return to updates

Watergate
unstoppered

by Miles Mathis
A lot of people have known for a long time that there was more to Watergate than we have been told in the mainstream press. Many bestseller books have hinted at this over the years, although I now assume those bestsellers were also misdirection. They have been spun, and were probably spun by the same people who spun Watergate. Still, to spin information they have to release some information, and so to get the true story all someone like me has to do is de spin it. Since this is like trying to unwind a closet full of tangled coathangers, most people don!t get very far into it. "ut since I have the time and the patience for such things#as well as some natural talent at seeing through walls#I tend to succeed where others fail. It also helps that I am a lone researcher. I can follow my nose, without anyone else!s interference. We are taught that committees get more done in the way of research, but I have not found that to be the case. The greatest success is achieved by a single person with a good nose for the truth, and a great eye for a lie. As it turns out, all the information I will use is already on the internet and is not seriously contested. There is no original research in this paper and I am not repeating any wild theories from the fringe. I am $ust compiling things admitted at places like Wikipedia, but unburying it, unspinning it, and putting it back into logical order. I first read the book Silent Coup when it came out in %&&'. I was '& at the time and didn!t know much about Watergate going in#which is what the authors of these books count on. That book is the one that scapegoats (ohn )ean once again *which was the mainstream line from the beginning+ as well as outing Ale,ander -aig as deepthroat. That outing has since been proved wrong, since William Mark .elt admitted to being deepthroat in '//0. So that has become the mainstream story since then. I will show that both assignments are false. 1either -aig nor .elt was deepthroat. Although I knew even then that Silent Coup was misdirection, I didn!t really know who or what it was misdirecting me away from. I didn!t have a big enough picture to figure it out until recently. "ut that

book at least put into my head the idea that the mainstream story was a whitewash. Much more was going on with Watergate than we were told at the time, or than we are told now in encyclopedia entries. The biggest clue getting me into this whole mess was a clue left out of Silent Coup and every other book on Watergate. In short, we are supposed to believe that 2ichard 1i,on was keeping tapes of himself in the White -ouse. We are supposed to believe that 1i,on was bugging himself. Since that isn!t believable, someone else must have been bugging him. -as any other 3resident kept tapes of his private conversations4 1o. Why would he4 It is $ust creating incriminating evidence when there is no need to. It makes no sense on any level, and I am surprised anyone would believe it. "ut even if he had been making tapes, he would have destroyed them as soon as the investigation began. There is no way those tapes would have survived to be turned over to 5ongress or any other body, subpoena or no subpoena. We are supposed to believe that 2osemary Woods was in the front office meticulously erasing snippets here and there, but why not $ust throw the whole lot into the incinerator4 That takes what, five minutes4 6nce we understand that, we have a key that gets us into the wider scandal. We have to ask who had the power and the capability to bug 1i,on!s offices4 6nly two entities7 the ."I or the 5IA. 8iven the greater arc of the event, we should immediately suspect the 5IA. Another clue that is generally passed over is the investigation of the 5IA after Watergate by 5ongress. The most high profile investigation of the time was called the 5hurch 5ommittee hearings, but there were other hearings before and after that on the same sub$ect7 the 5IA and its reach. Since according to the mainstream story the 5IA wasn!t at the center of the Watergate scandal, we should ask why 5ongress decided to investigate the 5IA in the mid 9/!s. I will be told that it was due to Seymour -ersh!s blowing the whistle on 5-A6S and other programs in the New York Times in %&9:, but it turns out that was misdirection itself. Although his article concerned ;the family $ewels< of the 5IA and was sold as a ma$or scoop, -ersh only leaked information about old foreign covert ops and domestic information gathering on peaceniks. Although many at the time *and now+ think this was a ma$or leak, it wasn!t. It was damage control. Although your average citi=en may not have known the e,tent of it, he knew the 5IA was involved in foreign covert operations. That was the whole point of the 5IA, after all. "eyond that, most people didn!t know or care anything about Iran or 5hile, Mosaddegh or Allende. .or Americans, most of it was old news and not terribly interesting. The same can be said of 5-A6S, and 5IA spying on hippies and war protesters. The 5IA and the ."I and the media had already killed the hippie movement by %&9/, via infiltration and subversion, and the same can be said of the anti war movement. "y %&9: the war was mostly over and people were sick of hearing about it. Admitting that the 5IA and ."I were involved in spying on hippies back in the %&>/!s didn!t impress anyone in %&9: e,cept the hippies themselves. 3robably &?@ of those reading -ersh!s articles in %&9: $ust shrugged their shoulders. This is what -ersh and his handlers were counting on, because the leak was done on purpose to keep the public eye off the real pri=e. 5ongress wasn!t investigating the 5IA beginning in %&9: because of 5-A6S or foreign operations. 6bviously, 5ongress was investigating the 5IA in %&9: because of things the 5IA had $ust done in %&9' 9A, and these things were much bigger than 5-A6S or even the overthrow of Allende. That!s right. The 5IA had $ust overthrown 1i,on, using Watergate as a cover, and most in 5ongress knew that. 5ongress couldn!t admit it knew that, but 5ongress hoped that those watching would get the clue. We never did. The authors of Silent Coup were partially right7 there had been a coup in %&9' 9A, but it wasn!t a coup by the (oint 5hiefs or the 3entagon. Those entities may well have been involved, but they weren!t the orchestrators. The main actors were 5IA, and that was generally known in )5. They had both motive and ability, and all evidence pointed directly at them. In fact, 5olodny and 8ettlin, the authors of

Silent Coup, had to tie themselves in knots to keep the 5IA out of their theory. In hindsight, it looks a lot like the knots 1oam 5homsky gets himself into, trying to keep the 5IA out of his ;manufacturing consent< theories. 2ichard -elms hardly makes an appearance in Silent Coup. Bou are constantly being led away from him and toward -aig, )ean, -aldeman, Crlichman and the 3entagon. This omission tells us more about the book than anything else. In all the books and investigations I have seen, Watergate is never put in any proper historical conte,t. If a conte,t is built, it is built Duickly and with no logic. All the fundamental facts are suppressed or spun, and only the minor details are studied closely. .or instance, another fact that is always suppressed or spun is (. Cdgar -oover!s convenient demise in May of %&9'. -oover had been running the ."I with an iron fist since %&':, and he was only 9> in %&9'#and not known to be in poor health. -e supposedly died in his sleep of a heart attack, but he had no history of heart problems and had not had any previous attacks. -oover was a staunch ally of 1i,on and hated the 5IA. Since this whole thing looks like a turf war between the 5IA and ."I, it is ama=ing that no one has ever thought to investigate it as such. We know that the ."I and 5IA had been at eachother!s throats for decades *since %&:9, really+ and that since %&>0 the war had begun in earnest. -oover cut off all contact with the 5IA in %&9/, and that is widely known. If you go to 2ichard -elm!s page at Wikipedia, you get do=ens of references to the war between the 5IA and ."I in the early %&9/!s. That page is like a book itself, and you can almost build my theory from it alone *as we will see below+. 1i,on disliked the 5IA and#with -oover#tried to redirect its work either to the ."I or to 1i,on!s own private intelligence operation centered on the 1S5. Silent Coup admits this was the nut of the problem, since that book spends a lot of time showing how the 3entagon had been angered by Eissinger!s heavy handedness in dealing with foreign and military matters. Bou probably can!t even name 1i,on!s secretary of defense, since he was so overshadowed by Eissinger. It was Melvin Faird. Anyway, although this was a problem, it wasn!t the 3entagon that was the main danger to 1i,on, it was the 5IA. The 3entagon wasn!t in a turf war with Eissinger or -oover, the 5IA was. 1i,on, -oover, Eissinger, and most of 1i,on!s staff were purposely ostraci=ing the 5IA in the early 9/!s, and they only found out later what a colossal mistake that was. It is fantastically easy to confirm this reading of the facts $ust by looking at the progression of history since then. We know the 5IA won this turf war because7 -oover was gone by %&9' 1i,on was powerless by %&9A and gone by %&9: The ."I has been in a tailspin ever since and the 5IA has taken over most of the e,citing domestic duties of the ."I. In addition, the 5IA has grown e,ponentially since the early %&9/!s, and is now so big it can!t even be weighed. It isn!t $ust the ?// pound gorilla in the room, it is the ever e,panding blob, devouring the room, then the building, then the town, then the world. In a recent paper, I used published government numbers to estimate the total staff of Intelligence at over > million#which is twice as big as the entire military#and even that estimate may be low. After the 5IA destroyed 1i,on and -oover, it then destroyed the committee investigating it in the Senate, and then the Senate. 5ongress has also been in a tailspin since the mid 9/!s, and it is now no more than a overpriced meeting of emeritus professors, paid to rubberstamp military and spy budgets. We are told 1i,on didn!t trust anyone, and is it any wonder4 -e was looking at ever increasing 5IA e,pansion which he couldn!t ultimately stem or even avoid himself, and he was looking at a new high

tech world in which his own offices could be bugged without his knowledge. -e was looking at a high tech world in which the 5IA owned heart attack guns, and it is probable these guns were tested in the real world#on has pal (. Cdgar -oover. The 5IA brought one of these guns on the Senate floor in %&9?, admitting the reality of it, so this is not a conspiracy theory. It is on film and can be viewed many places on the web.

That is .rank 5hurch and (ohn Tower, with 5hurch holding the heart attack gun. The 5hurch 5ommittee was named for Senator 5hurch. 5hurch lost his ne,t re election campaign and died three years later, at age ?&. I wish I could say it was from a heart attack gun, but they are a bit more clever than that. This is also the reason (ohnson didn!t run for re election in %&>0. -e already knew at that time that he was over matched by Intelligence. (ohnson didn!t like being a pawn of greater forces, and he didn!t wish to end up like 1i,on. 1i,on also knew what he was getting into, he $ust didn!t Duite reali=e the e,tent of it. -e mistakenly believed he could maneuver his way around the 5IA, as we can see from his feints in the first two years. "ut he was a poor chess player with too few pieces left on the board. -oover was his Dueen, and once he lost -oover, it was basically checkmate. -e was surrounded by the knights, bishops and rooks of the 5IA and had nowhere to run. "eyond this turf war, 1i,on dug his own grave by not fully supporting the Gietnam War. -e had been put into office with the understanding that the war would last at least five more years, but he began caving to public and 5ongressional pressure after less than two. This takes us to the other fundamental fact always glossed over by books on Watergate7 the repeal of the 8ulf of Tonkin 2esolution in (anuary of %&9%, which 1i,on signed. This was a bold 5ongressional action, maybe the boldest we have seen in our lifetimes, and 1i,on was blamed not only for allowing it to happen, but for actually supporting it and signing it. It removed 5ongressional approval for the war and gave the 3entagon no real authority to keep fighting. It also led ine,orably to more bold moves by 5ongress, including the War 3owers Act of %&9A, which temporarily reversed the complete takeover of foreign policy by the e,ecutive branch. These things were far more important to the history of the HS, and to the events of the timeI and compared to them Watergate is $ust frosting. "ut if you look at the amount of press generated, there is no comparison. Cveryone knows about Watergate, almost no one knows about the repeal of the 8ulf of Tonkin 2esolution. In this sense, Watergate was a diversion. It had a two fold purpose7 get rid of 1i,on and divert the public eye away from the more important events. It succeeded admirably.

