I thought I would start a separate thread for the discussion on my paper, “Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade: The Contracting Out of U.S. Foreign Policy: 1940-2006”. As I am producing it in 6 parts this will give it some consistency (I might even take it up to the present as it is quite clear that the network started in 1940 is still involved in what is going on in the United States today.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5799
I welcome corrections and suggested additions to the paper. This is very much a collaborative project.
Over the years several people have blamed the assassination on the Military Industrial Congressional Complex (MICC) first mentioned by Dwight Eisenhower when he left power in 1960 (he had been persuaded at the last moment to remove the word Congressional from his theory). I intend to give flesh to what is meant by the MICC and to name the important people who took part in this conspiracy that is still at the heart of the government of the United States.
Full Version: Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade: Debate
QUOTE (Lee Forman @ Jan 9 2006, 07:09 PM) 
William Harvey's name didn't appear on your list?
He was indeed a member of the network. The list only included people who were active in the group for over 20 years.
I need to visit the university library tomorrow to check a few facts concerning the 1940-50 section. Therefore, the first section will not be posted to Thursday. Sorry about the delay.
QUOTE (Robert Howard @ Jan 10 2006, 12:42 AM)
Sherman Skolnick, if I am not mistaken has an archive section on Nexus, where he alleges that the Israeli's are 'blackmailing the Bush Family.'
Israel is not the only the country in the Middle East blackmailing the Bush family.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Jan 11 2006, 05:09 AM)
And your proof of the latter statement can be found at . . .?
QUOTE (Mark Knight @ Jan 13 2006, 04:22 PM)
Tim, the Saudis who left the US in the days immediately post-9/11 when the no-fly restrictions supposedly applied to EVERYONE...doesn't THAT suggest something to you?
You can't POSSIBLY be THAT clueless.
Or CAN you?
You can't POSSIBLY be THAT clueless.
Or CAN you?
Over the next few weeks I hope to show the connection between the Bush family and the MICC. This includes the pro-Nazi activities of Prescott Bush in the 1930s and the cover-up that enabled the intelligence services to develop a close relationship with Prescott's son and grandson.
QUOTE (Jim Root @ Jan 13 2006, 09:29 PM)
John
I will look forward to more information as you present it. As you know my research goes back to associations that began in 1927 and moves forward from that point. The 1940 date that you use coincides with Henry Stimson's appointment of John J. McCloy to a position of advisor followed by his elevation to Asst. Sec. of War. McCloy's job was to revamp the military intelligence system within the United States as we geared up to enter the second World War.
McCloy was at the center of the intelligence apparatus that was developed at that time and was then positioned to revamp that apparatus (after WWII) for the new enemy during the Cold War.
The system as imagined by Stimson was to be modeled upon the British system of intelligence. Within the British system, at that time was one man at the top of a many headed group of organization. McKenzies, I believe, was the head of this British group of organizations and was known as "C."
Was McCloy our "C" in America? I believe the topic needs to be studied in depth.
Jim Root
I will look forward to more information as you present it. As you know my research goes back to associations that began in 1927 and moves forward from that point. The 1940 date that you use coincides with Henry Stimson's appointment of John J. McCloy to a position of advisor followed by his elevation to Asst. Sec. of War. McCloy's job was to revamp the military intelligence system within the United States as we geared up to enter the second World War.
McCloy was at the center of the intelligence apparatus that was developed at that time and was then positioned to revamp that apparatus (after WWII) for the new enemy during the Cold War.
The system as imagined by Stimson was to be modeled upon the British system of intelligence. Within the British system, at that time was one man at the top of a many headed group of organization. McKenzies, I believe, was the head of this British group of organizations and was known as "C."
Was McCloy our "C" in America? I believe the topic needs to be studied in depth.
Jim Root
John McCloy is indeed an important figure in this network. So far I have concentrated on his pro-Nazi activities in the 1940s. However, I need much more information on him and have just ordered Kai Bird’s book, Chairman: John J. McCloy, The Making of the American Establishment. Do you have a copy of this book?
John wrote:
I intend to give flesh to what is meant by the MICC and to name the important people who took part in this conspiracy that is still at the heart of the government of the United States.
John Merriam-Webster on-line has two different definitions of "conspire":
1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement b : SCHEME
2 : to act in harmony toward a common end.
(the dictionary notes that from the original Latin conspire means simply "to act in harmony".
I assume you, however, will attempt to prove the first more sinister meaning.
I intend to give flesh to what is meant by the MICC and to name the important people who took part in this conspiracy that is still at the heart of the government of the United States.
John Merriam-Webster on-line has two different definitions of "conspire":
1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement b : SCHEME
2 : to act in harmony toward a common end.
(the dictionary notes that from the original Latin conspire means simply "to act in harmony".
I assume you, however, will attempt to prove the first more sinister meaning.
Not quite sure where to put some of these so as they partly relate I put them here...
Prescott Bush on behalf of Gen EA Walker. defending right of Military Personnell anti communist propaganda/seminars
___________
Chennault pinning medal of John Birch "He was like a son to me"
____________
RP Oliver from sep 64 JBS publication
______________
Jose Norman at JBS seminar on Cuba
Prescott Bush on behalf of Gen EA Walker. defending right of Military Personnell anti communist propaganda/seminars
___________
Chennault pinning medal of John Birch "He was like a son to me"
____________
RP Oliver from sep 64 JBS publication
______________
Jose Norman at JBS seminar on Cuba
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Jan 15 2006, 10:47 AM)
John wrote:
I intend to give flesh to what is meant by the MICC and to name the important people who took part in this conspiracy that is still at the heart of the government of the United States.
John Merriam-Webster on-line has two different definitions of "conspire":
1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement b : SCHEME
2 : to act in harmony toward a common end.
(the dictionary notes that from the original Latin conspire means simply "to act in harmony".
I assume you, however, will attempt to prove the first more sinister meaning.
I intend to give flesh to what is meant by the MICC and to name the important people who took part in this conspiracy that is still at the heart of the government of the United States.
John Merriam-Webster on-line has two different definitions of "conspire":
1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement b : SCHEME
2 : to act in harmony toward a common end.
(the dictionary notes that from the original Latin conspire means simply "to act in harmony".
I assume you, however, will attempt to prove the first more sinister meaning.
Wordnet defines it in the following way:
S: (n) conspiracy, confederacy (a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act)
S: (n) conspiracy, cabal (a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
S: (n) conspiracy, confederacy (a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose)
The Free Dictionary defines it in the
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design.
I have used the word conspiracy to mean: “A secret agreement between a network of people to perform harmful and illegal acts.”
What I am attempting to do is to show how this network operated between 1940 and the current time. I have fully documented my theory. I am awaiting you to point out the errors of my argument.
John, I like your definitions much better and I also like the one short definition you adopted. It is succinct and correct, IMO.
We previously discussed problems in the Merriam Webster definition of "coup". It seems equally deficient in its definition of conspiracy.
We previously discussed problems in the Merriam Webster definition of "coup". It seems equally deficient in its definition of conspiracy.
QUOTE (John Dolva @ Jan 15 2006, 09:12 PM)
Not quite sure where to put some of these so as they partly relate I put them here...
Prescott Bush on behalf of Gen EA Walker. defending right of Military Personnell anti communist propaganda/seminars
___________
Chennault pinning medal of John Birch "He was like a son to me"
____________
RP Oliver from sep 64 JBS publication
______________
Jose Norman at JBS seminar on Cuba
Prescott Bush on behalf of Gen EA Walker. defending right of Military Personnell anti communist propaganda/seminars
___________
Chennault pinning medal of John Birch "He was like a son to me"
____________
RP Oliver from sep 64 JBS publication
______________
Jose Norman at JBS seminar on Cuba
____________________________________
Interesting photos, John. Can't read the letter, though. Print's too small.....
FWIW, Thomas
____________________________________
John, a great work of synthesis. I agree that its high time we break down this Military Industrial Complex abstraction. (Does something remain an' abstraction,' because journalists can't publish articles about it in anything with a circulation above 10,000?)
The Corcoran links to both the New Deal and the growing right wing arms indsutry can help explain how Roosevelt managed to create national unity among elites during WWII. It shows one more time just how deceptive laissez faire rhetoric among American rightists is. Big gov. is just fine so long as the largess is flowing into a few big pockets and not a lot of smaller ones.
As you described Corcoran, the name of Irving Davidson came to mind as a person of similar trouble shooting capacities later on in D.C. Davidson worked for similar clients. Any signs of their collaboration later on?
You mention some key China Lobby people such as Claire C., and the far- right trio within the OSS in China.
Around the years 1950-54 this group, if I'm not mistaken, had begun criticizing the CIA as too multilateralist, and too focussed on Europe. Later their views were to be expressed by the American Security Council.
Your article hints at both differences with and connections to the CIA.
Even though this group was INTERVENTIONIST it might be distinguished from MULTILATERALISTS in thier different strategies for intervention. This Brown-Root-Kaiser link had profitted by land and sea wars, (as opposed to Kennedy interest in shifting to more agile Special Ops.) rather than by talking it out as the new Eastern Estabishment institutions like the U.N. and the World Bank.
Also potentially allied to this group were the U.S. companies with direct investment in Latin America, who still wanted to treat Western Hemisphere as their back yard-- without the U.N. having any say in how the badmitten net was set up.
Are their signs of this unilateralist group having an integrated intelligence network, possibly involving military and navel intelligence, that could:
1) possibly have an agenda different from the CIA's main office
2) be able to keep some intelligence a secret from the CIA, and than later selectively feed conctacts within the CIA filtered intelligence?
As an example of this latter point Peter Dale Scott has written of the New Orleans' FBI agent John Quigley sending the name A.J. Hidell to the 112th Army Military Intelligence group that then matched this name to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Oswald was working for a private Inteligence group that had connections to the FBI. Scott argues that the myriad conntacts of Oswald with groups of both the Right and Left suggests that he may have been investigating mail order arms shipments for his employers on Camp Street.
Scott also suggests that the Camp street office may have assigned Oswald work that had been contracted out to it from other U.S. intelligence agencies such as the A.T.F.
Might such cut- out private intel. companies as Camp Street have been used by this Unilateralist economic allies as cells that might stitch together alternative inteligence networks of the moment. These cells might connect different gov agencies, such as parts of FBI, A.T.F. , Military Inteligence Groups, but in a zig zag manner designed to prevent knowledge from filtering up to the top of the separate bureaucracies.
The Corcoran links to both the New Deal and the growing right wing arms indsutry can help explain how Roosevelt managed to create national unity among elites during WWII. It shows one more time just how deceptive laissez faire rhetoric among American rightists is. Big gov. is just fine so long as the largess is flowing into a few big pockets and not a lot of smaller ones.
As you described Corcoran, the name of Irving Davidson came to mind as a person of similar trouble shooting capacities later on in D.C. Davidson worked for similar clients. Any signs of their collaboration later on?
You mention some key China Lobby people such as Claire C., and the far- right trio within the OSS in China.
Around the years 1950-54 this group, if I'm not mistaken, had begun criticizing the CIA as too multilateralist, and too focussed on Europe. Later their views were to be expressed by the American Security Council.
Your article hints at both differences with and connections to the CIA.
Even though this group was INTERVENTIONIST it might be distinguished from MULTILATERALISTS in thier different strategies for intervention. This Brown-Root-Kaiser link had profitted by land and sea wars, (as opposed to Kennedy interest in shifting to more agile Special Ops.) rather than by talking it out as the new Eastern Estabishment institutions like the U.N. and the World Bank.
Also potentially allied to this group were the U.S. companies with direct investment in Latin America, who still wanted to treat Western Hemisphere as their back yard-- without the U.N. having any say in how the badmitten net was set up.
Are their signs of this unilateralist group having an integrated intelligence network, possibly involving military and navel intelligence, that could:
1) possibly have an agenda different from the CIA's main office
2) be able to keep some intelligence a secret from the CIA, and than later selectively feed conctacts within the CIA filtered intelligence?
As an example of this latter point Peter Dale Scott has written of the New Orleans' FBI agent John Quigley sending the name A.J. Hidell to the 112th Army Military Intelligence group that then matched this name to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Oswald was working for a private Inteligence group that had connections to the FBI. Scott argues that the myriad conntacts of Oswald with groups of both the Right and Left suggests that he may have been investigating mail order arms shipments for his employers on Camp Street.
Scott also suggests that the Camp street office may have assigned Oswald work that had been contracted out to it from other U.S. intelligence agencies such as the A.T.F.
Might such cut- out private intel. companies as Camp Street have been used by this Unilateralist economic allies as cells that might stitch together alternative inteligence networks of the moment. These cells might connect different gov agencies, such as parts of FBI, A.T.F. , Military Inteligence Groups, but in a zig zag manner designed to prevent knowledge from filtering up to the top of the separate bureaucracies.
QUOTE (Nathaniel Heidenheimer @ Jan 16 2006, 05:38 PM)
As you described Corcoran, the name of Irving Davidson came to mind as a person of similar trouble shooting capacities later on in D.C. Davidson worked for similar clients. Any signs of their collaboration later on?
I will be dealing with how Irving Davidson joined the network in the next section of the article: 1950-60.
QUOTE (Thomas Graves @ Jan 16 2006, 03:22 PM)
QUOTE (John Dolva @ Jan 15 2006, 09:12 PM)
Not quite sure where to put some of these so as they partly relate I put them here...
Prescott Bush on behalf of Gen EA Walker. defending right of Military Personnell anti communist propaganda/seminars
___________
Chennault pinning medal of John Birch "He was like a son to me"
____________
RP Oliver from sep 64 JBS publication
______________
Jose Norman at JBS seminar on Cuba
____________________________________
Interesting photos, John. Can't read the letter, though. Print's too small.....
FWIW, Thomas
____________________________________
I suppose I should have commented on the images.
Prescott Bush here in association with the people such as Gen. EA Walker places the current president a hop and skip away from one of the prime persons of interest in the assassination of JFK, if nothing else certainly in spirit which provides a relevance to the network John S. is writing about.
Similarly grouped with them are Chennault, John Birch, JBS, and anti Cuba individuals.
Prescott Bush here in association with the people such as Gen. EA Walker places the current president a hop and skip away from one of the prime persons of interest in the assassination of JFK, if nothing else certainly in spirit which provides a relevance to the network John S. is writing about.
Similarly grouped with them are Chennault, John Birch, JBS, and anti Cuba individuals.
QUOTE (Joseph Trento @ Jan 16 2006, 04:33 PM)
Joe Trento: You are right about British support of Hitler in the upper classes but you cannot lump Bush into this. Your characterization of Prescott Bush is unfair. There is no evidence he was a man who was ideological supportive of the Nazi’s. Like many American businessmen – and British he could be blinded by money.
I knew McCloy, he was a patriot and did not take part in the murder or coverup of JFK. He was on the Warren Commision because he was one of the most distinguished Americans in 1963.
John Simkin: Is it therefore not possible that people like Bush, Dulles and McCloy did have ideological reasons for their political activities? After all, the main thing that drove the CIA agenda was the perceived fear of communism.
Joe Trento: Come on – there is no basis to indicate any Bush believed in Hitler – just money. I remind you that the Royal family had a very cozy relationship with their German cousins. Don’t overreach.
They hated communism – by the way so do I. I don’t think fear is what this was about. They had a pragmatic approach to eliminating it and fighting it. Sometimes they over did it. Often innocents suffered. What drove the CIA agenda was commercial US interests and bureaucratic survival for this unsuccessful agency.
