Jump to content
The Education Forum
John Simkin

George H. W. Bush on 22nd November 1963

Recommended Posts

Message from a researcher:

"I was wondering if you might be able to identify any material from Education Forum in which someone specifically asserts that George HW Bush cannot recall where he was on Nov. 22 1963 - and, more importantly, cites any specific occasions on which Bush was asked about this? I’m trying to track down possible multiple occasions where this occurred."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting Mr. Simkin, thanks to Mr. J. Edgar Hoover we do know where he was on Nov. 23rd 1963 lol. I was also wondering, and it is slightly related to this topic, if anyone has ever obtained information on a "Captain William Edwards of the DIA"? He was mentioned in the famous 'Hoover memo' regarding GHWB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Message from a researcher:

"I was wondering if you might be able to identify any material from Education Forum in which someone specifically asserts that George HW Bush cannot recall where he was on Nov. 22 1963 - and, more importantly, cites any specific occasions on which Bush was asked about this? I’m trying to track down possible multiple occasions where this occurred."

From memory...

GHWB was in Dallas on the morning of 11-22-63, allegedly registered

at the Sheraton Hotel.

Allegedly he and Barbara went to a private airport in Dallas and allegedly

flew to Tyler, Texas for an alleged luncheon speech at the Tyler Rotary

Club. Researchers have found no evidence of the alleged speech. At the

conclusion of the luncheon he allegedly learned of the assassination.

Allegedly from Tyler, Texas it is known that he telephoned the FBI and

reported that one James Parrott, a Houston student, may have been

involved in the assassination. From Tyler he allegedly returned to

Dallas that afternoon. In a photo of the TSBD around 2 p.m. a man

bearing a great resemblance to GHWB is seen standing by the front

entrance. Some researchers suspect that the phone call "from Tyler"

at the time of the assassination was to establish an alibi.

He allegedly denies visiting Dealey Plaza that afternoon.

Jack

Edited by Jack White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Message from a researcher:

"I was wondering if you might be able to identify any material from Education Forum in which someone specifically asserts that George HW Bush cannot recall where he was on Nov. 22 1963 - and, more importantly, cites any specific occasions on which Bush was asked about this? I’m trying to track down possible multiple occasions where this occurred."

This subject is thoroughly discussed in Russ Baker's magnificent book, Family of Secrets.

I alluded to it in my posting on the forum last December:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15089

Russ Baker, author of the best-seller book, "Family of Secrets", will be the guest on the radio show coasttocoastam Saturday night, December 5. He spoke at the recent COPA conference in Dallas and in his informative remarks stressed that those assembled had not focused enough research upon the connection of George H.W. Bush to the Kennedy assassination. Bush was in Dallas on the day of the assassination but created a false trail of his whereabouts on that day by later making a long distance phone call from Tyler, Texas.

After hearing Mr. Baker speak at COPA, I subsequently sent him an email about something that should have been included in his book. In 1986, I was informed by a contract agent under contract with the IRS Criminal Intelligence Division that the IRS had uncovered an illegal $10 million fund set up by George H.W. Bush as part of the presidential campaign to re-elect Reagan-Bush in 1984. The fund was administered by Bob Eckels, the County Judge of Harris County (Houston, Texas), who was close to Bush. After he retired, Eckels told the Houston Chronicle and Houston Post newspapers that he was writing a book about deep, dark secrets that he knew, which I interpreted as being a threat to tell about the secret $10 million illegal fund, among other things. I filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission in the late 1980's, requesting the Commission to look into the illegal campaign fund. The Commission took my request seriously and launched an investigation. However, before it could complete its work Bob Eckels suddenly died. His unexpected death raised a question in my mind. So while the Commission was unable to complete its investigation, it did issue a formal opinion for the record that it had found "reason to believe" that the $10 million fund had existed. The FBI later interviewed me about the fund but the agents seemed only interested in finding out how I had had learned about the fund rather than investigating its illegality. As a postscript, the IRS District Director for Houston resigned the day after Clinton was elected President in 1992.

Edited by Douglas Caddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Message from a researcher:

"I was wondering if you might be able to identify any material from Education Forum in which someone specifically asserts that George HW Bush cannot recall where he was on Nov. 22 1963 - and, more importantly, cites any specific occasions on which Bush was asked about this? I’m trying to track down possible multiple occasions where this occurred."

This subject is thoroughly discussed in Russ Baker's magnificent book, Family of Secrets.

I alluded to it in my posting on the forum last December:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15089

Russ Baker, author of the best-seller book, "Family of Secrets", will be the guest on the radio show coasttocoastam Saturday night, December 5. He spoke at the recent COPA conference in Dallas and in his informative remarks stressed that those assembled had not focused enough research upon the connection of George H.W. Bush to the Kennedy assassination. Bush was in Dallas on the day of the assassination but created a false trail of his whereabouts on that day by later making a long distance phone call from Tyler, Texas.

After hearing Mr. Baker speak at COPA, I subsequently sent him an email about something that should have been included in his book. In 1986, I was informed by a contract agent under contract with the IRS Criminal Intelligence Division that the IRS had uncovered an illegal $10 million fund set up by George H.W. Bush as part of the presidential campaign to re-elect Reagan-Bush in 1984. The fund was administered by Bob Eckels, the County Judge of Harris County (Houston, Texas), who was close to Bush. After he retired, Eckels told the Houston Chronicle and Houston Post newspapers that he was writing a book about deep, dark secrets that he knew, which I interpreted as being a threat to tell about the secret $10 million illegal fund, among other things. I filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission in the late 1980's, requesting the Commission to look into the illegal campaign fund. The Commission took my request seriously and launched an investigation. However, before it could complete its work Bob Eckels suddenly died. His unexpected death raised a question in my mind. So while the Commission was unable to complete its investigation, it did issue a formal opinion for the record that it had found "reason to believe" that the $10 million fund had existed. The FBI later interviewed me about the fund but the agents seemed only interested in finding out how I had had learned about the fund rather than investigating its illegality. As a postscript, the IRS District Director for Houston resigned the day after Clinton

Questions. Your last sentence -- "IRS district director for Houston resigned the day after Clinton ---"

what? The day after Clinton did what?

I have not as yet read any books about the Bushes, whom I despise. Why aren't the authors of these books afraid for their lives? Kitty Kelley wrote a book about the Bush family. I saw her interviewed once or twice and that was the end of her publicity. Strange. When will the revengeful murder happen?

There was a museum display in St. Petersburg, FL all about Kennedy. The creator of it spoke at a nearby library and I went to see his collection. I was surprised he was so young. His display was going to be a permanent collection of the museum.

Anyway, they closed the show. About 2 days later he was dead of a heart attack. They said he ws 54 years old. Somewhere I have some info on him. His name was Robert L. ? I always thought that death was suspicious.

Kathy C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody wanting to compare major-publisher accounts of the Bush family could do far worse than conferring Baker with Kitty Kelley's The Family. Kelley nails Brown Brothers Harriman, Prescott Bush's Nazi connections, Zapata Oil and the BOP, etc.

Kelley was dogged and fearless enough to pursue Frank Sinatra's past, while Sinatra was alive, for an impressive bio called His Way. To say Sinatra hated Kelley is an understatement; yet, said the scuttlebutt in the 1980s, his legal advisors told him not to bring suit, as the passages most offensive to him would be judged substantially factual. It's about as good a book, really, as Anthony Summers' volume on J. Edgar Hoover.

The Sinatra credential speaks well of the author, and you have to give Kelley propers for being willing to go up against W., H. W., Barbara, and the Barbara. It's the kind of investigative work that Dorothy Kilgallen, sadly, only hoped to pull off. One wonders if, had Kilgallen lived to write on Ruby and other matters, the tar of having once been a "women's columnist" would have been flung at her as it has been at Kelley. That stigma seems to have put her Bush book unjustly behind Baker's.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a couple of old articles for the mix.......

Joseph McBride articles from The Nation, July 16/23 1988

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

Vice President George Bush's resume is the 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 C.I.A. in 1963, more than a decade before he became it's director.

The F.B.I. memorandum, dated Nov 29th 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.

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 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 C.I.A. prior to the time you became it's 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 of 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 would skip number two. To the third, he repeated Bush's answer quoted above, but added that Bush had also said, "I don't have any idea of what he's talking about." However, when Bush's denial was read back to him, Hart said he preferred that it not be quoted directly, explaining, "It's a week old now, and i'm going off my notes." When I reminded him that we wanted to quote Bush directly, Hart said, "I am a spokesman. However you want to write it, the answer is no" regarding Bush's alleged 1963 involvement with the C.I.A.

"This is the first time i've ever heard this," C.I.A. spokesman Bill Devine said when confronted with the allegation of the Vice President's involvement with the agency in the early 60's. "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 nonplussed: "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."

Richard Helms, who was a deputy director of plans at the agency in 1963, said the appearance of Bush's name in the memo "must have been some kind of misprint. I don't recall anyone by that name working for the agency.....He certainly never worked for me."

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 FOIA suits. It was written to summarise the briefings given to Bush and Capt. William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency by the F.B.I.'s W.T. Forsyth on Nov 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 State Department feared that "some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalise on the present situation and undertake an unauthorised raid against Cuba, believing that the asssassination of President Kennedy might herald a change in U.S. policy, which is not true." Hoover continues:

Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters 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 Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorised 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 id dead. Forsyth worked out of Washington F.B.I. HQ 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 1960's, 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 travelled 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 Carribean, the Middle East, Japan, Australia, and Western Europe." And according to Nicholas King's George Bush: A Biography,Zapata was concentrating it's business in the Carribean and off South America in the early 1960's, 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 1950's and through the 1960's) said of the Vice President: "I know he was involved in the Carribean. 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 (former WC member) 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.

Bush's autobiography skips capriciously over the period of the early 1960's, easing back into coherence only when he makes his official entry into public life as chair of the Harris County, Texas, Republican Party in 1963-64, runs unsuccessfully for the Senate race to Lloyd Bentsen, who had defeated Yarborough in the primary. Asked recently about Bush's early C.I.A. connections, 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 the hell was he appointed head of the C.I.A. without any experience or knowledge." Hoover's memo "explains something to me that i've always wondered about. It does make sense to have a trained C.I.A. man, with experience, appointed to the job."

Bush's appointment as the agency's director in 1975 was widely criticised because, as Bush writes, "Bill Colby, a professional in the intelligence field, was being replaced by a nonprofessional ousider-and a politician to boot." Senator Church commented: "It appears as though the White House may be using this important post merely as a grooming room before he is brought on stage next year as a vice-presidential running mate." Speaking against this appointment, Church said he knew of "no particular reason why (Bush) is qualified for the job. Bush himself characterised the appointment as a "real shocker." In his autobiography Bush points out, "I'd come to the C.I.A. with some general knowledge of how it operated." His remark in the book that his "overseas contacts as a businessman" helped qualify him for the controversial appointment by President Nixon to the post of ambassador to the United Nations could also refer to previous C.I.A. experience. Agents often adopt the cover of a businessman. And business people have also served as informants for the agency, passing along information picked up on their travels.

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.

"Do the American people really want to elect a former director of the C.I.A. as their President?" Tom Wicker asked in the New York Times on April 29th. "That's hardly been discusse so far; but it seems obvious that a C.I.A. chief might well be privy to the kind of 'black' secrets that could later make him- as a public figure- subject to blackmail. Given the agency's worldwide reputation for for covert intervention and political meddling, moreover, one of it's former directors in the White House certainly would be the object of suspicion and mistrust in numerous parts of the globe. And well he might be."

It was characteristic of George Bush, when sworn in as Director of Central Intelligence in 1976, to declare: " I am determined to protect those things that must be kept secret, and I am more determined to protect those unselfish and patriotic people who, with total dedication, serve their country, often putting their lives on the line, only to have some people bent on destroying this agency expose their names."

Bush has absorbed the code of the C.I.A. well, and he may feel that he is duty-bound to draw a veil of secrecy over his activities of the early 1960's. But now, as candidate for the presidency, he has a highe duty of honesty to the American people. If the man who would be President has a longstanding history of involvement in covert activities, then the people are entitled to know about it. Thus far Bush has refused to directly deny such involvement. Either he is intentionally misleading us, or he is a victim of mistaken identity. If it's the latter, he or President Reagan should instruct the gnomes of Langley to turn over the personnel records of the other George Bush. The claims of national security pale beside the overriding interst in the truth.

Where Was George (Cont.)

Joseph McBride (The Nation, Aug 13/20, 1988)

Where was George? The saga of Vice President George Bush's alleged involvement with the Central Intelligence Agency in 1963 grows curiouser and curiouser. In an article in 'The Nation (previous article-Ed), I reported the discovery of a memorandum from J. Edgar Hoover, then director of the F.B.I. saying that "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" had been briefed by the Bureau on Nov 23rd 1963, about the reaction of anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Miami to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

After the article appeared, the C.I.A. put out a story that the George Bush mentioned in the memorandum was not Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush; he wa George William Bush, who had worked for the agency in 1963-64. Although the agency claimed that his present whereabouts were unknown, I located George William Bush. He told me he was a coast and landing-beach analyst with the agency in those years, with the rank of GS-%, but that he definitely did NOT recieve the F.B.I. briefing of 1963. As reported in the previous article, VP Bush, through spokesman Stephen Hart, denied that he was the man referred to in the memo: "I was in Houston, Texas, at the time and involved in the independent oil drilling business. And I was running for Senate in late '63. I don't have any idea what he's talking about." Hart added, "Must be another George Bush." When I first asked the C.I.A. about Hart's theory, it invoked it's policy of neither confirming nor denying anyone's involvement with the agency.

But after the 'Nation' story received wide coverage in the media, the C.I.A. evidently changed it's mind. On July 19th, agency spokeswoman Sharon Basso told the AP that the Hoover memo "apparently" referred to George William Bush, who had worked in 1963 on the night watch at C.I.A. HQ, which, " would have been the appropriate place to have received such an F.B.I. report." She said this George Bush left the C.I.A. in 1964 to work fo the Defence Intelligence Agency.

Why did the agency break with it's longstanding policy of "neither confirm nor deny"? Basso said it believed " the record should be clarified." Another C.I.A. official told the AP, "We put a lot of effort into this." In fact, the latest C.I.A. release seems less a clarification than a strategic obfuscation. Hart of the Vice President's office put out the same data to Sarah Perl of 'The Nation'. Both Perl and I called the Defence Intelligence Agency, and a spokesman confirmed that George William Bush had worked there between February 1964 and July 1965, performing the same duties that he had had with the C.I.A., those of a civilian-grade governement intelligence research specialist, leaving with the rank of GS-7. His last known address was 401 Cambridge Road, Alexandria, Virginia. A check of old Alexandria city directories showed a George W. Bush, "emp US govt." did live at the Cambridge Road address in 1964 and subsequent years, and that he shared the house with Chester K. Bush of the U.S. Army. Cureent city records show that the deed to the house is in the names of Colonel Bush and his wife, Alice, and that a George William Bush at that address paid his automobile decal fee to the city this February.

I called Colonel Bush, who said he was George William Bush's father. He confirmed that his son had worked for the C.I.A. and still lived at the house, but said he could not come to the phone because he ws ill; he asked me to call back the following evening. When I did, I spoke to George William Bush, who is 49 and works as a claims representative for the Social Security Administration. He said he had worked for the C.I.A. for about six months in 1963-64. When I read him the Hoover memo about the F.B.I. briefing, his response was, " Is that the other George Bush?"

While in the C.I.A., he had never received interagency briefings because he was "just a lowly researcher and analyst" and worked only with documents and photographs. He said he "knew neither one" of two people the memorandum mentions as also being briefed, William T. Forsyth of the F.B.I., and Capt. William Edwards of the D.I.A. " So it wasn't me," he said.

Bush said he left the C.I.A. because he was offered a job by the D.I.A. at ahigher grade and salary. He said he stayed at the D.I.A. until he joined the SSA in January 1968. He professes he was " a little bit amazed, but not entirely surprised" that the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. had divulged his employment with them. " I didn't know they were at liberty to release all this," he said. " It was certainly without advance notice." Bush said he had not known of the story in 'The Nation' about Vice President Bush's alleged 1963 ties with the C.I.A.

There was a minor discrepancy in this George Bush's account of his background: Although he told me that he went directly from the D.I.A. to the SSA in 1968, the 1967 Alexandria directory list his occupation as city social worker. When I inquired about this job, Bush said he had held if for " About a year" before going to work for the SSA. City personnel records show that he joined the Alexandria Dept. of Public Welfare as a social worker trainee on Aug 2nd, 1965, rose to the rank of social worker on Aug 10, 1966, and left on Jan 12th, 1968.

The SSA confirmed that Bsh is currently employed in its Arlington, Virginia, office, and other points in Bush's story also checked out. He told me that before he joined the C.I.A. he had beeen living in Honolulu, where his father was stationed in the Army; that he attended the University of Hawaii; and that he had worked for the Honolulu Dept. of Social Services and Housing. The Honolulu city directory for 192-63 lists Chester K. Bush, "emp USARPAC," as residing at 1172 Loloa St., and city of Honolulu personnel records confirm that George William Bush lived at that address while working as a trainee social worker for several months in 1963. The registrar's office of the University of Hawaii confirmed that he attended classes there from the fall of 1959 through the summer of 1961, graduating with a B.A. in history on Sep 1st, 1961. The age he gave me checked out as well: According to school records, he was born May 18th 1939, in White Plains, New York.

In the Alice in Wonderland world of intelligence there is always the possibilty that people are not who they say they are. And there is that discrepancy about his job as a social worker, for ahich there could be a perfectly innocent wxplanation. At my request, Victor Navasky, editor of 'The Nation', called Bush again and had him repeat his story about his work with the C.I.A. in 1963-64 and his statement that he was not the man of the F.B.I. memorandum.

Why did the C.I.A. indicate that George William was the Bush in question without attempting to locate him first? Why did the media report the agency's version without checking further? And where was Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush on November 23, 1963? If he was working for the C.I.A. then, why hasn't he told us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John Gillespie

From Kathleen Collins:

"Questions. Your last sentence -- "IRS district director for Houston resigned the day after Clinton ---"

what? The day after Clinton did what?"

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

My sentiments, exactly. But, after all, what an opportunity to fill in that blank! Let's do it.

Allegedly Yours,

JG

Edited by John Gillespie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John Gillespie
Anybody wanting to compare major-publisher accounts of the Bush family could do far worse than conferring Baker with Kitty Kelley's The Family. Kelley nails Brown Brothers Harriman, Prescott Bush's Nazi connections, Zapata Oil and the BOP, etc.

Kelley was dogged and fearless enough to pursue Frank Sinatra's past, while Sinatra was alive, for an impressive bio called His Way. To say Sinatra hated Kelley is an understatement; yet, said the scuttlebutt in the 1980s, his legal advisors told him not to bring suit, as the passages most offensive to him would be judged substantially factual. It's about as good a book, really, as Anthony Summers' volume on J. Edgar Hoover.

The Sinatra credential speaks well of the author, and you have to give Kelley propers for being willing to go up against W., H. W., Barbara, and the Barbara. It's the kind of investigative work that Dorothy Kilgallen, sadly, only hoped to pull off. One wonders if, had Kilgallen lived to write on Ruby and other matters, the tar of having once been a "women's columnist" would have been flung at her as it has been at Kelley. That stigma seems to have put her Bush book unjustly behind Baker's.

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

Nice work, Dave. I read the Kelley book on Sinatra around 1987 and wasn't expecting much, perhaps something on the order of Earl Wilson's gossip columnish tome much earlier. But it is was very well researched and written, as you described. And it is factual, according to an old Sinatraphile hereabouts. I never got around to "The Family" but intend to get there, hopefully soon.

Regards,

JG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From Kathleen Collins:

"Questions. Your last sentence -- "IRS district director for Houston resigned the day after Clinton ---"

what? The day after Clinton did what?"

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

My sentiments, exactly. But, after all, what an opportunity to fill in that blank! Let's do it.

Allegedly Yours,

JG

"was elected President in 1992."

I have edited my prior posting to reflect this omission.

The Houston IRS District Director, who had attempted to cover up the illegal Bush fund, knew his days were limited once the Democrats captured the White House in 1992. So, with the blessing of the higher-ups in the IRS, he resigned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody wanting to compare major-publisher accounts of the Bush family could do far worse than conferring Baker with Kitty Kelley's The Family. Kelley nails Brown Brothers Harriman, Prescott Bush's Nazi connections, Zapata Oil and the BOP, etc.

-----

David, I have not read the Kelley book, but Baker is not short on Harrimans, Prescott and Brown Brothers, Zapata Oil or BOP. In fact there is an incredible amount of research there condensed deftly. The book might mislead in the beginning. It is going for a narrative styled that IMO definitely works, but might make some well read folk -- in the first couple of chapters-- think that it sacrifices structural substance for smooth narrative flow. This is very soon dispelled, however. Chapter 5 is one of the most must read chapters I have read in any book. It goes way back into the Bush De Mohrenshchildt family connections and at the same time makes it more than just personal, by showing the clear corporate and structural economic implications of these family ties. In short, Baker's book is in no way skimpy on those Harriman, Prescott, Brown stuff IMO. Not sure if you were implying it was or perhaps I misread you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anybody wanting to compare major-publisher accounts of the Bush family could do far worse than conferring Baker with Kitty Kelley's The Family. Kelley nails Brown Brothers Harriman, Prescott Bush's Nazi connections, Zapata Oil and the BOP, etc.

Kelley was dogged and fearless enough to pursue Frank Sinatra's past, while Sinatra was alive, for an impressive bio called His Way. To say Sinatra hated Kelley is an understatement; yet, said the scuttlebutt in the 1980s, his legal advisors told him not to bring suit, as the passages most offensive to him would be judged substantially factual. It's about as good a book, really, as Anthony Summers' volume on J. Edgar Hoover.

The Sinatra credential speaks well of the author, and you have to give Kelley propers for being willing to go up against W., H. W., Barbara, and the Barbara. It's the kind of investigative work that Dorothy Kilgallen, sadly, only hoped to pull off. One wonders if, had Kilgallen lived to write on Ruby and other matters, the tar of having once been a "women's columnist" would have been flung at her as it has been at Kelley. That stigma seems to have put her Bush book unjustly behind Baker's.

Gore Vidal thinks highly of Kitty Kelley. He considers her a historian. I still think the publicity for that book was stopped. Maybe media outlets wouldn't book her. Or else she received threats. I wonder if it hit the Best Seller lists like it should have. My library had a copy.

Kathy C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall, it's the Kelley book that gives the details of Bush giving a speech, and Barbara having her hair done, in Tyler, Texas, at the time of the assassination. They flew to Dallas later that day.

Or the hair business may be in Barbara's book. Not sure Kelley mentioned that.

Edited by Ron Ecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David, I have not read the Kelley book, but Baker is not short on Harrimans, Prescott and Brown Brothers, Zapata Oil or BOP. In fact there is an incredible amount of research there condensed deftly. The book might mislead in the beginning. It is going for a narrative styled that IMO definitely works, but might make some well read folk -- in the first couple of chapters-- think that it sacrifices structural substance for smooth narrative flow. This is very soon dispelled, however. Chapter 5 is one of the most must read chapters I have read in any book. It goes way back into the Bush De Mohrenshchildt family connections and at the same time makes it more than just personal, by showing the clear corporate and structural economic implications of these family ties. In short, Baker's book is in no way skimpy on those Harriman, Prescott, Brown stuff IMO. Not sure if you were implying it was or perhaps I misread you.

Oh, I know - I've read the Baker book and have no knock against it. I'm impressed that Kelley got to many of the same points first, though, and within the mainstream of big-house publishing (and without a NY Times background). They're comparable books, and Kelley hasn't dissipated the head of steam she created for herself with that very detailed Sinatra book through any disreputable projects between Sinatra and the Bushes.

I'm just saying that Kelley is entirely worthy of the company discussed on this forum. (I compared the Sinatra book to Anthony Summers' work.) She has made a swell transition into investigative writing. I wish she would beat everybody else to...Barry Obama.

This makes me want to look at her earlier Jackie O. book. Frankly, I would trust her on the Kennedys' personal lives faster than I would trust, say...Sy Hersh?

Edited by David Andrews

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

×
×
  • Create New...