Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ashton Gray: His repeated violations of Board Guidelines


Recommended Posts

It's been decreed that Aston's rights will not be revoked, so Ray and Pat, just take your toys and go home.

You havn't been reading very carefully, Dawn. Neither Pat nor I ever advocated that Ashton Gray's rights be revoked.

Honestly don't either of you you have anything of value to say?.

We could ask the same of you, and with greater justification.

Mr Hogan did a fine job a couple of posts back of demonstrating just HOW nasty you can be Mr Carroll.

Are you annoyed because I suggested (without naming you) that your advice to Mr. Gray about the relevance of his questions for Doug Caddy was hopelessly misguided?

Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

Dawn

So, now you call me nasty, but just a few days ago, on another thread, you thanked me for being so nice.

Maybe its yourself that has the spelling problem.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ashton, since you find something so mysterious about Mr. Caddy's role at Mullen, can you tell us what procedures would have had to have taken place before Mr. Caddy could ever take over Mullen? Would there not have been a security check on Mr. Caddy before he would EVER be told the company was a CIA cover company overseas? Would this security check not have disclosed Mr. Caddy was gay? Would the CIA not have told Mr. Mullen that Mr. Caddy was gay and was therefore ineligible to run a CIA cover company?

Your contention that Mr. Caddy was, and remains, a CIA asset of some sort is ridiculous on its face. The FBI, under the deeply-closeted Hoover, LIVED to find dirt on homosexuals, and expose them as security risks. Even if the CIA loved Mr. Caddy, it's highly unlikely they would consider using him for fear J. Edgar would use him to embarrass them.

I URGE you and anyone swayed by your nonsense to read any and everything you can about the Vietnam War, the Nixon Administration, the FBI and the CIA. Read the Pentagon Papers. Read the Watergate Report. Read the Rockefeller Report. Read the Church Report. Read the Pike Report. These documents hold together for the most part and are HEAVILY critical of the executive branch and intelligence agencies. Anyone thinking these documents are nothing but whitewashes created and engineered by the CIA is dangerously out of touch with reality, IMO.

************************************************************************

"Your contention that Mr. Caddy was, and remains, a CIA asset of some sort is ridiculous on its face. The FBI, under the deeply-closeted Hoover, LIVED to find dirt on homosexuals, and expose them as security risks. Even if the CIA loved Mr. Caddy, it's highly unlikely they would consider using him for fear J. Edgar would use him to embarrass them."

Come on, Pat. Since when has the CIA, let alone the FBI, allowed gender preferences to interfere with whom they employed as "assets," or Directors? What the hell was David Ferrie, or Clay Shaw, for that matter? Or, Gay Edgar's paramour, and right-hand man, whose name escapes me, at the moment. The whole sordid mess is beginning to resemble nothing less than a Monty Python epic.

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton, since you find something so mysterious about Mr. Caddy's role at Mullen, can you tell us what procedures would have had to have taken place before Mr. Caddy could ever take over Mullen?

If Mullen was constructed and/or operated as a CIA proprietary front, may I suggest that the notional owner would have exercised no influence over who was chosen to replace him? If it was an Agency front, that choice would have resided solely and exclusively with Langley, irrespective of whatever suggestions were made by its notional "owner."

Would there not have been a security check on Mr. Caddy before he would EVER be told the company was a CIA cover company overseas?

Can I suggest that such a security check would have been run on Mr. Caddy before he was ever even accepted for employment? What kind of CIA front company puts non-cleared personnel into the mix and risks that personnel becoming witting of things that are intended to remain secret? If Mr. Caddy was checked and cleared, his orientation was either unknown to CIA [unlikely, imho] or viewed as something other than a disqualifier.

Would this security check not have disclosed Mr. Caddy was gay? Would the CIA not have told Mr. Mullen that Mr. Caddy was gay and was therefore ineligible to run a CIA cover company?

This jumps to an unsustainable conclusion. It is one thing to accept on faith that a person will perform as instructed, based on prior track record, etc. It is quite another to know that you can compel a person to perform as instructed, based upon the leverage you have to reveal their sexual orientation, if they do not perform as instructed. Since Mr. Caddy was still in the closet at the time, we should assume he would have preferred his orientation to remain a secret. It was when Mr. Caddy decided to "out" himself that all such parties who knew of his secret lost that particular leverage to compel his compliance.

Your contention that Mr. Caddy was, and remains, a CIA asset of some sort is ridiculous on its face. The FBI, under the deeply-closeted Hoover, LIVED to find dirt on homosexuals, and expose them as security risks. Even if the CIA loved Mr. Caddy, it's highly unlikely they would consider using him for fear J. Edgar would use him to embarrass them.

This assumes that CIA had no knowledge of Mr. Hoover's own orientation, which is what, I would suggest, is "ridiculous on its face."

I URGE you and anyone swayed by your nonsense to read any and everything you can about the Vietnam War, the Nixon Administration, the FBI and the CIA. Read the Pentagon Papers. Read the Watergate Report. Read the Rockefeller Report. Read the Church Report. Read the Pike Report. These documents hold together for the most part and are HEAVILY critical of the executive branch and intelligence agencies. Anyone thinking these documents are nothing but whitewashes created and engineered by the CIA is dangerously out of touch with reality, IMO.

Pat, I find this a remarkably blinkered statement. We here know all about the failures, errors, omissions, distortions and inventions included in the Warren Report and, to a marginally lesser extent, the HSCA Report. We know how political pressures, obfuscation, suppression of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, etc., influenced the final result in each instance. We also now know that a variety of government agencies - CIA certainly not alone, but chief among them - failed to disclose pertinent detaills to panels struck by the President and presided over by duly elected officials. The end result was hardly the "Gibraltar of truth" that was claimed.

It is true that the Rockefeller Report, the Church Report, the Pike Report [which, you'll recall, wasn't even published by the very government that instigated it] the Watergate Report and the Pentagon Papers said some nasty things about the institutions involved. However, it is a grossly distorted assertion that because of those "nasty things," the above Reports were necessarily wholly accurate, or contained the entire truth to the extent that such a thing is knowable.

Ever hear of a limited hangout? You know, the semi-voluntary admissions of lesser crimes to preclude the forced disclosure of greater crimes? It is akin to claiming that if a Mafioso admitted committing a single murder in which he was caught red-handed, he must therefore have told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Having done the extent of reading and research that we know you've done, based upon your contributions here, you - more than most - know the degree to which the "truth" about the President's murder in 1963 has been fashioned by political expedience, bureaucratic considerations, "national security" concerns, etc. [Hell, half the Warren Commission itself was browbeaten into subservience by the President who appointed it.] In light of this, to claim that all the above Reports you cited must be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is, imho, "dangerously out of touch with reality," to use your characterization.

Edited by Robert Charles-Dunne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton, since you find something so mysterious about Mr. Caddy's role at Mullen, can you tell us what procedures would have had to have taken place before Mr. Caddy could ever take over Mullen?

If Mullen was constructed and/or operated as a CIA proprietary front, may I suggest that the notional owner would have exercised no influence over who was chosen to replace him? If it was an Agency front, that choice would have resided solely and exclusively with Langley, irrespective of whatever suggestions were made by its notional "owner."

Would there not have been a security check on Mr. Caddy before he would EVER be told the company was a CIA cover company overseas?

Can I suggest that such a security check would have been run on Mr. Caddy before he was ever even accepted for employment? What kind of CIA front company puts non-cleared personnel into the mix and risks that personnel becoming witting of things that are intended to remain secret? If Mr. Caddy was checked and cleared, his orientation was either unknown to CIA [unlikely, imho] or viewed as something other than a disqualifier.

Would this security check not have disclosed Mr. Caddy was gay? Would the CIA not have told Mr. Mullen that Mr. Caddy was gay and was therefore ineligible to run a CIA cover company?

This jumps to an unsustainable conclusion. It is one thing to accept on faith that a person will perform as instructed, based on prior track record, etc. It is quite another to know that you can compel a person to perform as instructed, based upon the leverage you have to reveal their sexual orientation, if they do not perform as instructed. Since Mr. Caddy was still in the closet at the time, we should assume he would have preferred his orientation to remain a secret. It was when Mr. Caddy decided to "out" himself that all such parties who knew of his secret lost that particular leverage to compel his compliance.

Your contention that Mr. Caddy was, and remains, a CIA asset of some sort is ridiculous on its face. The FBI, under the deeply-closeted Hoover, LIVED to find dirt on homosexuals, and expose them as security risks. Even if the CIA loved Mr. Caddy, it's highly unlikely they would consider using him for fear J. Edgar would use him to embarrass them.

This assumes that CIA had no knowledge of Mr. Hoover's own orientation, which is what, I would suggest, is "ridiculous on its face."

I URGE you and anyone swayed by your nonsense to read any and everything you can about the Vietnam War, the Nixon Administration, the FBI and the CIA. Read the Pentagon Papers. Read the Watergate Report. Read the Rockefeller Report. Read the Church Report. Read the Pike Report. These documents hold together for the most part and are HEAVILY critical of the executive branch and intelligence agencies. Anyone thinking these documents are nothing but whitewashes created and engineered by the CIA is dangerously out of touch with reality, IMO.

Pat, I find this a remarkably blinkered statement. We here know all about the failures, errors, omissions, distortions and inventions included in the Warren Report and, to a marginally lesser extent, the HSCA Report. We know how political pressures, obfuscation, suppression of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, etc., influenced the final result in each instance. We also now know that a variety of government agencies - CIA certainly not alone, but chief among them - failed to disclose pertinent detaills to panels struck by the President and presided over by duly elected officials. The end result was hardly the "Gibraltar of truth" that was claimed.

It is true that the Rockefeller Report, the Church Report, the Pike Report [which, you'll recall, wasn't even published by the very government that instigated it] the Watergate Report and the Pentagon Papers said some nasty things about the institutions involved. However, it is a grossly distorted assertion that because of those "nasty things," the above Reports were necessarily wholly accurate, or contained the entire truth to the extent that such a thing is knowable.

Ever hear of a limited hangout? You know, the semi-voluntary admissions of lesser crimes to preclude the forced disclosure of greater crimes? It is akin to claiming that if a Mafioso admitted committing a single murder in which he was caught red-handed, he must therefore have told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Having done the extent of reading and research that we know you've done, based upon your contributions here, you - more than most - know the degree to which the "truth" about the President's murder in 1963 has been fashioned by political expedience, bureaucratic considerations, "national security" concerns, etc. [Hell, half the Warren Commission itself was browbeaten into subservience by the President who appointed it.] In light of this, to claim that all the above Reports you cited must be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is, imho, "dangerously out of touch with reality," to use your characterization.

I don't believe I said these documents were the WHOLE truth. We know they were not. I was trying to assert that they were at least partially true. Mr Gray is asserting, as near as I can tell, that everything from the Pentagon Papers to the Church Committee was a CIA script put into play to deceive the American people and cover up that the Government and L. Ron Hubbard were experimenting in extra-sensory perception. In order to push this agenda, he has asserted that NEARLY EVERYONE involved in this period of history, from Daniel Ellsberg to John Dean to Gerry Ford, was working for the CIA, in a combined effort to destroy Poor Richard Nixon, among other things. In his view, Nixon was an unimportant figure in this period. I have been fascinated by Nixon since a child. I have studied his words and the words of those who knew him, and have come to view him much the same as Oliver Stone portrays him in his film Nixon, that is, as a deeply troubled and disturbed man, who wilted under the pressure of high office, and who sought to use his office to destroy his personal "enemies" in the name of "national security". Now Mr. Gray, if that's really his name, comes along and attacks Baldwin and Caddy as evil conspirators in an actual not-in-Nixon's mind plot to destroy Nixon and give the Presidency to the CIA and Gerry Ford. His theory is as wacky as a religion based upon the precept that the souls of long-dead aliens travel the world looking to attach themselves to peoples' psyches in times of pain. I am mortified that his ridiculous ideas have gained a foothold on this forum. While there are many unanswered questions surrounding the period of Watergate, Mr. Gray is asking the wrong questions, IMO. It should not even be debated that Daniel Ellsberg had an attack of conscience and tried to do something about Vietnam. For years, the debate has been whether he was truly heroic or just a jerk out for attention. Now Gray comes along and says that Ellsberg was under Richard Helms' remote control the whole time, and that Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy, right-wing wackos if there ever were a pair, were working WITH Ellsberg and Helms to try to overthrow Nixon. If it meant damaging the war effort they fervently believed in and supporting those hippies they SO LOVED TO HATE, oh well, no big deal, whatever makes Helms happy. Is this truly wirth discussing?

I suppose this then is the basis is of my absolute contempt for Mr. Gray and his views: his absolute lack of understanding of humanity and history. In his mind, men like Caddy, Baldwin, Dean, Hunt, and Ellsberg are all CIA robots controlled by an evil CIA computer run by...who was it exactly? Helms? The man so vastly powerful that he spent half the Ford years testifying before congress and admitting to his involvement in crimes? The man so powerful he was convicted of perjury? The man so powerful that the supposed beneficiary of his largesse, Ford, turned around and told the media that he'd been involved in assassination attempts, which led to congress' discussion of why Helms had never mentioned this to the Warren Commission, which led to creation of the HSCA?

In Mr. Gray's world, NOT ONE man involved in this period of time EVER tried to do the right thing or tell the truth. They were all deliberate liars, playing out a script. This is incredibly self-serving, IMO. Why should we believe that only he, and perhaps his alter-ego Huntley Troth, like the GREAT KARNAK before them, using their mystical and borderline divine ways, can ascertain the answer without first having been asked the question. All the man needs is some box to stand on and some tonic to sell.

While I welcome a closer inspection of Watergate, an inspection that starts off with the notion that Nixon was an unwitting dupe and not a dangerously out of control megalomaniac, and then seeks to re-interpret all the evidence of his crimes as part of a CIA frame-up, is akin to a re-inspection of WWII that starts with the premise that Hitler knew nothing of the holocaust, and that he was framed by some of his closest associates, who were in fact western spies. Bunkum.

As far as the Caddy/Mullen situation, there is no evidence that ordinary employees at Mullen in Washington were screened or cleared as CIA assets. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that Robert Bennett was not involved with the CIA UNTIL COLSON helped hook him up with Mullen, in order to bring the Howard Hughes account into the grasp of his loyal Republicans. Nixon went ballistic when he found out about Hughes and Maheu having hired O'Brien, as he was fearful Maheu would tell O'Brien about the cash given to Rebozo. Nixon then ordered Colson to help Hughes find Washington representation. Colson had heard through Hunt that Mullen was for sale, and arranged for Bennett to buy it and get the account. I don't believe there is any evidence tying Bennett to the CIA before this point. Later, when Colson found out about Bennett's ties to the CIA during the Watergate hearings, after the CIA VOLUNTEERED that both Martinez and Bennett were active assets, he flipped out, and started the whole CIA-did-it campaign, as detailed in Haldeman's book.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton, since you find something so mysterious about Mr. Caddy's role at Mullen, can you tell us what procedures would have had to have taken place before Mr. Caddy could ever take over Mullen? Would there not have been a security check on Mr. Caddy before he would EVER be told the company was a CIA cover company overseas? Would this security check not have disclosed Mr. Caddy was gay? Would the CIA not have told Mr. Mullen that Mr. Caddy was gay and was therefore ineligible to run a CIA cover company?

Your contention that Mr. Caddy was, and remains, a CIA asset of some sort is ridiculous on its face. The FBI, under the deeply-closeted Hoover, LIVED to find dirt on homosexuals, and expose them as security risks. Even if the CIA loved Mr. Caddy, it's highly unlikely they would consider using him for fear J. Edgar would use him to embarrass them.

I URGE you and anyone swayed by your nonsense to read any and everything you can about the Vietnam War, the Nixon Administration, the FBI and the CIA. Read the Pentagon Papers. Read the Watergate Report. Read the Rockefeller Report. Read the Church Report. Read the Pike Report. These documents hold together for the most part and are HEAVILY critical of the executive branch and intelligence agencies. Anyone thinking these documents are nothing but whitewashes created and engineered by the CIA is dangerously out of touch with reality, IMO.

************************************************************************

"Your contention that Mr. Caddy was, and remains, a CIA asset of some sort is ridiculous on its face. The FBI, under the deeply-closeted Hoover, LIVED to find dirt on homosexuals, and expose them as security risks. Even if the CIA loved Mr. Caddy, it's highly unlikely they would consider using him for fear J. Edgar would use him to embarrass them."

Come on, Pat. Since when has the CIA, let alone the FBI, allowed gender preferences to interfere with whom they employed as "assets," or Directors? What the hell was David Ferrie, or Clay Shaw, for that matter? Or, Gay Edgar's paramour, and right-hand man, whose name escapes me, at the moment. The whole sordid mess is beginning to resemble nothing less than a Monty Python epic.

Since always, Terry. Why do you think Hoover and Tolson's love affair, assuming there was one, was hidden, deeply, in the closet? As far as Shaw and Ferrie, it was strictly a one-way street. There is no evidence they did anything beyond provide information and perhaps provide transportation. Neither one provided the cover for an ongoing CIA operation, as far as we know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I welcome a closer inspection of Watergate, an inspection that starts off with the notion that Nixon was an unwitting dupe....

Gentlemen, at the risk of being accused of usurping the moderator's role, I am taking the liberty of copying Robert Charles-Dunne's last post and Pat Speer's response, carrying this issue over to the

thread entitled:

Watergate: What was it all about?

These last few posts are off-topic here, and are likely to be ignored anyway. I suggest they are more likely to be read and responded to on the "Watergate: What was it all about?" thread, where these posts really are germane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe I said these documents were the WHOLE truth. We know they were not. I was trying to assert that they were at least partially true.

I believe it was Peter Dale Scott who suggested that in order for disinformation to be effective, it must largely consist of the truth. Hence, "partial" truths can often mask just the opposite, a fact that should be borne in mind.

Mr Gray is asserting, as near as I can tell, that everything from the Pentagon Papers to the Church Committee was a CIA script put into play to deceive the American people...

Is there any doubt that CIA has sought to perfect the deceit and deception necessary to hoodwink the American people? If you're suggesting the opposite, then Ashton Gray is not alone in rebutting your premise. In each of the documents and reports you cited, CIA influence over the final result is not just detectable, but should be read as a given. It may dress up that influence in the frilly frock of "protecting national security" or any number of other putatively legitimate guises, of necessity. It may not have been singularly responsible for the final product in each case - as in a "CIA script" - but it certainly exercised an influence over what that final product became. We should also bear that fact in mind, in assessing whose self-serving purposes were pursued, perhaps at the expense of something more than "partial" truth.

and cover up that the Government and L. Ron Hubbard were experimenting in extra-sensory perception.

I noted the presence of much Scientology-related stuff in the timeline AG cited, but since it wasn't his timeline, I ignored it. In the absence of any arguments from AG that said stuff is in some way germane, I recommend that others also ignore it. [Parenthetically, it should be noted, though, that Scientologists were at the forefront of seeking disclosure of various mind control documentation, and may, in fact, be owed a debt of gratitude by all who think that's an important pursuit. But I digress...]

In order to push this agenda, he has asserted that NEARLY EVERYONE involved in this period of history, from Daniel Ellsberg to John Dean to Gerry Ford, was working for the CIA, in a combined effort to destroy Poor Richard Nixon, among other things.

Perhaps I've been misreading what AG has written, but I don't think he's ever stipulated that NEARLY EVERYONE was "working for the CIA." You are a talented writer and know that there is a world of nuance separating "working for the CIA" - as in on the payroll - and "doing its bidding," whether wittingly or otherwise.

If David Atlee Phillips introduces himself to me as the proxy for wealthy industrialists and under that guise recruits me to monitor the activities of Cuban Embassy staff in Montreal, am I "working for the CIA." Yes, but even I wouldn't necessarily know it.

In his view, Nixon was an unimportant figure in this period. I have been fascinated by Nixon since a child. I have studied his words and the words of those who knew him, and have come to view him much the same as Oliver Stone portrays him in his film Nixon, that is, as a deeply troubled and disturbed man, who wilted under the pressure of high office, and who sought to use his office to destroy his personal "enemies" in the name of "national security".

And if among those imagined personal enemies were some Langley muckety-mucks, who can say that they wouldn't retaliate against him, in the name of "national security?" It is at least hypothetically possible that a sitting President was murdered under the same rubric, so I wouldn't be too hasty to dismiss the suggestion that a sitting President was forced to resign under similar circumstances. Not everyone was a fan of detente with China, peace with Viet Nam, or a number of other policies pursued by Nixon that might have depicted him, in some quarters at least, as a dangerous appeaser and suddenly "soft" on Communism. While it may be hard for us to rationalize, there were some who thought Agnew was preferable. That's certainly the premise offered by Hunt and Liddy when they attempted to recruit personnel to sabotage the '72 Republican convention in California and mount an assassination attempt against Nixon. [see Donald Freed's "Glass House Tapes" and Mae Brussell for more on that score.]

Now Mr. Gray, if that's really his name, comes along and attacks Baldwin and Caddy as evil conspirators in an actual not-in-Nixon's mind plot to destroy Nixon and give the Presidency to the CIA and Gerry Ford. His theory is as wacky as a religion based upon the precept that the souls of long-dead aliens travel the world looking to attach themselves to peoples' psyches in times of pain.

I must have missed the post where AG posited that particular theory.

I am mortified that his ridiculous ideas have gained a foothold on this forum. While there are many unanswered questions surrounding the period of Watergate, Mr. Gray is asking the wrong questions, IMO. It should not even be debated that Daniel Ellsberg had an attack of conscience and tried to do something about Vietnam. For years, the debate has been whether he was truly heroic or just a jerk out for attention. Now Gray comes along and says that Ellsberg was under Richard Helms' remote control the whole time, and that Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy, right-wing wackos if there ever were a pair, were working WITH Ellsberg and Helms to try to overthrow Nixon. If it meant damaging the war effort they fervently believed in and supporting those hippies they SO LOVED TO HATE, oh well, no big deal, whatever makes Helms happy. Is this truly wirth discussing?

If - let me stress that qualifier - there was a concerted CIA effort to undermine Nixon, why wouldn't Helms and Co. wish to see Nixon attacked from all sides simultaneously? By depicting him as too "right" for the left and too "left" for the right, it would certainly chip away at his base. Let us recall that Nixon's self-admitted rationale for resorting to the Plumbers was to stop "leaks" that he thought hurt him politically.

I suppose this then is the basis is of my absolute contempt for Mr. Gray and his views: his absolute lack of understanding of humanity and history. In his mind, men like Caddy, Baldwin, Dean, Hunt, and Ellsberg are all CIA robots controlled by an evil CIA computer run by...who was it exactly? Helms? The man so vastly powerful that he spent half the Ford years testifying before congress and admitting to his involvement in crimes? The man so powerful he was convicted of perjury? The man so powerful that the supposed beneficiary of his largesse, Ford, turned around and told the media that he'd been involved in assassination attempts, which led to congress' discussion of why Helms had never mentioned this to the Warren Commission, which led to creation of the HSCA?

The mocking tone doesn't disguise the fallacies of the content, Pat. If Helms spent the Ford years testifying before Congress, it was not because Ford told anyone anything, but because Sy Hersh opened the floodgates with his stories about CHAOS. Once that toothpaste was out of the tube, there was no way for Ford to put it back in. As for Helms' "admitting to his involvement in crimes," it was precisely because he failed to do so that he was charged with perjury. And if Helms were so powerless as you claim, perhaps you'd care to explain how it was that his conviction was overturned? Clearly, somebody up there liked him.

In Mr. Gray's world, NOT ONE man involved in this period of time EVER tried to do the right thing or tell the truth. They were all deliberate liars, playing out a script. This is incredibly self-serving, IMO. Why should we believe that only he, and perhaps his alter-ego Huntley Troth, like the GREAT KARNAK before them, using their mystical and borderline divine ways, can ascertain the answer without first having been asked the question. All the man needs is some box to stand on and some tonic to sell.

If you'd care to catalogue the list of potential witnesses who died just prior to giving their subpoenaed testimony, I think you'll discover a great many who likely were about to "do the right thing." Such an environment is unlikely to dispose other witnesses to be fully candid and forthcoming. Am I really alone in wondering why such deaths seemed to occur in clusters at highly [un]timely junctures in the unfolding of this history?

As for snarkiness about Karnak and the rest, I'll leave you two lads to duke it out. It doesn't elevate the level of debate or bring us closer to resolving anything.

While I welcome a closer inspection of Watergate, an inspection that starts off with the notion that Nixon was an unwitting dupe and not a dangerously out of control megalomaniac, and then seeks to re-interpret all the evidence of his crimes as part of a CIA frame-up, is akin to a re-inspection of WWII that starts with the premise that Hitler knew nothing of the holocaust, and that he was framed by some of his closest associates, who were in fact western spies. Bunkum.

Again, we see a rather two-dimensional construct. Why could Nixon not be both an "unwitting dupe" and a "dangerously out of control megalomaniac?" Certainly it would not be the first instance in history where one's own excesses lead to one's own destruction, albeit unintended. The unwritten law of the unintended consequence invariably bites one's bum, and as they say, payback's a bitch.

As far as the Caddy/Mullen situation, there is no evidence that ordinary employees at Mullen in Washington were screened or cleared as CIA assets.

Evidence of which would be supplied by whom? CIA? Mullen employees who decided to blow their own covers? Upon whom, precisely, would you rely to deliver to us such evidence?

Furthermore, the evidence suggests that Robert Bennett was not involved with the CIA UNTIL COLSON helped hook him up with Mullen, in order to bring the Howard Hughes account into the grasp of his loyal Republicans.

Which brings us to a highly fascinating Watergate footnote that I do hope you'll try your level best to explain. Reprinted in the Nedzi Committee Hearings, pages 1073-1076 is the following:

MEMORANDUM OF MARCH 1, 1973

TO: CIA DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PLANS

FROM: CIA CHIEF/CENTRAL COVER STAFF

"Mr. Bennett said also that he has been feeding stories to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post with the understanding that there be no attribution to Bennett. Woodward is suitably grateful for the fine stories and by-lines which he gets and protects Bennett (and the Mullen Company).... he stated his opinion that the Ervin Committee investigating the Watergate incident would not involve the company. He said that, if necessary, he could have his father, Senator Bennett of Utah, intercede with Senator Ervin. His conclusion then was he could handle the Ervin Committee if the Agency can handle Howard Hunt."

Irrespective of when Bennett got his Agency bones, he certainly wasted little or no time in using his inside information to shape the Post's reportage, and in so doing, seemed to be protecting the Agency, and advising it how to minimize the damage to itself, while inculpating Nixon, at least according to that particular memo.

Does this make it clearer to you why Nixon and his cronies suspected a CIA plot to bring down that administration? And if Hunt had nominally been assigned to Mullen, just why the "cancer on the Presidency" was diagnosed by Dean? And why Colson suspected the Agency was responsible for sparking and spreading that cancer?

Nixon went ballistic when he found out about Hughes and Maheu having hired O'Brien, as he was fearful Maheu would tell O'Brien about the cash given to Rebozo. Nixon then ordered Colson to help Hughes find Washington representation. Colson had heard through Hunt that Mullen was for sale, and arranged for Bennett to buy it and get the account. I don't believe there is any evidence tying Bennett to the CIA before this point. Later, when Colson found out about Bennett's ties to the CIA during the Watergate hearings, after the CIA VOLUNTEERED that both Martinez and Bennett were active assets, he flipped out, and started the whole CIA-did-it campaign, as detailed in Haldeman's book.

If I read this correctly, you are suggesting that we should disbelieve the notion of CIA culpability in Watergate because Colson did believe it to be true?

At the risk of belabouring the obvious, we have a group of [purportedly] former CIA personnel insinuated into the White House's clandestine intelligence Gestapo, which still enjoys access to CIA resources while purportedly working for Nixon, proceeds to do nothing tangible for Nixon but whose alleged best efforts - and cheery admissions of guilt - lead to Nixon's greatest political crises, and these facts are covertly fed to the press by an admitted CIA front company-owner, but CIA is blameless for any role in Nixon's downfall?

It is not often that I am so gobsmacked as to be left lost for words, Pat, but you've achieved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RCD: I thank you. Have really missed you around here dude.

Perhaps, just maybe....dare I hope????? that now some of the others will GET this!.

You're a very respected person on this forum....so I can only hope that reason does prevail.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am utterly humbled by the eloquence, patience, knowledge, and cogent continuity of Robert Charles-Dunne's several posts above. I feel like I'm getting a master class that I should be paying for.

I was going to comment, but anything I could add would be unnecessary dunnage.

I'll only say that it has helped me tremendously to crystalize some of the ancillary vectors and issues, and I thank him.

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am utterly humbled by the eloquence, patience, knowledge, and cogent continuity of Robert Charles-Dunne's several posts above. I feel like I'm getting a master class that I should be paying for.

I was going to comment, but anything I could add would be unnecessary dunnage.

I'll only say that it has helped me tremendously to crystalize some of the ancillary vectors and issues, and I thank him.

Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray has apologized for his assertive tone and has edited his original posts about Doug Caddy. Ashton is not the first person to ask questions about Doug’s possible links to the CIA. See this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5892

Doug has denied it but we could not really expect him to do otherwise. Some would argue that Doug was recruited as early as 1960 when he became involved with William Buckley in establishing Young Americans for Freedom. We now know that Buckley was a CIA agent and his links with E. Howard Hunt in the 1950s suggest he was part of Operation Mockingbird, the CIA massive disinformation program.

I have found Doug very helpful with my investigations into Lyndon Johnson. Hopefully he will continue to answer our questions. However, I do not expect him to fully explain his relationship with the CIA during the Watergate scandal. Maybe he is saving this for his forthcoming book.

I will be closing this thread down as I have to intention of removing Ashton Gray from this forum. Please continue this discussion about Watergate in this section of the forum:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=217

I think this thread is particularly interesting:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7253

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...