Off Topic: Why did the Company Ditch Nixon?

JFK Assassination
JDThomas
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm

Re: Off Topic: Why did the Company Ditch Nixon?

Post by JDThomas »

Saw a good youtube vid at the weekend of a 1975 TV show with Wecht, Prouty and a lawyer talking about the current state of the JFK evidence as was then. On a lighter note the program anchor introduced a clip from the previous day where President Ford had been introduced at a conference as:The President of the United States.... Gerald SMITH!I have some difficulty with the patsy burglars scenario - these ex-CIA assets had too much form, knew too much and not just about Dallas to risk cutting loose.As for Agnew, I could buy this ... 1974 was too soon for Bush Snr. to be on the ticket, but planning for life after Nixon, they needed a VP who upon succession would choose GHWB as his running mate - Agnew was not the man for that. Still, this was not reason alone to ditch THE BIG DICK, he could easily have been persuaded to change his VP mid term and not risk a scandal that could bring the whole house down.Does anyone remember the events at the Republican convention when Reagan was nominated for President? For a while it seeemed that he was willing to consider anybody for VP except Bush, even possibly bringing Ford back. There was a comedy radio show in the UK at the time depicting Reagan and GOP leaders discussiog the unsuitabilty of all the VP contenders when Reagan screeches "isn't there anybody suitable? at this rate there will be nobody left except George Bush!" .... the thumbscrews were pressed pretty tight to force him into that one!
tom jeffers
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm

Re: Off Topic: Why did the Company Ditch Nixon?

Post by tom jeffers »

nixon was disposed of because he had served his purpose and they were done with him. yes it is true that he opened up the door to china which was not what the military industrial complex wanted but the real reason for his demise was his paranoa in later years and the fact that HW was ready for power and he wanted to slip in the back door. HW had already lost a few races in the senate and for the house so he wasn't a well liked politician. his only hope was through the back door. he wanted to be nixon's running mate but instead was given an ambassidorship. The republican part was split back then into the rockefeller's faction and the Bush faction. rockefeller's had more money and clout. they mostly liked to work behind the scenes but nelson loved the limelight and he wanted to be president. Watergate was a manipulation to get nixon out of office. prescot fought the rockefellers for the vacant vice president chair left by spiro agnew after they sabotaged him into resigning but prescot died and his power was diminished so the republicans went with their payback to ford for being the loyal trooper that he was.after the fall of nixon, ford (not fully trusting the bush's) named rockefeller as his VP and gave the head of cia to bush as a consolation prize. it was also done so that he could dispose of thousands of pages of records about the cia's clandestine operations of which both had been a party to. It is no mistake that ford's life was in jeopardy because rockefeller truly wanted a taste of the big office.it is true that reagon did not want bush as his running mate but was forced into it by the party. bush called in all his iou's to get the deal done. in fact when reagon was shot, he had the navy security surround him at his hospital because he thought there was a coup de tau. the navy was the only service he could trust personally.
SeamusCoogan
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm

Sometimes Lads: I dunno why I bother posting lol.

Post by SeamusCoogan »

This is from an earlier post which I am surprised the lads didnt refer you to.Contained herein is basically everything you will need to understand how Nixon got aced by the company. A lot of this comes from ace researcher Lisa Pease. If you havent read her chief I advise you get stuck in. Shes excellent.Bob Woodward Watergate hero or CIA stoogie boy.Well we know his boss Katherine Graham was fully supportive of the agency. Indeed she loved them so much she made an address to them in 1988 extolling the virtues of keeping things secret from the U.S public."We live in a dirty and dangerous world...There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."I think she's referring to the rest of humanity as the dirty and the dangerous, in this address to arguably the most dirty and dangerous rogues the world has yet seen.She was a horrible elitest and I can see how her husband voluntarily fled this life to get away from her. Sadly, he didnt shut her up as well and left us with her.She's no heroine, she's the brusing on the vein once the needles gone in, and the CIA stooge rubbing his hands at the sale.Lisa Pease has done some fantastic stuff on Woodward. And as I have said before and Dragoo will back me on this I/we advise you check out anything Pease has done seriously. And please read the Assassinations if theres anything in this world you have to read after Jim Douglas's book this is surely one.Heres a brief snippet on Bob Woodhead.http://www.ctka.net/pr196-woodward.htmlThis is only an excerpt but Lisa Pease alongside legends like Jim Hougan and so on have tapped the real reasons behind Watergate and a big part of it all was the CIA's accquisition of Hughes assets. The whole story is utterly crazy.So check this other Lisa Pease piece out and leave your mind at the door.http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com ... rgate.htmlBut the most important one guys is this its extremely good journalism.HUGHES, NIXON AND THE CIA: THE WATERGATE CONSPIRACY WOODWARD AND BERNSTEIN MISSEDThe Playboy article refered to within is herehttp://www.meier.com/johnhmeier/Playboy_Article.htmlOh its good to be back alright.Bob in reference to your Rollingstone article on Mockingbird. The general consensus is that Woodward was steering Bernstein as you probably suspected so I hope what you find heres gonna be cool.
kenmurray
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm

Re: Off Topic: Why did the Company Ditch Nixon?

Post by kenmurray »

Hey Seamus, outstanding. I, for one, found it cool.
kenmurray
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm

Re: Off Topic: Why did the Company Ditch Nixon?

Post by kenmurray »

SeamusCoogan
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm

Re: Off Topic: Why did the Company Ditch Nixon?

Post by SeamusCoogan »

kenmurray wrote:Hey Seamus, outstanding. I, for one, found it cool. Cheers Ken. I was having more of a laugh than a whinge. But its good to get your endorsement (again lol) cos your a smart joker and this is some extremely important stuff. When I got hold of Lisa's stuff it blew me away.
kenmurray
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm

Re: Off Topic: Why did the Company Ditch Nixon?

Post by kenmurray »

Seamus, Lisa does great work. I think she needs to be on BOR more often.
SeamusCoogan
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm

Re: Off Topic: Why did the Company Ditch Nixon?

Post by SeamusCoogan »

kenmurray wrote:Seamus, Lisa does great work. I think she needs to be on BOR more often.Yeah I reckon as well ill tell her you say gudday.
Post Reply