Myra Bronstein
Unregistered
That eternal question: Do you think Watergate was directly related to the cover up of President Kennedy's murder? Yes or No.
Certainly if Nixon Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman is to be believed it was related. I don't know if he is to be believed.
http://www.watergate.info/tapes/72-06-23...-gun.shtml
" Nixon: When you get in these people when you...get these people in, say: "Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing..."
"In his memoir, The Ends of Power (1978), Haldeman claims that all the references in the tapes to "The Bay of Pigs thing", were coded references by Nixon:
In those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs [in the White House tapes] he [Nixon] was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination...After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic cover-up...The CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA...in fact, Counter Intelligence Chief James Angleton of the CIA called Bill Sullivan of the FBI (Number Three man under J. Edgar Hoover, who later died of a gunshot would) and rehearsed the questions and answers they would give to the Warren Commission investigators."
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.bac...dhunt.html
Please (please) feel free to elaborate, and or recommend related books.
Thanks.
Myra Bronstein
Unregistered
Posts: 3,965
Threads: 211
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
28-10-2008, 03:19 AM
(This post was last modified: 28-10-2008, 02:23 PM by Charles Drago.)
Myra,
I'd like to suggest delicately that the question is too broad and begs too many definitions. And its reasoning may be inverted.
Was the Watergate break-in executed, at least in part, to support (or expose -- no kidding) the JFK cover-up?
If we assume that Haldeman was telling the unvarnished truth, then it is more appropriate to conclude that the JFK assassination was invoked to support the Watergate cover-up.
The human connective tissue between these events are noted in the persons of Hunt, McCord, Barker, and Haig.
One of the two great scenes in Oliver Stone's Nixon dramatizes Tricky's reactions upon learning of Hunt's involvement. Anthony Hopkins plays it beautifully and delivers deep subtext.
My answer to this poll: yes and no.
CD
Posts: 16,099
Threads: 1,767
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
28-10-2008, 09:01 AM
(This post was last modified: 28-10-2008, 10:46 AM by Peter Lemkin.)
Charles Drago Wrote:Myra,
I'd like to suggest delicately that the question is too broad and begs too many definitions. And its reasoning may be inverted.
Was the Watergate break-in executed, at least in part, to support (or expose -- no kidding) the JFK cover-up?
If we assume that Haldeman was telling the unvarnished truth, then it is more appropriate to conclude that the JFK assassination was invoked to support the Watergate cover-up.
The human connective tissue between these events are noted in the persons of Hunt, McCord, Barker, and Haig.
One of the two great scenes in Oliver Stone's Nixon dramatizes Tricky's reactions upon learning of Hunt's involvement. Anthony Hopkins plays it beautifully and delivers deep subtext.
My answer to this poll: yes and no.
CD
Can you add the catagory 'in part'. I'd vote for 'in part'. There were apparently many motives and sub-plots, and they evolved, as the situation changed - as is usual in these sort of 'things'.
Myra Bronstein
Unregistered
Good point Peter. I added an option "Partly related."
It's my unfortunate tendency to overstate things as absolutes.
Myra Bronstein
Unregistered
Charles Drago Wrote:Myra,
I'd like to suggest delicately that the question is too broad and begs too many definitions. And its reasoning may be inverted.
Was the Watergate break-in executed, at least in part, to support (or expose -- no kidding) the JFK cover-up?
If we assume that Haldeman was telling the unvarnished truth, then it is more appropriate to conclude that the JFK assassination was invoked to support the Watergate cover-up.
The human connective tissue between these events are noted in the persons of Hunt, McCord, Barker, and Haig.
One of the two great scenes in Oliver Stone's Nixon dramatizes Tricky's reactions upon learning of Hunt's involvement. Anthony Hopkins plays it beautifully and delivers deep subtext.
My answer to this poll: yes and no.
CD
I never saw "Nixon" Charles. I'm quasi afraid that I'll feel disappointed in Stone after the perfection of "JFK." Is it worth seeing? Did it suggest that Watergate was related to the murder of President Kennedy?
I'm also wondering what's going on with Stone given that he has gone from the hard hitting "JFK" to the seemingly conventional "World Trade Center" to the seemingly pointless "W." (Ok, I'll admit to not having seen the last two.) Is he going soft? Is he the victim of mind control?
He's already done more for the JFK case than just about anyone. I'd just hate to lose him to the dark side.
(And thank you for your delicacy.)
Posts: 3,905
Threads: 200
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Myra Bronstein Wrote:I never saw "Nixon" Charles. I'm quasi afraid that I'll feel disappointed in Stone after the perfection of "JFK." Is it worth seeing? Did it suggest that Watergate was related to the murder of President Kennedy?
I'm also wondering what's going on with Stone given that he has gone from the hard hitting "JFK" to the seemingly conventional "World Trade Center" to the seemingly pointless "W." (Ok, I'll admit to not having seen the last two.) Is he going soft? Is he the victim of mind control?
He's already done more for the JFK case than just about anyone. I'd just hate to lose him to the dark side.
(And thank you for your delicacy.)
Myra: You should find Nixon, it is great. As to Stone, I saw him recently on Larry King and he got to plug JFK and say "conspiracy" with no one pulling the plug. It told me he has not gone soft at all, and with W he made clear that he tried to do a balance piece, not just another bash W film. The media so trashed him for JFK that perhaps he is attempting to regain his former rep. as a director, and then (perhaps?) people would go back and view JFK. Who knows, but he made clear that he is enormously proud of JFK. He should be!
Dawn
Posts: 3,965
Threads: 211
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Nixon is well worth the watching.
If you don't expect mere mimicry from Anthony Hopkins, you'll have an advantage going in.
It has been downhill for Stone since. W. is, from the standpoint of storytelling, an unmitigated disaster. This in spite of Josh Brolin's star turn in the title role.
The narrative is misshapen -- and that's being generous, insofar as the effort to detect even the faintest of story arc/contours in this travesty would test the mettle of a Joseph Campbell.
The only possible defense of W. -- and I'm stretching to the breaking point -- is that Stone chose to depict banality by recreating it.
Oooooh ... how postmodern!
Of course this ultimately doesn't wash; artistic depiction of chaos must be ordered for it to be artistic.
(I know you're out there, dadaists, so post away and I'll translate.)
Posts: 3,038
Threads: 437
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Charles Drago Wrote:Was the Watergate break-in executed, at least in part, to support (or expose -- no kidding) the JFK cover-up?
Bang on target, CD, and not for the first time!
Paul
Posts: 3,965
Threads: 211
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
You're very kind, Paul.
What we can say with certainty is that "Watergate," in all of its layers, meets Peter Dale Scott's definition of a deep political event. As such, we can expect nothing but surface skimming by mainstream journalists and the politicians who dare not leave the shallows.
|
