Implications of public understanding of the Coup of '63 for Jeb Bush.

[Mark Gorton]

The upcoming Billy O'Reilly JFK movie and the 50th anniversary JFK assassination celebration planned for Dallas show that even 49 years after the fact some very powerful interests are still committed to maintaining the old fiction of the JFK assassination. I was born after the assassination, so the JFK assassination is history to me. Most of the participants are dead and the ever shrinking number who are left are getting quite old. So I have been interested in understanding who still cares enough to bother to keep covering up this crime.

As I have studied the assassination and the ongoing criminal enterprise birthed by the assassination, I have come to realize how the thread of corruption that can be traced back to the JFK assassination runs up unto today. I have been amazed to learn to what extent the established ruling class is still vulnerable to the hidden mass of festering secrets that can be traced directly back to the JFK assassination.

Perhaps the most vulnerable major politician is Jeb Bush. When the public finally understands that his father was guilty of three counts of treason (Coup of '63, Watergate, October Surprise), the entire Bush family will be discredited. Whether the Bush family likes it or not, the truth is seeping out. I suspect that the public may become widely aware of the Bush family history of treason during the next election. Any halfway decent opposition researcher with an internet connection can amass a huge amount of information that could easily go viral on facebook. People have been able to get away with crimes, but escaping history is much, much harder, and the Bush family will not be able to escape the judgment of history.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Mark Gorton

[William Kelly]

Americans don't even understand the continuing implications of the 1963 coup, so I'm sure it doesn't bother the Bushs, as Mae Brussell explains:

JFKCountercoup2: Interview with Mae Brussell

BK

JFKcountercoup

[Len Colby]

His grandfather or his father? Or do you think Prescott Bush was involved in those acts (some from beyond the grave)? The evidence that either were involved in the JFK assassination or Watergate is slim and neither would fit the definition of treason. HW was implicated in the [lack of an] October Surprise which could be considered treason but I'm unaware of firm proof. Why do think 2016 would be so different from other years?

I don't see Jeb Bush as having much of future as a candidate for POTUS but that's more due to association with his brother than his dad and the fact he will have been out of office for nearly 10 years.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

The upcoming Billy O'Reilly JFK movie and the 50th anniversary JFK assassination celebration planned for Dallas show that even 49 years after the fact some very powerful interests are still committed to maintaining the old fiction of the JFK assassination. I was born after the assassination, so the JFK assassination is history to me. Most of the participants are dead and the ever shrinking number who are left are getting quite old. So I have been interested in understanding who still cares enough to bother to keep covering up this crime.

As I have studied the assassination and the ongoing criminal enterprise birthed by the assassination, I have come to realize how the thread of corruption that can be traced back to the JFK assassination runs up unto today. I have been amazed to learn to what extent the established ruling class is still vulnerable to the hidden mass of festering secrets that can be traced directly back to the JFK assassination.

Perhaps the most vulnerable major politician is Jeb Bush. When the public finally understands that his grandfather was guilty of three counts of treason (Coup of '63, Watergate, October Surprise), the entire Bush family will be discredited. Whether the Bush family likes it or not, the truth is seeping out. I suspect that the public may become widely aware of the Bush family history of treason during the next election. Any halfway decent opposition researcher with an internet connection can amass a huge amount of information that could easily go viral on facebook. People have been able to get away with crimes, but escaping history is much, much harder, and the Bush family will not be able to escape the judgment of history.

I agree 100%. I think the Bushes and Oliver North murdered Barry Seal in Feb. 1986 because he was going to spill the beans on CIA drug smuggling which was going on a massive scale back then. How can this not be a part of any reasonable discussion of Jeb Bush in regards to his 2016 prospects? I suggest the book "Barry & 'the Boys:' The CIA, the Mob and America's Secret History" by Daniel Hopsicker - http://www.amazon.com/Barry-Boys-Americas-Secret-History/dp/0970659172/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357745059&sr=1-1&keywords=barry+and+the+boys

And then there is this nuggets from 2 books:

George Herbert Walker Bush, Oliver North and the 1986 Murder of Barry Seal:

[Daniel Hopsicker, "Barry & the Boys: The CIA, The Mob and America's Secret History," pp. 375-376]

"Lewis Unglesby is today a prominent and very well connected Louisiana lawyer. At the time his name was daily on the front page of the state's newspapers., defending his long-time client and associate, Governor Edwin Edwards.

Unglesby had told us about a confrontation he had with Barry over the fact that Seal was keeping him in the dark about matters Unglesbly considered crucial to defending him...

"Barry pushed the phone across the desk to me and said, 'You wanna know what's going on? Here. Dial this number. Tell 'em you're me,' Unglesby related.

"When I did what he requested," he continued, "A female voice answered the phone, sayin' 'Vice President Bush's office, may I help you?'"

"I said, 'This is Barry Seal.' She asked me to wait while she transferred the call, which was immediately picked up by a man who identified himself as Admiral somebody or other, who said to me 'Barry, Where you been?'"

"That's when I told him that I wasn't Barry Seal, I was his lawyer," said Unglesby. "Immediately he slammed down the phone."

So why was Barry Seal murdered?" we asked Sharpstein.

"Unglesby said he had been with Seal when the IRS came and seized all his property," Sharpstein related. "The IRS man said, 'You owe us $30 million for the money you made in drug dealing.'

"Hey, I work for you," was Seal's reply. "We work for the same people."

"You don't work for us," the IRS agent stated. "We're the IRS."

"Unglesby was with Seal when he retired to a back roonm." Sharpstein stated. "He watched as Seal placed a call to George Bush. He heard Barry Seal tell Bush, 'If you don't get these IRS assholes off my back I'm going to blow the whistle on the Contra scheme."

Sharpstein spoke solemnly, aware of the gravity of his words..., "'That's why he's dead,' is what Unglesby said."

One week after the phone conversation between Barry Seal and George Bush, Seal was sentenced to a halfway house. Two weeks later he was dead.

"Barry Seal, you mean that agent that went bad?" Gordon Novel had casually inquired, when we'd posed the question of his associations with Seal.

An agent that 'goes bad,' as we understand intelligence industry trade jargon, is one who contemplates talking.

"Seal was gunned down, supposedly by those Colombians," says Sharpstein. "But they were fed information by the assholes in our government who wanted him dead."

The assassination of Barry Seal was very likely even not the first attempt on Seal's life by North, we were told by CIA electronics expert Red Hall, on the ground in Nicaragua with Seal on the Sandinista drug sting....

"The only thing I knew was the CIA had a lot to do with it (Barry's murder.) The killers were being directed by Oliver North at the time. It was the same thing Oliver North pulled on us down in Nicaragua."

"Then, I didn't know yet that Oliver North had it for Barry Seal, because he was working with Oliver at that particular point. We was undercover, and we were still down there (Nicaragua), when Oliver blew the whistle on us."

Chip Tatum, another covert operative who had known Seal and shared confidences with him, listened with amusement the first time we breathlessly relayed what we'd discovered: that Oliver North is guilty in the assassination of Barry Seal...

"No xxxx, Sherlock," he replied, laughing. "It ain't exactly the secret of the century, I can tell you."

[Daniel Hopsicker, "Barry & the Boys: The CIA, The Mob and America's Secret History," pp. 375-376]

Al Martin conversation with Jeb Bush just days after the Feb., 1986 Murder of Barry Seal in Baton Rouge:

Al Martin: "In this discussion, I had mentioned the recent assassination, only a few days before, of Barry Seal [Feb, 1986, outside his halfway house in New Orleans].

I said to Jeb, "Isn't is convenient that Barry Seal was assassinated when he was? And now suddenly all the information and documents he had are gone missing?"

Jeb had a rather broad smile on his face, and he concurred that it was convenient. He added a little snicker - as he often had a tendency of doing. Also little beads of sweat formed on his forehead, as when he gets nervous. It's something you can notice when he's on television. He still has a tendency to have little beads of sweat around his forehead, when he is either lying about something, or he's nervous about what someone is saying." [ Al Martin, "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider," p. 194]

Edited January 9, 2013 by Robert Morrow

[Mark Gorton]

Sorry. Jeb's father (not grandfather) GHW Bush was guilty of 3 counts of treason. His grandfather Prescott was guilty of treason during WWII for helping the nazi war industries while the U.S. was at war with Germany. The October Surprise counts as treason for GHW Bush. Paying an enemy foreign country (Iran) to hold U.S. citizens as hostages longer and stealing arms from U.S. weapons stockpiles to ship to an enemy country (Iran) in order to induce them to hold U.S. hostages longer is treason.

