jeudi 25 juin 2009

Nixon s'est opposé à l'acquisition du nucléaire par Israel

L'une des premières choses que Nixon a faite lorsqu'il a débuté son mandat comme président des États-Unis fut de demander qu'on lui apporte tous les dossiers secrets sur le nucléaire israélien.

(June 25, 2009) A conversation between Richard Nixon and evangelist Billy Graham, part of hours of tapes and thousands of papers released by the Nixon library this week, 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 "synagogue of Satan"........ Abraham H Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called Graham's words "startling".........etc etc

Nixon administration tried to force Israel to sign NPT
New revelations offer more evidence of presidential anti-Semitism.

Documents released by Nixon Library show US tried to pressure Israel to sign Nonproliferation Treaty. 'If Israel elects to go the nuclear route it would cause a fundamental change in the US-Israeli relationship,' says unsigned memo, including 'our long-standing concern for Israel's security'
Associated Press

Published: 06.25.09, 22:23 / Israel News

Inside the Nixon administration four decades ago, American officials weighed options to pressure Israel to declare that it had a nuclear weapons program.

US officials concluded Israel was "actively working to improve its capability to produce nuclear weapons on short notice."

In an unsigned National Security Council memo, prepared sometime between April 1969 and March 1970,

US Pushes NPT

US wants Israel in non-proliferation treaty / Reuters

Assistant secretary of state neglects to mention Iran as she promotes anti-nuclear arms agreement
Full Story

officials worried that the program might make elusive peace with the Arabs even harder to attain.

The memorandum, part of a collection of memos and tape recordings released Tuesday by the Nixon Presidential Library, shows efforts to get Israel to sign the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.This would have required Israel to open itself to international inspection and dismantle any nuclear weapons program it had.

Israel resisted, which the memorandum anticipated, "because Israel views its nuclear option on the NPT as an integral part of its national security." Israel would not be easily influenced, the unsigned memorandum predicted.
The treaty requires all but five states - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - not to develop nuclear weapons. A total of 189 countries are parties to the treaty. The four exceptions are Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Next month, US President Barack Obama will meet with his Russian counterpart, President Dmitry Medvedev, in Moscow and again at a summit of world leaders in Italy. Obama will carry with him a determination to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons. He has said it is "absolutely imperative" that the United States take the lead.

Back in the Nixon era, with little sign of progress toward a peace agreement on the horizon, "Israel's leaders have probably decided Israel cannot afford to surrender the nuclear option," the NSC memo concluded.

In fact, the document added, Israel preferred to keep the Arabs guessing as to its power to deter attack, while the program provided bargaining power in negotiating a settlement.

But the longer Israel would hold out against signing the treaty, it also would reduce prospects for settling the Arab-Israeli dispute, the memorandum said.

"We must be prepared whether to make this a crunch issue with Israel and to make it clear that if Israel elects to go the nuclear route it would cause a fundamental change in the US-Israeli relationship."

And that, the memo says, includes "our long-standing concern for Israel's security."

Le Watergate: complot pour chasser Nixon de la présidence

Nixon blasts Jews as 'obnoxious'

Menace numéro Un pour la sécurité et la paix mondiale: le nucléaire israélien

45e anniversaire de l'assassinat de JFK: JFK en guerre contre le nucléaire israélien

Israel's secret nuclear weapons program

Secrets nucléaires vendus à Israel par les criminels habituels

S'ils vont en enfer, ils nous entraînent avec eux

Netanyahu dans le miroir du judaisme

Le golem finit toujours par se retourner contre son créateur

Khadafi: le mossad a assassiné JFK

Michael Collins Piper contre la mafia juive

Vanunu, emprisonné en Israel pour avoir sonné l'alarme sur le nucléaire israélien

Jimmy Carter révèle qu'Israel possède plus de 150 ogives nucléaires

Pour une courte introduction en français, visionner cet extrait en français (@2:33) d'un important reportage de la BBC "Israel, Vanunu and the Bomb" (à voir en entier en version française).

Book Review:
The Golem: Israel's Nuclear Hell Bomb and the Road to Global Armageddonby Michael Collins Piper
American Free Press, Washington, D. C./1-888-699-NEWS
182 pages
"American politicians are scared stiff of the Jews because anybody who votes against the Jews will lose elections. The Jews in America are supporting the Jews in Israel. Israel and other Jews control the most powerful nation in the world. And that is what I mean [about Jews controlling the world by proxy]. I stand by that view."
--Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, ex prime-minister of Malaysia, to the UK Guardian in 2005
The recent murder of yet another 10 year old Palestinian boy in Gaza by Israeli occupational forces, and the character of Israeli strip searches of Palestinians as reported by Alison Weir of If Americans Knew, are but the most recent evidence of the character of the Zionist regime supported by the United States since 1948.
Mark Glenn's August 4th post at Crescent and Cross on the "suicide" of Dr. Bruce Ivins, the late anthrax researcher stationed at Fort Dietrich, Maryland, is similarly suggestive, especially in light of Glenn Greenwald's recent reflections on the subject for Salon.
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.
The individual episodes in the composite model are a litany of carefully veiled crimes against both indigenous Palestinians and a largely unsuspecting American public whose political, military, and economic largesse has been skillfully siphoned off by an Israeli Lobby disproportionately influential in every arena of institutional life in the United States. The Begin/Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the assassination of Count Bernadotte, the ethnic cleansing and genocide at Deir Yassin, the Lavon Affair, the assassination of President Kennedy, the premeditated attack on the USS Liberty, Rafi Eitan's purloining of American nuclear secrets at Los Alamos in a joint Israeli-Communist Chinese espionage project involving PROMIS, the murder of UK media magnate Robert Maxwell, the Israeli utilization of cluster bombs in southern Lebanon in 2006, and the pivotal role of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) crowd in paving the way for the present American military prosecution of wars of counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, are noteworthy but far from exhaustive examples of a brand of criminal activity emanating from the Zionist State and annually subsidized by an American Congress to the tune of at least $5 billion a year. Pat Buchanan'scharacterization of the latter as "Zionist Occupied Territory" is clearly on target.
The next phase in the program of Eretz Yisrael is obviously an American-Israeli preemptive military strike on Iran. The predicted aerial raids on Iran, potentially with the employment of tactical nuclear weapons, are but an extension of a conflict that has already started in earnest. Philip Giraldi of The American Conservative has noted the execution of CIA-Mossad-MI6 black operations in Iranian Azerbaijan, Khuzestan, and Balochistan provinces in recent months. Economic sanctions against Tehran and its central banks have been widely reported by Bloomberg and The Asian Times. The publicized deployment of American aircraft carrier task forces in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz augment these other methodologies in the War of Nerves.
This War of Nerves has a new component in recent weeks: the introduction in the United States Congress of House Concurrent Resolution 362, sponsored by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N. Y.). The companion legislation in the United States Senate is Resolution 580, introduced by Sen. Evan Bayh (D.-Ind.). As pointed out by Rep. RonPaul (R-Tex.) in the July 28 American Free Press, the House legislative action is a "virtual Iran war resolution." That House Concurrent Resolution 362 is being promoted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is predictable.
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."
What has made this tragedy an apparent fait accompli? Many have suggested an intersection of interests has put Iran in the cross hairs. Has the Eretz Yisrael Lobby made common cause with transnational oil and gas consortiums thirsty for reserves, pipelines, and the compelling drive to destroy a Euro-denominated oil bourse created by Ahmadinejad?
One thing is guaranteed: the world will note that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPF), while Israel is not. Mr. Bush and Mr. Shaul Mofaz notwithstanding, the NPF grants Tehran the right under international law to enrich uranium for non-militarized purposes. Concurrently, it will be duly noted that the American National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) contradict the Neo-Conservative depiction of an imminently dangerous and weaponized Iranian nuclear program. And should the Iranian program be proven to have a military application downstream, another question will be begged: Why has the United States done nothing about the weaponized nuclear programs of India and Pakistan, much less the unrestrained nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons profile of Israel, while threatening Iran with preemptive apocalypse?
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.
A second ingredient of The Golem is the author's encyclopedic knowledge of the pro-Zionist, Neo-Conservative links of a labyrinthine maze of media outlets, politicians, think tanks, publishing houses, and Israeli assets operating within the American government and national security establishment. The reader will begin a life-long journey toward the truth and all of its derivative implications in simply engaging in Internet search of each tidbit of data provided in The Golem.
Names like Avigdor Lieberman, Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic, Admiral John S. McCain in conjunction with the USS Liberty incident, the American Technion Society (ATS), Magal Security Systems, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the U. S.-India League, Alan Keyes, Don Feder, Thomas Donnelly, Kenneth R. Timmerman, Clifford D. May, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the Committee on the Present Danger, the Jewish Institute for National Security Policy (JINSA), Clay Shaw, Permindex, James Angleton, Louis Bloomfield, Meyer Lansky, Edgar Bronfman, Arnan Milchan, Tibor Rosenbaum, the Banque De Credit Internationale of Geneva, Hyman "Hal" Larner, Frank Sturgis, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Abraham Foxman of the ADL, William Kristol of The Weekly Standard, Monica Lewinsky, Jennifer Laszlo Misrahi of The Israel Project, Rupert Murdoch, Newt Gingrich, Stephen Herbits, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz of Commentary magazine, Mortimer Zuckerman, Natan Sharansky, Joshua Muravchik, Dr. Earl Filford of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, the London-based Royal Institute on International Affairs, Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, Jack Kemp, and Frank Gaffney, are crucial to understanding the compelling thesis of Michael Collins Piper's tome--that the hammerlock on American foreign and domestic policy held by the Israeli Lobby is not simply the death knell of the Old American Republic, but a major tool in driving the planet toward global catastrophe.
The Golem offers a third contribution especially crucial to understanding the comprehensive consequences of the takeover of the American Right after World War II by pro-Zionist elements with fistfuls of Jewish cash--the treasured work of Lawrence Dennis (1893-1977), tabbed by Piper as "America's foremost nationalist theoretician" for the former's opposition to Zionist power, the emergence of nuclear weapons, and Wars for Empire enshrouded in utilitarian religious and theocratic auras. Piper's reproduction of the Dennis essay entitled, "The Biggest Crime of the 20th Century," occurs in chapter 30 and is must reading. Contrasting the prophetic Dennis warnings contained in the essay with the regular Neo-Conservative fanfare churned out by WorldNetDaily, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Human Events, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and The Washington Times, one is reminded that the Old Right's commitment to limited and Constitutional governance is antithetical to the Zionist-funded Neo-Conservative Right and the latter's infatuation with ongoing deployments of the American military as a surrogate janissary force for Israel and transnational corporations. Michael Collins Piper reminds the reader of Lawrence Dennis's warnings about domestic police states as a necessary corollary to governments bent on wars of imperialism abroad, even as attention is drawn anew, by the author, to the obvious fact that the Zionist State of Israel is the key ingredient in this self-destructive direction undertaken by the American governing elite.
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.
Other books commended by The Golem include:
The Mordechai Vanunu web page:
Dr. Francis Boyle: Destoying World Order
Jimmy Carter: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid
Matthias Chang: Brainwashed for War
Matthias Chang: Future Fastforward
Andrew and Leslie Cockburn: Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U. S.-Israeli Relationship
Avner Cohen: Israel and the Bomb (review of the Cohen book by Reuven Pedatzer in Ha'aretz, February 5, 1999

Avner Cohen: "The Last Taboo: Israel's Bomb Revisited" in Current History, April 2005

John Cooley: An Alliance Against Babylon: The U. S., Israel, and Iraq

Noah Efron: Real Jews: Secular vs. Ultra-Orthodox and the Struggle for Jewish Identity in Israel

Lt. Colonel Warner D. Farr (US Army): "The Third Temple's Holy of Holies: Israel's Nuclear Weapons" filed with the U. S. Air Force's Counterproliferation Center at the Air War College-Air University/Maxwell AFB, Alabama

Seymour Hersh: The Samson Option
Peter Hounam: U. S. S. Liberty: Dead in the Water
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)
Michael Karpin: The Bomb in the Basement: How Israel Went Nuclear and What That Means for the World
Donald McCormack: The Israeli Secret Service (nom de plume is Richard Deacon)
Michael Neumann: The Case Against Israel
John Perkins: Confessions of an Economic Hitman
Jacqueline Rose: The Question of Zion
Gus Russo: Supermob
Israel Shahak: Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Israel Shahak: Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies
(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. 

' 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. 

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. 

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 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. 

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. 


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." 

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). 

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)

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) 

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. 

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. 

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) 

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.

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. 

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. 

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?