 |  |
BUSH CRIME FAMILY AND THEIR DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA  | Origins of the Bush Family from the April 2007 Idaho Observer. Enlarge the pdf file to 150% to make it readable. Deathbed confessions and photos enclosed, read it in depth to the end and this will explain all the wrong things happening and why our country is in peril.
http://arcticbeacon.com/books/George_H_Scherf_Jr.pdf 
|
| Who HAS the power today to suppress all this evidence and to continue to bombard us with ridiculous lies about a lone gunman? It’s a short list, isn’t it? It doesn’t include the mafia, or the Russians, or Castro. It does include the Bush family – or rather their masters in Big Oil; the banking elite; the backbone of the military industrial complex. These men, and their successors, carried out the attacks of 9-11. It matters. In his farewell address, President Eisenhower had warned Kennedy, and the rest of us, of the threat posed to democracy by what Eisenhower called “the military industrial complex.” And while Kennedy famously went after the CIA, and refused to commit troops to Vietnam, But he was swept away. And in the years since, millions have died in needless wars, trillions of dollars have been wasted on “defense”, and millions more people have lived and died needlessly in poverty. It matters that we lost JFK.
Anderson’s papers contain information on George H. W. Bush’s role in Dallas in November 1963. Dubya ordered papers seized and withheld as “classified” U.S. government documents. It is clear that the man standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository and his son have much to be worried about. The FBI also 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. |
|
| Court Filing Reveals How 2004 Ohio Presidential Election was Hacked: "Unexpected Shift in Votes For George W." A new filing in the King Lincoln Bronzeville v. Blackwell case includes a copy of the Ohio Secretary of State election production system configuration that was in use in Ohio's 2004 presidential election when there was a sudden and unexpected shift in votes for George W. Bush. |   |
| Additionally, the filing contains the contract signed between then-Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell and Connell's company, GovTech Solutions. Also included that contract a graphic architectural map of the Secretary of State's election night server layout system.
Cliff Arnebeck, lead attorney in the King Lincoln case, exchanged emails with IT security expert Stephen Spoonamore. Arnebeck asked Spoonamore whether or not SmarTech had the capability to "input data" and thus alter the results of Ohio's 2004 election. Spoonamore responded: "Yes. They would have had data input capacities. The system might have been set up to log which source generated the data but probably did not." Over time, evidence has emerged that supports the allegation that Ohio's vote data made an unscheduled detour through Chatanooga, TN and during that stop, was doctored to make sure George W. Bush won Ohio and the election.
This is one story where a picture really is worth a thousand words. Click the thumbnail at the top of the page to see the larger view of the chart. The part you need to pay attention to are the red arrows. They illustrate how the data flow could have been leveraged to tweak results in Bush's direction under the careful oversight of Ken Blackwell, Ohio's corrupt Secretary of State. SmarTech has an interesting genealogy. It was run by the late Michael Connell, IT guy for Karl Rove and the Bush family. He also ran GovTech, the company contracted by the state of Ohio (Blackwell) to handle the IT aspects of return processing. Connell was closely associated with the Donatelli clan and other notorious Republican bad guys. From Plaintiffs' brief (PDF): A group of academic researchers functioning under the rubric of ePluribus Media discovered and reported, shortly after the 2006 election, that a partisan Republican company, SmarTech, was hosting the Ohio Secretary of State's vote count for both the 2004/2006 elections. Collaborative research with a member of this network, holding a PhD in a scientific field, and establishment of a fact/expert relationship with Stephen Spoonamore led to plaintiffs’ counsel Arnebeck and Fitrakis meeting with U.S. House Representatives Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, and U.S. House Representatives Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations Oversight, Kucinich, to discuss the possibility of bringing witnesses Stephen Spoonamore and Michael Connell before their respective committees. This was in fulfillment of plaintiffs’ commitment to help gain federal involvement in the inquiry into the election theft of 2004 as part of the settlement concept for this case. This collaboration was also the basis upon which plaintiffs were able to establish relationship between Michael Connell’s work on behalf of Karl Rove in elections, and Connell’s work on behalf of the tobacco industry, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups, including the front group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, that operated as a purportedly independent expenditure group in the 2004 presidential election. Plaintiffs’ trial counsel had previously been involved in successful litigation against the Ohio and United States Chamber of Commerce in connection with their illegal expenditures of secret corporate money to influence the outcome of Ohio Supreme Court elections over the 2000 through 2004 election cycles. Here's another disturbing quote from the brief: In 2009, a CIA expert on the rigging of elections in foreign countries described at a meeting of the Election Assistance Commission just such a man-in-the-middle attack in the notorious 2004 Ukraine presidential election. The unraveling of the Ukrainian presidential election fraud had the help of overheard cell phone conversations directing the cover-up of the rigging operation. On March 3, 2009, the German Federal Constitutional Court declared that the electronic voting machines used in the 2005 Bundestag elections for the German national parliament were outside of the bounds of the German Constitution. I've been following this since 2004 and I don't intend to stop now. Having evidence of a built-in architecture for vote fraud is, I believe, just the tip of an iceberg that should begin to thaw any time now. In the meantime, let this argument from the brief resonate with each and every one of us who know in our gut that Republicans steal elections they can't win, whether by fraud or by disenfranchisement. The practice of permitting the use of touchscreen electronic voting machines in partisan elections, when such machines are, according to every scientific test and measure are insecure against hacking, and in the face of abundant evidence that Jim Crow, that is the misuse of law and practice to curtail and obliterate the votes and the voting power of African-Americans, is sufficient to meet plaintiffs’ burden of proof in the civil rights case. Summary Of The Bush Crime Family* HistoryFor any civilized endeavor to maintain its civility, there must be enforceable laws and/or rules; without which, there is anarchy. So, as we find ourselves struggling to regain our lost freedoms, perhaps we should take a strategic review of how we arrived at this alarming state, honestly apprise our current status, and as we depart from yet another major election, cast about for viable options for now as well as the foreseeable future. Any objective observer with the barest awareness of contemporary history should be able to readily trace the rise of this powerful movement that has taken control of the reins of power in the United States. The most blatant initial historical record is when Grandpa Prescott Bush and some of his cronies tried to entice General Smedley Butler to muster enough World War I veterans to take over the Presidency of The United States in 1933. Then again, in 1942 (a year after the U.S. joined World War II), Prescott Bush and this same cabal -- in their drive toward fascism -- were finally forced by the "Trading With the Enemy Act" to terminate their extensive business dealings with Hitler. After WWII, this American branch of the Nazis didn't lose the war, they just transformed the battleground. They expanded their "connections" with Hitler's intelligence networks from The War into the formation of our own CIA. It is also this same group that President Eisenhower opaquely identified as the "Military Industrial Complex," in his dark farewell speech to us. Later, it was Poppy George H.W. Bush who sat on a boat (named Barbara) off-shore and directed the Cuban Bay Of Pigs fiasco. As a direct consequence of that largely unsolicited action, John Kennedy banished him and his CIA brothers from his administration, albeit only temporarily, as George H.W. Bush, then an active CIA agent, was later photographed in Dealey Plaza that sunny November day in 1963. Perhaps the strongest case implicating George H.W. Bush (#41) in the assassination of JFK (#35) has been presented by John Hankey, an independent student of the crime, who has produced several documentaries laying out the case against him, the latest of which is “The Dark Legacy”. John has become very controversial, especially on the basis of attacks launched against him by an organization called “CTKA”, which has published a severe critique authored by one Seamus Coogan. While I do not believe that Hankey has everything right–in particular, his skepticism about the identity of a man seen standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository does not appear to be justified nor do his doubts about Fletcher Prouty’s identification of USAF Gen. Edward Lansdale in a photograph of “the three tramps”, which was confirmed by no less a personage than Gen. Victor Krulak, former Commandant of the Marine Corps, where other photos show the same man having walked up to George H.W. Bush, which, ironically, is about the strongest possible confirmation of Hankey’s thesis that anyone could want–he has been on the right track. Lansdale was famous in the CIA for his skill at arranging assassinations, where many of us believe that he organized the actual execution that took place in Dealey Plaza. In CTKA’s critique, “The Dark Legacy of John Hankey”, however, Seamus Coogan commits so many serious blunders in his discussion of the assassination that anyone less familiar with the eddies and currents of JFK research might suspect it was a work of disinformation. Since the CTKA site is supervised by Jim DiEugenio, I should observe that I have not been uniformly impressed by his own research on JFK. He published a well-regarded book on Jim Garrison, Destiny Betrayed (1992), and co-edited Assassinations (2003) with Lisa Pease, which reprinted many excellent essays that had previously been published in PROBE, the journal of CTKA. But I have found his work on other matters highly uneven, including, in particular, his defense of the research by Jefferson Morley and David Talbot into the revelations by Shane O’Sullivan, which substantiated the identification of three persons at the Ambassador Hotel the evening that Bobby was shot, which I have discussed in detail in “RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador”. