Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 53 years later and folks are still trying to figure out why Watergate?

  1. #1

    Default 53 years later and folks are still trying to figure out why Watergate?

    Here's the truth...

    These are the mistakes I try and get the author to understand that what they are writing is not true, I'm never successful in doing so. First the author says, "what was the real role of the spy agency in Nixon’s downfall? That article doesn’t answer it. But I did—in my book, Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years.

    [One of the major revelations] is that, decades before George H.W. Bush was named CIA director as a purported outsider, he was already involved with CIA covert operations."


    - See more at: http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/05/07/wat....NzArxVhr.dpuf

    As if the entire blame for Watergate is because of Bush. Certainly the author has it in for Bush. I suppose it's best to come up with their own theory.

    Here's the truth folks,

    The reason for Watergate is because Nixon shut down the CIA's operations into Cuba, Nixon shut it all down in 1969, there were thirty remaining frogmen stationed in Moa Bay Cuba infiltrating Cuba, Eugenio Martinez was among the thirty frogmen.

    Helms felt the pressure from Nixon to release ALL the documents on the BOP 1970-71, and the CIA wanted to keep that information secret. To this very day the fifth volume on the BOP which is the investigation part conducted by the agency themselves remains [secret] fifty three years later they are still classified as "Top Secret". Nixon survived not one, but two failed assassination attempts, both attempts failed when my father went to the FBI and informed them of such plans.

    Bush and his affairs with the agency prior to Watergate had absolutely nothing to do with Watergate, however, this author of WhoWhatandWhy believes is the reason for blaming Bush for Watergate. That's NOT true! Bush had nothing to do with Watergate. He did however, have everything to do with monitoring all the information and documents including testimonies and [clean up crew] as DCI in the CIA the HSCA would receive.

    Sense Eugenio Martinez tells me the reason for Watergate which he knew was a set up to have Nixon removed from office because Nixon shut down the CIA infiltrations into Cuba, then I'm going to believe him over any researcher that comes up with their own theory.

    There you have it! The truth, food for thought.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Kaiser View Post
    Here's the truth...

    These are the mistakes I try and get the author to understand that what they are writing is not true, I'm never successful in doing so. First the author says, "what was the real role of the spy agency in Nixon’s downfall? That article doesn’t answer it. But I did—in my book, Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years.

    [One of the major revelations] is that, decades before George H.W. Bush was named CIA director as a purported outsider, he was already involved with CIA covert operations."


    - See more at: http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/05/07/wat....NzArxVhr.dpuf

    As if the entire blame for Watergate is because of Bush. Certainly the author has it in for Bush. I suppose it's best to come up with their own theory.

    Here's the truth folks,

    The reason for Watergate is because Nixon shut down the CIA's operations into Cuba, Nixon shut it all down in 1969, there were thirty remaining frogmen stationed in Moa Bay Cuba infiltrating Cuba, Eugenio Martinez was among the thirty frogmen.

    Helms felt the pressure from Nixon to release ALL the documents on the BOP 1970-71, and the CIA wanted to keep that information secret. To this very day the fifth volume on the BOP which is the investigation part conducted by the agency themselves remains [secret] fifty three years later they are still classified as "Top Secret". Nixon survived not one, but two failed assassination attempts, both attempts failed when my father went to the FBI and informed them of such plans.

    Bush and his affairs with the agency prior to Watergate had absolutely nothing to do with Watergate, however, this author of WhoWhatandWhy believes is the reason for blaming Bush for Watergate. That's NOT true! Bush had nothing to do with Watergate. He did however, have everything to do with monitoring all the information and documents including testimonies and [clean up crew] as DCI in the CIA the HSCA would receive.

    Sense Eugenio Martinez tells me the reason for Watergate which he knew was a set up to have Nixon removed from office because Nixon shut down the CIA infiltrations into Cuba, then I'm going to believe him over any researcher that comes up with their own theory.

    There you have it! The truth, food for thought.
    Have you actually read the book?

    Dawn

  3. #3

    Default

    I agree that Baker is too preoccupied with blaming the Bushes for everything, though Family of Secrets is still a good book.

    I think that Watergate, like the JFK assassination, on the surface appears to be only about Cuba. But with both JFK and Nixon there were many hardliners (not just in the CIA) unhappy with their foreign policies and wanting them removed from office. Spiro Agnew would have been a much more hardline President if his past scandals hadn't caught up with him.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tracy Riddle View Post
    I agree that Baker is too preoccupied with blaming the Bushes for everything, though Family of Secrets is still a good book.

