John Heinz and John Tower

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Heinz had many powerful enemies.Some noted he had actually taken over Pennsylvania's Republican party thus challenging Bush's choice of Richard Thornburghto lead the states Republican charge. Thornburgh was a two term governor, & had been chosen by Bush to be the Attorney General. The republican party suddenly found it had a popular, independent leader in waiting. John Heinz represented a new republican philosophy. He promoted new ideas that clearly embraced the middle class & working poor. His popularity grew rapidly. He had departed from the right wing conservatism of Bush & was not looking back.He was a real danger to the establishment because he had the money to back his own campaigns & was not indebted to vested interests. Heinz had his own agenda & was not easy to control. Did it get him killed, maybe maybe not, but isn't it strange how many people that are potentially rivals to the Bush clan, end up like this.

[Robert Howard]

Heinz had many powerful enemies.Some noted he had actually taken over Pennsylvania's Republican party thus challenging Bush's choice of Richard Thornburghto lead the states Republican charge. Thornburgh was a two term governor, & had been chosen by Bush to be the Attorney General. The republican party suddenly found it had a popular, independent leader in waiting. John Heinz represented a new republican philosophy. He promoted new ideas that clearly embraced the middle class & working poor. His popularity grew rapidly. He had departed from the right wing conservatism of Bush & was not looking back.He was a real danger to the establishment because he had the money to back his own campaigns & was not indebted to vested interests. Heinz had his own agenda & was not easy to control. Did it get him killed, maybe maybe not, but isn't it strange how many people that are potentially rivals to the Bush clan, end up like this.

Sometimes there are Forum members who get upset when old threads get resurrected, if anyone has a problem with that, I suggest they contact the Administrator's of the Forum instead of resorting to pithy comments on this thread.

Why would someone want to resurrect this old thread? It has everything to do with what one day historians will refer to as "The Bottleneck." The bottleneck is the connect between accepted history and life in real time. It is why the HSCA with Richard Sprague at the helm of the Committee was headed off at the pass, and Sprague was made to look like a fool. It is why when Howard Dean let's out a War Yell it is a major faux pas, but when suspicious circumstances regarding the Bush family connections to the Bin Laden family, and the Carlyle Group, emerge the sickening details are only raised in indy media, which, by the way is comprised of what formerly was known as the best and the brightest of television journalism. [Does that tell you anything?]

So once again the Democrat's could be said to be experiencing 'deja-vu all over again' regarding the [in a couple of years] aftermath of a scandal ridden Republican administration replete with some of the same cast of character's from another scandal ridden administration i.e. Richard Nixon. When Tricky Dick resigned there were televised hearings on all the major Television networks [when cable TV was just an idea] Watergate

showed the people what happens when checks and balances meet the CIA, COINTELPRO and agents who are activated 'just one more time.'

There is an old song from the 70's with the familiar refrain

"We may never pass this way again," Democrat's besides being the opposition party to the party of Lincoln, have always helped maintain a tenuous balance of power, the last six years reveal what happens when the Republican's "hook-up" with corporate America and the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies. If Congressional hearings on "what the hell has been going on for the last six years, in the vaunted New American Century," don't cleanse the sickness that has infested America for the last 43 years, then we all might as well get ready for another round of 1960's style chaos.

Edited November 9, 2006 by Robert Howard

[John Simkin]

Sometimes there are Forum members who get upset when old threads get resurrected, if anyone has a problem with that, I suggest they contact the Administrator's of the Forum instead of resorting to pithy comments on this thread.

Very timely. I have no problem with you resurrecting any threads. I do think I understand your comments about other members. Let us watch and see what they do.

[JL Allen]

I was under the impression that it was proper protocol to make addendums to threads already in existence if the subject matter was relative - cutting down on "clutter". It's a variation on the "Give a Hoot - Don't Pollute" doctrine. We must revive the threads in order to continue - just as we must continue in order to revive.

Edited November 9, 2006 by JL Allen

[Michael Clark]

It's just one of those threads. It sits for 11 years without a reply. It has 159,000 views. 

Bump

[Jason Ward]

On 2/24/2005 at 0:51 AM, John Simkin said:

 ...

 ...

Could it be that someone tapped him on the shoulder and told him that if he played his cards right and kept these sordid matters hush-hush, he would be rewarded sometime in the future?

I hate to defend the Bushes, Felix Rodriguez, Ghorbanifar, Ledeen, and all the others who were busy with covert plots 1960-199?, but in retrospect the Iran-Contra scandal may have done some good.   Iran has consistently refused to sponsor direct attacks on the US, although their money ends up with Hamas and assorted angry unemployed young men ready for a suicide attack on Israel. I've seen several ME experts argue that a kind of detente was established with the October surprise and Iran-Contra that lasts to present day.

So, maybe Kerry was partially selfish but also believed it was best for the country not to go nuclear with the scandal?  Hoover and LBJ thought the same in 1963.

 

Jason

[Michael Clark]

On 2/24/2005 at 11:28 AM, Guest Stephen Turner said:

In her article, The Nazi connection to the assassination of John f. Kennedy

(1983) Mae Brussell writes

"One of the most consistant conservatives among Buckley's Advisory Board

was Sen John Tower. Yet ,2 years after the YAF team Tower was passing all

waivers in order for Marina to get into the USA.Without his permission ,this trip

might never have taken place.

March 22, 1962, Tower cooperated"The sanctions imposed on Immigration &

Nationality are hereby waived in behalf of Mrs Oswald"(Volume XXIV,298

Warren Comission)

John Tower knew Marina was a safe bet.Otherwise why the hurry? The CIA &

Defense Dept knew all there was to know about both Oswalds.

Thats why Tower signed the papers FAST.

@Jim Hargrove, Sorry if this has been covered before, but I am wondering if John Tower's efforts on behalf of Marina and LHO have been a focus of research for you guys?

Edited January 6, 2018 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

And BTW, John Ritchson, who posted in this thread was, IMO, a great Ed Forum contributor. The activity page of his forum profile comes up blank for me; you have to click on "All Acivity" , then "Topics" or ""posts" to see his contributions. He was run off the road, into a tree and eventually died as a result of his injuries. The power went out at his home and his ventilator stopped working, and he then died, as I understand it.

 

[Andrew Prutsok]

On August 30, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Jason Ward said:

I hate to defend the Bushes, Felix Rodriguez, Ghorbanifar, Ledeen, and all the others who were busy with covert plots 1960-199?, but in retrospect the Iran-Contra scandal may have done some good.   Iran has consistently refused to sponsor direct attacks on the US, although their money ends up with Hamas and assorted angry unemployed young men ready for a suicide attack on Israel. I've seen several ME experts argue that a kind of detente was established with the October surprise and Iran-Contra that lasts to present day.

So, maybe Kerry was partially selfish but also believed it was best for the country not to go nuclear with the scandal?  Hoover and LBJ thought the same in 1963.

 

Jason

I'm sure Guatemala, Chile and Indonesia are all better off today as well for the CIA's dirty dealings.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Andrew Prutsok
Spelling. I had a grand baby jumping on me.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Yes funny you mention that,  I was watching "Ollie North's War Stories".

I agree Andrew, in some ways it's thankless work. We musn't always expect gratitude from the country's who are ordained to be touched by our hand of American Exceptualism. But sometimes the seeds of such actions, that may be hardly noticeable at the time, sprout into huge trees of prosperity, as perhaps the drug culture that has fomented throughout Central America and Mexico today! Who would have thought at the time?!

Edited January 7, 2018 by Kirk Gallaway