Was George Herbert Walker Bush Involved in Kennedy Assassination?

[John Simkin]

http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=114869

Los Angeles, CA, March 29, 2010 –With all the rancor and acrimony in Washington these days, now’s a perfect time to revisit…The assassination of JFK! And filmmaker John Hankey believes our former president and CIA Director George H.W. Bush had something to do with it.

That black day in November 1963 will never, be put to rest, its ghosts doomed to walk the earth and compel us to keep digging. An issue as durable as it is nonpartisan, conspiracy theorists, mere theorists and armchair speculators will debate the assassination till the end of time. Why? Only 22 percent of the American public believes in the official account of the shooting. A majority believe there was more than one shooter. But no has come along to blow the lid off the case until John Hankey, a Southern California high school teacher who has spent years researching the case and assembling connections from historical sources, interviews and detective spadework.

A spirited, well-documented indictment of George Herbert Walker Bush, the film makes a very strong case establishing Bush was part of the chain of command in the conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy. The evidence is compelling; one letter from the FBI places George Bush, an acknowledged CIA agent who rose to the top of its ranks, in Dallas during the assassination. Bush, once asked about it, said that was some OTHER George Bush, also in the CIA. As Hankey says, "If we could present this evidence to a jury in Texas, he would pay with his life"

Equally raw, direct, opinionated and compelling, this video explores the tangled web of connections between George Bush and the Kennedy assassination and makes a very convincing argument that the elder Bush helped in the most important coup in American history. And lest Hankey be dismissed as a crackpot or a partisan, he’s got company from across the political spectrum. Independent Jesse Ventura is touring the country promoting his book American Conspiracies: Lies, Lies, and More Dirty Lies that the Government Tells Us. In the book he argues the assassination of Kennedy needs to be re-examined. Back in 2007, fellow Republican Brice Willis told Vanity Fair, "They still haven’t caught the guy that killed [President] Kennedy…I’ll get killed for saying this, but I’m pretty sure those guys are still in power, in some form….”

With this documentary, Hankey joins the debate in a calm but energetic, engaging way, that will leave viewers convinced, or forever unsure. And if that weren’t enough, he concludes, “Who killed JFK Jr.?” he’s got some ideas about THAT too. But that’s another movie.

[Jack White]

YES.

[Michael Hogan]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/289792

[Pat Speer]

It depends how one defines "involved." Did GHWB know right-wing Cubans who may have been a part of the plot? Absolutely. But there is absolutely zero evidence Bush was involved in the assassination itself, and Hankey's movie--which is far from new, by the way--only clouds the issue of who was really involved by pretending Bush I and his dad Prescott were central to CIA shenanigans. He's blowing smoke.

Seamus Coogan wrote a review for CTKA dismantling his nonsense.

Coogan dismantles Hankey's nonsense

[Michael Hogan]

Seamus Coogan wrote a review for CTKA dismantling his nonsense.

Coogan dismantles Hankey's nonsense

The author of this story mentioned it and provided a link

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/289792

[B. A. Copeland]

It depends how one defines "involved." Did GHWB know right-wing Cubans who may have been a part of the plot? Absolutely. But there is absolutely zero evidence Bush was involved in the assassination itself, and Hankey's movie--which is far from new, by the way--only clouds the issue of who was really involved by pretending Bush I and his dad Prescott were central to CIA shenanigans. He's blowing smoke.

Seamus Coogan wrote a review for CTKA dismantling his nonsense.

Coogan dismantles Hankey's nonsense

Absolutely and eaaaaaaasy killer lol....we have more reason to believe than NOT in face of some evidence, that Bush WAS involved in the Assassination at least to SOME degree. Just as we have reason to believe based on some evidence, that he was IN the CIA BEFORE he became the Director in 76. We have MANY more reasons to believe he was involved and an operative far before he joined in 76. My god, they make him director, they then name the Bldg. after him later on, and why is he THAT important?...well my educated guess knowing the american political system, is that he did his part well and he (being a power broker himself) knows the right people)

Also, Pat, what are you saying, that Bush may have known Right-Wing Cubans involved..? Wha..? How so? Bush doesn't "remember" where he was on that day, let alone the phone call he made....What evidence do you have to suggest Bush may have known possibly some of the Cubans involved? Not to mention (what I strongly believe) HIS name on the Hoover Memo.... Gotta love it: "Operation Zapata", "The Barbara" lol....great stuff.....

Edited March 31, 2010 by B. A. Copeland

[David Andrews]

I doubt that I carry the same authority as Jack White, but -

YES!

("Mr. George Bush of the CIA..." -- J. E. Hoover)

Edited March 31, 2010 by David Andrews

[Pamela Brown]

It depends how one defines "involved." Did GHWB know right-wing Cubans who may have been a part of the plot? Absolutely. But there is absolutely zero evidence Bush was involved in the assassination itself, and Hankey's movie--which is far from new, by the way--only clouds the issue of who was really involved by pretending Bush I and his dad Prescott were central to CIA shenanigans. He's blowing smoke.

Seamus Coogan wrote a review for CTKA dismantling his nonsense.

Coogan dismantles Hankey's nonsense

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.

Bush 41 may have just stood in the background making sure to use every bit of calamity to his family's advantage. Yet, as president, as well as head of CIA, he was at the center of the documentation that has been released as well as that which is still being suppressed. It is not hard to imagine that the remaining files have been thoroughly combed for anything that might be detrimental to the Bushes or point anyone to their involvement in anything at all.

[Pat Speer]

It depends how one defines "involved." Did GHWB know right-wing Cubans who may have been a part of the plot? Absolutely. But there is absolutely zero evidence Bush was involved in the assassination itself, and Hankey's movie--which is far from new, by the way--only clouds the issue of who was really involved by pretending Bush I and his dad Prescott were central to CIA shenanigans. He's blowing smoke.

Seamus Coogan wrote a review for CTKA dismantling his nonsense.

Coogan dismantles Hankey's nonsense

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.

Bush 41 may have just stood in the background making sure to use every bit of calamity to his family's advantage. Yet, as president, as well as head of CIA, he was at the center of the documentation that has been released as well as that which is still being suppressed. It is not hard to imagine that the remaining files have been thoroughly combed for anything that might be detrimental to the Bushes or point anyone to their involvement in anything at all.

We're not all that far off. Yes, I believe Bush was CIA in '63. Yes, I believe Zapata offshore was a front for the CIA. Yes, I believe he lied about it later, and that Felix Rodriguez's role in Iran-Contra was no coincidence. But it makes no sense he would be involved in the planning of Kennedy's assassination. He was a business man. A front man. Not a planner. Nor a killer.

[Greg Burnham]

We're not all that far off. Yes, I believe Bush was CIA in '63. Yes, I believe Zapata offshore was a front for the CIA. Yes, I believe he lied about it later, and that Felix Rodriguez's role in Iran-Contra was no coincidence.

So GHWB was in deep, then? It would seem so...on several levels. That he became DCI under FORD speaks volumes.

But it makes no sense he would be involved in the planning of Kennedy's assassination. He was a business man. A front man. Not a planner. Nor a killer.

A lot of assumptions. Perhaps he was just a voyeur?

[Jack White]

Very perceptive! I agree!

It depends how one defines "involved." Did GHWB know right-wing Cubans who may have been a part of the plot? Absolutely. But there is absolutely zero evidence Bush was involved in the assassination itself, and Hankey's movie--which is far from new, by the way--only clouds the issue of who was really involved by pretending Bush I and his dad Prescott were central to CIA shenanigans. He's blowing smoke.

Seamus Coogan wrote a review for CTKA dismantling his nonsense.

