Jack Anderson

[Tim Carroll]

It strikes me as incongruous that the Watergate burglary team might have been directed to kill Jack Anderson, given the personal relationship between Anderson and Frank Sturgis. Nothing has emerged in the three decades since Watergate to invalidate the notion that this group's line-up revealed the alignments and relationships of these key players in the backlash of right-wing anti-Castro plotters against JFK. In Anderson's case, he actually provided bail for Frank Sturgis after the Watergate break-in.

Tim

In this article linked below, there is mention of a plot to murder Jack Anderson; a conspiracy of sorts from inside Nixon's administration. Does anyone have any details on this?

After some Googling, I found the following written by Don Fulsom.

*****************************

Of all the illegal activities undertaken by President Nixon's secret agents E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy, one stands out as particularly sordid — the planned assassination of newspaper columnist Jack Anderson, Nixon's arch foe in the media. Nixon-era stories by Anderson about mobster Johnny Roselli (the Mafia's liaison with the CIA) and various Mob/CIA plots infuriated the president and led to White House discussions about the columnist's murder.

The plot against Anderson came to light in 1975 when The Washington Post reported that — "according to reliable sources" — Hunt told associates after the Watergate break-in that he was ordered to kill the columnist in December 1971 or January 1972. The plan allegedly involved the use of poison obtained from a CIA physician. The Post reported that the assassination order came from a "senior official in the Nixon White House," and that it was "canceled at the last minute . . . "

In an affidavit about a key meeting on the matter with his White House boss, Hunt said Charles Colson "seemed more than usually agitated, and I formed the impression that he had just come from a meeting with President Nixon."

Liddy admitted that he and Hunt had "examined all the alternatives and very quickly came to the conclusion the only way you're going to be able to stop (Anderson) is to kill him . . . And that was the recommendation."

[John Simkin]

I have to admit that Jack Anderson used to be one of my heroes. I knew he worked along side Drew Pearson when he became the first journalist to take on Joseph McCarthy. However, after reading his two volumes of autobiography: Confessions of a Muckraker (1979) and Peace, War and Politics (1999) I realised that I had made a mistake about Anderson.

The truth is that in the late 1940s Anderson and McCarthy became very close. As he points out in his autobiography, Confessions of a Muckraker, "Joe McCarthy... was a pal of mine, irresponsible to be sure, but a fellow bachelor of vast amiability and an excellent source of inside dope on the Hill."

McCarthy began supplying Anderson with stories about suspected communists in government. Drew Pearson refused to publish these stories as he was very suspicious of the motives of people like McCarthy. In fact, in 1948, Pearson began investigating J. Parnell Thomas, the Chairman of the House of Un-American Activities Committee. It was not long before Thomas' secretary, Helen Campbell, began providing information about his illegal activities. On 4th August, 1948, Pearson published the story that Thomas had been putting friends on his congressional payroll. They did no work but in return shared their salaries with Thomas.

Called before a grand jury, Thomas availed himself to the 1st Amendment, a strategy that he had been unwilling to accept when dealing with the Hollywood Ten. Indicted on charges of conspiracy to defraud the government, Thomas was found guilty and sentenced to 18 months in prison and forced to pay a $10,000 fine. Two of his fellow inmates in Danbury Prison were Lester Cole and Ring Lardner Jr. who were serving terms as a result of refusing to testify in front of Thomas and the House of Un-American Activities Committee.

Despite this set-back, McCarthy continued to provide Anderson with a lot of information. In Confessions of a Muckraker, Anderson points out: "At my prompting he (McCarthy) would phone fellow senators to ask what had transpired this morning behind closed doors or what strategy was planned for the morrow. While I listened in on an extension he would pump even a Robert Taft or a William Knowland with the handwritten questions I passed him."

In return, Anderson provided McCarthy with information about politicians and state officials he suspected of being "communists". Anderson later recalled that his decision to work with McCarthy "was almost automatic.. for one thing, I owed him; for another, he might be able to flesh out some of our inconclusive material, and if so, I would no doubt get the scoop." As a result Anderson passed on his file on the presidential aide, David Demarest Lloyd.

On 9th February, 1950, McCarthy made a speech in Salt Lake City where he attacked Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State, as "a pompous diplomat in striped pants". He claimed that he had a list of 57 people in the State Department that were known to be members of the American Communist Party. McCarthy went on to argue that some of these people were passing secret information to the Soviet Union. He added: "The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because the enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer - the finest homes, the finest college educations, and the finest jobs in Government we can give."

The list of names was not a secret and had been in fact published by the Secretary of State in 1946. These people had been identified during a preliminary screening of 3,000 federal employees. Some had been communists but others had been fascists, alcoholics and sexual deviants. As it happens, if McCarthy had been screened, his own drink problems and sexual preferences would have resulted in him being put on the list.

Drew Pearson immediately launched an attack on Joe McCarthy. He pointed out that only three people on the list were State Department officials. When this list was first published in 1946, Gustavo Duran and Mary Jane Keeney had both resigned from the State Department. The third person, John Service, had been cleared after a prolonged and careful investigation. Pearson also pointed out that none of these people had been members of the American Communist Party.

Anderson asked Pearson to stop attacking McCarthy: "He is our best source on the Hill." Pearson replied, "He may be a good source, Jack, but he's a bad man."

