Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK's teen mistress addresses relationship


Recommended Posts

Guest Robert Morrow

Tom Fairlie,

Do not call me a "plant" on Education Forum. I have plastered the internet with my views that Lyndon Johnson, Texas oil executives and the CIA murdered John Kennedy.

Most "plants" don't do that.

Robert Morrow

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jim, Larry, Don, and Nathaniel seem to be the only ones with a clue on this thread. How depressing.

David Lifton, you should be ashamed of yourself. John, I echo Kathy's observation of your reaction

if not her tone. Robert Morrow, does anyone still think you're not a plant on this forum?

I feel I'm wasting time by posting this, but the need to vent was greater than my apathy, so here goes.

[snip]

We do this man (not a great man but certainly a courageous one) a disservice every time we pass along

salacious gossip and innuendo while ignoring his sincere attempts at peace and at inspiring us to picture

a better life. Is this the legacy we're going to leave for our children? Personally, I don't tell my children

any of the gossip and instead tell them that JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm were killed because they each

finally figured out what the answer was.

You've all been reading and absorbing this stuff for years or decades. I'm incredibly disappointed that a

forum like this spends more than a heartbeat agonizing over sex when future lives literally hang in the balance.

Re your statement about Robert Morrow: That is an absurd and ridiculous charge. It suggests to me that you don't understand the importance of the evidence about Kennedy's private behavior.

The problem, imho, is revealed by the very language you are using to describe the situation: "salacious gossip."

No, this is not about "salacious gossip."

For years--I would guestimate at least a decade, but probably until the publication of A Woman Named Jackie, and then Sy Hersh's "Dark Side of Camelot"--it was a complete mystery (certainly it was, to me) as to how in the world Secret Service agents might be persuaded to go along with any plot. And let me assure you: this crime could not have occurred without the involvement of some of them.

So the question was "why"--why would any of them be involved?

It wasn't until the general outlines of JFK's private behavior emerged, that it became clear how they could have been pitched.

That's what this is all about (as far as I'm concerned); and you cheapen the inquiry by characterizing it as "salacious gossip." It suggests to me that you really do not comprehend the importance of this data.

And then, when you start throwing around charges of people being "plants," you are simply indulging in a conspiracy theory of your own making to demean someone with whom you disagree.

Ms. Alford happens to be a first-rate witness. The true importance of her account is not that it permits us to discuss JFK's sexual proclivities, but that it permits us to understand why (and how) his private behavior may have led to a situation in which his security could be compromised.

That's not "salacious gossip." That's understanding critical pieces of this puzzle.

If you don't understand JFK's achille's heel,you will never understand how he was knocked down.

This is a case where assassination with words almost certainly preceded assassination with bullets; and I'm not "blaming the victim" but pointing to the reality of the situation when I say that his private behavior was very likely a contributing ingredient.

DSL

2/12/12; 6:45 AM PST

Los Angeles, Ca

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, Larry, Don, and Nathaniel seem to be the only ones with a clue on this thread. How depressing.

David Lifton, you should be ashamed of yourself. John, I echo Kathy's observation of your reaction

if not her tone. Robert Morrow, does anyone still think you're not a plant on this forum?

I feel I'm wasting time by posting this, but the need to vent was greater than my apathy, so here goes.

First of all, how many articles do we read in the mainstream media today about the affairs and other

idiosyncrasies of the past dozen presidents? Don't know? It's roughly about 10:1 for JFK over all of the

others combined. The two Bushes, Nixon, Reagan, LBJ, and FDR don't measure up. Clinton is certainly

the #1 contender in our hearts and minds, but remember that I said today. Clinton was already nailed,

so to speak, and presents zero threat to the powers that be, so his reputation (such as it is) remains intact.

Second, consider that JFK was raised in a wealthy, entitled environment, where women did not have equal

treatment by any stretch of the imagination (e.g., Yale wasn't even coed until 1969) and were routinely "used"

for whatever purposes by powerful (and not-so powerful) men. On top of that, JFK obviously had a fatalist

outlook that drove him to do things that the average person would never consider. I'm not excusing any of

the possible affairs or activities that he may have had, but I can certainly explain them away as the hedonistic

pastimes of a person that knew his days were numbered and who probably had little in the way of easy pleasures.

People who know me personally know that I'm a relatively strict person when it comes to the basic ethics

of marriage and family life. In other words, I don't condone cheating of any sort. However, due to the two

items cited above (fabricated or exaggerated stories and JFK being a byproduct of his life and times), I'm

willing to overlook JFK's affairs because his overall compass appears to have been pointed in the right direction.

He was fighting incredibly powerful interests to make the world a better place and paid the ultimate price

for his actions. By the end of the 1960s (I'm ignoring Wallace in the 70s because that was more political),

there was nobody left with the same willpower or courage.

We do this man (not a great man but certainly a courageous one) a disservice every time we pass along

salacious gossip and innuendo while ignoring his sincere attempts at peace and at inspiring us to picture

a better life. Is this the legacy we're going to leave for our children? Personally, I don't tell my children

any of the gossip and instead tell them that JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm were killed because they each

finally figured out what the answer was.

You've all been reading and absorbing this stuff for years or decades. I'm incredibly disappointed that a

forum like this spends more than a heartbeat agonizing over sex when future lives literally hang in the balance.

Very well put imo.

imo, the focus is flawed as far as doing anything but highlighting some rather typical traits and as Jim says the why is more interesting and valuable which, to me necessarily at some point addresses the questions around sex, power and equality which in themselves are important matters but probably off topic.

So a focus on the salacious, while understandable, (again a sign of contemporary paradigms) evades some possibly more revealing and on topic matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re your statement about Robert Morrow: That is an absurd and ridiculous charge. It suggests to me that you don't understand the importance of the evidence about Kennedy's private behavior.

Robert Morrow believes that the "best evidence" of conspiracy is Madeleine Brown's account of her meeting with Johnson at the Driskill Hotel. Morrow calls it the "number one evidence of conspiracy."

Ms. Alford happens to be a first-rate witness.

Morrow thinks the same thing about Judyth Baker.

And let me assure you: this crime could not have occurred without the involvement of some of them.

So the question was "why"--why would any of them be involved?

It wasn't until the general outlines of JFK's private behavior emerged, that it became clear how they could have been pitched.

I wanted to post Vince Palamara's original Amazon review but it is no longer available. He's changed his mind. Imagine that.

From his blog:

Regarding Mimi Alford's book

I have tremendously flip flopped on the merits and substance of the book, as one can tell from my deleted and changed blogs and Amazon reviews LOL
:o
) I guess I must put aside the skeptic in me and put the best spin on her "tale": it further debunks Blaine's book and corroborates the 4 agents interviewed for Seymour Hersh's book, adding further fuel to the fire for the agents to have disgust over JFK's private life: motive for inaction on 11/22/63

A lack of anything compelling or anything of substance from the "world's leading authority on the Secret Service," as Palamara puts it.

And finally, in case David Lifton has missed it: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18585&view=findpost&p=246254

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, it would seem that many are, at least, majority-ears: "And finally, in case David Lifton has missed it: http://educationforu...ndpost&p=246254 "

How about some answers? Your's in surplus humility-- Citizen Nate

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, it would seem that many are, at least, majority-ears: "And finally, in case David Lifton has missed it: http://educationforu...ndpost&p=246254 "

How about some answers? Your's in surplus humility-- Citizen Nate

OMG. so the Secret Service, according to Lifton, helped off the President cuz he was screwing around? So then why didn't they do Bill too? I agree that this IS "salacious gossip" and I am very glad to see those refuting it. Loved how Jim D was able to show how Alford lifted parts of her story from Exner. Expect more of this as the 50th anniversary draws near. We'll hear from the left, that he was no different than Nixon or LBJ, and we will hear the rehashed sex trash from the tabloids ...all to try to disprove Douglass on "why it matters".

It is sad to see the critical community even having this debate. Predictable of some, however.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to jump in here, solicited or not, to make what I believe are some rather salient points.

History is full of "secret revelations now known;" it is also, and has been, also printed thousand of times on the cover of the National Tattler and National Enquirer to make a point of comparison.

Regarding JFK, or ANY historical figures private life can, and has been used for cannon fodder to demolish legacies of accomplishment is a historical fact. I am sure Seymour Hersh and Nigel Hamilton have been mentioned a few times, for their contributions to "helping us 'understand' the real JFK" sarcasm intended.

Somewhat related "I always wondered why prostitutes had to have bad eyesight"

President's having extra-marital affairs is not something that began with JFK, to state the obvious. The Achilles Heel

for those who are attracted to JFK for his accomplishments is that it is no accident that JFK's legacy has been seriously and/or critically damaged to a great degree by the reality of his womanizing.

But JFK, as other Kennedy's, affairs have been used as a not so subliminal means to denigrate every contribution this family and specifically JFK ever made, at its extreme form a not so subtle "The man deserved to die, he brought shame on the office of the Presidency;" et al. perhaps someone might take pause, to admit that JFK is not alive to present HIS recollections of these various memoirs that come out; I am told there are two sides to every story.

Regarding JFK's teen mistress, are we to take her account as the fifth gospel of the Bible.....

The key point to remember is impartiality in analysis and judgement

because once you make the judgement that JFK's womanizing in 1963 equates to "deserved to die"

then the controversy over the unanswered questions over the assassination, become the lowest common denominator; as in

"what difference does it make How he died, or Who killed him," a fact that makes us all arguably to stop assassination research, because our culture has decided it does not matter. A culture that has a reputation for being a little overtly

judgmental to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, it would seem that many are, at least, majority-ears: "And finally, in case David Lifton has missed it: http://educationforu...ndpost&p=246254 "

How about some answers? Your's in surplus humility-- Citizen Nate

OMG. so the Secret Service, according to Lifton, helped off the President cuz he was screwing around? So then why didn't they do Bill too? I agree that this IS "salacious gossip" and I am very glad to see those refuting it. Loved how Jim D was able to show how Alford lifted parts of her story from Exner. Expect more of this as the 50th anniversary draws near. We'll hear from the left, that he was no different than Nixon or LBJ, and we will hear the rehashed sex trash from the tabloids ...all to try to disprove Douglass on "why it matters".

It is sad to see the critical community even having this debate. Predictable of some, however.

Dawn

How Bill Clinton betrayed us: allies speak out on Lewinsky affair

TV documentary reveals how Clinton's closest aides felt about affair that ended in scandal

By Vanessa Thorpe, arts and media correspondent

guardian.co.uk, Saturday 11 February 2012 12.18 EST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/12/clinton-allies-monica-lewinsky-affair

Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton photographed together in November 1995. Photograph: Rex Features

A close-knit band of friends and colleagues around Bill Clinton at the time of the Monica Lewinsky affair will speak publicly for the first time of their disbelief and sense of betrayal this month in a much-anticipated four-hour documentary about the former US president.

The two-part biography, which premieres in Britain and America on 20 February , chronicles Clinton's struggle with his unruly libido from the beginning of a political career he was determined would take him to the White House. His loyal adviser, the pollster Dick Morris, will tell of the moment Clinton rang him just before evidence of his affair with Lewinsky was about to be made public.

