From: instruct505@gmail.com   
      
   Watergate Revisionism 2.   
      
      
   Review of Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat and the CIA by Jim Hougan,   
   Random House, 1984..   
      
   According to the book blurb, Jim Hougan was Washington editor of Harper’s   
   Magazine, a graduate of University of Wisconsin and received a  fellowship   
   from the Alicia Patterson and the Rockerfeller foundations.  He received   
   acclaim for his previous book â   
   €œSpooksâ€�.  In No Agenda, he takes on the Watergate saga, giving his own   
   take on matters.   
      
   For those who thought  the subject had been exhausted, the mass of information   
   already available, think again.   Hougan places responsibility squarely in the   
   lap of the CIA.  His book is a very mixed bag.  First, the positives.   
      
   Hougan provides some excellent detail of the break-in’s themselves, giving   
   almost a minute by minute account of both the Fielding and Watergate   
   operations.  We learn who was responsible for what, what equipment was used   
   and how the locations were cased.   
     Hougan provides an excellent appendix in which he provides a list of the   
   break-ins carried out by the plumbers.   
      
   It is when we come to the bigger picture, that  his evidence  begins to shrink   
   and   the assumptions begin to mount.  What does he want us to believe?    
   Across 340 pages of narrative and appendix, Hougan argues that Watergate, was   
   the collision of two    
   covert operations.  Just a block from Watergate, was the Columbia Plaza, which   
   as well as providing residential accommodation, hosted a Call girl ring, with   
   extensive connections we are told, to Watergate and the DNC.  This ring with   
   an exclusive    
   cliental became the focus for a CIA honey trap.  The spooks at Langley became   
   concerned, when Liddy’s Gemstone operation at CREEP, threatened to run into   
   their own interests at the Columbia Plaza.  It was the role of McCord and   
   possibly Hunt- who were    
   still secretly working for the CIA -  to pre-empt this, by sabotaging the   
   break-in, at least, this is the story that Hougan wants us to believe.  But   
   how plausible is it?   
      
   What About Hougan's claims that, McCord and Hunt were still secretly working   
   for the Agency?  To substantiate this claim, Hougan uses the following line of   
   argument,   
      
   "Moreover, when it came time for Hunt to undertake a series of questionable   
   intelligence operations, ostensibly on behalf of the White House, it was the   
   CIA that provided him the extensive ‘technical support’ that the mission   
   required.â€�[1].   
      
   But there was nothing secret about this.  The White House via John Ehrilichman   
   had requested it.  Hence he wrote to Deputy Director of CIA Lt Gen. Robert E   
   Cushman, on 7th July, 1971,   
      
   â€œI want to alert you that an old acquaintance , Howard Hunt , has been asked   
   by the President to do some special consultant work on security problems.“   
   He may be contacting you sometime in the future for some assistance .â€�[2]   
      
   Along with equipment and as Liddy makes plain, the CIA also provided a safe   
   house for the men and Liddy describes a meeting with an agent from the CIA’s   
   Technical Services Division [3].  Far from being a dupe, as described by   
   Hougan, Liddy seems fully    
   conversant with the background role of the CIA.   
      
   Just as the White House was aware of the CIA logistical support, it is not   
   unreasonable to conclude, that the White House was aware that the CIA status   
   of Hunt and McCord, could be re-activated.   
      
   Hougan would have his reader believe, that the interests of the CIA and Nixon   
   administrations collided, when in fact, in large part, they over lapped and   
   followed similar lines.  Daniel Ellesberg and the Pentagon Papers was a shared   
   concern.  Another    
   target  held in common, were actions against the radical and anti-war   
   movements.  And then there were the CIA-Mafia assassination plots which Nixon   
   had given approval when Vice-President[4].   
      
   What about the  Columbia Plaza,  was it  a CIA honey trap, as Hougan claims?     
   On page 309 he  provides a list of  data, which “strongly suggestsâ€� this   
   conclusion.  But a reading of his list, makes it obvious that it is highly   
   speculative and    
   conjectural.   
      
   Apparently the ring had  political clients, associated with the DNC.    
   Considering this evidence has never been placed in the public domain, Hougan   
   refers to it in a footnote [5]. The evidence comes from a “trick bookâ€�   
   which “containsâ€� coded    
   notations having to do with the clients sexual preferences and payments.  But   
   Hougan does not tell us how he knows this.  Did he have access to the book or   
   was he informed by another party?  Even if true, this is not proof of CIA   
   involvement.   
      
   Next is the presence of Lou Russell, who it is claimed bugged phones at the   
   Columbia Plaza after frequenting the place and that this was “likelyâ€� to   
   have been at the behest of McCord[6].  But this looks again, as if  one   
   assumption is pasted over    
   another and even assuming the truthfulness of these 'facts', it is still not   
   proof of CIA complicity.   
      
   Then there is the Furbershaw apartment, from  which it is alleged McCord was   
   asked to vacate, due to the report that young girls had been visiting there   
   and the presence of bugging equipment.  Howard Hunt is also said to have   
   visited.  Proof that    
   Columbia Plaza run by the CIA?  Hardly.   
      
   What about the rings Congress with CIA and KCIA agents? Of the three   
   references in the index to the KCIA, none of them relate to the call girl ring   
   at Columbia Plaza, but  to other establishments associated with vice.   
      
   Hougan makes statements that parts of the CIA and individuals within the CIA   
   â€“ Office of Security, General Gaynor, Frank Terpil -  had an interest in   
   sexual devience and blackmail.  But no direct reference to Columbia Plaza.   
      
   Finally Hougan draws attention to the way that the Bailey case was resolved.    
   Phillip Bailey was sentenced  to 5 years in prison after spending time in a   
   mental institute.  Instead of a trial, there was a plea bargain and the   
   evidence was sealed.     
   Perhaps there is something strange about this, perhaps it indicates existence   
   of evidence embarrassing to people in high places.  Along with all the other   
   pieces, listed by Hougan, it remains pretty much speculative and   
   circumstantial.   
      
   Hougan references the numerous errors that were committed in relation to the   
   break-in.   He detects a deliberate intent to undermine and jeopardize the   
   break-in, hence his constant references to sabotage.  He writes,   
      
   â€œThe conclusion IS INESCAPABLE (my emphasis –GS) that McCord sabotaged the   
   June 16th break-in to protect an on going CIA operation.â€�[7].   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)