John Simkin

I never said that. What I did say is that authors have had difficulty getting their books published by the major corporations if they are too critical of the CIA or the FBI. For example, for the first three years after the assassination, authors who wanted to publish books that were critical of the Warren Commission had to go to Europe to get their books published. The CIA and FBI then put around stories that authors like Joachim Joesten and Thomas Buchanan were Soviet agents. The situation changed briefly in 1966 when Rush to Judgement reached number one in the bestseller lists. For a short period publishers became interested in bringing out conspiracy books because it was good business to do so. However, it was not long before the intelligence agencies got it back under control (see my recent posting on the Jack Anderson thread). See also accounts by Cord Meyer, E. Howard Hunt, Tom Braden and William Sullivan on how the publishing industry was kept under control. Even when books were published, the CIA often controlled the editing process (see my recent posting on Bradley Ayers) or the reviews they received (see Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial for an account of how this worked). That is not true. As Dan pointed out in an email to me: "The post that is supposedly missing is still on the Scott Enyart thread, so I guess you can advise Mel that there's nothing to worry about in terms of censorship. He must've just hit the wrong button. The post on the Scott Enyart thread is exactly as he apparently tried posting on the others but it got lost. So there's no problem as far as I can see." As someone who has met John Hunt and watched his outstanding presentation on the case at the JFK Lancer conference, I do not recognize the man you have described here. The truth is that you are not willing to engage in debate with people who know anything about the RFK assassination. You prefer one-way communication. The same is true of your mate John McAdams. That is why he uses newsletters, websites and blogs to present his views on the case. It is not conspiracy theorists who are afraid of debate. One again you attack the brave small publisher who dares to take on media corporations. It is the "reputable media outlet" that have constantly lied to the public about the deaths of JFK, MLK and RFK. What is wrong with JFK Lancer making profits out of their publications. Isn't the way the capitalist system works? Why is it acceptable for "reputable media outlet" to make profits but not alternative publishers? Did you know that no "reputable media outlet" would publish Tom Paine's Rights of Man? He therefore published it himself in 1791 and then fled the country (it was a treasonable offence to publish the truth in the 18th century)? We still live in the same system where some truths are considered to be very dangerous. Thank goodness we have the internet to freely express our views.

1) Are you sure about the date I found a 1972 article by Policoff very similar to the one you described http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PA-NYT.html If that's not the same article do you know where we could find it? It is a different article. The date I gave you is right. You can find it in "Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (1976) edited by Peter Dale Scott, Paul L. Hoch and Russell Stetler. No. The series came to an end when Salisbury was sent to Vietnam. Martin Waldron, one of the journalists working in Salisbury's team later told the Rolling Stone: "I'd be off on a good lead and then somebody'd call me off and send me out to California on another story or something." Waldon said it was clear that the New York Times had changed its mind to investigate this story. Interestingly, Carl Bernstein makes the same point about the Watergate story. Then, all of a sudden, Ben Bradlee changed his mind and put him back on the case. As we now know, the CIA wanted the story to be told.

It is not actually a CIA document. It is a letter to Chief Deputy Attorney General in Minnestota that is marked "CONFIDENTIAL". I have also been sent a copy of a memo from Christoher Barger to Tim Wray about the HSCA interviewing Ayers. The memo suggests that Ayers gave the same names to the HSCA. One of the most interesting documents is the letter to Anderson. According to Ayers, the managing editor of the publishers of "The War That Never Was" persuaded him to remove portions of the original manuscript. Ayers later discovered he was on the CIA payroll.

There is a very good article by Jerry Policoff on the way the media dealt with the JFK assassination (New Times, 8th August, 1975). Policoff points out that the early reports in the press suggested that shots were fired from in front as well as behind JFK. However, after pressure from the authorities, the press stopped printing these stories that often included eyewitness views of the assassination. By the time that Oswald was murdered by Ruby the whole of the American media was in line. The headline in the New York Times was the “President’s Assassin Shot”. The other newspapers and magazines had similar headlines. The media also faithfully published the leaks from the Warren Commission and the FBI investigation into Oswald and Ruby. By the time the WC was published the American public had been got ready for the cover-up. Things began to change in 1966 when Rush to Judgment climbed to the top of the best-seller list. Other publishers tried to cash in on the popularity of Mark Lane’s book by bringing out their own “conspiracy” books. (However, it was not too difficult to “turn” people like Epstein with the use of CIA disinformation agents). Former JFK aides and friends, Arthur Schlesinger, Richard Goodwin, Cardinal Cushing and Walter Lippmann, called for the case to be reopened. Newspapers and magazines also got into the act. On 22nd November, 1966, Harrison Salisbury of the New York Times began an investigation into the assassination. The same thing happened at Life Magazine where Dick Billings began an investigation in Life on 25th November. Then something strange happened. In both cases it was supposed to be the start of a series of articles on the case. That never happened. In fact, both the New York Times and Life Magazine quickly returned to the “lone-gunman theory”. Quadrangle (a company owned by the New York Times) published a defence of the Warren Commission by David W. Belin. The book came with a laudatory introduction by Harrison Salisbury. The book was reviewed in the New York Times Book Review by CIA asset, Priscilla McMillan. Operation Mockingbird had won again.

It is true that most countries in the east resisted more than those in the west (with the exception of the UK). However, we had the benefit of being an island. I suspect in the east it had less to do with feelings towards fascism than the hatred felt for them by the Nazis. Giving the way that they were treated after surrender, it made perfect sense for them to resist. France collobrated because too many people shared the views of the Nazis (especially their views on Jews and the left). The same was true of the UK. It is the reason why so many government documents from 1939 and 1940 are still classified. It is also the reason why Hess was never allowed to tell his story after the war.

This batch of documents included photocopies of articles by Jack Anderson that featured information supplied by Ayers. The article that James refers to appeared in the St. Paul Dispatch (19th April, 1971). A follow-up articles appeared on the 22nd April, 28th April and the 1st June.

I assume Gerry means they were all in China during the Second World War. John Birch was a member of the China Air Task Force when he was killed in 1945. Anderson worked as a foreign correspondent in China. He disliked this work and managed to get involved with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). This is where he made his future CIA contacts including Phil Graham who I suspect helped him get the job with Drew Pearson on the Washington Post in 1947. Mitchell WerBell was also a member of the OSS and saw action in Burma and China. Singlaub was in the OSS in France but moved to China in the final stages of the war. Unfortunately I know very little about Robert Emmett Johnson's war record. Hillsmen was in China but I do not see this as being significant. However, it might have helped shape his views on Vietnam where he was a JFK dove. As a result he was sacked by LBJ after the assassination. There were other interesting figures in China working with the OSS. This includes William Pawley, Tommy Corcoran, Whitey Willauer, Claire Lee Chennault, Paul Helliwell, E. Howard Hunt, Lucien Conein and Ray Cline. Why was this important? (1) This was the first time that these right-wingers joined forces with drug lords to fight communism. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, these OSS members in China were paid for their work with five-pound sacks of opium. When most of these became members of the CIA they continued this relationship with criminals. This was especially true of Cuba in the 1950s and South-East Asia in the 1960s and 1970s. Ted Shackley became the leader of this group and as well as the assassination of JFK they were also the core members of the Iran-Contra scandal. (2) The other reason China is important is that it was the first time that the intelligence services began to do "private jobs" for right-wing businessmen. Tommy Concoran was the main instigator of this program. Later William Pawley was to play a central role in this. This started in Guatemala in 1954 but then spread to other countries in Latin America. Operation 40 was used to assassinate people who got in their way. For the full story see the thread on Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade: The Contracting Out of U.S. Foreign Policy: 1940-2006. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5799

Only if they share his Thatcherite ideology and only then if they are not also supporters of the other 2 mainstream Thatcherite parties. There has to be a realignment of the Left in this country. Maybe tonight we will see some gains for Respect? It will be interesting to see how Respect does in comparison to the BNP. With all the fuss about immigrants not being deported I expect them to do well.

A good friend has sent me a batch of documents on Bradley Ayers. This includes a letter to Jack Anderson (1st March, 1995). Bradley reveals that he had been supplying information to Anderson for 24 years about JM/WAVE and the secret war against Cuba. Bradley criticizes Anderson for not using all the information that he sent him. There is also a declassified letter from Bradley Ayers to John R. Turnheim (23rd August, 1994) where he names the people who “have intimate operational knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the assassination”. He names: Ted Shackley Robert Wall Grayston Lynch Felix Rodriguez Thomas Clines Gordon Campbell David Morales Rip Robertson Edward Roderick Tony Sforza Robert Wall and Edward Roderick are new to me. Wall is described in the letter as being Deputy Chief of Operations at JM/WAVE and Roderick as a “U.S. Army Major, explosives expert/Corp of Engineers, attached to JMWAVE and later CIA employee upon retirement from Army.”

There is a theory that the reason that Blair has not sacked Clarke and Prescott is that it will give him an alibi for today’s inevitable disaster. That the people have voted against Clarke and Prescott rather than Blair. He will then attempt to sort out the problem by sacking the two men next week. Blair is still in denial. He has ignored requests to stay away from the local election campaign. In London officials have asked that all members of the government not to campaign in the capital. Pollsters suggest that Labour will lose six or seven London boroughs. They will also probably lose Barnsley, Hartlepool, Warrington and Wigan. Personally, I believe they will have their worst night for over 20 years. Membership has fallen dramatically over the last few years. There are very few foot soldiers left. A bad night will make this even worse in the future. After all, how can you expect people to give up their time to fight for New Labour?

I have just discovered that Tommy Corcoran helped establish the Citizens' Committee for a Free Cuba on 6th May, 1963. Others involved in this project was Clare Boothe Luce, Edward Teller, Leo Cherne, Christopher Emmet, General S. L. A. Marshall, JosephBeirne, Irving Brown, Jay Lovestone, Ernest Cuneoand Dr. Buell Gallagher.

David R. Wrone was professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, where he taught American and Indian history. He has done extensive research on Native American Treaty rights, and on the Menominee and Stockbridge nations. Wrone is also an expert on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Books by him on the subject include The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: A Comprehensive Historical and Legal Bibliography, 1963-1979 (1980), Who's the Savage: The Documentary History of the Mistreatment of the Native North Americans (1982) and The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination (2003). His 40 years of research on the assassination have concentrated on the evidence found in files of the FBI and, he has sued the government for Zapruder Film records, especially relating to its acquisition and purchase. Anyone like to comment on his book, The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination.

Richard has emailed me to say he is not very keen on the EasyJet times. Here are the ones from BA: Wednesday/Thursday Depart 07:15 arrive 10:00 BA7951 (price £40) Depart 13.45 arrive 16.30 BA7953 (price £50) Depart 20:10 arrive 22.50 BA7955 (price £40) Sunday Depart 06:55 arrive 07.45 BA7950 (price £50) Depart 10:35 arrive 11.20 BA7952 (price £50) Depart 17:05 arrive 17.50 BA7955 (price £120)

Report just published on the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4972344.stm Plaid Cymru have named Welsh Secretary Peter Hain as offering the late MP and assembly member Peter Law a peerage. Mr Law was offered a peerage not to stand against Labour in Blaenau Gwent at the last general election, Plaid's Commons leader Elfyn Llwyd claimed. He made the allegation in the Commons on the day of Mr Law's funeral and while Mr Hain was at a family funeral. Mr Hain categorically denied the allegation, accused Mr Llwyd of "cowardice" and demanded an apology. Mr Llwyd's allegation was made during Commons business questions. He said Mr Hain was acting on the authority of the prime minister. Neath MP Mr Hain had been attending a family funeral. Commons Leader Geoff Hoon criticised Mr Llwyd for making the claim when Mr Hain was not in the chamber to answer it. Mr Hain said afterwards: "I regard it as an act of cowardice that when Elfyn Llwyd had the opportunity to put this lie to me directly in the House of Commons yesterday he instead raised it when I was absent at a family funeral and unable to rebut this false accusation." In a statement, he added: "I am at a loss to understand why it is now being alleged that Peter Law would have made such an accusation about me, when he himself never made that allegation public, even when he was standing in the general election. "The suggestion that I offered a peerage to Peter Law is utterly without substance. And indeed the Labour Party have made it absolutely clear that no such offer was made." Mr Llwyd told MPs: "New Labour, in an effort to prevent him from standing for Parliament, offered him a peerage. "The man named as being responsible is the secretary of state for Wales who made the offer on the specific authority of the prime minister." Mr Llwyd demanded a debate on the "corrupt practice". The Tories called for an investigation into the claims. Shadow Welsh secretary Cheryl Gillan said: "I have written to the Prime Minster asking for a full and independent investigation into this allegation." Mr Hain later wrote to the Speaker of the Commons, demanding an apology from the MP, saying he found it hard to express "just how angry" he was with Mr Llwyd. He said he was "astonished" Mr Llwyd had claimed he gave him prior notice of his plan to raise the matter, saying he had not. "I find it appalling that Mr Llwyd has behaved in this manner and believe that he should make a full apology to you, to me and to the House," he wrote. Mr Law, 58, died last week after suffering from a brain tumour. He caused a political storm at the general election in May 2005, overturning a 19,000 Labour majority to be elected as an independent.

Namebase entry for Gary Cornwell: http://www.namebase.org/main2/Gary-Cornwell.html DiEugenio,J. Pease,L. The Assassinations. 2003 (52, 77) Fonzi,G. The Last Investigation. 1993 (7, 11, 209, 212, 220-5, 228, 246) Nation 1998-12-07 (28-30) Newman,J. Oswald and the CIA. 1995 (410-2) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcornwellG.htm

You really need to read more than John McAdams’ blog if you want to understand the relationship between JFK and Galbraith. JFK originally intended to appoint Galbraith as his Secretary of the Treasury. However, he was persuaded (blackmailed) by Lyndon Johnson and Phil Graham (the owner of the Washington Post) to appoint Douglas Dillon in the post (a Republican who had been the main fundraiser for Richard Nixon’s campaign against JFK. JFK soon discovered he made a terrible mistake and Galbraith helped him draft the 1963 Tax Bill (the one that attempted to remove tax loopholes such as the oil depletion allowance). Of course, this part of the bill was removed by LBJ after JFK’s assassination. The rules of the Forum also say you need to post your photograph as an avatar.

Mel Ayton has made accusations that I have deleted a posting he made about the RFK assassination. This is of course a lie and I suspect just a way of avoiding a debate with John Hunt. I have started this new thread where Mel and John can discuss this issue. Mel, post your comments on this thread and John and others will respond to your arguments.

I am sure your work has been praised by Max Holland and John McAdams. That is like Hitler saying that Mein Kampf was praised by Hermann Goering and Joseph Goebbels. It is true that most of my work has been published by two small publishers (Tressell and Spartacus). Despite the problems of competing with the multinational corporations, they still managed to sell over 100,000 copies of my books. The reason why I chose to go with small publishers is because they gave me the freedom to write what I wanted. As you probably know, mainstream publishers are usually unwilling to publish controversial books. This is especially true when you want to be critical of organizations like the CIA and the FBI. Just because companies are small does not mean they are not “respectable”. What do you know about Tressell and Spartacus to question their respectability? Or is this just a smear that you are unable to back up? Nor is it true that I have never been published by a large organization. When it suits me I have had work published in the Guardian, the TES, Teaching History, etc. Except for the odd favour, I no longer write for the print media. All my work goes on my website. It currently gets over 6 million page impressions a month. That of course does not make it “good” or “right” but it does suggest that a lot of people want to read my work. As I have explained I have not deleted Mel's posting? Why would I do that? The whole idea of this Forum is to have open debate. Why does Mel not post it again if he is so proud of his work? John Hunt, a leading expert on the RFK assassination has offered to discuss this issue with him. I am looking forward to seeing this discussion. The new thread is here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6718

This is a lie. I have never deleted any of Mel's postings. Why should I? They are so deeply flawed that they only add to the argument that JFK, MLK and RFK were killed as part of a conspiracy. John, I posted my response yesterday - it appeared on the forum site - within an hour it was gone - I was responding to your insulting remarks. Why did the post disappear? I have no idea. Did you check to make sure that it actually appeared on the Forum? Andy Walker and I are the only ones who have the power to delete other peoples’ postings. Unless you said anything racist, I can’t understand why Andy would have deleted your comments. I will ask him as you are obviously making a very serious charge against the administrators of the Forum.

This is a lie. I have never deleted any of Mel's postings. Why should I? They are so deeply flawed that they only add to the argument that JFK, MLK and RFK were killed as part of a conspiracy.

I agree with Pat about McClellan. As Pat says, Bush and LBJ had the same backers. However, I do think that it could be about Bush’s shady past. Bush was in fact one of the main figures in the Iran-Contra scandal. There is evidence that he put the whole thing together. He went back a long way with most of those involved in the conspiracy. Most can be traced back to the time when Bush was director of the CIA (Ted Shackley, Thomas G. Clines, Carl E. Jenkins, David Morales, Richard Armitage, Rafael Quintero, Felix Rodriguez, Richard Secord, Donald Gregg, Luis Posada, and Edwin Wilson). However, some like Rodriguez and Posada date back to Bush in 1963. Shackley was very close to Bush and played a very important role in his attempts to become president in 1980 (an advisor and speechwriter). Bush’s great achievement was that he kept those questioned from implicating him in the scandal. In the Iran-Contra: The Final Report, Lawrence E. Walsh points out that Bush was seen as a key suspect. However, he admits that the “criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete” (page 473). Walsh does not really explain why this was the case. He says that he became difficult to interview after he became president. Bush was interviewed by the FBI and Walsh points out that his testimony is full of contradictions. In an FBI interview in December 1986 and in a OIC deposition in January 1988, Bush acknowledged that he was regularly informed of events connected with the Iran arms sales, including the 1985 Israeli missile shipments. Yet he denied knowledge of the diversion of proceeds from the arms sales to assist the contras. Walsh points out that in 1991 it became clear that Bush had withheld documents that showed that he did know about the illegal shipment of arms and where the profits ended up. In December 1992 Walsh discovered that Bush had a personal diary that included details of the meetings about these illegal arms deals (the testimony of Bush aide, Paul Beach). Up until this time, Bush had denied this diary existed. Bush refused to surrender this diary. Walsh points out that “a Grand Jury subpoena was not issued because OIC did not believe there was an appropriate likelihood of a criminal prosecution”. Bush was saved because he was president. As Don Reynolds pointed out when he refused to testify against LBJ in 1964, it is one thing to bring down a vice president, but it is a different proposition when dealing with a president. Bush, like Reagan, was saved because of what happened to Richard Nixon. The standing of the American government would have been completely undermined by a second president being removed from power for corrupt behaviour. Bush refused to be interviewed by Walsh. However, in his report, he includes a list of the questions he wanted to ask him. These questions were based on information obtained from the documents obtained from “Weinberger, Regan, and others”. This showed that Bush had lied when he was interviewed by the FBI in the late 1980s (page 480). It definitely makes sense for a journalist to be interested in looking for documents linking Bush to the “Ronald Reagan's would-be assassin John W. Hinckley”. In many ways, this case mirrors the assassination of JFK. Bush had been Reagan’s main rival to become the Republican nominee for president in the same way as Johnson had been Kennedy’s main rival in 1960. Bush, like Johnson, became very keen to become vice president and used all their political power to get the job. As a result, Johnson and Bush both became suspects after a “lone-gunman” intervened in the political process. It was very embarrassing for Bush that there was a close link between his family and the Hinckleys. John Hinckley’s father was Jack Hinckley, chairman of the Vanderbilt Energy Corporation. Hinckley had been one of those who had helped fund Bush’s campaign. Jack also worked closely with U.S. Ministries for World Vision. His friend, Robert Ainsworth, was the director of this “charity”. Ainsworth and Hinckley had met doing “relief work” in Guatemala. World Vision got most of its money from the U.S. State Department Agency for International Development (AID). Some interesting people have worked for AID, including David Morales when he was in Vietnam as part of Operation Phoenix. AID was of course a CIA front organization that allowed its agents to work in Third World countries. World Vision was also a CIA front. As Pax Christi, the Catholic human rights organization pointed out, World Vision functioned as a “Trojan horse for U.S. foreign policy.” This information never came out until many years later and has virtually received no publicity at all. However, the day after the assassination attempt, the Houston Post reported that Bush’s son, Neil Bush, was a close friend of Hinckley’s brother, Scott Hinckley. In fact, Scott Hinckley was due to have dinner at the Bush house on the night following the assassination. The two men had a business relationship. Scott was vice president of Vanderbilt Energy Corporation and Neil worked for Standard Oil of Indiana. It was because George Bush was seen as representing the oil industry, that people like Hinckley was willing to finance his campaign. Mac Wallace, whose fingerprint has been found in the Texas School Book Depository, was closely associated with LBJ. Understandably, some people have argued that LBJ would have been a fool to use someone as an assassin who can be traced back to him. The same is true of George Bush. I suppose that is true. However, there is another reason why this might have happened this way.

I agree with Pat about McClellan. As Pat says, Bush and LBJ had the same backers. However, I do think that it could be about Bush’s shady past. Bush was in fact one of the main figures in the Iran-Contra scandal. There is evidence that he put the whole thing together. He went back a long way with most of those involved in the conspiracy. Most can be traced back to the time when Bush was director of the CIA (Ted Shackley, Thomas G. Clines, Carl E. Jenkins, David Morales, Richard Armitage, Rafael Quintero, Felix Rodriguez, Richard Secord, Donald Gregg, Luis Posada, and Edwin Wilson). However, some like Rodriguez and Posada date back to Bush in 1963. Shackley was very close to Bush and played a very important role in his attempts to become president in 1980 (an advisor and speechwriter). Bush’s great achievement was that he kept those questioned from implicating him in the scandal. In the Iran-Contra: The Final Report, Lawrence E. Walsh points out that Bush was seen as a key suspect. However, he admits that the “criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete” (page 473). Walsh does not really explain why this was the case. He says that he became difficult to interview after he became president. Bush was interviewed by the FBI and Walsh points out that his testimony is full of contradictions. In an FBI interview in December 1986 and in a OIC deposition in January 1988, Bush acknowledged that he was regularly informed of events connected with the Iran arms sales, including the 1985 Israeli missile shipments. Yet he denied knowledge of the diversion of proceeds from the arms sales to assist the contras. Walsh points out that in 1991 it became clear that Bush had withheld documents that showed that he did know about the illegal shipment of arms and where the profits ended up. In December 1992 Walsh discovered that Bush had a personal diary that included details of the meetings about these illegal arms deals (the testimony of Bush aide, Paul Beach). Up until this time, Bush had denied this diary existed. Bush refused to surrender this diary. Walsh points out that “a Grand Jury subpoena was not issued because OIC did not believe there was an appropriate likelihood of a criminal prosecution”. Bush was saved because he was president. As Don Reynolds pointed out when he refused to testify against LBJ in 1964, it is one thing to bring down a vice president, but it is a different proposition when dealing with a president. Bush, like Reagan, was saved because of what happened to Richard Nixon. The standing of the American government would have been completely undermined by a second president being removed from power for corrupt behaviour. Bush refused to be interviewed by Walsh. However, in his report, he includes a list of the questions he wanted to ask him. These questions were based on information obtained from the documents obtained from “Weinberger, Regan, and others”. This showed that Bush had lied when he was interviewed by the FBI in the late 1980s (page 480). It definitely makes sense for a journalist to be interested in looking for documents linking Bush to the “Ronald Reagan's would-be assassin John W. Hinckley”. In many ways, this case mirrors the assassination of JFK. Bush had been Reagan’s main rival to become the Republican nominee for president in the same way as Johnson had been Kennedy’s main rival in 1960. Bush, like Johnson, became very keen to become vice president and used all their political power to get the job. As a result, Johnson and Bush both became suspects after a “lone-gunman” intervened in the political process. It was very embarrassing for Bush that there was a close link between his family and the Hinckleys. John Hinckley’s father was Jack Hinckley, chairman of the Vanderbilt Energy Corporation. Hinckley had been one of those who had helped fund Bush’s campaign. Jack also worked closely with U.S. Ministries for World Vision. His friend, Robert Ainsworth, was the director of this “charity”. Ainsworth and Hinckley had met doing “relief work” in Guatemala. World Vision got most of its money from the U.S. State Department Agency for International Development (AID). Some interesting people have worked for AID, including David Morales when he was in Vietnam as part of Operation Phoenix. AID was of course a CIA front organization that allowed its agents to work in Third World countries. World Vision was also a CIA front. As Pax Christi, the Catholic human rights organization pointed out, World Vision functioned as a “Trojan horse for U.S. foreign policy.” This information never came out until many years later and has virtually received no publicity at all. However, the day after the assassination attempt, the Houston Post reported that Bush’s son, Neil Bush, was a close friend of Hinckley’s brother, Scott Hinckley. In fact, Scott Hinckley was due to have dinner at the Bush house on the night following the assassination. The two men had a business relationship. Scott was vice president of Vanderbilt Energy Corporation and Neil worked for Standard Oil of Indiana. It was because George Bush was seen as representing the oil industry, that people like Hinckley was willing to finance his campaign. Mac Wallace, whose fingerprint has been found in the Texas School Book Depository, was closely associated with LBJ. Understandably, some people have argued that LBJ would have been a fool to use someone as an assassin who can be traced back to him. The same is true of George Bush. I suppose that is true. However, there is another reason why this might have happened this way.

I agree with Pat about McClellan. As Pat says, Bush and LBJ had the same backers. However, I do think that it could be about Bush’s shady past. Bush was in fact one of the main figures in the Iran-Contra scandal. There is evidence that he put the whole thing together. He went back a long way with most of those involved in the conspiracy. Most can be traced back to the time when Bush was director of the CIA (Ted Shackley, Thomas G. Clines, Carl E. Jenkins, David Morales, Richard Armitage, Rafael Quintero, Felix Rodriguez, Richard Secord, Donald Gregg, Luis Posada, and Edwin Wilson). However, some like Rodriguez and Posada date back to Bush in 1963. Shackley was very close to Bush and played a very important role in his attempts to become president in 1980 (an advisor and speechwriter). Bush’s great achievement was that he kept those questioned from implicating him in the scandal. In the Iran-Contra: The Final Report, Lawrence E. Walsh points out that Bush was seen as a key suspect. However, he admits that the “criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete” (page 473). Walsh does not really explain why this was the case. He says that he became difficult to interview after he became president. Bush was interviewed by the FBI and Walsh points out that his testimony is full of contradictions. In an FBI interview in December 1986 and in a OIC deposition in January 1988, Bush acknowledged that he was regularly informed of events connected with the Iran arms sales, including the 1985 Israeli missile shipments. Yet he denied knowledge of the diversion of proceeds from the arms sales to assist the contras. Walsh points out that in 1991 it became clear that Bush had withheld documents that showed that he did know about the illegal shipment of arms and where the profits ended up. In December 1992 Walsh discovered that Bush had a personal diary that included details of the meetings about these illegal arms deals (the testimony of Bush aide, Paul Beach). Up until this time, Bush had denied this diary existed. Bush refused to surrender this diary. Walsh points out that “a Grand Jury subpoena was not issued because OIC did not believe there was an appropriate likelihood of a criminal prosecution”. Bush was saved because he was president. As Don Reynolds pointed out when he refused to testify against LBJ in 1964, it is one thing to bring down a vice president, but it is a different proposition when dealing with a president. Bush, like Reagan, was saved because of what happened to Richard Nixon. The standing of the American government would have been completely undermined by a second president being removed from power for corrupt behaviour. Bush refused to be interviewed by Walsh. However, in his report, he includes a list of the questions he wanted to ask him. These questions were based on information obtained from the documents obtained from “Weinberger, Regan, and others”. This showed that Bush had lied when he was interviewed by the FBI in the late 1980s (page 480). It definitely makes sense for a journalist to be interested in looking for documents linking Bush to the “Ronald Reagan's would-be assassin John W. Hinckley”. In many ways, this case mirrors the assassination of JFK. Bush had been Reagan’s main rival to become the Republican nominee for president in the same way as Johnson had been Kennedy’s main rival in 1960. Bush, like Johnson, became very keen to become vice president and used all their political power to get the job. As a result, Johnson and Bush both became suspects after “lone-gunman” intervened in the political process. It was very embarrassing for Bush that there was a close link between his family and the Hinckleys. John Hinckley’s father was Jack Hinckley, chairman of the Vanderbilt Energy Corporation. Hinckley had been one of those who had helped fund Bush’s campaign. Jack also worked closely with U.S. Ministries for World Vision. His friend, Robert Ainsworth, was the director of this “charity”. Ainsworth and Hinckley had met doing “relief work” in Guatemala. World Vision got most of its money from the U.S. State Department Agency for International Development (AID). Some interesting people have worked for AID, including David Morales when he was in Vietnam as part of Operation Phoenix. AID was of course a CIA front organization that allowed its agents to work in Third World countries. World Vision was also a CIA front. As Pax Christi, the Catholic human rights organization pointed out, World Vision functioned as a “Trojan horse for U.S. foreign policy.” This information never came out until many years later and has virtually received no publicity at all. However, the day after the assassination attempt, the Houston Post reported that Bush’s son, Neil Bush, was a close friend of Hinckley’s brother, Scott Hinckley. In fact, Scott Hinckley was due to have dinner at the Bush house on the night following the assassination. The two men had a business relationship. Scott was vice president of Vanderbilt Energy Corporation and Neil worked for Standard Oil of Indiana. It was because George Bush was seen as representing the oil industry, that people like Hinckley was willing to finance his campaign. Mac Wallace, whose fingerprint has been found in the Texas School Book Depository, was closely associated with LBJ. Understandably, some people have argued that LBJ would have been a fool to use someone as an assassin who can be traced back to him. The same is true of George Bush. I suppose that is true. However, there is another reason why this might have happened this way.

I have corrected it on this thread and on the website.

I suppose it was inevitable that Sven-Goran Eriksson would want to take Wayne Rooney to the World Cup. This is clearly a very daft idea. It will be at least six weeks before he can begin training. It will take another three or four weeks before he is match fit. What is the point of playing a half-fit player (look what happened when we played David Beckham in the last World Cup)? It is the height of amateurism to suggest an unfit player can have a positive impact on the World Cup. No one is that good. Eriksson should take this opportunity to change the set-up of the team. No team has ever won any important title without having a holding midfielder. By playing one up front, you could play someone like Michael Carrick in this role. This would allow the two best attacking midfielders in world football, Lampard and Gerrard, to play a much more offensive role. Joe Cole should also be given the freedom to come inside more to support the lone striker for flick-ons etc. The major problem concerns the lone striker. I doubt very much if Michael Owen will be match fit. I also doubt Crouch’s ability to play this role. My choice would be Kevin Davies of Bolton. He is a great header of the ball and would be an ideal target for the crosses of Beckham, Cole and Neville. The way Davies plays would also upset foreign defences. It will not happen of course. Eriksson is incapable of thinking "outside the box".