History Repeats

As you will see, it is extraordinarily difficult to discuss just one of the many aspects and implications of an out of control intelligence community that has taken aim at US citizens and their elected officials. Going back to the 60s and 70s, let’s take a look at what happened with Nixon and some explanations as to why it happened.


The information about the C.I.A. came as the Senate Armed Services Committee issued a report today concerning the Pentagon for spying on the White House National Security Council. But the report said the Pentagon spying incidents in 1970 and 1971 were isolated and presented no threat to civilian control of the miltary.

This is a reference to the Yeoman Charles E. Radford spying case. Navy Admiral Moorer was running Radford as a spy on Nixon and Kissinger. Obviously, the subjects were no boy scouts, but if we take a step back and look just at the policies, I think we might see a pattern or trend that help to put this in the proper light and understand why it’s important today. See Watergate.com


1) Wanted out of Viet Nam. Keep in mind that many individuals in Congress were making a great deal of money off of the “police action” there. When Eisenhower said “military industrial complex”, he left out the word “congressional” as a kindness. He knew full well where this was going.

2) Abandoned chemical weapons and biological weapons without requiring the Soviets to do the same before he did so as a sign of good faith. This recommendation actually came from within the military. Nixon did make a big public show of it, however, and the point was to force the USSR to do the same by leading by example and putting International pressure on them. (Can you imagine any of the current Teapublitarians making a stand like that even if the generals told them it was the correct thing to do? Can you imagine any Democrat apart from Kucinich and a few others standing up to them for stockpiling such weapons?). This issue became a big deal when poisons and other items were not destroyed in defiance of the Presidential order to do so. CIA blamed DOD, DOD blamed CIA, and of course there was ultimately no accountability. See Church Hearings Volume 1. (Fun side note, this was all about the stockpiles at Fort Detrick, where Frank Olson worked on MKULTRA and other projects, that got shipped to CIA).

3) Pushed the SALT treaty which was to limit the nuclear weapons of the US and USSR. Again, we are in a two-pronged area of contention: hawks who believed the best defense is a good offense (you know, like Dr. Strangelove) and the profit motive as they are expensive to make and maintain and it isn’t done for free.

4) Not unrelated to 3 above, according to H.P. Albarelli’s A Terrible Mistake, nearly the entire Nixon party who travelled to the Soviet Union was very likely dosed with LSD-25. NBC Nightly News tried to investigate. I believe that the Soviets had no motive for doing so, that it was an attempt to derail the anti-proliferation process, and that it very well may have made the president imbalanced, at the very least for some period of time. Paranoia is not an unheard of side effect of being dosed, especially when the victim is unaware that it was being done (Frank Olson himself would seem to be evidence of that). The question becomes “whodunnit” and the only answers involve CIA and DOD.

5) And, of course, Watergate. Bob Woodward was Naval Intelligence. He reported to Admiral Moorer (as did Radford). He was even a liaison to the Nixon White House before deciding to become a reporter. When he left the Navy and did that, he originally went to the Washington Post who told him to go get some experience elsewhere. He did so, for three months as I recall, and came back to the Post and the rest is history. I also note that despite Chris Matthews’s statement that Woodward’s politics are difficult to discern, that he aligns well with whatever the brass are thinking. For example, his first two books on the Bush administration praised the neocons and the wars (while blaming Tenant’s slam dunk comment for the whole thing), but the third blamed Rumsfeld for mismanagement once things became apparent that the magical progress promised was not forthcoming. In essence, Rumsfeld was scapegoated to save the military industrial complex from embarrassment and scrutiny when it became obvious that the only obvious answer to why was profit. (C’mon, Gord! About someone’s girlfriend? {EDIT 2012-01-08: I had previously recalled incorrectly that Liddy said it was a DNCer trying to keep tabs on his young lady friend. Forgot it was really about smearing the Deans. Apologies for the mis/disinfo).

So, here I am defending Nixon and Rumsfeld (but only in a very limited fashion). Obviously, the Watergate scandal would not have happened if Woodward had not been involved. It’s not that I excuse what Nixon did (that’s for others to do nowadays when it’s James O’Keefe III doing it). It’s that the motives was he was too moderate on foreign policy (and even some of his domestic stuff sounds too far to the left for today’s Democrats).

And here we are today with literally every institution at least at times doing unthinkable things. It’s easy to see why cleaning up today’s mess is not something anyone relishes, but the alternative is looking more and more like collapse, which is also not a good alternative.

And Congress wants to hand DOJ duties over to DOD. We will see Americans detained for no reason other than they made some Congressman’s (or billiionaire’s) political hit-list. We will see abuses. Oh, yes. Divided we fall.

Mindcontrolled we fall, too. Guarantee it.


1 Comment

  1. […] it also fits with is what I’ve already stated here about Watergate: insubordination on the part of some brass due to dis…. Which would also seem to fit with what Seymour Hersh has been saying, as incredible as it sounds […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI