Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Robert Parry: Who’s Telling the ‘Big Lie’ on Ukraine? [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)62. See Don Fulsom.
Nixon approved hiring a Secret Service man who said he'd 'kill on command' to guard Ted Kennedy. You can hear Nixon and Haldeman discuss it, about 40 minutes into the HBO documentary "Nixon by Nixon." While I had read the part of the transcript available years ago, and wrote about it on DU, almost no one I know has heard anything about it.
Ted Kennedy survived Richard Nixon's Plots
By Don Fulsom
In September 1972, Nixons continued political fear, personal loathing, and jealously of Kennedy led him to plant a spy in Kennedys Secret Service detail.
The mole Nixon selected for the Kennedy camp was already being groomed. He was a former agent from his Nixons vice presidential detail, Robert Newbranda man so loyal he once pledged he would do anythingeven killfor Nixon.
The President was most interested in learning about the Sen. Kennedys sex life. He wanted, more than anything, stated Haldeman in The Ends of Power, to catch (Kennedy) in the sack with one of his babes.
In a recently transcribed tape of a September 8, 1972 talk among the President and aides Bob Haldeman and Alexander Butterfield, Nixon asks whether Secret Service chief James Rowley would appoint Newbrand to head Kennedys detail:
Haldeman: He's to assign Newbrand.
President Nixon: Does he understand that he's to do that?
Butterfield: He's effectively already done it. And we have a full force assigned, 40 men.
Haldeman: I told them to put a big detail on him (unclear).
President Nixon: A big detail is correct. One that can cover him around the clock, every place he goes. (Laughter obscures mixed voices.)
President Nixon: Right. No, that's really true. He has got to have the same coverage that we give the others, because we're concerned about security and we will not assume the responsibility unless we're with him all the time.
Haldeman: And Amanda Burden (one of Kennedys alleged girlfriends) can't be trusted. (Unclear.) You never know what she might do. (Unclear.)
Haldeman then assures the President that Newbrand will do anything that I tell him to He really will. And he has come to me twice and absolutely, sincerely said, "With what you've done for me and what the President's done for me, I just want you to know, if you want someone killed, if you want anything else done, any way, any direction "
President Nixon: The thing that I (unclear) is this: We just might get lucky and catch this son-of-a-bitch and ruin him for '76.
Haldeman: That's right.
President Nixon: He doesn't know what he's really getting into. We're going to cover him, and we are not going to take "no" for an answer. He can't say "no." The Kennedys are arrogant as hell with these Secret Service. He says, "Fine," and (Newbrand) should pick the detail, too.
Toward the end of this conversation, Nixon exclaims that Newbrands spying (is) going to be fun, and Haldeman responds: Newbrand will just love it.
Nixon also had a surveillance tip for Haldeman for his spy-to-be: I want you to tell Newbrand if you will that (unclear) because he's a Catholic, sort of play it, he was for Jack Kennedy all the time. Play up to Kennedy, that "I'm a great admirer of Jack Kennedy." He's a member of the Holy Name Society. He wears a St. Christopher (unclear). Haldeman laughs heartily at the Presidents curious advice.
Despite the enthusiasm of Nixon and Haldeman, Newbrand apparently never produced anything of great value. When this particular round of Nixons spying on Kennedy was uncovered in 1997, The Washington Post quoted Butterfield as saying periodic reports on Kennedy's activities were delivered to Haldeman, but that Butterfield did not think any potentially damaging information was ever dug up.
SOURCE:
http://surftofind.com/tedkennedy
Why does that matter? The Warren Commission, and the nation's mass media, never heard about the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro until the Church Committee in 1975. You'd think that would be a matter of concern to all Americans, especially considering how then-vice president Nixon was head of the "White House Action Team" that contacted the Mafia for murder.
This is the sort of information citizens of a democracy shouldn't have to search the Internet to learn. It should be taught in school, or at the least, discussed in the nation's mass media.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
187 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Regarding your first paragraph...we sure do have a 'gaggle' of those around here.
Purveyor
Sep 2014
#1
Well, that doesn't refute anything in the article. What is he wrong about? He's not the only one
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#33
We are talking about his excellent work throughout the BUSH years, which airc, were just a few years
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#34
Great, so if I see a Waaahhhhhhhh in the Ukraine article I'll know where it came from.
NuclearDem
Sep 2014
#30
Why is the Kiev government killing its own people? The world is appalled at the carnage being
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#35
I assume because the modern concept of a "good journalist" utterly precludes him
reddread
Sep 2014
#21
I assume you are being rhetorical. There were a lot of "good journalists" when they were critical
rhett o rick
Sep 2014
#24
What should have knocked some sense of reality into their heads was Biden fracking Ukraine.
Octafish
Sep 2014
#61
"What should have knocked some sense of reality into their heads", you are looking at it
rhett o rick
Sep 2014
#68
Like Robert Parry, Don Fulsom is a top journalist covering crimes of the State.
Octafish
Sep 2014
#70
He got it right on Bush/Cheney too. He has made enemies for his reporting on that criminal
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#36
Depending how you mean that, it's a good assessment. The neocons are the Putinistas
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#44
Yes an unprovoked war of aggression. That term has a specific meaning in terms of international law
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#48
We didn't engage in one in the Ukraine situation. You are justifying GWb's invasion of Iraq if
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#50
No dancing. You are apologizing for an unprovoked war of aggression, just like in Iraq. nt
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#54
Nope, you are engaging in apologia for an unprovoked war of aggression. Simple as that. nt
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#76
Nope, you are engaging in fear mongering and jingoism. Easy peasy, works like a charm.
JEB
Sep 2014
#87
This is why you lose credibility on this subject. No one invaded Crimea. It is an insult to the
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#38
That is a link to part of the Western MSM which is hardly a reliable source. Russia always had
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#60
There's that condescension again. I am saying one thing, the Western Media is not reliable any more
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#82
No media is totally reliable, and especially after they have been caught lying over and over again.
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#69
Clearly you have no idea as to the events of the mob riots in Odessa...
Tommy_Carcetti
Sep 2014
#118
Exactly, thank you, at least YOU know why they didn't invade Crimea. Was that comment intended
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#59
LMFAO! EU is to blame for Russia's war of aggression BC they proposed an association with Ukraine!
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#32
Yeah, they said that about him when he was writing about the Cheney/Bush criminal administration
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#39
Your entire post is debunked by the Russians themselves admitting their troops are there.
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#81
Reading is fundamental. Ten soldiers were CAPTURED. Surely you understand the difference, right? nt
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#114
LMAO, the lies and sad justifications from Putin and his apologists are pathetic and
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#127
I don't post fiction. I have citations that prove the facts underlying my positions. nt
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#77
If one accepts all that at face value, it does not justify an unprovoked war of aggression by Russia
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#84
After reading Parry's piece again, I'm even more astonished how idiotic it is.
Tommy_Carcetti
Sep 2014
#63
You show me the evidence as to how the US actually executed the forcible removal of Yanukovych....
Tommy_Carcetti
Sep 2014
#79
The irony is, even if the US completely put the uprising up to it, it does not justify Russia's
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#85
If word out of the mouths of US State Department officials won't do it, perhaps you need new media.
Octafish
Sep 2014
#90
Someone in the State Department confessed to forcibly removing Yanukovych from power?
Tommy_Carcetti
Sep 2014
#92
You mean like the Iraq war that every DUer disagreed with including zappaman? nt
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#117
Check out Octafish's responses throughout the thread from #107 down. Its deliberate.
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#139
You are accusing some DUers of being in favor of the Iraq war? You need proof otherwise?
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#129
You accused Zappaman of not being against anything the BFEE does. Iraq was one of those things.
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#132
Your post #107 is only a few above this. Its not like its from another OP.
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#134
You suggested Zappaman didnt object to anything about the BFEE. Which he did and obviously so.
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#138
We both object to what the BFEE did with Iraq. As I have already told you and was proven.
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#142
Its in post #123 above. Once again, how many times do we have to post something before it sinks in
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#146
All I've ever seen is references to a phone call. One that happened weeks before Yanukovych left.
Tommy_Carcetti
Sep 2014
#111
When we source something, you ignore it and claim several posts later it wasnt sourced.
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#144
Really? Like... does a source become invalid if more than one person cites it?
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#151
What provides plausible deniability? The video of Yanukovych packing up and leaving?
Tommy_Carcetti
Sep 2014
#165
The CIA’S Mop-Up Man: LA Times Reporter Cleared Stories with Agency before Publication
Octafish
Sep 2014
#179
And that shows you exactly what's going on here. An unprovoked war of aggression by Russia they
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#115
Nothing about the US will justify an unprovoked war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine. nt
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#171