Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Tony Frank

George H. W. Bush and Assassination of JFK

Recommended Posts

I'm sure lots of you are aware of the threat to President Kennedy reported by our 41st President back in November 1963. Here's my take on that and on Kennedy's visit to Houton on November 21, 1963.

Having President Kennedy visit Houston was a key to making the President think that he was upstaging Goldwater in Texas, and that he could stave off the prospect of a Goldwater challenge in 1964.

In the documentary video, “JFK: The End Of Camelot,” Jack Valenti, a public relations consultant who was traveling with Kennedy, stated that Kennedy had on November 21, 1963, visited San Antonio (which is where Barry Goldwater received his grandiose welcome on October 11, 1963) and then, also on November 21, 1963, President Kennedy went to Houston.

According to Mr. Valenti, the Houston event “went swimmingly; several hundred thousand people on the sidewalks, not a hostile face to be found.” The video even shows Kennedy working the crowd, shaking hands with several of the people as he walked along the multitude of admirers who were reaching out to touch him.

On November 22, 1963, an official document showed that there had been a threat in Houston, but since the information was a day late and the Houston event “went swimmingly,” security precautions, in retrospect, would most definitely have been needless.

On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy and the security people had a false sense of security. Houston and the alleged threat, which would have prompted needless security precautions, undoubtedly contributed to the false sense of security. (“Mr. Kennedy himself made the decision to ride in the slow-moving motorcade” even though “the original plans called only for a fast ride from the airport to a lunch at the Trade Mart.”) The person making the allegation of a Houston threat was George W. Bush’s father, George H. W. Bush, “a reputable businessman.”

The official document of the threat is shown in “The JFK Assassination: The Jim Garrison Tapes.” It reads: “Houston on November 22, 1963, advised that George H. W. Bush, a reputable businessman, furnished information to the effect that James Parrott has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston. A check with Secret Service at Houston, Texas, revealed that agency had a report that Parrott stated in 1961 he would kill President Kennedy if he got near him.”

All they had to do is check their records to find a suitably threatening person, like James Parrott, who “stated in 1961 he would kill President Kennedy if he got near him,” then have George Herbert Walker Bush, who would become the 41st President of the United States, “furnish information to the effect that James Parrott has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston,” and then, after making sure that Houston “went swimmingly,” have the threat officially documented on November 22, 1963, which may have very well been the day that George Bush actually supplied the information. President Kennedy and the security people would then discount the possibility of a threat in Dallas as the President reaped another harvest of admiration from another throng of ardent admirers who were lining the city streets.

The belated information furnished by George Bush of Houston, where President Kennedy couldn’t have felt more secure among the crowd, could have also given a “Secret Service” agent the opportunity to say, “Just the same, we'll make sure the President stays in the car while he’s in Dallas. The law says that the chief of the Secret Service is empowered to overrule the President on the question of security precautions.”

Making sure President Kennedy stayed in the car while he was in Dallas would most likely have been the paramount reason for having George H. W. Bush allege that there had been a threat in Houston.

It could have occurred to them during the Houston event that it would be most inconvenient if Kennedy was not “a sitting duck” in Dallas, which would have been the case if he decided to work the crowd and reap the maximum benefit of the ardent admirers in Dallas like he did in Houston, or they could have decided early on when they put together the complex assassination plan that a respectable citizen, “a reputable businessman,” was essential to furnishing belated information that there had been a threat in Houston so that they could keep Kennedy right where they wanted him.

Whether they thought of it when they saw Kennedy working the crowd in Houston, or whether they thought of this “sitting duck” idea when they originally planned the assassination, the result was that President Kennedy was sitting in the car at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when the information from George W. Bush’s father, George H. W. Bush, officially documented on November 22, 1963, was discounted but not disregarded.

Why else would they have had George Bush do this?

Why else would George Bush be referred to as simply “a reputable businessman,” and not the son of former Senator Prescott Bush, and not a candidate for the Republican nomination for Senator in Texas?

Did George Bush simply refrain from citing these credentials as a believable person when he furnished information about a threat to kill the President of the United States?

Why was the information about a threat in Houston officially documented on November 22, 1963, the day President Kennedy was in Dallas?

Besides all that, why would George Bush be in the company of a man who “stated in 1961 he would kill President Kennedy if he got near him”?

Why would George Bush be in the company of a man who “has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston”?

In light of all the facts, is there any possibility that this “George H. W. Bush” is not the same George H. W. Bush who would become the 41st President of the United States?

(Four and a half years after they had Bush provide the belated information, they had people in “business and Congressional circles” promoting a “Bush-for-Vice-President campaign,” after Billy Graham, who knowingly or unknowingly received CIA funds from the CIA’s bogus foundations, suggested to Richard Nixon that he consider freshman Congressman George Bush of Houston as his running-mate.)

With George H. W. Bush, the people in Houston, and the mighty CIA going for him, it’s no wonder that Barry Goldwater decided to seek the Republican nomination in 1964, even though, as cited in the Goldwater’s Prospects section, Goldwater had said in August, September, and October of 1963, that he was only going to run for the Senate, that he preferred to stay in the Senate, and that he was “trying to think of reasons why I should become a candidate” and “coming up with some negative answers.” It’s no wonder that Barry Goldwater announced his candidacy even though the prevailing opinion from just about everyone, “even some of his own supporters,” was that a liberal candidate, not the ultra-conservative Barry Goldwater, was required to run against President Johnson, and it’s no wonder that Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater “singled out Bush for praise as a bright hope on the political horizon” at a San Antonio rally on October 31, 1964, which is also the day that Barry Goldwater was expecting President Johnson to be assassinated.

The landslide victory for President Johnson three days after they failed to assassinate him proved what the vast majority of Americans knew after President Kennedy was assassinated; that it was an exercise in futility to have the ultra-conservative Barry Goldwater running against President Johnson. Certain individuals in Houston were counting on the assassination of President Johnson as much as they were counting on the assassination of President Kennedy.

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to a Secret Service memo dated 11/22/63 from SA Graham W. Kitchel to the Houston office, Bush called Dallas to report Parrott's alleged threat at 1:45 pm that day, over an hour after the assassination. The reported threat therefore had no effect on security in Dallas, as Bush's call came after the fact.

Also, there is no evidence that Bush was ever "in the company of" Parrott. Bush was calling to "furnish hearsay," and gave the names of two people who might could provide more info on Parrott, who Bush said is "possibly a student at the University of Houston."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did you find this memo from Graham W. Kitchel?

I found a reference online to the conversation that you spoke of, but Graham W. Kitchel is an FBI agent, and if Bush called this FBI agent in Dallas over an hour after the assassination, it doesn't jive with the Secret Service memo that reads:

“Houston on November 22, 1963, advised that George H. W. Bush, a reputable businessman, furnished information to the effect that James Parrott has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston. A check with Secret Service at Houston, Texas, revealed that agency had a report that Parrott stated in 1961 he would kill President Kennedy if he got near him.”

If you are correct in your facts, it would appear that there was the first warning to the Secret Service in Houston before the assassination, and that after the assassination, Bush called the FBI in Dallas out of worry about his warning to the Secret Service in Houston.

And I am not asserting that Bush had been in the company of Parrot. I am actually ridiculing the idea. After citing what the Secret Service memo said, I wrote:

All they had to do is check their records to find a suitably threatening person, like James Parrott, who “stated in 1961 he would kill President Kennedy if he got near him,” then have George Herbert Walker Bush, who would become the 41st President of the United States, “furnish information to the effect that James Parrott has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston,” and then, after making sure that Houston “went swimmingly,” have the threat officially documented on November 22, 1963, which may have very well been the day that George Bush actually supplied the information. President Kennedy and the security people would then discount the possibility of a threat in Dallas as the President reaped another harvest of admiration from another throng of ardent admirers who were lining the city streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a link to the Kitchel memo. You're right, it's an FBI memo, not SS as I incorrectly assumed. (The letterhead is simply "United States Government Memorandum", and I didn't notice "FBI - Houston" in the stamp at the bottom).

I don't see why you say this memo doesn't jibe with the SS memo you've quoted, since I don't see where the latter specifies that Bush advised of this threat before the assassination. BTW are you sure it's an SS memo you're quoting and not FBI? The reason I ask is that the reference in it to checking "with Secret Service in Houston" sounds like something that another agency would say, not the SS about its own office in Houston. And it starts by saying "Houston . . . advised," which also suggests an agency other than "Secret Service in Houston." I would think that the other agency most likely would be FBI. What it sounds like is that Bush called the FBI in Dallas on the afternoon of 11/22/63, the FBI in Dallas advised the FBI in Houston, which investigated including checking with the SS in Houston. (Bush was not calling from Houston but from Tyler, Texas.)

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/user_files/5656.jpg

Edited by Ron Ecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link. It's fascinating information.

But with regards to the Secret Service memo (I am sure it is a Secret Service memo) that I quoted, I guess it's how you read it.

I read it as the Secret Service in Dallas said that the office in "Houston on November 22, 1963, advised that George H. W. Bush, a reputable businessman, . . ."

But even in the FBI memo that you cite, the questions still remain;

Why didn't George Bush cite that he was the son of former Senator Prescott Bush, and a candidate for the Republican nomination for Senator in Texas?

Did George Bush simply refrain from citing these credentials as a believable person when he furnished information that there had been a threat to kill a President who had just been assassinated?

Wasn't it convenient that the "day and source" of what Bush overheard were "unknown?"

Why did Bush claim that two other people, whose names and phone numbers were furnished by Bush, would have information on Parrott when the "day and source" of what Bush allegedly overheard were "unknown?"

The memo I saw reads as I stated and other than citing Bush and Parrott, it is entirely different from the FBI memo. There is even greater intrigue in both memos when taken together.

It still appears that there was the first warning to the Secret Service before the assassination, and that after the assassination, Bush called the FBI in Dallas.

The time of the FBI memo, 1:45 PM, was right about the time that a horde of Dallas Police descended on a movie theater because someone [Oswald] had entered without buying a ticket.

Two phone calls to different agencies, one before and one after the assassination, sounds very much like what the CIA would do.

Bush gave the first warning to the Secret Service so that they could keep Kennedy as a sitting duck in the limo. The second phone call to the FBI at the time that Oswald was being arrested was meant to have authorities dismiss his assertion about Parrott.

The memo I saw was in a documentary video, "The JFK Assassination: The Jim Garrison Tapes." You can get the video by ordering it from amazon.com. Here's a link http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...033651?v=glance

Edited by Tony Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tony:

You may be interested in this document......re Bush..close to a small

pro Cuban group in Miami...........dated Nov. 29/63.......

Mr Bush of the C.I.A..... :unsure: ..............B

Edited by Bernice Moore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernice, do you have a RIF number for that document - part of it looks very familiar to me but the bottom part does not. I'd like to see if I can veryify it in the CIA segregated files or in a NARA search but a RIF number would really speed that up.

Thanks, Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi William, there are several things about the document that interest me and I would like to verify its provenance - which is why I needed the NARA document number. I'm also curious if Berenice has a separate source or took it from your site, that could help locate it at NARA and see if there are any other related memos such as a reply from State to Hoover.

Some of the things that interest me are the fact that Hoover seems to be writing the memo to the State Dept in regard to some advice from the State Department to the FBI's Cuban Affairs coordinator in Miami - I'd like to know more about the FBI having a Cuban Affairs Coordinator in Miami as that is new to me.

Also, after reading hundreds of FBI reports which shield the identify of their "sources and informants" with numbers such as T-3 etc I'm sort of interested in Hoover's disclosure to the State department of names and details of FBI sources within other agencies - especially the fact that these are supposedly employees of CIA nd DIA. It just seems atypical of Hoover who was not normally free with information - it's also sort of strange to have a CIA employee volunteering information to the FBI rather than passing it through his own agency - plus giving his actual name since normally CIA folks even use crypts in internal communications other than personnal matters, expecially field agents/case officers.

If you could share the source of the document or if you have a NARA cover sheet for it I'd certainly appreciate seeing it.

-- thanks, Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks William but my only real question is about the two Bush documents, the one referencing to Miami and a pro-Castro group.

I would like to verify that its indeed in the NARA collection - as well as the first "Mr Bush of the CIA" letter - because neither one of them shows on a search as far as I can find. If neither one is actually I'd like to ask the NARA folks why not - but to do that I need to know details on who found them where and when.

-- Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here Larry:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/P.../MENA/bush.html

The Crimes of Mena:

Bush's Early CIA Experience

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Man Who Wasn't There, 'George Bush,' C.I.A. Operative"

By Joseph McBride

THE NATION, July 16/23, 1988

Vice President George Bush's resume is his most highly touted asset as

a candidate. But a recently discovered F.B.I. memorandum raises the

possibility that, like many resumes, it omits some facts the applicant

would rather not talk about: specifically, that he worked for the Central

Intelligence Agency in 1963, more than a decade before he became its

director.

The F.B.I. memorandum, dated November 29, 1963, is from Director J.

Edgar Hoover to the State Department and is subject-headed "Assassination

of President John F. Kennedy November 22, 1963." In it, Hoover reports

that the Bureau had briefed "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence

Agency" shortly after the assassination on the reaction of Cuban exiles

in Miami. A source with close connections to the intelligence community

confirms that Bush started working for the agency in 1960 or 1961,

using his oil business as a cover for clandestine activities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back To The Mena Page.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back To The Den: Politics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back To The Top.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mail to: What Really Happened

http://www.macha.idps.co.uk/bush_story.html

As George Bush Junior ran for President of the United States in the year 2000, I remembered this FBI record about his Dad.

Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 20:14:32 GMT

From: Larry + Jennie Subject: More George Bush and the CIA

"The Man Who Wasn't There, 'George Bush,' C.I.A. Operative" By Joseph McBride

THE NATION, July 16/23, 1988

Vice President George Bush's resume is his most highly touted asset as a candidate. But a recently discovered F.B.I. memorandum raises the possibility that, like many resumes, it omits some facts the applicant would rather not talk about: specifically, that he worked for the Central Intelligence Agency in 1963, more than a decade before he became its director.

The F.B.I. memorandum, dated November 29, 1963, is from Director J. Edgar Hoover to the State Department and is subject-headed "Assassination of President John F. Kennedy November 22, 1963." In it, Hoover reports that the Bureau had briefed "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" shortly after the assassination on the reaction of Cuban exiles in Miami. A source with close connections to the intelligence community confirms that Bush started working for the agency in 1960 or 1961, using his oil business as a cover for clandestine activities.

____________________________

That memo also provides insight as to the qualifications for why George Bush was selected Director for Central Intelligence in 1976, during a period when the CIA was washing its dirty linen and allegedly reforming itself.

Here are some excerpts from the NATION:

Informed of this memorandum, the Vice President's spokesman, Stephen Hart, asked, "Are you sure it's the same George Bush?" After talking to the Vice President, Hart quoted him as follows: "I was in Houston, Texas, at the time and involved in the independent oil drilling business. And I was running for the Senate in late '63." "Must be another George Bush," added Hart.

Because the Vice President's response seemed something of a non-denial denial (he described what else he was doing rather than specifically denying C.I.A. involvement), I put the following queries to him via Hart:

Did you do any work with or for the CIA prior to the time you became its director?

If so, what was the nature of your relationship with the agency, and how long did it last?

Did you receive a briefing by a member of the F.B.I. on anti-Castro Cuban activities in the aftermath o the assassination of President Kennedy?

Half an hour later, Hart called me back to say that he had *not* spoken again to the Vice President about the matter, but would answer the questions himself. The answer to the first question was no, he said, and so he could skip number two.

"This is the first time I've ever heard this," C.I.A. spokesman Bill Devine said when confronted with the allegations of the Vice President's involvement with the agency in the early 1960s. "I'll see what I can find out and call you back." The next day Devine called back with the terse official response, "I can neither confirm nor deny." Told what the Vice President's office had said, and asked if he could check whether there had been another George Bush in the C.I.A., Devine seemed to become a bit nonplused: "twenty-seven years ago? I doubt that very much. In any event, we have a standard policy of not confirming that anyone is involved in the C.I.A."

Hoover's memo, which was written to the director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, was buried among the 98,755 pages of F.B.I. documents released to the public in 1977 and 1978 as a result of the Freedom of Information Act suits. It was written to summarize the briefings given to Bush and Capt. William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency by the F.B.I.'s W.T. Forsyth on November 23, the day after the assassination, when Lee Harvey Oswald was still alive to be interrogated about his connections to Cuban exiles and the C.I.A. The briefing was held, according to the F.B.I. director, because the States Department feared that "some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in U.S. policy, which is not true." Hoover continues:

"Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matter in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the U.S. but to all of Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.

"An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that these individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them, and although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination.

"The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency..."

(We attempted to locate William T. Forsyth, but learned that he is dead. Forsyth worked out of the Washington F.B.I. headquarters and was best known for running the investigation of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in the Bureau's subversive control section. Efforts to locate Captain Edwards by press time were unsuccessful.)

Vice President Bush's autobiography, "Looking Forward," written with Victor Gold (Doubleday, 1987), is vague to the point of being cryptic about his activities in the early 1960s, when he was running the Houston-based Zapata Off-Shore Company. ("Running an offshore oil company," he writes, "would mean days spent on or over water; not only the Gulf of Mexico but oceans and seas the world over.") But the 1972 profile of Bush in "Current Biography" provides more details of his itinerary in those years: "Bush traveled throughout the world to sell Zapata's oil-drilling services. Under his direction it grew to be a multimillion-dollar concern, with operations in Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East, Japan, Australia, and Western Europe." And according to Nicolas King's "George Bush: A Biography," Zapata was concentrating its business in the Caribbean and off South America in the early 1960s, a piece of information that meshes neatly with the available data on Bush's early C.I.A. responsibilities.

Bush's duties with the C.I.A. in 1963 -- whether he was an agent, for example, or merely an "asset" -- cannot be determined from Hoover's memo. However, the intelligence source (who worked with the agency in the late 1950s and through the 1960s) said of the Vice President: "I know he was involved in the Caribbean. I know he was involved in the suppression of things after the Kennedy assassination: There was a very definite worry that some Cuban groups were going to move against Castro and attempt to blame it on the C.I.A."

The initial reaction of Senator Frank Church, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to the firing of William Colby and the naming of Bush as Director of Central Intelligence in 1975 was to complain that it was part of a pattern of attempts by President Gerald Ford (a former member of the Warren Commission) to impede the Church committee's nearly concluded investigation into C.I.A. assassination plots, with which Colby was cooperating but which Ford was trying vainly to keep secret.

Asked recently about Bush's early C.I.A. connections, (former Texas Democratic Senator Ralph) Yarborough said, "I never heard anything about it. It doesn't surprise me. What surprised me was that they picked him for Director of Central Intelligence -- how in hell he was appointed head of the C.I.A. without any experience of knowledge." Hoover's memo "explains something to me that I've wondered about. It does make sense to have a trained C.I.A. man, with experience, appointed to the job."

Bush's C.I.A. connections might throw new light on his knowledge of the *contra* funding and supply operation, and his alleged knowledge of *contra* drug smuggling and the activities of General Noriega. It is worth noting in this context that, as Leslie Cockburn writes in "Out of Control," "The anti-Castro C.I.A. team in Florida were already drawing attention to their drug-smuggling activities by 1963," and that it was Felix Rodriguez, the C.I.A., "alumnus who wore Che Guevara's watch and counted George Bush among his friends," who allegedly coordinated a $10 million payment to the *contras* by the Colombian cocaine cartel.

___________

There is also a report, that I cannot find the source, claiming George Bush was responsible for two ships, the "Houston" and the "Barbara" (?), charged with resupplying the CIA-trained Bay of Pigs invaders. Does anyone have information on that ?

And again, George Bush lied through his teeth about being "out of the loop" on Iran/contra.

Larry

Edited by dankbaar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tarpley.net/bush8b.htm

Such participation would certainly be coherent with George's role in the Prescott Bush, Skull and Bones, and Brown Brothers, Harriman networks. During the twentieth century, the Skull and Bones/Harriman circles have always maintained a sizable and often decisive presence inside the intelligence organizations of the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Office of Naval Intelligence, the Office of Strategic Services, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Indeed, the Harriman and related Anglophile financier factions of Wall Street have generally regarded those parts of the state apparatus dealing with intelligence and covert operations as their own very special property, property which had to be kept seeded with control networks in order to be effectively steered from above. For George Bush to interface with the intelligence community while ostensibly engaged in his business career would be coherent with that well-established pattern.

A body of leads has been assembled which suggests that George Bush may have been associated with the CIA at some time before the autumn of 1963. According to Joseph McBride of The Nation, "a source with close connections to the intelligence community confirms that Bush started working for the agency in 1960 or 1961, using his oil business as a cover for clandestine activities." 1 By the time of the Kennedy assassination, we have an official FBI document which refers to "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency," and despite official disclaimers there is every reason to think that this is indeed the man in the White House today. The mystery of George Bush as a possible covert operator hinges on four points, each one of which represents one of the great political and espionage scandals of postwar American history. These four cardinal points are:

1. The abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, launched on April 16-17, 1961, prepared with the assistance of the CIA's "Miami Station" (also known under the code name JM/WAVE). After the failure of the amphibious landings of Brigade 2506, Miami station, under the leadership of Theodore Shackley, became the focus for Operation Mongoose, a series of covert operations directed against Castro, Cuba, and possibly other targets.

2. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and the coverup of those responsible for this crime.

3. The Watergate scandal, beginning with an April, 1971 visit to Miami, Florida by E. Howard Hunt on the tenth anniversary of the Bay of Pigs invasion to recruit operatives for the White House Special Investigations Unit (the "Plumbers" and later Watergate burglars) from among Cuban-American Bay of Pigs veterans.

4. The Iran-contra affair, which became a public scandal during October-November 1986, several of whose central figures, such as Felix Rodriguez, were also veterans of the Bay of Pigs.

George Bush's role in both Watergate and the October surprise/Iran-contra complex will be treated in detail at later points in this book. Right now it is important to see that thirty years of covert operations, in many respects, form a single continuous whole. This is especially true in regard to the dramatis personae. Georgie Anne Geyer points to the obvious in a recent book: "...an entire new Cuban cadre now emerged from the Bay of Pigs. The names Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Rolando Martinez, Felix Rodriguez and Eugenio Martinez would, in the next quarter century, pop up, often decisively, over and over again in the most dangerous American foreign policy crises. There were Cubans flying missions for the CIA in the Congo and even for the Portuguese in Africa; Cubans were the burglars of Watergate; Cubans played key roles in Nicaragua, in Irangate, in the American move into the Persian Gulf." 2 Felix Rodriguez tells us that he was infiltrated into Cuba with the other members of the "Grey Team" in conjunction with the Bay of Pigs landings; this is the same man we will find directing the contra supply effort in central American during the 1980's, working under the direct supervision of Don Gregg and George Bush. 3 Theodore Shackley, the JM/WAVE station chief, will later show up in Bush's 1979-80 presidential campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry, were you really not awre of all this?

http://www.the7thfire.com/bush8b.htm

This FBI document identifying George Bush as a CIA agent in November, 1963 was first published by Joseph McBride in The Nation in July, 1988, just before Bush received the Republican nomination for president. McBride's source observed: "I know [bush] was involved in the Caribbean. I know he was involved in the suppression of things after the Kennedy assassination. There was a very definite worry that some Cuban groups were going to move against Castro and attempt to blame it on the CIA." 20 When pressed for confirmation or denial, Bush's spokesman Stephen Hart commented: "Must be another George Bush." Within a short time the CIA itself would peddle the same damage control line. On July 19, 1988 in the wake of wide public attention to the report published in The Nation, CIA spokeswoman Sharron Basso departed from the normal CIA policy of refusing to confirm or deny reports that any person is or was a CIA employee. CIA spokeswoman Basso told the Associated press that the CIA believed that "the record should be clarified." She said that the FBI document "apparently" referred to a George William Bush who had worked in 1963 on the night shift at CIA headquarters, and that "would have been the appropriate place to have received such an FBI report." According to her account, the George William Bush in question had left the CIA to join the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1964.

For the CIA to volunteer the name of one of its former employees to the press was a shocking violation of traditional methods, which are supposedly designed to keep such names a closely guarded secret. This revelation may have constituted a violation of federal law. But no exertions were too great when it came to damage control for George Bush.

George William Bush had indeed worked for the CIA, the DIA, and the Alexandria, Virginia Department of Public Welfare before joining the Social Security Administration, in whose Arlington, Virginia office he was employed as a claims representative in 1988. George William Bush told The Nation that while at the CIA he was "just a lowly researcher and analyst" who worked with documents and photos and never received interagency briefings. He had never met Forsyth of the FBI or Captain Edwards of the DIA. "So it wasn't me," said George William Bush. 21

Later, George William Bush formalized his denial in a sworn statement to a federal court in Washington, DC. The affidavit acknowledges that while working at CIA headquarters between September 1963 and February 1964, George William Bush was the junior person on a three to four man watch shift which was on duty when Kennedy was shot. But, as George William Bush goes on to say,

I have carefully reviewed the FBI memorandum to the Director, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Department of State dated November 29, 1963 which mentions a Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency....I do not recognize the contents of the memorandum as information furnished to me orally or otherwise during the time I was at the CIA. In fact, during my time at the CIA. I did not receive any oral communications from any government agency of any nature whatsoever. I did not receive any information relating to the Kennedy assassination during my time at the CIA from the FBI.

Based on the above, it is my conclusion that I am not the Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency referred to in the memorandum. 22

So we are left with the strong suspicion that the "Mr. George Bush of the CIA" referred to by the FBI is our own George Herbert Walker Bush, who, in addition to his possible contact with Lee Harvey Oswald's controller, may thus also join the ranks of the Kennedy assassination cover-up. It makes perfect sense for George Bush to be called in on a matter involving the Cuban community in Miami, since that is a place where George has traditionally had a constituency. George inherited it from his father, Prescott Bush of Jupiter Island, and later passed it on to his own son, Jeb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×