    I think that Watergate, like the JFK assassination, on the surface appears to be only about Cuba. But with both JFK and Nixon there were many hardliners (not just in the CIA) unhappy with their foreign policies and wanting them removed from office. Spiro Agnew would have been a much more hardline President if his past scandals hadn't caught up with him.

    I concur with everything Tracy says, and no Dawn, I have not read his book, I'm sure it's quite fascinating, I said what I've said only because it was of my opinion that Baker seems to be preoccupied with blaming the Bushes for everything. I am using Tracy's words who puts it more eloquently than I could.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tracy Riddle View Post
    I agree that Baker is too preoccupied with blaming the Bushes for everything, though Family of Secrets is still a good book.

    I think that Watergate, like the JFK assassination, on the surface appears to be only about Cuba. But with both JFK and Nixon there were many hardliners (not just in the CIA) unhappy with their foreign policies and wanting them removed from office. Spiro Agnew would have been a much more hardline President if his past scandals hadn't caught up with him.

    Yes, I had to read Tracy's answer over a few times so it would really sink in. And, I completely agree with what Tracy is saying. I also touch on this subject in my upcoming book about Nixon's change of heart and their [foreign policies] Nixon and Kissinger both entered into with China, Russia as well as Cuba.

    Researchers, scholars, history teachers, journalist, and so on are all to familiar with Nixon's background as VP to Eisenhower. Most folks know Nixon helped established Operation 40, and knows Nixon was not fond of Castro nor communism.

    I would like to share with you my opinion about Nixon. Nixon, like Castro are quite similar in ways, Castro, appeared to receive United States backing learning that Battista the dictator of Cuba was very corrupt, he would take payment under the table by the ruling Mob whose businesses raked in millions of dollars a year. The United States since the early 20's had announced war on the ruling mob as well as communism and dictatorship in the 60's, drugs coming out of Cuba would soon play the part on the war against drugs.

    Castro informed the United States as well as the Cuban people that Cuba would hold free elections within six months of Castro taking over Cuba, Castro also informed the United States that he would abolish crime, the mob and reduce the amount of drugs coming in from Cuba to the United States.

    When Castro triumphantly rode into Havana following Che Guevara Castro's real plans would soon come to fruition. No one realized what Castro's real plans would be until he seized, and conquered his objectives, and that was to gain the power and backing of the United States, then the rest is history. At that time, when the United States realized they were duped into believing Castro would create a democracy in Cuba, his plans were to ultimately [divide and conquer], separate himself from the United States, and conquer Cuba.

    Now, here is where Nixon is also very similar to Castro, Nixon appeared to be a hardliner against communism, in-fact, Nixon supported the Bay of Pigs operation, so who better to have in office if his plan was inline with the anti-Castro's groups throughout the Southern part of the United States? Nixon and Kissinger both played a dominant role in the United States foreign policy to stop the Vietnam War. In-fact it Was Nixon who had the paperwork drawn up to have the troops return home. Both Nixon and Kissinger pioneered the policy of detente with the Soviet Union, they both orchestrated the opening of relations with the People's Republic of China and negotiated the Paris Peace Accords. Kissinger played a role in the bombing of Cambodia and other American intervention abroad.

    Frank Sturgis considered Nixon and Kissinger both to be "communist lovers". So, how does any of this have to do with Nixon and Castro being similar? Why for instance, Castro said he would hold free elections and Cuba would become a democratic country, [he lied], and Nixon played a huge role in trying to exterminate communism just 90 miles away from the Florida Keys. So, it was not hard to decide who should be in office, Nixon was elected in with the high hopes of the anti-Castro groups that they would have another chance at invading Cuba, it didn't happen, as soon as the CIA and Nixon started to butt heads Nixon shut it all down.

    Now, because of the CIA's successful mission in assassinating JFK assassinating Castro would prove to be a breeze, but Castro knowing that the United States wanted him dead would be one step ahead of everyone. Castro had his men infiltrate anti-Castro groups, the CIA, FBI, DEA and every other three letter agency. Ricardo Cabrera was one of Castro's high level G-2 men that had infiltrated my father's group the Cubanos Unidos.

    Getting back to Nixon, although all the Cubans living in Miami and elsewhere had high hopes with Nixon, Nixon like Castro fooled everyone, the infiltrations stopped, arrests were made, and the DEA was created.

    Though the CIA was successful in Kennedy's assassination, setting up Oswald as their pasty, the CIA was not successful in assassinating Castro nor were they successful in nearly assassinating Nixon.

    Yes, the CIA's assassination ratios has been greater than their misfortune and disappointments of unsuccessful attempts, but that's what the CIA is in business for other then intelligence gathering, and that is [political assassinations].


    /srk
    Last edited by Scott Kaiser; 08-10-2014 at 11:13 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •