Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Shocking New Evidence Reveals Depths of 'Treason' and 'Treachery' of Watergate and Iran-Contra

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/shocking-new-evidence-reveals-depths-treason-and-treachery-watergate-and-iran?paging=off
 
 
Shocking New Evidence Reveals Depths of 'Treason' and 'Treachery' of 
Watergate and Iran-Contra
 
New evidence continues to accumulate showing how Official Washington got 
key elements of two major presidential scandals of the Nixon and Reagan 
administrations wrong.
March 10, 2013  |
 
A favorite saying of Official Washington is that “the cover-up is worse 
than the crime.” But that presupposes you accurately understand what the 
crime was. And, in the case of the two major U.S. government scandals of 
the last third of the Twentieth Century – Watergate and Iran-Contra – 
that doesn’t seem to be the case.
 
Indeed, newly disclosed documents have put old evidence into a sharply 
different light and suggest that history has substantially miswritten 
the two scandals by failing to understand that they actually were 
sequels to earlier scandals that were far worse. Watergate and 
Iran-Contra were, in part at least, extensions of the original crimes, 
which involved dirty dealings to secure the immense power of the presidency.
 
Shortly after Nixon took office in 1969, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover 
informed him of the existence of the file containing national security 
wiretaps documenting how Nixon’s emissaries had gone behind President 
Lyndon Johnson’s back to convince the South Vietnamese government to 
boycott the Paris Peace Talks, which were close to ending the Vietnam 
War in fall 1968.In the case of Watergate – the foiled Republican 
break-in at the Democratic National Committee in June 1972 and Richard 
Nixon’s botched cover-up leading to his resignation in August 1974 – the 
evidence is now clear that Nixon created the Watergate burglars out of 
his panic that the Democrats might possess a file on his sabotage of 
Vietnam peace talks in 1968.
 
The disruption of Johnson’s peace talks then enabled Nixon to hang on 
for a narrow victory over Democrat Hubert Humphrey. However, as the new 
President was taking steps in 1969 to extend the war another four-plus 
years, he sensed the threat from the wiretap file and ordered two of his 
top aides, chief of staff H.R. “Bob” Haldeman and National Security 
Advisor Henry Kissinger, to locate it. But they couldn’t find the file.
 
We now know that was because President Johnson, who privately had called 
Nixon’s Vietnam actions “treason,” had ordered the file removed from the 
White House by his national security aide Walt Rostow.
 
Rostow labeled the file “The ‘X’ Envelope” and kept it in his 
possession, although having left government, he had no legal right to 
possess the highly classified documents, many of which were stamped “Top 
Secret.” Johnson had instructed Rostow to retain the papers as long as 
he, Johnson, was alive and then afterwards to decide what to do with them.
 
Nixon, however, had no idea that Johnson and Rostow had taken the 
missing file or, indeed, who might possess it. Normally, national 
security documents are passed from the outgoing President to the 
incoming President to maintain continuity in government.
 
But Haldeman and Kissinger had come up empty in their search. They were 
only able to recreate the file’s contents, which included incriminating 
conversations between Nixon’s emissaries and South Vietnamese officials 
regarding Nixon’s promise to get them a better deal if they helped him 
torpedo Johnson’s peace talks.
 
So, the missing file remained a troubling mystery inside Nixon’s White 
House, but Nixon still lived up to his pre-election agreement with South 
Vietnamese President Nguyen van Thieu to extend U.S. military 
participation in the war with the goal of getting the South Vietnamese a 
better outcome than they would have received from Johnson in 1968.
 
Nixon not only continued the Vietnam War, which had already claimed more 
than 30,000 American lives and an estimated one million Vietnamese, but 
he expanded it, with intensified bombing campaigns and a U.S. incursion 
into Cambodia. At home, the war was bitterly dividing the nation with a 
massive anti-war movement and an angry backlash from war supporters.
 
Pentagon Papers
 
It was in that intense climate in 1971 that Daniel Ellsberg, a former 
senior Defense Department official, gave the New York Times a copy of 
the Pentagon Papers, the secret U.S. history of the Vietnam War from 
1945 to 1967. The voluminous report documented many of the lies – most 
told by Democrats – to draw the American people into the war.
 