"Bill said to me: 'Ever since I got to the White House I have had to shut down my body'," says Morris, adding that Clinton told him he had been weak in the case of the 23-year-old intern and had done enough with her to be in serious trouble. He then asked Morris to conduct polls on how he should handle the crisis. Ken Gormley, a legal expert working in the White House, also recalls the sexual tension between the president and Lewinsky. "There were almost these sparks flying between them from the first moment when they saw each other," he says.

Those who worked with Clinton on his initial bid for governorship in his home state of Arkansas, campaigning alongside his wife Hillary, refer to his involvement with a long queue of women. One campaign chief remembers dealing with "25 women a day" who came into the office looking for Clinton, while Betsey Wright, the politician's trusted political aide, recounts how she eventually presented him with a list of girlfriends he had to deal with before he could stand as governor. "It became clear it was not the time to do it," she says.

As a result, Clinton pulled out of the race at the last minute. Marla Crider, who worked with Clinton in Arkansas and had an affair with him, describes women as being "literally mesmerised". "It was like flies to honey. I don't think there is any question Hillary was hurt," she says.

The decision to abort that early gubernatorial campaign was the first in a series of reversals and recoveries that have marked Clinton's career. David Maraniss, a Pulitzer prizewinning journalist and contributor to the documentary, believes it succeeds in revealing how Clinton's flawed nature both helped and hindered him. "People always try to separate the good from the bad in Clinton and say that, if he had not done certain things, he would have been a great president. But you can't do that. Those were his major characteristics," Maraniss told the Observer.

Clinton apparently deployed charisma of rock-star proportions, but with this came a sexual appetite that finally threatened his presidency when he faced impeachment for perjury over the Lewinsky affair in 1998. Wright tells the programme-makers she felt betrayed because the president had lied to her and "to a lot of people" about the affair. Barak Goodman, the award-winning producer who made the Clinton film for America's Public Broadcasting Service, points out that until now Wright has been extremely loth to speak about the incident. "She has been underground for many years because she was so close and so important to Clinton and felt very bad," he said.

Robert Reich, Clinton's labour secretary, also expresses his sense of shock about the Lewinsky affair. "He would not be so stupid as to jeopardise his whole presidency, I felt. That was not the man I knew."

Reich also reveals the rocky start to Clinton's presidency in 1993. "The atmosphere in the White House in that first year was chaos," he says. "Clinton wanted to be a part of everything."

The documentary, which was partly funded by US government grant and partly by donation, details early difficulties such as the scandal surrounding Clinton's affair with Gennifer Flowers, the sexual harassment suit brought by Arkansas state employee Paula Jones, and the devastating suicide of the Clintons' close friend, Vince Foster, at the time that the suspected Whitewater land fraud first case came to light.

During the period that the Republicans under Newt Gingrich blocked the national budget, Lewinsky began her internship at the White House.

"Monica Lewinsky gave him something that he needed at that time: to be adored," says Crider. When the affair became public, however, it fuelled the inquiry into Clinton's presidency being run by Kenneth Starr and led to the impeachment of a president for only the second time in US history.

According to the leading American journalist Jeff Toobin, who contributes to the documentary, the Lewinsky affair did not ultimately harm Clinton's image as much as predicted.

"The legacy of this scandal favours Clinton more than his adversaries," he told the Observer. "More Americans think that it was a trivial waste of time than think that he got away with something unforgivable." Toobin puts this down in part to "a long-established pattern that the longer a president is out of office the more kindly the public starts to feel about them", but also to Clinton's resilience and to his "extraordinary political electricity".

"In comparison, too, both with [George] Bush, with his foreign misadventures, and with [barack] Obama's economic problems, the boom years of Clinton's presidency start to look a lot better," added Toobin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I waited a couple of days before preparing a reply to this post by Caddy below. Because I wanted to see if anyone else would pick up on it, especially Lifton and Morrow. As I suspected, they did not. So I will. Just to show Caddy that not everyone is here is swallowing all he says about himself.

DC: I am pleased to see Jim quoting from Jim Hougan’s book, “Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat and the CIA”, published in 1984. Secret Agenda and James Rosen’s book, “The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate”, published in 2008, are at the top of my list for recommended reading about that scandal.

Jim is factually incorrect in stating above that “by the time Hunt got there, the [Mullen] firm was essentially being run by Robert Bennett, who was a CIA agent.”

JD: Please note here for latter reference my use of the word, “essentially”. This is important to the rest of Caddy’s argument.

DC: General Foods Corp. sent me from its White Plains, N.Y. headquarters in 1969 to work for about a year out of its Washington public relations firm, the Mullen Company, until I was to open its own office for the corporation in the nation’s capital. Hunt came to work for the Mullen Company about six months after I arrived. In late 1970, Robert Mullen, who owned the firm, asked Hunt and me if we wanted to buy the firm. While we were considering the proposal, Mullen suddenly announced he was selling it to Robert Bennett. At that point in time I left General Foods and went to work as an attorney for the law firm of Gall, Lane, Powell and Kilcullen.

JD: As many sources have noted, by the time Hunt got there, Mullen Company was a full fledged CIA front. This had started back in 1959. It was in full bloom ten years later. The presence of the Hughes account, run by Bennett, tells all you need to know. As many commentators have noted, in 1969, it was hard to tell in the Hughes company where the business ended and the CIA influence began. Now, Hunt had no previous experience in PR work that I can tell. And when he “retired” from the CIA, Dick Helms gave him personal loans from a special CIA fund. (Hougan, Secret Agenda, p. 6) Then, and this is crucial, Helms personally wrote a letter to the Mullen Company to hire Hunt. Recall, Hunt had no previous experience in PR. He was not a lawyer either. So why was this done?

Let me explain. Because it was from here that Robert Bennett then pushed Hunt on Charles Colson at the White House. Hunt had tried to get a job with the White House previously but failed to do so. Bennett was a lunch buddy of Colson’s. Therefore he aided the transition personally. But, as Hougan notes, the CIA extended Hunt’s covert security clearance PRIOR to his ”retirement” in anticipation that he would be utilized by the Agency in the future. Once inside the White House, Hunt and McCord became part of the Plumbers group. To Colson’s everlasting grief.

In light of the above, why would Mullen want to sell a CIA front to a guy three years out of law school, Caddy, or to a guy who had no previous PR experience and had been there only a few months, Hunt. And who Mullen probably knew was there on Helm’s request for CIA cover duty.

What I am saying is this: If you know the way CIA front companies work, Mullen was only a titular head. Bennett was for all intents and purposes running the company on CIA instruction. Part of that instruction was to plant Hunt on Colson. And from there Hunt and McCord would be Helms’ spies, and then agent provocateurs for Watergate.

DC: I did not learn definitively that the Mullen Company had been incorporated by the CIA in 1959 and was a CIA front until Senator Howard Baker released this information in his separate report as part of the final report of the Senate Watergate Committee in 1975. Up until then I had only inklings or “intimations” as I testified in July 1972 to the federal grand jury investigating Watergate. I have since concluded that General Foods not only knew of the Mullen Company’s CIA background but that this was part of that corporation’s own relationship with the CIA, all of which information was not disclosed to me when I was sent to work out of the Mullen Company in 1969.

JD: So Caddy never wondered why someone like Hunt was working there? A man with no prior experience in either PR or advertising? Or why Bennett held such sway over the company? And most of all, why on earth would Hunt call Caddy the night of the break in? Because clearly, once Shoffler was tipped off and made the arrests at the Watergate, the plot was now in motion. For Hunt had made sure to leave a trail back to the White House. The gym bags and checks had been left at a hotel room, not in a safe combination locker. Hunt had also left behind his personal phone number at the White House. So while with the double taping of the door, McCord made sure the security guard knew they were there, Hunt made sure the incriminating clues led back to the White House.

So here, with the claws of the bear trap about to spring, why did Hunt call Caddy at this point?

DC: This and more will be covered in my autobiography that I am writing at the present time under contract with TrineDay Publishers.

JD: Please explain the above in the book. Also tell us all about how the CIA recruited you to run a luxury hotel in Nicaragua later on. And how your rooming at the foreign service school at Georgetown with Tongsun Park was just a coincidence.

++++++++++++++++++

Jim I dont want to get things off track between you and Mr. Caddy,but for you I have something to consider.

------------------------------------------------

Senator Bennett's strong faith in Mormonism and Richard Nixon was shared by his son Robert. On page 7 of his book Why I Am A Mormon, Senator Bennett indicated that Robert Bennett and his other sons have served on missions for the Mormon Church. According to James A. Everett, Robert Bennett served his "mission in England" (Letter dated Oct. 15, 1974). Mr. Everett also stated that "Mr. Bennett has maintained a most respected position in the Mormon Church and I believe has been a Stake President. I know he was active as Counselor to the Stake President and has served in setting up the P.R. activity in the Eastern States." (Letter dated Oct. 15, 1974)

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no37.htm

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Funny Helms has to write letter to CIA cover company...........maybe.......CIA/MI6 joint operation.

Would a young Morman missionary today be able to discern if he was working for MI6/CIA/FBI/DOD ?? "You'll be helping the CIA.......","You love your country,dont you ?"

To me,its possible of MI6 penetration into Mullen Company.Mr.Bennett may have been compromised in his "mission in England". Later we discovered that Robert Bennett was the actual owner of the Mullen Co. and that this company handled international public relations for the Mormon Church. Jim in my big interview by

William Weston, I mention how MacNaughtom attempted to recruit my Uncle to work for him. BUT MY UNCLE HAD ALREADY DONE CIA WORK IN OIL ANALYSIS. See to me JIM, MacNaughton was MI6. JIm LORD Cordray was ultra elite and had possilble connections to British Intell. DeGloyer worked for Cordray.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OSS has such deep British connections. DeGloyer would have also known British intell people as director of conservation with the Office of the Coordinator for National Defense from 1941 to 1942.

In the same year, DeGolyer organized the formation of the Rycade Oil Company as well as the Amerada Petroleum Corporation for Lord Cowdray, rising to become general manager, president, and chairman from 1929 to 1932 DeGolyer left the firm in 1932, but remained with Rycade, which was established to explore salt dome oil deposits through 1941.[2] As a geophysical consultant with Rycade, DeGolyer made the first torsion balance survey in the United States at the Spindletop oilfield. An oilfield found by DeGolyer on behalf of Rycade at Nash, Texas was the first oilfield anywhere to be discovered using geophysics.[4] From 1925 DeGolyer established the Geophysical Research Corporation as a subsidiary of Amerada to develop reflective seismology techniques originated by J. Clarence Karcher and Eugene McDermott, leaving in 1932 to move to Dallas, Texas. DeGolyer provided financial support for the 1930 establishment of GRC's successor, Geophysical Service Incorporated. GSI went on to spin off Texas Instruments.[6] In 1936 with Lewis MacNaughton, DeGolyer established the petroleum exploration consulting firm DeGolyer and MacNaughton, and Core Laboratories, Incorporated the same year to provide drilling core and fluids analysis. DeGolyer was also associated with the Atlatl Royalty Company from 1932 to 1950 and the Felmont Corporation in 1934. In 1956 he established Isotopes, Incorporated to provide radioactive isotopes for oilfield and industrial purposes.[2]

During World War II, DeGolyer served as director of conservation with the Office of the Coordinator for National Defense from 1941 to 1942. He was assistant deputy of the Petroleum Administration for War in 1942-43, and was in charge of the Petroleum Reserves Corporation mission to the Middle East in 1943-44 He was president of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers in 1927, and was a director of the American Petroleum Institute for twenty years.[4] In 1946, working on behalf of the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner to the Central Intelligence Agency, DeGolyer recruited Jack Crichton of Dallas, to operate a group of companies which frequently were given new names, presumably to make it more difficult to trace their operations. According to investigative journalist Russ Baker (not to be confused with Russell Baker of The New York Times), the companies "operated largely below the radar, and fronted for some of North America's biggest names, including the Bronfmans (Seagram's liquor), the Du Ponts, and the Kuhn-Loeb family of financiers."[7] Crichton became a prominent oil and gas industrialist and was the 1964 Republican gubernatorial nominee.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The connection to Lord Cordray are deep. Cordray was main Mexican Eagle investor. In 1909, C. Willard Hayes, chief geologist of the Mexican Eagle Oil Company (El Águila) in Tampico, hired DeGolyer to head the exploration staff. All the way back to 1909 and the again in 1929 DeGloyer worked for Lord Cordray.

=================================================================================================================

pg 90 https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:e8PE_ZEaYG0J:www.ohioana.org/quarterly/earlyq/winter1967/taney1.pdf+Mexican+Eagle+Lord+Cordray&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg7BM9d0vPh1TVxi341qrw0HN5cDM_W1mQGl8jHkUzNhtHE5hubNy35DFHwvgnxc3bHNMD4-VuizjkJdQAqz2YYBFa1xG1fnpBbNamxs2bslpx9VQf6QPgDrMVI9H7WX9F15bxx&sig=AHIEtbTGG8FTPSxbIeSUW0gdJrfNmqs95w

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I waited a couple of days before preparing a reply to this post by Caddy below. Because I wanted to see if anyone else would pick up on it, especially Lifton and Morrow. As I suspected, they did not. So I will. Just to show Caddy that not everyone is here is swallowing all he says about himself.

DC: I am pleased to see Jim quoting from Jim Hougans book, Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat and the CIA, published in 1984. Secret Agenda and James Rosens book, The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate, published in 2008, are at the top of my list for recommended reading about that scandal.

Jim is factually incorrect in stating above that by the time Hunt got there, the [Mullen] firm was essentially being run by Robert Bennett, who was a CIA agent.

JD: Please note here for latter reference my use of the word, essentially. This is important to the rest of Caddys argument.

DC: General Foods Corp. sent me from its White Plains, N.Y. headquarters in 1969 to work for about a year out of its Washington public relations firm, the Mullen Company, until I was to open its own office for the corporation in the nations capital. Hunt came to work for the Mullen Company about six months after I arrived. In late 1970, Robert Mullen, who owned the firm, asked Hunt and me if we wanted to buy the firm. While we were considering the proposal, Mullen suddenly announced he was selling it to Robert Bennett. At that point in time I left General Foods and went to work as an attorney for the law firm of Gall, Lane, Powell and Kilcullen.

JD: As many sources have noted, by the time Hunt got there, Mullen Company was a full fledged CIA front. This had started back in 1959. It was in full bloom ten years later. The presence of the Hughes account, run by Bennett, tells all you need to know. As many commentators have noted, in 1969, it was hard to tell in the Hughes company where the business ended and the CIA influence began. Now, Hunt had no previous experience in PR work that I can tell. And when he retired from the CIA, Dick Helms gave him personal loans from a special CIA fund. (Hougan, Secret Agenda, p. 6) Then, and this is crucial, Helms personally wrote a letter to the Mullen Company to hire Hunt. Recall, Hunt had no previous experience in PR. He was not a lawyer either. So why was this done?

Let me explain. Because it was from here that Robert Bennett then pushed Hunt on Charles Colson at the White House. Hunt had tried to get a job with the White House previously but failed to do so. Bennett was a lunch buddy of Colsons. Therefore he aided the transition personally. But, as Hougan notes, the CIA extended Hunts covert security clearance PRIOR to his retirement in anticipation that he would be utilized by the Agency in the future. Once inside the White House, Hunt and McCord became part of the Plumbers group. To Colsons everlasting grief.

In light of the above, why would Mullen want to sell a CIA front to a guy three years out of law school, Caddy, or to a guy who had no previous PR experience and had been there only a few months, Hunt. And who Mullen probably knew was there on Helms request for CIA cover duty.

What I am saying is this: If you know the way CIA front companies work, Mullen was only a titular head. Bennett was for all intents and purposes running the company on CIA instruction. Part of that instruction was to plant Hunt on Colson. And from there Hunt and McCord would be Helms spies, and then agent provocateurs for Watergate.

DC: I did not learn definitively that the Mullen Company had been incorporated by the CIA in 1959 and was a CIA front until Senator Howard Baker released this information in his separate report as part of the final report of the Senate Watergate Committee in 1975. Up until then I had only inklings or intimations as I testified in July 1972 to the federal grand jury investigating Watergate. I have since concluded that General Foods not only knew of the Mullen Companys CIA background but that this was part of that corporations own relationship with the CIA, all of which information was not disclosed to me when I was sent to work out of the Mullen Company in 1969.

JD: So Caddy never wondered why someone like Hunt was working there? A man with no prior experience in either PR or advertising? Or why Bennett held such sway over the company? And most of all, why on earth would Hunt call Caddy the night of the break in? Because clearly, once Shoffler was tipped off and made the arrests at the Watergate, the plot was now in motion. For Hunt had made sure to leave a trail back to the White House. The gym bags and checks had been left at a hotel room, not in a safe combination locker. Hunt had also left behind his personal phone number at the White House. So while with the double taping of the door, McCord made sure the security guard knew they were there, Hunt made sure the incriminating clues led back to the White House.

So here, with the claws of the bear trap about to spring, why did Hunt call Caddy at this point?

DC: This and more will be covered in my autobiography that I am writing at the present time under contract with TrineDay Publishers.

JD: Please explain the above in the book. Also tell us all about how the CIA recruited you to run a luxury hotel in Nicaragua later on. And how your rooming at the foreign service school at Georgetown with Tongsun Park was just a coincidence.

The extent of Jims ignorance about Watergate is breathtaking. Based upon his comments about me and my role in Watergate, I now must begin to wonder if he is equally as loose with the facts about JFKs assassination. David Lifton may well be correct in his assessment of Jims credibility on this.

Why did Hunt call me after the arrests at Watergate? The answer is because I was his attorney and the law firm that employed me had done legal work for him as a client once I left General Foods Corporation. One of the law firms partners, Robert Scott (who later was appointed a District of Columbia judge) and I worked together on Hunts various personal legal matters for two years. When Hunt visited me in my residence in Washington after calling me from his office in the Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House soon after the arrests at Watergate, I telephoned Scott with Hunts permission and told him what had occurred. At that point Scott informed me and Hunt how to proceed with the arraignment of the five arrested burglars scheduled to occur later that same day.

This and all other relevant issues involving me were examined in great detail by the original three Watergate prosecutors (with whom I had half a dozen meetings), the federal grand jury (before which I testified on six separate occasions) and the Special Prosecutor (with whom I met three times). My deposition was taken by Edward Bennett Williams who represented the Democratic National Committee in its civil suit that was filed in the wake of the Watergate break-in; I was never named a defendant in that civil suit. I was also never questioned or called to testify by the Senate Watergate Committee or the House Judiciary Committee in their investigations? Why? Because my role had already thoroughly examined with a fine tooth comb by the prior investigative bodies and authorities enumerated above. In addition, I had testified under oath as a witness for both the prosecution (involuntarily) and the defense (voluntarily) at the first Watergate trial at which Liddy and McCord were found guilty after Hunt and the four Cuban-Americans had pleaded guilty at the start of the trial.

However, Jim now has assumed his usual role in the forum as the frustrated Grand Inquisitor and is using false and misleading information to dredge up issues answered 40 years ago in the Watergate historical record. Who has the time for such nonsense?

Edited by Douglas Caddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Re your statement about Robert Morrow: That is an absurd and ridiculous charge. It suggests to me that you don't understand the importance of the evidence about Kennedy's private behavior.

Robert Morrow believes that the "best evidence" of conspiracy is Madeleine Brown's account of her meeting with Johnson at the Driskill Hotel. Morrow calls it the "number one evidence of conspiracy."

Ms. Alford happens to be a first-rate witness.

Morrow thinks the same thing about Judyth Baker.

And let me assure you: this crime could not have occurred without the involvement of some of them.

So the question was "why"--why would any of them be involved?

It wasn't until the general outlines of JFK's private behavior emerged, that it became clear how they could have been pitched.

I wanted to post Vince Palamara's original Amazon review but it is no longer available. He's changed his mind. Imagine that.

From his blog:

Regarding Mimi Alford's book

I have tremendously flip flopped on the merits and substance of the book, as one can tell from my deleted and changed blogs and Amazon reviews LOL
:o
) I guess I must put aside the skeptic in me and put the best spin on her "tale": it further debunks Blaine's book and corroborates the 4 agents interviewed for Seymour Hersh's book, adding further fuel to the fire for the agents to have disgust over JFK's private life: motive for inaction on 11/22/63

A lack of anything compelling or anything of substance from the "world's leading authority on the Secret Service," as Palamara puts it.

And finally, in case David Lifton has missed it: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18585&view=findpost&p=246254

Michael Hogan, MiMi Alford is a first rate witness to history. Probably 100% of what she is saying is true; you can't say that about most people or historical witnesses. It should be obvious to most "critical thinkers" that this women was not seeking the limelight but, thankfully, was discovered. MiMi Alford has modestly called herself a footnote to a footnote.

As for Madeleine Brown, I think she is one of the most important witnesses to truth in the JFK assassination. That does not mean I believe everything she said, but absolutely I do believe Lyndon Johnson told Madeleine that his Texas oil men (presumably H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, Sr.) along with renegade CIA agents murdered JFK. Madeleine Brown has been vetted by decades of JFK researchers and the vast majority of them believe her. Madeleine Brown is an extremely important witness and much of what I believe in JFK assassination research is because of her: she lets us know that LBJ had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination and 2) LBJ's closest political supporters - Texas oil men - were critical players in the JFK assassination.

As for Judyth Baker, I believe her general story that she was in fact Oswald's summer mistress in New Orleans in 1963. I believe Baker was doing cancer research for the CIA or for folks like Oshner working for the CIA. I consider Baker less reliable than MiMi Alford or Madeleine Duncan Brown and their are certain aspects of her story that I do not believe. I have not gone through on a piece by piece basis and decided what parts of Judyth Baker's testimony I believe or don't believe... yet.

Most people do not tell 100% truth or 100 lies; we should use our "critical thinking skills" to examine them on a case by case method, statement by statement. MiMi Alford is completely credible and she is as close to 100% true in a witness as you will get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He probably told himself that he was not being unfaithful as long as he did not kiss the women. He might have been an above average president but he was a lousy human being.

I'm glad you articulated what I, with some discomfort, felt. It was a different time back then, with a different moral compass. I suspect that his friends and family probably felt somewhat proud and even envious of his ability to seduce women, and to get away with it. It would be later, toward the end of the 60s, that American men first started to catch on to the concept that promiscuity and cheating were immoral and demeaning. One could argue that his marriage may not have been mutually satisfactory, that it was maintained only for "show," but it appears that he was still having some marital relations and children even while cheating. It almost seems to have been something of a game.

As I admire President Kennedy, I was willing to overlook an incident or two of infidelity, but the the slow trickle of names and stories, some of which are probably true, makes it a lot harder to excuse or ignore. What was he thinking?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9704&st=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re your statement about Robert Morrow: That is an absurd and ridiculous charge. It suggests to me that you don't understand the importance of the evidence about Kennedy's private behavior.

Robert Morrow believes that the "best evidence" of conspiracy is Madeleine Brown's account of her meeting with Johnson at the Driskill Hotel. Morrow calls it the "number one evidence of conspiracy."

Ms. Alford happens to be a first-rate witness.

Morrow thinks the same thing about Judyth Baker.

And let me assure you: this crime could not have occurred without the involvement of some of them.

So the question was "why"--why would any of them be involved?

It wasn't until the general outlines of JFK's private behavior emerged, that it became clear how they could have been pitched.

I wanted to post Vince Palamara's original Amazon review but it is no longer available. He's changed his mind. Imagine that.

From his blog:

Regarding Mimi Alford's book

I have tremendously flip flopped on the merits and substance of the book, as one can tell from my deleted and changed blogs and Amazon reviews LOL
:o
) I guess I must put aside the skeptic in me and put the best spin on her "tale": it further debunks Blaine's book and corroborates the 4 agents interviewed for Seymour Hersh's book, adding further fuel to the fire for the agents to have disgust over JFK's private life: motive for inaction on 11/22/63

A lack of anything compelling or anything of substance from the "world's leading authority on the Secret Service," as Palamara puts it.

And finally, in case David Lifton has missed it: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18585&view=findpost&p=246254

Michael Hogan, MiMi Alford is a first rate witness to history. Probably 100% of what she is saying is true; you can't say that about most people or historical witnesses. It should be obvious to most "critical thinkers" that this women was not seeking the limelight but, thankfully, was discovered. MiMi Alford has modestly called herself a footnote to a footnote.

As for Madeleine Brown, I think she is one of the most important witnesses to truth in the JFK assassination. That does not mean I believe everything she said, but absolutely I do believe Lyndon Johnson told Madeleine that his Texas oil men (presumably H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, Sr.) along with renegade CIA agents murdered JFK. Madeleine Brown has been vetted by decades of JFK researchers and the vast majority of them believe her. Madeleine Brown is an extremely important witness and much of what I believe in JFK assassination research is because of her: she lets us know that LBJ had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination and 2) LBJ's closest political supporters - Texas oil men - were critical players in the JFK assassination.

As for Judyth Baker, I believe her general story that she was in fact Oswald's summer mistress in New Orleans in 1963. I believe Baker was doing cancer research for the CIA or for folks like Oshner working for the CIA. I consider Baker less reliable than MiMi Alford or Madeleine Duncan Brown and their are certain aspects of her story that I do not believe. I have not gone through on a piece by piece basis and decided what parts of Judyth Baker's testimony I believe or don't believe... yet.

Most people do not tell 100% truth or 100 lies; we should use our "critical thinking skills" to examine them on a case by case method, statement by statement. MiMi Alford is completely credible and she is as close to 100% true in a witness as you will get.

Right. And Madeleine Brown is the "number one evidence of conspiracy in this case," according to you. The fact is, you have no way of knowing how much of Alford's story is true. Yet you pretend that you do.

You contradict yourself. You claim that "we should use our 'critical thinking skills' on a case by case method, statement by statement." Yet in the very next sentence, you admit you

have not done that with Judyth Baker's claims. (Testimony, as you call it)

Ask David Lifton about Judyth Baker.

When Mrs Kennedy's taped interviews were in the process of being made public, you immediately seized upon a tabloid report that she implicated Vice-President Johnson. You believed it

because you wanted to, not because you applied any critical thinking skills. You only changed your mind when the evidence became overwhelming that the tabloid story was a fabrication.

The application of critical thinking skills would have spared you from that misconception.

Your claim that the vast majority of JFK researchers believe Madeleine Brown is a figment of your imagination. I wonder how many of them would agree with you that "her Driskill Hotel story

is the number one evidence of conspiracy in this case?"

And just for the record, it's Mimi Alford. Not MiMi Alford.

Like I wrote elsewhere before this thread began, Alford's book would be right up your alley. How did I know that? Call it critical thinking.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, it would seem that many are, at least, majority-ears: "And finally, in case David Lifton has missed it: http://educationforu...ndpost&p=246254 "

How about some answers? Your's in surplus humility-- Citizen Nate

OMG. so the Secret Service, according to Lifton, helped off the President cuz he was screwing around? So then why didn't they do Bill too? I agree that this IS "salacious gossip" and I am very glad to see those refuting it. Loved how Jim D was able to show how Alford lifted parts of her story from Exner. Expect more of this as the 50th anniversary draws near. We'll hear from the left, that he was no different than Nixon or LBJ, and we will hear the rehashed sex trash from the tabloids ...all to try to disprove Douglass on "why it matters".

It is sad to see the critical community even having this debate. Predictable of some, however.

Dawn

Dawn writes: "OMG. so the Secret Service, according to Lifton, helped off the President cuz he was screwing around?"

No, that's not what I said. In fact, that's an absurd oversimplification (and misrepresentation) of what I said.

First of all, this crime was an inside job. I hope you do realize that. If not, then we go our separate ways--and there's really not much to discuss.

But if you do, then the question is: how was it done, and just who was pulling the levers?

In this case, what happened could not have taken place without the complicity of certain people in the Secret Service.

Ultimately, one has to face the fact that there was a process of recruitment that had to precede the actual crime. Otherwise, the event as it unfolded could not have been manipulated--and I'm referring to everything from trip planning to the false autopsy.

Some decades back, former CIA Director Allen Dulles talked about the process of recruitment, for a covert operation. He compared it to fishing. As I recall, he said it was a very dangerous game--because if you approached the wrong person, and that person said "No thank you," he (or she) could spill the beans.

For purposes of this discussion, I abbreviated the process of "recruitment" and called it "pitching." Because basically, that's what it is--anyone who was approached in advance had to be pitched.

I am sure that that process also involved buried money. People had to be paid off. That's just reality.

And the point I was making is that if Kennedy was behaving in a particularly overtly reckless and promiscuous manner, then it would undercut his credibility--as a person, and as President. So it made him vulnerable to anyone pitching the idea that he was reckless and irresponsible in, say, the area of dealing with the Soviets. Nobody said "Let's kill the President because he is screwing around." (That's absurd.) But if there were people who truly believed that, say, by wanting a test-ban treaty, JFK was selling the country out to the Russians, then his behavior in the private sphere could be utilized to undercut his credibility.

I don't see why that's so difficult to understand.

DSL

2/12/12; 10:40 PM PST

Los Angeles, California

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

David, it would seem that many are, at least, majority-ears: "And finally, in case David Lifton has missed it: http://educationforu...ndpost&p=246254 "

How about some answers? Your's in surplus humility-- Citizen Nate

OMG. so the Secret Service, according to Lifton, helped off the President cuz he was screwing around? So then why didn't they do Bill too? I agree that this IS "salacious gossip" and I am very glad to see those refuting it. Loved how Jim D was able to show how Alford lifted parts of her story from Exner. Expect more of this as the 50th anniversary draws near. We'll hear from the left, that he was no different than Nixon or LBJ, and we will hear the rehashed sex trash from the tabloids ...all to try to disprove Douglass on "why it matters".

It is sad to see the critical community even having this debate. Predictable of some, however.

Dawn

Dawn writes: "OMG. so the Secret Service, according to Lifton, helped off the President cuz he was screwing around?"

No, that's not what I said. In fact, that's an absurd oversimplification (and misrepresentation) of what I said.

First of all, this crime was an inside job. I hope you do realize that. If not, then we go our separate ways--and there's really not much to discuss.

But if you do, then the question is: how was it done, and just who was pulling the levers?

In this case, what happened could not have taken place without the complicity of certain people in the Secret Service.

Ultimately, one has to face the fact that there was a process of recruitment that had to precede the actual crime. Otherwise, the event as it unfolded could not have been manipulated--and I'm referring to everything from trip planning to the false autopsy.

Some decades back, former CIA Director Allen Dulles talked about the process of recruitment, for a covert operation. He compared it to fishing. As I recall, he said it was a very dangerous game--because if you approached the wrong person, and that person said "No thank you," he (or she) could spill the beans.

For purposes of this discussion, I abbreviated the process of "recruitment" and called it "pitching." Because basically, that's what it is--anyone who was approached in advance had to be pitched.

I am sure that that process also involved buried money. People had to be paid off. That's just reality.

And the point I was making is that if Kennedy was behaving in a particularly overtly reckless and promiscuous manner, then it would undercut his credibility--as a person, and as President. So it made him vulnerable to anyone pitching the idea that he was reckless and irresponsible in, say, the area of dealing with the Soviets. Nobody said "Let's kill the President because he is screwing around." (That's absurd.) But if there were people who truly believed that, say, by wanting a test-ban treaty, JFK was selling the country out to the Russians, then his behavior in the private sphere could be utilized to undercut his credibility.

I don't see why that's so difficult to understand.

DSL

2/12/12; 10:40 PM PST

Los Angeles, California

Not only that if JFK were having an affair with Lisa Howard - a very real possibility - and she were having an affair with Fidel Castro (which she admitted to in her diary) and the CIA/military intelligence found out about JFK's overtures to normalize relations with Cuba and the hated Castro (who these folks were trying to kill), then the backlash toward JFK could have been (and was) explosive.

Or if JFK were indeed smoking dope with Mary Meyer (very possible) or dropping acid her in the White House (a possiblity) and obviously CIA and someone like Cord Meyer might be incensed about this from both personal and political points of view. Certainly, JFK was having a torrid affair with Mary Meyer.

Those CIA Kennedy haters could easily have said, okay that's the last straw, the man is a national security threat who must be killed as soon as we can do it. They were already calling him and Bobby traitors and incompetent.

My personal view is JFK's killers were the ones who were threats to national security and certainly our republican form of government, but it is critical to try to "get in their minds."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...