Jump to content
The Education Forum

Watergate: What was it all about?


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Watergate burglar Frank Sturgis said yesterday the CIA planned the break-in because high officials felt the then-President Nixon was becoming too powerful and was overly interested in the assassination of President Kennedy.

That's not inconsistent with anything I've found, but I think is a limited view—which would make sense entirely given Sturgis's place in the pecking order. The evidence suggests there also were much deeper currents—other CIA agendas—that Sturgis would have been cut off from.

Sturgis also said he believes "Deep Throat" - a major source for Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward - was Robert Bennett, a partner in a CIA-front public relations firm in Washington. Bennett, a son of former Senator Wallace Bennett (Rep-Utah), is employed by the Summa Corp., part of the empire of the late Howard Hughes. Hughes was a major client of Mullen Corp., Bennett's old firm.

I'm still confident that "Deep Throat" was nothing but a nonexistent fiction, a literary device to account for information Woodward and Bradlee were getting from multiple Intelligence Cult sources—which Woodward had to account for somehow. Funneling them all into one completely impossible fiction—impossible to have that much information, and impossible ever to track down or trace—is pure CIA think-tank work product.

That said, Bennett unquestionably was key to the con. In the article I've promised several times and still haven't delivered on (it's likely now going to be several separate articles, such is its scope) documents a completely stunning, astounding number of lies from Bennett in testimony covering just the morning and afternoon of Monday, June 19, 1972. In fact, it's part of what has made the article(s) so extraordinarily difficult to finish (in addition to real life interfering). Those key days of June 19, June 23, and June 28 are so jammed-packed with completely impossible time warps and contradictions in testimony that trying to lay it out so it can make any sense at all is one of the hardest jobs I've ever taken on.

[sturgis] said Bennett - on orders from then-CIA Director Richard Helms - was fed information by Alexander Haig, Nixon's chief of staff; Alexander Butterfield, who disclosed the existence of Nixon's taping system; and Watergate burglar Howard Hunt.

All of that, too, is entirely consistent with everything I've seen. I feel about 90% certain that Bennett also had been being fed information from CIA, going to Hunt, of what was being stolen through all of 1971 from Nixon's National Security Council by Admiral Moorer, using Charles E. Radford. I wrote about this somewhere else in this forum, just can't remember where right now.

Thanks for this. All the ducks do line up completely.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest John Gillespie

"I'm still confident that "Deep Throat" was nothing but a nonexistent fiction, a literary device to account for information Woodward and Bradlee were getting from multiple Intelligence Cult sources—which Woodward had to account for somehow. Funneling them all into one completely impossible fiction—impossible to have that much information, and impossible ever to track down or trace—is pure CIA think-tank work product."

_____________________

Right, a composite; in fact, to reiterate something I've put on this Forum a couple of times, I heard a Watergate anniversary broadcast, in the early or mid 80's, on the old Larry King radio show of the Mutual Broadcasting Network. Sam Dash and Fred Thompson were the guests (I recall Thompson's curt "hmmph, big deal" after one of Dash's professorial soliloquies on some point of constitutional nicety).

Dash, unforgettably, responded to a caller's inquiry as to the identity of Deep Throat by saying he thought DT was a...composite! King, who really was great on radio (good face for it), quickly responded that Janet Cook, a Pulitzer Prize winner at the Post who recently had been exposed as a fraud, was nearly indicted for her deceits and that Woodstein, especially the Woodman, should be taken to similar task if the composite theory were true. Unfortunately, Dash never elaborated and King never asked him why he thought that. So, we had Dash saying essentially what many of us here believe.

Hougan made a case for Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, who shot up the Military and political ranks quickly after Watergate, who was a Navy and NSA guy, and who was in position to fit most of the identifiable characteristics of DT. Still, no one person could have been throat. No way.

JG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Buell has posted this story from the San Francisco Chronicle on 5th May, 1977 on another thread.

Watergater Blames CIA

(Dallas)

Watergate burglar Frank Sturgis said yesterday the CIA planned the break-in because high officials felt the then-President Nixon was becoming too powerful and was overly interested in the assassination of President Kennedy.

Sturgis also said he believes "Deep Throat" - a major source for Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward - was Robert Bennett, a partner in a CIA-front public relations firm in Washington. Bennett, a son of former Senator Wallace Bennett (Rep-Utah), is employed by the Summa Corp., part of the empire of the late Howard Hughes. Hughes was a major client of Mullen Corp., Bennett's old firm.

Sturgis was convicted in the break-in at Democratic headquarters. He said Bennett - on orders from then-CIA Director Richard Helms - was fed information by Alexander Haig, Nixon's chief of staff; Alexander Butterfield, who disclosed the existence of Nixon's taping system; and Watergate burglar Howard Hunt.

Sturgis was probably just talking out of his rump, as usual. Did everyone forget that he himself was a disinformationist telling newspapers in the days after the assassination that Oswald was working for Castro?

Anyone convinced that Sturgis is a reliable source should re-read Fonzi's "The Last Investgation." IMO.

By the time Haig was Nixon's Chief of Staff, Helms was already in Iran. Most conspiracy theories hold that Haig was reporting to the Pentagon, if anything. Is there any evidence he was close to Bennett or Helms? Is there any evidence Butterfield was close to Bennett or Helms? If so, please post...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jul 11 2006, 09:19 AM' post='67972']

I'm still confident that "Deep Throat" was nothing but a nonexistent fiction, a literary device to account for information Woodward and Bradlee were getting from multiple Intelligence Cult sources—which Woodward had to account for somehow. Funneling them all into one completely impossible fiction—impossible to have that much information, and impossible ever to track down or trace—is pure CIA think-tank work product.

I think you have pretty much proved that here on these pages. But some of us had this figured out too. I mean the whole marking- the- info -on- the- Washington Post innane scenario. Geez, Do Woodstein think we were all born last year??

Not to mention that there is NO MENTION of DT in the book. Gee, you'd think that would be a very important detail.

Your upcoming article on Bennet is why many of us also suspected him so long. But it's fiction. DT, I mean

I see Woodward on Larry King and I want to ......change the channel, but I listen, just in case he unwittingly drops a nugget, in a moment of forgetting his well-rehersed script.

With all due deference to Atty. Caddy I believe that his opinion- (press controlled by small no. of corporations)- and mine and John's (etc) beliefs are both true. Op Mockingbird is as much alive and fully functioning as it ever was. In fact even worse with the likes of "fair and balanced " Fox.

Oh for the likes of a real Edward Morrow!!

But I don't expect to see it....unless we FORCE some damn change. We the people. The 1st Amendment died long ago and we need a very concerted effort at its resotoration.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Is this scenario even remotely feasible?

In November 1972, Nixon and Agnew win re-election. Within months, an investigation commences against Spiro Agnew, a sitting Vice-President of the United States.

Nelson Rockefeller expects Nixon to appoint him as VP after Agnew is dumped.

Nixon doesn't want to because of Nelson's image as having too much wealth and ambition, and because he doesn't trust Rockefeller not to kill him to become president.

So Nixon appoints loyal lapdog Ford.

Rockefeller is pissed and stops protecting Nixon from the burglery backlash. Rockefeller unleashes his media and they tear Nixon apart.

The Rockefellers tell Nixon to resign (in disgrace) so Ford moves to President and appoints Nelson Rockefeller Vice-President. Ford pardons Nixon within thirty days; which the Rockefellers think would preclude Ford from the Presidential nomination in 1976, since the country would refuse to vote for him. That paves the way for Nelson.

Taken from:

http://www.senderberl.com/recapturing/america/chapter4.htm

(A novel/fiction/fictional dialogue.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this scenario even remotely feasible?

In November 1972, Nixon and Agnew win re-election. Within months, an investigation commences against Spiro Agnew, a sitting Vice-President of the United States.

Nelson Rockefeller expects Nixon to appoint him as VP after Agnew is dumped.

Nixon doesn't want to because of Nelson's image as having too much wealth and ambition, and because he doesn't trust Rockefeller not to kill him to become president.

So Nixon appoints loyal lapdog Ford.

Rockefeller is pissed and stops protecting Nixon from the burglery backlash. Rockefeller unleashes his media and they tear Nixon apart.

The Rockefellers tell Nixon to resign (in disgrace) so Ford moves to President and appoints Nelson Rockefeller Vice-President. Ford pardons Nixon within thirty days; which the Rockefellers think would preclude Ford from the Presidential nomination in 1976, since the country would refuse to vote for him. That paves the way for Nelson.

Taken from:

http://www.senderberl.com/recapturing/america/chapter4.htm

(A novel/fiction/fictional dialogue.)

Myra, the evil Nelson theory makes sense on paper, but not when you look at Nelson as a man. The grandsons of billionaire entrepreneurs tend to be less ambitious than their predecessors. It's important to remember that, believe it or not, Rockefeller was looked at as a dangerous liberal by much of the Republican party. No liberal would vote for Nixon anyhow. Therefore, Rockefeller would not have helped Nixon get elected in 68 or 72. No, the real threat to Nixon came from Wallace, which helps explain why Agnew was selected. The other explanation is $$$. Much of the US money spent fostering the military coup in Greece was filtered back into the Nixon campaign, presumably on the condition Nixon pick Agnew, the most prominent right-wing Greek in the US, for VP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this scenario even remotely feasible?

In November 1972, Nixon and Agnew win re-election. Within months, an investigation commences against Spiro Agnew, a sitting Vice-President of the United States.

Nelson Rockefeller expects Nixon to appoint him as VP after Agnew is dumped.

Nixon doesn't want to because of Nelson's image as having too much wealth and ambition, and because he doesn't trust Rockefeller not to kill him to become president.

So Nixon appoints loyal lapdog Ford.

Rockefeller is pissed and stops protecting Nixon from the burglery backlash. Rockefeller unleashes his media and they tear Nixon apart.

The Rockefellers tell Nixon to resign (in disgrace) so Ford moves to President and appoints Nelson Rockefeller Vice-President. Ford pardons Nixon within thirty days; which the Rockefellers think would preclude Ford from the Presidential nomination in 1976, since the country would refuse to vote for him. That paves the way for Nelson.

Taken from:

http://www.senderberl.com/recapturing/america/chapter4.htm

(A novel/fiction/fictional dialogue.)

Myra, the evil Nelson theory makes sense on paper, but not when you look at Nelson as a man. The grandsons of billionaire entrepreneurs tend to be less ambitious than their predecessors. It's important to remember that, believe it or not, Rockefeller was looked at as a dangerous liberal by much of the Republican party. No liberal would vote for Nixon anyhow. Therefore, Rockefeller would not have helped Nixon get elected in 68 or 72. No, the real threat to Nixon came from Wallace, which helps explain why Agnew was selected. The other explanation is $$$. Much of the US money spent fostering the military coup in Greece was filtered back into the Nixon campaign, presumably on the condition Nixon pick Agnew, the most prominent right-wing Greek in the US, for VP.

I suspect that the choice of Ford was forced onto Nixon. The plan was to remove Nixon from the beginning, but Agnew had to go first. Some suspect that Nixon chose Agnew for just this reason. Agnew was so repugnant that Nixon would be isolated and protected. Nothing at all like the current POTUS and VP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myra, the evil Nelson theory makes sense on paper, but not when you look at Nelson as a man. The grandsons of billionaire entrepreneurs tend to be less ambitious than their predecessors. It's important to remember that, believe it or not, Rockefeller was looked at as a dangerous liberal by much of the Republican party. No liberal would vote for Nixon anyhow. Therefore, Rockefeller would not have helped Nixon get elected in 68 or 72. No, the real threat to Nixon came from Wallace, which helps explain why Agnew was selected. The other explanation is $$$. Much of the US money spent fostering the military coup in Greece was filtered back into the Nixon campaign, presumably on the condition Nixon pick Agnew, the most prominent right-wing Greek in the US, for VP.

Well I don't think the theory every indicated that Rockefeller ever helped Nixon get elected Pat, just that he wanted the vacated VP slot and clearly the presidency from there.

And sure, Wallace was a threat to Nixon's chances of election; he broke up the right wing loony vote. And he was dealt with just as Bobby Kennedy was. I don't understand what that has to do with the premise I posted either.

I suspect that the choice of Ford was forced onto Nixon. The plan was to remove Nixon from the beginning, but Agnew had to go first. Some suspect that Nixon chose Agnew for just this reason. Agnew was so repugnant that Nixon would be isolated and protected. Nothing at all like the current POTUS and VP.

Why would the power elite want to kill RFK and Wallace (tho' that only crippled him) to get Nixon in office while setting him up for removal? Huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myra, the evil Nelson theory makes sense on paper, but not when you look at Nelson as a man. The grandsons of billionaire entrepreneurs tend to be less ambitious than their predecessors. It's important to remember that, believe it or not, Rockefeller was looked at as a dangerous liberal by much of the Republican party. No liberal would vote for Nixon anyhow. Therefore, Rockefeller would not have helped Nixon get elected in 68 or 72. No, the real threat to Nixon came from Wallace, which helps explain why Agnew was selected. The other explanation is $$$. Much of the US money spent fostering the military coup in Greece was filtered back into the Nixon campaign, presumably on the condition Nixon pick Agnew, the most prominent right-wing Greek in the US, for VP.

Well I don't think the theory every indicated that Rockefeller ever helped Nixon get elected Pat, just that he wanted the vacated VP slot and clearly the presidency from there.

And sure, Wallace was a threat to Nixon's chances of election; he broke up the right wing loony vote. And he was dealt with just as Bobby Kennedy was. I don't understand what that has to do with the premise I posted either.

I suspect that the choice of Ford was forced onto Nixon. The plan was to remove Nixon from the beginning, but Agnew had to go first. Some suspect that Nixon chose Agnew for just this reason. Agnew was so repugnant that Nixon would be isolated and protected. Nothing at all like the current POTUS and VP.

Why would the power elite want to kill RFK and Wallace (tho' that only crippled him) to get Nixon in office while setting him up for removal? Huh?

I have often wondered how that came about, as the seeds of Nixon's removal (the Watergate break in) occurred just weeks prior to his re-election. Perhaps it was due to Nixon's embracing of Red China and rejection of Taiwan? This deeply upset a lot of the far right wing folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Why would the power elite want to kill RFK and Wallace (tho' that only crippled him) to get Nixon in office while setting him up for removal? Huh?

I have often wondered how that came about, as the seeds of Nixon's removal (the Watergate break in) occurred just weeks prior to his re-election. Perhaps it was due to Nixon's embracing of Red China and rejection of Taiwan? This deeply upset a lot of the far right wing folks.

Hm, this is a viable theory. On one hand I'd think his reaching out to China (as President Kennedy reached out to Russia?) would rub the cold war profiteers the wrong way. On the other hand China is such a big market for predatory capitalists.... Hm, interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Gillespie
I also believe that an investigation of Jack Paisley is essential in understanding both the JFK assassination and Watergate. Ashton, have you done much research into Paisley? I will post what I have on him later today.

I know that John Paisley has been identified in one source as the very secretive CIA liaison to Hunt and Liddy during their stint as the most ineffective "plumbers" in history.

I also know he was an accomplished sailor who sailed out into Chesapeake Bay on his sloop "Brillig" on September 24, 1978, and that a man's body later was found floating in an advanced state of decomposition with a gunshot wound behind his left ear, weighted with two sets of diving belts. The body was four inches shorter than Paisley, and Paisley's wife said it wasn't him, but it was ruled to be Paisley, and a suicide, and the body was summarily cremated.

So I don't disagree with you at all that bringing Paisley out of the crowd of extras and into the spotlight is entirely justified, and anything at all you have on him I'd be very interested in seeing.

I've been aware that there is no mention of Paisley in the timeline that I've referred to and that you post an excerpt from above, and I've wondered about it. All I can deduce is that whoever put it together just didn't have any solid source for putting him in the Watergate picture, or they weren't aware of him at all.

Ashton Gray

_____________________________________

Paisley IS someone who ought to be looked at as much as possible because he was in charge of a CIA unit overseeing Soviet electronics at the time Oswald was employed in a radio-electronics factory in Minsk. In fact, he may be - in death - the most accessible link to both Watergate and the JFK assassination despite E. Howard Hunt's acknowledged tenure as link extant. He also belonged to the same "social club" in D.C. as Carl Bernstein. Of course, Paisley's past and connections aren't very easily disinterred, though Woodward may yet claim to have interviewed him while he was drowning.

Then there is, once again, the mysterious Bernard Fensterwald on stage in yet another scene, representing the Paisley family this time. Perhaps James Richards has a photo of him and Mr. Paisley, post mortem. I wouldn't be surprised at anything in that extraordinary collection of his.

Later,

JG

Edited by John Gillespie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Gillespie
Is this scenario even remotely feasible?

In November 1972, Nixon and Agnew win re-election. Within months, an investigation commences against Spiro Agnew, a sitting Vice-President of the United States.

Nelson Rockefeller expects Nixon to appoint him as VP after Agnew is dumped.

Nixon doesn't want to because of Nelson's image as having too much wealth and ambition, and because he doesn't trust Rockefeller not to kill him to become president.

So Nixon appoints loyal lapdog Ford.

Rockefeller is pissed and stops protecting Nixon from the burglery backlash. Rockefeller unleashes his media and they tear Nixon apart.

The Rockefellers tell Nixon to resign (in disgrace) so Ford moves to President and appoints Nelson Rockefeller Vice-President. Ford pardons Nixon within thirty days; which the Rockefellers think would preclude Ford from the Presidential nomination in 1976, since the country would refuse to vote for him. That paves the way for Nelson.

Taken from:

http://www.senderberl.com/recapturing/america/chapter4.htm

(A novel/fiction/fictional dialogue.)

_______________________________________________

Not at all a fanciful scenario, that. And let us keep in mind what transpired after the pardon: there were TWO assassination attempts on Ford -with Nelson waiting in the wings.

Interesting, for want of a better word, how the media handled those unsuccessful assassination attempts...there were a couple on Clinton, also, but they seemed more like warnings and were carried out from somewhat of a distance.

JG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this scenario even remotely feasible?

In November 1972, Nixon and Agnew win re-election. Within months, an investigation commences against Spiro Agnew, a sitting Vice-President of the United States.

Nelson Rockefeller expects Nixon to appoint him as VP after Agnew is dumped.

Nixon doesn't want to because of Nelson's image as having too much wealth and ambition, and because he doesn't trust Rockefeller not to kill him to become president.

So Nixon appoints loyal lapdog Ford.

Rockefeller is pissed and stops protecting Nixon from the burglery backlash. Rockefeller unleashes his media and they tear Nixon apart.

The Rockefellers tell Nixon to resign (in disgrace) so Ford moves to President and appoints Nelson Rockefeller Vice-President. Ford pardons Nixon within thirty days; which the Rockefellers think would preclude Ford from the Presidential nomination in 1976, since the country would refuse to vote for him. That paves the way for Nelson.

Taken from:

http://www.senderberl.com/recapturing/america/chapter4.htm

(A novel/fiction/fictional dialogue.)

_______________________________________________

Not at all a fanciful scenario, that. And let us keep in mind what transpired after the pardon: there were TWO assassination attempts on Ford -with Nelson waiting in the wings.

Interesting, for want of a better word, how the media handled those unsuccessful assassination attempts...there were a couple on Clinton, also, but they seemed more like warnings and were carried out from somewhat of a distance.

JG

Omygod I forgot all about the attempts on Ford. Hm. Thanks John.

Geez, they tried twice within seventeen days?!

"...Those were the words composed by Sara Jane Moore just before her failed assassination attempt on President Gerald Ford on September 22, 1975. Ford had survived another failed assassination attempt by one Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme a mere seventeen days earlier."

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Sara%20Jane%20Moore

But Fromm's gun wasn't loaded--weird:

"Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme

...Witness testimony of the incident varies. Lyn was very calm, "Easy boys, I'm still." One witness said Lyn had said, "It wasn't loaded anyway." That testimony was withheld from the trial."

However...

"Sara Jane Moore

...At the tender age of 42, she embraced the so-called "counter-culture" way of life and went underground. Apparently she didn't go too deeply underground. The FBI managed to dig her up and in their infinite wisdom, decided she would be a prime candidate to gather information about the Patty Hearst kidnapping and the Symbionese Liberation Army.

Poor Sara. I guess she wasn't that good of an undercover agent. She was quickly found out by her friends in the underground circles and ostracized.

What's a poor girl gotta do to win her friends back and get a little self-esteem? How `bout shooting the President?

As President Ford was leaving the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco, Sara Jane Moore was about forty feet away. She pulled out her .38 caliber Smith & Wesson and took aim.

Fortunately for President Ford, a bystander in the crowd by the name of Oliver Sipple saw what was about to happen and grabbed Moore's arm just as she fired. Instead of hitting its intended target, the bullet ricocheted off a wall and slightly wounded a nearby cab driver.

She was quickly apprehended and brought to trial. At the proceedings, she never once tried to claim her innocence. As a matter of fact, she had this to say.

"There comes a point when the only way you can make a statement is to pick up a gun."

Sara Jane Moore received a life sentence. In 1979, she managed to escape prison but it was short lived. She was apprehended the next day and returned to prison."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this scenario even remotely feasible?

In November 1972, Nixon and Agnew win re-election. Within months, an investigation commences against Spiro Agnew, a sitting Vice-President of the United States.

Nelson Rockefeller expects Nixon to appoint him as VP after Agnew is dumped.

Nixon doesn't want to because of Nelson's image as having too much wealth and ambition, and because he doesn't trust Rockefeller not to kill him to become president.

So Nixon appoints loyal lapdog Ford.

Rockefeller is pissed and stops protecting Nixon from the burglery backlash. Rockefeller unleashes his media and they tear Nixon apart.

The Rockefellers tell Nixon to resign (in disgrace) so Ford moves to President and appoints Nelson Rockefeller Vice-President. Ford pardons Nixon within thirty days; which the Rockefellers think would preclude Ford from the Presidential nomination in 1976, since the country would refuse to vote for him. That paves the way for Nelson.

Taken from:

http://www.senderberl.com/recapturing/america/chapter4.htm

(A novel/fiction/fictional dialogue.)

_______________________________________________

Not at all a fanciful scenario, that. And let us keep in mind what transpired after the pardon: there were TWO assassination attempts on Ford -with Nelson waiting in the wings.

Interesting, for want of a better word, how the media handled those unsuccessful assassination attempts...there were a couple on Clinton, also, but they seemed more like warnings and were carried out from somewhat of a distance.

JG

Omygod I forgot all about the attempts on Ford. Hm. Thanks John.

Geez, they tried twice within seventeen days?!

"...Those were the words composed by Sara Jane Moore just before her failed assassination attempt on President Gerald Ford on September 22, 1975. Ford had survived another failed assassination attempt by one Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme a mere seventeen days earlier."

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Sara%20Jane%20Moore

But Fromm's gun wasn't loaded--weird:

"Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme

...Witness testimony of the incident varies. Lyn was very calm, "Easy boys, I'm still." One witness said Lyn had said, "It wasn't loaded anyway." That testimony was withheld from the trial."

However...

"Sara Jane Moore

...At the tender age of 42, she embraced the so-called "counter-culture" way of life and went underground. Apparently she didn't go too deeply underground. The FBI managed to dig her up and in their infinite wisdom, decided she would be a prime candidate to gather information about the Patty Hearst kidnapping and the Symbionese Liberation Army.

Poor Sara. I guess she wasn't that good of an undercover agent. She was quickly found out by her friends in the underground circles and ostracized.

What's a poor girl gotta do to win her friends back and get a little self-esteem? How `bout shooting the President?

As President Ford was leaving the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco, Sara Jane Moore was about forty feet away. She pulled out her .38 caliber Smith & Wesson and took aim.

Fortunately for President Ford, a bystander in the crowd by the name of Oliver Sipple saw what was about to happen and grabbed Moore's arm just as she fired. Instead of hitting its intended target, the bullet ricocheted off a wall and slightly wounded a nearby cab driver.

She was quickly apprehended and brought to trial. At the proceedings, she never once tried to claim her innocence. As a matter of fact, she had this to say.

"There comes a point when the only way you can make a statement is to pick up a gun."

Sara Jane Moore received a life sentence. In 1979, she managed to escape prison but it was short lived. She was apprehended the next day and returned to prison."

Myra, when your "evil Nelson" theory starts taking wings, whereby Manson follower Sqeaky Fromme and wacko Sara Jane Moore are part of the plot, it's time to let it rest. Rocky was never gonna get elected in 76. He didn't even run. Ford dumped him from the VP slot, in fact, because he considered Rocky a political liability, WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY. It was feared that Reagan would get the nomination, with Kennedy assassination conspiracy-promoter Richard Schweicker as his VP, unless Ford made an overture to the right-wing by bringing Dole aboard. Now if you really want to confuse the plot, you can have Reagan--a member of the Rocky commission--picking Schweicker on purpose--to ruin Schweicker's career, and Rocky and Ford, Warren Commission defenders, giving him the "wink-wink-you'll get it next time, Ron." But how reasonable is this? Do you see Reagan, who was already a geezer, putting his presidential hopes aside and taking a fall for Ford? I don't.

It's important to understand that the Democrats had total control of congress in the seventies and that much of what Nixon and Ford did, including the selection of their veeps, was done to appease the Dems. As far as Agnew, he was not forced out by a Rockefeller-led cabal, but was sacrificed by Nixon himself, in order to slow down the Watergate investigation. Agnew himself knew this to be true and makes a case for this in his little-read book. (As opposed to Mao's Little Red Book.)

Ford was picked as Nixon's VP because he was one of the few Republican loyalists popular enough with the Dems to get confirmed. Ford picked Rocky as his VP for the exact same reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this scenario even remotely feasible?

Ford was picked as Nixon's VP because he was one of the few Republican loyalists popular enough with the Dems to get confirmed. Ford picked Rocky as his VP for the exact same reasons.

Nonsense. Pat you drinking Ashton's Kool-Aid now? Ford was picked because he could be counted on for several things, pardoning Criminal Nixon, putting Poppa Bush at the helm of the CIA, being two vital tasks.

I do not know if the coup occurred prior to 11/22/63 and JFk was an aberation, but I sure as hell know that on 11/22/63 a total MIC coup occurred and that things have only gotten worse. Ford was a good soldier as Warren Commissioner and is, in my opinion, an accessory to the crime itself, rather the cover-up. He and anyone else involved still alive should be indicted.

I believe that is the purpose of the Grand Jury effort.

Dawn

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...