The Daddy Bush Connection with JFK's Assassination? Please check out these links.

[wcepler]

The links are below:



http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush.htm



http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thenixonbushconnectiontothekennedyassassination.htm



http://video.google.com/videosearch?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=JFK%27s+assassination+and+the+Bush+Family&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#



http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/dead_kennedys/161963.html



http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/FbiMemoPhotoLinkBushJfk.htm



http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/War%20on%20Drugs%20Scam/Order%20of%20Skull%20&%20Bones/bush_bones_jfk_assassination.htm



http://www.geocities.com/vienna/strasse/7676/pagesix.html



http://edward.de.leau.net/jfk-ii-assassination-study-many-ties-to-the-bush-crime-family-20081216.html



http://www.ctrl.org/essay2/MCIJFKA1.html



http://www.amazon.com/JFK-II-Connection-John-Hankey/dp/B000AAIUWA





This is merely a small sample of many, many more sites where these came from. Some may be over top (or not), but most of them are as historically/factually substantive as the 9/11 “inside job” scenario -- so validated by scientific evidence, on the spot observations, and pictures of IMPLODING, not exploding, towers!



It is limitlessly suspicious that Bush Sr. and Jr. have their hands all over the two most consectively treasonous events which have defined American history as much as the Civil War.



The trail to the truth of JFK’s assassination may be cold, but it would be a virtual act of God if it helped to confirm the engineering of 9/11 by George W. Bush, and his fascist elite masters -- and visa versa for JFK's assassination. Could 9/11 ironically be the event that also leads to the truth of JFK's assasination! What a twofer that would be?



Like father, like son?

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

W. Christopher Epler (Bill)


ps: Naturally it also a matter of historical record that GRANDFATHER Prescott Bush tried to engineer a Nazi coup d'etat in America in the 30's. The archetypal treason family of Bush's -- who also made much (most?) of their fortune with connections with the evil incarnate Third Reich.


<http://theliberationofrealism.blogspot.com/>

[aquart]

1. I don't know what to do with this kind of stupidity.

And I'm genuinely offended by this attempt to link the bad science paranoia about 9/11 to the Kennedy assassination.

[sce56]

2. How about some photographic evidence linking Bush to JFK's killing

George on one of his Zapata oil platforms
+ George H.W. Bush is provably lying about his CIA career. He claims that his CIA directorship in 1976 was his first job for the CIA. Difficult to believe? The truth is that he was actively involved in the preparation and financing of the ill fated Bay of Pigs invasion, as a high ranking CIA official, at which time he made acquaintance with the now notorious CIA agent and Iran Contra operative Felix Rodriguez, a veteran of the Bay of Pigs and Operation 40.

[wcepler]

5. excellent evidence

sce56,

Thanks for the excellent pictures. Reality has a way of saying its say.

solidarity, Bill

[The Hope Mobile]

7. When asked, GHWB claimed to not remember where he was

at the time of JFK's assassination - which would make him the only person in America who doesn't remember that moment.

Also, from what I've read (no link right now but I could find it) several source place him in the area at the time of the assassination.

[Peace Patriot]

13. That's kind of like Rumsfeld saying he was "in a meeting" and unaware that the WTC

had been hit, while one plane was making a U-turn and heading for DC.

"In a meeting?" Directing the plane? What?

That statement has always amazed me--or, rather, what has always amazed me is that the reporters who heard it didn't burst out laughing.

This, after he had pulled all NORAD decisions into his own hands, just six months before.

"Heck of a job, Brownie!"

-----------

Didn't know where you were on 11/22/63? Not credible. That photo? I don't know. It's just a tad too fuzzy. And would Bush Sr. have been standing out on the street? Seems like he would keep his face well-hidden, that the film in that camera would have confiscated and maybe the photographer 'disappeared.' Is it Bush Sr? I can't say yes, I can't say no. But didn't know where you were? That strikes me as...deliberately insulting. Full of venom and guilt.

[sce56]

15. Humm well the people that wacked JFK were what you said full of venom and contempt for our President

And I was in second grade that day I remember it clearly Parent teacher conference day spent at home I remember the news bulletin cutting into the 9:30AM I love Lucy show. But the plot gets thicker with people making statements and people connected to Nixon Bush etc being involved in it.





4. George Bush

A November 29, 1963, memorandum from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to the Director of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the Department of State refers to the fact that information on the assassination of President Kennedy was "orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency." At the request of the Review Board, the CIA made a thorough search of its records in an attempt to determine if the "George Bush" referred to in the memorandum might be identical to President and former Director of Central Intelligence George Herbert Walker Bush. That search determined that the CIA had no association with George Herbert Walker Bush during the time frame referenced in the document.

The records that the Review Board examined showed that the only other "George Bush" serving in the CIA in 1963 was a junior analyst who has repeatedly denied being the "George Bush" referenced in the memorandum. The Review Board staff found one reference to an Army Major General George Bush in the calendars of Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles. There was no indication if this General Bush could be the referenced George Bush. The Review Board marked the calendar page as an assassination record.
+ So the George Bush mentioned in this memorandum could not be found by the CIA? Neither the Major General George Bush mentioned in the calendar of CIA director Allen Dulles? Even though Dulles, as we have seen, was on a first name basis with Prescott Bush? Was the Assassinations Records Review Board not advised that it is practically standard procedure for the CIA to purge the files of sensitive covert intelligence operatives? Why did the ARRB ask the fox to investigate who ate the chickens, and was then satisfied with the answer? Did Hoover and Dulles make up a fictional George Bush?
+ It can now be conclusively shown that both Gerald Ford and Arlen Specter (now a senator for Pennsylvania) tampered with the medical evidence of JFK's autopsy and put these lies in the Warren Report.
+ Hale Boggs sat on the Warren Commission, which concluded that President Kennedy was slain by a lone assassin. Later, in 1971 and '72, Boggs said that the Warren Report was false and that J. Edgar Hoover's FBI not only helped cover up the JFK murder but blackmailed Congress with massive wire-tapping and spying. He named Warren Commission staff member Arlen Specter as a major cover-up artist. Congressman Boggs' plane disappeared on a flight to Alaska in 1972. The press, the military, and the CIA publicly proclaimed the plane could not be located. Investigators later said that was a lie, that the plane had been found. On the plane were Hale Boggs, Nick Begich, a very popular Democratic Congressman, his aide Russ Brown and Don Jonz, the pilot. All were killed.
+ In 1976, George H.W. Bush was appointed CIA director by president and former Warren Commission member Gerald Ford at the exact time that newly erected investigative committees were probing the possible role of the CIA into the assassination plots to kill Fidel Castro, Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy. Bush appoints his old friend from JM/Wave and the Bay of Pigs, Theodore Shackley, as his deputy director for Special Operations, the CIA's most important division. The above-mentioned investigations are heavily stonewalled by the CIA, holding back crucial documents and witnesses. Nevertheless, the House Select Committee on Assassinations concludes its investigation with a 95% probability that at least 4 shots were fired and Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy, along with the recommendation to the Justice Department to follow up with a further investigation. This recommendation was never honored.
+ During the preparations of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, pressure is applied to Texan Bill Lord not to testify for the committee. Bill Lord was a fellow marine and roommate of Lee Harvey Oswald on a ship voyage to France. Lord expresses his concern in a letter to president Carter. He writes that Oswald was connected to the FBI and CIA and concludes that the CIA and the FBI are complicit in JFK's death and the coup d'etat that occurred on 11/22/1963. He also states that one of the Midland, TX politicians applying pressure to him, was Mr. George W. Bush junior . This letter to President Carter was declassified some years ago. Here's a fragment:
One of the parties which has blitzed me with telephone calls trying to persuade me to tell them what I know about Oswald, is engaged in a very costly project which allows them to locate, interview, monitor, and influence every single available person who ever knew Lee Oswald--and this, just in advance of the new governmental investigation by the house select committee on Assassinations. I finally consented, not to grant an interview, but to allow the publication's representative to explain their project to me in person. After a lunch interview with this researcher, I was told that if I had refused even to meet with him, pressure was in the offing from two Midland men: Mr. Jim Allison, publisher of the ultra-conservative Reporter-Telegram, my employer (out of necessity, and for the moment!), and Mr. George Bush, Jr.

... Shortly thereafter, my mother discovered that her telephone had been tampered with. The casing around the dialing aparatus had been pulled out about one-half inch... we cannot doubt that someone entered the house at a time when I was at work and my mother was away; she returned to the house, however, at an unaccustomed time... I have been in anguish for weeks, Mr. President, trying my best to laugh at my apprehensions and to see these events as fortuitous ones... Speaking as the man who spent more than two weeks in the same ship's cabin with Lee Oswald at the time of his 1959 "defection", and speaking as a man who has been the subject of the above.

[The Hope Mobile]

17. Awesome evidence!!!

I've never seen this before!!

[verges]

20. I don't remember where I was.

Then, again, I wasn't quite two years old.

[wcepler]

4. verifiable historical events

a,

This kind of knee jerk denial about verifiable historical events is exactly what keeps America mindlessly obedient -- which is exactly where the elites want us. Grow up. Evil is real.

[sce56]

6. That's right and the evidence is right there in the Warren report

Which was directed by Allen Dulles, who was the guy JFK fired after the Bay of Pigs yet they saw fit to put him on the whitewashing of the Dallas Coup!





Note the arrowed # 3 it does not match the size of the other threes on that page can you say tampering with the evidence!





of course this is the one people did not get to see the wink photo! Mission accomplished....Standing next to a "mourning" Jackie, LBJ gets a wink and a smile from Texas Congressman Albert Thomas. His wife, Lady Bird, is smiling by his side.

[Peace Patriot]

3. I'm reading James Douglas' "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he was killed and

why it matters," recently published by the Maryknoll fathers. Great book! Fund of info on all sorts of things, including JFK's backchannel to Castro, and to Krushchev, while the MIC was trying to force him to nuke both of them.

I concluded, with the hindsight of the Iraq War, that JFK, RFK and MLK were all assassinated as prep for the Vietnam War. I had never quite put my thoughts together on their deaths in that way. But I guess I just saw how completely war profiteers have been running things. Iraq was/is such a naked example of it--with its two-fisted, mindboggling looting of our tax dollars. Looking back, Vietnam starts to make sense as a war profiteer project. It made no other kind of sense. Iraq makes some sense as a corporate resource war. But that doesn't explain the blatant looting. Anyway, looking at this orgy of war profiteering, and then gazing back in time to Vietnam--and also with all that I have learned since about JFK's moves toward peace, with his own Cabinet in opposition--I saw how he stood in the way, and then how Bobby stood in the way, and also how Martin Luther King stood in the way. All three killed, on our own soil, within five years of each other (RFK and MLK within three months of each other, after both came out strongly against the war, with RFK headed to the White House), and then....2 million people slaughtered in Southeast Asia before it was over.

Douglas' book supports this thesis. Time for us to face it, I think.

[Peregrine Took]

8. Published by the Maryknoll's? Now that's interesting!

I'm going to order it tonight. Thanks for the referral.

[Peace Patriot]

11. You're welcome, Peregrine Took! I got the title slightly wrong. It's

"JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he died and why it matters," by James W. Douglass (Orbis press--the Maryknoll book publishing firm).

(I wrote "why he was killed and why it matters." And Douglass' name has two s's.)

It is a very deep book--not only a detailed review of the evidence, but a profound discussion of the CONTEXT.

The Maryknolls have all along been very involved in peace and justice issues--especially in Latin America. I find it interesting, too, that they would publish this well-researched book on that assassination, a book that is also a deep meditation on our country and its history over the last four decades. The frame that Douglass uses is Thomas Merton's spiritual awakening about nuclear war, which paralleled that of the Kennedy brothers. Merton's contemplative order suppressed his public writings--because they were so controversial at the time--but he carried on a lengthy private correspondence (which he ended up referring to as "The Cold War Letters"), with many prominent people of the era, including Ethel Kennedy (Bobby's wife). Douglass himself corresponded with Merton, when he was a young man, struggling with these issues.

The book is about our ethics and morality, as a society, as well as the assassination. In particular, it reveals and documents what JFK was up against, when his own conscience turned him toward finding peaceful solutions. He was basically all alone, except for Bobby (who was A.G. and his chief confidante). It also makes a compelling case for the assassination being a CIA coup. I'm not finished reading the book but it is using all sorts of documentation--from the Church committee, from internal CIA documents, from Castro. It seems well-documented, solid and reliable.

A sad read, to be sure. But a necessary one. We really need to understand that assassination, and the other ones. We all need to understand it, to assimilate it, at long last, and to face the reality of this Bush junta that has been operating under the surface for four decades at least. It broke into the open with Bush Jr.'s regime. Perhaps that is why Bush Sr. may have acted to curtail Cheney and Rumsfeld (or assisted others in doing so). It was too naked, for all to see. But its step back, in favor of Obama, means little, if, through assassination, or today's method, Diebold & brethren, it can just turn around and install Jeb in 2012. I have no doubt of its ability to do that. We have much work to do on public education and strengthening (restoring, really) our democratic institutions, to prevent it. With the Financial 9/11 that the Bushwhacks just pulled off, things could get very ugly, indeed. We could be looking at Germany 1932, writ very, very large.

[Fire1]

9. War has always been a profiteering game just as Iraq and

Afghanistan is right now. My question in relation to the book you're reading right now, is that just prior to his assassination, JFK publicly stated that he was going to start pulling troops out of 'nam in December of that year. So, how could his death be in preparation for a war that was already in progress?

[Peace Patriot]

12. I meant preparation for the dramatic escalation that occurred in 1964, after he

was assassinated, culminating in the "Gulf of Tonkin" Resolution in Oct. 1964, contrived by the "peace candidate" (and president by default) LBJ.

Kennedy directed Robert McNamara to begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops and "advisers" from Vietnam shortly before he was killed. He would never have permitted the escalation to the levels of late 1964 and beyond. He had just fired Allen Dulles (CIA Director) and others for their lying bullshit about the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy supported the Bay of Pigs as a covert op, involving Cuban exiles. But he was adamant that no U.S. troops or other military support be used, and that the U.S. would NOT be involved in a war with Cuba. Dulles tried to trap him into it. He fired Dulles. He was furious at the CIA deception. They said they would not need U.S. military support, when they knew full well that they would. They deliberately planned to pressure him into it, once the invasion began. Similarly, in Vietnam, he seems to have believed that, if there was the will among local people to create, maintain and defend a country (or in that case, a portion of a country) outside of the "communist orbit," as an ally of the U.S., he would support covert aid to them. But he did NOT want war, still less a full scale slaughter like Vietnam became. He was at a half-way point toward becoming a peace-oriented president, but, as a child of the "Cold War," he was not fully free of that mind-set. His learning curve, and his conscience, were in motion--when he was killed.

The CIA was doing the same thing in Vietnam that it was doing re Cuba--trying to set things up for U.S. involvement in a major war. Kennedy opposed them on Cuba. He fired their Director (and others). He was starting to undo their prep for a major war in Vietnam. And they--determined upon a major war, with lots and lots of war profiteer booty--very likely killed him because of it. I agree with Douglass. I think it was all about the war and war profiteering. I have only recently come to this conclusion, looking back at that era, through the lens of the Iraq War. Douglass lays out the case for it. I didn't know there was such a strong case for it. To me, it was more a gut feeling. Suddenly, one day, during the last year or so, I thought, "Ah! So that's why they killed JFK" (and Bobby, and MLK). My thoughts about it gelled. It seems so obvious now, but it didn't for many years. Then, very recently, I learned of Douglass' just-published book. It's actually a bit scary--certainly sobering--to find out what a good case there is for it.

[Fire1]

14. This theory was confirmed about ten years ago, but I'll read

the book. Thanks

[Peace Patriot]

16. Confirmation in the evidence is one thing. Focused attention on what this means

for our society is quite another. Yes, I have been aware of some of the evidence, and have vaguely concluded that it is quite credible, and that the "official version" of JFK's assassination is a lie, and was a deliberate, contrived lie at the time. That JFK's assassination (and the ones that followed it) was an internal coup d'etat had long gone past being a "conspiracy theory" to me. However, I had not considered the question of "Why?" very deeply, or specifically. The Iraq War brought this into focus for me. The Iraq War has been nakedly and primarily a war profiteer project. The thievery is mind-boggling. It puts previous wars into perspective, because it has been so blatant.

Also, although I had a vague, general feeling that JFK (and RFK) would never have let the Vietnam War become the Armageddon that it was--a simply horrendous slaughter of 2 million people for no good reason--I did not know that there was so much evidence of JFK's increasing peace efforts, with virtually his entire government opposing him (not just the CIA). This is one of the things that Douglass is pointing out and meticulously documenting. JFK was very clearly a man who was in the process of "seeing the light." Once he was "inside," in the White House--and especially after the Bay of Pigs--he began to see what the CIA was really up to--NOT supporting democracy around the world, but instigating (setting up) wars to drag the U.S. into. And he made a very distinct turnabout, a movement away from the "Cold War"--in his backchannel dealings with Castro and Krushchev, in his speeches, in creating the first nuclear disarmament treaty, in evaluating CIA activities in Vietnam, and also on U.S./Latin American policy.

I additionally believe that his creation of the goal of putting men on the moon was his first effort to start bending the war budget toward peaceful uses. He was the first president who had to face--and tried to deal with--the untoward influence of U.S. war profiteers. Eisenhower didn't understand this until his last days in office (when he issued his warning about the threat to democracy posed by the "military-industrial complex"). Kennedy faced it full on. We had an economy made for war. All of the corporate interests, and all of the jobs, of that "military-industrial" economy, were going to (did) militate for war. What do you do? How to hammer "swords into plowshares"? NASA was JFK's first notion of how to do it. (And its budget for space exploration has been on the chopping block ever since his assassination.) I don't have any documentation for this. It's just a gut feeling, based partly on the impact I saw on family members and friends, who were CalTech engineers or AF officers, who LONGED to be engaged in PEACEFUL activity, and loved the space program because it was peaceful. They could put their skills to use to advance the human race, not to destroy it.

Leftists sometimes criticize the space program. Why spend money on that, they ask, when people are going hungry? They don't understand that the money will NEVER go to the hungry. It will go to bombs and bullets. I think that is what JFK understood. You cannot just pull the plug on a military economy. You have to start bending it the way you want it to go.

That JFK saw the moon program this way is supported by this other information about JFK's turn toward peace. I don't know if Douglass is going to get into this particular. But he sure is laying out the case for JFK's turnabout on war and peace as the reason that he was killed.

You say that this theory was "confirmed" about ten years ago. But it cannot be confirmed enough, or too frequently, in view of the truly intense and persistent propaganda for the "official version." Confirmed to whom? It wasn't confirmed to me--though I generally thought it was probably right. I think that what Douglass is doing in addressing and answering the "why" is putting it in a context that many people can understand--especially in view of the Iraq War. The evidence is strong--compelling, convincing, confirming, if you read it through--but why bother? It was 40 years ago. How does that help us now? It just hurts. And most people try to avoid hurting.

The Iraq War points back to the Vietnam War and the "Cold War," and you can't really understand the nightmare that our country has been living in, ever since, unless you peel back the curtain on JFK's assassination. People who have peeled it back for themselves know this. Most people don't know it. Maybe Douglass' book will help them. Right now, the evidence confirms nothing, for them, because they won't look at the evidence. But get them to see the context--after this seering, awful experience of the Bush junta and its wars--and maybe they will begin to be able to SEE the facts, first of all, and begin to understand their implications. One of the most important implications is that we are set up for Bush junta II, and a complete fall off the cliff into a nazi state--Obama to the contrary notwithstanding. The mechanisms are all in place, to deal with Obama if he becomes any kind of problem for the war profiteers. And it is certainly arguable that he has already been set up--to be blamed for everything, and ousted in 2012, in favor of whatever Bushite nazi the bad guys want to install.

There is a problem with loading horror-filled revelations upon people, and that is that they shut down. This is partly because they don't know what to DO. They feel powerless. We need to work on strategies of empowering the people--for instance, restoring transparent vote counting. But they also need help in facing the "unspeakable," as Douglass calls it. You can't encourage, empower and enfranchise people if they don't know what they're dealing with. You have to speak the unspeakable. Douglass understands this--and feels this--as a spiritual journey. This may be the way people can hear it.

[Fire1]

21. Well stated and an extension of Douglas's revelation of

evidence is the "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, which I am currently reading and highly recommended by several DU members. As you say, it is astounding but in retrospect makes so much sense. "You can't encourage, empower and enfranchise people if they don't know what they're dealing with." How true, but my problem with the post boomer generation, to whom we have passed the torch, seems to lack the sense of urgency and spirit of 'change' and/or reform. Oh, we verbalize and vote our urge for change but even Obama seems to have lost his progressive appeal. This, in and of itself, is disturbing. Reaching across the aisle is one thing but compromising the foundation of the platform upon which one was elected, is quite another. Any institution, organization or country is a reflection of it's leadership. I have vowed to support our new president these four years. However, if I see no progressive reforms to end this 'industrial military complex' and 'unregulated free-market' corporate domination, I will leave this country and denounce my citizenship.

[MinM]

10. JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=209x6350

[Doctor_J]

18. All of the Texas ultra-right wing were involved

Bush, Murchison, the Hunt Brothers, and the rest. It's a shame that so many believe the propaganda from Big Media about how the entire event was concocted by Oswald and then Ruby

[LeftishBrit]

19. Sorry, but I will not take any post seriously that includes a link to jesus-is-savior.com

This is an extreme religious-right site, which includes smears against Catholics, Muslims, atheists, etc.; and includes such headlines as "Choice is Abortion"; "Abortion is Murder"; "Homosexuality is a Sin"; "Barack Obama - America's COMMUNIST President"; etc.

Not to mention the following little gem:

"Serial killers, government tyrants, academic liberals, Catholic priests, politicians, Mormon Church higher-ups, Jewish rabbis, environmental extremists, communists, religious heretics, mass murderers, occultists, spies, and the Illuminati share something hideous and grotesque in common. Almost all are Sodomites. "

[Still Sensible]

22. I have always believed that someone in the MIC was

responsible, but a wide ranging conspiracy makes no sense. I suspect a very small group of people that were war profiteers--who made a boatload of money in WWII and wanted to do it again--conspired in the assassination. It could have been a single rich industrialist that employed a couple hired assassins. Oswald may or may not have been a shooter, but in any event was the patsy. Any involvement by GHWB is not likely, his interest was oil, not munitions. The CIA, perhaps, or at least a disgruntled operative. Just my opinion.