In short, the 5IA could see that 1i,on couldn!t control public opinion or 5ongress, so they had to step in themselves. In %&9', they got rid of -oover. In %&9:, they got rid of 1i,on. And by %&9>, they had gotten rid of 5ongress. Bou see, Watergate wasn!t a scheme by 1i,on, it was a scheme against 1i,on. 1i,on was framed by the 5IA. 1i,on had no reason to bug or burglari=e the )emocrats. In the %&9' election, 1i,on was up against 8eorge Mc8overn, who ended up winning $ust one state. It was the most lopsided victory in modern history, even worse than Mondale!s loss to 2eagan in %&0:. 1i,on won by more than 'A percentage points. 2eagan only won by %0. An election like this is won by being in control of the greater apparatus, so 1i,on not only had it won going in, he knew he had it won going in. There was never any Duestion he was going to win the election of %&9'. Although it had apparently already been decided to torpedo 1i,on, they couldn!t torpedo him in the %&9' election since they didn!t have time to re manufacture the whole election apparatus. That reDuires nationwide machinations and buying thousands of electors and so on *or it did then7 they can now do it all with computers+. It was much easier to torpedo him with a Duick false flag. The 5IA burglari=ed the )emocratic headDuarters and then pinned it on 1i,on *we will see a lot of evidence for this below+. They then bugged 1i,on talking about covering it up and the deal was done. 5ongress, flush with its recent successes in repealing the 8ulf of Tonkin resolution and passing the War 3owers Act was itching to strike again against the 3resident, and could be counted on to accept any evidence offered at face value, without looking any deeper. 5ongress wanted 1i,on as much as the 5IA, not reali=ing they were ne,t. 1i,on may have thought he could avoid the 5IA in some policy matters, but he at least knew what he was up against. After all, he had been installed with their help, and had to have known it. "ut many in 5ongress appear to have been ignorant of the deeper workings of the government they fronted. This is the only way to e,plain their repeal of the 8ulf of Tonkin 2esolution in %&9%. That was the stroke that led to everything else, and if 5ongress had been aware of the true state of things, they would never have dared repeal it. In this way, the 5hurch 5ommittee hearings were more the idea of the 5IA than of the Senate. The 5IA needed to make 5ongress aware of the true state of things, letting them know who was really in charge. And so the hearings were actually an e,tended briefing of 5ongress by the 5IA. If you study the transcripts, I think that is what you will find. That is why the heart attack gun was shown on floor of 5ongress, among other things. "elieve me, 5ongress got the message, and it hasn!t been the same since. This is why I no longer bother to write letters to my representatives, or bother to blame them for anything. Their hands have been tied for a long time, and giving them low approval ratings is a waste of time. They are no longer anything but a decoy. Which brings us back to deepthroat. I said above that neither -aig nor .elt was really deepthroat. So who was4 1o one. )eepthroat is more misdirection, another decoy. To accept the idea of a deepthroat, you have to assume that someone is necessary as a go between from those who have information in the government to the press. "ut of course the 5hurch 5ommittee proved that is false. In 5ongressional testimony in %&9? 9>, the 5IA admitted it had been in control of large parts of the media since the early %&?/!s. In %&9', the 5IA had people in ma$or positions in the press, so no pipeline was necessary. "en "radlee at the Washington Post was either 5IA or a 5IA asset Jsee )eborah )avis, Katharine the GreatK so there was no need for any meeting in dark parking lots or anywhere else. "radlee didn!t need Woodward or "ernstein telling him anything. Those guys are $ust decoys. The 5IA wires or phones in its stories to the e,ecutive editor directly, so reporters are $ust brightly colored pawns, placed to misdirect the most naLve readers. )eborah )avis has outed Woodward as a spook, and no doubt he did a lot of dirty work for the 5IA, but as far as meeting secret sources, that is all -ollywood bullshit. "radlee may have gotten his telephone calls on Watergate from -elms or one of his underlings#it doesn!t really matter. What matters is that the phonecalls were coming from Fangley.

In this way, we can see that the 3entagon 3apers were also $ust more misdirection and damage control. All you have to do is follow the timing. They came out in (une %&9%, $ust a few months after 5ongress had repealed the 8ulf of Tonkin 2esolution. "y .ebruary %&9%, the Gietnam War should have been over. 6nce the resolution was repealed, the war was effectively illegal. It had always been illegal and undeclared, but once 5ongress removed its weak stamp of approval, the war hadn!t a leg to stand on. So the government had keep people from coming to that reali=ation. The government intended to spin the war out for another several years, legal or not, and to do that they had to keep the repeal off the front pages. In fact, 5ongress was passing other important legislation that year as well, although you wouldn!t know it by reading history. .or instance, go to the Wikipedia page on the &'nd 5ongress. I beg you to notice that no legislation is listed until )ecember %0, %&9%. 8o to the section entitled ;ma$or legislation.< The first entry is dated )ecember %0, %&9%. "ut the &'nd 5ongress convened (anuary A, %&9%. So Wiki is telling you no ma$or legislation occurred in %&9% in %%.? months, until almost 5hristmas4 The 8ulf of Tonkin resolution was repealed on (anuary %:, %&9%. 1ot ma$or4 The revised 5ooper 5hurch Amendment was enacted on (anuary ?, %&9%, and it also restricted action in Gietnam. 1ot ma$or4 "eyond that, on April 'A, %&9%, half a million protesters marched in )5, and thousands of veterans tossed their medals. In May, over %',/// people were arrested during war protests. The 3entagon 3apers were published to take everyone!s eyes off current events and put them back on the (ohnson administration. The timeline of the 3entagon 3apers was mostly %&?? to %&>:, so they were taking your eyes off the present. Cven so, (ohnson is the goat of the 3entagon 3apers, which is odd in itself. In that timeline, (ohnson is responsible only for %&>:, of course. Bou may ask yourself why Eennedy doesn!t take more blame in the 3entagon 3apers. The 3entagon 3apers also make a case for the war, e,plaining it as containment of 5hina. 5uriously, they also whitewash the war in many other ways. Again, what we are seeing is damage control, not a real leak. We can tell this $ust from the mode of publication. It is the New York Times that broke the 3entagon 3apers, along with "en "radlee at the Washington Post. Since we learned from the 5hurch 5ommittee hearings that the 5IA ;owned< both papers, we should immediately be suspicious of the 3entagon 3apers and )aniel Cllsberg. 2emember, Cllsberg was a spook himself, with ;an e,tremely high security clearance.< -e worked for years for the 2A1) corporation, which is a ma$or arm of military intelligence. And yet he was spun as a hero of the anti war movement. -ow naLve do you have to be to take Cllsberg as a hero of the anti war movement4 The anti war movement has always been far too trusting, which was its downfall. It was infiltrated over and over by obvious Intelligence people like Cllsberg, and they were never strongly outed. Cllsberg is still being sold as an anti war guy and is still infiltrating anti government movements. .or more proof of this, we find all charges against Cllsberg being dropped in %&9A, after the government claimed it had lost its records of wiretapping against Cllsberg. 2ight. The proceedings against Cllsberg are not believable in the least, since if what we were told about Cllsberg leaking information were true, he would have been prosecuted to the full e,tent of the law, and beyond. When the government really wants to prosecute someone, they don!t let technicalities get in their way. If some evidence gets lost, they $ust re create it. If the truth isn!t enough to convict, they lie. If they didn!t convict Cllsberg, it is because they didn!t want to convict. -e was their own guy, following orders. -e was part of opposition control. As I said, the war should have immediately ended in (anuary of %&9%, but because of opposition control, the front page news was diverted to the 3entagon 3apers and

then Watergate. While everyone was discussing those things, the war dragged on another four years. 5ongress was still authori=ing a billion a year to South Gietnam in %&9:, and that money wasn!t going for rebuilding infrastructure. Most of it was coming back to the HS in the form of defense contracts. So why had 5ongress continued to fund the war after repealing the 8ulf of Tonkin 2esolution4 "ecause the 5IA had already scared them. The 5IA hadn!t $ust $umped all over -oover and 1i,on in %&9', they had also $umped on 5ongress. The 5hurch 5ommittee hearings in %&9? were $ust the tail end of the 5IAM5ongress battle, but the 5ongress had been losing that battle since %&9', $ust like everyone else. In %&9A, the 5ongress was still fighting back against the 3resident, and had overridden 1i,on!s veto of the War 3owers Act. "ut even then, 5ongress was still mostly rubberstamping the military and spy budgets. They could pass resolutions, but they didn!t have the cohones to actually stop the money supply. They would have needed a large ma$ority of voters behind them to do that, and# due to the 5IA!s control of the press#they never got it. Although there were large protests against the Gietnam War up to the end, the public never figured out the true reach of the 5IA in the %&9/!s. It still hasn!t figured it out. .or more evidence of tampering with history, you should look at the terminology used then and now. In %&9A, the legislation was called the War 3owers Act. 1ow it has been demoted to the War 3owers 2esolution. In %&0:, the New York Times was still referring to it as the War 3owers Act of %&9A. When was it demoted, and by whom4 We would assume by the 5IA, and the reason was to make you think it was non binding. Acts are never non binding, but resolutions sometimes are. Although the War 3owers Act has the status of a law, and no one disputes that, giving the title ;2esolution< is small bit of misdirection. When combined with the spin we see at Wikipedia, it can cause confusion. There is a long section entitled ;Nuestions regarding constitutionality Jof the actK<. Although there is no Duestion regarding the 5onstitutionality of the War 3owers Act, they are still trying to create the idea that there is. Those trying to spread confusion know there is no Duestion of constitutionality, since the Duestion was never even thought worth putting before the Supreme 5ourt. If there had been any Duestion at all, they would have put it before the Supreme 5ourt. "ut there was never any idea of doing that, since they didn!t wanted to lose the vote & /. That would have prevented them from writing these ridiculous sections at Wiki, Duoting from nobodies like 3hilip "obbitt. To show how desperate they are, and how little they have, let us look at "obbitt!s argument. -e says that ;The power to make war is not an enumerated power Jin the 5onstitutionK, and the notion that to de lare war is to ommen e war is a !contemporary te,tual preconception!O. 5an you believe these people4 These ;scholars< will make any argument they are paid to make, no matter how transparently stupid. Wikipedia will then publish it decades later, as if it has merit. 1othing is beneath these people. "ut back to Watergate. Fet us go to that Wikipedia page on 2ichard -elms, to see how easy it is to get useful information from the mainstream. I beg you first to notice that this bio has 0%' footnotes and ?/ subsections. 3rinted out it would be at least :/ pages long. 5ompare it to those of his predecessors as )irector of 5entral Intelligence (ohn Mc5one and William 2aborn, whose Wiki pages could be printed on two pages. Someone is trying very hard to tell us something. -elms was one of the founding agents of the 5IA, having been in 6SS before %&:9, and being in the 5IA from its beginning in that year. 6ne of the first things we are told is that -elms was skeptical about the usefulness of clandestine operations. 2ight. That!s like saying the manager of the Bankees is skeptical about the usefulness of pitching. That!s also interesting since he was the only 5IA director convicted for lying to 5ongress. -e was against clandestine operations, but not against lying to 5ongress. Wouldn!t lying to 5ongress be considered a clandestine operation4 .or lying to 5ongress about the overthrow of Allende, -elms was given a suspended sentence and a P',/// fine. That!s about what you get fined if your dog poops

in 5entral 3ark. 5IA didn!t show 5ongress their heart attack gun for no reason. -elms! grandfather 8ates Mc8arrah was a noted international banker, so don!t tell me there aren!t ties between the bankers and the 5IA. -elms was class president and editor of the school paper at Williams 5ollege, ;which encouraged his interest in $ournalism.< More specifically, it encouraged his interest in taking over the national press and installing agents at TIMC, 1ewsweek, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and most other places. In %&:%, -elms volunteered for the 1avy, receiving officer training at -arvard. What4 6fficer training at -arvard4 Since when is -arvard a military academy4 Since we know he ended up 6SS, his training at -arvard was obviously for Intelligence. That still begs the Duestion, ;since when is -arvard an Intelligence academy4< The answer7 almost since the beginning. They tell you these things, but most people don!t trip over the information. It $ust runs through the brain like beer through the bladder. "y %&:>, -elms was already head of 5ounterintelligence in Curope, making him one of the top guys in 6SS by age AA. In that capacity, he directed the search for 8erman scientists to send back to the HS. "y %&?% he was 5hief of .oreign Intelligence, with only two or three guys above him. At that time, 5IA had already delegated to itself broad and undefined powers, so that it was basically beholden to no one. Wikipedia puts it this way7 Later, the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 provided a permanent and apparently legal method whereby the CIA could regularly exercise its newly enhanced covert operations power in the field It was hurriedly passed by Congress, a supporter remar!ing at the time, "#he less we say about this bill, the better off all of us will be $ Congress gave the agency the widest conceivable powers #he CIA was barred only from behaving li!e a secret police force inside the %nited &tates #he act gave the agency the ability to do almost anything it wanted, as long as Congress provide the money in an annual pac!age Approval of the secret budget by a small armed services subcommittee was understood by those in the !now to constitute a legal authori'ation for all secret operations If it(s secret, it(s legal, )ichard * +ixon ,later- said #he CIA now had free rein. unvouchered funds/untraceable money buried under falsified items in the 0entagon(s budget/meant unlimited license So you see, 5IA didn!t really need heart attack guns to blow by 5ongress. It had been doing that since the beginning. I guess threatening Senators wasn!t considered a ;clandestine operation.< It was $ust business as usual. This was the beginning of the end for any sort of 5onstitutional 2epublic in the HS. They tell us that Cisenhower warned of it in the %&?&, but even his warning was misdirection. -e said to watch out for the ;military industrial comple,.< That is unnecessarily vague. We have had military and industry since before the 2evolutionary war. What we haven!t had is a 5IA with unlimited and unchecked powers. Sometimes the 5IA is working for the military and sometimes it isn!t. Sometimes it is working for the bankers, sometimes it is working for the politicians, and sometimes it is working for the 2ockefellers, $ust helping sell their art. Ama=ingly, -elms! bio confirms this reading. 2obert Fovett and )avid "ruce wrote a report for Cisenhower in %&?>, e,pressing alarm at the powers the 5IA had shown in its recent overthrow of Mosaddegh in Iran. The authors#Fovett was Truman!s Secretary of )efense#argued that 5IA was too powerful, and argued for outside intervention. "ut it was already too late. 5IA was already too powerful in %&?> for Cisenhower, -oover, and 5ongress combined. "ecause it was controlled by hidden hands, it was born too powerful. Cven in %&:9, attacking the 5IA was like attacking a ghost.

-elms! bio also gives us clues to the fate of (oseph Mc5arthy. Although Mc5arthy!s fall in %&?: is generally attributed to the press *see Murrow!s attacks on him+ or to censure by 5ongress, it is really the 5IA that got him. Mc5arthy made the mistake of going after the 5IA. -e told )ulles Othat the 5IA was neither sacrosanct nor immune from investigation.O The -elms Wiki page admits 5IA director )ulles ordered Angleton to plant disinformation on Mc5arthy, and to run a ;down and dirty< covert operation against him. We can see that this operation included many planted stories in the press, which the 5IA had direct access to. Murrow!s See it Now report in March of %&?: was $ust one of many reports written and directed at the instigation of )ulles. Murrow had been in 6SS himself, and had always been a willing ally of Intelligence. In %&?A -elms began directing several nefarious and completely illegal pro$ects, including MEHltra, "luebird, Artichoke, and others which used various drugs in the effort to brainwash and control. So much for his opposition to clandestine ops. In answer to why Intelligence was involved in this stuff, -elms and others answered ;The 2ussians were doing it first.< Cven if it is true, it isn!t much of an answer. It was also -elms who ordered the destruction of most documentation of these top secret pro$ects in %&9'#the time period of Watergate. Although Seymour -ersh gave us what little information we have about these pro$ects in %&9:, it isn!t much. Since his articles were damage control, we may assume the truth is much deeper and darker than even he hinted at, and that the pro$ects never actually ended. We were later told that a chastened 5IA gave up its worst e,cesses after the 5hurch 5ommittee hearings, but we know that isn!t true. 8eorge "ush, Sr., told the press that the 5IA was no longer involved in all those bad things from the past, but no one over si, years old believed it. The 5IA didn!t downsi=e after %&9>, its budgets weren!t cut, it wasn!t sub$ect to any oversight, and it didn!t end any covert operations, either legal or illegal. In fact, it actually accelerated its e,pansion. Its smashing successes in the %&9/!s, including Watergate, convinced it that the sky was the limit. 1ot only had it taken down 1i,on with almost no effort at all, it no longer had to worry about -oover, either. -oover had been the greatest counterbalance to 5IA for decades, since his power was almost eDual to theirs. With his demise, there was nothing to keep 5IA from e,panding both vertically and hori=ontally. .unny, isn!t it4 1i,on and -oover, looking sort of like good guys for once. I am not saying they were good guys, but in their efforts to control 5IA, they do shine a bit. -owever, they hadn!t a chance against the 5IA. The real coup didn!t happen in %&9'. It happened decades earlier, and the die was cast before the war even ended. And I mean World War II. At last we get to Watergate in -elms bio, and the first thing that $umps out at us is this7 Among those initially arrested 1the "plumbers"2 were former CIA employees3 there were loose ends with the agency 8et that7 former 5IA employees. The only former 5IA employees are dead 5IA employees. We also find this7 It soon became apparent, however, that it was 4impossible to prove anything to an inflamed national press corps already in full cry while daily lea!s to the press !ept pointing at CIA $ 5nly later did 6elms conclude that "the lea!s were coming directly from the 7hite 6ouse and that 0resident +ixon was personally manipulating the administration(s efforts to contain the scandal " 2ight. The pointers to 5IA were manufactured by 1i,on4 1o. That is what you call a reversal. The truth is, the pointers to 1i,on were manufactured by 5IA. 1i,on hated the 5IA, as we have already

established, so why would he have used 5IA agents in his sDuad of burglars4 The first person to research is (ohn 3aisley, the ;5IA liaison< in the White -ouse burglars. 2ed flags all over this guy. The Senate Watergate 5ommittee completely ignored 3aisley, and Wikipedia admits that the 5IA link was never investigated. We also learn7 An investigation 4concluded the retirement ,of 0aisley in 1984- was a sham and the CIA was misrepresenting 0aisley as a low9level analyst when in fact he was involved in numerous high9level clandestine operations We are told 3aisley ended up being found dead floating in 5hesapeake "ay in %&90. Although he had been shot multiple times and the body had been strapped and weighted down with heavy diving weights, the death was ruled a suicide. )o all coroners work for Intelligence4 3robably. "ut C. -oward -unt was also 5IA, and that is admitted by everyone. -unt had been station chief in Me,ico 5ity in %&?/, where he supervised William .. "uckley, (r. I tell people these things and they look at me like I am making it up, but it is on Wikipedia, the most whitewashed mainstream source there is. Hnless I have magic access to Wikipedia pages that other people can!t get to, these things I am reporting are common knowledge. -unt also told the Senate Watergate 5ommittee he was 5IA, and had been the 5hief of 5overt Actions for the )omestic 6perations )ivision. 3rior to Watergate, one of his long term assignments *%&>' %&>>+ had dealt with ;the manipulation of news and publishing organi=ations.< )espite all that, the 5ommittee still ignored the links to 5IA. To e,plain this, we are told -unt retired ;disillusioned< from the 5IA in %&9/. "ut in the very ne,t sentence after that at Wiki, they admit that -unt immediately went to work for the 2obert 2. Mullen 5ompany, whi h was a C!" front ompany. -aldeman himself admitted it was a 5IA company, and that information is again straight from Wiki. -unt was still working for the company when he was hired in %&9% by 5harles 5olson to head the 3resident!s Special Investigations Hnit. So where e,actly did the retirement come in4 5an you work for a 5IA front company and retire from the 5IA at the same time4 I guess he got over his ;disillusionment< after a couple of drinks. That proves my thesis right there, without going any further. -unt pulled the Watergate burglary and was convicted for it. -e spent almost three years in $ail for it *we are told+. -e was 5IA at the time, being hired directly out of a 5IA company. Therefore, the 5IA pulled the Watergate burglary. I don!t see the weak link there. What is difficult to understand in that short line of reasoning4 1ow, if the 5IA pulled Watergate, and if the 5IA was in a turf war with ."I and 1i,on, we should look at the possibility 5IA framed 1i,on, right4 They had motive, they had ability, and their man -unt was convicted of the crime. -ow is it that idea is never pursued4 We must assume it is because 5IA has been in control of the story since the beginning. It was in control of the story issued to the newspapers in %&9', and it was in control of the variants allowed to be published in books, and it is still in control of the story and all variants of it. Bou know what the 5IA wants you to know. If you are told anything else#as in these clues I pull together from Wikipedia#you are told only to muddy the waters. They assume you aren!t smart enough to put the pieces of the pu==le together, so they think they can tell you anything as long as they don!t put the pieces together for you. I have come to believe they have reached the point of $ust playing games. They have been so ama=ed by the gullibility and stupidity of e#eryone, they now test us by putting the real answers right out in the open, to see if anyone out there can think straight. I think they are $ust as disappointed in the intelligence and gumption of those studying the media as anyone, maybe moreso. As I have said

before, it is no fun fooling fools, and 5IA looks bored to me. They start to think that all their work to remain covert was $ust wasted. They didn!t need to hide behind a beautifully camouflaged curtain, they could have hidden $ust as well behind a ' by :. Most people are so blind they don!t see the 5IA when the 5IA is standing in an open field waving their arms. In short, 5IA has lost all respect for its audience, which has led to its loss of respect for itself. These agents might hold their heads up if they could fool a Sherlock -olmes, but fooling the American public isn!t even a challenge. They don!t need 511 and green screens, they could fool the American public with 3unch and (udy puppets. If they can propagandi=e America with Anderson 5ooper, they could propagandi=e America even more cheaply with Shari Fewis and Famb 5hop.