The Times began publishing the Pentagon Papers on June 13, 1971, and the 
disclosures touched off a public firestorm. Trying to tamp down the 
blaze, Nixon took extraordinary legal steps to stop dissemination of the 
secrets, ultimately failing in the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
But Nixon had an even more acute fear. He knew something that few others 
did, that there was a sequel to the Pentagon Papers that was arguably 
more explosive – the missing file containing evidence that Nixon had 
covertly prevented the war from being brought to a conclusion so he 
could maintain a political edge in Election 1968.
 
If anyone thought the Pentagon Papers represented a shocking scandal – 
and clearly millions of Americans did – how would people react to a file 
that revealed Nixon had kept the slaughter going – with thousands of 
additional American soldiers dead and the violence spilling back into 
the United States – just so he could win an election?
 
A savvy political analyst, Nixon recognized this threat to his 
reelection in 1972, assuming he would have gotten that far. Given the 
intensity of the anti-war movement, there would surely have been furious 
demonstrations around the White House and likely an impeachment effort 
on Capitol Hill.
 
So, on June 17, 1971, Nixon summoned Haldeman and Kissinger into the 
Oval Office and – as Nixon’s own recording devices whirred softly – 
pleaded with them again to locate the missing file. “Do we have it?” a 
Nixon asked Haldeman. “I’ve asked for it. You said you didn’t have it.”
 
Haldeman: “We can’t find it.”
 
Kissinger: “We have nothing here, Mr. President.”
 
Nixon: “Well, damnit, I asked for that because I need it.”
 
Kissinger: “But Bob and I have been trying to put the damn thing together.”
 
Haldeman: “We have a basic history in constructing our own, but there is 
a file on it.”
 
Nixon: “Where?”
 
Haldeman: “[Presidential aide Tom Charles] Huston swears to God that 
there’s a file on it and it’s at Brookings.”
 
Nixon: “Bob? Bob? Now do you remember Huston’s plan [for White 
House-sponsored break-ins as part of domestic counter-intelligence 
operations]? Implement it.”
 
Kissinger: “Now Brookings has no right to have classified documents.”
 
Nixon: “I want it implemented. … Goddamnit, get in and get those files. 
Blow the safe and get it.”
 
Haldeman: “They may very well have cleaned them by now, but this thing, 
you need to –“
 
Kissinger: “I wouldn’t be surprised if Brookings had the files.”
 
Haldeman: “My point is Johnson knows that those files are around. He 
doesn’t know for sure that we don’t have them around.”
 
But Johnson did know that the file was no longer at the White House 
because he had ordered Rostow to remove it in the final days of his own 
presidency.
 
Forming the Burglars
 
On June 30, 1971, Nixon again berated Haldeman about the need to break 
into Brookings and “take it [the file] out.” Nixon even suggested using 
former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt to conduct the Brookings break-in.
 
“You talk to Hunt,” Nixon told Haldeman. “I want the break-in. Hell, 
they do that. You’re to break into the place, rifle the files, and bring 
them in. … Just go in and take it. Go in around 8:00 or 9:00 o’clock.”
 
Haldeman: “Make an inspection of the safe.”
 
Nixon: “That’s right. You go in to inspect the safe. I mean, clean it up.”
 
For reasons that remain unclear, it appears that the Brookings break-in 
never took place, but Nixon’s desperation to locate Johnson’s peace-talk 
file was an important link in the chain of events that led to the 
creation of Nixon’s burglary unit under Hunt’s supervision. Hunt later 
oversaw the two Watergate break-ins in May and June of 1972.
 
While it’s possible that Nixon was still searching for the file about 
his Vietnam-peace sabotage when the Watergate break-ins occurred nearly 
a year later, it’s generally believed that the burglary was more broadly 
focused, seeking any information that might have an impact on Nixon’s 
re-election, either defensively or offensively.
 
As it turned out, Nixon’s burglars were nabbed inside the Watergate 
complex on their second break-in on June 17, 1972, exactly one year 
after Nixon’s tirade to Haldeman and Kissinger about the need to blow 
the safe at the Brookings Institution in pursuit of the missing Vietnam 
peace-talk file.
 
Ironically, too, Johnson and Rostow had no intention of exposing Nixon’s 
dirty secret regarding LBJ’s Vietnam peace talks, presumably for the 
same reasons that they kept their mouths shut back in 1968, out of a 
benighted belief that revealing Nixon’s actions might somehow not be 
“good for the country.”
 
In November 1972, despite the growing scandal over the Watergate 
break-in, Nixon handily won reelection, crushing Sen. George McGovern, 
Nixon’s preferred opponent. Nixon then reached out to Johnson seeking 
his help in squelching Democratic-led investigations of the Watergate 
affair and slyly noting that Johnson had ordered wiretaps of Nixon’s 
campaign in 1968.
 
Johnson reacted angrily to the overture, refusing to cooperate. On Jan. 
20, 1973, Nixon was sworn in for his second term. On Jan. 22, 1973, 
Johnson died of a heart attack.
 
Toward Resignation
 
In the weeks that followed Nixon’s Inauguration and Johnson’s death, the 
scandal over the Watergate cover-up grew more serious, creeping ever 
closer to the Oval Office. Meanwhile, Rostow struggled to decide what he 
should do with “The ‘X’ Envelope.”
 
On May 14, 1973, in a three-page “memorandum for the record,” Rostow 
summarized what was in “The ‘X’ Envelope” and provided a chronology for 
the events in fall 1968. Rostow reflected, too, on what effect LBJ’s 
public silence then may have had on the unfolding Watergate scandal.
 
“I am inclined to believe the Republican operation in 1968 relates in 
two ways to the Watergate affair of 1972,” Rostow wrote. He noted, 
first, that Nixon’s operatives may have judged that their “enterprise 
with the South Vietnamese” – in frustrating Johnson’s last-ditch peace 
initiative – had secured Nixon his narrow margin of victory over Hubert 
Humphrey in 1968.
 
“Second, they got away with it,” Rostow wrote. “Despite considerable 
press commentary after the election, the matter was never investigated 
fully. Thus, as the same men faced the election in 1972, there was 
nothing in their previous experience with an operation of doubtful 
propriety (or, even, legality) to warn them off, and there were memories 
of how close an election could get and the possible utility of pressing 
to the limit – and beyond.” [To read Rostow’s memo, click here, here and 
here.]
 
What Rostow didn’t know was that there was a third – and more direct – 
connection between the missing file and Watergate. Nixon’s fear about 
the file surfacing as a follow-up to the Pentagon Papers was Nixon’s 
motive for creating Hunt’s burglary team in the first place.
 
Rostow apparently struggled with what to do with the file for the next 
month as the Watergate scandal expanded. On June 25, 1973, fired White 
House counsel John Dean delivered his blockbuster Senate testimony, 
claiming that Nixon got involved in the cover-up within days of the June 
1972 burglary at the Democratic National Committee. Dean also asserted 
that Watergate was just part of a years-long program of political 
espionage directed by Nixon’s White House.
 
The very next day, as headlines of Dean’s testimony filled the nation’s 
newspapers, Rostow reached his conclusion about what to do with “The ‘X’ 
Envelope.” In longhand, he wrote a “Top Secret” note which read, “To be 
opened by the Director, Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, not earlier than 
fifty (50) years from this date June 26, 1973.”
 
In other words, Rostow intended this missing link of American history to 
stay missing for another half century. In a typed cover letter to LBJ 
Library director Harry Middleton, Rostow wrote: “Sealed in the attached 
envelope is a file President Johnson asked me to hold personally because 
of its sensitive nature. In case of his death, the material was to be 
consigned to the LBJ Library under conditions I judged to be appropriate. …
 
“After fifty years the Director of the LBJ Library (or whomever may 
inherit his responsibilities, should the administrative structure of the 
National Archives change) may, alone, open this file. … If he believes 
the material it contains should not be opened for research [at that 
time], I would wish him empowered to re-close the file for another fifty 
years when the procedure outlined above should be repeated.”
 
Ultimately, however, the LBJ Library didn’t wait that long. After a 
little more than two decades, on July 22, 1994, the envelope was opened 
and the archivists began the long process of declassifying the contents.
 
Yet, because Johnson and Rostow chose to withhold the file on Nixon’s 
“treason,” a distorted history of Watergate took shape and then hardened 
into what all the Important People of Washington “knew” to be true. The 
conventional wisdom was that Nixon was unaware of the Watergate break-in 
beforehand – that it was some harebrained scheme of a few overzealous 
subordinates – and that the President only got involved later in 
covering it up.
 
Sure, the Washington groupthink went, Nixon had his “enemies list” and 
played hardball with his rivals, but he couldn’t be blamed for the 
Watergate break-in, which many insiders regarded as “the third-rate 
burglary” that Nixon’s White House called it.
 
Even journalists and historians who took a broader view of Watergate 
didn’t pursue the remarkable clue from Nixon’s rant about the missing 
file on June 17, 1971. Though a few other historians did write, 
sketchily, about the 1968 events, they also didn’t put the events together.
 
So, the beloved saying took shape: “the cover-up is worse than the 
crime.” And Official Washington hates to rethink some history that is 
considered already settled. In this case, it would make too many 
important people who have expounded on the “worse” part of Watergate, 
i.e. the cover-up, look stupid. [For details, see Robert 
Parry’sAmerica’s Stolen Narrative.]
 
The Iran-Contra Cover-up
 
Similarly, Official Washington and many mainstream historians have 
tended to dismiss Ronald Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal as another case of 
some overzealous subordinates intuiting what the President wanted and 
getting everybody into trouble.
 
The “Big Question” that insiders were asking after the scandal broke in 
November 1986 was whether President Reagan knew about the decision by 
White House aide Oliver North and his boss, National Security Advisor 
John Poindexter, to divert some profits from secret arms sales to Iran 
to secretly buy weapons for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels.
 
Once, Poindexter testified that he had no recollection of letting Reagan 
in on that secret – and with Reagan a beloved figure to many in Official 
Washington – the inquiry was relegated to insignificance. The remaining 
investigation focused on smaller questions, like misleading Congress and 
a scholarly dispute over whether the President’s foreign policy powers 
overrode Congress’ power to appropriate funds).
 
At the start of the Iran-Contra investigation, Attorney General Edwin 
Meese had set the time parameters from 1984 to 1986, thus keeping 
outside of the frame the possibility of a much more serious scandal 
originating during Campaign 1980, i.e., whether Reagan’s campaign 
undermined President Jimmy Carter’s negotiations to free 52 American 
hostages in Iran and then paid off the Iranians by allowing Israel to 
ship weapons to Iran for the Iran-Iraq War.
 
So, while congressional and federal investigators looked only at how the 
specific 1985-86 arms sales to Iran got started, there was no timely 
attention paid to evidence that the Reagan administration had quietly 
approved Israeli arms sales to Iran in 1981 and that those contacts went 
back to the days before Election 1980 when the hostage crisis destroyed 
Carter’s reelection hopes and ensured Reagan’s victory.
 
The 52 hostages were not released until Reagan was sworn in on Jan. 20, 
1981.
 
Over the years, about two dozen sources – including Iranian officials, 
Israeli insiders, European intelligence operatives, Republican activists 
and even Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat – have provided information 
about alleged contacts with Iran by the Reagan campaign.
 
And, there were indications early in the Reagan presidency that 
something peculiar was afoot. On July 18, 1981, an Israeli-chartered 
plane crashed or was shot down after straying over the Soviet Union on a 
return flight from delivering U.S.-manufactured weapons to Iran.
 
In a PBS interview nearly a decade later, Nicholas Veliotes, Reagan’s 
assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, said he looked into 
the incident by talking to top administration officials. “It was clear 
to me after my conversations with people on high that indeed we had 
agreed that the Israelis could transship to Iran some American-origin 
military equipment,” Veliotes said.
 
In checking out the Israeli flight, Veliotes came to believe that the 
Reagan camp’s dealings with Iran dated back to before the 1980 election. 
“It seems to have started in earnest in the period probably prior to the 
election of 1980, as the Israelis had identified who would become the 
new players in the national security area in the Reagan administration,” 
Veliotes said. “And I understand some contacts were made at that time.”
 
When I re-interviewed Veliotes on Aug. 8, 2012, he said he couldn’t 
recall who the “people on high” were who had described the informal 
clearance of the Israeli shipments but he indicated that “the new 
players” were the young neoconservatives who were working on the Reagan 
campaign, many of whom later joined the administration as senior 
political appointees.
 
Neocon Schemes
 
Newly discovered documents at the Reagan presidential library reveal 
that Reagan’s neocons at the State Department – particularly Robert 
McFarlane and Paul Wolfowitz – initiated a policy review in 1981 to 
allow Israel to undertake secret military shipments to Iran. McFarlane 
and Wolfowitz also maneuvered to put McFarlane in charge of U.S. 
relations toward Iran and to establish a clandestine U.S. back-channel 
to the Israeli government outside the knowledge of even senior U.S. 
government officials.
 
Not only did the documents tend to support the statements by Veliotes 
but they also fit with comments that former Israeli Prime Minister 
Yitzhak Shamir made in a 1993 interview in Tel Aviv. Shamir said he had 
read the 1991 book, October Surprise, by Carter’s former National 
Security Council aide Gary Sick, which made the case for believing that 
the Republicans had intervened in the 1980 hostage negotiations to 
disrupt Carter’s reelection.
 
With the topic raised, one interviewer asked, “What do you think? Was 
there an October Surprise?”
 
“Of course, it was,” Shamir responded without hesitation. “It was.”
 
And, there were plenty of other corroborating statements as well. In 
1996, for instance, while former President Carter was meeting with 
Palestine Liberation Organization leader Arafat in Gaza City, Arafat 
tried to confess his role in the Republican maneuvering to block 
Carter’s Iran-hostage negotiations.
 
“There is something I want to tell you,” Arafat said, addressing Carter 
in the presence of historian Douglas Brinkley. “You should know that in 
1980 the Republicans approached me with an arms deal [for the PLO] if I 
could arrange to keep the hostages in Iran until after the [U.S. 
presidential] election,” Arafat said, according to Brinkley’s article in 
the fall 1996 issue of Diplomatic Quarterly.
 
As recently as this past week, former Iranian President Abolhassan 
Bani-Sadr reiterated his account of Republican overtures to Iran during 
the 1980 hostage crisis and how that secret initiative prevented release 
of the hostages.
 
In a Christian Science Monitor commentary about the movie “Argo,” 
Bani-Sadr wrote that “Ayatollah Khomeini and Ronald Reagan had organized 
a clandestine negotiation … which prevented the attempts by myself and 
then-U.S. President Jimmy Carter to free the hostages before the 1980 
U.S. presidential election took place. The fact that they were not 
released tipped the results of the election in favor of Reagan.”
 
Though Bani-Sadr had discussed the Reagan-Khomeini collaboration before, 
he added in his commentary that “two of my advisors, Hussein Navab 
Safavi and Sadr-al-Hefazi, were executed by Khomeini’s regime because 
they had become aware of this secret relationship between Khomeini, his 
son Ahmad, … and the Reagan administration.”
 
In December 1992, when a House Task Force was examining this so-called 
“October Surprise” controversy – and encountering fierce Republican 
resistance – Bani-Sadr submitted a letter detailing his 
behind-the-scenes struggle with Khomeini and his son Ahmad over their 
secret dealings with the Reagan campaign.
 
Bani-Sadr’s letter – dated Dec. 17, 1992 – was part of a flood of 
last-minute evidence implicating the Reagan campaign in the hostage 
scheme. However, by the time the letter and the other evidence arrived, 
the leadership of the House Task Force had decided to simply declare the 
Reagan campaign innocent. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “‘October Surprise’ 
and ‘Argo.’”]
 
Burying the History
 
Lawrence Barcella, who served as Task Force chief counsel, later told me 
that so much incriminating evidence arrived late that he asked Task 
Force chairman, Rep. Lee Hamilton, a centrist Democrat from Indiana, to 
extend the inquiry for three months but that Hamilton said no. (Hamilton 
told me that he had no recollection of Barcella’s request.)
 
Instead of giving a careful review to the new evidence, the House Task 
Force ignored, disparaged or buried it. I later unearthed some of the 
evidence in unpublished Task Force files. However, in the meantime, 
Official Washington dismissed the “October Surprise” and other 
Iran-Contra-connected scandals, like Contra drug trafficking, as 
conspiracy theories. [For the latest information on the October Surprise 
case, see Robert Parry’sAmerica’s Stolen Narrative.]
 
As with Watergate and Nixon, Official Washington has refused to rethink 
its conclusions absolving President Ronald Reagan and his successor 
President George H.W. Bush of guilt in a range of crimes collected under 
the large umbrella of Iran-Contra.
 
When journalist Gary Webb revived the Contra-Cocaine scandal in the 
mid-to-late 1990s, he faced unrelenting hostility from Establishment 
reporters at the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. 
The attacks were so ugly that Webb’s editors at the San Jose Mercury 
News forced him out, setting in motion his professional destruction.
 
It didn’t even matter when an internal investigation by the CIA’s 
inspector general in 1998 confirmed that the Reagan and Bush-41 
administrations had tolerated and protected drug trafficking by the 
Contras. The major newspapers largely ignored the findings and did 
nothing to help rehabilitate Webb’s career, eventually contributing to 
his suicide in 2004. [For details on the CIA report, see Robert Parry's 
Lost History.]
 
The major newspapers have been equally unwilling to rethink the origins 
– and the significance – of the October Surprise/Iran-Contra scandal. It 
doesn’t matter how much new evidence accumulates. It remains much easier 
to continue the politically safe deification of “Gipper” Reagan and the 
fond remembrances of “Poppy” Bush.
 
Not only would rethinking Iran-Contra and Watergate stir up anger and 
abuse from Republican operatives and the Right, but the process would 
reflect badly on many journalists and historians who built careers, in 
part, by getting these important historical stories wrong.
 
However, there must come a point when the weight of the new evidence 
makes the old interpretations of these scandals intellectually untenable 
and when treasured sayings – like “the cover-up is worse than the crime” 
– are swept into the historical dustbin.
-- 
Namib
.....
- God will take care of you. Whatever you need, God will give it to you.
- I need a shave. Am I next?
(Tom Kromer)

 
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/shocking-new-evidence-reveals-depths-treason-and-treachery-watergate-and-iran?paging=off
 
 
Interessante. La fonte è estremamente militante per cui va presa con un 
granello di sale, anche se riconosco che questo è un argomento ad hominem.
Nel merito, mi sembra incredibile che LBJ, durante una difficile campagna 
per la rielezione che poi infatti perse, abbia rinunciato a servirsi di 
un'arma che avrebbe completamente distrutto Nixon "out of a benighted 
belief that revealing Nixon’s actions might somehow not be “good for the 
country.”".
Johnson era un politico tosto, con parecchi centimetri di pelo sullo 
stomaco; non si parte da insegnante in una scuola di provincia per arrivare 
a POTUS rispettando il Manuale dei Boy Scout. Per citare l'articolo di 
Wikipedia sul suo conto "As Johnson's biographer Robert Caro observes, 
"Johnson's ambition was uncommon—in the degree to which it was unencumbered 
by even the slightest excess weight of ideology, of philosophy, of 
principles, of beliefs.""
Uno così non si sarebbe fatta scappare una occasione del genere per nessun 
motivo.
Per la questione dei contatti di Reagan con l'Iran per sabotare le 
trattative di Carter per il rilascio degli ostaggi, per credere a quanto 
affermato da Alternet occorrerebbe accettare che ci sia stata una congiura 
del silenzio di cui hanno fatto parte non solo ovviamente l'Amministrazione 
repubblicana, ma anche il Partito Democratico ed i giornali ad esso 
favorevoli: "When journalist Gary Webb revived the Contra-Cocaine scandal 
in the
mid-to-late 1990s, he faced unrelenting hostility from Establishment 
reporters at the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. The 
attacks were so ugly that Webb’s editors at the San Jose Mercury News 
forced him out, setting in motion his professional destruction."
Nutro una estrema diffidenza per le "verità" nascoste da una cospirazione 
universale.
 
Carlo "Jurassic Park"
 
 
 
 
 

 cospirazione universale.
 
Non hai torto, in linea di massima. Eppure, di "cospirazioni" (in fondo, 
semplici e cattolicissime "omissioni") bipartisan ne conosciamo 
parecchie, nel nostro Paese.


 parecchie, nel nostro Paese.
 
Gli U.S.A. sono un Paese dove la stampa non fa sconti a nessuno, meno che 
mai a un Presidente o ex Presidente.
 
Carlo "Jurassic Park" 
 

 Il filo di bava
 
Quello che esce dalla tua bocca durante gli attacchi di delirium tremens?
Sparisci, lurido abbrutito.
 
Carlo "Jurassic Park"