Jump to content

Deep Throat Revealed?


Recommended Posts

I agree with Tim Gratz that it is irresponsible for Mark Knight without evidence, quoting Tim, "to connect Nixon to the murder of RFK and the attempted murder of George Wallace merely because he was the political beneficiary of the death of RFK (yes, I suspect RFK probably would have beaten Nixon in the election) and George Wallace without any evidence whatsoever to connect him to those murders."

Yet this is the same Tim Gratz who draws endless conclusions, without the benefit of actual "evidence," regarding Fidel Castro's culpability in JFK's murder, "merely because [Castro] was the political beneficiary [according to Tim's selectively compiled scenario] of the death of [JFK]."

Apparently Tim's largesse only extends to include CIA, Nixon, Dillon and numerous others, so long as they're US citizens in a position of power.  Not so vis a vis Castro. 

Given the apparent double-standard employed, it is rather galling for other Forum members to be instructed on the importance of "evidence" by somebody who has yet to post anything tangible in support of his own pet theory.

If Tim can spitball his unsubstantiated musings here ad nauseam, why will he not extend the same opportunity to others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Mark

It is notable that as quoted Buckley himself was skeptical that Jack Anderson was under threat of murder

Yet Buckley nevertheless felt compelled to take what he calls "appropriate measures," though he declines to be more specific as to what the "measures" in question might be.  If that included sharing Hunt's revelations with the DC police, or FBI, or anyone else in law enforcement or positions of power, it directly impeaches the facade of skepticism he portrays today. 

It also makes his own line about the betrayals by Marc Antony and Brutus, immediately preceding his recitation of Hunt's revelations, an ironic Freudian slip.  If Buckley conveyed his concerns to police or other authorities, then did he not also rat out his close friend Hunt, despite the implicit Presidential imprimatur for whacking Jack Anderson?  Surely, Buckley wouldn't have betrayed his close friend and colleague Hunt in such a fashion had he not taken seriously the notion that Anderson's life was in peril. 

, and notice too that the contention is that it was one of the "plumbers" who was implicated and not Nixon or others... although you will rightly say that the plumbers were working for Nixon and you could be correct too that "word came down" could imply the go-ahead from Nixon or one of his immediate underlings. 

Here I think you're on far firmer ground, for Gordon Liddy seems to have been chomping at the bit to go to ridiculous extremes, from his Gemstone plotting to his volunteering to show up at a given intersection for his own voluntary execution. 

Liddy was barking mad, and his willingness to kill Jack Anderson shouldn't be misconstrued - in the absence of more evidence - as an order to do so, from anyone higher up in the White House.  Loose cannons sometimes go off without the benefit of authorization.

This is the same Gordon Liddy who recently chastized Mark Felt's actions, insisting that Felt should have gone to a Grand Jury with his allegations, rather than share them with Woodward.  Presumably, as the number two man in the Justice Department's number one law enforcement agency, Felt knew this option was an ill-fated non-starter, not to mention career suicide.  How intriguing and telling that Liddy holds Felt responsible for Liddy's prison sentence, rather than admit he earned his prison term through his own illegal behaviour.  

I just think that the jury is out on Nixon's role in any domestic assassination.

Quite right.  Given the man's illustrious record of war crimes, subverting the Constitution, illegal acts against political opponents, attempting to blackmail CIA into obstructing the Justice Department's investigation of Watergte, siccing federal authorities such as the IRS upon those he placed on his paranoid "enemies list," threatening media with the revocation of their FCC licences, the kidnapping of John Mitchell's wife Martha, abiding FBI's murderous campaign against the Black Panthers, etc., ad nauseam, I don't find it at all difficult to imagine Nixon capable of ordering anyone's murder.  The question is: "did he?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher George wrote:

I agree with Tim Gratz that it is irresponsible for Mark Knight without evidence, quoting Tim, "to connect Nixon to the murder of RFK and the attempted murder of George Wallace merely because he was the political beneficiary of the death of RFK (yes, I suspect RFK probably would have beaten Nixon in the election) and George Wallace without any evidence whatsoever to connect him to those murders."

To which Robert Charles Dunne wrote:

Yet this is the same Tim Gratz who draws endless conclusions, without the benefit of actual "evidence," regarding Fidel Castro's culpability in JFK's murder, "merely because [Castro] was the political beneficiary [according to Tim's selectively compiled scenario] of the death of [JFK]."

Apparently Tim's largesse only extends to include CIA, Nixon, Dillon and numerous others, so long as they're US citizens in a position of power. Not so vis a vis Castro.

It is absolutely INCREDIBLE that a person as intelligent and well-read as Mr. Dunne can still deny that Castro was not the chief beneficiary of the death of JFK. According to the well-respected reporter Thomas Powers, Desmond Fitzgerald, who was then in charge of Kennedy's Cuba program, stated in the spring of 1964 that had JFK not died, Castro would have been history by Christmas of 1963. In November of 1963 plans were well underway for a coup in Cuba (AMTRUNK); an assassination of Castro (AMLASH); and a second invasion of Cuba, this time directed by RFK, not the CIA (Second Naval Guerilla). The Cuban exiles involved in Second Naval Guerilla (the so-called "Friends of Bobby") were in fact meeting on November 22nd. I need not belabor the point. The assassination of JFK spared Castro not only his regime but also his life.

Although not sufficient evidence to convict in a court of law, the fact that on September 7th Castro warned that American political leaders would not be safe if American plots to kill him continued, and that on that very date the CIA welcomed the approach of a close confidente of Castro who offered to kill Castro for the US is certainly suggestive. Now I know that Robert would reply that others had threatened the life of JFK as well, but the existence of a well-articulated threat or warning against Kennedy so close to the actual assassination certainly puts Fidel in a different position than Richard Nixon or Douglas Dillon.

There is no evidence of which I am aware that Joseph Milteer participated in the assassination. However, since he made his well-known threat against JFK, I would not object to someone speculating that Milteer played a role.

It should also be noted that one of the mobsters who had threatened JFK's life was widely reported to have a secret tie to Castro. Moreover, he was also close to Rolando Cubela, and I think it significant that he chose to perjure himself about this relationship when he testified before the HSCA.

But Dillon, my gosh! He was Kennedy's close friend and agreed with JFK's policies. It is even worse to speculate Dillon's involvement than Nixon's.

If someone speculating that Nixon did it could offer credible evidence that Nixon had articulated a clear threat to kill JFK, then it would be less objectionable for someone to claim that Nixon was complicit. Same with Douglas Dillon. Same with the numerous other patriotic Americans whose memories have been besmirched by certain members of this Forum by unsubstantiated accusations that put even Joe McCarthy in a favorable light in comparison.

Of course there is other evidence indicating Cuban complicity in the assassination, including the reported presence of Castro intelligence agents on Dealey Plaza. If these reports are true, Cuban involvement seems rather clear. Robert's only response is to assume the reports must be CIA fabrications. Well, we can then say that there is CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE of Fidel's involvement UNLESS those reports are true. To the best of my knowledge, no one has reported that Bebe Rebozo was spotted in Dealey Plaza.

People who very close to JFK, and to his Cuban policies, e.g. Joseph Califano and Alexander Haig, both believe Castro did it.

That a man of Robert Charles Dunne's intellect can fail to see a difference between arguing the evidence for Castro's involvement and speculating the involvement of Kennedy's froend C. Douglas Dillon is simply astounding. (Unlike other members of this Forum who apparently think it appropriate to engage in their wild imaginings without doing any research, I suspect that Mr. Charles-Dunne has read Theodore Sorenson's biography of JFK.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

Quite right. Given the man's illustrious record of war crimes, subverting the Constitution, illegal acts against political opponents, attempting to blackmail CIA into obstructing the Justice Department's investigation of Watergte, siccing federal authorities such as the IRS upon those he placed on his paranoid "enemies list," threatening media with the revocation of their FCC licences, the kidnapping of John Mitchell's wife Martha, abiding FBI's murderous campaign against the Black Panthers, etc., ad nauseam, I don't find it at all difficult to imagine Nixon capable of ordering anyone's murder. The question is: "did he?"

It is unbelievable that Mr. Charles-Dunne believes Nixon capable of ordering anyone's murder based on the above. Using the IRS against a political enemy makes one a potentoal murderer? Come on, get real! There is a rather large chasm between political corruption and murder. And I should note that JFK also used the IRS against his political enemies. Threatening a media outlet with license revocation? So did Bobby Kennedy. Maybe we should look to him as an assassin. Maybe his motive was he wanted Jackie. That a politician is willing to use the power of his office to play hardball politics against his enemies surely does not render the man a murderer.

I think there should be a Joseph R. McCarthy Award awarded annually to the assassination "researcher" who has, in the previous year, made the most outrageous charge against a deceased person. As the counsel for the Army famously said to Sen. McCarthy, "Have you no shame?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that our Mr. Gratz wants to 'cherry-pick" which evidence to accept and which to discard, and yet denies the same privelege to anyone who dares to dispute his "Castro-did-it" playing card.

Tim, many of us see the "Castro-did-it" card as the joker in the deck, rather than the ace that you claim it to be. I firmly believe that geography plays into your belief in the "Castro-did-it" scenario, as the idea plays well in south Florida among the Cuban exile community. For those of us in the remainder of the world, where Castro is merely another annoyance rather than Satan Incarnate, the view is different. Out here, where one seldom hears a "Castro is the reason my life is ruined" story, other ideas must be entertained. One such idea is that Nixon MAY have been involved in a conspiracyto kill JFK, among others in the 1963-1972 window.

I believe it was Sherlock Holmes who said something to the effect of, once one eliminates the impossible, what remains must be the truth. Since I don't find it IMPOSSIBLE for Nixon to have been involved in one or more murders, I must consider it MIGHT have happened that way. If I thought that was THE solution to the JFK murder, I would've declared, "Game, set, match; Case SOLVED!!! Let's go home and call it a night!" But I've done no such thing, although it appears you are convinced that I have.

I have also stated elsewhere on this forum that I seriously doubt that C. Douglas Dillon was involved in any assassination plot, if for no other reason than the fact that the Secret Service was, prior to 11/22/1963, little more than a minor detail in the administration of the Department of the Treasury...and, as such, wasn't an overriding concern of Dillon, to the exclusion of other matters at Treasury.

SO WHY DO YOU INSIST IN ASSOCIATING MY NAME WITH ANY THEORY IMPLICATING DILLON IN JFK'S ASSASSINATION? If you're going to start a reply using my name, I would appreciate it if you'd stick with what I actually have posted, and not what you ASSUME that I think.

And, turning back to the topic of this thread, I still believe that Felt's source inside the White House may have been Sullivan...allowing Felt to "know" things he wasn't in an official position to "know."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, I do sincerely apologize for asssociating you with the ridiculous theory that C Douglas Dillon was a conspirator.

But regarding your using the famous Holmes' quote to posit Nixon's involvement, that is absurd. One could use that same logic to suggest that Captain Kangaroo did it. Didn't I see someone who looked like him in one of those Dealey Plaza photos?

I mean Nixon was guilty of enough. Unless you have some evidence don't accuse him of MURDER. Again, have you no morals?

And by the way, you have absolutely butchered the Holmes quote. "Once you have eliminated the impossible"--what sense does that make? Well, I guess if you can suggest Nixon complicity a suggestion that you use common sense may be of little value. Paraphrasing the Holmes quote, it was to the effect that once you have eliminated all other POSSIBILITIES (not "impossibilities") whatever remains, regardless of how improbable, must be the truth.

Clearly you cannot use that quote to indict either Richard Nixon or Captain Kangaroo since we have yet to eliminate the possibility that the Mafia did it or Castro did it.

Now re Castro, I do believe he is an evil dictator, but after all I have written do you not understand that has nothing whatsoever to do with the probability that he (or his supporters) orchestrated the Kennedy asassinationt? For if he did it, he did it to save his own life, and for that it is, I submit, difficult to make a moral judgment against him. As I put it before, for four years the US was shooting bullets at him. It is not beyond the realm of probability to suspect he finally shot back. Indeed, a better question might be: What took him so long?

I have given this a lot of thought. I think the reason that so many who worship JFK are repulsed by the Castro did it theory is that it means that, perhaps, the assassination of JFK was caused by the backfiring of immoral plots against Castro that either JFK and/or RFK endorsed. Granted, there is still historical debate about whether the Kennedys were aware of the plots to murder Castro but most historians have concluded they probably were. The title of Russo's book is telling: "Live By the Sword". I assume you know the Biblical quote. If Castro did it, the very real possibility exists that JFK was killed by the sword because he first lifted the sword against Castro. I am now convinced that the reason why the "Castro did it" scenario is so repugnant to so many of you is because it raises the disturbing possibility that JFK was killed because of immoral acts that he (or his brother) MAY have authorized against Castro. You do not like the scenario as posited by LBJ: "Kennedy was trying to get Castro. Castro got him first." The problem is that as disturbing us that scenario may be to our sensibilities, it may be right. Perhaps it is better put thusly: "The US government (possibly with the consent of its head of state) was trying to kill the head of state of Cuba. Instead, Cuba first killed the US head of state."

It is far easier for you, and others, to blame Kennedy's death on the usual villains, the CIA or Richard Nixon, than it is to contemplate what I consider the very real possibility that Kennedy's death was precipitated by immoral actions of the US government that he MAY have approved.

What if we consider it this way? If Castro did it, JFK was paying the atonement for the sins of the US in running a "Murder, Inc" in the Caribbean (whether or not he personally endorsed the murders). Perhaps that puts him more in the role of martyr. As you know, Kennedy himself once suggested that if the US engaged in assassinations, our actions might come back to haunt us. Well, with or without his consent, the US had made murder an instrument of its foreign policy. We as a nation may have paid a terrible price for conspring to commit what every civilized country considers the most evil of crimes. Far easier to blame the big bad Mafia, or the big bad CIA, than to blame ourselves!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

---- Sherlock Holmes, "A Study In Scarlet," (1887) by A.C. DOYLE

And by the way, you have absolutely butchered the Holmes quote. "Once you have eliminated the impossible"--what sense does that make? Well, I guess if you can suggest Nixon complicity a suggestion that you use common sense may be of little value. Paraphrasing the Holmes quote, it was to the effect that once you have eliminated all other POSSIBILITIES (not "impossibilities") whatever remains, regardless of how improbable, must be the truth.

Now, Mr. Gratz...by the evidence above, exactly WHO has "absolutely butchered the Holmes quote"???

I daresay, not I. It is YOU who has twisted the quote and its meaning. I don't believe the dependent clause, "When you have eliminated the impossible," was misconstrued in any way in my posts. While I may not have your impressive academic credentials, I don't apologize [need I apologize?] for my ability to comprehend and retain what I have read.

And I actually have my doubts as to the sincerety of your apology, based upon the inaccuracies of your attack that followed. You based your entire argument upon a flawed understanding of the Holmes [Doyle] quote.

Would you like to do some further research and get back to me?

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Touche, Mark! My goof just demonstrates my point about doing research before opening one's mouth. I did not follow my own injunction. I should have found the actual quotation before assuming to correct you. I have learned an important lesson!

But I think the sense of the Holmes quote was to first eliminate all other scenarios (and it SHOULD have been "possibilities" because you would agree with my logic, I think, that eliminating "impossibilities" is perfunctory) then what remains must be the truth. I THINK he was saying that if you have first eliminated all other theories that seem more probable then the remaining, even if arguably less probable, must be the truth. I think he was saying that what seems at first blush the least probable may be the truth when all other theories have reasonably been excluded.

Now let's apply that logic to the JFK case. It seems clear from Ruby's involvement that organized crime was involved. Should we not first eliminate the possibility that it was just an organized crime hit due to Kennedy's "doublecross" of the Mafia before we go down other paths? This is the simplest solution. It might be right. Following the sense (I think) of Holmes' famous maxim, should we not first demonstrate that the simplest, most obvious solution is incorrect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Mark I do have one correction. From my quick research on the Internet the quote is NOT from "A Study in Scarlet" but from "The Sign of the Four." There are variations of the axiom in five other Holmes' stories but (if my Internet research is correct) it is NOT in "A Study in Scarlet". If my recollection serves me "A Study in Scarlet" was the first Holmes book-length mystery?

Have you seen the Ian Griggs' Holmes quotation on the Lancer Forum? It seems to fit the JFK case.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

Apparently Tim's largesse only extends to include CIA, Nixon, Dillon and numerous others, so long as they're US citizens in a position of power. Not so vis a vis Castro.

Another point has to be made here as it relates to Nixon and Doug Dillon.

There is evidence that Castro committed more than one murder in his early political days. In fact, he was so charged but later released.

And there is no question that Castro has committed numerous political murders since he assumed power in Cuba.

We must contrast that record with the record of Nixon and Dillon. As I argued in an earlier post on this thread, the fact that someone is politically corrupt is a far cry from arguing the person would be willing to commit a murder. So to lump someone like Douglas Dillon (who had no motive whatsoever) with Fidel Castro as eqially likely suspects in the Kennedy case strains credulity--and I think it is also insulting to the memory of Douglas Dillon who served his country well and blameleesly (including three years of service to the Kennedy administration).

So we can argue whether Fidel or David (Morales) or Johnny (Rosselli) did it. There is at least SOME evidence to implicate the latter two gentlemen. But if we have a smidgeon of decency we cannot, I think, argue that Dillon did it. Or Nixon.

And that, Mr. Charles-Dunne, is the distinction I would make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher George wrote:

I agree with Tim Gratz that it is irresponsible for Mark Knight without evidence, quoting Tim, "to connect Nixon to the murder of RFK and the attempted murder of George Wallace merely because he was the political beneficiary of the death of RFK (yes, I suspect RFK probably would have beaten Nixon in the election) and George Wallace without any evidence whatsoever to connect him to those murders."

To which Robert Charles Dunne wrote:

Yet this is the same Tim Gratz who draws endless conclusions, without the benefit of actual "evidence," regarding Fidel Castro's culpability in JFK's murder, "merely because [Castro] was the political beneficiary [according to Tim's selectively compiled scenario] of the death of [JFK]."

Apparently Tim's largesse only extends to include CIA, Nixon, Dillon and numerous others, so long as they're US citizens in a position of power.  Not so vis a vis Castro. 

It is absolutely INCREDIBLE that a person as intelligent and well-read as Mr. Dunne can still deny that Castro was not the chief beneficiary of the death of JFK.  According to the well-respected reporter Thomas Powers, Desmond Fitzgerald, who was then in charge of Kennedy's Cuba program, stated in the spring of 1964 that had JFK not died, Castro would have been history by Christmas of 1963.  In November of 1963 plans were well underway for a coup in Cuba (AMTRUNK); an assassination of Castro (AMLASH); and a second invasion of Cuba, this time directed by RFK, not the CIA (Second Naval Guerilla).  The Cuban exiles involved in Second Naval Guerilla (the so-called "Friends of Bobby") were in fact meeting on November 22nd.  I need not belabor the point.  The assassination of JFK spared Castro not only his regime but also his life.

Thank you for making my point for me, yet again, Tim.  Once again, we see you draw your inevitable Castro-did-it inference, based not upon any compelling evidence, but because you claim he was the assassination's chief beneficiary.  To do so, of course, you must ignore the ascension of LBJ to the White House, the unprecedented profits derived by industrial interests from the subsequent elevation of hostilities in Vietnam, Hoover's continued tenure at FBI, the opportunity for CIA to claim Oswald had flown to Havana [had he not been arrested, instead] leading to a military retaliation, etc., etc.  All of this is as nothing compared to Castro's longevity, apparently.  It is a most selective way to compile a list of suspects, but if one's interest is only to indict a single man, then it is unsurprising to find one's list of suspects contains only a single name.

Although not sufficient evidence to convict in a court of law, the fact that on September 7th Castro warned that American political leaders would not be safe if American plots to kill him continued, and that on that very date the CIA welcomed the approach of a close confidente of Castro who offered to kill Castro for the US is certainly suggestive.  Now I know that Robert would reply that others had threatened the life of JFK as well, but the existence of a well-articulated threat or warning against Kennedy so close to the actual assassination certainly puts Fidel in a different position than Richard Nixon or Douglas Dillon.

Two points should be noted here. 

First, that Castro issued so public a warning, at a time when he knew Cubela was being massaged by CIA, was his way of letting the US know that he was aware of CIA plotting against him.  One can plausibly construe this as a "threat" against the Kennedys, as Tim does.  However, in the event that either Kennedy was murdered shortly thereafter, as was the case, it placed Castro near the top of the suspect list.  Is it not somewhat counter-intuitive to assert that the Cuban leader would plot against the Kennedys, per the "threat," and simultaneously announce this fact to the world?

Second, Tim asserts that based solely upon this "threat," Castro was different than Nixon or Dillon [or any number of other putative "suspects."]  This assumes that other suspects would or should have uttered public threats in order to qualify for inclusion on the list of suspects.  Again, this is entirely counter-intuitive.  Surely, it is unreasonable and incredible to expect that those plotting the President's murder would announce their intent in public.  Are we to assume that whomever killed Kennedy must have stated that intent beforehand, or otherwise be assumed innocent?  That seems a most peculiar requirement to place on a potential suspect, doesn't it?

There is no evidence of which I am aware that Joseph Milteer participated in the assassination.  However, since he made his well-known threat against JFK, I would not object to someone speculating that Milteer played a role.

It should also be noted that one of the mobsters who had threatened JFK's life was widely reported to have a secret tie to Castro.  Moreover, he was also close to Rolando Cubela, and I think it significant that he chose to perjure himself about this relationship when he testified before the HSCA.

But Dillon, my gosh!  He was Kennedy's close friend and agreed with JFK's policies.  It is even worse to speculate Dillon's involvement than Nixon's.

If someone speculating that Nixon did it could offer credible evidence that Nixon had articulated a clear threat to kill JFK, then it would be less objectionable for someone to claim that Nixon was complicit.  Same with Douglas Dillon.  Same with the numerous other patriotic Americans whose memories have been besmirched by certain members of this Forum by unsubstantiated accusations that put even Joe McCarthy in a favorable light in comparison.

Again, to require a person to announce his criminal intent in advance, in public, in order to qualify for inclusion on the list of suspects is a most peculiar analysis of criminal behaviour. 

Of course there is other evidence indicating Cuban complicity in the assassination, including the reported presence of Castro intelligence agents on Dealey Plaza.  If these reports are true, Cuban involvement seems rather clear.  Robert's only response is to assume the reports must be CIA fabrications.  Well, we can then say that there is CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE of Fidel's involvement UNLESS those reports are true.  To the best of my knowledge, no one has reported that Bebe Rebozo was spotted in Dealey Plaza.

Surely the unexpectedly hasty departure of Richard Nixon from Dallas, and his subsequent inability to recall where he was when the President was murdered, have no bearing on anything.  After all, nobody remembers where they were when they heard the news, do they?

People who very close to JFK, and to his Cuban policies, e.g. Joseph Califano and Alexander Haig, both believe Castro did it.

That a man of Robert Charles Dunne's intellect can fail to see a difference between arguing the evidence for Castro's involvement and speculating the involvement of Kennedy's froend C. Douglas Dillon is simply astounding.  (Unlike other members of this Forum who apparently think it appropriate to engage in their wild imaginings without doing any research, I suspect that Mr. Charles-Dunne has read Theodore Sorenson's biography of JFK.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

Quite right.  Given the man's illustrious record of war crimes, subverting the Constitution, illegal acts against political opponents, attempting to blackmail CIA into obstructing the Justice Department's investigation of Watergte, siccing federal authorities such as the IRS upon those he placed on his paranoid "enemies list," threatening media with the revocation of their FCC licences, the kidnapping of John Mitchell's wife Martha, abiding FBI's murderous campaign against the Black Panthers, etc., ad nauseam, I don't find it at all difficult to imagine Nixon capable of ordering anyone's murder.  The question is: "did he?"

It is unbelievable that Mr. Charles-Dunne believes Nixon capable of ordering anyone's murder based on the above.  Using the IRS against a political enemy makes one a potentoal murderer?  Come on, get real!  There is a rather large chasm between political corruption and murder.  And I should note that JFK also used the IRS against his political enemies.  Threatening a media outlet with license revocation?  So did Bobby Kennedy.  Maybe we should look to him as an assassin.  Maybe his motive was he wanted Jackie.  That a politician is willing to use the power of his office to play hardball politics against his enemies surely does not render the man a murderer.

I note that in his above response, Tim neglected to consider, or rationalize, the very first item on my list of Nixon's flaws, the mass murder of civilians.  To refresh Tim's memory, let us recall the illegal, immoral and abhorent military bombing of Cambodia, to say nothing of needlessly prolonging the Vietnam conflict, itself an illegal, immoral and undeclared "war."  Since not even Nixon's most obdurate loyalists can claim this to be ethical behaviour, Tim declines to mention it, making a beeline instead to the lesser charges on this bill of particulars.  Apparently, we are instead expected to believe that while Nixon was perfectly capable of ordering the deaths of thousands of innocents against whom he had no personal grudge, he would balk at involvement in the murder of the man he thought had stolen the Presidency from him.

I think there should be a Joseph R. McCarthy Award awarded annually to the assassination "researcher" who has, in the previous year, made the most outrageous charge against a deceased person.  As the counsel for the Army famously said to Sen. McCarthy, "Have you no shame?"

Interesting quote.  If it has currency for you today, perhaps it is because I asked you the self-same question only days ago.  Ring any bells, Tim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re:

"It is absolutely INCREDIBLE that a person as intelligent and well-read as Mr. Dunne can still deny that Castro was not the chief beneficiary of the death of JFK. "

Castro derived more benefit than LBJ? Or the folks moving opium out of the golden triangle? Or the OC folks Bobbie was harrassing?

I find it incredible that someone would make the above statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am prepared to accept that Mark Felt was indeed "Deep Throat" since Bob Woodward has confirmed that he was.  I do think it is in doubt how "with it" Felt is any longer at his advanced age and debilitated shape and whether he really did want the news that he was Woodward's informant released in his lifetime. 

If you still believe Mark Felt was Deep Throat you need to answer some questions:

(1) Mark Felt gave up smoking in 1943. Does this mean that Woodward lied about Deep Throat being a heavy smoker? If so, what other lies did Woodward tell?

(2) Felt was interviewed by Ron Ostrow in 1976. Ostrow asked him if he was Deep Throat. Felt replied: "No, I'm not Deep Throat and I wouldn't be ashamed to be because whoever helped Woodward helped the country. No question about it." Exactly. If Felt was Deep Throat there was no reason why he would deny it in 1976.

