(June 25, 2009) A conversation between Richard Nixon and evangelist Billy Graham,
, is riling the nation's Jewish community. On the recording, the pastor predicts that if Jews come out against evangelist efforts, the nation will turn against them.. Nixon responds that "these people" need to "start behaving". Graham, condemning pornography and "obscene films", cites the Bible's
........ Abraham H Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called Graham's words "startling".........etc etc
--Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, ex prime-minister of Malaysia, to the UK Guardian in 2005
There is much that is not what it appears to be.
The composite picture of the last 60 years is both starkly grim, and largely unreported by the American corporate media for all the usual and obvious reasons, a phenomenon understood only by the less than one percent of the electorate in the United States which has figured out the predictable modus operandi of the Israeli government and intelligence apparatus, and the Neo-Conservatives in the American government and national security establishment married to their masters in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
And when one reads the most recent AIPAC speeches by sockpuppets Obama, McCain, and Clinton, the configuration of the tea leaves becomes definitive: War with Iran, as Congressman Paul has indicated, is virtually "inevitable."
Finally, one may ask if an American economic profile involving a $9 trillion dollar national debt, and $16 billion dollars a month in expenditures of internationally borrowed monies for Iraq and Afghanistan, can sustain the additional financial burden of another War for Israel, this time with Iran. And what strategies of asymmetrical warfare has Tehran crafted as a response to Tel Aviv and Washington?
Will Beijing and Moscow acquiesce in an IDF-USAF pummeling of their Persian ally, and an accompanying American hegemony over Caspian Sea oil and Central Asian trade routes?
No American Presidential candidate is offering the answers to these compelling questions. And on the basis of H. R. 362 and S. R. 580, the Congress of the United States is compelled to sign on to the next phase of the War Party's vision for the world, even if the endgame is the death of thousands, or millions, of innocent victims. One can be forgiven for drawing the conclusion that these deaths mean little to the American and Israeli establishments as long as the blood shed involves Persians and Arabs. When a sea of American financial red ink is accompanied by a symmetrical loss of the blood of its own sons and daughters, light will presumably dawn. Will it be too late for the Old Republic and the world?
It is in light of this last rhetorical question that the reader will appreciate the recent work of Michael Collins Piper, entitled "The Golem: Israel's Nuclear Hell Bomb and the Road to Armageddon."
The value of Piper's effort is multifold. He begins by addressing the hot button issue of Jewish racial supremacism as articulated in the Talmud and embodied in the legend of The Golem. While the issue of Talmudic racialism and the doctrine of Jewish exclusivity is more comprehensively addressed in "Jesus in the Talmud," the seminal work of Dr. Peter Schafer, Ronald O. Perelman Professor of Judaic Studies and Director of the Program in Judaic Studies at Princeton, Piper's willingness to bring Talmudic ideology into a wider comprehension of Israeli nuclear policy is instructive to the newly initiated.
In the consideration of the Lawrence Dennis legacy, the reader is also reminded of the paucity of present voices on the American Right still sounding the alarms of this long departed 20th century Leviathan. In its own way, The Golem and its author unwittingly confirm that Michael Collins Piper is not simply one of those voices still extant, but arguably the torchbearer of the 21st century movement to regain both the American Right and the Old Republic from the evils of Zionism, Globalism, and the New World Order. In that regard, Mr. Piper has an excruciating burden to bear, and many miles to go before he sleeps.
Dr. Francis Boyle: Destoying World Order
Jimmy Carter: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid
Alexander H. Joffe's two-part policy paper in the summer 2003 and Winter 2004 issues of The Journal of International Security Affairs (voice of JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs)
(Mark Dankof is the voice of Mark Dankof's America, heard on the
Republic Broadcasting Network. A contributor to the
American Free Press, Pastor Dankof also serves
Immanuel Lutheran Church in San Antonio, Texas. In 2000, he was the Constitution Party's candidate for the U. S. Senate in Delaware against Thomas Carper and William Roth.)
"Deep Throat"Dallas and Watergate Were Connected—
James Jesus Angleton, Israel and the Fall of Richard M. Nixon
The
Dallas-Watergate Connection has been the basis for an incredible amount
of misinformation and disinformation since the fall of Richard Nixon in
1974. There is indeed a Dallas-Watergate Connection—but it's one that
even the most intrepid JFK assassination researchers have somehow seemed
to miss. The true Dallas-Watergate Connection is the long-hidden role
of Israel's CIA man, James Jesus Angleton—the prime CIA mover not only
behind the JFK assassination but also the forced resignation of Richard
M. Nixon.
For
years a wide array of self-styled JFK assassination researchers have
gone to great lengths to find a "Dallas-Watergate Connection." Peter
Dale Scott and Carl Oglesby have written at length on the subject. Many
others have also delved into the topic. Primarily the researchers seem
to focus on one thing alone: the fact that "former" CIA man, E. Howard
Hunt, the ringleader of the team that burglarized the Democratic Party
headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, had formerly been
the CIA's liaison to the anti-Castro Cuban exiles during the years of
the CIA-mob assassination plots against Fidel Castro.
However,
as we shall see in this appendix, there is much more to the
"Dallas-Watergate Connection" than meets the eye—and if truth be told,
the real connection is the hidden role played by Israel's CIA ally,
James Jesus Angleton, not only in the assassination of President Kennedy
but also in the Watergate intrigue that led to the fall of Richard
Nixon.
In fact, as we shall see, Nixon—like JFK—had begun to run afoul of the Israelis and—like JFK—was targeted for destruction.
NIXON: 'GET ME THE FILES . . .
'
In light of what we now know about John F. Kennedy's bitter conflict
with Israel over its determined intent to develop a nuclear arsenal, it
is quite interesting indeed to learn, according to journalist Leslie
Cockburn, that "when Nixon came into office, the second thing he asked
J. Edgar Hoover to do for him was 'Get me the files on Israeli nuclear
espionage.'" 937 And considering Hoover's own close ties to the
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, an American intelligence
conduit for Israel's Mossad, we cannot help but wonder if the news of
Nixon's unusual interest in this subject did not somehow make its way to
Mossad headquarters in Tel Aviv.
Although, as president, Richard
Nixon was generally perceived as a friend of Israel, there were
long-standing suspicions about Nixon in the American Jewish community in
general. Nixon had barely won the presidency in 1968, narrowly
defeating Hubert Humphrey, a devoted supporter of Israel who was highly
popular among Jewish voters.
However,
in 1972 Nixon was overwhelmingly re-elected in one of the largest
popular landslides in American history and, at that juncture, Nixon
evidently decided that he had a genuine mandate to actually begin
flexing some real clout.
In fact,
according to former White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman, writing in
his book The Ends of Power, the president intended to overhaul the
entire federal bureaucracy and bring it under the direct control of his
own handpicked loyalists in the White House inner circle—trusted
longtime colleagues who were not part of the Establishment elite.
"Reorganization,"
says Haldeman, "is the secret story of Watergate. That reorganization
in the winter of 1972—very little known to the American
public—eventually spurred into action against Nixon the great power
blocs in Washington.
"All of them
saw danger as the hated Nixon moved more and more to control the
executive branch from the White House, as he was Constitutionally
mandated to do. What they feared was real. Nixon genuinely meant to take
the reins of government in hand, and if members of the Congress had
been privy to a presidential conversation on September 15, 1972, they
would have been even more fearful."(938)
According
to Haldeman, Nixon said, "We're going to have a housecleaning. It's
time for a new team. Period. I'm going to [tell the American people] we
didn't do it when we came in before, but now we have a mandate. And one
of the mandates is to do the cleaning up that we didn't do in 1968." (939)
As
the proposed housecleaning was described by Haldeman: "Not only would
[Nixon] tightly control all reigns of the government through eight top
officers in the White House; he would plant his own 'agents' in key
positions in every agency of the government." (940)
Clearly,
Nixon had big plans: he was actually going to assert himself and
attempt to gain control of the executive branch and its myriad agencies.
This move, needless to say, made many in the American Jewish community
uneasy. Rumors of Nixon's "lists" of Jews in high-ranking positions in
the executive branch and the agencies began circulating, adding fuel to
the already long-standing suspicions of Nixon. And as all of this was
taking place in the United States, events in the Middle East began to
unfold that set a new tone to Israel's perception of the American
president.
NIXON CROSSES THE ISRAELIS
Following
his massive 1972 re-election victory, Nixon crossed the line as far as
his previous support for Israel was concerned. In 1973, the Nixon
administration knew of the planned attack on Israel by Syria and Egypt
thirty hours before the United States actually notified Israel. (941)
According
to pro-Israel Nixon critics, John Loftus and Mark Aarons, Nixon's staff
"had at least two days advance warning that an attack was coming . . .
but no one in the Nixon White House warned the Jews until the last few
hours on the day of the attack."(942)
Loftus
and Aarons say that, "Although our sources think that incompetence, not
malice, was the reason for delaying the warning, Nixon certainly had a
motive for revenge . . . Nixon was well aware that, apart from J. Edgar
Hoover, only the Israelis knew enough about his past to cause him major
political damage. (943)
"As
the Watergate tape-recordings show, Nixon was terribly afraid of the
Jews. He made lists of his enemies and kept track of Jewish Americans in
his administration . . . Whatever the motive, during September and
October 1973 the Nixon White House turned a blind eye toward Sadat's
plans for a consolidated sneak attack against the Jews." (944)
There
is other evidence that Nixon was making behind-the-scenes efforts to
foil the power and influence of the Israeli lobby, despite the
widespread perception today that Nixon was somehow a "friend" of Israel.
For example, respected British journalist Alan Hart has noted that as
early as 1973 Nixon's Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, was warning
the government of Israel that Nixon might be preparing to cut off arms
to Israel.
The truth is, as Hart has
pointed out, Nixon was actively aligning himself (behind the scenes)
with King Feisal of Saudi Arabia in attempting to resolve the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all.
Hart
has described Nixon's efforts (through the good offices of King Feisal)
to engage Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in back-channel negotiations
for a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement. However, when
Kissinger learned of the negotiations (which had initially been
conducted behind his back) he intervened and put a kibosh on the
Nixon-Feisal peace effort, evidently viewing it as a threat to Israel.
In
addition, Hart has noted that, according to his sources, at one point
Nixon himself told King Feisal that if the Israelis and their American
lobby continued to frustrate Nixon's efforts to settle the Middle East
conflict that he— Nixon—was fully intent upon tearing up his
pre-prepared State of the Union address and go on national television
and radio and explain to the American people how Israel and its American
lobby were the real obstacle to peace in the Middle East.
(For
a full overview of these matters—plus much more on the intrigue of
Israel—see Alan Hart's 1984 volume, Arafat—Terrorist or Peacemaker?
Published by London-based Sidgwick & Jackson.)
Clearly,
there was much more afoot behind the scenes in the fateful years of
1973-1974 during which time the Watergate scandal began to escalate
and—ultimately—bring down Richard Nixon. He—like John F. Kennedy before
him—was engaged in a secret war with Israel, and, as this chapter
unfolds, we shall see precisely how the same forces that undermined JFK
ultimately eviscerated Nixon.
There
is, in fact, evidence that high-level plans to move against Nixon were
already underway—even before his big re-election victory in 1972.
In
a March 24, 1974 interview with Walter Cronkite of CBS, international
financier Robert Vesco (by then living in exile in Costa Rica, fleeing
prosecution in the United States) had some interesting allegations that
have hardly ever been noted. The pertinent portion of the transcript of
the interview speaks for itself:
CRONKITE:
Mr. Vesco, you said . . . that six months before the Watergate
break-in, the Democrats had come to you with a plan for impeachment of
the president. Can you tell us what that plan was?
VESCO: Well,
let me just correct you for a moment. I don't think I said that the
Democrats came to me. I said a group did. I don't believe I identified
who. The plan was essentially as I have stated previously, where they
were going to attempt to get initial indictments of some high officials,
using this as a launching board to get public opinion and—in their
favor and using the press media to a great degree. The objective was to
reverse the outcome of the public [1972 presidential] election. (945)
Vesco
said that the "group" that he met with included three people whose
names were well known and who had served in high posts in past
administrations which he did not name. According to Vesco, the plotters
had approached him because they believed that he knew about (or
otherwise had access to) information regarding a secret cash
contribution to the Republican Party that could be used to create a
scandal that could be used to bring down the Nixon administration.
`THE SAME FORCES' OPPOSED JFK AND NIXON
What
is even more intriguing, particularly in light of what we will be
examining later, is that Vesco also said (following Nixon's resignation
in 1974) that "the forces that threatened me are the same politically
that eliminated President Kennedy and then President Nixon and want to
eliminate all of Nixon's associates." (946)
Although
JFK assassination researcher, Carl Oglesby, writing in The Yankee and
Cowboy War, comments that Vesco "garbled it ideologically" (947)
by suggesting that the same forces that eliminated JFK were also behind
Nixon's removal from office, it seems, instead, that Vesco was quite
correct indeed. Because Oglesby never takes into consideration the fact
that both the "liberal Democrat" (Kennedy) and the "conservative
Republican" (Nixon) had come into conflict with Israel and its American
lobby and because he is blinded by the "liberal-conservative" dichotomy,
Oglesby thus fails to understand the big picture. Clearly, as Vesco
said, the forces that threatened him were "the same politically" that
assassinated John F. Kennedy and then moved against Richard Nixon.
VESCO'S PERMINDEX CONNECTION
Vesco
is actually a very good source on this little-understood aspect of the
"Dallas-Watergate Connection." In fact, Vesco's rise to power in the
financial world came when he assumed control of flamboyant financier
Bernard Cornfeld's Investors Overseas Service (IOS), (948) which,
as we saw in Chapter 7 and in Chapter 15 was an integral part of the
Kennedy assassination-linked Permindex network set in place by longtime
high-level Mossad operative Tibor Rosenbaum.
And
as we noted in Chapter 9, it was Michael Townley—actually an IOS
operative at the time of the JFK assassination—who was later convicted
of the murder of Chilean diplomat Orlando Letelier. Townley's
co-conspirators in that crime were Cuban exiles (and CIA assets)
Guillermo and Ignacio Novo whom, as we have seen, arrived in Dallas on
November 21, 1963 and met with CIA man E. Howard Hunt and evidently
played some role along with Hunt in the circumstances surrounding events
in Dallas that were linked to the assassination conspiracy.
Vesco
himself became entangled with Arab interests in the wake of the
subsequent IOS financial scandal, so much so that investigative reporter
Jim Hougan commented wryly (and wisely) that Vesco "might easily have
convinced the Arabs that IOS was a political instrument of Israel,
pointing to multimillion-dollar investments in Israeli bonds and
properties, and its links to such noted Zionists as Cornfeld, Rosenbaum,
Rothschild . . .
"With some Madison
Avenue pros in his corner," said Hougan, "Vesco could have manipulated
the nationalist sentiments of the Middle East, emerging in the Arab view
as a political refugee, the victim of a sinister Zionist conspiracy.
After all, as [Vesco] was fond of pointing out, all his troubles could
be traced to 'those fuckin' Jew bastids [sic] at the SEC.' And there
would have been some poetic justice in the event had Vesco succeeded
with this ploy,"949 he added.
Thus,
in light of Vesco's intimate connections to the Permindex web behind the
JFK assassination conspiracy, it is likely that Vesco indeed knew the
facts about Mossad complicity with the CIA in the JFK affair and was
thus using his leverage to strike out at those who were attempting to
bring him back to the United States for trial.
Vesco
ultimately took refuge in anti-Zionist Cuba with Fidel Castro's assent
and there he undoubtedly gave Castro an earful about what he— Vesco—knew
about the JFK affair.
This, of
course, would have been of special interest to Castro inasmuch as the
plotters behind the JFK assassination went to great lengths to
"sheepdip" the president's alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, as a
Castro sympathizer. In the end, of course, Castro ultimately had a
falling out with Vesco and the famed "fugitive financier" was imprisoned
by his long-time host on charges of involvement in the drug trade.
Vesco's
ultimate fate remains to be seen, but there is no question that his
allegations that the forces behind Watergate had also been behind the
JFK assassination conspiracy have great relevance and credibility,
particularly since we do know for a fact that as the Watergate scandal
began to unfold, the subject of the Kennedy assassination seemed to
preoccupy Richard Nixon.
NIXON AND THE JFK ASSASSINATION
JFK
assassination researchers who have been looking for the much-discussed
"Dallas-Watergate Connection" often cite the memoirs of Nixon's former
White House Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman, in which Haldeman described
how Nixon sought to have the CIA intervene to prevent the burgeoning
Watergate scandal from going any further. Nixon told Haldeman how he
(Haldeman) should approach then-CIA director Richard Helms and convince
Helms to cooperate.
Nixon advised
Haldeman to remind Helms how ex-CIA man E. Howard Hunt was one of the
Watergate burglars. "Hunt ... will uncover a lot of things," said Nixon.
"You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things . . . . tell them
we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go
any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky
that we have nothing to do with ourselves." (950)
Haldeman
said that, at the time, he had no idea what "hanky-panky" Nixon was
talking about. But Nixon continued: "When you get the CIA people in say,
'Look the problem is that this will open up the whole Bay of Pigs thing
again. So they should call the FBI in and for the good of the country
don't go any further into this case. Period." (951)
Later,
in a subsequent meeting, Nixon again elaborated on this cryptic theme
saying: "Tell them that if it gets out, it's going to make the CIA look
bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and it's likely to blow the whole
Bay of Pigs which we think would be very unfortunate for the CIA." (952)
In
fact, Haldeman did go to Helms and passed on this message. The reaction
of the CIA director astounded Haldeman who described it in his memoirs:
"Turmoil in the room, Helms gripping the arms of his chair leaning
forward and shouting, 'The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I
have no concern about the Bay of Pigs.'" According to Haldeman: "I just
sat there. I was absolutely shocked by Helms' violent reaction. Again I
wondered, what was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story?"(953) (Haldeman' s emphasis).
What
is interesting is that Haldeman said that later, after he began putting
things together, that he determined that "it seems that in all of those
Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the
Kennedy assassination." (954)
(Shortly
before his death, and years after the memoirs were published, Haldeman
claimed that the co-author of his memoirs, Joe DiMona, inserted the
reference regarding the "Bay of Pigs" and the Kennedy assassination into
his memoirs and that it was published without his knowledge and that it
was simply not true. Haldeman failed to explain, however, why he had
never read his own memoirs before they were published or why he never
repudiated the supposedly spurious—but often noted—claims by his
coauthor immediately after the book was published.)
There
were others who also believed that the CIA was a prime mover behind the
Watergate scandal. Even the Washington Post (which became the foremost
media voice in the Watergate affair) reported:
"Charles
W. Colson (a top Nixon adviser) made a startling series of allegations
about Nixon's fears of CIA involvement in the Watergate scandal. Colson
portrayed the president as a virtual Oval Office captive of suspected
high-ranking conspirators in intelligence circles, against whom he dare
not act for fear of international and domestic political repercussions.
His underlying suspicion was that the CIA planned the break-ins at
Watergate. The motive: to discredit the president's inner circle of
advisers:' (955)
It
appears indeed that Nixon was blackmailing the CIA over its involvement
in the JFK assassination and attempted to use this knowledge against
the CIA for political leverage after the Watergate affair began to
unfold. However, there is a great likelihood that, from the very
beginning, the bungled "break-in" at the Watergate was actually a set-up
that was designed to fail. And behind that set-up was the CIA itself.
There
have been more than a few investigators who have looked into the
Watergate affair—including the aforementioned Carl Oglesby—who have
concluded that the Watergate burglars were, in fact, infiltrated by a
"double agent" or agents who deliberately ensured that the Watergate
burglars were caught in the act: A piece of masking tape "accidentally"
left over a door latch—horizontally, rather than vertically, thereby
exposing it— alerted Watergate security that shenanigans were afoot.
ANGLETON'S BURGLARS?
While
it has been suggested E. Howard Hunt himself was one of those who
helped "bungle" the break-in—a view evidently held by G. Gordon Liddy
and cer tainly by Eugenio Martinez, (956) two of
the other burglars—another likely double agent was James McCord who was
directly responsible for the travesty of the tape.
Although
not known to the public before the Watergate scandal, McCord was not a
run-of-the-mill "CIA agent." He had not only been the senior CIA
security official in Europe but was also later responsible for security
at CIA headquarters at Langley,(957) not
insignificant positions by any means. Yet, in ostensible "retirement"
the CIA's high-ranking security expert managed to "bungle" a two-bit
burglary.
McCord himself later said that Nixon tried "to get political control over the CIA"(958)
and certainly that would not be to McCord's liking—nor to those in the
CIA such as the Mossad' s ally, CIA Counterintelligence chief James
Angleton. In fact—and this is very important—McCord was a close friend
of Angleton,(959) and in his long-standing
capacity as a CIA security official, McCord worked directly with
Angleton. What's more, as a Biblequoting Christian, McCord shared
Angleton's devotion to Israel. Thus, not only does the evidence suggest
that the Watergate operation against Nixon was set in motion at least in
part because Nixon was (like JFK before him) a threat to Israel, but
that Watergate's origins can be traced back directly to Angleton's
office at the CIA. In addition, the fact that we also find a veteran
Mossad asset, CIA contract agent Frank Sturgis, and his old CIA partner
E. Howard Hunt, back in the loop in the bungled burglary is also
significant indeed. As we shall now see, it was Angleton who
orchestrated—through an agent inside the White House—the constant leaks
to the Washington Post that led to the nationwide media frenzy
remembered today as "Watergate."
ENTER 'DEEP THROAT'
The
White House source who provided young Washington Post reporters Robert
Woodward and Carl Bernstein the rope they needed to hang Richard Nixon
for theWatergate cover-up was dubbed "Deep Throat."
For
years there has been speculation as to the real identity of "Deep
Throat" and one of the candidates whose name has often been mentioned—
although he denies it—is General Alexander Haig who served as White
House chief of staff at the time of Nixon's demise.
Among
those who point to Haig as "Deep Throat" are the aforementioned
pro-Israel writers, John Loftus and Aarons. They speculate that by
October of 1973 Haig (himself an ardent defender of Israel) became
embittered by President Nixon's anti-Jewish outbursts and even angrier
that Nixon had nearly let Israel be victimized by a surprise Arab attack
and "took it with both hands" (960) and became "Deep Throat" for the purpose of doing in Nixon and forcing him out of office.
This
is an interesting theory, if only because it points to the fact that
there are pro-Israel sources who suggest that the undoing of Richard
Nixon was the work of an ardent Zionist highly placed in the White
House: in this case, Alexander Haig.
However,
there is much stronger evidence that suggests that we should lay the
wreath of honor at the tomb of James Angleton. If Angleton wasn't "Deep
Throat" per se, he was certainly the CIA handler for "Deep Throat"—and
thus was ultimately responsible for the destruction of Richard M. Nixon.
So let's take a look at the evidence.
We turn to the work of investigative journalist Deborah Davis whose hard-hitting book, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and Her Washington Post Empire,
created quite a ruckus when it was first issued. The book was so
inflammatory that Mrs. Graham put forth her immense clout and had it
pulled from the bookstores and pulped.
But
what is even more intriguing is the fact that Davis's book has been
perhaps the only work (until now) that documented the long-hidden
Angleton connection to the Watergate affair (but which has somehow gone
un-noticed and forgotten).
ANGLETON AND THE WASHINGTON POST
Initially,
Davis describes the long-standing and intimate connections between
Angleton and Benjamin Bradlee, the Washington Post editor who supervised
reporters Robert Woodward and Carl Bernstein in the Post's coverage of
the Watergate scandal:
"Nineteen
fifty-six. Ben Bradlee, recently remarried, is a European correspondent
for Newsweek. He left the [American] embassy [in Paris, where he served
as press attaché] for Newsweek in 1953, a year before CIA director Allen
Dulles authorized one of his most skilled and fanatical agents, former
OSS operative James Angleton, to set up a counterintelligence staff. As
chief of counter-intelligence, Angleton has become the liaison for all
Allied intelligence and has been given authority over the sensitive
Israel desk, through which the CIA is receiving eighty percent of its
information on the KGB.
"Bradlee is
in a position to help Angleton with the Israelis in Paris, and they are
connected in other ways as well: Bradlees' wife, Tony Pinchot, Vassar
'44, and her sister Mary Pinchot Meyer, Vassar '42, are close friends
with Cicely d'Autremont, Vassar '44, who married James Angleton when she
was a junior, the year he graduated from Harvard Law School and was
recruited into the OSS by one of his former professors at Yale."(961)
Davis
also cites another Bradlee-Angleton connection that would become
critical during the Watergate period: "Also at Harvard in the early
1940s were Ben Bradlee and a young man, Richard Ober, who would later
become Angleton's primary counterintelligence deputy, and work with the
master in Europe and Washington throughout the fifties, sixties and
early seventies.
"The Harvard
yearbook for 1943-44 shows Bradlee and Ober, who are four months apart
in age, both to have been in the Hasty Pudding club as lower classmen;
it is a four-year club and students join as freshmen. According to a
Hasty Pudding club historian, 'the eating clubs at Harvard had only
about forty members' then and were often the source of close, even
lifelong friendships among the young men . . ." (962)
Despite
all this, Bradlee denied knowing Ober then—or later. But there's no
question that by the time Bradlee had begun his work for Newsweek and
was collaborating with James Angleton "with the Israelis in Paris," Ober
was Angleton's trusted deputy. And this was during the time that
Angleton's operations involving the French Corsican Mafia (described in
Chapter 9 of Final Judgment) were at their height.
Davis
describes the role that Bradlee and other journalists tied in to the
Angleton network played: "He and his colleagues are writing from the
Cold War point of view. Angleton and Ober are intelligence operatives
who travel between Washington and Paris, London, and Rome. In
Washington, at private places such as Philip and Katharine Graham's
salon, these patriots philosophize and make plans; in foreign cities,
they do the work of keeping European Communism under control by using
whatever means necessary— planting negative stories, infiltrating labor
unions, supporting or discrediting political leaders—to provoke
anti-Communist sentiment."(963)
Bradlee
also managed to find himself in the thick of the Algerian controversy
that, back in the United States, young Sen. John F. Kennedy had
embroiled himself—much to the dismay of Israel's supporters who objected
to the concept of Arab Algeria (then still a French colony) of becoming
an independent republic.
According
to Davis, Bradlee's "most notable feat as a foreign correspondent was to
obtain an interview with the FLN, the Algerian guerrillas who were then
in revolution against the French government. The interview, which had
all the earmarks of an intelligence operation . . . caused the French to
expel Bradlee from the country in 1957." (964)
In
any event, remarkably enough, here we find Bradlee—while working with
Angleton, some 17 years before Watergate—in the midst of yet another
project of special interest to Israel and which would ultimately prove
to be part of the so-called "French Connection" to the JFK assassination
conspiracy of which Angleton was a central player.
However,
just shortly after the JFK assassination itself, we once again find
Angleton and Bradlee secretly working together behind the scenes. As we
pointed out in Chapter 16, after JFK's mistress, Mary Pinchot Meyer
(Bradlee's sister-in-law and the wife of high-level CIA official Cord
Meyer) was found shot to death (in what was said to be a robbery) on
October 12, 1964 Angleton obtained Mrs. Meyer's diary (with Bradlee's
help) and destroyed it at CIA headquarters.
Some
years later, after a Washington Post editor, James Truitt, became
engaged in a conflict with Bradlee, Truitt went public with the story of
Angleton and Bradlee's procurement of Mrs. Meyer's diary. Prior to this
time Angleton had managed to avoid the spotlight, but his connection to
the Mary Meyer intrigue brought him some unwanted public recognition
indeed. According to Deborah Davis, "Truitt' s feud with Bradlee
unnecessarily [exposed] Angleton, to his disgust and bitterness." (965)
By
1967, with Israel safely assured the all-out support of the Johnson
administration, Angleton's office at the CIA was running the
now-infamous "Operation CHAOS" which was an "intelligence collection
program with definite domestic counterintelligence aspects" (966)—in
short a spying operation aimed at American citizens who dared dissent
against CIA and Johnson administration policy. The operation was run for
Angleton by his longtime deputy, the aforementioned Richard Ober.
However, when Richard Nixon came into office in 1969, the Nixon White
House began cooperating closely with Angleton's operation and thus
brought Ober into the White House inner circle.(967)
THE MOSSAD IN THE WHITE HOUSE?
There
was another added wrinkle, however. This particular fact— reported by
Deborah Davis—has apparently never been mentioned elsewhere in all the
wealth of information published in reference to Watergate and the
intrigue of that era. Davis's revelation is central to an understanding
of the secret forces behind the coup d'etat that ejected Richard Nixon
from the presidency . . .
According
to Davis, as part of a so-called solution to three problems perceived by
Secretary of State Kissinger—namely "detente, the Arab- Israeli wars,
and domestic subversion" 968—Kissinger actually moved Angleton "into the
White House and put him in charge of an Israeli counterintelligence
desk that was in theory independent from and more important than the
Israel desk at the CIA."(969) Davis notes that
"Angleton worked closely with Kissinger and knew almost everything he
was doing, although Kissinger did not have the same advantage with
Angleton."(970)
Handling
the affairs of Angleton's Israeli desk at the White House—a virtual
Mossad outpost—was Angleton's deputy, Richard Ober. Thus, Angleton and
Ober were well-placed at a critical time when Richard Nixon, flush with
victory following his triumphant landslide re-election, began moving to
assert control over the CIA and against Israel.
As
we have seen, the bungled two-bit Watergate burglary of 1972 had
already taken place, and Nixon and his inner circle had begun a foolish
cover-up attempt. But the evidence suggests that the burglary, from the
beginning, was a set up. And Nixon fell right into it.
It was James Angleton's longtime ally at the Washington Post,
Ben Bradlee, who began the media push that made "Watergate" a household
word and led to the series of official inquiries that brought down
Nixon. But the Post couldn't have orchestrated the public outrage if it
hadn't relied so thoroughly on "Deep Throat"—a highly-placed White House
insider who was able to provide Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl
Bernstein the information they needed to make Watergate a big, big
story.
Deborah Davis provides us a summation of the parameters of the intrigue between "Deep Throat" and the Washington Post demonstrating, beyond question, that the Post's
Watergate coverage was not just a simple case of hard-driving young
reporters doing a fantastic job of routing out corruption but that there
was much more going on behind the scenes:
"That Woodward was manipulated or 'run,' by Deep Throat is very clear from [Woodward and Bernstein's book on Watergate] All the President's Men, which is another reason that the book is an amazing document. It is evident that Deep Throat has a serious interest in the Post's
succeeding with its investigation . . . He expects results. He will not
tell him how he knows what he knows or why he wants to help Woodward
implicate Nixon . . ."(971)
Davis
has concluded that the "voice" for the source, "Deep Throat," in fact,
was James Angleton's deputy, Richard Ober. And this means, of course,
that Ober most assuredly was doing Angleton's bidding as part of a
campaign to bring down Richard Nixon.
The
big question, as far as Davis is concerned, is whether "Deep Throat"
approached Woodward or whether Woodward's editor, Ben Bradlee, put
Woodward in touch with "Deep Throat."
In
either event, the fine hand of James Angleton was clearly at work.
Either Angleton sent Ober to Woodward or Angleton directed his longtime
Post ally, Bradlee, to have his reporter Woodward seek out Ober. Davis
points out: "The minor deception in [All the President's Men] is that only Woodward knew who Deep Throat was. Bradlee too almost certainly knew him and for far longer than Woodward."(972)
Davis
adds that: "There is a possibility that Woodward had met [Deep Throat]
while working [before he became a Post reporter] as an intelligence
liaison between the Pentagon and the White House, where Deep Throat had
his office, and that he considered Woodward trustworthy, or useful, and
began talking to him when the time was right."
"It
is equally likely, though," says Davis, "that Bradlee, who had given
Woodward other sources on other stories, put them in touch after
Woodward's first day on the story, when Watergate burglar James McCord
said at his arraignment hearing that he had once worked for the CIA."(973)
In
Davis's judgment: "Whether or not Bradlee provided the source, he
recognized McCord's statement to the court as highly unusual, CIA
employees, when caught in an illegal act, do not admit that they work
for the CIA, unless that is part of the plan. McCord had no good reasons
to mention the CIA at all, except, apparently, to direct wide attention
to the burglary, because he had been asked to state only his present
occupation, and he had not worked for the CIA for several years." (974)
A COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE OPERATION
Davis's
conclusion is quite powerful indeed: "Whether Deep Throat was Richard
Ober, whom Bradlee had dined with at Harvard and whom Woodward very
likely had known while at the Pentagon; whether or not it was Ober, who
as head of Operation CHAOS, as both a White House and a National
Security operative, was one of the few men in a position to know more
about Nixon than Nixon himself did; whether or not Deep Throat was the
same man who had been the deputy and the protégé of James Angleton, the
CIA's master of dirty tricks—there is no doubt that the use of the
Washington Post to take down Nixon was both a counterintelligence
operation of the highest order and the dirty trick par excellence." (975)
"What
matters," concludes Davis, quite correctly, "is not how the connection
with Deep Throat was made, but why. Why did Bradlee allow Woodward to
rely so heavily upon it, and ultimately, why did the leaders of the
intelligence community, for whom Deep Throat spoke, want the president
of the United States to fall?" (976)
It
seems apparent that here, in Final Judgment, we can at last provide an
answer to Davis's question as to why the leaders of the intelligence
community, for whom Deep Throat spoke, wanted Richard Nixon out of the
presidency. The answer lies in the simple proposition that Nixon—like
John F. Kennedy before him—had become perceived (as we have seen) as a
threat to Israel's survival. And so it was that the Watergate operation
was set in motion to remove Nixon from the White House.
Once
Nixon and his inner circle were enmeshed in the web and began their
often-ridiculous cover-up attempts (which, of course, were their own
doing) they helped set the stage for their own undoing. Nixon, further,
began making blackmail attempts against the CIA, clearly threatening the
agency—as we have seen—with use of his knowledge of CIA involvement in
the JFK assassination. (And considering all else we now know, it's
likely that Nixon knew of—or suspected—Mossad involvement as well.)
Once, however, that the Washington Post—at
Angleton's instigation— became actively involved in the campaign
against Nixon, the president's fate was sealed. The widely-heralded
Senate investigation of the Watergate affair became a daily staple of
television coverage and the House of Representatives began proceedings
for impeachment.
And highly placed
in the intrigue against Nixon as the chief counsel to the Senate
Watergate Committee was Sam Dash, a former national commissioner and
member of the national advisory council of the Anti- Defamation League
(ADL) of B'nai B'rith (977)—the American intelligence conduit for Israel's Mossad.
And
serving as the "Republican" minority counsel—well placed to monitor
Nixon's GOP defenders—was Albert Jenner, whom we met in Appendix Four as
the former Warren Commission staff member with intimate ties to the
mob-linked Chicago empire of Zionist billionaire Henry Crown. We can
thus rest assured that all interested parties were fully versed in the
secrets of the Watergate affair and its progress.
In short, Nixon was surrounded. His only chance for survival, once Watergate unraveled, would have been a virtual counter-coup.
In
this regard, we do know that Israel's other key partisan inside the
White House, Alexander Haig, actively moved to prevent Nixon from making
any attempts at fighting back. More than one published account has
described how Haig actually instructed the armed forces to ignore any
military orders by President Nixon unless they were cleared with him
first.
What's more, there have also
been reports that Haig himself instituted a quiet, behind-the-scenes
investigation of Nixon's reported involvement with organized crime,
evidently as part of the effort to further tighten the noose around
Nixon's neck in the event that the president refused to go on his own
volition. We can only imagine the public response if they learned that
their president—who said he wasn't a "crook"—would have been exposed by
the Washington Post as a secret ally of "the Mafia." As it was, Angleton, Haig and the Post never had to play their "Mafia" card against Nixon. The embattled president resigned on August 9, 1974.
THE REAL 'DALLAS-WATERGATE CONNECTION'
In
the context of what we have thus considered, can there be any doubt
that Watergate, in fact, was a joint CIA-Mossad operation—orchestrated
by James Angleton—for the purpose of removing Nixon from the presidency,
an operation akin to the conspiracy that led to the assassination of
John F. Kennedy? The evidence is there, for those who can see the big
picture.
It might be added, if
only as an afterthought, that it seems that the choice of the moniker
"Deep Throat" was some sort of "inside joke" on the part of Woodward and
his colleagues at the Post. Angleton, of course, was known as a heavy
drinker and chain smoker who was often enveloped in a haze of smoke.
"Deep Throat" was also said to be quite literary and it was well known
that while at Yale, young James Angleton, in fact, was very much the
poet and edited a literary magazine.
So
the use of the "Deep Throat" code name was obviously a not-sosubtle way
of signaling to those in the know in official Washington that the real
force behind the leak of information to the Post was, in fact, Israel's
CIA ally, James Angleton. And thus, anyone in the loop would realize
immediately that the "Watergating" of Richard Nixon was a dirty tricks
operation being conducted out of Angleton's Israeli desk in the White
House. Although Richard Ober appears to have been the actual "voice" for
"Deep Throat," James Angleton was the ventriloquist behind the scenes.
Richard
Curtiss, executive editor of The Washington Report on Middle East
Affairs, stated frankly in 1995 that "it's long been our opinion that
whoever played the role of 'Deep Throat' was in fact only a conduit for
information collected by Israel's Mossad and used to discredit Nixon,"(978) and that Nixon's attempt to reassess U.S. relations with Israel was "the catalyst that led directly to his downfall." (979)
Until
the fourth edition of Final Judgment, Richard Nixon's moves to
consolidate power and to control the CIA and the subsequent intrigue of
Watergate have never been connected to Nixon's emerging conflict with
Israel. But there's no question, all things considered, that this is the
real key to understanding Watergate and the "Dallas-Watergate
connection" that has so long been pondered but never fully
understood—until now.
Having been in
the center of the political upheavals that had torn American apart in
the decade following the assassination of John F. Kennedy (in which
James Angleton too played a part) Angleton, if anybody, was truly "the
man who knew too much."
No
wonder—among other reasons—that William Colby forced Angleton out of the
CIA in 1974. Angleton's ouster from the CIA was certainly a setback for
Israel and its Mossad at a critical time, but Angleton was old and
sickly (perhaps even verging on clinical madness by some less than
friendly accounts) and he would have ultimately been forced into
retirement for this alone. Angleton, in the end, was an expendable
anachronism who, in his heyday, had served his Israeli allies well.
THE PLOT TO 'GET' AGNEW
There
are other indications, too, that the Israeli connection played a
significant part in Watergate (and in subsequent related events that
followed). The Israeli connection can be traced in scandals that
encircled both Vice President Spiro Agnew and former Texas Gov. John
Connally, who had joined the Nixon administration as Treasury Secretary
and who was Nixon's first choice (even over Agnew) as a successor in
1976.
Part of the Watergate
conspiracy against Nixon—a critical part, in fact— was ensuring that
Agnew was first removed from the vice presidency before Nixon was
toppled. And as it so happened, ironically, as Agnew pointed out in his
memoir, Go Quietly . . . Or Else, if Nixon had stood firm and backed
Agnew when Agnew himself came under fire, Nixon himself may not have
been forced to resign. In fact, in Agnew's view, he, Agnew, was even
more hated by the powers-that-be than Nixon.
However,
because President Nixon was already under siege as a consequence of the
burgeoning Watergate scandal, he refused to come to Agnew's defense and
would not undertake any efforts to quash the investigation of Agnew
that ultimately led to Agnew's resignation.
In
retrospect, there's no question that the scandal that brought down
Agnew was as contrived as any in American history. In the midst of the
Watergate "crisis," Barnet Skolnik, a liberal Jewish prosecutor in the
U.S. attorney's office in Maryland brought bribery charges against Agnew
that are— as the evidence shows—suspect to this day.
Skolnik
got his chance to "get" Agnew when Lester Matz, a prominent Jewish
businessman who was under investigation for paying kickbacks to public
officials in Maryland in return for county and state contracts, dredged
up his previous on-again, off-again relationship with Agnew during the
vice president's years in Maryland politics. In a deal with Skolnik,
Matz claimed that he had paid bribes to Agnew. Then, following Matz' s
lead, two other copy-cats who were also under investigation—I. M.
Hammerman and Jerome Wolff—also claimed to have paid off the former
Maryland governor.
Agnew admitted
that he had often received campaign contributions from corporations that
did business with the state—a common practice in Maryland and
elsewhere—but insisted that he never accepted any money for personal
use. However, the federal prosecutors were eager to build a case against
Agnew in order to force him out of the vice presidency." (980)
AGNEW AND ISRAEL
M.
Hirsh Goldberg, wrote in the Times of Israel about Agnew's career. In
an article entitled "Jews at the Opening . . . Jews at the Close"
Goldberg said: "It was a political life curiously intertwined with Jews.
The swift rise like a Fourth of July rocket, the sudden fall from
political grace—both involved Jews. It was an ironic, almost unnoticed
aspect of a political career so much addressed to Middle America . . .
and yet so heavily dependent on Jewish brains, Jewish talent, Jewish
money and—at the end—so heavily damaged by the testimony of Jews." (981)
Ultimately,
facing a possible jail sentence if he went to trial and was convicted,
Agnew resigned the vice presidency and pleaded no contest to bribery and
tax evasion charges stemming from his purported acceptance of the
bribes (which Agnew continued to deny until the day he died). Neither of
Agnew's accusers ever spent time in jail.
The
Republican attorney general who promoted the campaign by U.S. Attorney
Sachs against Agnew was Elliot Richardson, who ultimately resigned from
the Nixon administration "in disgust" and was heralded as a "hero of
Watergate." In his memoirs Agnew (not insignificantly) points out that
Richardson wanted someone in the line of presidential succession who
"would defend Israel, whatever the risk to the United States." (982)
Agnew
was already suspected of "anti-Semitism" because of his attacks on the
media and, as Agnew noted, two years after leaving office he came under
heavy fire "for saying that our attitude toward Israel was affected by
the preponderance of Israel's sympathizers in the big news media."(983)
After
leaving office, Agnew wrote The Canfield Decision, a controversial,
though little-read novel about high-level political intrigue which some
critics called "anti-Semitic," bringing the former vice president back
into the headlines once again. Agnew's novel was described by one
pro-Israel columnist as suggesting that "Jews in the media make up a
'Zionist lobby' leading us to disaster in the Mideast."(984)
Later,
privately, in an April 20, 1988 letter to his friend, former Rep. Paul
Findley (R-Ill.), himself a sharp critic of the Israeli lobby, Agnew
commented that "I trace the advent of my difficulties to a confrontation
with this same lobby." (985) But Agnew will be
remembered as a "crook" who served as Vice President. Not as the victim
of Israeli intrigue, as he most certainly was, the naysayers
notwithstanding.
THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN CONNALLY
In
the meantime, John Connally, like Agnew, was also indicted for bribery
under circumstances which suggest another calculated "frame-up." One
Jake Jacobson, a lobbyist for the milk industry, claimed that Connally, a
multi-millionaire, had accepted a $10,000 bribe (while serving as
Treasury Secretary) in return for helping secure a 1971 increase in
government milk price supports. However, the fact is that in his
capacity as treasury secretary Connally had no official powers in
regulating the Department of Agriculture's milk price support programs.
Connally's
accuser Jacobson had previously been indicted by the Justice Department
for misappropriation of funds involving nearly $1 million in loans from
a Texas savings and loan—but when Justice Department lawyers learned of
his past association with Connally, Jacobson suddenly remembered the
"bribe" he purportedly had given to Connally and entered into a plea
bargain. In order to avoid going to jail himself, Jacobson became the
"star witness" against Connally.
Connally
was acquitted, but his 1976 White House ambitions were shattered, even
though the evidence against him had been brought by an unsavory felon
who was angling for a reduced sentence in an unrelated criminal case. As
in the Agnew case, however, the media gave full play to the charges
against Connally and helped further the perception that Nixon and his
intimate associates were engaged in widespread criminal conduct. In
fact, most of Nixon's key lieutenants, with the notable exception of
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Chief of Staff Alexander Haig and
legal adviser Leonard Garment—pro-Israel partisans—ultimately went to
jail.
But although some anti-Semites
said that Jacobson (who was Jewish) was part of a "Jewish plot" to
"get" John Connally, the fact is that the outspoken Texan did
ultimately, in fact, fall victim to a very real "Jewish plot" that
prevented him from achieving the presidency.
In
1979 when Connally launched a well-financed bid for the 1980 Republican
presidential nomination, he publicly challenged the power of the
Israeli lobby in a highly controversial speech that, by all accounts,
led to the end of Connally's presidential ambitions once and for all.
But
what is interesting is that Conally's speech was considered so
inflammatory by the Israelis and their Americans supporters that a
prominent Israeli educator and philosopher, Emmanuel Rackman, president
of Bal Ilan University, actually called for Connally's assassination.
Comparing
Connally to Haman, the ancient enemy of the Jewish people, Rackman—a
rabbi—issued his call for Connally's assassination in the November 18,
1979 issue of The Jewish Week-American Examiner, the publication of the Israeli-government owned Jewish Telegraph Agency, a subdivision of the worldwide Jewish Agency.
Rackman's
vicious attack on Connally was headlined: "John Connally Campaign Seen
as Dire Threat to Israel and U.S. Jewry." Rackman quoted New York Times
columnist William Safire as having said that for "the first time, a
candidate for President has delivered a major address which he knew
would disturb and dismay every American supporter of Israel."(986)
Rackman commented:
"This
is true. But does not this observation signify more than it says? Does
it not mean that in Connally we have, for the first time, a candidate
who in no uncertain terms is telling the American people that he does
not want the support of Jews and that he wants to prove that one can be
elected president without Jewish support.
"Furthermore,
does it not mean that at long last we have a candidate who hopes to get
elected by mobilizing support from all who share his total disregard of
how Jews feel about him and is this not an invitation to all
anti-Semites to rally behind him? I am generally not an alarmist but
nothing in American politics in recent years so disturbed me as
Connally's subtle communication to Jews that they can `go to the devil.'
Even the Nixon tapes were not so upsetting.
"The
American Jewish community must be alerted. If only we had stopped
Hitler early enough, millions of Jews would still be alive. And Connally
must be stopped at all costs. He must not even get near the nomination!
He must be destroyed, at least politically, as soon as possible. It is
sufficiently early to make Connally look ridiculous and destroy him
politically without bloodshed.
"Perhaps
I am overreacting," said Rackman. "But if I have learned anything
especially from the rabbinic view of Biblical history it is that we are
less fearful and more forgiving of enemies who at least accord us a
modicum of respect than we are of enemies who treat us with disdain,
with contempt. That makes Arafat more acceptable than Connally." (987)
Rackman
compared Connally with Amalek, another foe of the Jewish people:
"'Remember Amalek,' we are told. 'Don't forget.' Eradicate him from the
face of the earth. Simply because Amalek had no respect for us. He
encountered us in his path and casually sought to exterminate us as
vermin. It is my fervent prayer," said this Jewish religious leader,
"that American Jewry will not minimize the importance of the challenge
they have been given and will act speedily and with devastating
effectiveness."(988)
John
Connally was not eradicated as Rackman urged. But his political career
came to a halt after the major media began a campaign against him.
However, when John Connally died in 1993, the doctors said that
Connally's fatal lung condition was a direct outgrowth of the chest
wounds that he had received in the shooting in Dallas on November 22,
1963. So ultimately, in the end, John Connally did prove to be yet
another victim of Israel—as much as if he had died on the same day as
John F. Kennedy.
YET ANOTHER ASSASSINATION . . .
But
this isn't the end of it. There was yet another media-orchestrated
political assassination—with covert intelligence connections—that has
its [382] Final Judgment 479 own link (however indirect) to the
assassination of John F. Kennedy. We refer to the debacle that led to
the withdrawal of Colorado Sen. Gary Hart from the race for the 1988
Democratic Presidential nomination.
As
a member of the Senate, the maverick Hart had been in the forefront of
inquiries not only into the JFK assassination, but also into the
intrigue of the CIA in general, including its involvement with the
Lansky Syndicate and the Mafia in assassination attempts against Fidel
Castro. Needless to say, this did not win Hart many friends in certain
circles. Even Tampa Mafia boss, Santo Trafficante (Meyer Lansky's
devoted lieutenant) was once heard to say of Hart: "We need to get rid
of the son of a bitch." (989)
In
fact, someone did get rid of Hart. His affair with a young woman, Donna
Rice, was bared by the press, forcing Hart out of the race for the
presidency. However, there was much more at work behind the scenes as
former National Security Council staffer Roger Morris has pointed out:
"Though
it came too late to affect his fate, there would be still more evidence
that Hart's fall was not what it seemed at the time . . . Some of those
involved in Hart's Miami-Bimini weekend turned out to have links to
organized crime and cocaine trafficking and, in spiraling circles
beyond, to crime bosses of the Jewish and Italian syndicates, who in
turn possessed ties to the U.S. intelligence community dating back to
the Bay of Pigs and earlier. In fact, as a subsequent independent
investigation would show, Hart had been under surveillance by unknown
parties for days and perhaps weeks before"(990) the events that led to the scandal that led to Hart's demise.
One more politician who had run afoul of the CIA and the Mossad and the Lansky syndicate thus was removed from the scene.
TWO PRESIDENTS, TWO COUPS—SAME PLOTTERS
What
we have seen here does indeed spell out the "Dallas-Watergate
Connection" as it has never been outlined before, placed on the record
in its complete context for the first time. Watergate—like the Kennedy
assassination—was a coup d'etat conducted by traitors within the
American government who were under the discipline of the same foreign
influence.
It is no coincidence
that two key CIA players in Watergate, James Angleton and Frank Sturgis
(both with long-standing Mossad loyalties)—not to mention E. Howard
Hunt— once again are central to the scenario.
Two
different American presidents from two different political parties were
brought to heel by Israel and the results of two elections were thus
negated. And as in the JFK assassination before, the media played a
critical role in keeping the real facts buried away from the eyes of the
American people. Can anything be more damaging to American democracy
than this?
