CIA's James McCord, CIA's E. Howard Hunt, and G. Gordon Liddy, who has "special CIA clearances." Later, on Wednesday, 3 January 1973, the very day that Daniel Ellsberg goes on trial, CIA's Anthony Goldin hand delivers to the Department of Justice Watergate prosecutors copies of 10 photos of E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy taken at the office of Ellsberg psychiatrist Lewis J. Fielding, with Fielding's name on the door clearly visible. These will later be turned over to the Ellsberg court, and all charges against Ellsberg will be dropped. [NOTE: See 26 August 1971, when Liddy and Hunt flew to Los Angeles to take the photos of each other.] Ashton Gray ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ BELOW SIMKIN POST WATERGATE SECTION EDUCATION FORUM ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Over the years I have argued on the forum that Richard Nixon was removed by the CIA. The strategy used by the CIA was more sophisticated than the one used against JFK. Both men attempted to undermine the power of the CIA. The source of JFK’s demise was Cuba. Nixon’s removal was the result of appointing James Schlesinger as director of the CIA. Nixon’s removal became inevitable after Schlesinger issued a directive to all CIA employees on 9th May, 1973: “I have ordered all senior operating officials of this Agency to report to me immediately on any activities now going on, or might have gone on in the past, which might be considered to be outside the legislative charter of this Agency. I hereby direct every person presently employed by CIA to report to me on any such activities of which he has knowledge. I invite all ex-employees to do the same. Anyone who has such information should call my secretary and say that he wishes to talk to me about “activities outside the CIA’s charter”. There were several employees who had been trying to complain about the illegal CIA activities for some time. As Cord Meyer pointed out, this directive “was a hunting license for the resentful subordinate to dig back into the records of the past in order to come up with evidence that might destroy the career of a superior whom he long hated.” Meyer, who had been deeply involved in Operation Mockingbird, was one of those who feared the consequences of Schlesinger’s directive. Nixon backed down after three months Nixon and replaced him with William Colby. Colby did what he could to protect the CIA. However, by this time Congress had become more interested in the CIA’s illegal activities. When in 1975 both houses of Congress set up inquiries into the activities of the intelligence community, Colby handed over to the Senate committee chaired by Frank Church details of the CIA's recent operations against the left-leaning government in Chile. The agency's attempts to sabotage the Chilean economy had contributed to the downfall of South America's oldest democracy and to the installation of a military dictatorship. His testimony resulted in his predecessor, Richard Helms, being indicted for perjury. Colby was attacked by right-wing figures such as Barry Goldwater for supplying this information to the Frank Church and on 30 January 1976, President Gerald Ford replaced him with George G. W. Bush. The “Secret Team” now led by Ted Shackley, was back in control. In my view, to really understand what Watergate was all about the timeline needs to start with Nixon’s decision to establish an in-house investigative capability that could be used to obtain sensitive political information. Jack Caulfield was hired to do this by H. R. Haldeman in May 1968. The following year (March, 1969) Caulfield employed Tony Ulasewicz. His first job was to investigate Bobby Baker’s relationship with various Democratic politicians. However, he mainly concentrated on Edward Kennedy, the man who Nixon believed had the potential to defeat him in 1972. According to the testimony of Tony Ulasewicz, on 19th July, 1969, he received a phone call from Jack Caulfield: "Get out to Martha's Vineyard as fast as you can, Tony. Kennedy's car ran off a bridge last night. There was a girl in it. She's dead." This phone call took place less than two hours after the body of Mary Jo Kopechne, the former secretary of Robert Kennedy, had been found in a car that Caulfield suspected Edward Kennedy had been driving. In my view Ulasewicz was already at the scene of the crime before it took place. Ulasewicz admits that he was able to interview several key witnesses before the police got to them. This included Sylvia Malm who was staying in Dike House at the time. Dike House was only 150 yards from the scene of the accident. Malm told Ulasewicz that she was reading in bed on the night of the accident. She remained awake until midnight but no one knocked on her door. Ulasewicz also discovered that the request for an autopsy by Edmund Dinis, the District Attorney of Suffolk County, had been denied. Dinis was told that the body had already been sent to Kopechne's family. This was untrue, the body was still in Edgartown. Ulasewicz also interviewed John Farrar, the scuba diver who pulled Mary Jo Kopechne out of Kennedy's car. Farrar told Ulasewicz that the evidence he saw suggested that she had been trapped alive for several hours inside Kennedy's car. He also discovered that the "records of Edward Kennedy's telephone calls in the hours after the accident at Chappaquiddict were withheld by the telephone company from an inquest into the death of Mary Jo Kopechne without the knowledge of the Assistant District Attorney who asked for them". Ulasewicz was also used to meet Timothy Gratz in December, 1972. Gratz, who used to be a member of the forum, has been linked by Richard E. Sprague with Arthur Bremer. This is what Sprague says about this relationship in “The Taking of America”. “What evidence is there that Bremer's attempt on Wallace was a directed attempt by a conspiratorial group? Bremer himself has told his brother that others were involved and that he was paid by them. Researcher William Turner has turned up evidence in Milwaukee and surrounding towns in Wisconsin that Bremer received money from a group associated with Dennis Cassini, Donald Segretti and J. Timothy Gratz.” My view is that Nixon was blackmailed by the CIA into taking the rap for Watergate in return for not being exposed for his role in the removal of Edward Kennedy and George Wallace from the 1972 presidential election. It was part of the deal that Nixon did not expose the CIA’s role in the assassination of JFK (Nixon had got this information from William Sullivan who carried out the investigation of the assassination on behalf of the FBI). I also believe that an investigation of Jack Paisley is essential in understanding both the JFK assassination and Watergate. Ashton, have you done much research into Paisley? I will post what I have on him later today. John Simkin ###############XXXXXXXXXXXXX PART FOUR XXXXXXXXX################################ The US started backing the French there in the 40’s and first sent military advisors in the 50’s and then combat troops in the 60’s. Can you point to any evidence the US knew about the petroleum there at the time? END COLBY QUOTE The “anti-Vietnam war movement” did not become a major problem till 1967-8 but you claim the US had an idea where the “oil” was since the late 50s. How do you explain 10 years of inaction? END COLBY QUOTE Golly those Vietcong might have stopped oil production,mighta .The area was too unstable to start oil production. Your comment lacks common sense. Yes the USA supported the FRENCH in Vietnam to gain help in ANTI-Russian European efforts. So the later oil find in Vietnam was a bonus.Facts change. Your comment again lacks common sense. ###########XXXXXXXXXXXX PART FIVE XXXXXXXX################################# ELLSBERG WIKI http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/daniel-ellsberg-exposed-along-with-the-real-purpose-of-the-wikileaks-psyop/ Thanks Steven Gaal Edited February 6, 2011 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 “What evidence is there that Bremer's attempt on Wallace was a directed attempt by a conspiratorial group? Bremer himself has told his brother that others were involved and that he was paid by them. Researcher William Turner has turned up evidence in Milwaukee and surrounding towns in Wisconsin that Bremer received money from a group associated with Dennis Cassini, Donald Segretti and J. Timothy Gratz..." Well, since J. Timothy Gratz is a membrer of this forum, and has posted here previously on his role as a Dirty Trickster, perhpas he can be persuaded to return and answer these charges. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 ############### XXXXXXXXX PART ONE XXXXXXXXXXXX######## It is absurd to say (as COLBY has a want to do) that we have the final word on Vietnam oil reserves and as "I" have said is partially political situation RE: oil development. What I said was, “I’m done the petroleum in Vietnam issue until you can produce evidence Ellsberg said there was none there and that he should have known the contrary.” And you have still failed to do so but your evidence is so lame it’s hard to resist CLICK A MAP ON THIS LINK TO SEE OIL IN NOTHERN VIETNAM THAT HAS POLITICAL PROBLEMS BEING FULLY DEVELOPED. Apparently oil was only discovered in the north in 2004 and it is only that oil which China disputes. DOES OIL AREA SEEM,"small" per Mr. Colby ? It’s not the size of the area that is important but rather the amount of ‘economically recoverable’ oil and gas discovered. Obviously the larger the area a set amount of oil is in the more costly its extraction. People were definitely looking for oil in Vietnam. (see below) (see comments also NAVY Pilot) No one denies they were “looking for oil in Vietnam” but the account of anonymous poster who claims to have been a Navy pilot contradicts the one from the page you plagarized. He said there were “oil exploration rigs. We were forbidden to go anywhere near them”. Funny that you cited a page which said the CT was untrue: “Like any good conspiracy theory there is just enough truth in it to make you wonder if this could possibly be what really happened. It might make you wonder for a minute anyway” Get back to us when you have "evidence Ellsberg said there was none there and that he should have known the contrary" “Will the Real Daniel Ellsberg Please Stand Up! The Clash of the Icons” He only cited ONE source and claims to have interviewed Ellsberg and some CIA types who knew him at best indicates that he might have been aware of drug smuggling and that the CIA folks were spreading rumors about him. "Do you consider Mr. Simkin a loon ??" I don’t think John’s “a loon” but I don’t always agree with his claims and views, he frequently fails to source the former. That said please point to where he indicated he though Ellsberg leaked the papers at the CIA’s behest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Bill, I think Tim was permanently booted after he threatened to sue the forum a 2nd time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Oil companies from 12 countries put in bids. Norway's Statoil, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, even Russia, Germany and Australia all put in bids. But when those countries drilled in their oil lots they all came up with dry holes. Only the "American" company had gushers and since 1990 has pulled billions of dollars out of their Golden Dragon, Blue Lotus, and White Tiger oil fields in the South China Sea off Viet Nam. Coincidence? Were they just lucky? Or did they know something those other oil companies didn’t? Japan Vietnam Petroleum Co. (discovery) The Oil and Gas Journal | July 18, 1994 Japan Vietnam Petroleum Co. reported a flow of 4,043 b/d of oil from a second, shallower pay zone in its Block 15-2 wildcat off Viet Nam. An earlier test yielded a flow of 10,346 b/d from the deeper Bangdong formation. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-15594679/japan-vietnam-petroleum-co.html "Japan Vietnam Petroleum, a joint venture of Mitsubishi (51%) and Japan National Oil Corp. (49%)" http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/23117/articles/offshore/volume-55/issue-2/news/exploration/vietnam-operators-increase-exploration-development-off-newest-asian-province.html LOL so over 14 thousand barrels/day from two wells = "dry holes"!! If you're going to plagarize an author at least pick one who doesn't lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Let me summarize my posts in the Wikileaks thread #################################################################### ^^^^^^^^ The issue of Wikileaks being a fraud PSY-OPS has not only been posited by myself ,but numerous others. (there are several links in this thread supporting this contention) There are tangential and some substantive connections to the Soros-Rothschild spheres of influence and Wikileaks. This points to Wikileaks being more than meets the eye. Psy-ops can build upon one another. Mr.Ellsberg came to my attention after a talk-radio encounter in the mid 1970s. Mr. Ellsberg's on air radio contention ,"No oil in Vietnam" was at odds with my Uncle's information. I didnt follow Mr. Ellsberg,but it seems he had a want to place himself in the news stream. I am not alone in thinking Mr. Ellsberg is not genuine. In this regard please checkout the full article by Douglas Valentine posted above. After reading Secret Agenda and other Watergate books, I came to think the whole Watergate/Pentagon Papers affair was a PSY-OPS,one building upon another. Again I am not alone in this assessment. Ellsberg coming to the defense of Assange is to me one PSY-OPS building upon another.####################################################################################################################################### ^^^^^^^^ This thread has been diverted to the issue of Vietnam oil because of Ellsberg's ungenuine ,"no Vietnam oil" assertion. In my above post I gave what might be an overlooked link. I will repeat the link again with information that adds to the argument that oil was a consideration in the Vietnam War. ############## START ADDITIONAL INFO ################ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters Exclusive economic zone An exclusive economic zone extends from the outer limit of the territorial sea to a maximum of 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) from the territorial sea baseline, thus it includes the contiguous zone.[3] A coastal nation has control of all economic resources within its exclusive economic zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of those resources. However, it cannot prohibit passage or loitering above, on, or under the surface of the sea that is in compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of the UN Convention, within that portion of its exclusive economic zone beyond its territorial sea. Before 1982, coastal nations arbitrarily extended their territorial waters in an effort to control activities which are now regulated by the exclusive economic zone, such as offshore oil exploration or fishing rights (see Cod Wars). Indeed, the exclusive economic zone is still popularly, though erroneously, called a coastal nation's territorial waters. ###################### END ADDITIONAL INFO The South China Sea has lots of oil . Today the area is in a Vietnam-China territorial dispute. From the above datum,it would be reasonably assumed (prior to 1982) that North Vietnam area would have a large oil reserve = during the Vietnam War timeframe. Mr. Colby slavishly accepts oil company datum/history on Vietnam. IMHO only a fool would do so. For oil companies the lie is just another tool like the drill bit. ## OVERLOOKED LINK http://www.chinahourly.com/bizchina/3169/ ### OVERLOOKED LINK ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It has been Mr. Colby's repeated implication that I made up my Ellsberg encounter. I stand by my testimony. What Mr. Colby thinks/posts is for me unfortunately unimportant. Earlier in this thread I said Mr. Colby was "mean". Sadly he has not proven me wrong. SGaal PS Oil and lie are really seperated by less than one letter,look to what happened in the Gulf, oil company lies without end ....................................................... ################################################################################### FROM ANSWERS.com Did we go to war in Vietnam over oil? REDBEARD RESPONDS During the Vietnam War I worked for a company that did seismic studies, worldwide, and sold their data to oil exploration companies like Exxon and Standard Oil. (We also sold military electronics and equipment.) When I mentioned the war, my boss told me "oil is synonymous with national defense" and told me that the data our marine crews had gathered indicated an enormous oil deposit off the Vietnam coastline. Today there are derricks pumping that oil. ANSWER BY REDBEARD bio below http://wiki.answers.com/Q/User:Redbeard Edited February 7, 2011 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Let me summarize my posts in the Wikileaks thread #################################################################### ^^^^^^^^ The issue of Wikileaks being a fraud PSY-OPS has not only been posited by myself ,but numerous others. (there are several links in this thread supporting this contention) People who believe: a) Queen Elizabeth and the Rothschilds etc are really shape-shifting lizards, HIV does NOT cause AIDS, c) man didn’t go the moon, etc, etc, can all point to “numerous others” who share their beliefs. Contrary to what they think this does not legitimize their absurd speculation. There are about 6.7 billion people on this planet even adherents of a kooky belief that only appeal to ‘one in a million’ can point to thousands of likeminded individuals. The only lunatic I know of who can’t point to others who agree is David Shayler (aka Delores Kane), who believes he is the 2nd coming. There are tangential and some substantive connections to the Soros-Rothschild spheres of influence and Wikileaks. Oh, no not those evil Joooz!! The “connections” are quite “tangential” This points to Wikileaks being more than meets the eye. No, it "points to" you (and those who share your beliefs), stooping to McCarthy like guilt by association. In any case being rich doesn’t automatically make someone evil. Soros in particular has funded various progressive causes. Psy-ops can build upon one another. Mr.Ellsberg came to my attention after a talk-radio encounter in the mid 1970s. Mr. Ellsberg's on air radio contention ,"No oil in Vietnam" was at odds with my Uncle's information. I didnt follow Mr. Ellsberg,but it seems he had a want to place himself in the news stream. The problem is it seems that no one but you remembers this supposed comment. Human memory is very fallible and that fallibility worsens with age. You are in your late 60’s and claim to remember a supposed event almost 40 years ago. Two other members here of similar age swore that I misquoted them even though I used the exact words they had posted on the same threads days earlier. Your recollection makes no sense, prospecting for oil in Vietnam has been public knowledge since at least December 1970 well before Ellsberg became a public figure. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0814FC3D5913728DDDA80A94DA415B808BF1D3 I am not alone in thinking Mr. Ellsberg is not genuine. In this regard please checkout the full article by Douglas Valentine posted above. See above one believer in shape-shifters being able to point to another doesn’t make his nuttery any more valid and Valentine’s essay proved nothing. After reading Secret Agenda and other Watergate books, I came to think the whole Watergate/Pentagon Papers affair was a PSY-OPS,one building upon another. Please cite the parts of Hougan’s book which support your ‘theory’ that the “Pentagon Papers affair was a PSY-OPS” Again I am not alone in this assessment. See above, members of MANBLA can take comfort in the same thought so could members of Heaven’s Gate. Ellsberg coming to the defense of Assange is to me one PSY-OPS building upon another Circular thinking Assange is suspect due to his ‘association’ with Ellsberg, Ellsberg is suspect for defending Assange. This thread has been diverted to the issue of Vietnam oil because of Ellsberg's ungenuine ,"no Vietnam oil" assertion. In my above post I gave what might be an overlooked link. I will repeat the link again with information that adds to the argument that oil was a consideration in the Vietnam War. ############## START ADDITIONAL INFO ################ http://en.wikipedia....ritorial_waters Exclusive economic zone An exclusive economic zone extends from the outer limit of the territorial sea to a maximum of 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) from the territorial sea baseline, thus it includes the contiguous zone.[3] A coastal nation has control of all economic resources within its exclusive economic zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of those resources. However, it cannot prohibit passage or loitering above, on, or under the surface of the sea that is in compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of the UN Convention, within that portion of its exclusive economic zone beyond its territorial sea. Before 1982, coastal nations arbitrarily extended their territorial waters in an effort to control activities which are now regulated by the exclusive economic zone, such as offshore oil exploration or fishing rights (see Cod Wars). Indeed, the exclusive economic zone is still popularly, though erroneously, called a coastal nation's territorial waters. ###################### END ADDITIONAL INFO The South China Sea has lots of oil . Today the area is in a Vietnam-China territorial dispute. From the above datum,it would be reasonably assumed (prior to 1982) that North Vietnam area would have a large oil reserve = during the Vietnam War timeframe. Mr. Colby slavishly accepts oil company datum/history on Vietnam. IMHO only a fool would do so. For oil companies the lie is just another tool like the drill bit. ## OVERLOOKED LINK http://www.chinahourly.com/bizchina/3169/ ### OVERLOOKED LINK Sorry your “OVERLOOKED LINK” proves nothing: China is already known to be midsize source of oil, according to the CIA as of Jan. 2010 they had 20.35 million barrels of proven reserves making them 13th in the world just ahead of the US and well ahead of Vietnam’s 4.7 million barrels. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html It only refers to oil in China’s claimed territorial waters only part of which (if any) seems to be in the disputed area. According to it (YOUR source) only 45.79% of China’s total is in the South China Sea but some of that is in the “Eastern South China Sea” i.e.away from Vietnam. China has 400 - 500 miles of South China Sea coastline. The article mentions the names of the gas and oilfeilds if you want to do your homework you can find out if any of them are in waters also claimed by Vietnam. The data is from 2008 not 1982 let alone 1972. The war ended in 1975 the US’s participation peaked in 1969 and ended in 1972. Do you have any Vietnam War era data? (Rhetorical question) The sole source of the data is CNOOC, i.e. the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. “Mr. Gaal slavishly accepts oil company datum/history on China. IMHO only a fool would do so” after calling someone else a fool for accepting data regarding Vietnam. I’ll accept the oil company data/history until someone presents evidence it is inaccurate. A previous link you provided indicated Petroleum was only found in the North in late 2004 and the “initial reserves estimate” was only “700-800 million barrels” (about as much as in Trinidad and Tobago). In any case taking over the north was never a US objective. Thus the article in no way support the notions “that oil was a consideration in the Vietnam War” and “it would be reasonably assumed (prior to 1982) that North Vietnam area would have a large oil reserve = during the Vietnam War timeframe”. A most you could argue that the war’s duration was extended due to a desire to control the SOUTH’s oil. I wouldn’t put that past Nixon and his cohorts but the evidence indicates otherwise troop levels were dropping as oil exploration was increasing, the North vanquished the South shortly after oil was found and the US did nothing to impede them. It has been Mr. Colby's repeated implication that I made up my Ellsberg encounter. No I think you misremembered what he said or hallucinated it entirely. “Only a fool”, to repeat your phrase, “slavishly accepts” 30 to 40-year-old memories. A couple of years ago Mike Hogan, who is far more coherent than you, forgot something he typed here only a few days earlier, ditto Peter Lemkin who is about as ‘eccentric’ as you, thus I have little reason to accept something you think you were told after timeframe 4000x that. It’s also possible Ellsberg said that but was misinformed, since the ‘CIA controlled media’ had already reported that there probably was oil in Vietnam (or already had been found) why would a supposed CIA asset deny to caller to radio show any was there? That said being a plagiarizer doesn't help your credibility. If you falsely take credit for having written something you didn't how much faith can we put in you undocumented claims? Edited February 8, 2011 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted October 16, 2014 Author Share Posted October 16, 2014 Excerpts from a proposed international trade agreement leaked to the web this week suggest that the United States is pushing for changes that would make it more difficult to get life-saving drugs overseas. On Thursday, transparency group WikiLeaks published a draft chapter from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement which 12 countries, including the US, have been negotiating in near total privacy for years. According to the secret-spilling organization, the latest leaked chapter — an excerpt from May 2014 detailing proposed intellectual property, or IP, rules — indicates that American trade reps want to maintain a monopoly on life-saving drugs and stifle efforts from foreign nations to obtain such products affordably and with ease. A portion of the chapter backed by the US, WikiLeaks wrote in a statement that accompanied Thursday’s unauthorized disclosure of the draft document, would “force Parties to enact an automatic monopoly period (marketing exclusivity) for life-saving drugs, with a choice for the groups to decide for definitive inclusion within the treaty of 0, 5, 8 or 12 years.” “Experts state that the United States is pushing for the maximum 12 years, with the countries' Ministers to decide as the IP negotiators cannot agree on this controversial issue,” WikiLeaks reported. According to their analysis, achieving as much if and when the TPP is finally approved could have catastrophic results and run counter to exactly what the White House has said in the past. “Administration will have gone back on its promise to make cancer drugs affordable, having previously pledged to reduce the monopoly period on biotech drugs from 12 to 7 years. This will mean patients needing these drugs will remain with hugely expensive medical bills for years to come. These costs are also generally unattainable for citizens in the developing countries in the TPP,” WikiLeaks said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 see http://togaherer.com/it-has-been-authenticated-that-hundred-of-information-sourced-from-wikileakis-become-fake-after-investigated-and-a-number-of-fake-information-from-wikileakis-listed-below-never-trust-believe-shinin/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now