Contents

Lennon Home Page

Main Home Page

By Salvador Astucia

Appendix I: Daniel Ellsberg, Another false prophet from the left (?)

Article by by Salvador Astucia, March 31, 2003

Recently Daniel Ellsberg has resurfaced as a voice from the left speaking out against the Iraq War. In addition to peace activism, he is also promoting a book, "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers." Ellsberg’s claim to fame is leaking classified documents, known as the "Pentagon Papers," to the New York Times and the Washington Post in 1971 during the Vietnam War. He was prosecuted by the government, but gained immense sympathy from the courts and the public when it was revealed that individuals within the Nixon White House had broken into his psychiatrist’s office to steal his files. This happened over Labor Day weekend in 1971, nearly a year before the infamous Watergate burglary occurred; however, the public did not learn of the ransacking of Ellsberg’s doctor’s office until after the Watergate burglary.

The Pentagon Papers was a study initiated by Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense for Kennedy and Johnson) to document how US Vietnam policy had evolved through four presidents: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. Ultimately, the Pentagon Papers were a major factor in the demise of President Richard M. Nixon’s presidency, as much as the infamous break-in of the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate hotel in Washington, DC.

Daniel Ellsberg was an infantry lieutenant in the Marine Corps with genuine battle experience in Vietnam, a PhD in economics from Harvard, and a defense intellectual employed by the Rand Corporation of Santa Monica, with the highest security clearances. Ellsberg worked as an analyst at the Pentagon which is how he obtained the Pentagon Papers. He was born in Chicago in 1931, to Jewish parents with a passion for Christian Science.¹

A few days ago Ellsberg and some clergymen were arrested in Lafayette Park, across from the White House, for praying in an undesignated area. It was a symbolic gesture of defiance for the US-led invasion of Iraq. There was a time when I considered Ellsberg a hero, but recently my opinion has shifted. I used to think of him as someone who did what he could to end America’s involvement in the Vietnam War while it was in progress. Conversely, I also thought the late President Richard M. Nixon was a villain who held Americans hostage in Southeast Asia. It’s too bad life isn’t so simple.

In my book Opium Lords, I pointed out that Nixon was—in many ways—as liberal as President Kennedy. In fact, I believe their presidencies were both cut short for the same reason: because they tried to end the Cold War. In the past, I have cited the words of Jesus regarding false prophets as a means of determining who to trust and who to doubt. In the political arena, people often have hidden agendas masked by superficial behavior and social graces. Consequently, any method to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys is of great value. Jesus said: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Matthew 7, King James)

If we hold Nixon and Ellsberg to this standard, who would come out on top? Why Nixon of course! The fruits from Nixon’s tree were peace as opposed to war and justice as opposed on inequity. During Nixon’s presidency, he withdrew all American troops from South Vietnam, ended the draft, opened relations with China, established détente with the Soviet Union via the SALT I accords, and he waged an aggressive war on drugs while America was entangled in a serious heroin epidemic. These were the fruits of his presidency. If we view Nixon as the tree, and his actions the fruit, then using Jesus’s logic, Nixon must have been a good man because a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. Only a good tree can produce good fruit.

But viewing Ellsberg as a tree, what were his fruits? His most prized accomplishment is he helped end Nixon’s presidency. He boasts of this today. Yet Ellsberg claims to be a peace activist. How could a genuine peace activist be proud of ending the presidency of a man like Nixon who did so much in the pursuit of peace? Again, using the logic of Jesus, Ellsberg brought forth evil fruit, therefore he is a corrupt tree, a corrupt person.

Using the False Prophet verse as a guide, it becomes clear that Ellsberg had little interest in peace, but was likely part of a larger conspiracy to drive President Nixon from office because of his efforts to achieve peace. Daniel Ellsberg appears to be a false prophet. Numerous facts bare this out. First: Ellsberg’s military background smacks of Israeli intelligence or FBI. We don’t know this for certain, but it seems quite probable. Ellsberg joined the Marines after the Korean War ended, and was sent to the Middle East during the Suez crisis in 1957.² The Suez Crisis occurred in October 1956 when Israel conspired with France and Britain to attack Egypt and overthrow that country’s leader, President Gamal Abdel Nasser, after he nationalized the Suez Canal in defiance of Israel and the Western powers. Lyndon Johnson, then Senate Majority leader, used all of his political muscle to prevent the UN from imposing sanctions on Israel—the sanctions were fully supported by the Eisenhower administration—for its flagrant disregard for international law. Eisenhower forced Israel to behave by temporarily cutting off American aid.³ It’s interesting that a Jewish individual, who rose to national prominence in the midst of the Watergate scandal, would be sent to the Middle East for a pivotal event in the history of Israel fifteen years earlier. In addition, Ellsberg was an analyst at the Pentagon with a top secret clearance. He certainly had all the earmarks of being a spy.

Second: Ellsberg’s attitude about Nixon is highly peculiar and unfair, almost irrational. He rarely criticizes President Lyndon B. Johnson for sending 540,000 soldiers to South Vietnam, then abdicating his leadership by not seeking a second term.⁴ Ellsberg places virtually all blame for Vietnam on Nixon. It’s as if he was assigned to portray Nixon in the most negative light possible, regardless of any facts to the contrary. To this day, Ellsberg blames Nixon almost exclusively for keeping America in Vietnam. On March 28, 2003, Ellsberg told Brian Lamb (CSPAN) that thirty thousand soldiers had died when Nixon took office in 1969, and twenty thousand more were killed by the time he left in 1974.⁵ This argument rings somewhat hollow if we recall that Nixon reduced American forces in South Vietnam from 540,000 (June 1969) to 160,000 (Dec. 1971) through a program called "Vietnamization." The war was continually being fought, but Nixon was withdrawing men at a steady rate. In addition, the Pentagon Papers state that South Vietnam was a creation of the United States Government.⁶ If we accept this premise, then it seems quite understandable that Nixon would want to withdraw troops from South Vietnam in a gradual manner. A sudden withdrawal of 540,000 soldiers from a puppet regime propped by the US military and CIA would likely end with a blood bath. Hence, Ellsberg’s charge that Nixon was somehow responsible for the deaths of twenty thousand soldiers, in a war started by his predecessor, is extremely unfair.

Third: Another person who deserves a lot of blame for the Vietnam War is President Harry S. Truman. According the Pentagon Papers, Ho Chi Minh sent Truman about eight letters, in 1945 and 1946, requesting America’s support in his effort to gain independence from France.⁷ Truman did not respond. Eventually Ho Chi Minh got support from the Soviet Union and China which forced him to turn to Communism. Once this happened, America suddenly decided that Minh was its enemy despite his numerous attempts to obtain US support years earlier.⁸ One must wonder why Ellsberg, a man with a PhD, is unable to view the Vietnam War within the context of history. And this particular bit of history was revealed in the Pentagon Papers, the very documents for which he risked his freedom. Hasn’t he read the Pentagon Papers?

Fourth: Ellsberg committed extremely serious crimes but never went to jail. Most people who commit similar crimes (stealing and publishing classified documents) would go to jail for years, but all charges against Ellsberg were mysteriously dropped for political reasons. Ellsberg and his accomplice, Anthony Russo, were tried for espionage and conspiracy,⁹ but the charges were dropped because of "governmental misconduct" during the Nixon administration.¹⁰

Fifth: According to William Sullivan (former director of domestic intelligence at the FBI) J. Edgar Hoover essentially put the FBI’s domestic intelligence division out of business by 1970 after Nixon had been in office for a year.¹¹ Because of Hoover’s laxness, Nixon was forced to create a domestic intelligence unit in the White House, known as the Plumbers.¹² Nixon needed intelligence support because someone in the White House had leaked classified information to the press regarding secret negotiations with Pakistan, China, the Soviet Union, Vietnam and other sensitive foreign policy issues. Retired CIA man E. Howard Hunt was recruited to work with the Plumbers along with G. Gordon Liddy.¹³

Sixth: The Nixon White House got the FBI to place wiretaps on the phones of several National Security Advisors to find out who was leaking sensitive information to the press. This was a real problem for Nixon, not delusions or paranoia.¹⁴ Later the list of wiretaps was used against Nixon and labeled the "enemies list" after Judge Matthew Byrne, who was presiding over Ellsberg’s trial, obtained it in May 1973.¹⁵

Seventh: Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, set up a spy network in the Nixon White House. Admiral Robert Welander admitted this in a taped confession to Nixon attorney/aide John Ehrlichman on December 23, 1971. Moorer and the other Joint Chiefs felt that Nixon was being too secretive and was keeping them out of the loop on important foreign policy issues.¹⁶ Navy Yeoman Charles Radford was Moorer’s top spy. Radford stole classified White House documents pertaining to Nixon’s secret China policy, the SALT I negotiations, withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, his plans to end the draft, and a host of other highly sensitive issues. Radford was a practicing Mormon but was born a Jew. His mother was descended from Slavic, Irish, and Jewish ancestors.¹⁷ According to Jewish law, if a person’s mother is Jewish, then that person is considered Jewish regardless of the father’s faith.

For some reason, Nixon did not fire Moorer upon learning of his spy ring in the White House. Clearly this was unwise; however, Nixon may have been afraid of the Joint Chiefs after the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK. Another possibility is blackmail. It is highly plausible that Admiral Moorer or J. Edgar Hoover might have blackmailed Nixon concerning his whereabouts on November 22, 1963, the day President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. Years later, Nixon publicly admitted he was in Dallas that day,¹⁸ but I have found no evidence that he was one of the conspirators. It is more likely that the true conspirators intentionally lured him there in order to blackmail him should he ever become president.

Eighth: The timing of the Watergate burglary, June 17, 1972, is most disturbing. In May of 1972 Nixon paid a state visit to Moscow to sign 10 formal agreements, the most important of which were the nuclear-arms limitation treaties known as SALT I (based on the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks conducted between the United States and the Soviet Union beginning in 1969) and a memorandum, the Basic Principles of U.S.-Soviet Relations, summarizing the new relationship between the two countries in the new era of détente.¹⁹ Although the Soviet Union continued to exist for 19 more years, Nixon ended the Cold War—for all intents and purposes—in May of 1972 when he and Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev signed the SALT I agreements. It is significant that the Watergate burglary occurred just one month later, on June 17, 1972.

Ninth: Henry Kissinger convinced Nixon that the Pentagon Papers were vital to National Security and that Daniel Ellsberg had committed treason by leaking them to the press.²⁰ Consequently, the Plumbers were assigned to gather information about Ellsberg, to learn his motivation for releasing the classified documents to the press.²¹

Tenth: In order to learn Ellsberg’s motivation, the Plumbers decided to break into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis J. Fielding.²² Hunt headed the break-in assisted by some Cubans. Liddy waited outside acting as a guard to protect the operation. The Cubans told Liddy they found nothing but had accidentally damaged some of the file cabinets. To cover their tracks, they pillaged the office to give the impression that a drug addict had broken in looking for narcotics. Liddy viewed the break-in as a fiasco but was surprised to see Hunt and the Cubans celebrating with champaign afterwards.²³

Eleventh: Nixon’s political demise had little to do with the Watergate burglary and everything to do with lack of support for his foreign policy among conservative Republicans. By the time articles of impeachment were voted and approved, Nixon decided to resign because he knew he did not have enough votes to be acquitted in an impeachment trial. But again, the reason he didn’t have enough support was because of his progressive foreign policy, not because of the Watergate scandal per se.²⁴

Twelfth: One of the biggest criticisms of the Nixon administration is the "secret" bombing campaign of Cambodia, a neutral and defenseless country in Southeast Asia. Nixon later disputed its labeling as "secret." In a speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars in New Orleans on August 20, 1973, he explained that the decision was made only two months after he became president. He further stated that the decision was made in a meeting attended by Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird; National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger; Secretary of State, William Rogers; and head of the CIA. He also stated that the bombing plan was "disclosed to appropriate Government leaders" and the "appropriate Congressional leaders, those in the Military Affairs Committee like Eddie Hebert." He added that "there was no secrecy as far as Government leaders were concerned, who had any right to know or need to know."

(Note: Eddie Hebert was a New Orleans Congressman at the US House of Representative. Nixon had named Hebert in his speech to the New Orleans VFW to stress the point that many people in Congress were fully aware of the plan to bomb Cambodia.)

Nixon had apparently been led to believe by his advisors that the lives of American soldiers were at risk because the North Vietnamese were setting up sanctuaries and staging areas in Cambodia.

"If American soldiers in the field today were similarly threatened by an enemy," he explained, "and if the price of protecting those soldiers was to order air strikes to save American lives, I would make the same decision today that I made in February of 1969." He admitted that the military action was kept secret from the American public, but only because "the bombing would have had to stop"²⁵ if the public had been informed.

Nixon’s description of the decision to bomb Cambodia—which he made as a new president—was surprisingly similar to President Kennedy’s indoctrination as a new president when faced with the Bay of Pigs ordeal in April of 1961. To fully appreciate Nixon’s plight, it is important to remember that President Johnson had escalated the number of American soldiers in South Vietnam from 16,000 when Kennedy was killed to 540,000 when Johnson left office in January of 1969.

(Note: None of the 16,000 soldiers sent by President Kennedy were draftees. They were "military advisors" who engaged in espionage activity and trained the South Vietnamese army.)

Johnson had abdicated his leadership—by announcing in March of 1968 that he would not seek re-election—thereby leaving his successor with the nightmare of Vietnam, a foreign policy disaster in a colossal state of senseless confusion and discontinuity. Unfortunately, this is what Nixon’s critics selectively forget when denouncing him for the so-called "secret" bombing campaign in Cambodia. Nixon’s critics tend to forget that he stepped into the presidency with half a million soldiers—mostly eighteen year-old boys—placed in harm’s way on foreign soil.

Nixon was obviously concerned for the safety of those half-million soldiers, and as the new president, was probably pressured by his advisers to make a bad decision as Kennedy was pressured eight years earlier regarding the Bay of Pigs. Both made the wrong decision, but neither did so in a vacuum. Both kept the decision secret from the American public, but not a secret from the appropriate people within government.

I would venture to state that most "informed" Americans today have been led to believe that Nixon’s "secret" bombing campaign in Cambodia was literally a "secret" in every sense of the word. Most people believe Nixon somehow managed to initiate a military campaign against a foreign country without informing anyone in government because this is the spin that has been pushed by propagandists within the news media and the bookpublishing industry for years. But Nixon’s explanation seems perfectly believable. Thinking rationally, how would he have kept such a program secret within the United States government? Did he personally fly a plane to Cambodia and drop the bombs himself? Obviously this is absurd. He made a command decision in the middle of a war with the full knowledge of his advisors and the appropriate leaders in Congress. The reason he made the decision was to save the lives of half a million American soldiers put in harm’s way by his predecessor.

The following timeline reveals how the "silent coup" against Nixon occurred, perpetrated by people like Daniel Ellsberg among others:

• May 9, 1969: William Beecher, New York correspondent for the New York Times, breaks the story of secret bombing raids in Cambodia. The Times runs a front-page article on it.²⁶

• May 10, 1969: At the request of the White House, the FBI begins tapping phones of people suspected of leaking classified information to the press. The wiretaps end in February 1971 after being placed, at various times, on phone lines of seventeen government officials and newsmen.²⁷

• 1970: J. Edgar Hoover inexplicably halts all domestic intelligence activities in the FBI.

• March - May 1971: Columnist Jack Anderson publishes eleven columns containing classified information about the Defense Department.²⁸ Also occurring within this general time frame, someone leaks sensitive information to the New York Times about the SALT talks.²⁹

• July 1971: The Nixon White House creates a "Special Investigations Unit" called the Plumbers. Their mission is to plug leaks. According the late William Sullivan (FBI), Nixon created the Plumbers because the FBI was not providing adequate domestic intelligence information to the Executive branch. This is because Hoover halted the domestic intelligence division.³⁰ Also occuring in July 1971, the New York Times publishes the Pentagon Papers.

• September 1971: White House Plumbers ransack the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis J. Fielding. (Note: G. Gordon Liddy views the break-in as a fiasco, but he notices E. Howard Hunt and the Cuban burglars celebrating with champaign afterwards.)

• December 1971: Someone gives Jack Anderson sensitive information about negotiations between Pakistan and India. The Nixon administration publicly expresses neutrality, but secretly has a tilt toward Pakistan. Anderson publishes the information in a column and consequently destroys the negotiations.³¹

• December 23, 1971: Admiral Robert Welander confesses to Nixon attorney/aide John Ehrlichman that Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has been running a spy ring in the White House. With permission, Ehrlichman tapes Welander’s full confession. (Note: Nixon does not fire Moorer, possibly because someone blackmailed him about being in Dallas the day JFK was killed.)

• February 1972: Nixon personally visits China in February 1972 after a 21-year estrangement with the United States. This is a bold diplomatic move for an American president.

• May 1972: Nixon and Brezhnev sign the SALT I agreements in Moscow.

• June 19, 1972: Five burglars are arrested at the Democratic National Campaign headquarters at the Watergate hotel in Washington, DC.

• May 1973: Judge Matthew Byrne, who is presiding over Ellsberg’s trial, obtains the list of individuals whose phones have been wiretapped by the FBI at the behest of the White House from May 1969 through February 1971.³² All charges against Ellsberg and Russo were dismissed on May 11, 1973 on grounds of the governmental misconduct.³³ In addition, Woodward and Bernstein run their first "Deep Throat" article in the Washington Post on May 3, 1973.³⁴

Nixon was framed pure and simple because his foreign policy was too progressive. Consequently, the military and Jewish interests removed him from power. Daniel Ellsberg was part of that effort. The Pentagon never trusted Nixon because he won the presidency based, to a large extent, on a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. As he proceeded to implement his plan, his enemies began to, figuratively, stab him with a thousand daggers. One of the key people in the "silent coup" against Nixon was Daniel Ellsberg. His reemergence as a peace activist in the Iraq War should be viewed as an act of treachery by our government. Nothing more, nothing less. He is a false prophet, a tree that produces evil fruit. Such trees must be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." ª

Go to Next Appendix

Go to Previous Appendix

Contents

Lennon Home Page

Main Home Page

ORDER BOOK

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/order_hardcopy.htm