For more info of Prescott Bush's treason, please see http://rense.com/general26/dutch.htm . I also suspect brother George W Bush of treason for conspiring with the Saudi's to bring about 9/11. However, I do not yet have firm enough evidence to prove this. I suspect that in the next 20 or 30 years we will get enough evidence to prove that the Bush family was one of the prime movers behind 9/11. However, at this time, we just have a lot of circumstantial evidence and alignment of some facts, but not enough for hard proof.

In terms of why now: the fear of speaking openly about the Coup of 63 is dying away, and more and more evidence is constantly being compiled in more compelling ways. The internet itself makes a difference. The internet is a great research tool. Amazon allows easy access to books that only 15 years ago would have been very, very difficult to get. Each year, it gets easier and easier to learn about and explain the Coup of '63. And once the public understands the Coup of '63 and the birth of the cabal, then a whole bunch of other crimes (including CIA drug smuggling and Barry Seal) become easier to discuss, accept, and understand.

The reason that most Americans don't know about the giant list of crimes perpetrated by the Cabal is not that the evidence is not available, but instead that these crimes clash too sharply with our idea of how America works, but once the public begins to understand the Cabal, all these other crimes become much easier to comprehend. Each year, the forces of the cover up get weaker, and the forces of truth get stronger.

[Len Colby]

None the less neither the JFK assassination nor Watergate qualified as treason and the evidence trying Bush to them is scant.

[Ron Ecker]

Each year, the forces of the cover up get weaker, and the forces of truth get stronger.

Each year the U.S. gets closer to economic collapse, civil unrest and a police state. So I don't share your optimism that truth will triumph.

As for the 2016 election, I don't think the Bush crime family has any more to fear than the Clinton crime family. Hillary will get elected if she's healthy.

[Douglas Caddy]

Each year, the forces of the cover up get weaker, and the forces of truth get stronger.

Each year the U.S. gets closer to economic collapse, civil unrest and a police state. So I don't share your optimism that truth will triumph.

As for the 2016 election, I don't think the Bush crime family has any more to fear than the Clinton crime family. Hillary will get elected if she's healthy.

I agree with you, Ron. Most Americans are punch drunk with their personal problems stemming from the financial collapse of 2008. Their attitude is that the JFK assassination, Watergate and 9/11 are past history and, like Pearl Harbor, will remain shrouded forever as to what really occurred. So they say, let's move on. The U.S. is heading for a Great Default, akin to national bankruptcy, in which many current expenditures by the U.S. government will be abruptly terminated. This will impact society in drastic ways with personal survival being the foremost concern. There is an open question whether the Great Default will occur during Obama's last term in office or soon thereafter under the next administration.

Take a look at what the real national debt is:

"The U.S. fiscal gap, calculated ...using the Congressional Budget Office’s realistic long-term budget forecast -- the Alternative Fiscal Scenario -- is now $222 trillion. Last year, it was $211 trillion. The $11 trillion difference -- this year’s true federal deficit -- is 10 times larger than the official deficit and roughly as large as the entire stock of official debt in public hands."

http://www.bloomberg...1-trillion.html

Edited January 9, 2013 by Douglas Caddy

[Paul Brancato]

Capitalism is all about debt. The American citizen taxpayer is being softened up to accept the debt as their own self-inflicted wound, and to believe without question that extreme hardship will ensue if we fail to implement austerity. No one ever asks the questions 'what is money'? Who gets to print it and how much to print, who gets to borrow it and how much interest will they have to pay? And most importantly, who gets to keep a lot of it?

How did we get here? Waste, fraud, wars, not social spending. And now we are supposed to pick up the tab for trillions in debt created by and for the 1%. Seriously, our public schools and universities and our public health facilities are grossly underfunded, and access to quality education and healthcare are more and more a privilege of the elites. I think when things get this out whack the only good solution is an old fashioned biblical recalibration. Let's negotiate with the banksters for how many pennies on the dollar they'll accept for all the money they have so kindly lent us.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Paul Brancato

[Mark Gorton]

Len,

The killing of JFK was most certainly an act of treason, and the creation of a false scandal to cause the removal of Nixon was also an act of treason. Both of these are very serious crimes that undermine the democratic foundations of the United States. I have spent years studying these events, and I have convinced myself beyond a shadow of a doubt that several major treasonous conspiracies have been hidden in recent history. As a citizen of the United States, I consider it my responsibility to work to uncover the truth and help bring these crimes to light. Only through an active effort by the electorate can a democracy remain strong.

I do not make my statements lightly. I understand how serious are these claims. I would not make these statements if I have not spent years studying to be certain of what I say. You have a tendency to dismiss all claims that differ from your world view out of hand. A certain level of skepticism is healthy, but dismissing valid evidence of criminal activity has the effect of protecting criminals and promoting ongoing criminal activity.

If we were discussing sports or movies, I would be fine with you saying whatever you wanted, but your consistent denial of criminal activity even in cases where the evidence is overwhelming is an act that aids and abets the criminals, and when we are dealing with criminal activity that includes treason, your comments and actions make you, in your own small way, an accessory to treason.

I do understand the gravity of what I have just said, and it has taken me years of study to have the level of confidence to make such statements. I hope you take this chance to reflect how a false debate can prevent our system from moving forward and gaining justice when their has been a crime.

Sincerely,

Mark

Edited January 10, 2013 by Mark Gorton

[Len Colby]

. Article IIISection 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

So unless the assassination or Watergate were carried out at the behest of enemy powers they would not qualify as treason, which is why the various presidential assassinations and failed attempts outside Washington D.C. before Sept. 1965 were NOT federal crimes. Even the people tried for the Lincoln and Truman attacks were not charged with treason.

I call'em like I see'em, I don't believe in the SBT or that LHO could have squeezed off three shots the WC assumed based on it in the requite time, thus there was a 2^nd gunman thus a conspiracy. But the others involved were guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, obstruction of justice and probably other crimes but but not treason. Nor have I see any valid evidence tying GHWB to the conspiracy much less so to Watergate.

Based on your comments on another thread you think there were simultaneous plots to guarantee Nixon's election (the shooting of Wallace) and eventual removal (Watergate), why such a Rube Golbergian arrangement? Nixon was a sleezebag, he'd been known as 'Tricky Dick' since the 50's, the notion that he did not know what CREEP were up to is silly and not even supported by more than a handful of his inner circle or any serious historians. In any case he was responsible for the cover-up.

[Ron Ecker]

The U.S. is heading for a Great Default, akin to national bankruptcy, in which many current expenditures by the U.S. government will be abruptly terminated. This will impact society in drastic ways with personal survival being the foremost concern. There is an open question whether the Great Default will occur during Obama's last term in office or soon thereafter under the next administration.

Saw a good bumper sticker today:

"You can put a fork in America, we're done."

[John Dolva]

What's money is a good tie in (see Fiat, it seeks to answer that question) The separation from gold under Nixon was probably an important event. The thing is that with money being faith based and with no intrinsic value the US does not need to concern itself with debt (only the maintenance of faith amongst the populace). The focus is to the future. With a Droner as CIA head, and the new adventures in imperialism, the latest significant one being the move by the Armed forces into so far 35 african nations, along with all the other fires being stoked overtly and covertly, north and south, east and west, the US is positioning itself for expansion. In the process there will be vast destruction of infrastructure and humanity. The establishment of a police state is fundamental to this aim. Still, no matter how hard pressed US citizens become it will be nothing compared to the poor majority who will bear the burden.

Unity at home and abroad is the only antidote to this madness.

[Mark Gorton]

Len,

The legal definition of treason is broader that then language in the constitution. From wikipedia, "However, Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating related offenses that punish conduct which undermines the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage Act, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason." If you really care more about the details, you can see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition#United_States.

And here are a couple examples of people who have been tried for treason without having anything to do with an enemy power (from wikipedia), "Most states have provisions in their constitutions or statutes similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. The Extradition Clause specifically defines treason as an extraditable offense. There have been only two documented prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr for treason against the state of Rhode Island for his part in the Dorr Rebellion, and that of John Brown for treason against the state of Virginia for his part in the raid on Harpers Ferry. In 1859, he and a few of his sons infiltrated Harpers Ferry—a military base in Virginia—in an attempt to steal the weapons that were kept there. His goal was to give these weapons to slaves, and lead them in an armed rebellion, but his attempt was unsuccessful. His sons were killed in the ensuing battle, and he was captured, and then tried, and convicted, for treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia. He was sentenced to death by hanging, which was performed on December 2, 1859.^[27]"

I understand that you "call'em like I see'em", however, you completely dismiss the work of Sherman Skolnick for doing exactly the same thing. You have a strong tendency to dismiss or minimize evidence of conspiracies. Another phrase for these conspiracies is government based criminality. So by minimizing or denying this criminality, you have the effect of aiding this criminal activity. If you were simply making statements about sporting events, there would be no harm in a "call'em like I see'em" attitude. But when it comes to making statements that have the effect of protecting criminal conspiracies, such an attitude is ethically suspect.

For very solid evidence of GHW Bush's involvement in the Coup of '63 and Watergate, you should read "Family of Secrets". It is a very solid and well researched book. You can also look at: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush.htm

The cover up of the Coup of '63 was a truly massive, highly redundant operation. The situation was dynamic and the Cabal was always running multiple efforts at covering-up and maintaining control of the presidency. The Cabal behind the Coup of '63 was very powerful, but they were not all powerful, and as such they were constantly adjusting their tactics. It seems like the Cabal's first choice for president in 1968 was Nelson Rockefeller, however, due to his infidelity, he disqualified himself. (This would explain why Prescott Bush was so morally outraged about Rockefeller's infidelity because by failing to be outwardly morally upstanding, Rockefeller was endangering all of their lives.)

Understanding the mindset and motivations of the Cabal is really one of the most interesting things about researching the secret history of the US. The relationship between the Cabal and Nixon is fascinating and not simple. I don't understand Nixon very well, and getting a better understanding of Nixon is one of the research projects on my list. Nixon was no angel, but he wasn't the complete sleezebag he has been made out to be. In fact, the "Tricky Dick" branding of Nixon is partially a product of the Cabal. Nixon's early political career was sponsored by Prescott Bush, so he had some close relations with the Cabal. However, Nixon was not one of them and not fully under their control, and once he achieved his second term, Nixon showed distressing amounts of independence and a determination to find out what ugly secrets were hidden in the CIA.

The Cabal was always working in the realm of what was possible. In 1972, they would have loved to pick GWH Bush or Gerald Ford as president, but they could not swing that. So they settled for what they could. The fact that they had the Nixon white house booby trapped was a real advantage for the Cabal. It gave them comfort that Nixon was ultimately controllable, and this made Nixon more appealing to them than the Democratic alternatives.

If you are interested in learning more about Watergate, I would recommend you read: "Family of Secrets", "Secret Agenda", "Silent Coup" and "The Cowboy and Yankee War".

[Len Colby]

Len,

The legal definition of treason is broader that then language in the constitution.

Impossible the Constitution is the supreme law of the country anything that contradicts it is legally invalid.

From wikipedia, "However, Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating related offenses that punish conduct which undermines the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage Act, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason." If you really care more about the details, you can see: http://en.wikipedia....#United_States.

'Related', as in associated, as in similar but not the same. Neither the assassination nor Watergate, even if your theories about it were correct, would qualify as espionage or sedition.

And here are a couple examples of people who have been tried for treason without having anything to do with an enemy power (from wikipedia), "Most states have provisions in their constitutions or statutes similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. The Extradition Clause specifically defines treason as an extraditable offense. There have been only two documented prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr for treason against the state of Rhode Island for his part in the Dorr Rebellion, and that of John Brown for treason against the state of Virginia for his part in the raid on Harpers Ferry. In 1859, he and a few of his sons infiltrated Harpers Ferry—a military base in Virginia—in an attempt to steal the weapons that were kept there. His goal was to give these weapons to slaves, and lead them in an armed rebellion, but his attempt was unsuccessful. His sons were killed in the ensuing battle, and he was captured, and then tried, and convicted, for treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia. He was sentenced to death by hanging, which was performed on December 2, 1859.[27]"

These were cases of men who led armed rebellions against the governments of the states of Rhode Island and Virginia before the Civil War they are not applicable. Thus far no one has been charged with 'treason' against Texas and such charges in DC would be covered by federal law.

I understand that you "call'em like I see'em", however, you completely dismiss the work of Sherman Skolnick for doing exactly the same thing.

I dismiss him due to very questionable claims based on 'evidence' only he has seen. Even you wrote:

I don't know much about Sherman Skolnick. I have just been looking at his website, and he certainly does claim a lot of stuff without documentation. And some of his stuff strikes me as false. I would not look at him as a solid source, but I have found that there can be use in having guys who are not afraid to be out there. Some of their speculation later proves to be valid, so I consider Skolnick more an interesting source of ideas to be tested rather than a solid researcher.

You have a strong tendency to dismiss or minimize evidence of conspiracies. Another phrase for these conspiracies is government based criminality. So by minimizing or denying this criminality, you have the effect of aiding this criminal activity.

A bit circular don't you think? Your conclusion is based on the premise that your theories are correct. And even IF what you believe is correct it's a real stretch to imagine my posts here help the culprits escape justice.

If you were simply making statements about sporting events, there would be no harm in a "call'em like I see'em" attitude. But when it comes to making statements that have the effect of protecting criminal conspiracies, such an attitude is ethically suspect.

Gee, didn't you know that questioning the motivations of members is verboten here? And if you believe my “ attitude is ethically suspect” what's the point in discussing anything with me? Do think I really 'know' your theories are true?

For very solid evidence of GHW Bush's involvement in the Coup of '63 and Watergate, you should read "Family of Secrets". It is a very solid and well researched book. You can also look at: http://www.jfkmurder...ed.com/bush.htm

Jim DiEugenio wrote an excellent and devastating review of the Baker book as for the site, James Files, Judith Vary and Tosh Plumlee, sorry but I'll pass.

http://www.ctka.net/...ly_secrets.html

The cover up of the Coup of '63 was a truly massive, highly redundant operation. The situation was dynamic and the Cabal was always running multiple efforts at covering-up and maintaining control of the presidency. The Cabal behind the Coup of '63 was very powerful, but they were not all powerful, and as such they were constantly adjusting their tactics. It seems like the Cabal's first choice for president in 1968 was Nelson Rockefeller, however, due to his infidelity, he disqualified himself. (This would explain why Prescott Bush was so morally outraged about Rockefeller's infidelity because by failing to be outwardly morally upstanding, Rockefeller was endangering all of their lives.)

Understanding the mindset and motivations of the Cabal is really one of the most interesting things about researching the secret history of the US. The relationship between the Cabal and Nixon is fascinating and not simple. I don't understand Nixon very well, and getting a better understanding of Nixon is one of the research projects on my list. Nixon was no angel, but he wasn't the complete sleezebag he has been made out to be. In fact, the "Tricky Dick" branding of Nixon is partially a product of the Cabal. Nixon's early political career was sponsored by Prescott Bush, so he had some close relations with the Cabal. However, Nixon was not one of them and not fully under their control, and once he achieved his second term, Nixon showed distressing amounts of independence and a determination to find out what ugly secrets were hidden in the CIA.

The Cabal was always working in the realm of what was possible. In 1972, they would have loved to pick GWH Bush or Gerald Ford as president, but they could not swing that. So they settled for what they could. The fact that they had the Nixon white house booby trapped was a real advantage for the Cabal. It gave them comfort that Nixon was ultimately controllable, and this made Nixon more appealing to them than the Democratic alternatives.

If you are interested in learning more about Watergate, I would recommend you read: "Family of Secrets", "Secret Agenda", "Silent Coup" and "The Cowboy and Yankee War".

Uh, don't those books push contradictory theories about Watergate? The questionablity of their claims aside from the former they only mention Bush in passing.