If you think you know all about the Bush Crime Family, you don't know squat

[nichomachus]

unless you've read Russ Baker's "Family of Secrets."

I thought I was up to speed on all things Bush, but I'm reading this now and have at least one "Holy Shit" moment on every page.

These bastards are up to their necks in every piece of dirty work in the US -- and abroad -- for the last century.

Poppy Bush has been CIA since before there was a CIA. His stock in trade is not leaving any fingerprints, no paper trail, which is why most people don't know. He's also very adept at creating phony alibis in advance, knowing that someone may try to pin it on him.

Name one thing that has happened -- JFK, Watergate, Vietnam, Iran Contra, etc -- and there is a trail going back to Bush. Or more precisely, a trail going back to the corporate/CIA cabal for which Bush is a central character and which seems to keep showing up over and over and over.

And the interesting thing is that as soon as someone's name gets connected to anything, all of a sudden the Bushes never heard of him, even though they were in business with him 10 years ago or were college roommates. It's like he never existed -- and people buy it.

There have been other threads about this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=209x7010

but they haven't made it to the greatest.

It's just mind boggling -- well researched and well written -- and very very scary. Any time anyone threatens this corporate/CIA cabal, bad things happen. They either die or they are politically and financially ruined (think JFK, RFK, Eliot Spitzer, etc.)

While it focuses on the Bushes, who are central to these plots, the scary thing is about the shady group of people who really run the country.

To understand many of the things that are going on today -- and the likelihood that there will be significant change short of bloodshed -- you need to read this book.

[AndyA]

1. I've heard similar things from others about this book.

I definitely need to read it, although I'll have to do it when my temperament can handle it, I'm afraid.

I have friends in Denver, and they have first hand knowledge about some of the crap Neil Bush pulled back in the eighties with his Silverado Savings and Loan.

From Wikipedia:

Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1.3 billion. Neil Bush, son of then Vice President of the United States George H. W. Bush, was Director of Silverado at the time. Neil Bush was accused of giving himself a loan from Silverado, but he denied all wrongdoing.<2>

The US Office of Thrift Supervision investigated Silverado's failure and determined that Neil Bush had engaged in numerous "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." Although Bush was not indicted on criminal charges, a civil action was brought against him and the other Silverado directors by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it was eventually settled out of court, with Bush paying $50,000 as part of the settlement, the Washington Post reported.<12>

As a director of a failing thrift, Bush voted to approve $100 million in what were ultimately bad loans to two of his business partners. And in voting for the loans, he failed to inform fellow board members at Silverado Savings & Loan that the loan applicants were his business partners.

Neil Bush paid a $50,000 fine and was banned from banking activities for his role in taking down Silverado, which cost taxpayers $1.3 billion. A Resolution Trust Corporation Suit against Bush and other officers of Silverado was settled in 1991 for $26.5 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis

And yet, his idiot brother still managed to serve two terms as pResident! (Whether legitimately or not...)

[Tangerine LaBamba]

2. I read it, and was unimpressed

I expected something more substantial, but the links the author made from one thing to another were just tenuous and some seemed, at least to me, out his butt. It was as if he was trying to nail the Bushes for everything, and, in doing that, he failed in some very big ways.

Don't get me wrong - I find the whole crew as loathesome as I'm sure you do, but that book ended leaving me feeling almost sorry for them - a sure sign that the author went in a wrong direction. His attempts to somehow link G.H.W. B. to the Kennedy assassination left me confused - I saw no link there, but the author pulled in every possible bit of information and tried to tie them all together - and, in my mind, failed.

It's a big book and a good read and I've enjoyed Baker's work in Vanity Fair, but my hopes for this tome when I bought it were not realized. As I said, I'm all for condemning that vile family, but this one never rose above the level of tabloid journalism.

[tanngrisnir3]

7. Links out of the butt are usually of poor quality.

[nichomachus]

9. I found just the opposite

I think he made some solid cases.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

10. How did you see a viable connection

between the Bush Pere's presence in Texas on the day of the Kennedy assassination and the CIA somehow being involved in the murder because of Bush Pere's making a phone call to J. Edgar Hoover on that day?

It just went flat. There was no story there, but the author strung the facts together to make it appear that there was.

[timtom]

45. A very curious aspect to that is

that Poppy claims not to remember where he was on that momentous day.

[RufusTFirefly]

14. Sorry you were unimpressed. I agree with nicho. I definitely was impressed

The link between GHWB and JFK is a good example.

Despite denials, Bush was almost certainly CIA before 11/22/63. The biographer Joseph McBride, who was writing a book about Frank Capra, not JFK or Bush, came across an FBI memo titled "Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" that mentions that the Bureau contacted two people with concerns that anti-Castro Cubans might believe the president's murder signaled a change in policy toward Cuba: "Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency" and "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency." When McBride contacted a Bush spokesperson, he was told "must be another George Bush." And indeed, there was another George Bush at the CIA at the time. But he only worked there briefly as a GS-5, analyzing photographs on the night shift and would not have received any interagency memos.

Incredibly, Bush can't remember where he was on 11/22/63. Bush says he can't remember where he was when Kennedy was shot but in her memoirs, Barbara Bush explained that they were flying through Texas on a campaign swing and that she was in Tyler, Texas, getting her hair done when she heard the news. Soon after, she and George hopped back in the private plane and headed back to Dallas where they were forced to circle the airfield until the second Presidential plane had left the airport. Seems like a tough thing to forget.

[Ohio Joe]

22. Where is that from?

Meaning the part where Bush can't remember where he was on 11/22/63. I've seen it repeated dozens of times but never where/when he said it.

[PRETZEL]

23. I will give Mr. Baker more than credit

on his investigation into the "trail" the Poppy seems to want to leave in his JFK denials. That part is very clear that Poppy was basically full of it in his claims to not know where he was and that very futile effort of covering his tracks.

Russ Baker certainly blows major holes in that aspect of the JFK assassination.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

25. Sorry

That's a memo that proves nothing. And Bush's whereabouts on 11/22/63 are written about in the book. I don't know where you got the notion that he "can't remember where he was on 11/22/63." The book is very clear about it.

As I recall, Baker wrote that on the morning of the assassination, G H W Bush was in Dallas, then flew to Tyler, Tex., to speak at a luncheon (the speech was cancelled when the shooting was reported; Baker notes that Bush remained "supremely well composed''), then flew back to Dallas and on to Houston, but not before phoning the FBI from Tyler to report his suspicions that a Republican Party activist might have been involved in the killing. The whole scenario is written about very clearly.

You might want to read it again if you're quoting someone who obviously read the book.

Or, you might want just to read it for the first time, hmmmmm?

[RufusTFirefly]

27. Actually, YOU need to re-read the book

With respect, you are recalling Barbara Bush's memoirs, not George H.W. Bush's recollection. And that is precisely Baker's point.

Here's what Baker writes, after describing the propaganda technique known as "block and bridge," which involves "gain(ing) control of the new material, mitigating the damage by redirecting it in a beneficial way." (Baker, p. 52)

Thus it was that the first and only Bush family acknowledgment of where Poppy Bush was on that red-letter day came in classic form -- from the wife, in the most innocuous swathing. (Baker, pp. 52-3)

[Tangerine LaBamba]

30. No, I'm not

I don't have the book right here with me, but my recollection is very clear in that I've never read Barbara Bush's memoir.

Perhaps Baker quoted her in his book, which would be shoddy writing at its worst. If that's what he did, then I have an even lower opinion of this book.

But, I'm glad you liked it.

[RufusTFirefly]

32. I DO have the book right here. And Baker DID quote her in his book

That's not shoddy writing. That's called citing an extended excerpt from a primary source. Good historians do that all the time. In this instance, the best proof of what Barbara Bush wrote is what she actually wrote, not Baker's interpretation of what she wrote, which could easily have been dismissed as biased and shoddy journalism.

I guess he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

But hey, if you didn't like the book, you're right.
But I liked the book. And I'm right too.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

37. No, that's what we legal folks call

a "self-serving statement." Barbara Bush's memoirs should in no way be taken seriously by any serious journalist. Quoting them is, for me, a sign of a serious lapse in the "research."

Eh, who cares? They'll just keep getting richer and richer while we get to watch............

[RufusTFirefly]

39. You're obviously missing the point, so I won't belabor it.

Have a nice day.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

40. You're not making a point -

I responded on point. But, I do see that you've hit a wall..

You, too..........

[readmoreoften]

34. Why is quoting a primary source "shoddy writing"?

That's exactly what a researcher is supposed to do.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

38. A wife's memoir

should in no way be considered a valid source when her husband is the subject of the "research". It's presumed to be self-serving, and, therefore, not to be given any kind of validity.

Would you believe a word Barbara Bush had to say? I surely would not. I think she's the worst of the bunch.

[redqueen]

53. What is the context of that quote? Is what she said self-serving in any way?

Thanks for any information, I haven't read it but I'm curious given this claim that the quote should be dismissed due to the possibility that it's self-serving.

[Stargazer09]

52. Tyler, Texas is a bit out of the way

Why would she be in Tyler getting her hair done that day? Did she get her hair done in every town or something?

[defendandprotect]

21. "... the book ended leaving me feeling almost sorry for" the Bushes . . . ???

While I'm not enthused about reading Russel Baker, that's an astonishing statement!

Poppy Bush is certainly linked to the JFK/coup on "people's government" . . .

his oil company was a front for the CIA which was heavily involved in the assassination,

there were three supply ships which took part in the Bay of Pigs operation - named the

"Barbara Jean," the "Houston" and the "Zapata" -- all names connected to Bush's life.

Additionally, Poppy seems to have been active in involvement with the Cubans in Miami as

revealed by a J. Edgar Hoover memo which mentions Bush and his activities at the time.

Further, George DeMorenshild, who also had a CIA/oil background and just happened to

befriend Oswald had Poppy Bush's telephone number in his address book.

PLUS -- there is a photo which pretty definitely shows Poppy Bush in Dallas close to the

assassination site on the day of the assassination. No one is saying that Poppy Bush

fired shots or pulled a trigger. This was all more like the Agatha Christie novel

"Murder on the Orient Express." Those condoning the action all seem to have been required

to be present in Dealy Plaza.

[TheUnspeakable]

47. Defend-Russ Baker is not Russell Baker..

please check out some of these interviews-I love your posts and I know you won't be disappointed

[peacetalksforall]

49. I haven't read the book yet, but I think your comment might be overreaching.

If anyone knew exactly what the link was or wasn't and had proved the case in a book, testimony, article - you all wouldn't be debating the author. The author would have written something different.

It seems like you want this author to come up with the proof.

A person might ask how the man is running around free after his collective activities in his lifetime, not just proof from this author for the evidence on one assassination. It may end up that he is nailed for RFK or MLK before the JFK is revealed.

I don't want to stupidly defend any writer or book, but what you pinpoint seems to be overreaching. Perhaps the author promises that he will prove it. If his book included the proof - the whole world would be talking about - did he promise to link it?

[WI_DEM]

3. I wonder what Poppy thinks of Junior sullying up the family name so badly

probably why he wanted Jeb in the first place.

[bagrman]

54. I think Junior did jusst what he was exposed to do.

[TheUnspeakable]

55. Baker says Poppy was masterful at creating false impressions-

the ancient struggle between father and son was a ruse-junior DID do what he was "exposed" to do

[bagrman]

56. Be the duffus that brought the country to it's knees.

[HughBeaumont]

4. Here's another great place to start:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Octafish

Thanks to Octafish, the BFEEvil has been out in the open on here for years.

[reprehensor]

5. Taking note of your nod.

I'll definitely be picking up a copy, Nico.

Nico's been posting about these bastards for a long time, too. We both go back on SmirkingChimp.com to at least 2003, but the records of those posts have pretty much gone down the memory hole.

Nico's nod is a welcome endorsement for me.

[Mme. Defarge]

6. Does he discuss

the Reagan assassination attempt?

[nichomachus]

8. No

And there are other things he doesn't get into either (at least so far, I'm not done yet).

One thing is that he has researched and documented everything in the book. I think the Reagan shooting was so well covered up that he probably couldn't find any credible links -- even though there's good reason to believe it's not what most people think.

The author probably felt that unless he had something more solid, even talking about this would push the book into tinfoil-hat territory. And I agree. The common wisdom on the Reagan shooting is that it happened exactly as the "official" sources have told us. It's far easier to talk about Kennedy because most people now feel something else was going on.

[Mme. Defarge]

16. From Wikipedia ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_assassination_attempt#Reported_Hinckley_family_connections

Reported Hinckley family connections
John Hinckley Jr. is the son of John Hinckley Sr., chairman of the oil company Vanderbilt Energy Corp., one of Vice President George H.W. Bush's larger political and financial supporters in his 1980 presidential primary campaign against Ronald Reagan. Also, John Hinckley Jr.'s older brother, Vanderbilt vice president Scott Hinckley, and the Vice President's son Neil Bush, had a dinner appointment scheduled for the next day.<22>

The Associated Press published the following short note on March 31, 1981:

“ The family of the man charged with trying to assassinate President Reagan is acquainted with the family of Vice President George Bush and had made large contributions to his political campaign....Scott Hinckley, brother of John W. Hinckley Jr. who allegedly shot at Reagan, was to have dined tonight in Denver at the home of Neil Bush, one of the Vice President's sons....The Houston Post said it was unable to reach Scott Hinckley, vice president of his father's Denver-based firm, Vanderbilt Energy Corp., for comment. Neil Bush lives in Denver, where he works for Standard Oil Co. of Indiana. In 1978, Neil Bush served as campaign manager for his brother, George W. Bush, the Vice President's eldest son, who made an unsuccessful bid for Congress. Neil lived in Lubbock, Texas, throughout much of 1978, where John Hinckley lived from 1974 through 1980.

[nichomachus]

18. The real points in the Reagan shooting are

1. Analysis of the videotape clearly shows that Hinckley could not have fired the shot that hit Reagan -- unless it did two right turns in mid air.

2. The route Reagan took from the door of the hotel to his limo was unnecessary. There were more direct and safer routes. His agents basically took him into a shooting gallery.

[Mme. Defarge]

19. Reagan said

that he felt like he was shot in the limo -- not outside.

[Greyhound]

17. The thing that always bugged me about that is that he had a gun on him that

would've done the job, but chose a .22?
:wtf:

[nichomachus]

35. Hinckley was a patsy -- just as Oswald was and Sihran was

The interesting thing in the Baker book is that a sometime associate of Bush and his friends was Oswald's closest buddy for months leading up to the assassination, introducing him to the anti-Commie crowd in Dallas. Then, in order to set up plausible deniability, the "buddy" left town, after passing Oswald off to another handler. Then, this same crowd rushed in to provide an interpreter for Oswald's widow right after the assassination, mangling her words and reporting that she said she knew Lee was the shooter and the only shooter, when she was saying no such thing.

I'm sure that if someone looks deeply enough, they'll find that the emotionally disturbed Hinckley had a "close friend" in the months leading up to the shooting -- who then mysteriously evaporated into the ether.

[defendandprotect]

24. Evidently, after the Reagan shooting, Bush became president . ..

that's the opinion I'm reading now --- and I find it believable.

Whether they had hoped to actually kill him or merely incapacitate him . . .

they did not let the fact that he survived the shooting without becoming a

basket case stop them from taking over.

[CrispyQ]

11. It's at my library. I'm going to pick it up this afternoon.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[grasswire]

12. I "enjoyed" his book on Richard Case Nagel...

....read it years ago. It made sense to me. And it probably would be more meaningful now that time has passed.

It's probably time to re-read "The CIA, the Mafia, and George Bush" -- Pete Brewton's courageous tome.

[starroute]

13. Don't leave out Prescott Bush

I haven't read the book and don't know what it covers -- but it's becoming increasingly clear to me that right after World War II, there was a deliberate effort in Prescott Bush's circles to reestablish whatever power and influence they'd lost in the 30's as a result of the New Deal and their chumminess with the Nazis.

The cultivation of Richard Nixon was one part of that effort. So was sending George H.W. off to Texas to make common cause with the right-wing oilmen.

But perhaps their greatest success was the development of the military-industrial complex. The MIC isn't just a bunch of defense contractors -- it started off in the 1950's in the form of a group of foundations and think-tanks that were regularly pushing for more military spending and more aggressiveness in foreign policy. Most of those groups had ties to Prescott and his pals.

After the Russians stole a march on the US by launching Sputnik in 1957, the advocates of military spending increasingly got their way and were actually able to hijack Eisenhower's foreign policy in 1958-60 -- with Nixon's help, of course. That's why Eisenhower warned against them on his way out of office -- he knew he'd been losing control of his own administration and that scared him.

George H.W. Bush was crucially involved in the final attempt to revive the Cold War when he was CIA director in 1976 -- and, when that clearly wasn't going to fly, in the invention of the War on Terror to replace it about 1979. But he was just reworking what his daddy originally helped set up in the 50's.

[mod mom]

43. ah...another opportunity to post info on the COUP AGAINST FDR (BBC & HARPERS):

1934: The Plot Against America
DEPARTMENT No Comment
BY Scott Horton
PUBLISHED July 28, 2007
I’m back from the land of heather and thistles, not to mention wee drams and lukewarm ale, but on my way out a friend at the BBC alerted me to this, a not-to-miss program on the BBC this morning, accessible over the next several days by internet. It’s the story of the Plot Against America. I don’t mean the Philip Roth novel, nor even the Sinclair Lewis book, It Can’t Happen Here, but rather the historical events upon which these two works of fiction were based.

In November 1934, federal investigators uncovered an amazing plot involving some two dozen senior businessmen, a good many of them Wall Street financiers, to topple the government of the United States and install a fascist dictatorship. Roth’s novel is developed from several strands of this factual account; he assumed the plot is actually carried out, whereas in fact an alert FDR shut it down but stopped short of retaliatory measures against the plotters. A key element of the plot involved a retired prominent general who was to have raised a private army of 500,000 men from unemployed veterans and who blew the whistle when he learned more of what the plot entailed. The plot was heavily funded and well developed and had strong links with fascist forces abroad. A story in the New York Times and several other newspapers reported on it, and a special Congressional committee was created to conduct an investigation. The records of this committee were scrubbed and sealed away in the National Archives, where they have only recently been made available.

The Congressional committee kept the names of many of the participants under wraps and no criminal action was ever brought against them. But a few names have leaked out. And one is Prescott Bush, the grandfather of the incumbent president. Prescott Bush was of course deep into the business of the Hamburg-America Lines, and had tight relations throughout this period with the new Government that had come to power in Germany a year earlier under Chancellor Aldoph Hitler. It appears that Bush was to have formed a key liaison for the group with the new German government.

Prescott Bush, of course, went on to service as a U.S. Senator from Connecticut, and his son, George H.W. Bush emerged from World War II as a hero.

-snip

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000651




The Whitehouse Coup
Monday 23 July 2007


The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.

Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American democracy.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

[PRETZEL]

15. I just finished it,

it was interesting. But I'm not so sure that I'd recommend it.

It most certainly was well researched and there are alot of names and possible connections between alot of what the CIA has done, who was involved and their relationship to the Bush family.

But I wasn't completely sold. He puts lots of dots out there but seems to leave the reader to either connect them or not, depending upon your own view of the Bush family.

I thought Kevin Phillips' "American Dynasty" was a much better book.

[KoKo]

26. Kevin Phillips book was well documented and was a scary enough read

I doubt anyone could do better. Phillips said in an interview about book on C-Span that while many of the cast of characters in the Bush Dynasty were now dead ...he hoped that researchers would do more with some of the "threads" he outlined in his book. So far, I guess, Baker is the only one. And, if you say it's not that well researched then I guess we have to wait until Poppy Bush's papers and his sons e-mails are finally released...if ever in our lifetimes.

[PRETZEL]

28. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that Baker didn't research

very thoroughly, I think he did. Maybe too much. It seemed to me anyway that when names, places and events crossed, any inkling of connection to the Bushes automatically made Poppy the lynchpin.

In contrast to Phillips, I think Phillips took a place, name or event and focused on that particular in much more depth than Baker.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

31. I think the Phillips book had a lot more heft

He had spent years inside the conservative movement, one of their noisiest cheerleaders, so his perspective was very different.

The Baker book struck me as a series of quotes, cut and paste jobs, with huge, gaping holes in sequences he wanted the reader to see, but, when read with a discriminating attitude, do not hold up to scrutiny. I don't call what Baker put together "research," as much as something that read like a term paper. Nothing original that I could see.

[formercia]

20. I absolutely agree

from first-hand experience in dealing with Bush Gang. They are a bunch of ruthless assh0les.

[Peace Patriot]

29. James Douglass doesn't mention Bush Sr, but he does finger Richard Helms

(CIA Director from 1966 to 1972) for JFK's assassination, in his book, "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters," published last year by the Maryknoll fathers. See page 148.

Helms was at the center of the worst horrors of that era: including the CIA defiance of JFK's orders in Vietnam (which led, after JFK's death, to a full scale war in which some 2 million South Vietnamese and over 55,000 U.S. soldiers died), the scurrilous destruction of Chile's democracy and death of its president, Allende (and of its ambassador, on the streets of Washington DC), and the JFK assassination itself, an act that stopped JFK's plan to end the "Cold War" and resulted in Vietnam and many other horrors. After the "Bay of Pigs" fiasco (1962), JFK vowed to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces," and fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, earning the hatred of that secretive and nefarious organization. Helms climbed the ladder from Diem assassin and war instigator in Vietnam, to JFK assassin, to CIA Director by 1966.

Here are some kudos for Douglass' book. I found it...what is the word? Life-changing, I guess. The book's writing and documentation are impeccable. Douglass makes an overwhelming case for the CIA assassination of our president, on behalf of the "military-industrial complex" which wanted the lucrative "Cold War" to continue.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdouglasJW.htm

Gaeton Fonzi, the chief investigator of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, has argued: "With penetrating insight and unswerving integrity, Douglass probes the fundamental truths about the JFK's assassination. If, he contends, humanity permits those truths to slip into history ignored and undefined it does so at its own peril. By far the most important book yet written on the subject."

Daniel Ellsberg argues that in JFK and the Unspeakable: "Douglass presents, brilliantly, an unfamiliar yet thoroughly convincing account of a series of creditable decisions of John F. Kennedy - at odds with his initial Cold war stance - that earned him the secret distrust and hatred of hard-liners among the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA."

This web site describes the book as follows: Douglass next book, JFK and the Unspeakable (2008) was a study of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In the book he argues that after the experience of the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy decided to try and bring an end to the Cold War. This included opening-up secret back-channel dialogue with Nikita Khrushchev in 1963. According to Douglass, this action "caused members of his own U.S. military-intelligence establishment to regard him as a virtual traitor who had to be eliminated."

----------------

It is difficult not to assume that the Bush Cartel--whose family and other members are so close in spirit (as mass murderers, assassins, torturers and war profiteers) to Richard Helms and the JFK assassins--was somehow involved in JFK's assassination (and others--RFK, MLK, Paul Wellstone, David Kelly and numerous other people during the last eight years). But, whatever they did back then, or recently, they have covered their tracks well. What is known about Bush Sr on 11/22/63 is certainly suspicious but not definitive, as far as I can tell. And Douglass' research is so meticulous that it impresses me that he doesn't mention him. He also lets LBJ off the hook for the assassination, but not for the coverup. (He says that LBJ became immediately aware that the CIA did it, but the CIA had lain a false trail to Russia--whom the Joint Chiefs wanted to nuke--and LBJ opposed that action, and agreed to the coverup to prevent being pressured into nuking Russia. However, LBJ did say--two days after JFK was killed--"Now they can have their war." He was referring to Vietnam.) I am still not sure about LBJ, but I feel compelled to yield to Douglass' amazing research and analysis. He may have left Bush Sr out of it because the trail is so cold. He had too little on which to base including him.

[TheUnspeakable]

48. I listened to all of these interviews yesterday...

Baker says poppy was a master at hiding his tracks-often attended meetings and never spoke so
there would be no record-he was in intellegence almost his whole adult life and I think he totally could fit in with Douglas' theory.

[underseasurveyor]

33. The worst things that you can imagine your government is doing

is actually much, much worse than most people realize.

That's one reason why I don't mind being thought of as a conspiracy nut or for that matter just a plain nut because I know that in the end these unbelievable 'holy shit' moments will see the light of day.

[Echo In Light]

36. True, that. Although I'm not yet convinced such matters will ever be common knowledge

[Triana]

41. It's the bu$h family M.O. - all the way back to Grandpappy Prescott and the Nazis....

...they framed an innocent man for that too - and the bu$hies got off scot-free with the dough - that's where their fortune originated.

These are NASTY people. Domestic terrorists. The Mob. Disgusting crime ring.

[XemaSab]

42. My grandpa worked in Saudi back in the day

and he said he would NEVER vote for a Bush. He said they were all crooks.

K&R.

[Christa]

44. K & R nt

[TheUnspeakable]

46. Some GREAT interviews with Baker here...

I can't recommend them enough-he explains it all-and makes so much sense. The interview with Lionel is so good-he even makes Lionel sound like he has a clue! He worked for 5 years researching this book-says he fell down a rabbit hole. couldn't understand how Poppy and * got to where they were-made no sense considering what losers they were(my words!) goes into Nixon, JFK, Watergate, really good stuff.. He says we need to outgrow our Naivete(sp?) Very much applies to today,with Wall St. and Obama,etc. Says the intel orgs. fill the White House with their own people and the pressures that come to bear on every president make them un able to do what they want to. Please listen.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

50. You have to search out Octafish's posts here on DU. Octafish is an expert on the Bush crime family

and most of Octafish's posts have made the greatest.

[spamlet2002]

51. and yet obama wants to look forward...

nt

[TheUnspeakable]

57. kick