Mark Groubert Asks: Who Really Is Bob Woodward?

[James DiEugenio]

The time frame I am talking about is from the break in to the beginning of the televised hearings.

During that time period, very few people voiced anything else but the conventional line which stemmed from the Post.

And its not James Baker!  It is Howard Baker.  He and Thompson, his minority lawyer, were the first people who really delved into the secret role of the CIA.  That minority report was frowned upon and ignored.  Just as Thompson's book was.

As McCord said, if Helms goes, so does Nixon.

Helms went and do did Nixon. 

What you are insinuating that somehow Bradlee wanted to bring on the Neocons, is utterly alien to me. 

[Matt Cloud]

11 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The time frame I am talking about is from the break in to the beginning of the televised hearings.

During that time period, very few people voiced anything else but the conventional line which stemmed from the Post.

And its not James Baker!  It is Howard Baker.  He and Thompson, his minority lawyer, were the first people who really delved into the secret role of the CIA.  That minority report was frowned upon and ignored.  Just as Thompson's book was.

As McCord said, if Helms goes, so does Nixon.

Helms went and do did Nixon. 

What you are insinuating that somehow Bradlee wanted to bring on the Neocons, is utterly alien to me. 

Who leads the neo-cons, James, that's you, James DiEugenio not James Baker, in this time frame?  

And whether it's alien to you or not is neither here nor there.  But perhaps you will get a lesson.  So -- who leads the neo-cons in, let's say, 1973?  Or if you like, 1963?  Or, if you like, 1983?  Hint: It's the same person.

[Matt Cloud]

Oh and by the way -- hadn't Bradlee flacked for the US in Paris for prosecution of the Rosenbergs?  Along with his then-colleague Howard Hunt?  That's a yes.  

[Matt Cloud]

Or if you like, since evidently the political leanings of The Post are at issue here, rightly probably, who ran the editorial page from 1979 until 1999?  Was that Meg Greenfield, formerly of the neo-con magazine, run by Max Ascoli and Irving Kristol, The Reporter?  Yes.  Was the editorial page -- the opinion-makers -- staffed by neo-cons like George Will -- who got him that job anyway at The Post, Krisl passed him on to someone at the Nixon WH I know -- and Charles Krauthammer?  Yes.  Also neo-libs like William Rasberry and Colby King?  Yes.  Did TIME magazine take over The Post's competition, the old-right The Washington Star, and run it into the ground by 1981?  Yes.  Huh.  

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Thanks for the questions.  I intend to reply with a more detailed and thoughtful response but in the meanwhile here's the short answer.

 

In broad political terms, Watergate represents the elimination or if you like dismissal and push toward irrelevance of the traditional right in the United States, the "silent majority," along with its antecedents in the anti-communist 1940s and 50s, to allow for the neo-con (read Trotskyite) takeover of the Republican Party.  What would be The Reagan Revolution.  Watergate is the book-end to the very same thing which had happened in the 50s, climaxed with JFKA, which was the takeover of the Democratic Party by the same persons.  Both of those political takeovers were designed to ensure management of the Cold War.  Some will ay that that was to create the New World Order.  Okay.  Some will say that it was as Anatoly Golitsyn said to bring about convergence of East and West.  Okay.  Same thing really.  A perhaps more subtle and nuanced view would say that it was to steer the Cold War in such a way that neither extreme of left or right would dominate, and thus risk all out confrontation between the two.  That's what Watergate was -- a fissure created in the Republican Party that allowed the neo-cons (think Team B ) to rise.  Same thing that had happened in the Red Scare, and McCarthyism, run by the same persons more or less, to create a fissure in the D Party in the 40s and 50s.  

I'll get back to elaborating more specifically on the actual thread that ties Watergate and JFKA together, in a little.

 

Thank you for your response. I look forward to your elaborations on your viewpoints. 

[Kevin Balch]

9 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Thanks for the questions.  I intend to reply with a more detailed and thoughtful response but in the meanwhile here's the short answer.

 

In broad political terms, Watergate represents the elimination or if you like dismissal and push toward irrelevance of the traditional right in the United States, the "silent majority," along with its antecedents in the anti-communist 1940s and 50s, to allow for the neo-con (read Trotskyite) takeover of the Republican Party.  What would be The Reagan Revolution.  Watergate is the book-end to the very same thing which had happened in the 50s, climaxed with JFKA, which was the takeover of the Democratic Party by the same persons.  Both of those political takeovers were designed to ensure management of the Cold War.  Some will ay that that was to create the New World Order.  Okay.  Some will say that it was as Anatoly Golitsyn said to bring about convergence of East and West.  Okay.  Same thing really.  A perhaps more subtle and nuanced view would say that it was to steer the Cold War in such a way that neither extreme of left or right would dominate, and thus risk all out confrontation between the two.  That's what Watergate was -- a fissure created in the Republican Party that allowed the neo-cons (think Team B ) to rise.  Same thing that had happened in the Red Scare, and McCarthyism, run by the same persons more or less, to create a fissure in the D Party in the 40s and 50s.  

I'll get back to elaborating more specifically on the actual thread that ties Watergate and JFKA together, in a little.

 

The Trotskyites that took over the republican party during the Ford (where a lot of them got their feet in the door) and Reagan years came from the democrats. I wish they had stayed there.

[Robert Morrow]

4 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Or if you like, since evidently the political leanings of The Post are at issue here, rightly probably, who ran the editorial page from 1979 until 1999?  Was that Meg Greenfield, formerly of the neo-con magazine, run by Max Ascoli and Irving Kristol, The Reporter?  Yes.  Was the editorial page -- the opinion-makers -- staffed by neo-cons like George Will -- who got him that job anyway at The Post, Krisl passed him on to someone at the Nixon WH I know -- and Charles Krauthammer?  Yes.  Also neo-libs like William Rasberry and Colby King?  Yes.  Did TIME magazine take over The Post's competition, the old-right The Washington Star, and run it into the ground by 1981?  Yes.  Huh.  

The hardcore neocon Washington Post was also hard core pro LBJ's Vietnam War all the way to the bloody end. LBJ said Katherine Graham on his side was like having 50 military divisions.

[Matt Cloud]

A necessary point of clarification is in order.  I do not use the term "neo-con" in any judgmental sense, including a pejorative one.  I use the term simply as a description of a political philosophy, long misunderstood perhaps and, I would add, perhaps purposefully susceptible to obfuscation and confusion.  Others, here and elsewhere, will have strong views on the term but my experience, in analyzing the politics of the cold war, have instructed that assumptions and preconceptions about political ideologies and philosophies can, and often is, detrimental to achieving a fuller understanding of what has occurred historically.  A scientific approach, you might say, a social sciences approach, for understanding is IMO to be preferred, before judgments applied.  That's my approach; I understand others may have strong feelings that differ with that. 

[Joe Bauer]

For what it's worth - Frank Sturgis tells Bill O'Reilly who was CIA during Watergate.

•  Bill O'Reilly interviews Frank Sturgis Search instead for Bill O'Reilly interviews Frank Sturgis
  

  2:06

  NOW PLAYING

   

   

  Bill O'Reilly Interviews Frank Sturgis 1977

   

   

   

   

   

  57K views6 years ago

[Mark Groubert]

Lou Russell is a big deal

[James DiEugenio]

You can say that again.

[Douglas Caddy]