Robert Parry: Rethinking Watergate/Iran-Contra

[marmar]

from Consortium News:


Rethinking Watergate/Iran-Contra
March 9, 2013

Special Report: New evidence continues to accumulate showing how Official Washington got key elements of the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals wrong, especially how these two crimes of state originated in treacherous actions to secure the powers of the presidency, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry


A favorite saying of Official Washington is that “the cover-up is worse than the crime.” But that presupposes you accurately understand what the crime was. And, in the case of the two major U.S. government scandals of the last third of the Twentieth Century – Watergate and Iran-Contra – that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Indeed, newly disclosed documents have put old evidence into a sharply different light and suggest that history has substantially miswritten the two scandals by failing to understand that they actually were sequels to earlier scandals that were far worse. Watergate and Iran-Contra were, in part at least, extensions of the original crimes, which involved dirty dealings to secure the immense power of the presidency.

In the case of Watergate – the foiled Republican break-in at the Democratic National Committee in June 1972 and Richard Nixon’s botched cover-up leading to his resignation in August 1974 – the evidence is now clear that Nixon created the Watergate burglars out of his panic that the Democrats might possess a file on his sabotage of Vietnam peace talks in 1968.

Shortly after Nixon took office in 1969, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover informed him of the existence of the file containing national security wiretaps documenting how Nixon’s emissaries had gone behind President Lyndon Johnson’s back to convince the South Vietnamese government to boycott the Paris Peace Talks, which were close to ending the Vietnam War in fall 1968. ..................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/09/rethinking-watergateiran-contra/

[oldhippydude]

1. link is worth the read....

ties down a lot of stuff..

[Hissyspit]

28. Newly discovered documents at the Reagan presidential library reveal that Reagan’s neocons at the St

Newly discovered documents at the Reagan presidential library reveal that Reagan’s neocons at the State Department – particularly Robert McFarlane and Paul Wolfowitz – initiated a policy review in 1981 to allow Israel to undertake secret military shipments to Iran. McFarlane and Wolfowitz also maneuvered to put McFarlane in charge of U.S. relations toward Iran and to establish a clandestine U.S. back-channel to the Israeli government outside the knowledge of even senior U.S. government officials.

[JDPriestly]

2. K&R.

Puts lots of things into doubt. Have we been told the truth about the Kennedy assassination? About 9/11?

The Republicans cannot be trusted. That is for sure.

[rhett o rick]

3. Are you questioning the validity of what we've been told on, er..you know 9/11?

Be careful the CT police will get you.

[Berlum]

31. "Smirk." - George AWOL Bush (R)

[rhett o rick]

34. The Dim-Son is thinking, "Shit, is this the surprise Cheney mentioned?"

Or, "I think that last taco was one too many."


I wonder if Dim-Son ever figured out that he didnt choose Cheney as his vice president, he was maneuvered into it. How stupid is he really.

[Myrina]

49. More like how Cheney and Poppy agreed to have Dimson as the BFEE spokespuppet ...

[rhett o rick]

52. Cheney and Poppy knew that "Let's have a Bud with Georgie" would be

much more electable than "Let's waterboard children, Cheney". Then Poppy told Dim-Son, why dont you let Cheney "help" you find a vice president? Dim-Son, after a couple of Jack Daniels, said sure. And bingo-bango, Cheney chose Cheney. And the joke is on the USofA. Poor Georgie, some sober day he will realize he was played for a fool his whole "career". It's gotta be hard on Laura. I think she is smart enough to understand what was done to Georgie.

[summerschild]

5. See comments #3,4,5 & 6

As of now there are 10 comments posted to the Consortium link. Some readers have drawn lines from the Nixon tapes to JFK's assassination. (As usual, one comment leads to another. Start with comment #3 for the others to have context.)

We've recycled far too many of our evil-doers.

[pacalo]

13. Comment #7 (by Derek) is good, too.

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/09/rethinking-watergateiran-contra/#comment-151142

[summerschild]

23. In the words of Rick Perry, "Oops!"

Darn! Derek's comment was the one I was trying to bring to JDPreistly's attention, since it went directly to JFK, mentioned in his post!

They either slipped in limpbaugh on me or I can't count (possible, any more!)

Thanks for pointing Derek's comment out. Intriguing, isn't it?

[pacalo]

24. It probably got moved down the list by replies. :)

Very intriguing! It seems like all of us baby boomers who lived through that time are the most intrigued & most receptive to new information. What all I've learned in the past 13 years about Republicans on a daily basis only enforces my opinion about the JFK assassination.

[blm]

29. Woodward told Larry King Live that there was no story in IranContra.

THAT should tell you what you need to know about Woodward.

[pacalo]

47. I didn't know that, blm, but I'm not surprised after the Bush nightmare.

I'd give almost anything to know what Carl Bernstein really thinks of Woodward.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

15. Questions about 9/11 are expressly forbidden! eom

[grasswire]

4. MUST read the link AND the comments section

And then, if you can, donate a few bucks to Consortium.

[grasswire]

7. I came back to kick this

Dayum!!

If only Gerald Ford hadn't ordered the coverup.

[WillyT]

6. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Benton D Struckcheon]

8. Does Parry make a connection to the 2nd Iraq War?

I've frequently thought there had to be one. Iran came out of that war with a new ally in Iraq. That was a foreseeable consequence of it that a lot of people commented on. It seems like Republicans have been going out of their way to help Iran since the 1980 Reagan campaign.

[Squinch]

9. Scratch any government nastiness in the last 30 years, and you'll find Paul Wolfowitz, it seems.

I think he must be Damien from the Omen, all grown up.

[indepat]

10. If true that Nixon's emissaries sabotaged the Paris Peace talks, would that not be tantamount to

treason? If true, would it suggest Repugs will do anything necessary to secure the prize (power).

[grasswire]

27. the botching of the Paris Peace Talks was not their first rodeo.

The same gang has been attacking the Constitution repeatedly. Attempted coup against FDR, JFK assassination, Paris Peace Talks, Iran Contra, Watergate, attempted coup against Bill Clinton, election theft 2000....

The beat goes on.

[MAD Dave]

38. Exactly this!

This should be the take home message - Neocons will do ANYTHING to attain/maintain power. Any other message just dilutes the main point.

[grasswire]

40. ....and from this we can only draw one conclusion:

They do not believe in our Founding Principles. They have no allegiance to democracy, to the will of the people. No allegiance to our sacred bedrock principle of one man-one vote, the consent of the governed, the sacred independence of the judiciary, etc.

Their way is a total, total fraud on America. A bitter fraud wrapped in guise of patriotism and religion.

[indepat]

41. And judging from the national election results, some 47% of Amurkins eat this up

[Myrina]

50. ... remember Poppy the VP candidate sabotaging the Iran-hostage talks ?

In order to keep the hostages under wraps until after the 1980 election ?

This underhanded shit is SOP for the GOP.

[Uncle Joe]

11. This is a damn good read.

Thanks for the thread, marmar.

[Demo_Chris]

12. Rec! Very interesting

[burrowowl]

14. K&R!!!!!

[Ken Burch]

16. Johnson should have released the damn file DURING the '68 fall campaign.

Nixon's support would have cratered, and all the "Peace Democrats" who were sitting the campaign out in disgust at what had happened in Chicago would have flocked to the Humphrey/Muskie ticket. Why would LBJ NOT want that?

There was no excuse for LBJ to save Nixon's ass by keeping the file hidden-what Nixon did was far more treasonous than anything Jane Fonda would be accused of in the next four years.

[WillyT]

17. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - AND... Countless Lives Would Have Been Spared !!!

I got more and more furious, the more I read.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

26. One answer is that Nixon may have had something on LBJ, such as LBJ's profit-making activities

in Viet Nam and his close connections with the profiteers in the military-industrial complex. All he needed was specific details.

In Ike's farewell speech, Ike may have been warning us about LBJ and his close friends. LBJ made a lot of money from the military-industrial complex during the Viet Nam war.

Did it end when LBJ passed away? No. His widow became the single largest stock holder of Halliburton and a member of the board of directors. She continued to make even more than LBJ did.

[ReRe]

36. Yeah...

...just think of how things might have been different (except I don't know about Humphrey). Possibly the War could have been ended sooner, saving so many lives. And possibly George McGovern would have won the presidency in 1973! Dayam.

[deutsey]

39. Perhaps Hoover had something in his files on Johnson that was even uglier? n/t

[Myrina]

51. I think the MIC had a proverbial gun to Johnson's head his entire Presidency.

He wasn't a stupid man, he knew what went down & who was in charge.

I think that's why he aged so, so drastically and why he seemed completely beat down by the time he declared his un-candidacy in '68. He knew that what they did to JFK, they could & would do to him if he didn't let the war machine march on.

To what extent he willingly consorted with scoundrels in the beginning, I can't guess. But I suspect by the end, he was like "FML for ever knowing these bastards".

[loudsue]

43. Johnson was ALSO tied up in the Kennedy assassination.

Many many many people from Texas knew too much about his involvement.

[OldDem2012]

18. Nixon also tried to get the CIA to help him keep the lid on Watergate.....

http://www.commandposts.com/2012/04/nixon%E2%80%99s-bay-of-pigs-secrets/

QUOTE:

On the twenty-third (1972), in an effort to get the CIA to stop the FBI’s initial Watergate probe, Nixon tried to blackmail CIA Director Richard Helms, apparently by using his knowledge of major CIA secrets to keep the lid on Watergate.

The president wanted to scare Helms with the prospect that, under pressure, an apprehended Hunt might start blabbing to authorities about “the Bay of Pigs.” That phrase, to Bob Haldeman— Nixon’s most trusted aide—was secret Nixon- CIA code for one of the darkest events in our history, an event with tenuous ties to the disastrous 1961 Cuban invasion.

In a post-Watergate book, Haldeman disclosed, “It seems that in all those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination. (Interestingly, an investigation of the Kennedy assassination was a project I suggested when I first entered the White House. Now I felt we would be in a position to get all the facts. But Nixon turned me down.)”

Watergate expert and National Public Radio correspondent Daniel Schorr independently concurs with Haldeman that Nixon’s Watergate threat to the CIA about “the Bay of Pigs” was “about some deeply hidden scandal . . . an assassination or something on that order. It was supposed to involve the CIA and President Kennedy.” Schorr also says that, to this day, “Helms vows that he has no idea what dark secret Nixon was alluding to. But, whatever it was, it led Nixon into trying to enlist the CIA in an attempted obstruction of justice that became his final undoing.” Speculating separately, JFK assassination expert Jim Marrs— without knowing about Haldeman’s revelation—asks two perceptive questions about taped “Bay of Pigs” conversations between Nixon and his most trusted adviser: Could they have been circuitously referring to the interlocking connections between CIA agents, anti- Castro Cubans, and mobsters that likely resulted in the Kennedy assassination? Did they themselves have some sort of insider knowledge of this event?

Another possibility, of course, is that the “Bay of Pigs” referred to the CIA assassination plots against Fidel Castro, which were not public knowledge at the time. Both Vice President Nixon and President Kennedy backed those plans. And the CIA’s Howard Hunt was an early advocate of Castro’s murder and a key player in all aspects of the Bay of Pigs invasion planning. Whatever the term meant, the usually unflappable Helms came unglued when Haldeman brought it up in the wake of the Watergate burglary.

Pretty important article....meshes well with the article posted in the OP.

[WillyT]

22. Thank You For That !!!

[Egalitarian Thug]

19. K&R But my first reaction is, how naive can you people (Americans) be?

This is how power works, has worked, and will always work until we grow the fuck up and take it.

Do you imagine that intrigue similar to this is not going on now in the Obama administration, in the halls of Congress, and on 'K' Street?

[whatchamacallit]

20. Mind boggling K&R

Next time some asshole tries to shut me up with schlock from the 9/11 Commission Report or washington conventional wisdom, I'll enjoin them to read this.

[WillyT]

21. Exactly !!!

[Zorra]

25. Thanks, marmar. Highly recommend. nt

[Doctor_J]

30. Dwight David Eisenhower - the last Repuke president not to commit treason

we are not going to recover as a nation until the guillotine is rolled out and used aggressively

[Laelth]

32. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[Overseas]

33. K&R.

[klyon]

35. I always wondered why Nixon would break into the Watergate when he had

the election in the bag. Now it makes sense.
and Jeb thinks history will be kind to his brother, the truth will come out and link him to 911
and hopefully the truth of HW's involvement in the JFK assassination too

[G_j]

37. K&R, now we are talking! nt

[G_j]

42. Kick!

[KoKo]

44. Worth the read...If only Johnson hadn't covered up for Nixon

but then we see that Presidents do seem to cover up for those before them. Supposedly it would "be bad for the stability of the country."

Just as we see with the Banking Fraud..."Too Big Too Jail." It was said that it could destabilize the Global Economy.

Nothing seems to change. But, Johnson could have maybe put a stop to corruption that followed Nixon if he'd allowed this information to get out there into the public.

[Doctor_J]

46. This could have been stopped anywhere along the line

Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush II, Cheney are pretty much all indictable on very grievous charges - probably treason. Meanwhile Clinton was impeached because of extramarital sex. the Repukes don't seem to have any compunction about destabilizing the country.

The fact is that this will continue until it is punished, severely.

[KoKo]

48. Nixon's Pardon was to set the stage for all that came after....

Other Presidents probably did cover ups and such...but that was the time once and for all to catch one and hold them accountable. But, he was Pardoned and moved on...and history worked to rewrite him and to obfuscate what he did.

He was the ONE who should have gone down because the "goods were enough exposed on him with Watergate" that it could have been a good thing then...if he'd gone down. Just my humble opinion...

[Stuart G]

45. k and r

[BobTheSubgenius]

53. I wish I'd found this thread in a more timely manner.

But, life is what happens when you're busy making other plans, right?

Anyway....the so-called October Surprise is a particular interest of mine, and I wish this article had delved into it more deeply. If anyone else is interested in this story, I highly recommend a book of the same title by Gary Sick.

If you're not familiar, GS was VERY MUCH an insider in the national security structure, and after he left govt. service, he set out to debunk the October Surprise. In this case, it was the evidence that had other plans, and made him do a completely unexpected 180. He became 100% convinced that it had really occurred.

[yurbud]

54. Democrats have done serious harm to our democracy by sweeping these Republican sins under the rug