Was George Herbert Walker Bush Involved in Kennedy Assassination?

[B. A. Copeland]

Thanks Mr White. I find it truly unfortunate that Coogan is allowed to smear Hankey before many would get to listen to what Hankey has to say. Hankey is NOT the "end all, be all" on the Hoover Memo or JFK Assassination, but he seems to be a "bothersome mosquito" on the question of GHWB's role, since sadly, not many seem to care about that, at least in recent years. Sure, Hankey's videos may have errors here or there, but I got the point clearly of his nicely done video (at least for an amateur researcher or historian, as he has called himself). Hankey basically raises some very, very good questions and does well at connecting some dots. In the JFK Jr. Video he did the very same and while I wouldn't say it is a perfect documentary, it is excellent in giving us a picture or at least a glimpse of an event that is clearly not fully understood. There are many questions and sinister possibilities regarding the JFK Jr crash and I have not seem satisfactory answers or to them or observations of them. Ultimately, if I were a student of history, specifically the JFK 1 & 2 deaths, is it foolish to have Hankey's videos as reference material? Is there ANYTHING of value in his videos that could place me on the "avenue of truth" so to speak? Why absolutely.

Wait a minute lol...you mean to tell me that a memo comes out titled "the assassination of president john f kennedy" a day or so after the event, it mentions cuban exiles, it mentions anit-castro cubans reaction to Kennedy's death and it mentions a DIA director and CIA supervisor and it isn't in any way possibly related to the JFK hit? I am honestly not sure about that. No sarcasm intended, but I simply would make an attempt as even an honest investigator to try and connect some dots. Who was the GB in the memo? If it was GHWB, do we have sufficient reason to believe that? Yes we do. Also, yes. phoning in an odd call (given the context of GHWB's personal history and acquaintances) after the fact. Given the context with his CIA surroundings, it is simply quite significant that he would do that, plus the fact that he can never remember what he was up top that day when we have it documented. We do not need Colby to mentioned GHWB was involved in Irangate. We would have had tons of evidence of that even if Colby never existed.

Allow me to clarify what I meant by "major player" By that I mean, taken into context (context is a definite key) that I believe he was groomed by the ruling establishment. We do know that the atom bomb was discussed at the grove, Bush is an attendee at the grove. For how long has he been? I don't know. Was he there when the bomb was being discussed? I do not know (too young). Did he have anything to do with the a-bomb? I do not know. Perhaps his father did as part of the banking establishment. (Remember the bit about Union bank being seized as being Nazi asset) I also would not rule out the possibility of the Bushes being in on the Holocaust via Prescott and his connections to the banking establishment that backed Hitler (another one, groomed by the ruling class) and allowed the German military to even have its 'fun' by supplying fuel and rubber among other things.

As far as the cold war. are you kidding me? The cold war was a controlled effort (I believe) to destabilize Europe after the "winners" destroyed most of it in WW2. A sort of "Psyop" if you will. No doubt Prescott may have been involved to some degree. He may not have been advising Truman but he sure as hell was in Eisenhower's political life. Who steps in to "end" the cold war later on? Why none other than Poppy Bush lol....he was exactly where his handlers wanted him to be. We also have to wonder why the hell Khomeni was in Paris before he went to Iran lol...as they say "all according to plan" Bush has done a "damned excellent job" at keeping the ruling class on time and on target.

Edited July 12, 2010 by B. A. Copeland

[Len Colby]

I don't think you understand my valid and logical syllogism: Either GHWB was involved in the above mentioned events to a significant degree or he was not.

Well you’ve reframed it now. IF you mean he was either involved in the JFK assassination and 9/11 or he wasn’t, with the caveat that he could have been involved in one but not the other, you are simply stating the obvious - either he was involved or he wasn’t. The evidence presented so far indicates he wasn’t involved in either.

As a human being who does not know with a high degree of certainty. Being human and counting on the building of evidence is the key to what I am saying. My god, you cannot see the significance of the statement concerning Bush and Bin Laden? Let me clarify it: Bush and OBL go way back and yet, to the point of being involved with the destabilization of another govt. and yet he's the one who "plans" the 9/11 attacks lol?

You exaggerate its importance because it fits your preconceived view. All you have is Zardari claiming his wife believed they were working together. But even if that were the case it doesn’t prove anything. Hitler and Stalin collaborated to the point of jointly taking over a few of their neighbors. It didn’t stop the former from attacking the latter and the latter being taken by surprise and a similar analogy applies to the Soviet leader’s collaboration with the western allies immediately thereafter. History is filled with examples of former allies turning on each other.

I hope you did not mean Bush was not a major player in '89, are you kidding me?

Since Bush was POTUS I obviously was referring to OBL.

He has been a major player since his skull and bones days, and especially since his major participation in the murder of JFK.

The isn’t any evidence of Bush’s prominence starting when he was in college. As with most powerful people, other than monarchs, it was a gradual thing 1st as a rich businessman then as an increasing important politician. The evidence for his involvement with the assassination is non-existent.

With all due respect I do not believe you generally connect some major dots.

With all due respect I believe you connect dots that don’t exist or are really connested

[Len Colby]

Wait a minute lol...you mean to tell me that a memo comes out titled "the assassination of president john f kennedy" a day or so after the event, it mentions cuban exiles, it mentions anit-castro cubans reaction to Kennedy's death and it mentions a DIA director and CIA supervisor and it isn't in any way possibly related to the JFK hit?

1] The DIA guy was not a director. He was only a captain so unless he was from the Navy was of the second lowest officer rank. That coupled with the fact no one has been able to find anything about him indicates he was of low level.

2] Nor is there any evidence the "George Bush of the CIA" was a supervisor. There was a "George Bush of the CIA" who aditted to having been on watch duty that night who held a civilian rank equal to that of a Lieutenat, one notch below captain.

3] Jim obviously meant the memo was meaningless in assigning culpability for the assassination

[Len Colby]

FWIW this paper makes reference to "Mr. William M. Edwards" who in October 2003 was "the Chief of CI Support for HUMINT Operations in the Defense Intelligence Agency"

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA429361 PG 43

Edited July 13, 2010 by Len Colby

[B. A. Copeland]

Thanks Mr White. I find it truly unfortunate that Coogan is allowed to smear Hankey before many would get to listen to what Hankey has to say. Hankey is NOT the "end all, be all" on the Hoover Memo or JFK Assassination, but he seems to be a "bothersome mosquito" on the question of GHWB's role, since sadly, not many seem to care about that, at least in recent years.

A smear is a deliberate distortion of what someone says or writes. Everything that Seamus used was sourced properly to the video.ANd it was usually tieme coded so you can cross check it.

I don't know what the reference to critiquing Hankey before he got to say means. Hankey's video had been out since about 2004-05. Coogan's essay appeared this year. FIve years is a long time to talk before anyone critiques you. It is unfortunate that no one did what Seamus did before. The fact thatno one did tells us a lot about quality control in the so-called JFK research community.

As for not caring about Bush's alleged role, well there's Baker. He's about as silly as Hankey, except in book form.

Perhaps smear was a bad choice of words, the critique seems to me to have a rather harsh implication that Hankey is some foolish person out to distort or mislead others. In all honesty, I am not trying solely to protect the guy but figured he was simply an amateur historian who was/is on fire for learning american politics or I should say, the dark side of it and of course, will run into error. IF that is the case, I find it difficult to believe. I do respect you as a researcher Jim but I would have to lean further towards the view that GHWB was significantly involved in the JFK hit and I do appreciate your input.

Len I think you seem to miss or overlook the "obvious" points occasionally. So yes, Hitler, Stalin, Allies, enemies...alright? My point is, the GHWB was cut on some alternative news websites and secondly, if Osama and Bush go back that far then it has sinister implications within the 9/11 context and the subject of nation destabilization. That was a very minor mistake on making Edwards a Director and was irrelevant to my point. I believe your point is not so concrete when you say:

That coupled with the fact no one has been able to find anything about him indicates he was of low level.

That is not necessarily true simply because I can use that same logic to say that perhaps because he is high level he could be possibly protected from scrutiny, that could well explain why no one knows much about him, no one knows as far as I am aware. Somewhat in the same way generally no one can name 1-3 of the JFK assassins or gunmen. I am not saying there is concrete, hardcore evidence that Bush was a supervisor. What I AM saying is that if anyone believed such a view based on his personal life and family's connections, it would not be implausible.

Edited July 14, 2010 by B. A. Copeland

[Len Colby]

B.A. We can go in circles over this but it is very unlikely Bush and OBL collaborated over anything let alone the destablisation of Bhutto because no evidence of this has ever surfaced. If she really believed this it'squite odd she never said anything about it. He widower`s comments are confused he said "warned America about Osama bin Laden in 1989 with a call to then US president George H. Bush" but then he quoted her accusing of colaboration with OBL rather than warn him about the Saudi. How much faith can you put in the claims made by someone who contadicts themselves in the span of a few seconds?

And once again even if they collaborated that wouldn't anything. It is well known OBL and the US both aided the Mujuhadeen.

As for the memo there is no reason to believe the Bush and Edwards were high level. If the William Edwards of the DIA I turned up was same guy,the fact that he was still serving in 2003 would indicate he was quite young in 1963 and thus was probablly a relativelly low ranking Army, AF or MC captain rather than a high ranking Navy one, thus he would have been of similar "rank" to George William Bush who admited he was watch duty at Lagley the night in question.

[Linda Minor]

...The other Baker evidence is 1.) He didn't stay in the Sheraton in Dallas like he told the FBI he would and 2.) Barbara Bush's letter about her hearing about the shooting.

But that's not the only information in Barb's letter. Didn't she also tell the family she had recently had lunch with Doris and Al Ulmer? Then there was something about how helpful Al had been to George in Greece a few years ago. I don't have my copy of the book handy, so this is from memory. But then, what follows is only important for those of us who tend to believe that connections, relationships and "networks" are significant.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13964

Alfred C. Ulmer

John Simkin Posted 21 January 2009

Russ Baker's book has got me interested in Alfred Ulmer. This is his New York Times obituary:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;sec=&spon=

Alfred C. Ulmer Jr., a former official of the Office of Strategic Services and the Central Intelligence Agency, died on June 22 in Virginia Beach. He was 83.

Mr. Ulmer did intelligence work in the Navy in World War II and then joined the O.S.S. He served in Turkey, Egypt, Italy and Austria, overseeing intelligence operatives gathering information about the German military in North Africa and the Balkans, his family said.

The service was disbanded by President Truman late in 1945, and Mr. Ulmer joined the C.I.A. not long after it was founded in 1947. He retired in 1962 and received the agency's Intelligence Medal of Merit.

In his C.I.A. years, he was stationed in Madrid, Athens, Paris and Washington. He ran the agency's Far East operations from 1955 to 1958.

''God, we had fun,'' he said in a 1994 interview. ''We went all over the world and we did what we wanted.''

Thomas Powers wrote in his book ''The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the C.I.A.'' (1979) that in 1956 Frank Wisner, a senior C.I.A. executive, told Mr. Ulmer, ''It's time we held Sukarno's feet to the fire.''

At the time, Sukarno was Indonesia's leader. Mr. Powers wrote that the director of central intelligence, Allen Dulles, and his brother, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, ''did not want to overthrow Sukarno exactly, just force him to suppress the P.K.I.'' -- Indonesia's large Communist Party -- ''send the Russians packing and get on the American team.'' So the agency aided anti-Sukarno rebels, but they were confronted successfully by Sukarno's forces and, Mr. Powers wrote, Allen Dulles decided that the rebels must be told that the United States had to disengage. ''The result,'' Mr. Powers said, ''was a humiliation for the United States.''

In a major covert operation in Japan, the agency spent millions of dollars in the 1950's and 60's to support the conservative party that dominated the country's politics for a generation, the Liberal Democratic Party.

Mr. Ulmer was born in Jacksonville, Fla., and graduated from Princeton in 1939. After the C.I.A., he worked in the financial world.

His marriage to Doris Gibson Bridges ended in divorce. He is survived by a son, Nicholas, of Geneva; a daughter, Marguerite Ulmer Power, of Virginia Beach; five grandchildren; a brother; and two sisters.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=437803

June 1957

Al Ulmer and Sam Halpern designed the scenario that brought Maheu in to film Sukarno.

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/obituaries/archives/1417_12_July_2000.html

SMITH - Ruth Ulmer Smith, 85, passed away Monday, July 10, 2000 after a lengthy illness. A lifelong resident of Jacksonville, she was the daughter of the late Alfred C. Ulmer and Ruth Porter Ulmer. Mrs. Smith attended Robert E. Lee High School and Duke University where she was pledge captain of Alpha Delta Pi Sorority. She was president of her Debutante Coterie and a maid in the Ye Mystic Revelers annual pageant. A lifelong member of Riverside Presbyterian Church, she served as Chairman and Secretary of the Church Circle. She was also a member of the Junior League of Jacksonville, and served for years as a volunteer at St. Vincents Hospital, The American Red Cross, Travelers Aid, and Meals on Wheels. Her brother Alfred C. Ulmer, Jr., preceded her in death in June. Mrs. Smith is survived by her three children Charles C. Smith, Jr. (Mary Kathryn), Porter Smith Corder (H. Robert) of New Orleans, and Thomas Randolph Smith (Nancy) of Atlanta and eight grandchildren, and 2 great grandchildren; her brother, Thomas Porter Ulmer and her sister Blanche Ulmer Pavlis, both of Jacksonville, also survive her. A Memorial Service will be at 11:00 Thursday, July 13 at Riverside Presbyterian Church with The Reverends Tom Are and Sally Lorey, officiating, and private interment will be in the family plot at Evergreen Cemetery. Memorials may be made to the charity of ones choice. Arrangements by HARDAGE-GIDDENS FUNERAL HOME, 729 S. Edgewood Ave.

http://books.google.com/books?id=rNNhhuURbLIC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=%22alfred+c.+ulmer%22&source=bl&ots=SCkUCNmy6G&sig=ix5-mDj0y_6Tu1rlWOr3Mvbp8Nc&hl=en&ei=P44-TMrJG4OC8gb61YG8BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22alfred%20c.%20ulmer%22&f=false

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/obituaries/bak/313_01_March_1998.html

ULMER - Alfred Conrad, III, of Washington, DC, died Thursday, February 19, in Georgetown Hospital after a brief illness. He was the son of Alfred Conrad Ulmer, Jr., and the late Doris Ulmer Lyman, and the grandson of the late Alfred Conrad Ulmer and Ruth Porter Ulmer of Jacksonville. Born in Vienna, Austria on March 26, 1947, he grew up in Washington, DC, Madrid, Athens, Paris, and London, while his father was in the U.S. Foreign Service. He attended the Hill School in Pottsdown, Pennsylvania and St. Peter's Episcopal School in Peekskill, New York. Although he lived and worked in San Francisco for many years, Mr. Ulmer was a resident of Washington, DC for the past 8 years. Mr. Ulmer is survived by his father, Alfred C. Ulmer, Jr. of Virginia Beach, his son, Robert Christopher Ulmer of San Francisco, a sister, Mrs. Edward Francis Power, of Virginia Beach, a brother, Nicolas Courtland Ulmer of Geneva, Switzerland, and Elena Ghillani, his longtime companion. He also leaves, in Jacksonville, an aunt, Mrs. Ruth Ulmer Smith, an uncle, Thomas Porter Ulmer, an aunt, Mrs. Anthony George Pavlis, and numerous cousins. Private graveside services will be held Saturday, April 11, at the Ulmer plot in Evergreen Cemetery.

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/obituaries/archives/625_27_December_1998.html#PAVLIS

PAVLIS - Anthony George Pavlis died Thursday morning, December 24 at St. Catherine Laboure. He was born in Kipseli, Greece on October 26, 1912 and was graduated from the Royal Hellenic Naval Academy in Athens as First Cadet. During World War II he served as Executive Officer of a destroyer on convoy duty in the Mediterranean and Atlantic. He attended special gunnery school in England and was awarded the Greek Order of the Phoenix and other military honors. After the war he was appointed Naval Aide to His Majesty, King Paul, and then became a member of the Royal Court as Master of the Household. In December, 1953, he was married to Blanche V. Ulmer of Jacksonville, retired from the Greek Navy as Captain, and came to the United States. From 1954-5 he worked in the firm of William Helis, Jr. in New Orleans. The family moved to Connecticut when he joined the shipping firm of Stavros Niarchos and in time became President of Transoceanic Marine Inc., their New York office. In 1984 he retired and moved to Jacksonville where he has since managed family properties. He was a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, St. John the Divine, and belonged to the Royal Hellenic Yacht Club in Athens, the Riverside Yacht Club in Greenwich, CT, the Florida Yacht Club in Jacksonville, and Cedar Creek Racquet Club in Highlands, NC. Mr. Pavlis is survived by his wife, five children, and nine grandchildren: Paul and wife, Jan, their daughters, Alison and Emily; George; Alfred and wife, Deirdre, their sons, Michael, Nicholas, and William; Maria and husband, Steven Glasser, their son, Philip; Ruth and husband, Michael Gasparino, and their children, Michael, Jr., Christina, and Thomas. He is also survived, in Greece, by his brother, Emmanuel Pavlis, and by many nieces and nephews. Pallbearers include: sons Paul, George, and Alfred Pavlis, son-in-law Michael Gasparino, and nephews Charles C. Smith, Jr. and Thomas Randolph Smith. Funeral services will be held at 11:00 am, Wednesday, December 30, at the Greek Orthodox Church, St. John the Divine, 3850 Atlantic Boulevard. Interment will follow in Evergreen Cemetery. The family requests no flowers. Any memorial gifts by friends should be made to the church or charity of their choice. Arrangements by HARDAGE-GIDDENS, 729 S. Edgewood Ave.

[Jack White]

Thanks Mr White. I find it truly unfortunate that Coogan is allowed to smear Hankey before many would get to listen to what Hankey has to say. Hankey is NOT the "end all, be all" on the Hoover Memo or JFK Assassination, but he seems to be a "bothersome mosquito" on the question of GHWB's role, since sadly, not many seem to care about that, at least in recent years.

A smear is a deliberate distortion of what someone says or writes. Everything that Seamus used was sourced properly to the video.ANd it was usually tieme coded so you can cross check it.

I don't know what the reference to critiquing Hankey before he got to say means. Hankey's video had been out since about 2004-05. Coogan's essay appeared this year. FIve years is a long time to talk before anyone critiques you. It is unfortunate that no one did what Seamus did before. The fact thatno one did tells us a lot about quality control in the so-called JFK research community.

As for not caring about Bush's alleged role, well there's Baker. He's about as silly as Hankey, except in book form.

Perhaps smear was a bad choice of words, the critique seems to me to have a rather harsh implication that Hankey is some foolish person out to distort or mislead others. In all honesty, I am not trying solely to protect the guy but figured he was simply an amateur historian who was/is on fire for learning american politics or I should say, the dark side of it and of course, will run into error. IF that is the case, I find it difficult to believe. I do respect you as a researcher Jim but I would have to lean further towards the view that GHWB was significantly involved in the JFK hit and I do appreciate your input.

Len I think you seem to miss or overlook the "obvious" points occasionally. So yes, Hitler, Stalin, Allies, enemies...alright? My point is, the GHWB was cut on some alternative news websites and secondly, if Osama and Bush go back that far then it has sinister implications within the 9/11 context and the subject of nation destabilization. That was a very minor mistake on making Edwards a Director and was irrelevant to my point. I believe your point is not so concrete when you say:

That coupled with the fact no one has been able to find anything about him indicates he was of low level.

That is not necessarily true simply because I can use that same logic to say that perhaps because he is high level he could be possibly protected from scrutiny, that could well explain why no one knows much about him, no one knows as far as I am aware. Somewhat in the same way generally no one can name 1-3 of the JFK assassins or gunmen. I am not saying there is concrete, hardcore evidence that Bush was a supervisor. What I AM saying is that if anyone believed such a view based on his personal life and family's connections, it would not be implausible.

Well said, B.A.

As you say, some things seem implausible simply because they are not known or secret or as yet undiscovered.

I like you analogy of Bush participation to naming the JFK gunmen. We cannot name them because they are

unknown. Bush's participation in the CIA or the JFK murder is also unknown, so we cannot say just how he

was involved.

Jack

[Guest Tom Scully]

C'mon Linda,

It seems it was just as Mrs. Bush said it was, an innocent lunch with Doris Ulmer. They probably knew each other in Greenwich. George Bush probably didn't even know what Doris's husband, Al did for a living.....

http://books.google.com/books?id=6HJT6SaMu1QC&pg=PA59&dq=dearest+family,+wednesday+i+TOOK++DORIS+ULMER&hl=en&ei=eLE-TOXOMITGlQeYiK3lCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA

Barbara Bush: A Memoir -page 59

By Barbara Bush

...On November 22, 1963, George and I were in the middle of a several-city swing. I was getting my hair done in Tyler, Texas, working on a letter home. Here are some excerpts:

Dearest Family,

Wednesday I took Doris Ulmer out for lunch. They were here from England and they had been so nice to George in Greece. That night we went to...

I am writing this at the Beauty Parlor and the radio says that the President has been shot. Oh Texas — my Texas — my God — let's hope it's not true. I am sick at heart as we all are. Yes, the story is true and the Governor also. How hateful some people are....

Since the Beauty Parlor the President has died. We are once again on a plane. This time a commercial plane. Poppy picked me up at the beauty parlor — we went right to the airport, flew to Ft. Worth and dropped Mr. Zeppo off (we were on his plane) and flew back to Dallas. We had to circle the field while the second presidential plane took off. Immediately Pop got tickets back to Houston and here we are flying home. We are sick at heart. The tales the radio reporters tell of Jackie Kennedy are the bravest I've ever heard. The rumors are flying about that horrid assassin

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&tbs=bks%3A1&q=indonesia+ulmer+burkholder&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

In our image: America's empire in the Philippines

Stanley Karnow - 1989 - 494 pages

The CIA was the natural vehicle for operation, and Al Ulmer, head of its Asia division, assigned the job to Joseph Burkholder Smith, who had previously served in Indonesia and Singapore. Ulmer recalled a similar crisis in 1950, .

http://books.google.com/books?id=h_1JgryEAygC&pg=PA314&dq=%22Peter+Evans%22++joseph+burkholder+smith&hl=en&ei=s78-TKibMcSBlAfK8ITMCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ulmer%20burkholder&f=false

Nemesis: The True Story of Aristotle Onassis, Jackie O, and the Love ...

By Peter Evans

Page 140

...But even the well-informed de Mohrenschild did not appear to know that Ulmer and Maheu

had worked together in the past: Ulmer had been the CIA's Far East Divsion chief with the job of overthrowing Indonesia's president Sukarno, a high-rolling nationalist leader who was playing off the Americans against the Russians, when Maheu made his notorius CIA pornographic movie with a Sukarno lookalike frolicking with a....

http://www.nysocialdiary.com/node/33005

Remembering Robert Aime Maheu

by Peter Evans

It was Robert Graves who claimed that few are wholly dead. Blow on a dead man’s embers, he said, and a live flame will start. If this is so, I fancy that after the death, at 90, of Robert Aime Maheu in Las Vegas earlier this month, his embers are feeling the draft from a great many people who’d like to ignite a small flame of truth and enlightenment under this charming, enigmatic and rascally wheeler-dealer’s life.

Some people will remember him as Howard Hughes’ point man in Las Vegas.

Others may recall that he was the man the CIA enlisted to run Las Vegas villain Johnny Rosselli and the Mafia hit team in the plot to assassinate Fidel Castro– a scheme abandoned by the Kennedy duo after the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion.

But if the plot had gone ahead, and anything had gone wrong, Maheu admitted he would have been ‘the fall guy, caught between protecting the government and protecting the mob, two armed camps that could crush me like a bug.’

If it was a remark that defined the very essence of being caught between a rock and a hard place, it also described Maheu’s equivocal position in almost everything in which he was involved.

I first encountered Maheu in the early 1980s, while researching my biography of Aristotle Onassis: Ari. I knew that the curiously cherubic spook, a man of charm and guile, and with a wicked sense of humor, and more connections than the internet, had been at the heart of the plot that, in 1954, had destroyed Onassis’s fabled Jiddah Agreement with Saudi Arabia.

The Agreement possessed all the ingredients that exhilarated Onassis: cunning, audacity, imagination, and considerable mischief. It called for Onassis to supply five hundred thousand tons of tanker shipping toward the establishment of the Saudi Arabian Maritime Company, or SAMCO. Headquartered in Jiddah, but exempt from Saudi taxes, the fleet would fly the national flag, its officers drawn from a Saudi maritime college to be established and funded by Onassis.

The company would get priority rights on the shipment of Arabian oil, with a guaranteed 10 percent of the country’s annual output. The profits were potentially massive, the geopolitical implications clearly presageful. For starters, the agreement would have seriously undermined United States influence in the Middle East.

As Onassis told me later: ‘I was about to stick my finger into the American pie’ – a pie, baked and cut up by ARAMCO, the consortium dominated by four major American companies: Mobil, Exxon, Texaco and Standard Oil – that a State Department official had once called ‘the richest material prize in history.

A former FBI man, Maheu had been in business on his own account for only a few weeks when Niarchos offered him five thousand dollars to scupper the Jiddah deal: ‘Essentially, I was asked to throw a monkey wrench into the works. I didn’t get rich overnight, but I did very well. Five thousand dollars was a lot of money for a private investigator who normally got fifty dollars a day, plus expenses,’ he would recall with a small smile of satisfaction.

Indeed, it was Maheu’s handling of that dirty tricks operation – an international conspiracy that eventually involved Richard Nixon, the CIA, the FBI, shipping magnate Stavros Niarchos (at least one of his companies, Niarchos London, Ltd, later became a CIA proprietary, fronted by former Athens station chief, Al Ulmer), and, Onassis was convinced, his old enemy, Robert Kennedy – that had made him a legend in the CIA, and the first choice to run the Agency plot to kill Castro.

An FBI counterintelligence agent in World War Two, Maheu quit the Bureau in 1947 to go into the dairy business.

He had remained a great admirer of J. Edgar Hoover’s, always remembering to send him a birthday greeting (‘Those of us who truly comprehend the insidious forces which you have consistently and are continuing to combat,’ read one birthday message, ‘thank the Good Lord that He has blessed you with so many years of physical and mental health. We pray that He may continue to do so’), and when the dairy company went sour two years later, the much-blessed director got him a job with the Small Defense Plants Administration in Washington.

In 1954, he launched Robert A. Maheu Associates, which he preferred to describe as a management consultancy business, although most of the associates were ex-FBI and intelligence agents.

From the beginning the CIA was picking up the tab for his office expenses with a five-hundred-dollar monthly retainer. Along the way, he produced a pornographic movie for the CIA, purporting to show Indonesia’s President Sukarno capering with a blonde.

What I didn’t know when I first met Maheu was that a decade after the collapse of the Jiddah Agreement, he had also been involved in another anti-Onassis plot – Prince Rainier’s nifty share-creation scheme that, in one stroke, had cut Onassis’s 52 percent domination of the company that owned Monaco to less than one third.

Nevertheless, Onassis went to his grave believing that Maheu was merely a front for Robert Kennedy, a man he detested and eventually conspired to murder, as I revealed in my second Onassis book, Nemesis.

When I had lunch with Maheu in Las Vegas in 1995, he smiled and smiled and denied any part in the scam to run Onassis out of Monaco. Looking like a Vatican banker who kept an expensive mistress on the Via Sistina, he listened politely as I confronted him with the evidence to the contrary, including an eyewitness account of his meeting with a Niarchos kingpin at the Hotel Hermitage in Monaco in 1967.

‘I wasn’t involved in that business. I wasn’t in Monaco in 1967.’ My eyewitness, he said, ‘saw somebody else ... people often think they see me where I am not. I guess it’s part of my mystique,’ he said as if he didn’t expect to be believed, but was too rich, and too old, to let it worry him anyone.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&tbs=bks:1&&sa=X&ei=vL0-TNiSKcb_lgfzoIjxCg&ved=0CCkQBSgA&q=ulmer+joseph+burkholder+smith&spell=1

The ruses for war: American interventionism since World War II

John B. Quigley - 2007 - 433 pages

In his memoirs, Allison wrote that Al Ulmer, the CIA chief for the far east, had been "brainwashed" about a nonexistent ... 19 The CIA's paramilitary operation against Sukarno was directed by CIA operative Joseph Burkholder Smith, ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=mbsLcIX4oCQC&pg=PA88&dq=alfred+ulmer+burkholder&hl=en&ei=L7c-TOubI4H7lwergfmTCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=alfred%20ulmer%20burkholder&f=false

Bung Karno di antara saksi dan peristiwa (Bung Karno between the witness and events)-pg 88

...in the arms of the Eastern bloc has been increasing. When it was also decided to overthrow Sukarno.

Joseph Burkholder Smint, Deputy Chairman of the FE / 5 of the Directorate of Planning, arranging operations. First attempt libelous Bung Karno by making a blue movie titled Happy Days. The effort was not successful because even though the film be made, but they are having trouble finding an actor who really like Bung Karno.

... leader Alfred Ulmer, who had served in Vienna and Madrid in the Corps of Kon-...

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=CIA+agent+assigned+to+Mexico+in+1969+Smith+wrote+in+his+bookPortrait+of+a+Cold&btnG=Search+Archives&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a

KGB Spy Remembers Cuba and Oswald | News | The Moscow Times

Moscow Times - The Moscow Times - Aug 28, 2008

http://www.axisglobe.com/print_article.asp?article=1632

..Nechiporenko was expelled from Mexico in 1971 after being accused of trying to organize a communist coup, an allegation he said was planted by CIA agents. His suspicions have been confirmed by Joseph Burkholder Smith, a former CIA agent assigned to Mexico in 1969. Smith wrote in his book Portrait of a Cold Warrior: Second Thoughts of a Top CIA Agent that the CIA, after unsuccessfully trying to recruit Nechiporenko, got him expelled through another Soviet Embassy employee, Raya Kiselnikova and a fabricated story that he was the main instigator of a Mexican student revolt in 1968.

[B. A. Copeland]

Thanks Mr White. I find it truly unfortunate that Coogan is allowed to smear Hankey before many would get to listen to what Hankey has to say. Hankey is NOT the "end all, be all" on the Hoover Memo or JFK Assassination, but he seems to be a "bothersome mosquito" on the question of GHWB's role, since sadly, not many seem to care about that, at least in recent years.

A smear is a deliberate distortion of what someone says or writes. Everything that Seamus used was sourced properly to the video.ANd it was usually tieme coded so you can cross check it.

I don't know what the reference to critiquing Hankey before he got to say means. Hankey's video had been out since about 2004-05. Coogan's essay appeared this year. FIve years is a long time to talk before anyone critiques you. It is unfortunate that no one did what Seamus did before. The fact thatno one did tells us a lot about quality control in the so-called JFK research community.

As for not caring about Bush's alleged role, well there's Baker. He's about as silly as Hankey, except in book form.

Perhaps smear was a bad choice of words, the critique seems to me to have a rather harsh implication that Hankey is some foolish person out to distort or mislead others. In all honesty, I am not trying solely to protect the guy but figured he was simply an amateur historian who was/is on fire for learning american politics or I should say, the dark side of it and of course, will run into error. IF that is the case, I find it difficult to believe. I do respect you as a researcher Jim but I would have to lean further towards the view that GHWB was significantly involved in the JFK hit and I do appreciate your input.

Len I think you seem to miss or overlook the "obvious" points occasionally. So yes, Hitler, Stalin, Allies, enemies...alright? My point is, the GHWB was cut on some alternative news websites and secondly, if Osama and Bush go back that far then it has sinister implications within the 9/11 context and the subject of nation destabilization. That was a very minor mistake on making Edwards a Director and was irrelevant to my point. I believe your point is not so concrete when you say:

That coupled with the fact no one has been able to find anything about him indicates he was of low level.

That is not necessarily true simply because I can use that same logic to say that perhaps because he is high level he could be possibly protected from scrutiny, that could well explain why no one knows much about him, no one knows as far as I am aware. Somewhat in the same way generally no one can name 1-3 of the JFK assassins or gunmen. I am not saying there is concrete, hardcore evidence that Bush was a supervisor. What I AM saying is that if anyone believed such a view based on his personal life and family's connections, it would not be implausible.

Well said, B.A.

As you say, some things seem implausible simply because they are not known or secret or as yet undiscovered.

I like you analogy of Bush participation to naming the JFK gunmen. We cannot name them because they are

unknown. Bush's participation in the CIA or the JFK murder is also unknown, so we cannot say just how he

was involved.

Jack

I appreciate it Mr. White.

[Peter McGuire]

Nevertheless, it is ironic that the Bush family dynasty has prospered while the Kennedy dynasty has been destroyed. The question seems to be how and to what extent Bush 41 was involved, if not in the assassination itself, in the ongoing cover-up which has included repeated trashing of the Kennedys, rather than whether or not they were involved at all.

I believe that is a good starting point.

As has been reported previously on this site, my investigative history of the Bush family, Family of Secrets, has four JFK assassination-related chapters -- scores of revelations, backed up by documents and interviews. Clearly, many of those posting comments here are not familiar with that material.

How many here have read "Family of Secrets" and these four important chapters? This book is on deck for me and I am purchasing it this week. I was referred to this book months ago by someone with no interest in the JFK assassination who had read Family of Secrets and suggested it to me.

Somebody got their man!

Edited July 18, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Robert Howard]

Nevertheless, it is ironic that the Bush family dynasty has prospered while the Kennedy dynasty has been destroyed. The question seems to be how and to what extent Bush 41 was involved, if not in the assassination itself, in the ongoing cover-up which has included repeated trashing of the Kennedys, rather than whether or not they were involved at all.

I believe that is a good starting point.

As has been reported previously on this site, my investigative history of the Bush family, Family of Secrets, has four JFK assassination-related chapters -- scores of revelations, backed up by documents and interviews. Clearly, many of those posting comments here are not familiar with that material.

How many here have read "Family of Secrets" and these four important chapters? This book is on deck for me and I am purchasing it this week. I was referred to this book months ago by someone with no interest in the JFK assassination who had read Family of Secrets and suggested it to me.

Somebody got their man!

My initial addon is more of a interesting coincidence than any type of conspiratorial comment, but the other day, I was watching a fairly good movie about the Roswell crash, and afterwards was reading from some books regarding the original historical accounts of same I kept noting reference to a couple, George and Mary Bush, ostensibly married, who were part of the witnesses in that sordid affair. The George Bush, was basically a name and nothing else, as far as evolving information, definitely not our George. Mary Bush was a hospital employee who came in when the alleged aliens were being examined, and made specific comments regarding same, I wondered if maybe they were cousins or something similar to the Prescott and George Herbert Walker Bushes. For those who feel I may have tainted the thread, you have to admit if there was some type of genealogical relationship, it would be worth mentioning.

Back to the essence of the George Bush issue, I believe his quote relationship unquote with George H W Bush, is the definitive area. There was also some type of action taken by "41," in which he expressed concern in a letter or something circa 1962-1963, about the vulnerability of Zapata Offshore to potential aggressive action by Castro,

The ships Barbara J and Houston, is another curious area, traditionally associated with George Bush, researcher Richard Bartholomew, made a good point in Possible Discovery Of.......the fact that Air Force Intelligence Colonel Howard Burris' wife's first name and initial was coincidentally Barbara J.

First International Bankshares, Ltd. is another interesting area, George H. W. Bush was a Director of FIB, Inc.,

Along with George Bush, other FIB Directors included W Dewey Presley, who was listed in Who's Who In CIA, 1939-42 Magnolia Oil, FBI SA 1942-52,

First National Bank Dallas - 1960

Then there is Permago Drilling Company of Mexico, and IDECO, a Dresser subidiary;

Not to mention the death of Barry Seal; comments by "41" that JFK "should muster the courage" to do something about Castro.

And the infamous phone call he placed on 11/22/63 warning the Secret Service about James Parrott, as a potential security threat to President Kennedy, after President Kennedy had already been assassinated, and allegedly returned to working for same years later. the same type of dynamic is alleged with Billy Joe Lord, if indeed

the Billy Joe Lord associated with Oswald, was the same person working for "41," decades later.

Even though I do not get too far out into the really weird stuff, I can almost understand why some people believe Richard "Dick" Cheney is a shapeshifter...lol

Edited July 18, 2010 by Robert Howard

[Jack White]

I suggest that the mention of a GEORGE BUSH in a UFO book may have been deliberate.

A fictitious person could certainly call attention to a real person who may have been involved.

Jack

[Frankie Vegas]

Has any body actually read Seamus's review of Hankeys JFK II?

If people of the calibre of Greg Parker, John Geraghty, Pat Speer, Jim DiEugenio, AJ Weberman, Larry Hancock, Lisa Pease, Deb Conway and a host of others think Hankey and the Bush connection is 'bunk' or over done. I think thats pretty powerful stuff.

This is an amalgamation of a number of different people with different view points from different groups. After reading the Hankey review again and reading Jim DiEugenios review of Bakers book, I really see nothing but people trying to connect dots exactly like Hankey did. I think anybody can make connections anywhere in this case.

I suppose a few of you actually believe Bush threatened with Hoover with a gun in his office. Oh please. That is just soooooo silly.

[Peter McGuire]

Sometimes I think no one here has actually read anything! (but other posts and internet material)

A review ~ maybe, an internet or library copy of a book~ maybe.

Oh, some do; but many do not.

I am sure many have read Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment which you can download on the internet. But how many have taken the time to buy Plausible Denial, for example?

And then as the author of "Family of Secrets" has pointed out, it seems no one here has read the book, despite this miles long thread!

As far as JFK2 goes~ I bought the DVD and viewed his other material on YouTube.

I will have to revisit this since it has been a few years.

Jane Fonda and Mark Lane.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Peter McGuire