John Simkin: (4) On page 9 you mention that Prescott Bush was a “close friend and adviser to William Pawley”. Are you aware that some people believe Pawley was one of those right-wing businessmen who helped fund the assassination of JFK?
Joe Trento: I think that is nonsense.
I knew McCloy, he was a patriot and did not take part in the murder or coverup of JFK. He was on the Warren Commision because he was one of the most distinguished Americans in 1963.
John Simkin: Is it therefore not possible that people like Bush, Dulles and McCloy did have ideological reasons for their political activities? After all, the main thing that drove the CIA agenda was the perceived fear of communism.
Joe Trento: Come on – there is no basis to indicate any Bush believed in Hitler – just money. I remind you that the Royal family had a very cozy relationship with their German cousins. Don’t overreach.
They hated communism – by the way so do I. I don’t think fear is what this was about. They had a pragmatic approach to eliminating it and fighting it. Sometimes they over did it. Often innocents suffered. What drove the CIA agenda was commercial US interests and bureaucratic survival for this unsuccessful agency.
John Simkin: (4) On page 9 you mention that Prescott Bush was a “close friend and adviser to William Pawley”. Are you aware that some people believe Pawley was one of those right-wing businessmen who helped fund the assassination of JFK?
Joe Trento: I think that is nonsense.
I agree that people like Prescott Bush and William Pawley were capitalists who were trying to maximize their profits. This is what people like Alfried Krupp, Friedrich Flick, Hjalmar Schacht and Kurt von Schröder argued at Nuremberg. As you know, none of the people who provided the money for the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party in Germany suffered very much after 1945. Schröder got three months, Schacht was sentenced to eight years imprisonment but he was freed after serving just over 2 years.
Krupp and Flick got longer sentences but were both released by John McCloy in February, 1951. They were also given back the money and property they had made under the Nazis. This included the considerable wealth Krupp made from the labour of over 100,000 inmates of concentration camps. For example, Krupp’s fuse factory inside Auschwitz. It is estimated that around 70,000 of those working for Krupp died as a result of the methods employed by the guards of the camps.
Krupp's property, valued at around 45 million, and his numerous companies were restored to him. Within a few years of his release Krupp's company was the 12th largest corporation in the world.
By 1955 Flick owned over 100 companies with an annual turnover of two billion dollars. Flick was reported to be the richest man in Germany and the fifth-richest man in the world. However, he refused to pay any compensation to the families of the people who had died making him wealthy.
Friedrich Flick died at Konstanz on 20th July, 1972. He left over a billion dollars to his playboy son but nothing to the families of the 48,000 people who had died while slave labourers during the war.
You say that people like Bush and Pawley are just anti-communist. You add that you are also anti-communist. So am I. But I am also anti-fascist. Krupp, Flick, Schacht, Schröder, Bush, Pawley, etc. do not fall into the same category. They are willing to back fascism when it makes them money. It is no coincidence that people like Prescott Bush, William Pawley, Henry J. Kaiser, George & Herman Brown, Stephen D. Bechtel, Tommy Corcoran, Sam Zemurray, etc. like fascist governments. They provide ideal conditions for making high profits. This is why these people provided backing for military dictatorships in Asia and Latin America.
Joseph Pratt and Christopher Castaneda pointed out in their book about George and Herman Brown that the common goals of the Suite 8F group involved working towards a “healthy business climate characterized by a minimum of government regulations, a weak labor movement, a tax system favorable to business investment, the use of government subsidies and supports where needed to spur development, and a conservative approach to the expansion of government social services.” This is what fascist and neo-fascists governments in third-world countries give investors from the West. That is why they back them. That is why they are willing to work so closely with the CIA to get these kind of governments. That is why most American presidents in the 20th century were so keen to back these military dictatorships. JFK tried to develop an alternative policy and as a result he had to be removed from power.
You may be interested to know that "Tommy the Cork's" old law firm (bearing his name) is alive and well and a son is still quite active in that shop. I do not know about their ongoing lobbying business but they are quite close to the NSC and the unitary/imperial presidency crowd.
In your list of players in the network, some are vastly more important than others. You have serious policy makers (even Bilderberg participants) alongside "mechanics."
I would have confidence in Morganthau's opinion about TC.
You should know that McCloy (CMB) was at Murchison's house on the evening of 11 /'21/63 along with J.Edgar Hoover, Nixon, H.L. Hunt, Cabel, George Brown, others in the 8F group, and eventually LBJ., whose mistress became a dear friend of mine, and who was also there. She also, along with other Ruby girls saw Oswald and Ruby together on various occasions. The deed was confirmed between 10 and 10:30 PM in M's study.
A closer more personal account is contained in Barr McClellan's book in which he also claims to have made a fingerprint match from the Book Depository nest of a shooter other than Oswald, who was contracted by LBJ's Clark law firm.
Anyway keep on the historical framework and context. It is important.
In your list of players in the network, some are vastly more important than others. You have serious policy makers (even Bilderberg participants) alongside "mechanics."
I would have confidence in Morganthau's opinion about TC.
You should know that McCloy (CMB) was at Murchison's house on the evening of 11 /'21/63 along with J.Edgar Hoover, Nixon, H.L. Hunt, Cabel, George Brown, others in the 8F group, and eventually LBJ., whose mistress became a dear friend of mine, and who was also there. She also, along with other Ruby girls saw Oswald and Ruby together on various occasions. The deed was confirmed between 10 and 10:30 PM in M's study.
A closer more personal account is contained in Barr McClellan's book in which he also claims to have made a fingerprint match from the Book Depository nest of a shooter other than Oswald, who was contracted by LBJ's Clark law firm.
Anyway keep on the historical framework and context. It is important.
QUOTE (William F. Pepper @ Jan 17 2006, 05:24 PM)
You should know that McCloy (CMB) was at Murchison's house on the evening of 11 /'21/63 along with J.Edgar Hoover, Nixon, H.L. Hunt, Cabel, George Brown, others in the 8F group, and eventually LBJ., whose mistress became a dear friend of mine, and who was also there. She also, along with other Ruby girls saw Oswald and Ruby together on various occasions. The deed was confirmed between 10 and 10:30 PM in M's study.
A closer more personal account is contained in Barr McClellan's book in which he also claims to have made a fingerprint match from the Book Depository nest of a shooter other than Oswald, who was contracted by LBJ's Clark law firm.
Anyway keep on the historical framework and context. It is important.
A closer more personal account is contained in Barr McClellan's book in which he also claims to have made a fingerprint match from the Book Depository nest of a shooter other than Oswald, who was contracted by LBJ's Clark law firm.
Anyway keep on the historical framework and context. It is important.
So the rest of us should believe Madeline Browne based on your say-so?
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Jan 17 2006, 09:44 AM)
QUOTE (Joseph Trento @ Jan 16 2006, 04:33 PM)
Joe Trento: You are right about British support of Hitler in the upper classes but you cannot lump Bush into this. Your characterization of Prescott Bush is unfair. There is no evidence he was a man who was ideological supportive of the Nazi’s. Like many American businessmen – and British he could be blinded by money.
I knew McCloy, he was a patriot and did not take part in the murder or coverup of JFK. He was on the Warren Commision because he was one of the most distinguished Americans in 1963.
John Simkin: Is it therefore not possible that people like Bush, Dulles and McCloy did have ideological reasons for their political activities? After all, the main thing that drove the CIA agenda was the perceived fear of communism.
Joe Trento: Come on – there is no basis to indicate any Bush believed in Hitler – just money. I remind you that the Royal family had a very cozy relationship with their German cousins. Don’t overreach.
They hated communism – by the way so do I. I don’t think fear is what this was about. They had a pragmatic approach to eliminating it and fighting it. Sometimes they over did it. Often innocents suffered. What drove the CIA agenda was commercial US interests and bureaucratic survival for this unsuccessful agency.
John Simkin: (4) On page 9 you mention that Prescott Bush was a “close friend and adviser to William Pawley”. Are you aware that some people believe Pawley was one of those right-wing businessmen who helped fund the assassination of JFK?
Joe Trento: I think that is nonsense.
I agree that people like Prescott Bush and William Pawley were capitalists who were trying to maximize their profits.
There's been an interesting development in Canada today that might help to illuminate the financial incentives for those involved in the supply of contraband items. As you read the following, plucked from today's Globe & Mail [the Canadian newspaper of record and counterpart here to the NYT], please bear in mind that the Greg Sorbara who is mentioned was pretty much forced to temporarily step down as Finance Minister for Canada's largest province, Ontario, when his name became ensnared in this ongoing investigation. Aside from the initial alleged fiscal impropieties that caused the investigation, the RCMP seem [let me stress that word, since none of the allegations have been proven in a court of law] to have discovered some rather dirtier crimes than one usually attributes to white-collar fraud artists. If this pans out the way the Mounties think it will, it could illustrate in current terms the nexus at which financial, political and criminal interests converge:
Royal Group probe takes bizarre turns
RCMP allegations include tale of 'Angel of Death'
By PAUL WALDIE
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Posted at 4:42 AM EST
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
The criminal probe surrounding Royal Group Technologies Ltd. took several bizarre twists yesterday with new allegations about the role of Bank of Nova Scotia in the saga, a tale involving an "Angel of Death" and allegations a key player is "involved in running guns and drugs."
The allegations are contained in hundreds of pages of documents filed by the RCMP in an Ontario court that were unsealed yesterday. The RCMP has been investigating Royal Group and several former company officials, including founder Vic De Zen and former Ontario finance minister Greg Sorbara, for more than a year over allegations of fraud. Mr. De Zen and Mr. Sorbara, a former company director, have denied any wrongdoing along with all the others. None of the allegations have been proven.
Royal Group, based in the Toronto suburb of Woodbridge, Ont., specializes in building products and it has been dogged by controversy and poor financial performance for months. The company put itself up for sale last spring.
Much of the RCMP investigation is centred around the relationship between Royal Group and a $330-million resort in St. Kitts that Mr. De Zen and some of the others co-own (Mr. Sorbara is not among the owners).
The documents unsealed yesterday were filed by police in Ontario Superior Court to support their applications for several search warrants that were exercised during the past two years.
The filings alleged that Mr. De Zen and his brother in law, Fortunato Bordin, who used to work at Royal Group, borrowed $114-million from Scotiabank between 1996 and 2004 to fund construction of the Caribbean resort. The documents allege the bank became concerned about repayment and security for the loans, insisting on securing the money against the resort. It is not clear how much of the loan is still outstanding, but police alleged "it would appear that Mr. De Zen and Mr. Bordin might be encountering difficulties in repaying the loan amount." A bank spokesman declined to comment.
The filings also alleged a former Bank of Nova Scotia manager had a cottage built for him by a company co-owned by Royal Group which did not charge the full construction costs. The 1,725-square-foot cottage was allegedly built in 1997 for Les Neate, vice-president of Bank of Nova Scotia Vaughan Commercial Banking Centre, where Royal Group did most of its banking. The documents allege the contract to build the house was $90,000, but actual costs were nearly $14,000 higher.
The filings also revealed that Mr. De Zen's original partner in the St. Kitts project, Archie Zuliani, has "a couple of indictments out on him" in the United States. Mr. De Zen and Mr. Zuliani, who is originally from Toronto, launched the project in 1995 but had a falling out three years later.
According to the court filings, Mr. Zuliani "has dealings with Ecuadoreans and Colombians" and that "two guys who came to collect payment from Zuliani 'went fishing' and did not come back." Mr. Zuliani was unavailable yesterday.
The documents also allege that in 2002 the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation in Houston received a complaint about Royal Group, which has a subsidiary in Texas, over allegations of corporate fraud. The FBI was later told the complainant issued a threat to another man that "that Angel of Death was coming if he did not settle his $6-million debt." The FBI is not pursuing the case.
Royal Group divests unit
Royal Group said yesterday it has sold 60 per cent of its interest in plastics injection moulding firm Royal Alliance to its minority partners.
Proceeds from the divestiture of Royal Alliance "were in line with its expectations," Royal said in a release. The Toronto-based company said it expects divestitures of business units to produce proceeds between $60-million and $80-million during the first quarter of 2006.
The restructuring plastics company has said it will sell five units -- Royal Alliance, Baron Metal Industries, Roadex Transport, Royal EcoProducts and a subsidiary in Poland -- as it seeks to rebuild after being beset by high raw material costs, shaky sales, the strong Canadian dollar and continuing probes into its governance under previous management.
Royal Group has sought cash to pay off debt in a bid to grow profitable enough to attract buyers.
QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Jan 18 2006, 05:39 AM)
There's a documentary opening on Friday entitled "Why We Fight." The previews begin with Ike's speech about the MIC and go on to claim that of the 750 billion dollar annual defense budget, 25% is pure gravy. Should be an interesting response. No doubt the Bush Administration has an attack strategy already planned.
Do you know any good books on this subject. I have found various examples from different books. For example, in Laton McCartney’s Friends in High Places, he tells the story of how in 1942 John McCone and Steve Bechtel obtained a contract to build aircraft at Willow Run in Alabama. The War Department agreed to pay all the company’s costs plus 5 percent on work estimates presented by Bechtel-McCone every six months.
A 300-acre factory was built and 8,000 employees hired to staff it. However, no aircraft were built. Employees were paid for doing nothing. A local man, George P. Alexander, discovered details of this scam and collected affidavits from workers who admitted that they “went in every day at 9.00, punched the time clock, then went home”. They then returned to the factory at 5.00 to “punch out”.
Alexander filed suit against Bechtel-McCone in federal district court on 31st July, 1943. He claimed that the company had made “many and various claims against the government of the United States, or a department or officer thereof, knowing such claims to be false, fictitious or fraudulent.”
However, the judge dismissed the case. The problem was with the contract, not the claims by Bechtel-McCone. As John McCone admitted to Fortune Magazine on 17th May, 1943: “Every six months, we estimate how much work we expect to do in the next six months and then we get a fee of five percent of the estimated amount of work regardless of how much work we actually do turn out.”
Bechtel-McCone was also involved in another scandal concerning war contracts. Lieutenant General Brehon Somervell, head of the Army Sources of Supply Command, decided to build “a major refinery at the Norman Wells oilfields in Canada’s Northwest Territories, and run a pipeline from there 1,200 miles southwest through the Yukon Territory into Alaska.”
The contract to do this was given to John McCone and Steve Bechtel. It was a very good contract as Bechtel-McCone were guaranteed a 10% profit on the project (the kind of deal that George Bush gave to Halliburton in Iraq). The other surprising thing about the Canol Project was that it was to be a secret contract. It seems that Somervell did not want anyone outside the War Department and the Bechtel-McCone Corporation to know about this deal. The reason for this is that Harold Ickes, as Interior Secretary and the head of the Petroleum Administration for War, should have been the person who oversaw this project.
The $35 million for the project came from within a massive war appropriations bill that was passed by Congress in April 1942. After working on it for a year the cost had reached over $100 million. It was finished in May 1945. However, the wrong sized pipes had been used and it was discovered that to pump the oil it cost $150 per barrel rather than the $5 estimated by Somervell, Bechtel and McCone. Less that a year after it was finished, the plant and pipeline was abandoned. It had cost the American taxpayer $134 million.
John, the Howard Hughes bio-pic The Aviator dealt in no small part with war-profiteering. Hughes had been given millions of dollars in contracts during WW2 and had not created one acceptable war plane. Senator Owen Brewster tried to use this against Hughes in order to force Hughes to give his international flights over to Pan-Am. But Hughes started discussing how many HUNDREDS of millions went to the other contractors for unfilled contracts, and started talking about Brewster's personal ties to Pan-Am. This killed the hearings. (Of course we know Hughes had some help in this from Pearson and Maheu etcl)
You've piqued my interest in Corcoran. While I doubt he personally was involved in the assassination, his career is symptomatic of the corruption of the period. Can you imagine the conversations between men like Davidson, Williams, Maheu, and Corcoran, should they have ever shared a drink?
You've piqued my interest in Corcoran. While I doubt he personally was involved in the assassination, his career is symptomatic of the corruption of the period. Can you imagine the conversations between men like Davidson, Williams, Maheu, and Corcoran, should they have ever shared a drink?
Some more bits on "The Cork" from Pat's stack o' books.
The Washington Pay-Off 1972, Robert Winter-Berger. pg. 206-207 The Cork represents Burlington in an anti-Trust case. His mere presence is credited with providing an effectiive defense. pg. 274. The Cork befriends Anna Chenault in 1959. He shows her the ropes in becoming an effective lobbyist for South Vietnam. In 1969, Flying Tigers Airline, part-owned by Chennault, is given a lucrative contract through Nixon's manipulations. (Chennault of course has admitted that she interfered with the 1968 Peace talks at Nixon's request.)
Spooks, 1978, Jim Hougan. pg. 266 It's mentioned that Robert Maheu performed work for The Cork (Maheu's book never mentions this.)
Counsel to the President 1991, Clark Clifford. pg. 190 Truman hated "the cork" intensely. Truman questioned The Cork's commitment to the New Deal. Clifford questioned his ethics. Notes that Truman had Hoover bug The Cork's phone calls from 1945 to 1948. pg. 581 Notes that Anna Chennault dedicated her memoirs to The Cork. Also notes that the back channel used by Nixon to communicate with Chennault and Thieu in 1968 included John Mitchell and John Tower. (I'd forgotten about Tower's involvement.)
The Court Years 1980, William O. Douglas pg. 260 Refers to Cork as FDR's "hatchet man." Notes that Cork was an active lobbyist who worked underground, contacting key staff members to put pressures on agencies. Notes that the Cork told Justice Brennan that if Brennan would not allow a specific merger he'd get a bill through congress to approve it. Says the bill was introduced in March 1971. (Douglas fails to mention that the Cork had been one of his biggest supporters.)
Command of Office, 2004, Stephen Graubhard. pg. 328 Notes that in 1956 Joseph and Robert Kennedy approached The Cork with an offer that he was to take to LBJ. The offer? Johnson tack JFK on as VP and Joe would arrange the financing for Johnson's presidential campaign. Johnson refused.
Washington Confidential, 1951, Jack Lait and Lee Mortimer. pg.158. Notes that "Persuasion on the Department of Justice is handled by Laughlin Currie, a former Truman appointee, through Tommy "The Cork" Corcoran, a Roosevelt favorite." (Note that this is roughly when Rosselli was released.)
Bitter Fruit, 1983, Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer, pg. 90-94 Notes Corcoran's role in getting the U.S. to overthrow Arbenz. pg. 229 Notes that Corcoran's lobbying on United Fruit's behalf back-fired and Dulles et al sat back and watched as United Fruit was dragged into an anti-trust lawsuit. It eventually had to return 100,000 acres to the Guatemalan peasants.
From the Diaries of Felix Frankfurter, 1975 Joseph P. Lash. pg. 36 Lash Notes that Frankfurter helped arrange for a Young Cork to become Oliver Wendell Holmes' law secretary. pg. 233 May 4, 1943. Frankfurter notes that Justice Frank Murphy was disturbed by The Cork's power over the FCC and was dissenting from the majority opinion allowing the FCC to control NBC. (This oughta help feed John's suspicions about Operation Mockingbird.) pg. 310. April 7, 1947 Frankfurter notes that Frank Murphy "went on to speak deprecatingly of the efforts to run Bill (William O. Douglas) for the vice-Presidency. Quotes Murphy as saying that Joe Kennedy is behind it. "He continued to speak very disparagingly, as he has often spoken, of Douglas' political manifestations through "Tommy Corcoran" and "those fellows". Murphy then went on to talk of Kennedy at length, and told Franfurter of an approach made to him by Kennedy, to run Kennedy's legal affairs, at the very time Murphy was being rumored for a spot as Attorney General. Kennedy's emissary? Arthur Krock (the journalist who, only weeks before the assassination, would write about the likelihood of the CIA pulling a coup d'etat on JFK).
These last passages raise a question I'd never before considered. Was Joseph Kennedy part of the Suite 8F Group?
Memoirs, 1968 Arthur Krock. pg. 162. Recounts one day in 1935 when he hid upstairs at Joe Kennedy's mansion after FDR and The Cork stopped by. Listens as they drink, sing songs, and tell stories for hours. He was hiding from FDR because he'd just attacked him in a column about the "wealth tax"(at SEC Chairman Kennedy's request?). pg. 337. Recounts Corcoran's role in getting LBJ onto the ticket with JFK. Corcoran, probably at Joe Kennedy's request, convinced everyone that JFK would lose without Johnson. Johnson said no unless Sam Rayburn--the head of the party--recommended it. Edward Foley and Corcoran then met with Rayburn, but to no avail. Hale Boggs (???) then went in and met with Rayburn, telling Rayburn that LBJ would swing Louisiana to the Dems, and this did the trick.
The Washington Pay-Off 1972, Robert Winter-Berger. pg. 206-207 The Cork represents Burlington in an anti-Trust case. His mere presence is credited with providing an effectiive defense. pg. 274. The Cork befriends Anna Chenault in 1959. He shows her the ropes in becoming an effective lobbyist for South Vietnam. In 1969, Flying Tigers Airline, part-owned by Chennault, is given a lucrative contract through Nixon's manipulations. (Chennault of course has admitted that she interfered with the 1968 Peace talks at Nixon's request.)
Spooks, 1978, Jim Hougan. pg. 266 It's mentioned that Robert Maheu performed work for The Cork (Maheu's book never mentions this.)
Counsel to the President 1991, Clark Clifford. pg. 190 Truman hated "the cork" intensely. Truman questioned The Cork's commitment to the New Deal. Clifford questioned his ethics. Notes that Truman had Hoover bug The Cork's phone calls from 1945 to 1948. pg. 581 Notes that Anna Chennault dedicated her memoirs to The Cork. Also notes that the back channel used by Nixon to communicate with Chennault and Thieu in 1968 included John Mitchell and John Tower. (I'd forgotten about Tower's involvement.)
The Court Years 1980, William O. Douglas pg. 260 Refers to Cork as FDR's "hatchet man." Notes that Cork was an active lobbyist who worked underground, contacting key staff members to put pressures on agencies. Notes that the Cork told Justice Brennan that if Brennan would not allow a specific merger he'd get a bill through congress to approve it. Says the bill was introduced in March 1971. (Douglas fails to mention that the Cork had been one of his biggest supporters.)
Command of Office, 2004, Stephen Graubhard. pg. 328 Notes that in 1956 Joseph and Robert Kennedy approached The Cork with an offer that he was to take to LBJ. The offer? Johnson tack JFK on as VP and Joe would arrange the financing for Johnson's presidential campaign. Johnson refused.
Washington Confidential, 1951, Jack Lait and Lee Mortimer. pg.158. Notes that "Persuasion on the Department of Justice is handled by Laughlin Currie, a former Truman appointee, through Tommy "The Cork" Corcoran, a Roosevelt favorite." (Note that this is roughly when Rosselli was released.)
Bitter Fruit, 1983, Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer, pg. 90-94 Notes Corcoran's role in getting the U.S. to overthrow Arbenz. pg. 229 Notes that Corcoran's lobbying on United Fruit's behalf back-fired and Dulles et al sat back and watched as United Fruit was dragged into an anti-trust lawsuit. It eventually had to return 100,000 acres to the Guatemalan peasants.
From the Diaries of Felix Frankfurter, 1975 Joseph P. Lash. pg. 36 Lash Notes that Frankfurter helped arrange for a Young Cork to become Oliver Wendell Holmes' law secretary. pg. 233 May 4, 1943. Frankfurter notes that Justice Frank Murphy was disturbed by The Cork's power over the FCC and was dissenting from the majority opinion allowing the FCC to control NBC. (This oughta help feed John's suspicions about Operation Mockingbird.) pg. 310. April 7, 1947 Frankfurter notes that Frank Murphy "went on to speak deprecatingly of the efforts to run Bill (William O. Douglas) for the vice-Presidency. Quotes Murphy as saying that Joe Kennedy is behind it. "He continued to speak very disparagingly, as he has often spoken, of Douglas' political manifestations through "Tommy Corcoran" and "those fellows". Murphy then went on to talk of Kennedy at length, and told Franfurter of an approach made to him by Kennedy, to run Kennedy's legal affairs, at the very time Murphy was being rumored for a spot as Attorney General. Kennedy's emissary? Arthur Krock (the journalist who, only weeks before the assassination, would write about the likelihood of the CIA pulling a coup d'etat on JFK).
These last passages raise a question I'd never before considered. Was Joseph Kennedy part of the Suite 8F Group?
Memoirs, 1968 Arthur Krock. pg. 162. Recounts one day in 1935 when he hid upstairs at Joe Kennedy's mansion after FDR and The Cork stopped by. Listens as they drink, sing songs, and tell stories for hours. He was hiding from FDR because he'd just attacked him in a column about the "wealth tax"(at SEC Chairman Kennedy's request?). pg. 337. Recounts Corcoran's role in getting LBJ onto the ticket with JFK. Corcoran, probably at Joe Kennedy's request, convinced everyone that JFK would lose without Johnson. Johnson said no unless Sam Rayburn--the head of the party--recommended it. Edward Foley and Corcoran then met with Rayburn, but to no avail. Hale Boggs (???) then went in and met with Rayburn, telling Rayburn that LBJ would swing Louisiana to the Dems, and this did the trick.
On the topic of defense spending at a critical time for corporate flow charts, I recommend Harry Truman and the War Scare of 1948 by Frank Kofsky, who is a Historian somewhere within the University of California.
Its great regarding this topic, because it starts with an overall analysis of the aircraft industry transitioning
from 1945 into the Cold War, and then goes into the politics of this massive transfusion of our taxes into said industry.
Its great regarding this topic, because it starts with an overall analysis of the aircraft industry transitioning
from 1945 into the Cold War, and then goes into the politics of this massive transfusion of our taxes into said industry.
QUOTE (William Kelly @ Jan 18 2006, 03:18 AM)
John,
To keep things in perspective, I think it's important to establish that the details of the crime and conspiracy fits in with the overall history, the little pieces make the big picture understandable.
Priscilla Johnson McMillan hit the nail on the head when she said that people didn't want to believe that a lone nut could come out of the woodwork and change history, an anamolly that doesn't make sense, when in fact what happened at Dealey Plaza does fit very nicely into the secret covert history of Current Events.
John Judge says that real history ends with World War II when we begin to study Current Events, a managed history.
At one ASK conference in Dallas Judge was ridiculed by "Oswald Talked" Mary for mentioning Mae Brussell's article on the Nazis and the JFK Assassination, and indeed, the network that was responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza committed successful political assassiantons and coups before and since then.
A number of those involved in the failed assassinaton and coup attempt on Hitler in 1944 - Allen Dulles, Mary Bancroft, Hans Gissivius and Volkmar Schmidt's stepfather were all directly involved in that plot - and after it failed, hundreds of suspects and their families were executed.
After World War II, Project Paperclip, Wringer and other similar operations brought Nazi scientists (Von Braun, et al) and Russian spy networks (Gehlen) to the United States, a program that also included Gen. Dornberger, Allen Dulles, Clay Shaw and other JFK assassination personas.
When they went from OSS to CIA - Frank Wisner set up the Old Boys Blue Blood network from among the rich - mainly defense contractors - Larry Bell at Bell Hel, Art Collins at Collins Radio, or like Cummins Catherwood - whose family made theri money in munitions, institutionalizing their funding and often going from government to private operations.
We have many examples besides TC, of moving from government ops to private ops - Contras -Ed Wilson, and even last week - Rummy was quoted as saying he can't wait to get out of government and into the corporate world where there will be less restraints on what he wants to do.
While I have yet to read Joe Trento's book, I do take exception to one of your references to it.
JOHN WRITES:
In 1945, U.S. forces captured the banking documents held by the Nazis regarding Prescott Bush. Robert Cowley was one of those who saw these documents. He told Joseph Trento that the “file was damning”. (60) It seems that this information was “far more detailed than the records the Justice Department had obtained during its banking investigation”.
According to Joseph Trento, this information was passed to Allen Dulles, Frank Wisner and John J. McCloy, the German High Commissioner. (61) This information was kept from the American public. However, over the years, Prescott Bush and his family had to pay a price for this secrecy.
Dulles was himself involved in working with fascists fleeing from Germany. In his book ‘The Secret History of the CIA’, Trento argues that “Donovan and Dulles secretly threw in America’s lot with the worst of the Third Reich. America was actively recruiting Nazis – not simply scientists, but high-level military and civilian officials of the Hitler regime.” (62) This included Heinrich Mueller, the former head of the Gestapo, and Alois Brunner, Adolf Eichmann’s top assistant.
John J. McCloy helped Dulles to help Nazis to escape punishment. As German High Commissioner he controversially ordered the release from prison of German industrialists such as Alfried Krupp and Friedrich Flick who had been convicted of serious war crimes at Nuremberg.
NOTES :
60. Robert Crowley was a member of the OSS and later became associate director of the CIA.
61. Joseph Trento, Prelude to Terror, 2005 (page 3)
62. Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, 2001 (page 29)
END JOHN'S EXCERPT
Now John, I don't know if you've followed this story, but the idea that Heinrich Mueller, the former head of the Gestapo survived WWII and with the help of the CIA, lived out his life quietly in California, is what Gregory Douglas (Sic) says in his book "Regicide." Douglas attributes Mueller's post-war USA sorjurn to the late Robert Crowley, who also, according to Greg Doug, organized the JFK assassination in a series of DC meetings chronicled in the apparantly bogus Zipper Documents, discussed in a separate thread.
I wouldn't trust Trento without double checking, and don't believe Gregory Douglas, Crowley or Angleton.
You're framing the Big Picture correctly, but the devil's in the details.
Of course it is exciting that the intelligence network responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza is still active today, but to really unravel such a network, it takes equally powerfull counter-measures, knowing that you are going up against those who so far got away with killing a president.
Bill Kelly
To keep things in perspective, I think it's important to establish that the details of the crime and conspiracy fits in with the overall history, the little pieces make the big picture understandable.
Priscilla Johnson McMillan hit the nail on the head when she said that people didn't want to believe that a lone nut could come out of the woodwork and change history, an anamolly that doesn't make sense, when in fact what happened at Dealey Plaza does fit very nicely into the secret covert history of Current Events.
John Judge says that real history ends with World War II when we begin to study Current Events, a managed history.
At one ASK conference in Dallas Judge was ridiculed by "Oswald Talked" Mary for mentioning Mae Brussell's article on the Nazis and the JFK Assassination, and indeed, the network that was responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza committed successful political assassiantons and coups before and since then.
A number of those involved in the failed assassinaton and coup attempt on Hitler in 1944 - Allen Dulles, Mary Bancroft, Hans Gissivius and Volkmar Schmidt's stepfather were all directly involved in that plot - and after it failed, hundreds of suspects and their families were executed.
After World War II, Project Paperclip, Wringer and other similar operations brought Nazi scientists (Von Braun, et al) and Russian spy networks (Gehlen) to the United States, a program that also included Gen. Dornberger, Allen Dulles, Clay Shaw and other JFK assassination personas.
When they went from OSS to CIA - Frank Wisner set up the Old Boys Blue Blood network from among the rich - mainly defense contractors - Larry Bell at Bell Hel, Art Collins at Collins Radio, or like Cummins Catherwood - whose family made theri money in munitions, institutionalizing their funding and often going from government to private operations.
We have many examples besides TC, of moving from government ops to private ops - Contras -Ed Wilson, and even last week - Rummy was quoted as saying he can't wait to get out of government and into the corporate world where there will be less restraints on what he wants to do.
While I have yet to read Joe Trento's book, I do take exception to one of your references to it.
JOHN WRITES:
In 1945, U.S. forces captured the banking documents held by the Nazis regarding Prescott Bush. Robert Cowley was one of those who saw these documents. He told Joseph Trento that the “file was damning”. (60) It seems that this information was “far more detailed than the records the Justice Department had obtained during its banking investigation”.
According to Joseph Trento, this information was passed to Allen Dulles, Frank Wisner and John J. McCloy, the German High Commissioner. (61) This information was kept from the American public. However, over the years, Prescott Bush and his family had to pay a price for this secrecy.
Dulles was himself involved in working with fascists fleeing from Germany. In his book ‘The Secret History of the CIA’, Trento argues that “Donovan and Dulles secretly threw in America’s lot with the worst of the Third Reich. America was actively recruiting Nazis – not simply scientists, but high-level military and civilian officials of the Hitler regime.” (62) This included Heinrich Mueller, the former head of the Gestapo, and Alois Brunner, Adolf Eichmann’s top assistant.
John J. McCloy helped Dulles to help Nazis to escape punishment. As German High Commissioner he controversially ordered the release from prison of German industrialists such as Alfried Krupp and Friedrich Flick who had been convicted of serious war crimes at Nuremberg.
NOTES :
60. Robert Crowley was a member of the OSS and later became associate director of the CIA.
61. Joseph Trento, Prelude to Terror, 2005 (page 3)
62. Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, 2001 (page 29)
END JOHN'S EXCERPT
Now John, I don't know if you've followed this story, but the idea that Heinrich Mueller, the former head of the Gestapo survived WWII and with the help of the CIA, lived out his life quietly in California, is what Gregory Douglas (Sic) says in his book "Regicide." Douglas attributes Mueller's post-war USA sorjurn to the late Robert Crowley, who also, according to Greg Doug, organized the JFK assassination in a series of DC meetings chronicled in the apparantly bogus Zipper Documents, discussed in a separate thread.
I wouldn't trust Trento without double checking, and don't believe Gregory Douglas, Crowley or Angleton.
You're framing the Big Picture correctly, but the devil's in the details.
Of course it is exciting that the intelligence network responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza is still active today, but to really unravel such a network, it takes equally powerfull counter-measures, knowing that you are going up against those who so far got away with killing a president.
Bill Kelly
Thank you for pointing this out. I should have remembered the point about Heinrich Mueller as I have written about him in the past.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERmullerH.htm
I agree that Joe Trento is sometimes unreliable. I think that all investigative journalists are vulnerable on this point. It is very much a psychological problem. They find someone who has worked in the field of covert operations who is willing to talk about their experiences. If they believe the testimony they have a big story. If they don’t, they don’t have a story. Therefore, there are psychological reasons why they want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Trento did this with Angleton and Cowley. No doubt that some of the things they told Trento were true. However, they also told him things that were untrue. This is something that he does not want to admit to as it undermines their credibility as witnesses. Therefore he responds by claiming everything they told him is true. In doing so, he undermines his own credibility.
QUOTE (James Richards @ Jan 17 2006, 09:48 PM)
John,
Betchel is certainly a most interesting character.
As a sidebar, in 1976, the National Business Leadership Conference inducted 4 in the Business Hall of Fame. Betchel was one, Cyrus Smith from American Airlines, Thomas John Watson from IBM and George Stevens Moore from the First National City Bank were the others.
The presenters were W.F. Rockwell Jr., board chairman of Rockwell International which is the parent company for Richardson's Collins Radio Co., and John Swearingen of Standard Oil.
Below is an interesting collection of folk. Research into any one of them will reveal a staggering array of associations and influence.
From left to right we have, William DeForest Manice, Kenneth Isaacs, Henry Corbett, Harvey Mudd, Landon Thorne, James Black, Steve Betchell, E.A. Craft, H.J. McKenzie, William Crocker, Allen Chickering, Cleveland Dodge, A.T. Mercer, V.H. Rossetti, John Walsh and Everette DeGolyer.
It is circa 1953.
James
Betchel is certainly a most interesting character.
As a sidebar, in 1976, the National Business Leadership Conference inducted 4 in the Business Hall of Fame. Betchel was one, Cyrus Smith from American Airlines, Thomas John Watson from IBM and George Stevens Moore from the First National City Bank were the others.
The presenters were W.F. Rockwell Jr., board chairman of Rockwell International which is the parent company for Richardson's Collins Radio Co., and John Swearingen of Standard Oil.
Below is an interesting collection of folk. Research into any one of them will reveal a staggering array of associations and influence.
From left to right we have, William DeForest Manice, Kenneth Isaacs, Henry Corbett, Harvey Mudd, Landon Thorne, James Black, Steve Betchell, E.A. Craft, H.J. McKenzie, William Crocker, Allen Chickering, Cleveland Dodge, A.T. Mercer, V.H. Rossetti, John Walsh and Everette DeGolyer.
It is circa 1953.
James
I am afraid I have not come across most of these people before. Is it possible that they were involved in the funding of the Stanford Research Institute (SRI)? This became a very important organization in the Military Industrial Congressional Complex.
The person I am very interested in is John L. Simpson. He was a close friend of an interesting group of people including Allen and John Foster Dulles, Dean Acheson and William Donovan. Simpson was recruited into the OSS by Allen Dulles. His official title was chief financial advisor for the U.S. Army in Europe.
In 1944 Simpson returned to San Francisco and became a consultant to the company run by John McCone and Steve Bechtel (Betchtel-McCone Corporation). His arrival brought even more contracts from the War Department. In 1946 Simpson was appointed as chief financial officer. Simpson was Betchtel-McCone’s link man to the CIA. He arranged for several people in the company to work as CIA agents while working in countries like Iran. In fact, according to Laton McCartney (Friends in High Places), Simpson was closely associated with the CIA backed coup in Iran in 1953. As a result of this coup, the Betchtel Corporation (by this time John McCone was a silent partner using his position in government to arrange for large contracts to be given to his former company) obtained vast profits from business deals with the new rulers in Iran.
Do you have any information or photos of John L. Simpson?
In the summer of 1940 Steve Bechtel and John McCone had a meeting with Admiral L. Vickery of the U.S. Maritime Commission. Vickery told the men he “had received a telegram from the British Purchasing Commission (BPC) urgently requesting that the Maritime Commission arrange the building of 60 tankers to replace the ships the British had lost to German torpedoes”. At another meeting a few weeks later, Maritime Commission chairman, Admiral Emory S. Land, told Bechtel and McCone that: “Besides building ships for the British, they would have to build them for the Americans as well. Not merely tankers, but Liberty and Victory cargo ships, troop transports, the whole makings of a merchant navy.” Admiral Land confidently added that thousands of vessels would be needed as “America was headed into war.”
As a result of these two meetings, Bechtel, McCone and Kaiser built shipyards at Richmond and Sausalito. Several of their companies were involved in this project that became known as “Operation Calship”. It was a terrible gamble because at that time they were relying on the predictions of Admiral Emory S. Land. However, Land was right and only a month after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Maritime Commission awarded Calship its first shipbuilding contract. Within a year, Calship was employing over 42,000 workers at its two shipyards.
At the same time as Bechtel, McCone and Kaiser were building shipyards for a war that they had been told was coming, Tommy Corcoran was telling friends that he was leaving government. He told Sam Rosenman: "I want to make a million dollars in one year." After leaving government in October, 1940, Corcoran's first client was Kaiser.
Corcoran then goes to China and helps establish China Defense Supplies with Chaing Kai-shek. FDR set this up in this way because he wanted to arm the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek without the support of Congress (Most members of Congress believed that this action would trigger a war with Japan).
Corcoran then goes on to work with Claire Lee Chennault and William Pawley to establish the Flying Tigers. Another operation that could triggered a war with Japan. Is this why Admiral Land, Bechtel, McCone, Kaiser, etc. were so convinced that America would soon be involved in the Second World War?
As a result of these two meetings, Bechtel, McCone and Kaiser built shipyards at Richmond and Sausalito. Several of their companies were involved in this project that became known as “Operation Calship”. It was a terrible gamble because at that time they were relying on the predictions of Admiral Emory S. Land. However, Land was right and only a month after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Maritime Commission awarded Calship its first shipbuilding contract. Within a year, Calship was employing over 42,000 workers at its two shipyards.
At the same time as Bechtel, McCone and Kaiser were building shipyards for a war that they had been told was coming, Tommy Corcoran was telling friends that he was leaving government. He told Sam Rosenman: "I want to make a million dollars in one year." After leaving government in October, 1940, Corcoran's first client was Kaiser.
Corcoran then goes to China and helps establish China Defense Supplies with Chaing Kai-shek. FDR set this up in this way because he wanted to arm the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek without the support of Congress (Most members of Congress believed that this action would trigger a war with Japan).
Corcoran then goes on to work with Claire Lee Chennault and William Pawley to establish the Flying Tigers. Another operation that could triggered a war with Japan. Is this why Admiral Land, Bechtel, McCone, Kaiser, etc. were so convinced that America would soon be involved in the Second World War?
All of this was new to me. I know McCone pushed the "Red Plot" business with Oswald in Mexico City, even after he was aware that the Alvarado Story was bogus. He also allowed Helms to take the lead in convincing the WC that Oswald was never an Agency operative or source. There is also the incident when Bobby went to him, as DCI, and asked him point blank whether the CIA had anything to do with Dallas. McCone, of course, assured him it did not.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Jan 19 2006, 01:50 PM)
In the summer of 1940 Steve Bechtel and John McCone had a meeting with Admiral L. Vickery of the U.S. Maritime Commission. Vickery told the men he “had received a telegram from the British Purchasing Commission (BPC) urgently requesting that the Maritime Commission arrange the building of 60 tankers to replace the ships the British had lost to German torpedoes”. At another meeting a few weeks later, Maritime Commission chairman, Admiral Emory S. Land, told Bechtel and McCone that: “Besides building ships for the British, they would have to build them for the Americans as well. Not merely tankers, but Liberty and Victory cargo ships, troop transports, the whole makings of a merchant navy.” Admiral Land confidently added that thousands of vessels would be needed as “America was headed into war.”
As a result of these two meetings, Bechtel, McCone and Kaiser built shipyards at Richmond and Sausalito. Several of their companies were involved in this project that became known as “Operation Calship”. It was a terrible gamble because at that time they were relying on the predictions of Admiral Emory S. Land. However, Land was right and only a month after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Maritime Commission awarded Calship its first shipbuilding contract. Within a year, Calship was employing over 42,000 workers at its two shipyards.
At the same time as Bechtel, McCone and Kaiser were building shipyards for a war that they had been told was coming, Tommy Corcoran was telling friends that he was leaving government. He told Sam Rosenman: "I want to make a million dollars in one year." After leaving government in October, 1940, Corcoran's first client was Kaiser.
Corcoran then goes to China and helps establish China Defense Supplies with Chaing Kai-shek. FDR set this up in this way because he wanted to arm the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek without the support of Congress (Most members of Congress believed that this action would trigger a war with Japan).
Corcoran then goes on to work with Claire Lee Chennault and William Pawley to establish the Flying Tigers. Another operation that could triggered a war with Japan. Is this why Admiral Land, Bechtel, McCone, Kaiser, etc. were so convinced that America would soon be involved in the Second World War?
As a result of these two meetings, Bechtel, McCone and Kaiser built shipyards at Richmond and Sausalito. Several of their companies were involved in this project that became known as “Operation Calship”. It was a terrible gamble because at that time they were relying on the predictions of Admiral Emory S. Land. However, Land was right and only a month after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Maritime Commission awarded Calship its first shipbuilding contract. Within a year, Calship was employing over 42,000 workers at its two shipyards.
At the same time as Bechtel, McCone and Kaiser were building shipyards for a war that they had been told was coming, Tommy Corcoran was telling friends that he was leaving government. He told Sam Rosenman: "I want to make a million dollars in one year." After leaving government in October, 1940, Corcoran's first client was Kaiser.
Corcoran then goes to China and helps establish China Defense Supplies with Chaing Kai-shek. FDR set this up in this way because he wanted to arm the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek without the support of Congress (Most members of Congress believed that this action would trigger a war with Japan).
Corcoran then goes on to work with Claire Lee Chennault and William Pawley to establish the Flying Tigers. Another operation that could triggered a war with Japan. Is this why Admiral Land, Bechtel, McCone, Kaiser, etc. were so convinced that America would soon be involved in the Second World War?
It also might be significant that Joe Kennedy, the U.S. Ambassor to England, was the former head of the Maritime Commission. He was also close with Corcoran. By 1940, FDR knew where things were heading and it only makes sense he told Land what to tell McCone and Bechtel. I wouldn't be surprised if Joe Kennedy bought Bechtel and Kaiser stock in this period.
I am afraid I have not come across most of these people before. Is it possible that they were involved in the funding of the Stanford Research Institute (SRI)? This became a very important organization in the Military Industrial Congressional Complex. (John Simkin)
John,
I'm sure some of these folk were involved in the funding. Several years ago, I began connecting several of them to W. Lawrence Prehn Jr. who was at the Stanford Research Institute in 1954 before becoming manager in 1958. Prehn was a specialist in industrial economics and had conducted serious research into energy and chemicals. As a sidebar, his father was a 30 year veteran as the General Manager for South Western Bell Telephone Co. in Texas.
This line of enquiry for me became time consuming and very difficult so I have no details in which to completely connect the dots yet.
As for John L. Simpson, I have nothing beyond what you have already posted and I don't have a photograph. Sorry.
FWIW, W. Lawrence Prehn Jr, below.
James
John,
I'm sure some of these folk were involved in the funding. Several years ago, I began connecting several of them to W. Lawrence Prehn Jr. who was at the Stanford Research Institute in 1954 before becoming manager in 1958. Prehn was a specialist in industrial economics and had conducted serious research into energy and chemicals. As a sidebar, his father was a 30 year veteran as the General Manager for South Western Bell Telephone Co. in Texas.
This line of enquiry for me became time consuming and very difficult so I have no details in which to completely connect the dots yet.
As for John L. Simpson, I have nothing beyond what you have already posted and I don't have a photograph. Sorry.
FWIW, W. Lawrence Prehn Jr, below.
James
To keep this On Topic:
George DeMohrenschildt's brother, I think his name is Sergi,
worked out of the Hover Institute at Stanford University.
Just a point of reference.
BK
George DeMohrenschildt's brother, I think his name is Sergi,
worked out of the Hover Institute at Stanford University.
Just a point of reference.
BK
About time for the JFK case to be put in its historical perspective.
QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Jan 18 2006, 08:59 AM)
John, the Howard Hughes bio-pic The Aviator dealt in no small part with war-profiteering. Hughes had been given millions of dollars in contracts during WW2 and had not created one acceptable war plane. Senator Owen Brewster tried to use this against Hughes in order to force Hughes to give his international flights over to Pan-Am. But Hughes started discussing how many HUNDREDS of millions went to the other contractors for unfilled contracts, and started talking about Brewster's personal ties to Pan-Am. This killed the hearings. (Of course we know Hughes had some help in this from Pearson and Maheu etcl)
You've piqued my interest in Corcoran. While I doubt he personally was involved in the assassination, his career is symptomatic of the corruption of the period. Can you imagine the conversations between men like Davidson, Williams, Maheu, and Corcoran, should they have ever shared a drink?
You've piqued my interest in Corcoran. While I doubt he personally was involved in the assassination, his career is symptomatic of the corruption of the period. Can you imagine the conversations between men like Davidson, Williams, Maheu, and Corcoran, should they have ever shared a drink?
I have not been able to find a connection between Howard Hughes and Tommy Corcoran. Jack Anderson and Drew Pearson’s behaviour is very strange during the hearings of the Senate War Investigating Committee in 1946. Its chairman, Owen Brewster appeared to be close to revealing the corruption that had gone on during the war. It would have exposed the activities of businessmen like Tommy Corcoran, John McCone, Steve Bechtel, Henry J. Kaiser but also senior figures in the military who were involved in this scam against American taxpayers. The fact that it had diverted billions of dollars from fighting the real enemy, it could be argued that their activities were close to treason.
However, Pearson and Anderson got these people off the hook by launching a campaign to expose Owen Brewster. He was corrupt but he was very small beer compared to Hughes, Corcoran, McCone, etc. Yet they got off as a consequence of Pearson’s campaign.
As a result of this campaign, Brewster backed down, and with the help of Sam Rayburn, who had been put in place by Corcoran, the Senate War Investigating Committee never completed its report on the non-delivery of the F-11 and the HK-1. The committee stopped meeting and was eventually disbanded.
It seems to me that Pearson was a fairly honest journalist. However, he made two serious errors of judgment.
(1) He helped Howard Hughes in 1946 and therefore prevented the exposure of Corcoran, McCone, etc.
(2) He backed down from his investigation of the relationship between LBJ and Brown & Root in 1956.
Both these cases would have gone to the heart of the conspiracy that have been outlining here:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5799
I don’t think this is a coincidence. The journalist who had discovered this scandal is I. F. Stone. See his articles when McCone was appointed Director of the CIA. Unfortunately, his work, published in the I.F. Stone Weekly, got virtually no press coverage and failed to make an impact. McCone kept his reputation and was therefore in a good position to cover up the JFK assassination.
Here's a NY Times review of "Why We Fight":
http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/movi...0figh.html?8dpc
http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/movi...0figh.html?8dpc
QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Jan 18 2006, 10:13 AM)
Was Joseph Kennedy part of the Suite 8F Group?
No. You had to be based in Texas to become a member. Herman Brown was the gatekeeper.
The case of Lawrence Bell was an interesting one. He helped finance LBJ’s 1948 campaign. For example, he supplied LBJ with a 47-B helicopter (LBJ was the first American politician to use a helicopter for campaigning). Bell wanted to join Suite 8F Group but he was refused as he was based in New York State. As a result, Bell moved his operations to Fort Worth, Texas. This was the beginning of Bell obtaining lucrative government contracts.
Concoran was the only non-Texan member of the Suite 8F Group. He was so important to the fortunes of the group, that he was considered an honorary Texan.
Corcoran had been close to Joe Kennedy. When Corcoran left Roosevelt in 1940, Kennedy, unaware of what Corcoran was up to, offered him a full-time job. However, the two men fell out over a deal that took place in 1950 (I will write about this when I cover the period 1950-1960). From that point on, Corcoran lost access to the Kennedy family. That is why Corcoran had to work through LBJ. All this will become clearer, including Corcoran’s links with John McCone, etc. during the 1950s.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Jan 20 2006, 12:48 PM)
QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Jan 18 2006, 10:13 AM)
Was Joseph Kennedy part of the Suite 8F Group?
No. You had to be based in Texas to become a member. Herman Brown was the gatekeeper.
The case of Lawrence Bell was an interesting one. He helped finance LBJ’s 1948 campaign. For example, he supplied LBJ with a 47-B helicopter (LBJ was the first American politician to use a helicopter for campaigning). Bell wanted to join Suite 8F Group but he was refused as he was based in New York State. As a result, Bell moved his operations to Fort Worth, Texas. This was the beginning of Bell obtaining lucrative government contracts.....
THE CASE OF LARRY BELL IS AN INTERESTING ONE.
I TESTED PETER DALE SCOTT'S "NEGATIVE TEMPLATE THEORY" THAT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT SUSPECTS ARE THE LEAST MENTIONED IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS BY INVESTIGATING ARTHUR YOUNG. HIS NAME, AS FAR AS I CAN DETERMINE, APPEARS ONLY ONCE IN JFK ASSASSINATION LITERATURE, IN GERALD FORD'S PORTRAIT OF THE ASSASSIN, WHEN HE QUOTES FROM A LETTER MARINA OSWALD SENT TO RUTH PAINE, C/O ARTHUR YOUNG, PAOLI, PENNSYLVANIA, AGREEING TO MOVE TO TEXAS WITH HER TO HAVE THE BABY.
ART YOUNG IS THE INVENTOR OF THE BELL HELICOPTER 47B, THE FIRST HELICOPTER COMMERCIALLY APPROVED BY THE FAA. AFTER A FEW YEARS OF INQUIRY I FINALLY TRACKED ART YOUNG DOWN AT HIS RURAL PHILADELPHIA FARMHOUSE, WHERE HE DEVELOPED THE HELICOPTER USING REMOTE CONTORL SCALE MODELS IN HIS BACKYARD AND BARN. ONCE HE HAD IT PERFECTED, HE TOOK IT TO LARRY BELL IN UPSTATE NEW YORK AND SOLD HIM THE IDEA, AND WAS ASSIGNED TO BUILD A FULL SIZE MODEL, WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE THE 47B - THE MASH HELICOPTER WITH THE GLASS BUBBLE COCKPIT AND GIRDERS.
A PHILADELPHIA QUAKER, YOUNG WAS PROUD THAT HIS INVENTION WOULD BE USED TO SAVE LIVES, BUT WAS DISENCHANGED WHEN THEY DEVELOPED THE HELICOPTER FOR ATTACK PURPOSES IN VIETNAM.
THE MOVE OF BELL HELICOPTER FROM NY TO TEXAS, LIKE COLLINS RADIO FROM CEDAR RAPIDS TO RICHARDSON, TX, WAS DONE FOR "SECURITY REASONS."
WHEN ART YOUNG MET RUTH FORBES PAINE, HE DIVORCED HIS WIFE AND MARRIED RUTH FORBES PAINE, WHO SHARED IS EXCENTRIC QUESTS - ESP, UFOS, ETC. AND HE TOOK HER SON MICHAEL PAINE UNDER HIS WING, GOT HIM A JOB AS A DESIGNER AND INVENTOR AT THE BELL HEL IN TEXAS, WHERE MICHAEL AND HIS WIFE RUTH HYDE PAINE MOVED AFTER LIVING IN PHILLY FOR A FEW YEARS.
I TAPE RECORDED AND TRANSCRIBED A TWO HOUR PLUS INTERVIEW I DID WITH ART YOUNG, SHORTLY BEFORE HE DIED. I BELIEVE I AM THE LAST INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST TO INTERVIEW HIM, AND WILL POST MORE ABOUT HIM ON A SEPARATE THREAD IF PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED.
WHILE I DON'T THINK LARRY BELL OPENED THE TEXAS PLANT JUST TO GET INTO SUITE 8F, WHEN I READ JOHN'S LIST OF MEMBERS, HIS NAME CERTAINLY JUMPED OUT OF THE PACK.
BILL KELLY
[quote name='John Simkin' date='Jan 20 2006, 12:48 PM' post='51907']
[quote post='51654' date='Jan 18 2006, 10:13 AM' name='Pat Speer']
Corcoran had been close to Joe Kennedy. When Corcoran left Roosevelt in 1940, Kennedy, unaware of what Corcoran was up to, offered him a full-time job. However, the two men fell out over a deal that took place in 1950 (I will write about this when I cover the period 1950-1960). From that point on, Corcoran lost access to the Kennedy family. That is why Corcoran had to work through LBJ. All this will become clearer, including Corcoran’s links with John McCone, etc. during the 1950s.
[/quote]
Well, he must not have lost all his access to the Kennedys. In 1956, Joe Kennedy wanted LBJ to run, with JFK as his running-mate. The man he sent to present this opportunity to LBJ was Tommy Corcoran. Similarly, in 1972, Nixon was concerned about Ted Kennedy jumping into the race. Connally called Nixon to tell him that Teddy was definitely toying with the idea. Connally's source? Fellow 8Fer Tommy Corcoran.
[quote post='51654' date='Jan 18 2006, 10:13 AM' name='Pat Speer']
Corcoran had been close to Joe Kennedy. When Corcoran left Roosevelt in 1940, Kennedy, unaware of what Corcoran was up to, offered him a full-time job. However, the two men fell out over a deal that took place in 1950 (I will write about this when I cover the period 1950-1960). From that point on, Corcoran lost access to the Kennedy family. That is why Corcoran had to work through LBJ. All this will become clearer, including Corcoran’s links with John McCone, etc. during the 1950s.
[/quote]
Well, he must not have lost all his access to the Kennedys. In 1956, Joe Kennedy wanted LBJ to run, with JFK as his running-mate. The man he sent to present this opportunity to LBJ was Tommy Corcoran. Similarly, in 1972, Nixon was concerned about Ted Kennedy jumping into the race. Connally called Nixon to tell him that Teddy was definitely toying with the idea. Connally's source? Fellow 8Fer Tommy Corcoran.
"The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was also having trouble with Chiang Kai-shek. The OSS arrived in July 1942. Known as Detachment 101, members of the OSS had been instructed to train Chiang’s men in guerrilla warfare. One of those officers sent to China was Captain Walter Mansfield. He later wrote: “By ordinary standards of guerrilla warfare, these Chinese were a pretty poor lot. I could not help contrasting them with Serbian guerrillas with whom I fought… Here in China, individual bravery was the exception rather than the rule.”
US Gov. WW II propaganda film (F. Capra) I've been viewing presents the Chinese farmer as a tenacious and inventive guerilla fighter. Perhaps referring to the Communists?
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Stepping back and viewing "the next layer"
"construction on the Passamaquoddy Dam"
"build the Marshall Ford Dam"
"road projects."
"giant cableway."
"Cameron Iron Works"
"Defense Supplies" "war"
"the arms trade"
"Reconstruction"
"shipbuilding"
"German Steel Trust"
"building refineries, chemical plants and pipelines" etc etc
in fact, in short, all major industry either in the finished product or in the production process and in the machinery and transport tentacles:
One thing that all these major 'military industrial' industries share is 'a need for steel'
http://davidicke.www.50megs.com/icke/magaz.../bushskull.html
"Cornelius Lievense President, Union Banking Corp. and Director of Holland American Investment Corp.
Established in 1924 as a unit of W.A. Harriman and Co. A joint Walker, Thyssen, Harriman operation). The founding partners were George Herbert Walker, Co-founder & sponsor (Grandfather of George Herbert Walker Bush, Ex-President, on the Father's side. William Averill Harriman and Fritz Thyssen of the German Steel Trust. The office of Union Banking Corp. was the N.Y. office of the German Steel Trust."
"Guaranty Trust was founded in 1864 in New York. Over the next 100 years the banking firm expanded rapidly by absorbing other banks and trust companies; in 1910 it merged Morton Trust Company, in 1912 the Standard Trust Company and in 1929, the National Bank of Commerce. The J.P. Morgan Firm has effectively controlled Guaranty Trust since 1912 when Mrs. Edward Harriman (Mother of Roland and Averell Harriman) sold her block of 8,000 shares of the total outstanding 20,000 shares to J.P. Morgan. By 1954 Guranty Trust had become the most important banking subsidiary of the J.P. Morgan Firm and since 1954 the merged firms have been known as Morgan Guaranty Company."
The next thing all these need is cheap labor
"Suite 8F group as working towards a “healthy business climate characterized by a minimum of government regulations, a weak labor movement, a tax system favorable to business investment, the use of government subsidies and supports where needed to spur development, and a conservative approach to the expansion of government social services.”
Guaranty was THE major funder of the Southern Sovereignty Commisssions anti 1963 Civil Rights Bill.
And you are prbably aware that segregation is an economic construct controlling the cheapest labor both in cost and availability. Industry is located in areas of cheap labor pool. Segregation allows a control of residence, cost and training of the large cheapest source. Also it indirectly controls the next layer, the poor white and gives a good incentive for them to maintain the status quo.
US Gov. WW II propaganda film (F. Capra) I've been viewing presents the Chinese farmer as a tenacious and inventive guerilla fighter. Perhaps referring to the Communists?
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Stepping back and viewing "the next layer"
"construction on the Passamaquoddy Dam"
"build the Marshall Ford Dam"
"road projects."
"giant cableway."
"Cameron Iron Works"
"Defense Supplies" "war"
"the arms trade"
"Reconstruction"
"shipbuilding"
"German Steel Trust"
"building refineries, chemical plants and pipelines" etc etc
in fact, in short, all major industry either in the finished product or in the production process and in the machinery and transport tentacles:
One thing that all these major 'military industrial' industries share is 'a need for steel'
http://davidicke.www.50megs.com/icke/magaz.../bushskull.html
"Cornelius Lievense President, Union Banking Corp. and Director of Holland American Investment Corp.
Established in 1924 as a unit of W.A. Harriman and Co. A joint Walker, Thyssen, Harriman operation). The founding partners were George Herbert Walker, Co-founder & sponsor (Grandfather of George Herbert Walker Bush, Ex-President, on the Father's side. William Averill Harriman and Fritz Thyssen of the German Steel Trust. The office of Union Banking Corp. was the N.Y. office of the German Steel Trust."
"Guaranty Trust was founded in 1864 in New York. Over the next 100 years the banking firm expanded rapidly by absorbing other banks and trust companies; in 1910 it merged Morton Trust Company, in 1912 the Standard Trust Company and in 1929, the National Bank of Commerce. The J.P. Morgan Firm has effectively controlled Guaranty Trust since 1912 when Mrs. Edward Harriman (Mother of Roland and Averell Harriman) sold her block of 8,000 shares of the total outstanding 20,000 shares to J.P. Morgan. By 1954 Guranty Trust had become the most important banking subsidiary of the J.P. Morgan Firm and since 1954 the merged firms have been known as Morgan Guaranty Company."
The next thing all these need is cheap labor
"Suite 8F group as working towards a “healthy business climate characterized by a minimum of government regulations, a weak labor movement, a tax system favorable to business investment, the use of government subsidies and supports where needed to spur development, and a conservative approach to the expansion of government social services.”
Guaranty was THE major funder of the Southern Sovereignty Commisssions anti 1963 Civil Rights Bill.
And you are prbably aware that segregation is an economic construct controlling the cheapest labor both in cost and availability. Industry is located in areas of cheap labor pool. Segregation allows a control of residence, cost and training of the large cheapest source. Also it indirectly controls the next layer, the poor white and gives a good incentive for them to maintain the status quo.
Detailed and interesting work John
You are telling the story of the men at consulate cocktail parties while I'm more interested in "cowboys" like Rip and DeLarm, but you've gathered a tidy overview-very helpful. Now I'm looking forward to 1959 Cuba installment moving us up to more contemporary "Dems in DC" JFK tie in.
Jerry Fred DeLarm was like a Gerald Murphy loved flight first then involved in intrigues of highers up but really the guys doing the work. More beer than cocktails. A bit of skim left over for them, maybe, but they were in the fight more for flying adventure and anti-red cause than pay. Jerry Fred more successful than some. DeLarm stepped up for Castillos's bounty on a radio station and claimed the lives of 200 at Fort Matamoros. Rip's from the same mold, tho' his claim to fame in Guatemala is less glamourous. These guys were heros to a young LHO I figure.
See Flying Magazine July 1957 for the complete tale of Guatemala from the commie hating pilot perspective. Chance Vought is on cover with an F8U-1 Crusader. Small world this.
You are telling the story of the men at consulate cocktail parties while I'm more interested in "cowboys" like Rip and DeLarm, but you've gathered a tidy overview-very helpful. Now I'm looking forward to 1959 Cuba installment moving us up to more contemporary "Dems in DC" JFK tie in.
Jerry Fred DeLarm was like a Gerald Murphy loved flight first then involved in intrigues of highers up but really the guys doing the work. More beer than cocktails. A bit of skim left over for them, maybe, but they were in the fight more for flying adventure and anti-red cause than pay. Jerry Fred more successful than some. DeLarm stepped up for Castillos's bounty on a radio station and claimed the lives of 200 at Fort Matamoros. Rip's from the same mold, tho' his claim to fame in Guatemala is less glamourous. These guys were heros to a young LHO I figure.
See Flying Magazine July 1957 for the complete tale of Guatemala from the commie hating pilot perspective. Chance Vought is on cover with an F8U-1 Crusader. Small world this.
John -- interesting point about the pragmatic economics of the segregationist SSC
Am intersted about the connection between Guaranty Trust financing of the Southern Sovereignty commission. What is your source on this?
Also a potentially related question: P. D. Scott uses an interesting verb "park" regarding intel.
e.g. "Mr. Smith may parked this information in the 902nd M.I.G."
I understand this term to mean tucking inteligence away for later use without it going upwards in the
Washington D.C. bureaucracies.
Are you aware of many individuals within the Southern Sovereignty Commission with this type of parallel
parking ability?
Am intersted about the connection between Guaranty Trust financing of the Southern Sovereignty commission. What is your source on this?
Also a potentially related question: P. D. Scott uses an interesting verb "park" regarding intel.
e.g. "Mr. Smith may parked this information in the 902nd M.I.G."
I understand this term to mean tucking inteligence away for later use without it going upwards in the
Washington D.C. bureaucracies.
Are you aware of many individuals within the Southern Sovereignty Commission with this type of parallel
parking ability?
Nathaniel
It's a fairly classical concept. Many issues can be distilled down to some economic reason. I wont elaborate here on Johns thread. Likely it's not a new concept to you. It's one I think cuts through a lot of smoke.
this one is interesting http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...35|4|1|1|81802|
The sovereignty commission files are a good source. In amongst them are confidential lists, accounts, money orders and cheques donated to the MSC (which in turn involved the LSC) in Jul Sep Nov 1963 amounting to 130.000+ with about 110,000 being from the Guaranty trust.
http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...10|1|1|1|83305|
Click new search down the bottom to go to main search site. Search for Dulles for his connections. Abrahams boss in the pres detail is there as well, sharing info as well as a number of other people. Spending some time looking through it builds an interesting picture of a behind the scenes intelligence network. It's a hugesite, and a lot of documents are not referred to except in obscure names, so I spend a lot of time just hopping around and much is found like this. Which ij turn gives keywords and names to do a more targeted search.
I'm not familiar with this term park. Should I gain a more thorough understanding of it I'll post. Thank's for raising it. I have gotten a sense of connections etc that went past the perhaps official channels. They're not documented in detail and sometimes stand out more in what is not said.
There are also a collection of links that may be of of interest in the Sovereignty Commisssion Files thread.
It's a fairly classical concept. Many issues can be distilled down to some economic reason. I wont elaborate here on Johns thread. Likely it's not a new concept to you. It's one I think cuts through a lot of smoke.
this one is interesting http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...35|4|1|1|81802|
The sovereignty commission files are a good source. In amongst them are confidential lists, accounts, money orders and cheques donated to the MSC (which in turn involved the LSC) in Jul Sep Nov 1963 amounting to 130.000+ with about 110,000 being from the Guaranty trust.
http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...10|1|1|1|83305|
Click new search down the bottom to go to main search site. Search for Dulles for his connections. Abrahams boss in the pres detail is there as well, sharing info as well as a number of other people. Spending some time looking through it builds an interesting picture of a behind the scenes intelligence network. It's a hugesite, and a lot of documents are not referred to except in obscure names, so I spend a lot of time just hopping around and much is found like this. Which ij turn gives keywords and names to do a more targeted search.
I'm not familiar with this term park. Should I gain a more thorough understanding of it I'll post. Thank's for raising it. I have gotten a sense of connections etc that went past the perhaps official channels. They're not documented in detail and sometimes stand out more in what is not said.
There are also a collection of links that may be of of interest in the Sovereignty Commisssion Files thread.
John Simkin: have read this thread and new thread on MICIC with great interest.
By connecting the nominally political (congress) with Deep Politics ( corporate, lobbying, media,and intelligence interests) you are showing how otherwise amorphous--and hence easily dismissible--forces
can have concrete and measurable results. In other words, it will be harder for this line of reasoning to be dismissed as mere "conspiracy theory".
I was ignorant about the early Guatemala stuff during the Truman administration. This fascinated me, because it seems like a "glass half full moment". The question I think all of us on this forum want to know is: "When,exactly, during the 1950s, did the CIA get the idea that they could opperate pretty much on theier own, to the extent that, by 1960, they were telling the newly elected President Kennedy, welcome, and by the way, were about to invade Cuba" Also HOW did they get this autonomy?
Your description of truman in 1950-52 seems interesting in this light. 1) At first the State Dept tells Corcoran that, Arbenz has been elected so chill. 2) Corcoran meets with Dulles who seems to make some kind of assurance to Corcoran, (independent of the State Dept?) that the something big will happen if Arbenz attempts further land reform 3) Corcoran and Dulles get to Truman via Somoza, and Truman seems to move toward the CIA position. But 4) the Acheson once again affirms that the overt policy will still triumph over covert (CIA) policy. This is an interesting picture of ambiguity, and fluidity leading into a period in which covert policy will dominate.
One question, concerning Corcoran's comment that lobbying--though it had been around along time--had changed in an important way after WWII. You don't specify exactly what this change was, but I am assuming he is talking about what later(when?) came to be called "the revolving door"?? If not, what change was he talking about?
Once again it is interesting that Tommy Corcoran had made the transition from New Dealer to seemingly unilateralist Latin America interventionist. In doing so he made connections with China Lobby people who also were unilateralists. Yet, possibly because of his New Deal past,he maintained connections to liberals e.g. when you mention that he targeted liberal senators to be lobbied with thier own carefully tailored line.
I have typed elsewhere this foot in both camps ability reminds me of John Jay McCloy. As I push through Caro's Master of the Senate, I also find it reminds me LBJ, when he rescued Ike from the unilateralsits of his own party, and also when he made his alliance with Humphry, all the while being very carefull not to seem too anti-McCarthyite, and hence risk his unilaterlist backing from the Suite 8F Group.
It might be worth remembering that as early as 1919 Latin America had been a rallying cry for unilateralist
opposition to the dreaded creep of internationalism. Many senators who voted against the Versailles Treaty
did so not only because they felt it violated Senate's soveriegnty, but also because they felt Latin America should remain a unilateralist "back yard" of the U.S. and not subject to League of Nations' gatekeeping.
One last suggestion. What about think -tanks during this same critical period that you are writing about. The same corporate ties that you illuminate between corporations-lobbyists- and legislators, could perhaps be made between corporations-think tanks and legislators.
Also did you get a chance to look at the Frank Kofsky book a mentioned earlier? It bears directly on both of these threads. The title is "Harry Truman and the War Scare of 1948" Its about the air-craft industry lobbyists, the media, and congress.
By connecting the nominally political (congress) with Deep Politics ( corporate, lobbying, media,and intelligence interests) you are showing how otherwise amorphous--and hence easily dismissible--forces
can have concrete and measurable results. In other words, it will be harder for this line of reasoning to be dismissed as mere "conspiracy theory".
I was ignorant about the early Guatemala stuff during the Truman administration. This fascinated me, because it seems like a "glass half full moment". The question I think all of us on this forum want to know is: "When,exactly, during the 1950s, did the CIA get the idea that they could opperate pretty much on theier own, to the extent that, by 1960, they were telling the newly elected President Kennedy, welcome, and by the way, were about to invade Cuba" Also HOW did they get this autonomy?
Your description of truman in 1950-52 seems interesting in this light. 1) At first the State Dept tells Corcoran that, Arbenz has been elected so chill. 2) Corcoran meets with Dulles who seems to make some kind of assurance to Corcoran, (independent of the State Dept?) that the something big will happen if Arbenz attempts further land reform 3) Corcoran and Dulles get to Truman via Somoza, and Truman seems to move toward the CIA position. But 4) the Acheson once again affirms that the overt policy will still triumph over covert (CIA) policy. This is an interesting picture of ambiguity, and fluidity leading into a period in which covert policy will dominate.
One question, concerning Corcoran's comment that lobbying--though it had been around along time--had changed in an important way after WWII. You don't specify exactly what this change was, but I am assuming he is talking about what later(when?) came to be called "the revolving door"?? If not, what change was he talking about?
Once again it is interesting that Tommy Corcoran had made the transition from New Dealer to seemingly unilateralist Latin America interventionist. In doing so he made connections with China Lobby people who also were unilateralists. Yet, possibly because of his New Deal past,he maintained connections to liberals e.g. when you mention that he targeted liberal senators to be lobbied with thier own carefully tailored line.
I have typed elsewhere this foot in both camps ability reminds me of John Jay McCloy. As I push through Caro's Master of the Senate, I also find it reminds me LBJ, when he rescued Ike from the unilateralsits of his own party, and also when he made his alliance with Humphry, all the while being very carefull not to seem too anti-McCarthyite, and hence risk his unilaterlist backing from the Suite 8F Group.
It might be worth remembering that as early as 1919 Latin America had been a rallying cry for unilateralist
opposition to the dreaded creep of internationalism. Many senators who voted against the Versailles Treaty
did so not only because they felt it violated Senate's soveriegnty, but also because they felt Latin America should remain a unilateralist "back yard" of the U.S. and not subject to League of Nations' gatekeeping.
One last suggestion. What about think -tanks during this same critical period that you are writing about. The same corporate ties that you illuminate between corporations-lobbyists- and legislators, could perhaps be made between corporations-think tanks and legislators.
Also did you get a chance to look at the Frank Kofsky book a mentioned earlier? It bears directly on both of these threads. The title is "Harry Truman and the War Scare of 1948" Its about the air-craft industry lobbyists, the media, and congress.
QUOTE (Nathaniel Heidenheimer @ Feb 15 2006, 01:21 AM)
One question, concerning Corcoran's comment that lobbying--though it had been around along time--had changed in an important way after WWII. You don't specify exactly what this change was, but I am assuming he is talking about what later(when?) came to be called "the revolving door"?? If not, what change was he talking about?
Nathaniel, are you referring to this passage?
The accusation that Corcoran was involved in corrupting political leaders had not gone away. In 1950 a committee headed by Frank M. Buchanan, began investigating lobbying activities. Buchanan reported that “In the 1870’s and 1880’s, lobbying meant direct, individual solicitation of legislators, with a strong presumption of corruption attached.” (1) According to Buchanan, the “business of influencing legislation is a billion dollar business.” However, he added that lobbying had undergone a transformation that made it very difficult to show that corruption had taken place. (2)
The point Buchanan is making is that in the early days lobbyists would hand money directly to the politicians. It would seem that very little attempt was made to disguise this type of corruption. For example, the large payments of money paid by Brown & Root to LBJ during the 1930s.
It was Tommy Corcoran’s idea that Lady Bird Johnson should buy KTBC. Companies paid LBJ for government contracts by buying advertising on his radio/television station. This is why Don Reynolds testimony to the Senate Rules Committee was so important. He explained how the system worked. LBJ sometimes got lazy and used people like Walter Jenkins, Cliff Carter and Bobby Baker to transfer cash. I suspect Baker leaked information like this to people like Reynolds in order to blackmail LBJ into covering up his own illegal activities. For example, the Serv-U Corporation scam that LBJ does not appear to have been involved in.
If done in the right way, it is very difficult to prove corruption. Here are two examples. When Tony Blair announced he was going to run as leader of the Labour Party he was given £7 million by a group of Jewish businessmen led by a man called Michael Levy. The money was for him to run his campaign. In the UK politicians don’t need such large sums to campaign within the party. Levy also agreed to become the Labour Party’s main fundraiser after Blair was elected. It is therefore no surprise that Blair has followed such a pro-Israel foreign policy.
Just before the 1997 election, Blair had a meeting with Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the right-wing newspaper, The Sun. This newspaper has the largest circulation in the UK and has been blamed for keeping Labour out of power since 1979. However, surprisingly, The Sun supported Labour in the 1997 election. Soon afterwards, Blair signed a book contract with HarperCollins for £3.5 million (this was only revealed when he used this contract as security when he purchased a large house in London). HarperCollins is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Of course the company will never make those sorts of profits from Blair’s autobiography. It is in fact a bribe. Similar contracts were given by HarperCollins to Margaret Thatcher and John Major. It is therefore no surprise that Blair has moved his party sharply to the right. In fact, the policies are no different from those followed by the Conservative Party under Thatcher and Major. Gordon Brown, the man who will replace Blair, has done a similar deal with Murdoch. Just wait for the smear stories to appear against anyone who stands against Brown for the leadership.
This sort of corruption is of course impossible to prove in a court of law (it is no coincidence that so many of our leading politicians are former lawyers).
QUOTE (Nathaniel Heidenheimer @ Feb 15 2006, 01:21 AM)
I was ignorant about the early Guatemala stuff during the Truman administration. This fascinated me, because it seems like a "glass half full moment". The question I think all of us on this forum want to know is: "When,exactly, during the 1950s, did the CIA get the idea that they could opperate pretty much on theier own, to the extent that, by 1960, they were telling the newly elected President Kennedy, welcome, and by the way, were about to invade Cuba" Also HOW did they get this autonomy?
The election of Dwight Eisenhower seems to have been crucial in this. Up until then, the Truman administration had been trying to control the covert activities of the CIA. Eisenhower immediately gave the go-ahead for the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Guatemala. As David Atlee Phillips pointed out in his autobiography, Eisenhower was tremendously impressed by the way the CIA got away with their illegal activities in Guatemala (mainly because of Operation Mockingbird). Understandably, Eisenhower, made no more attempts to restrain the CIA’s covert operations and appears he have given his approval for the overthrow of Castro.
JFK was briefed by Richard Bissell before he was elected to power about these attempts to overthow Castro (Nixon was furious and believed from then on that the CIA were pro-Democrat). JFK told Bissell that he approved this strategy and made speeches during the campaign attacking Eisenhower and Nixon for not doing more to bring down Castro. However, once in power, JFK was much more cautious than Eisenhower. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, he attempted to control the CIA (he even considered making Robert Kennedy director of the CIA). However, he was persuaded to appoint John McCone as director. This was a strange choice as McCone was a key figure in the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence Complex. It is at this point that Kennedy lost full control over the CIA.
I find your last sentence rather strange. JFK lost all control of the CIA under McCone? Is it your position that the CIA under Allen Dulles was more subject to presidential control than it was under the McCone leadership? Perhaps I missed your point.
I would certainly agree that Eisenhower had approved of the concept of U.S. manuevered "regime change" in Cuba. I don't think there is much question of that.
But JFK and RFK certainly carried on that policy with a vengeance. JFK was willing to have the CIA to topple Castro in the BOP; he simply wanted it done as surreptitiously as the CIA had accomplished the regime change in Guatemala. And Operation Mongoose was certainly a "secret war" against Castro.
I would certainly agree that Eisenhower had approved of the concept of U.S. manuevered "regime change" in Cuba. I don't think there is much question of that.
But JFK and RFK certainly carried on that policy with a vengeance. JFK was willing to have the CIA to topple Castro in the BOP; he simply wanted it done as surreptitiously as the CIA had accomplished the regime change in Guatemala. And Operation Mongoose was certainly a "secret war" against Castro.
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Mar 24 2006, 04:49 PM)
John,
Thanks for posting this material. Your research output on the forum amazes me. While I have nothing like your background in historical study, it has occurred to me that it was inevitable that the American capitalist system would produce a fascistic shadow government or network of covert, selfish, unelected movers and shakers, and that the time will come when dictatorship results. Money is power and, as it is often said, power corrupts. Given human nature, it is natural and to be expected that the wealthy class will rule, that the capitalist system would go hand in hand with Social Darwinism or an attitude of survival of the fittest, the wealthy seeing itself as manifestly the fittest, and that the wealthy would thwart attempts by the unfit to effect actions or policies by democratic means that are against the financial interests of the fit. Belief in true democracy is for the unfit common herd. And the historical reality that the ruling class will assassinate leaders, slaughter fellow citizens, and otherwise engage in nefarious covert operations to protect and promote its financial interests does not speak well of human nature. Humans are capable of anything and that ain’t good. So it is rather naive to ask how such things as assassination and genocide can happen in a “free society” and why people among the powerful don’t do something about it.
Ron
Thanks for posting this material. Your research output on the forum amazes me. While I have nothing like your background in historical study, it has occurred to me that it was inevitable that the American capitalist system would produce a fascistic shadow government or network of covert, selfish, unelected movers and shakers, and that the time will come when dictatorship results. Money is power and, as it is often said, power corrupts. Given human nature, it is natural and to be expected that the wealthy class will rule, that the capitalist system would go hand in hand with Social Darwinism or an attitude of survival of the fittest, the wealthy seeing itself as manifestly the fittest, and that the wealthy would thwart attempts by the unfit to effect actions or policies by democratic means that are against the financial interests of the fit. Belief in true democracy is for the unfit common herd. And the historical reality that the ruling class will assassinate leaders, slaughter fellow citizens, and otherwise engage in nefarious covert operations to protect and promote its financial interests does not speak well of human nature. Humans are capable of anything and that ain’t good. So it is rather naive to ask how such things as assassination and genocide can happen in a “free society” and why people among the powerful don’t do something about it.
Ron
The main reason I spend so much time on this issue is that I think it is of the utmost importance. I am of the opinion that the JFK assassination is just part of the long-term conspiracy against democracy. That is why the topic goes right up to the present. Where we probably disagree is over the ultimate consequence of these actions. I am the eternal optimist who believes enough freedom of expression exists in the system to create a truly democratic society. I believe the internet is another important factor in this (before the ruling elite also controlled the mass media).
However, as we saw in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Germany in the 1930s, in a crisis, the ruling elite will resort to fascism. Would this happen in the US in the future? For example, what would happen if the full story of “Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade” was fully exposed in the US in the next couple of years? How would American people react if they really believed that Bush invaded Iraq in order to make money for his financial backers (in the same way that LBJ did in Vietnam)? This is a difficult concept for people to grasp. I am sure that even most conspiracy theorists think I have gone too far to suggest that a politician would act in such a way. Yet I belive this is the key to understanding these events.
At the moment a large percentage of the American people believe that Bush made a silly mistake by invading Iraq. However, if the majority of American developed the opinion that Bush took this decision as a result of pressure applied by Halliburton, Bechtel, etc., I would like to think the American public would demand reform of the system and to break the link between politicians and the arms manufacturers. At a time like this the ruling elite would no doubt consider the possibility of a military dictatorship. After all, China is now showing how a military dictatorship can successfully run a capitalistic system.
The main test will be the way the rest of the advanced world would react. Bush might be able to rely on Tony Blair to defend this military coup (maybe one would take place in the UK at the same time). However, other European countries have a more sophisticated understanding of the political process. I think the power of the European Union is important here. We also still have the internet (something that China is still finding impossible to control). I therefore thing a military coup in the US would end in failure.
I would be interested in how others see this developing situation.
John,
I don't have a lot to add to your material as you have done a great job with a complex issue and often covered up series of dry footprints falling between the raindrops.
What I do have to add is to draw attention to the paucity of documentation on this assemblage of criminal power brokers mentioned (examples being Tommy the Cork and J. McCloy), again to the point of the quality of your work and the depth of the background work.
I find it most odd, though not at all surprising but almost expected, the confluence of international trade ports, interests and so forth to the power centers and corporations tied most closely to the shadow elite network that arose out of CAT/AVG.
Again too often the issues of the "China hands" if covered in books the exposure of the reality stops on September 2, 1945 with Imperial Japan's surrender. Some do go past the Japanese surrender to the "fall of China" all the while tip-toeing around the CAT-KMT-TV Soong-"Chinese Nationalist" opium empire that was already growing in 1948.
Kudos for just that one point --- NOT STOPPING the research in 1945.
Thank You Most Kindly
Jim
I don't have a lot to add to your material as you have done a great job with a complex issue and often covered up series of dry footprints falling between the raindrops.
What I do have to add is to draw attention to the paucity of documentation on this assemblage of criminal power brokers mentioned (examples being Tommy the Cork and J. McCloy), again to the point of the quality of your work and the depth of the background work.
I find it most odd, though not at all surprising but almost expected, the confluence of international trade ports, interests and so forth to the power centers and corporations tied most closely to the shadow elite network that arose out of CAT/AVG.
Again too often the issues of the "China hands" if covered in books the exposure of the reality stops on September 2, 1945 with Imperial Japan's surrender. Some do go past the Japanese surrender to the "fall of China" all the while tip-toeing around the CAT-KMT-TV Soong-"Chinese Nationalist" opium empire that was already growing in 1948.
Kudos for just that one point --- NOT STOPPING the research in 1945.
Thank You Most Kindly
Jim
John,
This passage is important.
"However, as we saw in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Germany in the 1930s, in a crisis, the ruling elite will resort to fascism. Would this happen in the US in the future? For example, what would happen if the full story of “Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade” was fully exposed in the US in the next couple of years? How would American people react if they really believed that Bush invaded Iraq in order to make money for his financial backers (in the same way that LBJ did in Vietnam)? This is a difficult concept for people to grasp. I am sure that even most conspiracy theorists think I have gone too far to suggest that a politician would act in such a way. Yet I belive this is the key to understanding these events.
At the moment a large percentage of the American people believe that Bush made a silly mistake by invading Iraq. However, if the majority of American developed the opinion that Bush took this decision as a result of pressure applied by Halliburton, Bechtel, etc., I would like to think the American public would demand reform of the system and to break the link between politicians and the arms manufacturers. At a time like this the ruling elite would no doubt consider the possibility of a military dictatorship. After all, China is now showing how a military dictatorship can successfully run a capitalistic system.
The main test will be the way the rest of the advanced world would react. Bush might be able to rely on Tony Blair to defend this military coup (maybe one would take place in the UK at the same time). However, other European countries have a more sophisticated understanding of the political process. I think the power of the European Union is important here. We also still have the internet (something that China is still finding impossible to control). I therefore thing a military coup in the US would end in failure.
I would be interested in how others see this developing situation."
-------------------------end excerpt from Mr. Simkin's post above -----------------------------
As refreshing as the rising tide of backlash in America is after 6 years of rubber stamping Fascist agendas, I worry that nothing substantive will come of it all.
I see so many politicos running for cover and assholes of both parties screaming at the top of their voices "Vote for me, I'm not like him!"
Not in those words but the intent is clear.
I saw a billboard recently that someone paid for, it read: "Will someone give this man a blow job so we can impeach him?" superimposed over a unflattering picture of GW Bu$h.
Someone put up good money for that billboard seen by many thousands everyday. It stopped me cold, I turned around to see if I had seen what I thought I saw. I did.
A huge difference from 2001-2002 when I was flipped off by Bu$hite Fascists for a thing in my car window with an upside down flag and the caption "BUSH KNEW!". Today I get no such redneck display but many thumbs up from the same population that was so blinded by the right in the lust for war in 2001-03.
IF the opposition to Bu$H solidifies into a confrontational newly elected House of Representatives in 2006, THEN Articles of Impeachment will follow.
Iraq alone isn't the issue, it is the string of arrogance, errors of policy, repeated claims of being above the law and being the law. Again an unbroken string of governance for the War-Profiteers has worn thin.
I'll date myself right here: I have been saying for 2 years after 2004's second consecutive stolen US election that the arrogance and attitude of beng above reproach is only a mirrored reflection of the Nixon White House after the STOLEN election of 1972. Nobody could touch them or stop their war. THEY THOUGHT.
My question is: Will the American People stand for another dose of limited hang-out and create another pair of manufactured heroes as Woodward and Bernstein became?
Time will tell IF the Empire of the Bu$h Crime Family will fall. IF it does, will the American Republic be subjected to a repeat in another 30 years?
Will the new boss be any different than the old boss?
America once had more products to offer the world markets than WAR, WEAPONS and EXPORTED WARS.
Just too much manipulated profit today in war for corporate international interests to ignore for the sake of the "investors". Investors, so it comes full circle back to the Fascists and lovers of war promoting the system that creates the power base and the piles of dead people and even larger piles of profits for ready cash.
Jim
PS I am a registered independent voter and I will vote again in 2006 and beyond. They made the white boy (me) mad enough to act. Citizenship and the attending responsibility doesn't stop when leaving the voting booth or kiosk ever other year as the last 5 years show.
Go VOTE YANKS, you may not get another chance in your lifetime if you don't.
This passage is important.
"However, as we saw in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Germany in the 1930s, in a crisis, the ruling elite will resort to fascism. Would this happen in the US in the future? For example, what would happen if the full story of “Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade” was fully exposed in the US in the next couple of years? How would American people react if they really believed that Bush invaded Iraq in order to make money for his financial backers (in the same way that LBJ did in Vietnam)? This is a difficult concept for people to grasp. I am sure that even most conspiracy theorists think I have gone too far to suggest that a politician would act in such a way. Yet I belive this is the key to understanding these events.
At the moment a large percentage of the American people believe that Bush made a silly mistake by invading Iraq. However, if the majority of American developed the opinion that Bush took this decision as a result of pressure applied by Halliburton, Bechtel, etc., I would like to think the American public would demand reform of the system and to break the link between politicians and the arms manufacturers. At a time like this the ruling elite would no doubt consider the possibility of a military dictatorship. After all, China is now showing how a military dictatorship can successfully run a capitalistic system.
The main test will be the way the rest of the advanced world would react. Bush might be able to rely on Tony Blair to defend this military coup (maybe one would take place in the UK at the same time). However, other European countries have a more sophisticated understanding of the political process. I think the power of the European Union is important here. We also still have the internet (something that China is still finding impossible to control). I therefore thing a military coup in the US would end in failure.
I would be interested in how others see this developing situation."
-------------------------end excerpt from Mr. Simkin's post above -----------------------------
As refreshing as the rising tide of backlash in America is after 6 years of rubber stamping Fascist agendas, I worry that nothing substantive will come of it all.
I see so many politicos running for cover and assholes of both parties screaming at the top of their voices "Vote for me, I'm not like him!"
Not in those words but the intent is clear.
I saw a billboard recently that someone paid for, it read: "Will someone give this man a blow job so we can impeach him?" superimposed over a unflattering picture of GW Bu$h.
Someone put up good money for that billboard seen by many thousands everyday. It stopped me cold, I turned around to see if I had seen what I thought I saw. I did.
A huge difference from 2001-2002 when I was flipped off by Bu$hite Fascists for a thing in my car window with an upside down flag and the caption "BUSH KNEW!". Today I get no such redneck display but many thumbs up from the same population that was so blinded by the right in the lust for war in 2001-03.
IF the opposition to Bu$H solidifies into a confrontational newly elected House of Representatives in 2006, THEN Articles of Impeachment will follow.
Iraq alone isn't the issue, it is the string of arrogance, errors of policy, repeated claims of being above the law and being the law. Again an unbroken string of governance for the War-Profiteers has worn thin.
I'll date myself right here: I have been saying for 2 years after 2004's second consecutive stolen US election that the arrogance and attitude of beng above reproach is only a mirrored reflection of the Nixon White House after the STOLEN election of 1972. Nobody could touch them or stop their war. THEY THOUGHT.
My question is: Will the American People stand for another dose of limited hang-out and create another pair of manufactured heroes as Woodward and Bernstein became?
Time will tell IF the Empire of the Bu$h Crime Family will fall. IF it does, will the American Republic be subjected to a repeat in another 30 years?
Will the new boss be any different than the old boss?
America once had more products to offer the world markets than WAR, WEAPONS and EXPORTED WARS.
Just too much manipulated profit today in war for corporate international interests to ignore for the sake of the "investors". Investors, so it comes full circle back to the Fascists and lovers of war promoting the system that creates the power base and the piles of dead people and even larger piles of profits for ready cash.
Jim
PS I am a registered independent voter and I will vote again in 2006 and beyond. They made the white boy (me) mad enough to act. Citizenship and the attending responsibility doesn't stop when leaving the voting booth or kiosk ever other year as the last 5 years show.
Go VOTE YANKS, you may not get another chance in your lifetime if you don't.
John, I think these papers are your best work. A kind of "Unified Field Theory" if you will. While there will be nay-sayers who will doubt your conclusions, no one willl be able to make the claim you didn't do your homework or that you had no evidence to support your interpretation of recent history.
Two minor points in part 3 that can be improved or expanded come to mind. On footnote 174 you mention the Huey helicopter. I believe this was called the Huey because it was developed by Howard Hughes. While I don't remember how it became a joint project with Bell, I think that would prove interesting, particularly if Johnson played a role. He may very well have told Hughes he needed to put the jobs and money in Texas in order to get the contract. In some of the books on Hughes, there is an anecdote about the helicopter that would fit in quite nicely with the theme of your work. Evidently, when Hughes discovered that his break even point on the helicopter would only come after selling x amount, and that he'd only been able to sell y amount, he instructed Maheu to talk to LBJ and make sure the war continued on long enough so that Hughes could recoup his initial investment. Don't remember exactly what was said or whether Maheu ever admitted to talking to LBJ about this issue, but Hughes' thinking--there may even be a memo reflecting his thoughts--is revealing. I can dig through my books on Hughes and find the quotes and exact context if you like.
A second minor point comes soon after: On footnote 176 you write that General Dynamics received contracts worth 24 billion, then on footnote 177 you write that it received contracts worth 2,200 million in 1968 alone. Well, 2,200 million is only 2.2 billion. Is this 2.2 billion included in the 24 billion contract listed right before? I found these comments confusing. Maybe the 24 billion number was supposed to say 2.4 billion.
Anyhow, like I said, this is great work. While LBJ liked to think of himself as a victim of Vietnam, and many historians have bought into this, you've successfully presented an argument that he was a victim of his own greed, and of his own desire to appease the men who made him (and possibly killed Kennedy).
Two minor points in part 3 that can be improved or expanded come to mind. On footnote 174 you mention the Huey helicopter. I believe this was called the Huey because it was developed by Howard Hughes. While I don't remember how it became a joint project with Bell, I think that would prove interesting, particularly if Johnson played a role. He may very well have told Hughes he needed to put the jobs and money in Texas in order to get the contract. In some of the books on Hughes, there is an anecdote about the helicopter that would fit in quite nicely with the theme of your work. Evidently, when Hughes discovered that his break even point on the helicopter would only come after selling x amount, and that he'd only been able to sell y amount, he instructed Maheu to talk to LBJ and make sure the war continued on long enough so that Hughes could recoup his initial investment. Don't remember exactly what was said or whether Maheu ever admitted to talking to LBJ about this issue, but Hughes' thinking--there may even be a memo reflecting his thoughts--is revealing. I can dig through my books on Hughes and find the quotes and exact context if you like.
A second minor point comes soon after: On footnote 176 you write that General Dynamics received contracts worth 24 billion, then on footnote 177 you write that it received contracts worth 2,200 million in 1968 alone. Well, 2,200 million is only 2.2 billion. Is this 2.2 billion included in the 24 billion contract listed right before? I found these comments confusing. Maybe the 24 billion number was supposed to say 2.4 billion.
Anyhow, like I said, this is great work. While LBJ liked to think of himself as a victim of Vietnam, and many historians have bought into this, you've successfully presented an argument that he was a victim of his own greed, and of his own desire to appease the men who made him (and possibly killed Kennedy).
http://www.battleshipcove.org/aircraft-huey.htm
THE IROQUOIS NATIONS: US military helicopters are frequently named after Native American tribes, (e.g., Apache, Chinook, Comanche, etc.), and the Bell Iroquois, or "Huey," UH-1 helicopter derives its name from the Iroquois.
The Iroquois Nations occupied a region from central New York westward to the Illinois River. Comprising five (later, six) tribes of peoples with closely related languages, the Iroquois confederacy comprised the Mohawk, Oneida, Onotague, Cayunga, and Seneca tribes, and then absorbed the Tuscarora in 1712.
Despite the enmity that frequently existed between Native Americans and the early English settlers, the Iroquois were allies with the British during the French & Indian Wars. Largely due to the diplomacy of Sir William Johnson, the British Superintendent of Indian Affairs, this alliance continued into the American Revolutionary War, when nearly one half of the New York Iroquois fled to Canada to enlist in the British service against the Americans.
To learn more about the Iroquois, visit the Carnegie Museum of Natural History.
--------------------------------------
http://www.helis.com/60s/h_h1.php
In the original helicopter designation series, the first three aircraft received the XH-40 designation.
First flight of the new design was in October 1956, development and production following.
When the US Army adopted its own two-letter designation system, the H-40 became the HU-1 (Helicopter Utility). From this designation came Huey, the name by which it has remained known. The US Department of Defence ( DOD ) standard designation system reversed this to UH-1, the first designation in the new DOD helicopter series. With larger engines and increased capacity, the UH-1 was developed through successive models.
Officially the UH-1 series is the Iroquois. But its unofficial name, Huey, became so commonly used that the AH-1 attack version was officially named the Huey Cobra.
The Huey story traces back some four decades. In 1955, with an interest in a utility helicopter designed around a turboshaft engine, the US Army had the US Air Force develop a new helicopter for its use. At that time the US Army did not have its own aircraft development capability. The design selected, Bell's Model 204, was to be powered by a new Lycoming T-53 engine of some 850 shaft horsepower and featured a typical Bell two-blade teetering rotor.
----------------------------------
Now, the Howard Hughes helicopters are the Cayuse OH-6A type or Hughes Helicopters 500 series. The "egg shell" -type chopper.
http://www.rotaryaction.com/history.html
The Hughes Helicopters 500 series was derived from the US military's OH-6A Cayuse, which first flew on 27 February 1963, and was chosen by the army as their preferred 'Light Observation Helicopter'. Many variations of the 500 family (aka: 369), were built from 1960s to 1990s, for military and civil use, and the 'flying egg' (as it's nicknamed) became one of the most popular helicopters ever seen in cinema and TV. Hughes Helicopters (founded by the legendary Howard Hughes), was bought out by McDonnell Douglas in 1984, though MD itself merged with Boeing in 1997, only for its commercial line to be sold off by Boeing two years later.
THE IROQUOIS NATIONS: US military helicopters are frequently named after Native American tribes, (e.g., Apache, Chinook, Comanche, etc.), and the Bell Iroquois, or "Huey," UH-1 helicopter derives its name from the Iroquois.
The Iroquois Nations occupied a region from central New York westward to the Illinois River. Comprising five (later, six) tribes of peoples with closely related languages, the Iroquois confederacy comprised the Mohawk, Oneida, Onotague, Cayunga, and Seneca tribes, and then absorbed the Tuscarora in 1712.
Despite the enmity that frequently existed between Native Americans and the early English settlers, the Iroquois were allies with the British during the French & Indian Wars. Largely due to the diplomacy of Sir William Johnson, the British Superintendent of Indian Affairs, this alliance continued into the American Revolutionary War, when nearly one half of the New York Iroquois fled to Canada to enlist in the British service against the Americans.
To learn more about the Iroquois, visit the Carnegie Museum of Natural History.
--------------------------------------
http://www.helis.com/60s/h_h1.php
In the original helicopter designation series, the first three aircraft received the XH-40 designation.
First flight of the new design was in October 1956, development and production following.
When the US Army adopted its own two-letter designation system, the H-40 became the HU-1 (Helicopter Utility). From this designation came Huey, the name by which it has remained known. The US Department of Defence ( DOD ) standard designation system reversed this to UH-1, the first designation in the new DOD helicopter series. With larger engines and increased capacity, the UH-1 was developed through successive models.
Officially the UH-1 series is the Iroquois. But its unofficial name, Huey, became so commonly used that the AH-1 attack version was officially named the Huey Cobra.
The Huey story traces back some four decades. In 1955, with an interest in a utility helicopter designed around a turboshaft engine, the US Army had the US Air Force develop a new helicopter for its use. At that time the US Army did not have its own aircraft development capability. The design selected, Bell's Model 204, was to be powered by a new Lycoming T-53 engine of some 850 shaft horsepower and featured a typical Bell two-blade teetering rotor.
----------------------------------
QUOTE
Pat Speer Posted Yesterday, 06:34 PM
John, I think these papers are your best work. A kind of "Unified Field Theory" if you will. While there will be nay-sayers who will doubt your conclusions, no one willl be able to make the claim you didn't do your homework or that you had no evidence to support your interpretation of recent history.
Two minor points in part 3 that can be improved or expanded come to mind. On footnote 174 you mention the Huey helicopter. I believe this was called the Huey because it was developed by Howard Hughes. While I don't remember how it became a joint project with Bell, I think that would prove interesting, particularly if Johnson played a role. He may very well have told Hughes he needed to put the jobs and money in Texas in order to get the contract. In some of the books on Hughes, there is an anecdote about the helicopter that would fit in quite nicely with the theme of your work. Evidently, when Hughes discovered that his break even point on the helicopter would only come after selling x amount, and that he'd only been able to sell y amount, he instructed Maheu to talk to LBJ and make sure the war continued on long enough so that Hughes could recoup his initial investment. Don't remember exactly what was said or whether Maheu ever admitted to talking to LBJ about this issue, but Hughes' thinking--there may even be a memo reflecting his thoughts--is revealing. I can dig through my books on Hughes and find the quotes and exact context if you like.
John, I think these papers are your best work. A kind of "Unified Field Theory" if you will. While there will be nay-sayers who will doubt your conclusions, no one willl be able to make the claim you didn't do your homework or that you had no evidence to support your interpretation of recent history.
Two minor points in part 3 that can be improved or expanded come to mind. On footnote 174 you mention the Huey helicopter. I believe this was called the Huey because it was developed by Howard Hughes. While I don't remember how it became a joint project with Bell, I think that would prove interesting, particularly if Johnson played a role. He may very well have told Hughes he needed to put the jobs and money in Texas in order to get the contract. In some of the books on Hughes, there is an anecdote about the helicopter that would fit in quite nicely with the theme of your work. Evidently, when Hughes discovered that his break even point on the helicopter would only come after selling x amount, and that he'd only been able to sell y amount, he instructed Maheu to talk to LBJ and make sure the war continued on long enough so that Hughes could recoup his initial investment. Don't remember exactly what was said or whether Maheu ever admitted to talking to LBJ about this issue, but Hughes' thinking--there may even be a memo reflecting his thoughts--is revealing. I can dig through my books on Hughes and find the quotes and exact context if you like.
Now, the Howard Hughes helicopters are the Cayuse OH-6A type or Hughes Helicopters 500 series. The "egg shell" -type chopper.
http://www.rotaryaction.com/history.html
The Hughes Helicopters 500 series was derived from the US military's OH-6A Cayuse, which first flew on 27 February 1963, and was chosen by the army as their preferred 'Light Observation Helicopter'. Many variations of the 500 family (aka: 369), were built from 1960s to 1990s, for military and civil use, and the 'flying egg' (as it's nicknamed) became one of the most popular helicopters ever seen in cinema and TV. Hughes Helicopters (founded by the legendary Howard Hughes), was bought out by McDonnell Douglas in 1984, though MD itself merged with Boeing in 1997, only for its commercial line to be sold off by Boeing two years later.
QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Mar 29 2006, 07:34 PM)
John, I think these papers are your best work. A kind of "Unified Field Theory" if you will. While there will be nay-sayers who will doubt your conclusions, no one willl be able to make the claim you didn't do your homework or that you had no evidence to support your interpretation of recent history.
Thank you for your kind comments. I am surprised it has not been done before. I suppose Peter Dale Scott’s “Deep Politics” is the closest example to this approach.
I am currently researching into the way the assassinations of MLK and RFK fits into this pattern. (Should be ready in the next couple of days.)
My approach is based on the idea that history is really a study of the present. I believe that we can only understand the relationship between Bush, Halliburton and the Iraq War by looking closely at the long-term relationship between politicians, corporations and the intelligence agencies.
QUOTE (Antti Hynonen @ Mar 30 2006, 07:45 AM)
Now, the Howard Hughes helicopters are the Cayuse OH-6A type or Hughes Helicopters 500 series. The "egg shell" -type chopper.
http://www.rotaryaction.com/history.html
The Hughes Helicopters 500 series was derived from the US military's OH-6A Cayuse, which first flew on 27 February 1963, and was chosen by the army as their preferred 'Light Observation Helicopter'. Many variations of the 500 family (aka: 369), were built from 1960s to 1990s, for military and civil use, and the 'flying egg' (as it's nicknamed) became one of the most popular helicopters ever seen in cinema and TV. Hughes Helicopters (founded by the legendary Howard Hughes), was bought out by McDonnell Douglas in 1984, though MD itself merged with Boeing in 1997, only for its commercial line to be sold off by Boeing two years later.
http://www.rotaryaction.com/history.html
The Hughes Helicopters 500 series was derived from the US military's OH-6A Cayuse, which first flew on 27 February 1963, and was chosen by the army as their preferred 'Light Observation Helicopter'. Many variations of the 500 family (aka: 369), were built from 1960s to 1990s, for military and civil use, and the 'flying egg' (as it's nicknamed) became one of the most popular helicopters ever seen in cinema and TV. Hughes Helicopters (founded by the legendary Howard Hughes), was bought out by McDonnell Douglas in 1984, though MD itself merged with Boeing in 1997, only for its commercial line to be sold off by Boeing two years later.
Thanks, Antti, for clearing that up. The Huey and the Hughes were different helicopters. When I looked at the pictures I flashed back to Apocalypse Now and the famous "Charlie don't surf" scene with Robert Duvall blasting out Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries. In that scene the Huey and the Hughes copters fly side by side.
QUOTE
Pat Speer Posted Today, 10:29 AM
QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Mar 30 2006, 07:45 AM)
Now, the Howard Hughes helicopters are the Cayuse OH-6A type or Hughes Helicopters 500 series. The "egg shell" -type chopper.
http://www.rotaryaction.com/history.html
The Hughes Helicopters 500 series was derived from the US military's OH-6A Cayuse, which first flew on 27 February 1963, and was chosen by the army as their preferred 'Light Observation Helicopter'. Many variations of the 500 family (aka: 369), were built from 1960s to 1990s, for military and civil use, and the 'flying egg' (as it's nicknamed) became one of the most popular helicopters ever seen in cinema and TV. Hughes Helicopters (founded by the legendary Howard Hughes), was bought out by McDonnell Douglas in 1984, though MD itself merged with Boeing in 1997, only for its commercial line to be sold off by Boeing two years later.
Thanks, Antti, for clearing that up. The Huey and the Hughes were different helicopters. When I looked at the pictures I flashed back to Apocalypse Now and the famous "Charlie don't surf" scene with Robert Duvall blasting out Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries. In that scene the Huey and the Hughes copters fly side by side.
QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Mar 30 2006, 07:45 AM)
Now, the Howard Hughes helicopters are the Cayuse OH-6A type or Hughes Helicopters 500 series. The "egg shell" -type chopper.
http://www.rotaryaction.com/history.html
The Hughes Helicopters 500 series was derived from the US military's OH-6A Cayuse, which first flew on 27 February 1963, and was chosen by the army as their preferred 'Light Observation Helicopter'. Many variations of the 500 family (aka: 369), were built from 1960s to 1990s, for military and civil use, and the 'flying egg' (as it's nicknamed) became one of the most popular helicopters ever seen in cinema and TV. Hughes Helicopters (founded by the legendary Howard Hughes), was bought out by McDonnell Douglas in 1984, though MD itself merged with Boeing in 1997, only for its commercial line to be sold off by Boeing two years later.
Thanks, Antti, for clearing that up. The Huey and the Hughes were different helicopters. When I looked at the pictures I flashed back to Apocalypse Now and the famous "Charlie don't surf" scene with Robert Duvall blasting out Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries. In that scene the Huey and the Hughes copters fly side by side.
Yes, Sir.
You're welcome.
That's one of my favorite movies. I regularly watch this movie as well as other war movies on DVD.
QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Mar 29 2006, 07:34 PM)
John, I think these papers are your best work. A kind of "Unified Field Theory" if you will. While there will be nay-sayers who will doubt your conclusions, no one willl be able to make the claim you didn't do your homework or that you had no evidence to support your interpretation of recent history.
The historian Gerhard Flehinger died this week. He was the author of "Hitler and the Final Solution". He spent over 30 years working with Nazi documents. He was attempting to find irrefutable evidence that the systematic murder of the Jews of Europe was Hitler’s decision. Flehinger admitted that his research was politically motivated. He wanted to make sure that those on the right of the political spectrum would not be able to dilute the immense criminality of Hitler’s policies.
Flehinger discovered that Hitler’s administration devoted major resources and immense cunning to attempting to conceal or destroy evidence for the responsibility for the final solution. That the authorities had systematically falsified documentation in such a way as to lay false trials relating to all aspects of the Nazis’ treatment of European Jewry. They did this so well that Fleinger could find no documentation that definitely proved that there was a direct link between the Holocaust and the Nazi high command. It is this lack of physical evidence that historians like David Irving use to defend their absurd views.
However, what Flehinger was able to do was to assemble such an overwhelming weight of circumstantial material as to make his case incontestable.
We face a similar problem when investigating the JFK assassination. What documentary evidence that existed has been classified or destroyed. We will never be able to prove the case with evidence alone. What we can do is accumulate the circumstantial material to make the case incontestable.
Part 3 is terriific. It tightly knits the MI-complex, shows its sinuosity, and gives a most graphic example of its continuity in Brown and Root. The Bush administrattion defines it today.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.