Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was George Herbert Walker Bush Involved in Kennedy Assassination?


Recommended Posts

Well Seamus Coogan pretty much neutralized John Hankey and his ridiculous video. You can read it over at ctka.net.

My review of Baker's book is coming out in a day or two. I took 26 pages of notes.

In the entire book, there is one section that has real value: HIs discussion of George Jr. and the Air Guard. Which is good.

The rest of it is so specious, so illogical, so weakly founded that I am trying to wonder if anyone else who says they read the book actually did read it. Because Baker is a slick salesman. But if a book is really good, you don't have to sell it. The quality speaks for itself.

This guy spends about 90 pages trying to implicate Bush Sr in the JFK hit. He does to the Parrott memo what Hankey did to the Hoover memo. He wrestles it to the ground and milks it for all its worth. Even when its not there. He even tries to imply that the guy who was lending Bush his plane, well, there was really more to it than that.

But as poor as that part is, his two long chapters trying to implicate Bush in Watergate, are probably even worse. On this one he spends 75 pages and comes up with zero.

And he doesn't stop there: he tries to implicate the guy in BCCI, the Marcos gold heist, and even Operation Phoenix. At the end he achieved the impossible, I actually began to feel for George Bush Sr. I don't know how he missed the Holocaust.

To me the book is generally Alex Jones stuff. I will post my review when its up. Or maybe someone else can. Here it is.

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/family_secrets.html

Wow lol, CTKA sure as hell does not seem to like Hankey or Baker eh? Or perhaps anyone who seems to believe Bush is much more than we believe he is/was. If you honestly believe that Bush is not one of the "godfathers" of the private intelligence network scene, then you are sorely mistaken. It also seems to me that Coogan as well as your critiques seem to have quite a few problems, or at least in assumption. If I were to take a simple look at the matter Jim, please tell me for the love of God why the CIA would name their own bldg. after a man who, simply served 1 precious little year with them in 76...? Why? Wouldn't common sense tell us, ESPECIALLY those of us who have some decent knowledge of "the things in the dark" in american politics, that perhaps Bush has had such gifts given to him because of "outstanding service" if anything at all? There is nothing truly "outstanding" with him being the Director in 76, so what else could it be?

Bush is MUCH more than what you believe he is and frankly, I'd like to ask you, what do YOU think of GHWB as far as his CIA history, as well as his possible JFK assassination involvement? If ANYTHING, the Hoover Memo does connect SOME dots. If it was not the GB it names in the memo, then which GB was it? Is it crazy..or crackpot-ish to believe that it could very and quite possibly refer to a man who has literally....literally been surrounded by the CIA (in a sense) since he was quite young...? I don't care what anyone knows, the Parrot phone call was, at best VERY weird...it is simply strange. I suppose you would believe Benazir Bhutto was a crackpot for assuming that GHWB and Bin Laden were working together to overthrow her country too eh...? Hankey and Baker, at best, are simply trying, to the best of their ability it would seem, to tell the public that there is much more to GHWB than meets the eye.

The Hoover Memo, as mentioned by Hankey, should be studied much more in detail. Hankey has mentioned this and has basically built his case on that fact. If Hoover was not eastern establishment, and therefore not truly "in the fold" as the power players themselves are, could it be possible that the memo was a way of naming a couple of names? It is an interesting theory and doesn't seem to be "out of this world" as you and Coogan would have people believe. In any event, let us be certain: GHWB is NOT an innocent player in the history of american politics and I personally believe and definitely lean more towards the possible fact that he was deeply involved with the JFK hit, 9/11, the cause of the vietnam war, and watergate among other things (Irangate? Most of the same players from the JFK hit, so GHWB is all over that as well). If it can be believed that he was connected to the cubans/CIA in the JFK hit, then watergate is a non-issue. He and his family always has been, and probably always will be, serviants to the banking establishment and if you want to argue that point, I am more than willing. The same players (watergate and JFK) (virtually) were involved in both events to a great degree.

Edited by B. A. Copeland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Jim,

You think, (as BP's chairman described most of us...) we, "small people" process and react to "information" in a manner

predictably diminishing our own credibility, please consider the charade we are subjected to by both the political class and the media class that is supposed to investigate them and report their conflicts of interests and agendas.

The commercial press is supposed to help us to be better informed, than we would be if they were not there to challenge power and help us hold it accountable.

I was looking at Dan Quayle and I saw that his lawyer was this guy, CBS's Rita Braver's husband, and that most of Quayle's contacts not made through George Bush were made through this lawyer, Robert Barnett.

http://www.muckety.com/J-Danforth-Quayle/4713.muckety

Do you think CBS's news executives put Barnett's wife, Rita Braver as the networks lead on Iran Contra coverage to

better inform us, or to better protect the Reagan/Bush administration's reputation?

I think we do the best we can, going up against our crippled, one property party political system. The party and the news media are owned by the same big people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_Braver

Rita Braver is a correspondent for CBS News.

Rita Lynn Braver, born April 1948, is married to Washington DC lawyer: Robert Bruce Barnett, born August 1946.

From 1983 to 1993, Braver served as CBS News' chief law correspondent. She broke the story of the John Walker spy ring, as well as that of another spy, Jonathan Pollard. She also led CBS' coverage of the Iran-Contra affair.

She served as CBS' chief White House correspondent during Bill Clinton's first term, and since 1998 has been chief national correspondent for Sunday Morning.

http://www.muckety.com/Robert-B-Barnett/21888.muckety

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703668.html

By Patricia Sullivan

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, May 8, 2008

..."Ray had the ability to take facts, based on meticulous preparation, and weave them into a persuasive oral and witness-based presentation, and that's the very definition of a lawyer," said Robert Barnett, a colleague at Williams & Connolly.

"I think if you ask any of the judges he appeared before or any of his clients, they'd tell you he was one of the best trial lawyers and oral advocates they'd ever seen," said Daniel Katz, another Williams & Connolly partner. "Court secretaries told me he was their favorite lawyer because he spoke in such complete, well-rounded sentences and paragraphs that they never had to guess what he meant."

In five decades as a lawyer, Mr. Bergan represented former Teamster leader Jimmy Hoffa, Fairfax County politicians in a notorious 1960s bribery case and a major Southeastern auto distributor against two dozen lawsuits from car dealerships. In addition to criminal law, he practiced antitrust, class action, consumer protection and civil rights law.

He succeeded more often than he lost. He also argued more than 50 appeals, including two before the U.S. Supreme Court. He beat government prosecutors time after time when he represented Hoffa and other labor leaders early in his career.

Hoffa "had a charmed life -- he took every shot they could fire at him," he told The Washington Post's Henry Allen in 1992. "It's as if he had kind of a bubble around him. I think he might have started to believe it himself." ...

....Raymond Ward Bergan was born in Pittsburgh and grew up in Scarsdale, N.Y. He graduated from Holy Cross College in Worcester, Mass., and received a law degree from Georgetown University in 1954. After three years in the Army, based in Texas and Washington, he settled in Arlington and joined Edward Bennett Williams's law firm, which later became Williams & Connolly.

He was considered a mentor to many colleagues at his law firm. ....

ttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Robert+Bruce+Barnett+rita+braver&cf=all

CBS News - Rita Braver - Lynne Cheney - TV - New York Times

New York Times - Oct 11, 2007

The correspondent, Rita Braver, told viewers that her husband, the Washington lawyer Robert B. Barnett, had represented Ms. Cheney in the publishing deal ...

Lawyer's Side Practice - Political Stars' Book Deals - NYTimes.com

New York Times - Jun 7, 2004

... eternally cheerful, $750-an-hour Washington lawyer named Robert B. Barnett. ... For Mr. Barnett, who is married to the CBS reporter Rita Braver and also ...

EARNING IT; Keeping the Shop Talk Out of the Pillow Talk - New York …

New York Times - Sep 28, 1997

Consider what happened to Robert B. Barnett, a former personal lawyer to the Clintons who is married to Rita Braver, a CBS News reporter. ...

Related web pages

The Clintons Host A Historic Fete; A Repast forThe Future atThe White...

Pay-Per-View - Washington Post - ProQuest Archiver - Jan 1, 2000

Bruce Babbitt, secretary of the interior, and Harriet Babbitt, United States Agency for ... Robert Barnett, Williams and Connolly, and Rita Braver, CBS News ...

Pols and journalists flock to Washington lawyer Robert Barnett ...

Jul 11, 2008 ... There have to be other lawyers in Washington besides Robert B. Barnett, but lately it would seem that Barnett is getting all the work.

http://news.muckety.com/2008/07/11/pols-and-journalists-flock-to-washington-lawyer-robert-barnett/4072

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean Baker ignores the real crimes of the Bush family e.g. Iran-Contra, Gulf War I and April Glaspie, The October Surprise, Florida 2000, etc etc. Things for which there is real evidence.

I couldn't agree more. The Contra drug running operations escaped Baker's notice.

I will take any of them over the Parrot memo any day. Or that crazy flechette gun story. Yeah, make us all look like kooks ready for Alex Jones and his bullhorn and LBJ calling in bazookas and hand grenades to Dealey Plaza.

I couldn't disagree more.

The "flechette gun story" comes from the "general feeling" of the prosectors who faced

two entrance wounds -- one in the back in the vicinity of the third thoracic vertebra,

and an entrance in the throat -- which had no exits, and no rounds were recovered.

The reason that FBI SA Sibert called the FBI Lab was to find out about just such

a weapon that fired rounds which "dissolved after contact."

Why do you assume they were wrong, Jim?

Because it sounds "kooky"?

Care to explain JFK seizing up paralyzed in two seconds; care to explain a neck x-ray

that shows a bruised lung tip, a hair-line fracture of the right T1 transverse process,

and an air pocket. There was no exit, no round recovered.

Other than JFK being hit with blood soluble rounds you'll have a hard time explaining

two entrances, no exits, no rounds recovered.

Were the rounds removed on AF1?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will take any of them over the Parrot memo any day. Or that crazy flechette gun story. Yeah, make us all look like kooks ready for Alex Jones and his bullhorn and LBJ calling in bazookas and hand grenades to Dealey Plaza.

I couldn't disagree more.

The "flechette gun story" comes from the "general feeling" of the prosectors who faced

two entrance wounds -- one in the back in the vicinity of the third thoracic vertebra,

and an entrance in the throat -- which had no exits, and no rounds were recovered.

The reason that FBI SA Sibert called the FBI Lab was to find out about just such

a weapon that fired rounds which "dissolved after contact."

Why do you assume they were wrong, Jim?

Cliff, I like your work and I think most of it is good. I particularly admire you going after that xxxxx Lamson.

But you don't even know what I am talking about here. What I meant was in Hankey's JFK 2,where he has Bush going into Hoover's office and threatening to kill him with a flechette gun. Seamus went over this thoroughly in his essay. I guess you didn't read it.

Not thoroughly, no. Seamus convinced me early on that Hankey wasn't worth checking out past

that bit about the Hoover memo, which I have a different take on entirely.

Pardon my knee-jerk response to perceived pooh-poohing of "flechette gun stories."

You might say I'm a flechettophile. A flechetticist?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent analysis, B.A.

Jack

Well Seamus Coogan pretty much neutralized John Hankey and his ridiculous video. You can read it over at ctka.net.

My review of Baker's book is coming out in a day or two. I took 26 pages of notes.

In the entire book, there is one section that has real value: HIs discussion of George Jr. and the Air Guard. Which is good.

The rest of it is so specious, so illogical, so weakly founded that I am trying to wonder if anyone else who says they read the book actually did read it. Because Baker is a slick salesman. But if a book is really good, you don't have to sell it. The quality speaks for itself.

This guy spends about 90 pages trying to implicate Bush Sr in the JFK hit. He does to the Parrott memo what Hankey did to the Hoover memo. He wrestles it to the ground and milks it for all its worth. Even when its not there. He even tries to imply that the guy who was lending Bush his plane, well, there was really more to it than that.

But as poor as that part is, his two long chapters trying to implicate Bush in Watergate, are probably even worse. On this one he spends 75 pages and comes up with zero.

And he doesn't stop there: he tries to implicate the guy in BCCI, the Marcos gold heist, and even Operation Phoenix. At the end he achieved the impossible, I actually began to feel for George Bush Sr. I don't know how he missed the Holocaust.

To me the book is generally Alex Jones stuff. I will post my review when its up. Or maybe someone else can. Here it is.

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/family_secrets.html

Wow lol, CTKA sure as hell does not seem to like Hankey or Baker eh? Or perhaps anyone who seems to believe Bush is much more than we believe he is/was. If you honestly believe that Bush is not one of the "godfathers" of the private intelligence network scene, then you are sorely mistaken. It also seems to me that Coogan as well as your critiques seem to have quite a few problems, or at least in assumption. If I were to take a simple look at the matter Jim, please tell me for the love of God why the CIA would name their own bldg. after a man who, simply served 1 precious little year with them in 76...? Why? Wouldn't common sense tell us, ESPECIALLY those of us who have some decent knowledge of "the things in the dark" in american politics, that perhaps Bush has had such gifts given to him because of "outstanding service" if anything at all? There is nothing truly "outstanding" with him being the Director in 76, so what else could it be?

Bush is MUCH more than what you believe he is and frankly, I'd like to ask you, what do YOU think of GHWB as far as his CIA history, as well as his possible JFK assassination involvement? If ANYTHING, the Hoover Memo does connect SOME dots. If it was not the GB it names in the memo, then which GB was it? Is it crazy..or crackpot-ish to believe that it could very and quite possibly refer to a man who has literally....literally been surrounded by the CIA (in a sense) since he was quite young...? I don't care what anyone knows, the Parrot phone call was, at best VERY weird...it is simply strange. I suppose you would believe Benazir Bhutto was a crackpot for assuming that GHWB and Bin Laden were working together to overthrow her country too eh...? Hankey and Baker, at best, are simply trying, to the best of their ability it would seem, to tell the public that there is much more to GHWB than meets the eye.

The Hoover Memo, as mentioned by Hankey, should be studied much more in detail. Hankey has mentioned this and has basically built his case on that fact. If Hoover was not eastern establishment, and therefore not truly "in the fold" as the power players themselves are, could it be possible that the memo was a way of naming a couple of names? It is an interesting theory and doesn't seem to be "out of this world" as you and Coogan would have people believe. In any event, let us be certain: GHWB is NOT an innocent player in the history of american politics and I personally believe and definitely lean more towards the possible fact that he was deeply involved with the JFK hit, 9/11, the cause of the vietnam war, and watergate among other things (Irangate? Most of the same players from the JFK hit, so GHWB is all over that as well). If it can be believed that he was connected to the cubans/CIA in the JFK hit, then watergate is a non-issue. He and his family always has been, and probably always will be, serviants to the banking establishment and if you want to argue that point, I am more than willing. The same players (watergate and JFK) (virtually) were involved in both events to a great degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you would believe Benazir Bhutto was a crackpot for assuming that GHWB and Bin Laden were working together to overthrow her country too eh...?

Do you have a citation for this claim?

I personally believe and definitely lean more towards the possible fact

"possible fact" is an oxymoron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking at Dan Quayle and I saw that his lawyer was this guy, CBS's Rita Braver's husband, and that most of Quayle's contacts not made through George Bush were made through this lawyer, Robert Barnett.

http://www.muckety.com/J-Danforth-Quayle/4713.muckety

Do you think CBS's news executives put Barnett's wife, Rita Braver as the networks lead on Iran Contra coverage to

better inform us, or to better protect the Reagan/Bush administration's reputation?

Quite misleading according to your own sources he is a Democrat and most of his politican clients were Democrats

http://news.muckety.com/2008/07/11/pols-and-journalists-flock-to-washington-lawyer-robert-barnett/4072

http://www.muckety.com/Robert-B-Barnett/21888.muckety

According to his homepage:

His clients have included Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bob Woodward, Lynne Cheney, Alan Greenspan, James Patterson, Katharine Graham, Tim Russert, Stephen White, George Will, Art Buchwald, James Carville, Mary Matalin, William Bennett, Cokie Roberts, several former U.S. Secretaries of State, numerous U.S. Senators, Tony Blair of the United Kingdom, Queen Noor of Jordan, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, and many others, including journalists, novelists, business leaders, public figures, politicians, and others.

http://www.wc.com/attorney-RobertBarnett.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you would believe Benazir Bhutto was a crackpot for assuming that GHWB and Bin Laden were working together to overthrow her country too eh...?

Do you have a citation for this claim?

I personally believe and definitely lean more towards the possible fact

"possible fact" is an oxymoron

I'm not sure how it could be an oxymoron. From my fallible observation, it is definitely a possible fact that I simply cannot see clearly. Its a matter of perspective. Even if it was an oxymoron, could you not understand what I was saying? Either there is more than meets the eye concerning GHWB and his involvement with so many significant atrocities throughout the past 5 decades or so, or there is not. I lean towards the possibility that he may indeed have. Given that I do not have all the conclusive information to behold a concrete conclusion, it is either a or b. From my view and lack of knowledge it is either a or b as possible facts, not both.

I do have a citation w/video actually. Go to the following messageboard and listen:

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3737&start=45

If you'll notice, many of the fake alternative news sites (or at least a couple) completely 'slashes' the 9/11 bit/implication from the video.....interesting.

Edited by B. A. Copeland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Len, I don't care what branch of the one right wing US political party Atty Barnett has registered as a member of. The point I'm making is that what the political and media do, versus the partisan political theatre they present to the small people, bears no resemblance to each other.

One party, Len...no real benefit for or representation of the interests of the small people is allowed in the equation. Did you actually look at the list of Atty Robert Barnett's connections? How could he have time to sleep?

http://www.muckety.com/Robert-B-Barnett/21888.muckety

If Quayle, the Bushes, Lynn Cheney, etc., actually were the principled, right wing extremists they present themselves to the public as, would they really have the same attorney as the Clintons and Obama? If Rita Braver was really a journalist, committed to "speaking truth to power", could she stand to be married to Robert Barnett for more than 30 years, and do an adequate job of being the CBS Whitehouse correspondent in the 90's. If CBS cared about having a leading news organization, known for solid, reliable, ethical journalism, would Rita Braver be promoted to the level of one of its stars emeritus?

The whole set up is a joke played on the small people. One party united with corporate media, beholden to the hand that feeds them and feeds them the playbook from its agenda. The stars of this system thrive by doing their masters' bidding....and they all have the same lawyer, Bob Barnett.

Obama is a member of the democratic party, too. Rhetoric aside, please name one thing, in the areas of foreign or military policy, or in upholding/defending our (citizens, legal residents and visitors, individuals detained by U.S. LEO, military, INS, DHS, or intelligence agency personnel) Bill of Rights protections, which has actually happened, and markedly deviates from the practices, policies, and intent of Bush/Cheney.

Explain how Obama's healthcare plan benefits the small people enough to balance the deals his administration cut with the pharma and health insurance interests.

Show me how Obama has actually made government more open and accountable, how his "look forward, not bsckward" policy amounts to giving Bush Cheney era official misdeeds and abuses a pass when it comes to investigation and enforcement of the law, while making no similar accommodation for the category of small people Obama claimed he supported.:

What the whistleblower prosecution says about the Obama DOJ ...

Apr 16, 2010 ... Contrast the DOJ's treatment of Bush corruption with its prosecution of an individual who exposed it.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/04/16/prosecutions

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/25/whistleblowers

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 11:26 ET

War on whistle-blowers intensifies By Glenn Greenwald

.....As Gerstein explains:

t reflects a surprising development: President Barack Obama’s Justice Department has taken a hard line against leakers, and Obama himself has expressed anger about disclosures of national security deliberations in the press. . . .

"They’re going after this at every opportunity and with unmatched vigor," said Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, a critic of government classification policy. . . .

Some experts said the administration and the Justice Department may be trying to appease the intelligence community after angering many by releasing the so-called torture memos and by reopening inquiries into alleged torture by CIA personnel. Others said intelligence personnel are terrified by outlets like Wikileaks, on which classified information can be posted without any meaningful chance for officials to argue for the withholding of details that could damage U.S. intelligence efforts.

"I think it's remarkable," said Gabriel Schoenfeld, a fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute who urged prosecution of The New York Times for publishing details of the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program in 2005. "This is the administration that came in pledging maximum transparency. Plugging leaks is ... traditionally not associated with openness". . . .

"If Thomas Drake is convicted and sentenced to jail, this will be the first president to send two leakers to prison in his term in office. That’s never happened before,' said Schoenfeld, author of the book "Necessary Secrets." "You wouldn't have expected the Holder Justice Department to be particularly hawkish in these matters."

Schoenfeld was frequently critical of what he considered to be the Bush DOJ's lackadaisical attitude toward punishing whistleblowers, but he is obviously pleased with the Obama administration's aggression in that regard.

It isn't hard to see why Obama despises leaks. Just look at the front page of The New York Times today, which details a secret order from Gen. David Petraeus last fall ordering vastly increased Special Forces operations in a variety of Middle Eastern countries, including "allies" such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and "enemies" such as Iran and Syria. As Iran experts Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett contend, this constitutes, at the very least, "the intensification of America's covert war against Iran." That is how we also learned of what is, in essence, a covert war in Yemen as well (not to mention the covert war in Pakistan). Most of what our Government does of any real significance happens in the dark. Whistleblowers are one of the very few avenues we have left for learning about any of that. And politicians eager to preserve their own power and ability to operate in secret -- such as Barack Obama -- see whistleblowers as their Top Enemy.

Hence, we have a series of aggressive prosecutions from the Obama administration of Bush era exposures of abuse and illegality -- acts that flagrantly violate Obama's Look Forward, Not Backward decree used to protect high-level Bush administration criminals. As John Cole has suggested, perhaps if these whistleblowers had tortured some people and illegally eavesdropped on others, they would receive the immunity that Obama has so magnanimously and selectively granted. Instead, they merely exposed secret government corruption and illegality to the world, and thus must be punished.

While it's true that leaks can be both damaging and illegal, these prosecutions are occurring without any showing whatsoever of harm to national security, and with ample evidence that they were undertaken to expose high-level wrongdoing.

Some secrets are legitimate, but the balance has swung so far in the direction of excess secrecy that it's extraordinary to watch the Obama administration move the anti-whistleblower persecution far beyond what the Bush administration did. And as Hilary Bok argued back in 2008 when the Right was demanding that NSA whistleblower Thomas Tamm be prosecuted: while it is generally preferable for whistleblowers to invoke the internal systems that exist rather than leak to the media, such an expectation is misguided under the circumstances that have prevailed for the last decade:

But there's one big exception to this rule: when the system has itself been corrupted. When you're operating within a system in which whistle-blowers' concerns are not addressed -- where the likelihood that any complaint you make within the system will be addressed is near zero, while the likelihood that you will be targeted for reprisals is high -- then no sane person who is motivated by a desire to have his or her concern addressed will work within that system.

What makes this trend of escalated anti-whistleblower activity particularly notable is that Obama, during his career in the Senate and when running for President, feigned serious support for whistleblowers. Today, Bush DOJ whistleblower Jesselyn Raddack -- while pointing out that "Bush harassed whistleblowers mercilessly, but Obama is prosecuting them and sending them to jail" -- notes that Obama previously made commitments like this one (click on image to enlarge):

obama.png

All of that led to the widespread perception that the vital act of whistleblowing would, under an Obama administration, be protected rather than persecuted. This Washington Post article from December, 2008, was typical and reflects what Obama led people to believe:

wpost.png

As the Post article summarized: "there is plenty of evidence to make whistleblower advocates think the future for their issue will be better than its past." I think they have now been decisively disabused of such expectations. The Most Transparent Administration Ever seems to despise nobody quite as much as those who exposed Bush era corruption and lawbreaking, all with an eye towards deterring anyone who might do the same during this administration.

....And here's what's coming, Len. The 2001 Bush tax cuts are set to sunset on 31 December. This year, inheritance tax, which is zero this year only, will sunset back to 50 percent on estates above $3 million. Considering the extreme level of wealth concentration in the US and the rise in US Treasury debt and budget gap, and the fact that the impact of the 2001 tax cuts was to shift the tax burden from the wealthiest to the masses of small people by ballooning the debt, it would seem best to let the cuts sunset and return tax rates to pre Bush levels.

By the end of the year Len, I'll be able to remind you of this post. With the pretense of negotiating for preservation of the comparatively tiny 2001 Bush tax cuts for the small people, Obama will tell us he had to support and sign a bill preserving much of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest. Instead of simply letting all of the 2001 tax cuts sunset, Obama will preserve one dollar in tax cuts for every ten dollars he agrees to let the wealthiest preserve in cuts in a "bi-partisan compromise." Small people over the next 5 years will pay $100 billion less than if the tax cut sunset is allowed to happen, and the wealthiest will be given a $1 trillion tax break compared to the pre-Bush tax structure.

Obama created a deficit reduction panel after congress refused to legislate one. He appointed Alan Simpson as co-chair.

Social Security Video Rant: Alan Simpson's True Colors | Crooks ...

Jun 20, 2010 ... If you haven't seen this video yet, you should. Jane Hamsher's put it up at FDL, Dave Johnson's got it up at Our Future, and I've shown it ...

http://crooksandliars.com/rj.../social-security-video-rant-alan-simpsons

Alan Simpson: A Man Who Intensely Wants to Cut Social Security ...

Feb 17, 2010 ... Alan Simpson: A Man Who Intensely Wants to Cut Social Security. user-pic. By Dean Baker - February 17, 2010, 4:41AM ...

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../alan_simpson_a_man_who_intensely_wants_to_cut_soci/

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/republicans-and-democrats-endorse-major-changes-to-social-security.php

Republicans And Democrats Lining Up Behind Major Changes To Social Security

Brian Beutler | July 7, 2010, 9:08AM

.....It's the Democrats who have progressives feeling queasy.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer explicitly put the idea on the table as well in a speech last month. "We should consider a higher retirement age or one pegged to lifespan," Hoyer said.

He echoed House Majority Whip James Clyburn, who put it this way: "With minor changes to the program such as raising the salary cap and raising the retirement age by one month every year, the program could become solvent for the next 75 years." One month a year may not sound like much, but if you're 30 years away from retirement, that adds up to almost three years.

In the House, though, Nancy Pelosi is the linchpin, and she's not nearly as enthusiastic as her colleagues. But, notwithstanding the enthusiasm gap, she also left the possibility of raising the retirement age on the table. When asked about it by TPMDC at her press conference last week, she criticized the plan, but mainly to say she disagrees with putting Social Security on the chopping block ahead of other measures. "Why they would start talking about a place that could be harmful to our seniors -- 70 is a relative age," Pelosi said. "Around here, there's not a lot of outdoor work or heavy lifting. But for some people it is, and 70 means something different to them. So in any event let's talk about growth, lets talk about how we can reduce spending, lets put everything, those initiatives: promoting growth, tightening the belt, looking at entitlements. But let's not start on the backs of our seniors."

There's one catch, though. Last week, Democrats included a rider to the supplemental war spending bill that will likely force the House to vote on a forthcoming fiscal reform plan, if the Senate passes it first. That package is being put together by President Obama's deficit and debt commission, and will be ready to go after the midterms. Pelosi had already pledged to give the package a vote, so perhaps nothing has really changed. But in a way, she also tied her own hands: if the Senate passes a broad tax-and-entitlement reform package at the end of this Congress and her own caucus is willing, she'll be hard-pressed to stop the Social Security reforms she thinks should come last......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len, I don't care what branch of the one right wing US political party Atty Barnett has registered as a member of. The point I'm making is that what the political and media do, versus the partisan political theatre they present to the small people, bears no resemblance to each other.

Barack Obama's politics are far outside the scope of the thread. Your previous post gave the misleading impression that the reporter who covered Iran-Contra for CBS was married to a GOP operative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you would believe Benazir Bhutto was a crackpot for assuming that GHWB and Bin Laden were working together to overthrow her country too eh...?

Do you have a citation for this claim?

I personally believe and definitely lean more towards the possible fact

"possible fact" is an oxymoron

I'm not sure how it could be an oxymoron.

A "fact" is something which known to be true, if something is "possible" it might be true. Just about anything is true, the term you should have used is "possibility".

Either there is more than meets the eye concerning GHWB and his involvement with so many significant atrocities throughout the past 5 decades or so, or there is not.

Not it's not an either or as Jim pointed out he almost certainlly was involved in things like Iran-Contra etc but the evidence for him being involved in a lot of the other things he is accused of is quite slim

I do have a citation w/video actually. Go to the following messageboard and listen:

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3737&start=45

If you'll notice, many of the fake alternative news sites (or at least a couple) completely 'slashes' the 9/11 bit/implication from the video.....interesting.

The video link isn't working. So we have some guy claiming Benazirs widower saying she suspected that Bush was using OBL to destabalize her government. The claim makes like sense he was not a major player in 1989.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you would believe Benazir Bhutto was a crackpot for assuming that GHWB and Bin Laden were working together to overthrow her country too eh...?

Do you have a citation for this claim?

I personally believe and definitely lean more towards the possible fact

"possible fact" is an oxymoron

I'm not sure how it could be an oxymoron.

A "fact" is something which known to be true, if something is "possible" it might be true. Just about anything is true, the term you should have used is "possibility".

Either there is more than meets the eye concerning GHWB and his involvement with so many significant atrocities throughout the past 5 decades or so, or there is not.

Not it's not an either or as Jim pointed out he almost certainlly was involved in things like Iran-Contra etc but the evidence for him being involved in a lot of the other things he is accused of is quite slim

I do have a citation w/video actually. Go to the following messageboard and listen:

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3737&start=45

If you'll notice, many of the fake alternative news sites (or at least a couple) completely 'slashes' the 9/11 bit/implication from the video.....interesting.

The video link isn't working. So we have some guy claiming Benazir widower saying she suspected that Bush was using OBL to destabalize her government. The claim makes like sense he was not a major player in 1989.

I don't think you understand my valid and logical syllogism: Either GHWB was involved in the above mentioned events to a significant degree or he was not. As a human being who does not know with a high degree of certainty. Being human and counting on the building of evidence is the key to what I am saying. My god, you cannot see the significance of the statement concerning Bush and Bin Laden? Let me clarify it: Bush and OBL go way back and yet, to the point of being involved with the destabilization of another govt. and yet he's the one who "plans" the 9/11 attacks lol? Right. I hope you did not mean Bush was not a major player in '89, are you kidding me? He has been a major player since his skull and bones days, and especially since his major participation in the murder of JFK. With all due respect I do not believe you generally connect some major dots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Jim,

I hope you'll admit your stance on this requires you to dismiss as insignificant coincidence, a whole bunch of related individuals of interest.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15692&view=findpost&p=196982

(Modified slightly from the linked version.)

1946- William B. Macomber Jr. finishes wartime service as USMC officer serving in the OSS in Europe and in Burma,. Later, he officially is in CIA two years, then has a long career in the State Dept. Then C. Douglas Dillon appoints him to president of the NY Met. Museum of Art, a position he seems to have little qualification for. William is best man in GHW Bush's sister's 1946 wedding. He is best man in Thomas J. Devine's 1973 wedding. In 1960, he inquires about defectors and learns of Oswald's name. He requests Otepka explore this small list of individuals with the FBI.

In 1972, he is sent to Haiti in haste to secure the release there of the kidnapped US ambassador. He witnesses's JFK's oath taking as a freshman senator, as a guest of Prescott Bush. He marries John Foster Dulles's personal secretary, Phylis Bernau.

1973- John D. Macomber, William's brother, and McKinsey and company partner, mentors new hire, Harvard MBA Michael L Ainslie. Both soon leave McKinsey, and John becomes president of Celanese Corp. He hires Thomas J. Devine as V.P. and Devine is quickly promoted to V.P. and controller at Celanese. John has a myriad of connections after 20 years at McKinsey, and later he provides a total of $172,500 in capital, along with William Draper III, to Bush's son George W's unprofitable oil ventures. GHW Bush, as US president, rewards both John and Draper with high level appointments. in the mid 90's, John and Michael Ainslie become high ranking directors at Lehman, serving respectively on the executive compensation and audit committees when Lehman suddenly imploded in Sept., 2008. Both are named as defendants in ongoing lawsuits by stockholders.

In 1980, with seemingly little experience, aside from serving as an urban development aide in the NYC mayoral administration of Nancy Bush's wedding usher, John Lindsay, Michael Ainslie, age 36, is hired by chairman, CARLISLE H. HUMELSINE, as president of National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Somewhere after Sept., 1973, when Bush escorted Suzanne B. Hooker down the aisle to marry Ames Braga, and the mid 1980's, Michael Ainslie became Suzanne Hooker Ames's second husband. Braga was the son of B. Rionda Braga, the sugar magnate who shared his executive, Michael JP "Jack" Malone, (CIA asset AMPATRIN) with Bob Kleberg of the KIng ranch in Texas.

Kleberg's sister was the widow of a co-founder of Celeanese who had died in 1949. She was CEO of the King Ranch.

Kleberg, through Jack Malone, had purchased and financed the overhaul and operation of the WWII sub chaser, Vejana III, used covertly bv the CIA afainst Cuba in operation AMDENIM.

Ames Braga's father, B. Rionda Braga, was the first cousin of Placido Ervesun, who was married to Nina Osterman, sister of Valnetine "Vala" Osterman Byfield, wife of OSS's Ernest Byfield Jr. until her death in 1970. Ernest's mother Gladys Tariere, rented her 400 acres horse farm in Middleburg, VA to JFk as a weekend white house from late 1960 until early 1963. Byfield's father in Chicago created the Pump Room restaurant and hired and promoted Patrick Hoy who became close to Sidney Korshak and other prominent mob figures. Hoy was hired by Henry Crown in 1960 as General Dynamics VP. Irv Kupcinet wrote a daily Chicago newspaper column for six decades, during the 1960's his co-columnists were Ira and Jimmy Colitz, lifelong friends of Jack Ruby. The Colitzes owned the Clover Bar, next door to the Hotels Sherman where Byfield and Hoy occupied the corporate offices until Hoy left in 1962 to take Crown's job offer.

Kupcinet and his wife spent part of every evening sitting in booth one in the PumP Room restaurant of the Ambassador West Hotel, part of Byfield's Sherman Hotel Group, where Patrick Hoy was manager of the restaurant and finally President of the Hotel group during 15 of Kupcinet's 55+ years coming there nightly. Kupcinet's best friend was Sidney Korshak, who ID's the body of Karyn Kupcinet in the LA morgue in 1963 after Kupcinet broke down over the news of her death. In his memoirs, Kupcinet quoted Henry Crown's job offer pitch to Patrick Hoy, who Kupcinet says protested to Crown that he had no executive experience in the defense or in the sand and gravel business.

Hoy founded a bank in the early 60's with Jake Arvey, but then was convicted of borrowing $5 million fraudulantly from other banks and from Crown's sons, and went to prison in 1970. Byfield partnered with Hoy's nephew, William McCullough in 1967 in the West Lincoln Park Hotel and its "Left Bank" restaurant.

Crown, at the time of JFK's death, was lobbying on capitol hill to keep his company's desperately needed TFX fighter contract. Crown and Hoy are mentioned in the Torbitt Docs, that Crown benefitted the most from the assassinatiuon because the TFX contract investigation was ended by 12/15/63, that Tom Clark had Crown's son john as his law clerk, even though James Ragen had named Crown as a top syndicate boss, and Earl Warren, whose daughter Virginia was on Crown's closest partner, Hilton's sleeve for years, promoted Crown's lawyer Jenner to the other WC commissioners, on the name recommendation of Tom Clark, and that Albert Jenner employed Clark's former law clerk, Crown's son, John, at that time? Oh....and in 2003, Robert S. Macnamara, at age 88, married the second wife of the late Ernie Byfield.

In 1966, Earl Warren chose Crown and Hoy business partner Jake Arvey's old law partner, Paul Ziffren's son to be his law clerk.

John Macomber is a principle in the Atlantic Council. Atlantic Council treasurer was William HG Fitzgerald and in 1943, Byfield. Jr. was Fitzgerald's best man in his wedding to Ernst Petschek's daughter. Petschek was a client of Harriman Bros. and John Foster Dulles in the creation of dummy US incorporated holding companies intended to shield Petschek mines and industrial assets in Silesia and Germany. Petschek's Hubertus AG was appropriated by Hermann Abs's father.

Suzanne B. Hooker was escorted down the aisle in 1973 by Bush because she was the daughter of Bush's late school roommate, Edward Gordon Hooker. Hooker went unmentioned in both memoirs later written by George and Barbara Bush. Maybe it was because Edward Hooker was the step-nephew and business partner of Oswald's best friend, George DeMohrenschildt, or...because the best man in Hooker's 1946 wedding was S. Willets Meyer, first cousing of Cord Meyer of the CIA. Bush's oil business partner in the 1950's, later his travel partner in an early 1969 trip to the warfront in Viet Nam, was Macomber's V.P. at Celanese, Thomas J. Devine, a former CIA agent who met with George DeMohrenschildt and Haitian banker Clemard Joseph Charles in May, 1963. Devine reported details of the meetings to CIA under the OP designations WUBRINY and WUSALINE.

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...