(3) The initial information that Deep Throat gave to Woodward suggested that he was someone involved in the FBI investigation of the Watergate break-in. However, Jim Hougan (Secret Agenda) argues that Deep Throat was unlikely to have been a member of the FBI. He points out that Deep Throat did not tell Woodward about the role played by Alfred Baldwin in the Watergate break-in. This was first revealed by a press conference held by the Democratic Party in September. Hougan suggests that the only reason Deep Throat did not pass this important information to Woodward was that he did not know about it. If that is the case Deep Throat was not from the FBI.

(4) According to Woodward it was Deep Throat who first suggested that Alexander P. Butterfield could be an important figure in the investigation. In May, 1973, Woodward told a member of the Senate Watergate Committee (undoubtedly his friend, Scott Armstrong) that Butterfield should be interviewed.

On 25th June, 1973, John Dean testified that at a meeting with Richard Nixon on 15th April, the president had remarked that he had probably been foolish to have discussed his attempts to get clemency for E. Howard Hunt with Charles Colson. Dean concluded from this that Nixon's office might be bugged. On Friday, 13th July, Butterfield appeared before the committee and was asked about if he knew whether Nixon was recording meetings he was having in the White House. Butterfield reluctantly admitted details of the tape system which monitored Nixon's conversations.

In Lost Honor John Dean concludes that it was Deep Throat had told Woodward about Nixon's taping system that had been installed by Alexander P. Butterfield. This was the best-kept secret in the White House with only a few people knowing about its existence. How could Mark Felt have known about this system?

(5) Mark Felt left the FBI in June 1973. Yet according to Woodward he continues to meet Deep Throat after this date. The most important of these meetings took place in the first week of November, 1973. At this meeting Deep Throat told Woodward that their were "gaps" in Nixon's tapes. He hinted that these gaps were the result of deliberate erasures. On 8th November, Woodward and Bernstein published an article in the Washington Post that said that according to their source the "conversation on some of the tapes appears to have been erased". It has been claimed by several writers that only a very small group of people could have known about these these gaps at this time. How could Felt had known about this?

(6) Woodward visited Felt in the summer of 1999. He took him out for lunch as he wanted to interview him about a book he was writing (The Secret Man). Soon afterwards he was interviewed by Ronald Kessler who was writing The Bureau: The Secret History of the FBI. Felt denied once again he was Deep Throat. However, Kessler found it impossible to use him as a source for his book. The stroke had made him so confused that he denied ever knowing Woodward. He could not even remember Woodward taking him out for lunch.

(7) Adrian Harvill's research (Deep Truth: The Lives of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein) shows that Deep Throat was a complete fabrication. See the chapters: 'In Tandem' (pages 70-80) and 'Read the Book' (pages 81-92).

(8) David Obst, Woodward’s literary agent in the 1970s, has recently given an interview to the journalist Sharon Churcher. Obst attempted to sell the manuscript of All the President’s Men. He pointed out that Deep Throat did not figure in the early manuscript of All the President’s Men. Nor did he appear in any of the Watergate reports in the Washington Post. Obst admits that the manuscript was originally a straightforward political analysis of Watergate that was turned down by seven publishers. Deep Throat was only added to the manuscript after Woodward met the screenwriter William Goldman at a party. It was then accepted by Simon & Schuster. It also became part of a film deal with a script written by Goldman. Obst claims that the character of Deep Throat was inserted in order to get a film deal and a contract with Simon & Schuster.

(9) The identification of Felt as Deep Throat is part of a new Woodward book deal. Woodward’s new book on Deep Throat, The Secret Man, is due out next month. This is of course where we came in.

Deep Throat is obviously a composite of several of his sources. It is important to discover who these sources were. This is because we need to know the name of the insider who who was trying to bring down Nixon. Once we have established who that is, we will have a better understanding why this man, or the organization he represented, wanted Nixon out.

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...