Coogan dismantles Hankey's nonsense

Absolutely and eaaaaaaasy killer lol....we have more reason to believe than NOT in face of some evidence, that Bush WAS involved in the Assassination at least to SOME degree. Just as we have reason to believe based on some evidence, that he was IN the CIA BEFORE he became the Director in 76. We have MANY more reasons to believe he was involved and an operative far before he joined in 76. My god, they make him director, they then name the Bldg. after him later on, and why is he THAT important?...well my educated guess knowing the american political system, is that he did his part well and he (being a power broker himself) knows the right people)

Also, Pat, what are you saying, that Bush may have known Right-Wing Cubans involved..? Wha..? How so? Bush doesn't "remember" where he was on that day, let alone the phone call he made....What evidence do you have to suggest Bush may have known possibly some of the Cubans involved? Not to mention (what I strongly believe) HIS name on the Hoover Memo.... Gotta love it: "Operation Zapata", "The Barbara" lol....great stuff.....

[Jack White]

It depends how one defines "involved." Did GHWB know right-wing Cubans who may have been a part of the plot? Absolutely. But there is absolutely zero evidence Bush was involved in the assassination itself, and Hankey's movie--which is far from new, by the way--only clouds the issue of who was really involved by pretending Bush I and his dad Prescott were central to CIA shenanigans. He's blowing smoke.

Seamus Coogan wrote a review for CTKA dismantling his nonsense.

Coogan dismantles Hankey's nonsense

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.

Bush 41 may have just stood in the background making sure to use every bit of calamity to his family's advantage. Yet, as president, as well as head of CIA, he was at the center of the documentation that has been released as well as that which is still being suppressed. It is not hard to imagine that the remaining files have been thoroughly combed for anything that might be detrimental to the Bushes or point anyone to their involvement in anything at all.

We're not all that far off. Yes, I believe Bush was CIA in '63. Yes, I believe Zapata offshore was a front for the CIA. Yes, I believe he lied about it later, and that Felix Rodriguez's role in Iran-Contra was no coincidence. But it makes no sense he would be involved in the planning of Kennedy's assassination. He was a business man. A front man. Not a planner. Nor a killer.

He was a BONESMAN. Bonesmen are killers.

[Brian Benson]

A lot of assumptions. Perhaps he was just a voyeur?

A voyeur with inside information is an accessory before, during and after the fact.

I recently read a thread started by Duncan McRae who was asking for an ID on the photo of a young lad walking away from the TSBD. The topic centered around whether this chap was in fact Lee's friend, Ron Lewis. Duncan used a cropped version of the photo.

When looking at the uncropped version the man outlined in the attached photograph is visible. Is this the same guy seen in the more popular photo purporting to be GHWB outside the depository building?

Lee are you asking if the man outlined in the triangle is the same man as the one seen in other pictures leaning against the TSBD - and who some believe is GHWB? I would say the man in your picture is not the same man. GHWB is listed as 6 ft 2 in tall. The man in the picture appears to be shorter. Also, the man in your picture does not have the same characteristic "slouch" that we often see with GHWB, your man stands more staight-up-and-down. Just my opinion.

[Kathleen Collins]

I recently read a thread started by Duncan McRae who was asking for an ID on the photo of a young lad walking away from the TSBD. The topic centered around whether this chap was in fact Lee's friend, Ron Lewis. Duncan used a cropped version of the photo.

When looking at the uncropped version the man outlined in the attached photograph is visible. Is this the same guy seen in the more popular photo purporting to be GHWB outside the depository building?

The guy you picked out, who you think is GHWB, doesn't look anything like that boob.

Kathy C

[Karl Kinaski]

It depends how one defines "involved."

Coogan dismantles Hankey's nonsense

Yes.

What means involved? Are you involved in something, when you just got a kind of foreknowledge, (place of the event, time etc.)? Bush got some foreknowledge, like LBJ, Rose Cheramie, Howard Hunt, Chauncy Holt, Ferrie etc. AND: he can't remember, where he was that faithful day like Richard Nixon (he provided four versions of his whereabouts) or Howard Hunt...

That makes Bush a suspect of foreknowledge... note: his (Kennedy hating)father was a friend of the famous Steward Menzies. They were working together in France during WW 1. Therefore the Bushes got a long history of being involved with the IC of Merry Old England and the US, and their secret history...just like the Dulles-Clan...when you re playing the big game, IMO you have to be like they are...

KK

Edited April 14, 2010 by Karl Kinaski