You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #9: I've been angry since November 22, 1963. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-05 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. I've been angry since November 22, 1963.
From the National Archives we find evidence George H.W. "Poppy" Bush was in Dallas the day President Kennedy was murdered. Too bad he ratted out a suspect AFTER the assassination:







Here's a nice letter a fellah wrote about it to CJ Rehnquist:



Letter To Chief
Justice Rehnquist
From Stephen M. St. John


2-10-5

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, N. E. Washington, DC 20543

January 31, 2005

Dear Chief Justice Rehnquist,

I write to you as a concerned citizen of the United States who is a Federal employee under oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I am asking you to focus on a very grave matter fraught with serious implications touching on the conduct of former President George Herbert Walker Bush. Primary documentary evidence, as set forth below and in attachments to this letter, shows that George H. W. Bush was in Dallas, Texas on the day of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and that on the next day he served as a conduit of disinformation so as to promote a misleading public perception of the person accused of the crime, Lee Harvey Oswald.

My doubts about former President Bush emanate from careful consideration of two memos of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, one written by the Director John Edgar Hoover and dated 29 November 1963, and the other by Special Agent Graham W. Kitchel and dated 22 November 1963, the very day of the JFK assassination. (I became aware of the Hoover memo in 1990 and obtained a copy of it directly from FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC on a visit there in June of 1991. This Hoover memo was published the same year in Mark Lane's Plausible Denial and a year later in Robert Morrow's Firsthand Knowledge. I became aware of the Kitchel memo in 2003 and that same year obtained a copy of it by mail from the National Archives. The Kitchel memo is not as well known to researchers as the Hoover memo and as far as I know it has never been published.)

As I will explain below, the Hoover and Kitchel memos help interpret each other. Perhaps by coincidence only and certainly unbeknownst to me at the time, the Kitchel memo was declassified on 15 October 1993, exactly two days after I had hand-delivered complaints of judicial misconduct (93-8533 and 93-8534), which are relevant to the topic of this letter, to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, according to provisions set forth in the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C.372(c)). Whatever the case, the Kitchel memo establishes George H. W. Bush's whereabouts in Dallas the day Kennedy died and the next day, 23 November 1963, the day before the assassination of the accused, Lee Harvey Oswald.

After perusal of the Kitchel memo (see attached) obvious questions arise, which I believe explain why this memo remained hidden from certain investigators for three decades and from me for four decades. Why did George H. W. Bush wait until after JFK was pronounced dead to inform on a Houston resident who allegedly was making threats against the president? Why did Bush wait a day, until after JFK had visited Houston on 21 November, to pass this information to the FBI? Why did Bush withhold potentially useful information known to him for weeks before JFK's trip to Texas and then reveal it to the FBI when it was too late to act upon? Why did Bush fail to give a timely warning? Will George H. W. Bush take the answers to these questions to the grave? I hope not!

Bearing in mind that the Kitchel memo reveals Bush's need for confidentiality with respect to his untimely reporting of hearsay from a "source unknown" as well as his advice to the FBI to contact his colleagues at the Harris County Republican Party Headquarters for further information, I have concluded that Bush was establishing in his telephone contact with Kitchel a pretext for being in Dallas on the 22nd and 23rd of November 1963 so as to disguise a purpose entirely different than simply giving what we now know with benefit of hindsight to be useless information. That entirely different purpose is revealed in the Hoover memo (see attached).

Written on 29 November 1963, one week after the JFK assassination and on the very day of the establishment of the Warren Commission by executive order, the Hoover memo ostensibly concerns itself with the reaction of the Cuban community in south Florida to the events of the previous week in Dallas. Implicit in Hoover's words is the understanding that Oswald's pro-Castro public persona could potentially cause dangerous international ramifications with Cuba or Cuba's sponsor, the erstwhile Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

CONTINUED...

http://www.rense.com/general62/letter.htm



Rehnquist must not've seen it, or he would've done something about these traitors in government. Sure.

Here's the second FBI memo, from 29 Nov 1963, where J Edgar Hoover mentions briefing "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" on the assassination of President Kennedy...







BTW: A most hearty welcome to DU, sasha031!

Online source for above National Archive documents:

http://www.internetpirate.com/bush.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC