1. “SAME KILLERS – DIFFERENT DAY
There are a number of important parallels between the 9-11 attacks and the murder of JFK: the stand down of the most basic defense procedures / the outrageous cover-up and destruction of evidence / and the last name of some of the major perpetrators. Obviously the Bushes were involved in 9-11. Less well-known and less obvious is the central role played by George HW in the Kennedy assassination.
It has taken 40 years to collect the evidence to hang Kennedy’s murder around Bush’s neck.
I began 9 years ago when JFK Jr.’s plane went into the sea; the Pentagon took over the news reporting, and then lied ridiculously, into the teeth of reporters who knew better, about why the search had been kept, for 15 hours, from what was immediately obvious was the crash site. Who would want JFK Jr. dead, and why? Lacking any credible evidence along these line, I decided to pursue a deeper look at the names of the people who had killed his father, as likely suspects in the murder of the son.
The Nation magazine had printed an article ten years before citing a memo written by J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI, 5 days after the assassination. The memo confused researchers, including me. It said the state department had asked the FBI to investigate whether “some misguided anti-Castro group” might be planning an invasion of Cuba. The memo claims the FBI investigated, and determined that the anti-Castro community in Florida was deeply saddened by the death of JFK, but not inclined to any rash actions. The last paragraph was the one that grabbed researchers’ attention, because it named “Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency” as the responsible party sent by CIA to Washington to receive this FBI report. This grabbed researchers’ attention because Bush claimed that he had never been in the CIA before being appointed its director by Gerald Ford. And because it would mean he lied under oath on this point during confirmation hearings. And because it would mean that he had broken the law by running for Congress and Senate without informing the voters that he was CIA.
I will give myself props for destroying Bush’s claim that the memo did not refer to him. As the video JFK – the Bush Connection outlines, in college, Bush was a “brother under the skin” to the son of the head of hiring for CIA; he left college and went to work for a man his father identified as a CIA recruiter; and he then set up shop in the middle of CIA preparations for the invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs; which puts him squarely in the middle of the “misguided anti-Castro Cuban operations referred to by Hoover‘s memo. And on and on and on.
I will give myself credit, also, for being the first to point out that this memo identifies Bush as a supervisor of these “misguided anti-Castro groups”. You would not, after all, send someone to FBI headquarters to receive a report on one of your operations, and send someone who was entirely unfamiliar. You’d send the most knowledgeable, and therefore the most involved, person available. And I also, in that video, point out in the clearest terms possible, that the military industrial complex has used the CIA to murder JFK And that the CIA had done so using its “misguided anti-Castro Cubans.” Whom, again, Hoover described as being supervised by “Mr. George Bush.”
But I did not tie all the available pieces together. I had included a long section on Oswald’s CIA and FBI connections; and explored the strange world in which the state department asks the FBI to investigate the CIA’s “misguided anti-Castro Cubans.” But I had not seen the direct relevance of this section to the central theme of the video: Bush’s involvement. It was just an interesting riddle, and I cut it out and put it into an “extra” that no one has seen fit to post on the web, and that was, then, only available on the DVD.
I was approached by someone with Hollywood background who urged and helped me to try to make the video more presentable, more professional, in order to try to get a wider release, on DVD, or perhaps even in theatres. It took three years; and in the process I figured out the riddle. The solution goes like this: Oswald was an FBI operative. This could not be more obvious. The Texas attorney general called up the Warren Commission on their first day and told them Oswald’s FBI employee # and pay grade. It seems another obvious conclusion, from this, that Oswald had his paycheck stub in his pocket at the time of his arrest. It defies my imagination to conceive of other circumstances that might lead the attorney general to take such an aggressive position on this point. The circumstantial evidence supporting this charge, that Oswald was working for the FBI, is more than substantial. Delphine Roberts worked for the CIA at their secret training camp, for anti-Castro terrorist raids, at Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Kennedy had ordered the raids ceased and the camps closed. Delphine Roberts told the Warren Commission that she had seen Oswald at the camp two weeks prior to the raid. Oswald’s best friend in New Orleans saw him exchange envelopes with men he took to be FBI at this time. And Oswald passed out leaflets with the address of the Pontchartrain supervisor, Guy Bannister, on them. It seems to me an obvious conclusion that Hoover, who had written memos about Oswald’s CIA connections while Oswald was still in Russia, recruited and used Oswald to locate the camps. The CIA apparently also figured this out and in short order recruited Oswald back, to infiltrate a “rogue” group that was plotting to kill JFK. That point is speculation. What is clear is that they recruited him and got him a job at the Dallas School Book Depository. The Dallas DA has recently revealed a signed affidavit from an attorney who witnessed Oswald discussing killing Kennedy with Jack Ruby. There is no credible evidence to suggest that Oswald wanted to kill JFK. On the contrary, the most credible evidence is that Oswald was an admirer of JFK. What, then, was Oswald’s purpose in talking to Ruby? The suggestion that he was attempting to infiltrate the CIA’s “rogue” killers is my best guess.
But so what? This affidavit, from the Dallas DA file, was marked so as to be presented as evidence. It is entirely credible. It would not otherwise have been so marked. It indicates that Oswald was still actively working for the FBI, now infiltrating the CIA’s team of killers, and had in fact made contact with Ruby. This sort of information from a reliable source would have given Hoover the legal authority to tape Ruby’s phone, and the phones of virtually anyone Ruby had contact with. Hoover distributed a memo to all the CIA’s offices the week before the murder telling them that there was to be an attempt on JFK’s life in Dallas on Nov. 22. Hoover knew.
He knew before the assassination. Why would he NOT have had Ruby’s phone tapped? Hoover had been, at JFK’s direction, spying on the CIA’s anti-Castro Cuban operation for months. His knowledge of the intimate details of the assassination can scarcely be overestimated. And 5 days after the assassination, he identified “Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency” as that agency’s responsible party sent to receive the FBI’s report on the activities of their killing team. He then hid this memo, containing this explosive information, in plain sight, distributing to various members of the State department, without classification.
This point of view is presented in the new video, Dark Legacy.
The original JFK II also presented, as a riddle, the fact that the FBI had made a detailed record of a phone call Bush made minutes after the assassination, attempting to send them, apparently, on a wild goose chase investigating “one James Parrot” who Bush claimed had been talking of killing the president. What can we make of this memo? Three years ago, my answer was that it was “weird”. Today I see it differently. E. Howard Hunt, famous as the head of the Watergate Burglars, was identified in a CIA memo, signed by Richard Helms, the CIA director at the time, as part of the assassination team in Dallas that day. Bush is tied by at least eight different circumstances to Hunt. However, there are certainly honest people, or even dishonest ones, who were associated with Hunt, but not in Dallas or connected to the assassination. Fletcher Prouty, whose job in the Pentagon was to supply CIA secret operations with military hardware, including machine guns and ships, was sent to the South Pole to get him out of the way. Richard Colby, who later became director of CIA, and who doubtless released the Helms memo naming Hunt as a killer, was also certainly not involved in JFK’s murder; and had another assignment in another part of the world. But Bush’s phone call reveals that he was on duty for the CIA; in Dallas; and working on assassination-related matters.
We have been schooled to regard “the smoking gun” as the definitive evidence. However, in a large conspiracy, only one person can be connected to a smoking gun. The rest of the members of the conspiracy can only be shown to have played ancillary roles. Under our system of justice, however, they are regarded as equally culpable. That Bush was playing some sort of ancillary role could not possibly be more clearly demonstrated than it is by these two FBI memos.
It took me nearly 40 years to find these memos; and nearly another ten to figure out what they mean. Believe me, I’m not bragging. But I am advocating patience.
And trying to persuade you to support my efforts to advertise this video by purchasing it from BushKilledJFK.com.
By the way, just to finish the story I began about JFK Jr.:
I had discovered the bulk of this information about Bush Sr. and the death of JFK. But I still had not produced any evidence suggesting who would have wanted to kill JFK Jr. And then it hit me. In my subconscious mind, I heard Henry Kissinger muttering, “The father killed the father. Let the son kill the son.” I have reason to believe that the criminal elite that perpetrated crimes of 9-11 and of Nov. 22, operate much as a mafia does. To join the inner circle of the mafia, you have to “make your bone”. You have to commit a murder within the sight of the other members. Then they can trust you. You can’t rat them out because they are eyewitnesses to a murder you committed. In any case, within weeks of JFK’s murder, George Bush began his remarkable political career. He ran for senate and lost. They created a Republican district and appointed him the nominee, and so, of course, he won. He then ran for senate again, and lost. They picked him up and dusted him off and forced Nixon to take him on as his secretary of the United Nations (Erlichman says so explicitly) with a White House office conveniently located next to E. Howard Hunt’s! Bush ran against Reagan and lost, and Reagan was forced to take him on as vice president. After being shot, Reagan left everything up to Bush. Bush presided at ALL of the Iran Contra Crack-epidemic meetings. And the JFK assassination was where he made his bone, where he got his ticket punched for admission to the inner circle, which then forced all the events I just described to occur. And I wondered, how did little Georgie make his bone? Whom did the drunk, coke-headed draft-dodger have to kill in order to get this powerful inner circle to support him, rather than the war-hero McCain. And I rushed to my computer to see where lil’ George was the day JFK Jr’s plane went down. At 8 am he was campaigning hard, flipping pancakes in Iowa. He got on a bus at 9 am and disappeared. JFK Jr.’s plane went down at 9:41 pm, twelve hours later. The next day the press ran to interview Bush, to see what one president’s son had to say about the death of another president’s son. Al Gore had cancelled all campaign appearances. What would Bush do? they wanted to know. They ran to interview Bush. But he was not to be found. Karen Hughes, Bush’s campaign manager not only could not say where he was; she could not even say when he would be back! After three days he reappeared. No attempt has ever been made to disclose his whereabouts. Witnesses identified him partying at the Bohemian Grove Saturday night, celebrating John’s death. Karen Hughes demanded a retraction when the Sacramento Bee published this story. The story’s author offered to do so, if Hughes would reveal where Bush actually was. Hughes made no offer of any such information, nor any further demands for a retraction. This information is all laid out in my video The Assassination of John Kennedy Jr., available at, you guessed it, [[http://www.jfkii.com/|BushKilledJFK.com]].“
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19864
2. “Students send the CIA packing
Students and activists won a victory April 9 when they forced the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) into a last-minute cancellation of its recruitment session at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
For a third year, members of the Campus Antiwar Network (CAN), Iraq Veterans Against the War and the International Socialist Organization joined forces to protest the CIA, but this is the first year that the agency canceled, after activists exposed the agency’s dark history of assassinations, political sabotage and torture.
Outside the recruitment session door, one activist donned a black Grim Reaper cloak and stood with arms extended on a milk crate to greet potential recruits and remind them of the atrocities conducted at Abu Ghraib with CIA complicity. Another used a simple pillowcase as a hood and kneeled with arms clasped behind his back to show how prisoners are commonly treated at Bagram Air Base and Guantánamo Bay.
Other protesters passed out informational leaflets and challenged attendees to consider the lies told by the CIA, which claimed in its campus ad to be “looking for a diversity of people for the important job of keeping America safe.”
Campus police showed up at the request of the CIA operative in attendance who, according to the officers, requested to have us removed. However, the policemen checked our campus IDs and then notified us that we could stay as long as we didn’t impede traffic.
Five minutes later, after our continued vigilance, we were thrilled when we heard that the CIA would cancel the session, claiming that since the student newspaper had shown up and taken pictures for an article featuring our protest, security had been compromised. We suspect their true motive for canceling was their embarrassment over our collective message–”Say no to the CIA recruiting on our campuses!”
…
CIA Director Leon Panetta has reiterated the Obama administration’s commitment to continuing several Bush administration policies in the so-called war on terror. Panetta told reporters the U.S. will continue controversial CIA drone attacks in Pakistan that have killed hundreds of civilians. He also said that while CIA interrogators will have to abide by the Army Field Manual, Obama can still approve harsher techniques using wartime powers, and that the “CIA retains the authority to detain individuals on a short-term basis.”
Activists and students should stand up to the CIA whenever they attempt to recruit on college campuses or in your community. With even a small number, you can shut down their recruitment meetings and score an important victory for peace and justice.
“I was pretty shocked when I found out that we managed to cancel the meeting,” said CAN member Eric Heim. “To finally have a visible victory was a huge morale boost. The CIA needs to be opposed whenever and wherever it appears because it is nothing but an agent of empire that destroys democracy and helps establish U.S. hegemony across the globe through force and brutality.”
http://socialistworker.org/2009/04/13/students-send-cia-packing
3. “Tortured Posturing on Harsh Interrogation Techniques
CIA officials who engaged in torture should be prosecuted. After World War II, the United States didn’t allow lower level Nazis and Japanese to avoid prosecution for war crimes by using the “just following orders” defense. Why should CIA officers be any different? They knew these acts were illegal under U.S. law and international conventions when they perpetrated them.
But torture during the Bush administration was worse than that committed during the Spanish-American and Vietnam Wars for one reason: the authorization came from on high. So the nation needs to know how far up the line the order was given to perpetrate the war crimes. Baltasar Garzon, the assertive investigating judge in Spain who ordered the arrest of former Chilean strongman Augusto Pinochet, is apparently deciding whether to bring charges against six high Bush administration officials for authorizing torture, including David Addington, then-Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Alberto Gonzalez, Bush’s Attorney General, John Yoo, a Justice Department lawyer who wrote the memos justifying torture, and Douglas Feith, Bush’s undersecretary of defense for policy. Curiously, Spain could claim jurisdiction for the prosecution because it is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and some former Guantánamo prisoners claiming that they were tortured are Spanish citizens or residents.
But why stop there? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld clearly knew about the torture, and it recently came out that President George W. Bush himself was aware of it. So they condoned illegal acts.
It is true that as we go up the chain of command, it gets politically harder to prosecute former officials. Even though many Nixon administration officials went to jail for their illegal acts during Watergate, President Richard Nixon was unconstitutionally pardoned before even being charged with a crime. President Gerald Ford, Nixon’s successor, claimed that he was doing so to spare the nation the continued trauma of a long presidential trial. Then as now, great crimes were perpetrated and covered up in the name of “protecting America.”
As the rock band AC/DC sings, “It ain’t easy livin’ free.” In a republic, the rule of law — the principle that the laws apply to everyone — may well be the most important thing. If we don’t want illegal acts at any level of government to be repeated, they must be exposed, thoroughly investigated, and prosecuted — no matter who is implicated and how painful it is for the country.
Yet President Obama, for political reasons, is not only shielding high-level Bush administration officials from investigation and prosecution but even low-level CIA interrogators. Simply “moving on” will not deter future U.S. officials from going back to torture when the political winds permit it. “
http://original.antiwar.com/eland/tortured-posturing-on-harsh-interrogation-techniques/
4. “Former Reagan Justice Department official Bruce Fein writes that Obama’s decision to release CIA memos without prosecuting Bush administration officials flouts his constitutional duty.
Even more disappointing, Obama has proven a political coward dangerous to the republic. Before April 16, he had decided against any criminal investigation of the Bush-Cheney duumvirate or their inner circles for their boasted complicity in torture, i.e., waterboarding, which Attorney General Eric Holder has declared is torture. He has similarly declined investigations of extraordinary renditions that have occasioned, among other things, the indictments and in absentia trials of 26 CIA operatives in Milan, Italy, for the kidnapping and torture of Egyptian cleric Abu Omar.
Obama made no effort to square his refusal to investigate credible and substantial evidence of felonies with his constitutional obligation to faithfully execute, not sabotage, the laws. He relied solely on politics, as though law was nothing more than a constellation of political calculations with ulterior motives. Obama insisted that investigations of Bush-Cheney would disturb the Toscanini-like symphony he had promised to the political class in the corridors of power. Comparable political calculations explain why Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai declines to prosecute the countless officials implicated in staggering corruption, inefficiency, and subjugation of women—all of which are deplored by President Obama.
In sweeping the Bush-Cheney lawlessness under the rug, Obama has set a precedent of whitewashing White House lawlessness in the name of national security that will lie around like a loaded weapon ready for resurrection by any commander in chief eager to appear “tough on terrorism” and to exploit popular fear. Obama urges that the crimes were justified because the duumvirate acted to protect the nation from international terrorism. But Congress did not create a national-security defense to torture or commit FISA felonies.
President Obama should have invoked his pardon power if he believed circumstances justified the crimes by Bush and Cheney and the CIA’s interrogators. A pardon or lesser clemency properly exposes the president to political accountability, as Bush discovered with Cheney’s Chief of Staff Scooter Libby and President Ford with former President Nixon. More significant, a pardon does not set a precedent making lawful what was unlawful. It acknowledges the criminality of the underlying activity, and acceptance of the pardon is an admission of guilt by the recipient. Pardons leave unsullied the doctrine of Ex parte Milligan (1866): “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men at all times and in all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.”
Obama can be summoned against his own non-prosecution policy, secrecy, and non-accountability. In releasing the four OLC memoranda on April 16, Obama asserted: “Enlisting our values [like the rule of law or transparency] in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure. A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals [like the rule of law or government in the sunshine]… I believe strongly in transparency and accountability… The United States is a nation of laws.”
These words should be taken cum granis salis. Bush and Cheney also insisted that everything they did was constitutional and indispensable to thwarting another 9/11. Obama’s promise of change has proven nothing more than verbal jugglery.“
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-17/how-obama-excused-torture/
5. And yet another war:
“US Threatens to Invade Eritrea
“President Obama Cannot Afford to Look Weak on Terrorism”
The United States has reportedly threatened to invade Eritrea and subject it to “the same fate as Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in the wake of the September 11 attacks” for providing support to the al-Shabaab resistance movement in Somalia, which the US has since attempted to link with al-Qaeda. The Daily Telegraph quotes one source as saying “There are consequences for working with al-Shabaab when President Obama cannot afford to look weak on terrorism.”
…
The Bush Administration attempted to have Eritrea declared a “state-sponsor of terrorism” numerous times for backing forces in opposition to the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia. Eritrea publicly denounced “foreign intervention” in Somalia and said the Ethiopian pullout had vindicated their position that military occupation would not stabilize the nation.“
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/04/17/us-threatens-to-invade-eritrea/
6. “Expedience and the Torture Amnesty
The total effect of the release of the torture memos, with the suppression of all prosecutions before consideration of any case and any particular facts, is baffling and self-contradictory. It will be taken by persons with a taste for paradox as evidence of the president’s ability to hold two opposed ideas in his mind at once. But his actions and words at this moment are deeply disheartening. They show how a high-sounding construction can be placed on actions whose expediency is clear on their face. There were simpler ways, after all, for the president to admit he cannot afford to alienate the present leadership of the CIA; that the disgraceful practices were in some degree condoned by a group from Congress, in both parties, whom the president would rather not incriminate; that with all the chatter about “taking the gloves off” and the sadism of the popular arts, the spirit of the country itself sank to a dark place in the time of the torture memos. Such an admission would not amount to a reason for surrendering the possibility of prosecutions; but it might begin a process of honest accounting. Nothing of the sort, however, was attempted by President Obama.
It may seem that the worst of the torture amnesty is that by exonerating those who committed illegal acts, it discredits any eventual prosecution of those who gave the orders. The release of agents from the imputation of criminal conduct also implies a redefinition of the acts themselves as not criminal; and if no crime was committed when a person did a thing, no crime was meditated when a person ordered the thing done. Yet the most revealing fact about the president’s statement was not its logic of exculpation. It was rather the forgetting, the pressing out of the picture, of certain actors central to the drama.
For we know about these crimes only through the courage of those who dared to speak about them. And they spoke at considerable risk; both moral courage and physical courage were here involved. We know of the deeds of a David Addington or a William J. Haynes III only thanks to the efforts of an Alberto Mora or a Colonel Morris Davis. It should have occurred to President Obama to name these persons as those to whom we Americans owe the largest debt of all. He could have named them as people who by the nature of their deeds can be known and named. They were not secret agents but public exemplars of virtue, in the public life of democracy. The president should have named them, and should have made them the heroes of the day.“
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/expedience-and-the-tortur_b_188203.html
7. What a surprise:
“Tsvangirai death crash may have been planned
A car crash which killed the wife of Zimbabwe’s Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, may not have been accidental, according to preliminary reports.
Senior officials from Mr Tsvangirai’s party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), said investigators doubt the cause of the 6 March crash which killed Susan Tsvangirai and injured her husband. Mr Tsvangirai, who entered into a power-sharing deal with President Robert Mugabe on 13 February, initially said it was an accident, despite two party politicians previously dying in questionable crashes. The MDC, formerly in opposition, may gain politically if it can prove the crash was a deliberate attempt to kill Mr Tsvangirai. The car was hit south of Harare by a lorry which, according to US officials, belonged to a partner organisation of USAid. It was accompanied by two government cars driven by Mugabe loyalists. The lorry sideswiped Mr Tsvangirai’s car, hitting the rear offside, MDC sources said.“