On 20th February, 1950, Joe McCarthy made a speech in the Senate supporting the allegations he had made in Salt Lake City. This time he did not describe them as "card-carrying communists" because this had been shown to be untrue. Instead he argued that his list were all "loyalty risks". He also claimed that one of the president's speech-writers, was a communist. Although he did not name him, he was referring to David Demarest Lloyd, the man that Anderson had provided information on.

Lloyd immediately issued a statement where he defended himself against McCarthy's charges. President Harry S. Truman not only kept him on but promoted him to the post of Administrative Assistant. Lloyd was indeed innocent of these claims and McCarthy was forced to withdraw these allegations. As Anderson admitted: "At my instigation, then, Lloyd had been done an injustice that was saved from being grevious only by Truman's steadfastness."

McCarthy now informed Anderson that he had evidence that Professor Owen Lattimore, director of the Walter Hines Page School of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University, was a Soviet spy. Pearson, who knew Lattimore, while accepting he held left-wing views, he was convinced he was not a spy. In his speeches, McCarthy referred to Lattimore as "Mr X... the top Russian spy... the key man in a Russian espionage ring."

On 26th March, 1950, Pearson named Lattimore as McCarthy's Mr. X. Pearson then went onto defend Lattimore against these charges. McCarthy responded by making a speech in Congress where he admitted: "I fear that in the case of Lattimore I may have perhaps placed too much stress on the question of whether he is a paid espionage agent."

McCarthy then produced Louis Budenz, the former editor of The Daily Worker. Budenz claimed that Lattimore was a "concealed communist". However, as Anderson admitted: "Budenz had never met Lattimore; he spoke not from personal observation of him but from what he remembered of what others had told him five, six, seven and thirteen years before."

Pearson now wrote an article where he showed that Budenz was a serial xxxx: "Apologists for Budenz minimize this on the ground that Budenz has now reformed. Nevertheless, untruthful statements made regarding his past and refusal to answer questions have a bearing on Budenz's credibility." He went on to point out that "all in all, Budenz refused to answer 23 questions on the ground of self-incrimination".

Owen Lattimore was eventually cleared of the charge that he was a Soviet spy or a secret member of the American Communist Party and like other victims of McCarthyism, he went to live in Europe and for several years was professor of Chinese studies at Leeds University.

Despite the efforts of Jack Anderson, by the end of June, 1950, Drew Pearson had written more than forty daily columns and a significant percentage of his weekly radio broadcasts, that had been devoted to discrediting the charges made by Joseph McCarthy.

Joe McCarthy now told Anderson: "Jack, I'm going to have to go after your boss. I mean, no holds barred. I figure I've already lost his supporters; by going after him, I can pick up his enemies." McCarthy, when drunk, told Assistant Attorney General Joe Keenan, that he was considering "bumping Pearson off".

On 15th December, 1950, McCarthy made a speech in Congress where he claimed that Pearson was "the voice of international Communism" and "a Moscow-directed character assassin." McCarthy added that Pearson was "a prostitute of journalism" and that Pearson "and the Communist Party murdered James Forrestal in just as cold blood as though they had machine-gunned him."

Over the next two months McCarthy made seven Senate speeches on Drew Pearson. He called for a "patriotic boycott" of his radio show and as a result, Adam Hats, withdrew as Pearson's radio sponsor. Although he was able to make a series of short-term arrangements, Pearson was never again able to find a permanent sponsor. Twelve newspapers cancelled their contracts with Pearson.

Joe McCarthy and his friends also raised money to help Fred Napoleon Howser, the Attorney General of California, to sue Pearson for $350,000. This involved an incident in 1948 when Pearson accused Howser of consorting with mobsters and of taking a bribe from gambling interests. Help was also given to Father Charles Coughlin, who sued Pearson for $225,000. However, in 1951 the courts ruled that Pearson had not libeled either Howser or Coughlin.

Only the St. Louis Star-Times defended Pearson. As its editorial pointed out: "If Joseph McCarthy can silence a critic named Drew Pearson, simply by smearing him with the brush of Communist association, he can silence any other critic." However, Pearson did get the support of J. William Fulbright, Wayne Morse, Clinton Anderson, William Benton and Thomas Hennings in the Senate.

In October, 1953, Joe McCarthy began investigating communist infiltration into the military. Attempts were made by McCarthy to discredit Robert Stevens, the Secretary of the Army. The president, Dwight Eisenhower, was furious and now realised that it was time to bring an end to McCarthy's activities.

The United States Army now passed information about McCarthy to journalists who were known to be opposed to him. This included the news that McCarthy and Roy Cohn had abused congressional privilege by trying to prevent David Schine from being drafted. When that failed, it was claimed that Cohn tried to pressurize the Army into granting Schine special privileges. Drew Pearson published the story on 15th December, 1953.

Some figures in the media, such as writers George Seldes and I. F. Stone, and cartoonists, Herb Block and Daniel Fitzpatrick, had fought a long campaign against McCarthy. Other figures in the media, who had for a long time been opposed to McCarthyism, but were frightened to speak out, now began to get the confidence to join the counter-attack. Edward Murrow, the experienced broadcaster, used his television programme, See It Now, on 9th March, 1954, to criticize McCarthy's methods. Newspaper columnists such as Walter Lippmann also became more open in their attacks on McCarthy.

The senate investigations into the United States Army were televised and this helped to expose the tactics of Joseph McCarthy. One newspaper, the Louisville Courier-Journal, reported that: "In this long, degrading travesty of the democratic process, McCarthy has shown himself to be evil and unmatched in malice." Leading politicians in both parties, had been embarrassed by McCarthy's performance and on 2nd December, 1954, a censure motion condemned his conduct by 67 votes to 22.

McCarthy also lost the chairmanship of the Government Committee on Operations of the Senate. He was now without a power base and the media lost interest in his claims of a communist conspiracy. As one journalist, Willard Edwards, pointed out: "Most reporters just refused to file McCarthy stories. And most papers would not have printed them anyway."

McCarthy was only defeated because brave journalists like Drew Pearson stood up to him. Anderson played no part in this. In fact, for several years, he provided information to help McCarthy.

[Pat Speer]

That's a powerful over-view on McCarthy and Anderson, John. Thanks. For those not in the know, the new George Clooney movie Good-night and Good-luck is a depiction of Edward R. Murrow's battles with McCarthy. The film is shot in black and white, and the use of newsreel footage is seamless. As a result, McCarthy is actually a character in the movie, playing himself. His absolute yucchiness transcends time.

[John Simkin]

Drew Pearson was a Quaker and held fairly left-wing views. However, Anderson, his assistant, was always looking for ways to make money. This resulted in him developing close relationships with Howard Hughes and Lyndon Baines Johnson. I have already pointed out how Anderson got information from Hughes to destroy the career of Owen Brewster.

Anderson also tried to persuade Pearson to support LBJ. Pearson considered LBJ a crook. In fact, in 1956 Pearson began investigating the relationship between LBJ and George R. Brown. Pearson believed that Johnson had arranged for the Texas-based Brown and Root Construction Company to avoid paying large tax bills. Johnson brought an end to this investigation by offering Pearson a deal. If Pearson dropped his Brown-Root crusade Johnson would support the presidential ambitions of Estes Kefauver (a close friend of Pearson). Pearson accepted and wrote in his diary (16th April, 1956): "This is the first time I've ever made a deal like this, and I feel a little unhappy about it. With the Presidency of the United States at stake, maybe it's justified, maybe not - I don't know."

In 1960 Pearson supported Hubert Humphrey in his efforts to become the Democratic Party candidate. However, those campaigning for John F. Kennedy, accused him of being a draft dodger. As a result, when Humphrey dropped out of the race, Pearson switched his support to LBJ.

One of the ways he helped the JFK/LBJ campaign was to investigate the relationship between Howard Hughes and Richard Nixon. Pearson and Anderson discovered that in 1956 the Hughes Tool Company provided a $205,000 loan to Nixon Incorporated, a company run by Richard's brother, F. Donald Nixon. The money was never paid back. Soon after the money was paid the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reversed a previous decision to grant tax-exempt status to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

This information was revealed by Pearson and Anderson during the 1960 presidential campaign. Nixon initially denied the loan but later was forced to admit that this money had been given to his brother. It was claimed that this story helped JFK defeat Nixon in the election.

[John Simkin]

Jack Anderson has of course written a great deal about the JFK assassination. He is associated with stories that suggested that Castro and the Mafia were behind the assassination. On was discussing this with Peter Dale Scott on the phone yesterday. He reminded me that initially Anderson believed the same story as the one told recently by Gene Wheaton. That JFK had been killed by gunman who had been trained by the CIA to kill Fidel Castro.

In 1966 Anderson changed his views on the assassination. At the time attempts were made to deport Johnny Roselli as an illegal alien. Roselli moved to Los Angeles where he went into early retirement. It was at this time he told attorney, Edward Morgan: "The last of the sniper teams dispatched by Robert Kennedy in 1963 to assassinate Fidel Castro were captured in Havana. Under torture they broke and confessed to being sponsored by the CIA and the US government. At that point, Castro remarked that, 'If that was the way President Kennedy wanted it, Cuba could engage in the same tactics'. The result was that Castro infiltrated teams of snipers into the US to kill Kennedy".

Morgan took the story to Jack Anderson. Drew Pearson then passed the story to Earl Warren. He did not want anything to do with it and so the information was then passed to the FBI. When they failed to investigate the story Anderson wrote an article entitled "President Johnson is sitting on a political H-bomb" about Roselli's story. It has been suggested that Roselli started this story at the request of his friends in the Central Intelligence Agency in order to divert attention from the investigation being carried out by Jim Garrison.

In 1976 the story changed again. Anderson interviewed Johnny Roselli just before he was murdered. On 7th September, 1976, the newspaper reported Roselli as saying : "When Oswald was picked up, the underworld conspirators feared he would crack and disclose information that might lead to them. This almost certainly would have brought a massive U.S. crackdown on the Mafia. So Jack Ruby was ordered to eliminate Oswald."

Anderson came up with a new story in 1989. This time the information came from undercover cop, Joseph Shimon. He claims he had been at meetings with Sam Giancana and Santo Trafficante where they discussed plans to assassinate Fidel Castro. All these plots failed and Shimon became convinced that Trafficante was working for Castro. This story eventually appeared in the Merry-Go-Round column.

[Pat Speer]

Jack Anderson has of course written a great deal about the JFK assassination. He is associated with stories that suggested that Castro and the Mafia were behind the assassination. On was discussing this with Peter Dale Scott on the phone yesterday. He reminded me that initially Anderson believed the same story as the one told recently by Gene Wheaton. That JFK had been killed by gunman who had been trained by the CIA to kill Fidel Castro.

In 1966 Anderson changed his views on the assassination. At the time attempts were made to deport Johnny Roselli as an illegal alien. Roselli moved to Los Angeles where he went into early retirement. It was at this time he told attorney, Edward Morgan: "The last of the sniper teams dispatched by Robert Kennedy in 1963 to assassinate Fidel Castro were captured in Havana. Under torture they broke and confessed to being sponsored by the CIA and the US government. At that point, Castro remarked that, 'If that was the way President Kennedy wanted it, Cuba could engage in the same tactics'. The result was that Castro infiltrated teams of snipers into the US to kill Kennedy".

Morgan took the story to Jack Anderson. Drew Pearson then passed the story to Earl Warren. He did not want anything to do with it and so the information was then passed to the FBI. When they failed to investigate the story Anderson wrote an article entitled "President Johnson is sitting on a political H-bomb" about Roselli's story. It has been suggested that Roselli started this story at the request of his friends in the Central Intelligence Agency in order to divert attention from the investigation being carried out by Jim Garrison.

In 1976 the story changed again. Anderson interviewed Johnny Roselli just before he was murdered. On 7th September, 1976, the newspaper reported Roselli as saying : "When Oswald was picked up, the underworld conspirators feared he would crack and disclose information that might lead to them. This almost certainly would have brought a massive U.S. crackdown on the Mafia. So Jack Ruby was ordered to eliminate Oswald."

Anderson came up with a new story in 1989. This time the information came from undercover cop, Joseph Shimon. He claims he had been at meetings with Sam Giancana and Santo Trafficante where they discussed plans to assassinate Fidel Castro. All these plots failed and Shimon became convinced that Trafficante was working for Castro. This story eventually appeared in the Merry-Go-Round column.

John, I've done some research on this stuff as well, and came to some different conclusions. First, Pearson had a very close relationship with LBJ. He was set to have a private visit with LBJ the night of the assassination.(Source: Pearson interview with the LBJ library). His daughter-in-law was Lady Bird's Press secretary. It's also quite clear that Pearson did a hatchet job on Don Reynolds on behalf of LBJ. Second, Pearson was an incredibly political animal, who traded his stories for power, and his power for stories. He, in fact, called off his Hughes/Nixon story in 1960 at the request of Robert Maheu, only to expose it when Nixon himself leaked it to a friendly journalist. Pearson was not about to let himself get scooped. (Source: Maheu's memoirs). Second, it was Maheu who went to Morgan and asked him to leak the CIA/Mob hit story, not Rosselli (Source: Morgan's and Rosselli's testimony before the Church Committee). Morgan then went to Pearson, not Anderson, and Pearson then went Warren, who went to SS Chief Rowley, etc. The LBJ tapes reveal, however, that Pearson went directly to JOHNSON as well. The timing of the story, which indirectly blamed Bobby Kennedy for his brother's murder, probably had more to do with Vietnam than it did with Garrison. It seems an INCREDIBLE coincidence that the story, which Pearson first heard in January, didn't make his column for months, (by which time Anderson had presumably met with Rosselli) and finally surfaced THE DAY AFTER Bobby Kennedy came out against the Vietnam War. It seems clear that the column was LBJ's payback. He'd considered Bobby's coming out against the war a betrayal so he hit him right back, below the belt. (I wonder if anyone's done a check of LBJ's phone calls for that day--I'd bet at least one was to Pearson.) Anyhow, just trying to clear the waters...

[Ron Ecker]

It seems an INCREDIBLE coincidence that the story, which Pearson first heard in January, didn't make his column for months, (by which time Anderson had presumably met with Rosselli) and finally surfaced THE DAY AFTER Bobby Kennedy came out against the Vietnam War. It seems clear that the column was LBJ's payback. He'd considered Bobby's coming out against the war a betrayal so he hit him right back, below the belt.

I recall reading or hearing somewhere that soon after LBJ announced that he would not seek reelection, he told someone that he did not know who the next president would be, but that "it won't be a Kennedy." (Bobby being still alive and a candidate at the time.) Does anyone else recall this? Having never found any mention of it since, I think I may have dreamt it. (I never met Madeleine Brown, so I know I didn't hear it from her.)

[Pat Speer]

McCarthy was only defeated because brave journalists like Drew Pearson stood up to him. Anderson played no part in this. In fact, for several years, he provided information to help McCarthy.

In straightening out my library I came across a book entitled "McCarthy: the Man, the Senator, the "Ism." This book, which is clearly an indictment of McCarthy and his tactics, was published in October 1952, which means its author had started working on it 7-8 months before, when McCarthy was at the height of his power. One of the authors who dared to confront McCarthy and chop him down to size was Ronald May. His co-author was Jack Anderson. In the author's note section it acknowledges that both men know McCarthy well. In the book's conclusions they state that McCarthy's tactics have aided the spread of communism. From this alone, it's clear that Anderson played a rather large part in McCarthy's defeat.

[John Simkin]

In straightening out my library I came across a book entitled "McCarthy: the Man, the Senator, the "Ism." This book, which is clearly an indictment of McCarthy and his tactics, was published in October 1952, which means its author had started working on it 7-8 months before, when McCarthy was at the height of his power. One of the authors who dared to confront McCarthy and chop him down to size was Ronald May. His co-author was Jack Anderson. In the author's note section it acknowledges that both men know McCarthy well. In the book's conclusions they state that McCarthy's tactics have aided the spread of communism. From this alone, it's clear that Anderson played a rather large part in McCarthy's defeat.

I explain this issue on my web page on Anderson.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAandersonJ.htm

This is the relevant passage:

Joe McCarthy continued to provide Anderson with a lot of information. In his autobiography, Confessions of a Muckraker, Anderson pointed out: "At my prompting he (McCarthy) would phone fellow senators to ask what had transpired this morning behind closed doors or what strategy was planned for the morrow. While I listened in on an extension he would pump even a Robert Taft or a William Knowland with the handwritten questions I passed him."

In return, Anderson provided McCarthy with information about politicians and state officials he suspected of being "communists". Anderson later recalled that his decision to work with McCarthy "was almost automatic.. for one thing, I owed him; for another, he might be able to flesh out some of our inconclusive material, and if so, I would no doubt get the scoop." As a result Anderson passed on his file on the presidential aide, David Demarest Lloyd.

On 9th February, 1950, McCarthy made a speech in Salt Lake City where he attacked Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State, as "a pompous diplomat in striped pants". He claimed that he had a list of 57 people in the State Department that were known to be members of the American Communist Party. McCarthy went on to argue that some of these people were passing secret information to the Soviet Union. He added: "The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because the enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer - the finest homes, the finest college educations, and the finest jobs in Government we can give."

The list of names was not a secret and had been in fact published by the Secretary of State in 1946. These people had been identified during a preliminary screening of 3,000 federal employees. Some had been communists but others had been fascists, alcoholics and sexual deviants. As it happens, if Joe McCarthy had been screened, his own drink problems and sexual preferences would have resulted in him being put on the list.

Drew Pearson immediately launched an attack on McCarthy. He pointed out that only three people on the list were State Department officials. He added that when this list was first published four years ago, Gustavo Duran and Mary Jane Keeney had both resigned from the State Department (1946). The third person, John Service, had been cleared after a prolonged and careful investigation. Pearson also argued that none of these people had been members of the American Communist Party.

Anderson asked Pearson to stop attacking McCarthy: "He is our best source on the Hill." Pearson replied, "He may be a good source, Jack, but he's a bad man."

On 20th February, 1950, Joe McCarthy made a speech in the Senate supporting the allegations he had made in Salt Lake City. This time he did not describe them as "card-carrying communists" because this had been shown to be untrue. Instead he argued that his list were all "loyalty risks". He also claimed that one of the president's speech-writers, was a communist. Although he did not name him, he was referring to David Demarest Lloyd, the man that Anderson had provided information on.

Lloyd immediately issued a statement where he defended himself against McCarthy's charges. President Harry S. Truman not only kept him on but promoted him to the post of Administrative Assistant. Lloyd was indeed innocent of these claims and McCarthy was forced to withdraw these allegations. As Anderson admitted: "At my instigation, then, Lloyd had been done an injustice that was saved from being grevious only by Truman's steadfastness."

McCarthy now informed Anderson that he had evidence that Professor Owen Lattimore, director of the Walter Hines Page School of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University, was a Soviet spy. Pearson, who knew Lattimore, and while accepting he held left-wing views, he was convinced he was not a spy. In his speeches, McCarthy referred to Lattimore as "Mr X... the top Russian spy... the key man in a Russian espionage ring."

On 26th March, 1950, Drew Pearson named Lattimore as McCarthy's Mr. X. Pearson then went onto defend Lattimore against these charges. McCarthy responded by making a speech in Congress where he admitted: "I fear that in the case of Lattimore I may have perhaps placed too much stress on the question of whether he is a paid espionage agent."

McCarthy then produced Louis Budenz, the former editor of The Daily Worker. Budenz claimed that Lattimore was a "concealed communist". However, as Anderson admitted: "Budenz had never met Lattimore; he spoke not from personal observation of him but from what he remembered of what others had told him five, six, seven and thirteen years before."

Pearson now wrote an article where he showed that Budenz was a serial xxxx: "Apologists for Budenz minimize this on the ground that Budenz has now reformed. Nevertheless, untruthful statements made regarding his past and refusal to answer questions have a bearing on Budenz's credibility." He went on to point out that "all in all, Budenz refused to answer 23 questions on the ground of self-incrimination".

Owen Lattimore was eventually cleared of the charge that he was a Soviet spy or a secret member of the American Communist Party and like other victims of McCarthyism, he went to live in Europe and for several years was professor of Chinese studies at Leeds University.

Despite the efforts of Jack Anderson, by the end of June, 1950, Drew Pearson had written more than forty daily columns and a significant percentage of his weekly radio broadcasts, that had been devoted to discrediting the charges made by Joe McCarthy. As a result, McCarthy decided to take on Pearson. McCarthy told Anderson: "Jack, I'm going to have to go after your boss. I mean, no holds barred. I figure I've already lost his supporters; by going after him, I can pick up his enemies." McCarthy, when drunk, told Assistant Attorney General Joe Keenan, that he was considering "bumping Pearson off".

On 15th December, 1950, McCarthy made a speech in Congress where he claimed that Pearson was "the voice of international Communism" and "a Moscow-directed character assassin." McCarthy added that Pearson was "a prostitute of journalism" and that Pearson "and the Communist Party murdered James Forrestal in just as cold blood as though they had machine-gunned him."

Over the next two months McCarthy made seven Senate speeches on Drew Pearson. He called for a "patriotic boycott" of his radio show and as a result, Adam Hats, withdrew as Pearson's radio sponsor. Although he was able to make a series of short-term arrangements, Pearson was never again able to find a permanent sponsor. Twelve newspapers cancelled their contract with Pearson.

Joe McCarthy and his friends also raised money to help Fred Napoleon Howser, the Attorney General of California, to sue Pearson for $350,000. This involved an incident in 1948 when Pearson accused Howser of consorting with mobsters and of taking a bribe from gambling interests. Help was also given to Father Charles Coughlin, who sued Pearson for $225,000. However, in 1951 the courts ruled that Pearson had not libeled either Howser or Coughlin.

Only the St. Louis Star-Times defended Pearson. As its editorial pointed out: "If Joseph McCarthy can silence a critic named Drew Pearson, simply by smearing him with the brush of Communist association, he can silence any other critic." However, Pearson did get the support of J. William Fulbright, Wayne Morse, Clinton Anderson, William Benton and Thomas Hennings in the Senate.

After his attack on Drew Pearson, Anderson had no choice but to abandoned Joe McCarthy. He now joined forces with Wisconsin reporter Ronald W. May to write McCarthy: The Man, the Senator, the Ism (1952).

[John Simkin]

I thought some of you would find this interesting. I sure do.

George Washington U. to Receive Jack Anderson's Papers -- but FBI Wants to See Them First

By SCOTT CARLSON

George Washington U. to receive Jack Anderson's papers -- but FBI wants to see them first

During his life and career as a muckraking journalist in Washington, Jack Anderson cultivated secret sources throughout the halls of government -- sources who passed on information that allowed Anderson to investigate and write about Watergate, CIA assassination schemes, and countless scandals. His syndicated column, Washington Merry-Go-Round, earned him the enmity of the corrupt and powerful -- so much so that during the Watergate years, associates of Nixon had discussed assassinating the columnist. They never went through with the plot. Anderson died last December at the age of 83.

His archive, some 200 boxes now being held by George Washington University's library, could be a trove of information about state secrets, dirty dealings, political maneuverings, and old-fashioned investigative journalism, open for historians and up-and-coming reporters to see.

But the government wants to see the documents before anyone else.

Agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation have told university officials and members of the Anderson family that they want to go through the archive, and that agents will remove any item they deem confidential or top secret.

The Andersons, who have not yet transferred ownership of the archive to George Washington University, are outraged. They plan to fight the FBI's request.

Were he alive today, Jack Anderson "would probably come out of his skin at the thought of the FBI going through his papers," said Kevin N. Anderson, the journalist's son. If papers were taken -- even if some were stamped "declassified" and returned -- that would "destroy any academic, scholarly, and historic value" of the archive, Kevin Anderson adds.

The FBI would not comment for this article.

The Andersons are the not the only ones who are incensed. Observers of academic freedom and libraries say that the FBI's request is part of a renewed emphasis on secrecy in government, which has focused on libraries and archives in particular. Recently, librarians have been concerned about scores of documents that have been reclassified at the National Archives, and librarians have long been concerned about freedom of information since the passage of the USA Patriot Act in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The FBI's interest in the Anderson archive is "deeply disturbing and deeply in conflict with the academy's interests in freedom of inquiry, research, and scholarship," said Duane E. Webster, the executive director of the Association of Research Libraries.

Tracy B. Mitrano, an adjunct assistant professor of information science at Cornell University, called the case "utterly alarming."

"Once you begin taking records out of library archives that researchers rely on for free inquiry and research purposes," she said, "it would be very difficult not to see it as a slippery slope toward government controlling research in higher education and our collective understanding of American history."

As a journalist, Jack Anderson was a legend. He reported on the Central Intelligence Agency's scheme to assassinate Fidel Castro, the Mafia's crime network, and corruption among congressmen. He won a Pulitzer Prize in 1972 for reporting on American involvement in the Indo-Pakistan War. Young reporters who worked for Anderson included Brit Hume, now an anchor with Fox News, and Howard Kurtz, now a Washington Post columnist. Anderson was a Mormon, and many of his archives sat at Brigham Young University before George Washington University acquired them.

Kevin Anderson says that the FBI approached his mother about a month after his father's death, asking about the archives.

Kevin Anderson called the FBI, but agents would tell him only that they were investigating an espionage case and that they believed his father had received documents related to it. "They were talking about retrieving the documents to get the fingerprints of people who might have handled them," Kevin Anderson said.

At the same time, FBI agents made inquiries elsewhere, as well. Two agents showed up at the door of Mark Feldstein, a journalism professor at George Washington who helped the university acquire the archive and who is writing a biography of Jack Anderson. He says the agents told him they wanted to dig through the archive, and he found the visit "intimidating." Mr. Feldstein and his students have looked through the boxes, and he says he tried to tell the agents that there wasn't anything of interest to the FBI in them.

FBI agents also contacted Lizanne Payne, the executive director of the Washington Research Library Consortium, which maintains storage space for some 14,000 archival boxes for George Washington University. Ms. Payne said the FBI asked her if she knew the location of the Anderson archives in the collection. She did not. She speculated that had she known the location of the archive, the FBI might have tried to get the Anderson papers directly from her through a court order.

The FBI eventually told Kevin Anderson that the investigation centered on Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, two former officials with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who have been charged with receiving and distributing national defense information.

"That raised my hackles a bit," Mr. Anderson said. "As I researched the Aipac prosecution and talked to some of dad's former reporters ... they said this is nuts."

Kevin Anderson doubts that his father gathered information related to the Aipac case. He points out that his father had Parkinson's disease for the last 15 years of his life and that he had done his best muckraking in the 1960s, 70s, and early 80s.

He wonders if there is anything of value to investigators in the archive. "Dad kept a lot of things in his head and, due to the sensitive nature of things, didn't write a lot of stuff down."

But even if Jack Anderson had gotten documents related to the Aipac case, Kevin Anderson points out, many have questioned the legitimacy of the case. An editorial in The Washington Post last month argued that Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman were being prosecuted under "an old and vaguely worded law" that dates back to 1917, and that the case could also be used as a "dangerous" precedent to prosecute journalists who receive and publish classified information.

Jack Anderson earned fame and respect through publishing such state secrets -- always, the journalist said, in the interest of the American people. Although his father shared information with the FBI in select situations, Kevin Anderson said, his father would not approve of the FBI combing through his archive.

"We want to stay true to his principles of First Amendment rights and journalistic freedoms," he said.

But more alarming to the Andersons is how the FBI might handle the archive if given access to it. The archive has not yet been organized and cataloged by George Washington University, so the FBI would have to pick through the entire collection to find any documents related to the Aipac case.

"They made it very clear on the front end that if they are looking through his papers and they come across documents that are stamped confidential or top secret, they would be duty bound to take those out of the collection," Mr. Anderson said.

Mr. Anderson says his family has reached an "impasse" with the FBI. The family plans to send a letter to the FBI today saying that it will not cooperate with the agency.

Although officials at George Washington University support the Andersons, the university has largely left the fight in their hands. Jack Siggins, the university librarian, says the university has been discussing the transfer of ownership of the papers for the past year. That process froze once the FBI got involved.

"The family wanted to handle this issue with the FBI themselves," he said.

He says the FBI's interest in the archive is "an example of the pressure that libraries are under to change their fundamental philosophy -- which is, to provide the information to the people in order to let the people understand what is going on in their government."

In the meantime, the FBI might have provided an opportunity for a windfall for the university. The university has hired a librarian to index the archive -- a process that will initially cost the library about $100,000, and perhaps much more in years to come. Mr. Siggins hopes that the FBI's interest in the papers will help the library raise that money.

"We think that there are a lot of people in the country who realize that the issue of government censorship and hiding what's really going on is such a hot topic that people will want to help us," he said.

Copyright © 2006 by The Chronicle of Higher Education | Contact us

User agreement | Privacy policy | About The Chronicle | Site map | Help

Subscribe | Advertise with us | Press inquiries | RSS | Today's most e-mailed

Home | Chronicle Careers | The Chronicle Review

[Bruce Cormier]

As night follows day, one knew this link would be forthcoming. Judge for yourselves. A delicious item is the spin placed on McClennan's book -- to divert blame from Poppy to LBJ. That is the house of mirrors we inhabit. See http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

April 29, 2006 -- FBI agents lied about what they wanted from Jack Anderson's papers. The FBI agents who, in December, approached Olivia Anderson, the widow of deceased investigative reporter Jack Anderson and more recently, in March, author and researcher Mark Feldstein, who is writing a book about Jack Anderson, were interested in far more than the names of sources in the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) espionage case. That explanation by the FBI did not hold any water since Jack Anderson had not been active in pursuing that particular story -- he had suffered from Parkinson's Disease since 1986. According to individuals close to the FBI fishing expedition, the actual documents the FBI wanted to seize were files Anderson collected in the 1960s that linked George H. W. Bush's activities in Texas in 1963 to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22 of that year. Bush was a friend of George DeMohrenschildt, Lee Harvey Oswald's Belarusian-born contact officer. DeMohrenschildt befriended Oswald and arranged for him to settle in Dallas after leaving the Soviet Union. DeMohrenshildt "committed suicide" shortly before he was due to testify before the 1978 House Assassinations Committee. The elder Bush's name, address, and phone number in Midland, Texas was found in DeMohrenshildt's address book under the heading "Poppy."

In addition, the FBI wanted to remove from future public circulation Anderson documents that point to George H. W. Bush conspiring with the government of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran to keep U.S. hostages imprisoned in Iran until after the 1980 presidential election and avoid an "October Surprise" for Carter. The agreement between the Iranians and Bush (who was working with William Casey) sank the chances for Jimmy Carter's re-election and George H. W. Bush's entry into the White House as Vice President. The hostages were released at the very time Ronald Reagan took the oath of office in 1981. That operation would lay the ground for future Bush-Tehran collusion in the Iran-Contra scandal. Another set of files involve the links between the Bush family and that of Ronald Reagan's would-be assassin John W. Hinckley. Had Hinckley succeeded in killing Reagan, the Bush political agenda would have commenced in earnest in 1981 rather than 1989.

The Bush family has been known to use retired FBI agents as their political heavies and clean up men in the past -- most notably to erase the Bush links to Dallas. George W. Bush's departing Press Secretary Scott McClellan has a close relative who continued to muddy the waters about the JFK assassination. McClellan's father, Barr McClellan, wrote a book claiming it was Lyndon Johnson, not George H. W. Bush, who conspired to kill the president. (1 image)

[Pat Speer]

The Bush family has been known to use retired FBI agents as their political heavies and clean up men in the past -- most notably to erase the Bush links to Dallas. George W. Bush's departing Press Secretary Scott McClellan has a close relative who continued to muddy the waters about the JFK assassination. McClellan's father, Barr McClellan, wrote a book claiming it was Lyndon Johnson, not George H. W. Bush, who conspired to kill the president. (1 image)

Bruce, this guy is just making stuff up to fit his own agenda. There is no reason to believe McClellan was anything but sincere. The Bushies would not exactly be overjoyed to have LBJ outed as a culprit when his backers are pretty much their backers.

Edited May 4, 2006 by Pat Speer

[John Simkin]

As night follows day, one knew this link would be forthcoming. Judge for yourselves. A delicious item is the spin placed on McClennan's book -- to divert blame from Poppy to LBJ. That is the house of mirrors we inhabit. See http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

April 29, 2006 -- FBI agents lied about what they wanted from Jack Anderson's papers. The FBI agents who, in December, approached Olivia Anderson, the widow of deceased investigative reporter Jack Anderson and more recently, in March, author and researcher Mark Feldstein, who is writing a book about Jack Anderson, were interested in far more than the names of sources in the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) espionage case. That explanation by the FBI did not hold any water since Jack Anderson had not been active in pursuing that particular story -- he had suffered from Parkinson's Disease since 1986. According to individuals close to the FBI fishing expedition, the actual documents the FBI wanted to seize were files Anderson collected in the 1960s that linked George H. W. Bush's activities in Texas in 1963 to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22 of that year. Bush was a friend of George DeMohrenschildt, Lee Harvey Oswald's Belarusian-born contact officer. DeMohrenschildt befriended Oswald and arranged for him to settle in Dallas after leaving the Soviet Union. DeMohrenshildt "committed suicide" shortly before he was due to testify before the 1978 House Assassinations Committee. The elder Bush's name, address, and phone number in Midland, Texas was found in DeMohrenshildt's address book under the heading "Poppy."

In addition, the FBI wanted to remove from future public circulation Anderson documents that point to George H. W. Bush conspiring with the government of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran to keep U.S. hostages imprisoned in Iran until after the 1980 presidential election and avoid an "October Surprise" for Carter. The agreement between the Iranians and Bush (who was working with William Casey) sank the chances for Jimmy Carter's re-election and George H. W. Bush's entry into the White House as Vice President. The hostages were released at the very time Ronald Reagan took the oath of office in 1981. That operation would lay the ground for future Bush-Tehran collusion in the Iran-Contra scandal. Another set of files involve the links between the Bush family and that of Ronald Reagan's would-be assassin John W. Hinckley. Had Hinckley succeeded in killing Reagan, the Bush political agenda would have commenced in earnest in 1981 rather than 1989.

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.

[John Simkin]

As night follows day, one knew this link would be forthcoming. Judge for yourselves. A delicious item is the spin placed on McClennan's book -- to divert blame from Poppy to LBJ. That is the house of mirrors we inhabit. See http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

April 29, 2006 -- FBI agents lied about what they wanted from Jack Anderson's papers. The FBI agents who, in December, approached Olivia Anderson, the widow of deceased investigative reporter Jack Anderson and more recently, in March, author and researcher Mark Feldstein, who is writing a book about Jack Anderson, were interested in far more than the names of sources in the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) espionage case. That explanation by the FBI did not hold any water since Jack Anderson had not been active in pursuing that particular story -- he had suffered from Parkinson's Disease since 1986. According to individuals close to the FBI fishing expedition, the actual documents the FBI wanted to seize were files Anderson collected in the 1960s that linked George H. W. Bush's activities in Texas in 1963 to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22 of that year. Bush was a friend of George DeMohrenschildt, Lee Harvey Oswald's Belarusian-born contact officer. DeMohrenschildt befriended Oswald and arranged for him to settle in Dallas after leaving the Soviet Union. DeMohrenshildt "committed suicide" shortly before he was due to testify before the 1978 House Assassinations Committee. The elder Bush's name, address, and phone number in Midland, Texas was found in DeMohrenshildt's address book under the heading "Poppy."

In addition, the FBI wanted to remove from future public circulation Anderson documents that point to George H. W. Bush conspiring with the government of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran to keep U.S. hostages imprisoned in Iran until after the 1980 presidential election and avoid an "October Surprise" for Carter. The agreement between the Iranians and Bush (who was working with William Casey) sank the chances for Jimmy Carter's re-election and George H. W. Bush's entry into the White House as Vice President. The hostages were released at the very time Ronald Reagan took the oath of office in 1981. That operation would lay the ground for future Bush-Tehran collusion in the Iran-Contra scandal. Another set of files involve the links between the Bush family and that of Ronald Reagan's would-be assassin John W. Hinckley. Had Hinckley succeeded in killing Reagan, the Bush political agenda would have commenced in earnest in 1981 rather than 1989.

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.

[Jack White]

John wrote:

"However, there is another reason why this might have happened this way."

So? Don't leave us hanging.

Jack