+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Historical Events (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: Allegations regarding "Butch" Merritt, Watergate, Intelligence Agencies and "Crimson Rose (/thread-6133.html)
Allegations regarding "Butch" Merritt, Watergate, Intelligence Agencies and "Crimson Rose - Linda Minor - 18-03-2011
By Kris Millegan
The Third Rail Part One
[HTML]Allegations regarding "Butch" Merritt, Watergate, Intelligence Agencies and "Crimson Rose, " Vol. IV
By Kris Millegan
The-Third-Railk
The Third Rail Part One
We've surely got trouble!
Right here in River City,
Right here!
Gotta figger out a way
To keep the young ones moral after school!
Meridith Wilson, Ya Got Trouble, "The Music Man"
Wikipedia states: The phrase third rail is a metaphor in politics to denote an idea or topic that is so "charged" and "untouchable" that any politician or public official who dares to broach the subject would invariably suffer politically.
The subject we are talking about is so charged that it doesn't even make the list of Wikipedia's examples of "hot button" issues.
The extraconstitutional importation of narcotics by the CIA, other intelligence agencies, and their "friends."
Officially, CIA-Drugs doesn't exist:
"We found absolutely no evidence to indicate that the CIA as an 
organization or its employees were involved in any conspiracy to bring 
drugs into the United States,"
CIA Inspector General Frederick R. Hitz, March 23, 1998
Alexander Cockburn and Jefferey St.Clair in Whiteout The CIA, Drugs and the Press, show the manipulation of our system to keep us hoi polloi befuddled and in the dark. As with the crime of blackmail, "strategy" is trumping ethics:
The Uncover-up
Down the decades the CIA has approached perfection in one particular art, which we might term the "uncover-up." This is a process whereby, with all due delay, the Agency first denies with passion, then concedes in profoundly muffled tones, charges leveled against it. Such charges have included the Agency's recruitment of Nazi scientists and SS officers; experiments on unwitting American citizens; efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro; alliances with opium lords in Burma, Thailand and Laos; an assassination program in Vietnam; complicity in the toppling of Salvador Allende in Chile; the arming of opium traffickers and religious fanatics in Afghanistan; the training of murderous police in Guatemala and EI Salvador; and involvement in drugs-and-arms shuttles between Latin America and the US.
The specific techniques of the uncover-up vary from instance to instance, but the paradigm is constant, as far back as Frank Wisner and his "mighty Wurlitzer" of CIA friendlies in the press. Charges are raised against the CIA. The Agency leaks its denials to favored journalists, who hasten to inform the public that after intense self-examination, the Agency has discovered that it has clean hands. Then, when the hubbub has died down, the Agency issues a report in which, after patient excavation, the resolute reader discovers that, yes, the CIA did indeed do more or less exactly what it had been accused of. Publicly, the Agency continues to deny what its report has reluctantly admitted. The accusations are initially referred to in the CIA-friendly press as "unfounded" or "overblown" or "unconfirmed," or - the final twist of the knife - "an old story." After the CIA denials, they become "discredited accusations" and usually, when the fuss has died down, they revert to their initial status of "unfounded" or even "paranoid" charges, put about by "conspiracy -mongers. "
Faithful to the "uncover-up" paradigm, the CIA passionately denied the allegations made by investigators including Gary Webb about the Agency's alliance with drug-smuggling Contras, its sponsorship and protection of their activities in running cocaine into the United States. Then came the solemn pledges of an intense and far-reaching investigation by the CIA's Inspector General. In his 1996 series of denials, CIA director John Deutch had promised that the Agency's Inspector General, Frederick Hitz, would conduct an internal review of all Agency files relevant to the issue and swiftly place the facts before the American people because of "the seriousness of the allegations and the need to resolve definitely any questions in this area."
Inspector General Hitz went to work. At first, Deutch pledged that Hitz would present his findings within three months. Ritz was unable to meet this schedule. For almost a year and a half there was silence, except for intermittent news tidbits in the Washington Post from the CIA's erstwhile apprentice Walter Pincus to the effect that the Inspector General's probe was turning up nothing on Norwin Meneses.
Then, on December 18, 1997, stories in the Washington Post by Walter Pincus and in the New York Times by Tim Weiner appeared simultaneously, both saying the same thing: Inspector General Ritz had finished his investigation. He had found "no direct or indirect" links between the CIA and the cocaine traffickers. As both Pincus and Weiner admitted in their stories, neither of the two journalists had actually seen the report whose conclusions they were purporting to relay to their readers. These two news stories were promptly picked up by the networks, all of which made great play with the news that the CIA was clean. It was at this point that Gary Webb announced that after negotiation, he and his newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News, were parting company.
Then, fully six weeks later, George Tenet, the CIA's new director, declared that he was releasing the Inspector General's report. Anyone listening to Tenet's announcement could have reasonably concluded that Weiner and Pincus had been accurate in their anticipatory news stories. Tenet boasted that "this has been the most extensive investigation ever undertaken by the Inspector General's office, requiring the review of 250,000 pages of documents and interviews with over 365 individuals. I am satisfied that the IG has left no stone unturned in his efforts to uncover the truth. I must admit that my colleagues and I are very concerned that the allegations made have left an indelible impression in many Americans' minds that the CIA was somehow responsible for the scourge of drugs in our inner cities. Unfortunately, no investigations - no matter how exhaustive - will completely erase that false impression or undo the damage that has been done. That is one of the most unfortunate aspects of all of this."
Tenet's assertions were duly reported. The actual report itself, so loudly heralded, received almost no examination. But those who took the time to examine the 149-page document found Inspector General Hitz making one damning admission after another. The report described a cable from the CIA's Directorate of Operations dated October 22,1982, describing a prospective meeting between Contra leaders in Costa Rica for "an exchange in [the US] of narcotics for arms."
The CIA's Directorate of Operations instructed its field office not to look into this imminent arms-for-drugs transaction "in the light of the apparent involvement of US persons throughout." In other words, the CIA knew that the Contras were scheduling a drugs-for-arms exchange, and the Agency was prepared to let the deal proceed. How did the Inspector General handle this cable, which on its face confirmed the central accusation made by investigators going back to Robert Parry, Brian Barger and Leslie Cockburn's first reports? The episode is buried deep in the report, itself written in sedative prose, and the Inspector General triumphantly concludes that the CIA was conducting itself in a proper manner, since any action against US citizens involved in the Costa Rica meeting would have breached the prohibition on activities by the CIA within the United States.
But all this is about the 1980s and '90s, and we're supposed to be talking about "Butch" Merritt, Watergate, Intelligence Agencies and "Crimson Rose."
Drugs, narcotics trafficking, that's Wategate's pre-game arena. That and psy-ops, but then they are different sides of the same coin, with many overlapping players and agendas. Of course there were other corruptions swirling around, assassinations, organized crime, honey traps, surveillance, but one causing the most internal strife and turf battles was drugs. It was the secrecy surrounding the drug operations (and the money, too). Secrecy was also the germ of another scandal relevant to Watergate, that's the Moorer-Radford spy ring, which we will look at later.
Before Watergate there were several quasi-official "sanctioned" drug pipelines, plus a few "cowboys," and then, after a couple of dance-moves, by the mid-1980s there appears to have been a "consolidation" of certain black-ops. Bringing organizational fortitude, mechanized money laundering, and official deflection.
Here is some earlier CIA-Drug history from author Doug Valentine in an August 19, 2007 interview with Susan Mazur:
Valentine: Angleton was key to understanding the CIA. Weiner hasn't detailed Angleton's relationship with the underworld through the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He hasn't gotten past CIA 101.
Angleton had his own mysterious agenda, counterintelligence, seeking out enemy agents inside the CIA. He had liaison to the Mafia through Charles Siragusa, a Federal Bureau of Narcotics agent and Mario Brod, a labor lawyer from Connecticut and New York, who as an Army counterintelligence officer had worked with Angleton at OSS Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the CIA.
As I say in the book [Strength of the Wolf], James Angleton alone possessed the coveted Israeli account. His loyalty was to the Director of Central Intelligence, Allen Dulles then Richard Helms, who was chief of Clandestine Services and later DCI. Director William Colby was his enemy.
Through Angleton's relationships with Italian royalty, Tibor Rosenbaum [Mossad agent], Charlie Siragusa [FBN agent], Hank Manfredi [FBN], and Mario Brod, he was certainly aware of Meyer Lansky's central role as the Mafia's banker in the Caribbean - where Lansky's mob associate from Las Vegas, Moe Dalitz, opened an account at Castle Bank - as well as in Mexico, where Angleton's friend, Winston M. Scott, was station chief, and certainly kept tabs on Lansky's associate, former Mexican president Miguel Aleman. As ever, Angleton and Lansky were the dark stars of the intelligence and financial aspects of international drug smuggling. Alan Block devotes some pages to this in his book, Masters of Paradise.
Angleton thought William Colby might be a mole. Angleton exposed the divisions within the CIA after 1966, the Colby vs. Helms factions. He also represented the literary sensibility the CIA once had, where finding secrets was like teasing the meaning out of a poem. Now we have sledgehammer spies.
==
Angleton ran the CIA's narcotics operation, in league with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, until 1971, when Helms put it under Tom Karamessines at operations; Karamessines was the former CIA Athens chief. [emphasis added]
I know for a fact that Angleton in the counterintelligence division of the CIA was in charge of its relations with law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which is one of the reasons organizationally that he ended up having relations with people like Charlie Siragusa, a high ranking official in the FBN. This is how Angleton enters into relationships with Corsican drug traffickers and uses them for counterintelligence operations.
I know this because I interviewed one of the officers who was on Angleton's staff and who actually was his liaison to the Bureau of Narcotics. And I'll be talking more about that in my new book, Strength of the Pack. The guy's name was Jim Ludlum. People say he's related to Robert Ludlum.
In 1968 the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was abolished and Lyndon Johnson's administration created the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Angleton and the CIA continued to have an official relationship with the BNDD until 1971, at which point Nixon declared narcotics law enforcement a national emergency and made it an issue of national security.
And at that point relations switched from Angleton at counterintelligence to the operations branch of the CIA. That's incredibly important in understanding the history of the CIA's involvement with drug trafficking, because now it's no longer a function of counterintelligence, something deep inside the Agency. Now you actually have CIA chiefs of station all around the world becoming actively involved in collecting intelligence on drug trafficking. It became in 1971 a very, very big business drug trafficking within the CIA. [emphasis added]
Suzan Mazur: When you say big business, what exactly do you mean?
Doug Valentine: There was a guy at the CIA who worked with the BNDD. Jim Ludlum then gave up his liaison relationship because he was counterintelligence and the new liaison was an operations officer. His name was Seymour Bolton, the father of Joshua Bolton now a high ranking official in the Bush administration.
What the CIA drug business is, is controlling how the DEA targets foreign drug traffickers. The CIA's drug business is the management of how the DEA conducts foreign investigations. The CIA reports directly to the president or the national security council and there are issues to consider in going after traffickers that transcend law enforcement and involve national security. Which is why Nixon made that change. Nixon did not want officials going off and investigating Chinese drug traffickers at the same time he was to trying to secretly form diplomatic relations with China. So he had to put the CIA in control of how the DEA mounted its foreign drug investigations.
Suzan Mazur: And what are your thoughts about that arrangement?
Doug Valentine: If you're going to go about the business of empire, creating an empire around the world, you don't want to put it in the hands of a law enforcement agency that's going to bust Salvador Allende yesterday and General Pinochet tomorrow.
You want to make sure they only bust Allende. And that Pinochet gets away with drug trafficking for 20 years.
How the CIA evolved over the past 60 years in all these different ways in relation to narcotics trafficking, to the media, in relation to foreign policy, etc. has enabled it to consolidate power. It's far from being out of business or in descent or rising from the ashes. It's more powerful than it ever was.
A March 11, 1980 affidavit from Colonel Cutulo given while he was the Commanding Officer of the 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), 1st Special Forces, Fort Devens, Massachusetts:
17. Mr. Edwin Wilson explained that it was considered that Operation Watch Tower might be compromised and become known if politicians, judicial figures, police and religious entities were approached or received word that U.S. Troops had aided in delivering narcotics from Columbia into Panama. Based on that possibility, intense surveillance was undertaken by my office to ensure if Watch Tower became known of, the U.S. government and the Army would have advance warning and could prepare a defense.
Edwin Wilson explained that Operation Watch Tower had to remain secret and gave these reasons: (1) If it became public knowledge it would undermine present governmental interests as well as those in the future. (2) There are similar operations being implemented elsewhere in the world. Wilson named the "Golden Triangle" of Southeast Asia and Pakistan. Wilson stated in both areas of the world the CIA and other intelligence agencies are using the illegal narcotics flow to support forces fighting to overthrow communist governments, or governments that are not friendly towards the U.S.. Wilson named several recognized officials of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Burma, Korea, Thailand and Cambodia as being aware and consenting to these arrangements, similar to the ones in Panama. (3) Wilson cited the military coup in Argentina in 1976, the coup in Peru in 1976, the fall of the Somoza Government in Nicaragua in 1979, and the growing civil war in El Salvador as examples of the need for operations like Watch Tower. As these operations funded the ongoing effort to combat communism and defeat actions directed against the United States or matters concerning the U.S.
73. Edwin Wilson explained that the profit from the sale of narcotics was laundered through a series of banks. Wilson stated that over 70% of the profits were laundered through the banks in Panama. The remaining percentage was funneled through Swiss banks with a small remainder being handled by banks within the U.S. Wilson indicated that a large portion of the profits are brought into the banks of Panama without being checked. I understood that some of the profits in Panamanian banks arrived through Israeli couriers. I became aware of that fact from normal conversations with some of the Embassy personnel assigned to the Embassy in Panama. Wilson also stated that an associate whom I don't know also aided in over seeing the laundering of funds, which was then used to purchase weapons to arm the various factions that the CIA saw as friendly towards the U. S. The associates name is Tom Clines. Wilson indicated that most of Operation Watch Tower was implemented on the authority of Clines.
74. I was notified by Edwin Wilson that the information forwarded to Wash. D.C., was disseminated to private corporations who were developing weapons for the Dept. of Defense. Those private corporations were encouraged to use the sensitive information gathered from surveillance on U.S. Senators and Representatives as leverage to manipulate those Congressmen into approving whatever costs the weapons systems incurred.
75. Edwin Wilson named three weapons systems when he spoke of private corporations receiving information from Operation Orwell. (1) An armored vehicle. (2) An aircraft that is invisible to radar. (3) A weapons system that utilizes kinetic energy. I got the impression this weapon was being developed either for use by Nasa or for CBR purposes. I wrote down what I recalled at the time and it is attached.
76. Edwin Wilson indicated to me during our conversation while entailed the dissemination of Operation Orwell information and the identification of the three weapons systems, that Operation Orwell would be implemented nationwide by 4 July 1980.
77. As of the date of this affidavit, 8,400 police departments, 1,370 churches, and approx. 17,900 citizens have been monitored under Operation Orwell. The major churches targeted have been Catholic and Latter-Day Saints. I have stored certain information gathered by Operation Orwell on Ft. Devens, and pursuant to instructions from Edwin Wilson have forwarded additional information gathered to Wash. D.C.
78. Per orders from Edwin Wilson, I did not discuss the implementation of Operation Orwell with my staff or others outside of the personnel assigned to surveillance. The only matter discussed with Operation Orwell personnel was what the SATs needed to know in order to carry out their mission. Certain information was collected on suspected members of the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg group. Among those that information was collected on were Gerald Ford and President Jimmy Carter. Edwin Wilson indicated that additional surveillance was implemented against former CIA director George Bush, who Wilson named as a member of the Trilateral Commission. I do not have personal knowledge that Ford, Carter or Bush were under surveillance.
79. I spoke to Col. James N. Rowe on 5 March 1980. I specifically requested that Col. Rowe communicate with several contacts he has within the CIA. I asked Col. Rowe to check out Edwin Wilson. I had two concerns. The first was that Edwin Wilson may pose a threat to National Security by disseminating classified information on the CIA's activities to personnel without a clearance or a need to know that information. Edwin Wilson, during his conversations with me, outlined information that was classified and to which I had no need to know. Information that pertained to the activities of the CIA in the U.S. and Latin America. I've related such conversations with Wilson herein. The second concern I had was the issue of his authority and connection to Thomas Clines. I was told repeatedly that Clines was the agent in charge and that Wilson worked with Clines. Col. Rowe indicated that he would make inquiries I requested and would contact me with that information as soon as he had something. Col. Rowe indicated that it would be 60 to 90 days before he would speak to the CIA contact that was most apt to have knowledge of the information I requested. I agreed to meet Col. Rowe on Ft. Bragg the next week in June in the event Col. Rose received documentation relating to the information I sought.
80. On 7 March 1980 Col. Rowe contacted me. During the course of our conversation Col. Rowe informed me that his initial inquiries with CIA contacts confirmed that Edwin Wilson was working for Thomas Clines at the times in question. Col. Rowe indicated that Edwin Wilson was under scrutiny by the CIA at that time but had not been given the details of the circumstances surrounding the events of that matter. Col. Rowe also indicated that there was an Israeli aspect to the matter involving Edwin Wilson and Col. Rowe provided the name of David Kimche as being the Israeli most likely to be involved with Edwin Wilson. In regards to my concerns that Edwin Wilson posed a possible threat to national security or to the inner working of the CIA, Col. Rowe indicated that off the record, that was a concern of several people to whom he had spoken. Col. Rowe also indicated that he would be in receipt of documentation by the first week of June which listed Edwin Wilson's involvement in several operations. I specifically asked Col. Rowe if he had the names of any of those operations at this time and his reply was in the negative. Col. Rowe did indicate that it was his understanding that each operation had basically the same characters involved and Col. Rowe named two other individuals involved with Edwin Wilson. Col. Rowe named Robert Gates and William J. Casey as officials who had been named in the documentation he would acquire prior to our scheduled meeting on June 1980.
We will run into Edwin Wilson again a bit later.
An affidavit from a CIA-operative Gene Tatum:
GeneTatum
I could go on and on and on, pages and pages with documents and commentary about the reality of CIA-Drugs.
But, as NY Times Magazine reporter David Suskind wrote (the aide was later identified as Karl Rove):
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that realityjudiciously, as you willwe'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Creating realities is simply another term for psy-ops.
Empire and strategy trump ethics!
When did the US become an empire?
After Gary Webb was savaged in 1996? Or later in 2004, when he shot himself twice in the head with a '38?
Cia-Drugs is now a non-subject, a third rail. Something no newspaper or journalist will even broach.
By design or simple happenstance?
Gary_Webb
Gary Webb
to be continued …
Written by Kris Millegan
17
Mar
2011
Allegations regarding "Butch" Merritt, Watergate, Intelligence Agencies and "Crimson Rose," Vol. III
Allegations regarding "Butch" Merritt, Watergate, Intelligence Agencies and "Crimson Rose, " Vol. III
By Kris Millegan
Agnostics for Nixon, Part Two
…"the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again. And, ah because these people are plugging for, for keeps and that they should call the FBI in and say that we wish for the country, don't go any further into this case," period!
President Nixon, White House Tapes, June 23, 1972
The evidence for Nixon being, by trade, a blackmailer is not very hard to find. It seemed second nature to him. Blackmail, as shown in the above transcript, was a way to solve things.
The use of blackmail as a tactic, was so much of his personality that it appeared to be mirrored back to him in his loyal aides:
HR "Bob Haldeman: You may just blackmail [former President Lyndon] Johnson on this stuff
President Nixon: What?
Haldeman: You can blackmail Johnson on this stuff, and it might be worth doing.
President Nixon: How?
Haldeman: The bombing-halt stuff is all in the same file. Or in some of the same hands.
---
Haldeman: We have a basic history of it constructed our own, but thethere is a file on it.
President Nixon: Where?
Haldeman: [White House Aide Tom Charles] Huston swears to God there's a file on it at [the] Brookings [Institution].
Kissinger: I wouldn't be surprised.
President Nixon: All right, all right, all right. Do you remember
Haldeman: In the hands of the same kind
President Nixon: Bob
Haldeman: the same people.
President Nixon: Bob, now you remember Huston's plan? Implement it.
Kissinger: But couldn't we go overnow, Brookings has no right to have classified documents.
President Nixon: [Unclearoverlapping voices.] You know, I mean, I want it implemented on a thievery basis. Goddamn it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.
Haldeman: They may very well have cleaned them by now, with this thing getting to
Kissinger: Well, I wouldn't be surprised if Brookings had the files.
Haldeman: Well, my point is, Johnson knows that those files are around. He doesn't know for sure that we don't have them.
Kissinger: But what good will it do you, the bombing-halt file?
Haldeman: The bombing halt
President Nixon: To blackmail him
Haldeman: the bombing halt
President Nixon: because he used the bombing halt for political purposes.
Conversation 525-001, June 17, 1971, Oval Office
http://whitehousetapes.net/exhibit/first-domino-nixon-and-pentagon-paper
NIxOval
President Nixon meets with chief advisers in the Oval Office, 03/13/1970
Nixon had no problem blackmailing a former President of the United States.
So what is blackmail?
According to Wiki:
Blackmail is the act of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand is met. This information is usually of an embarrassing, socially damaging, and/or incriminating nature. As the information is substantially true, the act of revealing the information may not be criminal in its own right nor amount to a civil law defamation; it is the making of demands in exchange for withholding the information that is often considered a crime. English Law creates a much broader definition of blackmail, covering any unwarranted demands with menaces, whether involving revealing information or not. However, from a libertarian perspective, blackmail is not always considered a crime. Some libertarians point out that it is licit to gossip about someone else's secret, to threaten to publicly reveal such information, and to ask that person for money, but it is illegal to combine the threat with the request for money, which raises the question, "Why do two rights make a wrong?"
Blackmail is a form of extortion, in which a threat is made to disclose a crime or social disgrace. Extortion is the taking of personal property by threat of future harm.
18 U.S.C. § 873 states, "Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
From http://koehlerlaw.net/assault-theft/extortionblackmail/:
There are two elements to the criminal offense of extortion in Washington, D.C. First, the person needs to obtain or seek to obtain the property of another with the person's consent. Second, the other person's consent needs to have been coerced through "actual or threatened violence or by wrongful threat of economic injury."
Blackmail also has two elements. The first relates to criminal intent. That is, the person needs to intend to obtain property from someone else or to cause the other person to do or refrain from doing something. Second, in order to achieve the intended goal, the person needs to threaten either: (1) to accuse the other person of a crime, (2) to expose a secret or asserted fact that could subject the other person to "hatred, contempt, or ridicule," or (3) to damage the other person's reputation.
The maximum penalty for a conviction for extortion is a $10,000 fine and/or imprisonment for 10 years. The maximum penalty for blackmail is a $1000 fine and/or imprisonment for not more than 5 years. D.C. Criminal Code 22-3251; D.C. Criminal Code 22-3252.
Well, there are those that say the President is above the law.
Just for a sidebar giggle look at the below, kind of ironic:
Accession Number : AD0672250
Title : THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF BLACKMAIL
Corporate Author : RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA
Personal Author(s) : Ellsberg, Daniel
Handle / proxy Url : http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD672250
Report Date : JUL 1968
Pagination or Media Count : 41
Abstract : An examination of the anatomy of blackmail, policy, risks, deterrence, the scope, the art of.
Descriptors : *APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, DECISION MAKING, LIFE EXPECTANCY(SERVICE LIFE), PREDICTIONS, STRENGTH(PHYSIOLOGY), GAME THEORY, PROPAGANDA, MONEY, SELECTION, PROBABILITY, MATHEMATICAL LOGIC, THREAT EVALUATION
Subject Categories : PSYCHOLOGY
Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Aha, it's not a crime, it's a strategy. Strategy trumps ethics it appears.
OK, so what, President Nixon was a blackmailer. He was a bad man and went bye-bye. Yippee!
Well, not quite, you see in blackmail, you have at least two sides, the blackmailer and the person or persons getting blackmailed, and sometimes even more sides. First the blackmail itself may have a side, especially if the blackmail is a person, instead of some tape or other incriminating evidence, and then there may be others that discover the blackmail and hijack the operation for their own ends.
The blackmailed person, what do they do? Do they simply submit and give the blackmailer whatever they want? Forever?
Or could a blackmailed person figure out how to use the situation to their best advantage. Because once a person blackmails someone, they are now involved in a symbiotic relationship beyond, "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." Their secrets become your secrets, their future becomes your future, their friends become your "friends." If the blackmailer uses his dirt, he kills the goose that lays his golden eggs.
prescott-ike55a
Ike and his best golfing buddy, Prescott Bush
How did Nixon's star rise so fast? Elected to the US House and six years later vice-president of the United States. I don't think it was his LA mob friends that got him all the press and juicy gigs. Speaking of juice, Nixon sure kept giving out plums to George Herbert Walker Bush, Prescott's boy. After losing a US senate race, George was appointed to serve as the US Ambassador to the UN, then, chairman of the Republican National Committee, and the very first envoy to China. I am sure the jobs came because of Bush's vast experience.
Bush was considered for the position of Vice-President under Gerald Ford, eventually accepting to serve as the Director of Central Intelligence, another job Bush received even though his résumé for the position was rather thin.
Back to blackmail and Watergate, there was an interesting squiggle before the Watergate Scandal took down President Nixon, The Townhouse Affair, where a White House Staffer working out of a basement took in money, put it in the bank, converted it to cashier checks and distributed it to Republican faithful.
The strangest part was when higher-ups had that staffer, Jack Gleason, flying around the country giving an extra $6,000 in cash-stuffed envelopes directly to candidates, with the message, "From Dick and Pat."
Gleason testified in 1973 to the Watergate Special Prosecutor:
The purpose of these contributions was to set up possible blackmail for these candidates later on.
Russ Baker in Family Secrets (highly recommended) looked into the Townhouse affair deeply and came away with a thesis, with evidence backing it up, that the Townhouse affair hadn't been directed by Nixon and was used to embroil him in a scandal, that wasn't sexy enough to garner attention, but the next act, Watergate, hit a home run and Nixon was gone.
Russ Baker, author of Family Secrets states:
I found that the very people who created Nixon and used him to advance their own political interests ended up destroying him.
But why get rid of Nixon then, why risk the exposure? What was going on?
Watergate was all about endgame, but the warm-up activities were intriguing. And the game itself wasn't exactly an organic event. Watergate was psy-op.
As John Kennedy said, "Things do not happen. Things are made to happen."
BushNixony
to be continued …
Written by Kris Millegan
16
Mar
2011
Allegations regarding "Butch" Merritt, Watergate, Intelligence Agencies and "Crimson Rose, " Vol. II
Allegations regarding "Butch" Merritt, Watergate, Intelligence Agencies and "Crimson Rose, " Commentary No. II
By Kris Millegan
Agnostics for Nixon, Part One
I am being the devil's advocate …
President Nixon, White House Tapes, March 13, 1973
Richard Milhous Nixon tried to be his own man, yes, sometimes he was the creature of others, but at the end of the day, he attempted to run his own show … and lost. You see, Tricky Dicky was a blackmailer.
Nixon's political career began when he was elected to the 80th Congress in 1947 along with 107 other freshmen representatives, including future rival John F. Kennedy, future speaker Carl Albert and future senators Jacob Javitts and George Smathers. There they joined future president Lyndon Johnson, who had been in the House since 1939. In 1949 LBJ moved on to the Senate, just when another future president Gerald Ford showed up to serve in the House of Representatives.
Nixon1947July 1947 Washington, DC Senator Richard M. Nixon sitting at table during Congressional appraisal on Un-American Activities Committee.
Just as Richard Nixon tells several different stories about where he was when President Kennedy was assassination, there are several different tales about how Nixon became involved in politics.
In the 1979 Memoirs of Richard Nixon, he writes about receiving a letter from the manager of the Whittier branch of the Bank of America, Herman Perry:
Dear Dick, Do you want to run for the Republican ticket? Airmail me your reply.
HL Perry
And at the Nixon Library website they glorify the anniversary date of the famous letter as September 29, 1945 and Nixon's reply of October 6, 1945, where he writes, "I feel very strongly that Jerry Voorhis can be beaten and I'd welcome the opportunity to take a crack at him." The website states "Nixon was a young up-and-coming attorney, a graduate of Duke University Law School, and a naval officer during World War II who had returned to his hometown of Whittier to work at an established law firm"
Conrad Black writes in 2008 in Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full, that Nixon telephone Perry on October 1st and then wrote his letter on October 2.
In Nixon by Nixon admirer Ralph De Toledano written in 1956, we learn about an ad placed in 26 newspapers by a Committee of One Hundred Men:
WANTED -- Congressman candidate with no previous political experience to defeat a man who has represented the district in the House for ten years. Any young man, resident of district, preferably a veteran, fair education, no political strings or obligations and possessor of a few ideas for betterment of country at large may apply for the job. Applicants will be reviewed by 100 interested citizens who will guarantee support but will not obligate the candidate in any way.
De Toledano's Nixon says the first contact was by phone, that Nixon received a telephone call from Perry, and was he asked "Are you a Republican and are you available?," while Nixon was still living in Maryland and in the Navy.
NixNavy
What did Nixon do in the Navy? Again there are many different versions.
Read more...
Written by Kris Millegan
15
Mar
2011
CRIMSON ROSE AND THE SECRET OF THE TWO KEYS
CRIMSON ROSE AND THE SECRET OF THE TWO KEYS
By Douglas Caddy
"I must tell you that I am disturbed about what we don't know about the Watergate break-in and that I am convinced that what we don't know about the Watergate break-in may well be more important than what we do know twenty years after."
-- Howard Liebengood, Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, in an A&E Investigative Report "The Key to Watergate" broadcast in 1992
When in early 1977 I began reading an article in the national gay publication, The Advocate, I had no inkling that 39 years later my doing so would lead to unraveling what really happened in Watergate. Watergate was mostly a spent scandal, or so I thought, as did most Americans. It began with five burglars being arrested inside the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate Office complex on June 17, 1972, and ended with twelve men being sent to prison for the break-in and subsequent cover-up and with President Richard Nixon being forced to resign from office in disgrace.
The Advocate published the lengthy article, "Revelations of a Gay Informant" in two parts in its February 23 and March 9, 1977 issues. The subject of the revelations was Robert "Butch" Merritt, who in January 1970 at the age of 26 had been recruited by the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department to become a Confidential Informant (CI). Soon thereafter the FBI and other law enforcement agencies also enrolled him as a CI. Over time, his handlers would order him to infiltrate, disrupt and spy on hundreds of organizations and individuals that they, or "the government", had arbitrarily targeted as threats to national security. The list is long and diverse and includes groups such as the New left, liberal, right-wing, Nazi, women's lib, homosexual, and civil rights and individuals ranging from Members of Congress to Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert Kennedy.
Washington Police Detective Carl Shoffler was the officer who enrolled Robert Merritt as a CI. Shoffler would become famous some two years later as the police officer who arrested the five Watergate burglars. His true role in Watergate will be explained shortly one which turns the entire scandal on its head.
As I read The Advocate article I was overwhelmed with the amount of detail it contained about Merritt's CI activities as told by Merritt himself. As I neared its end I was startled to read the following:
"Two days after the Watergate burglary, Carl Shoffler (one of Merritt's former police contacts) turned up with Sgt. [Paul] Leeper (these officers had been two of the three to have arrested the burglars) with what Merritt recalls as an offer of the biggest, most important assignment' he'd ever had.
"The officers, Merritt said, asked if he knew one of the Watergate attorneys. They said he was gay.' Merritt did not. They asked if I could get to know him. I asked them why. We'd like you to get as close to him as possible,' they said, to find out all you can about his private life, even what he eats.' Merritt says he explained that even if the attorney was gay, it wouldn't be likely that he could arrange to meet him. The officers, Merritt asserts, offered him the money to frequent the type of place a well-to-do homosexual might visit. They said I would be paid quite well, that they weren't talking about dimes and quarters that they were talking about really big money."
"Merritt says he refused the offer, but the police kept returning to him with the same request, as late as December 1972, months after the police claimed to have ended their Watergate investigation."
I was surprised because I realized that I was the gay attorney who had been targeted, even though my name was not mentioned. This was the first time I became aware that my sexuality was mentioned in connection with my being the attorney for the five arrested burglars, and for Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy, who were not arrested at the crime scene. I was shocked because, although I was sexually active, I had fastidiously remained closeted. Even my employers over the years, closest friends and college roommates did not know I was gay.
I was to learn decades later that Merritt had discussed my being gay in another lengthy interview that he gave to The Daily Rag, a respected alternative Washington, D.C. newspaper, long before The Advocate story appeared. Its October 5-12, 1973, issue carried the banner headline, "FBI Informer Confesses." Its opening paragraph trumpeted, "With the disclosure of Robert Merritt's role as an FBI and Metropolitan Police informer, the reality of police surveillance of active community groups and illegal police activity in the District is confirmed. Such groups as the D.C. Statehood Party, RAP, Common Cause, Off Our Backs, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Gay Activists Alliance have been under surveillance. While the information Merritt provides on widespread police intelligence is substantial, it leaves open many questions as to what else is going on."
Further inside the article the word "Watergate" appears outlined in a black box with the following written underneath it:
"What was your contact with the Watergate affair?" The article continued…
"In June 1972, a few days after the Watergate break-in and arrests, MPDC Intelligence [Officers Carl] Shoffler and [Paul] Leeper approached me and tried to get me to do one last job. They said it was the most important thing I had ever done, that it was for my country….
"They wanted me to get close to Douglas Caddy [the lawyer for the burglars caught inside the Watergate], who was gay. They wanted me to get to know him socially, sexually or any other way. They said he had been born in Cuba, that he liked Cubans and was associated with communist causes.
"Sgts. Shoffler and Leeper were among the arresting officers of the burglars inside Watergate, and one of the first witnesses before the Senate Watergate Committee. Leeper testified second and Shoffler third, if memory serves.
"When Leeper was on the stand, I saw him on television, he was asked one question at the end of his testimony, have there been any attempts at further investigation of the break-in?' He answered no.' That was not true."
I had not seen the article in The Daily Rag when it was published in 1973. However, after I read the article in The Advocate in 1977, I said to myself that Merritt undoubtedly had an incredible story to tell about Watergate. Yet the years rolled by without reading anything further about what he might know. Then out of the blue in May 2008, I received a telephone call from Merritt who wanted to know if I would help him write a book about what he knew and the world did not know about Watergate. I agreed without hesitation because in the back of my mind I still felt he had something vitally important to say. My only proviso was that the book also had to carry my own story about Watergate, which had never been fully or accurately reported.
So we began work on the book, which was published by TrineDay earlier this year. Its title is Watergate Exposed: How the President of the United States and the Watergate Burglars Were Set Up as told to me as original attorney for the Watergate Seven by Merritt in his capacity as a CI to the FBI and Washington, D.C. Police Department.[/HTML]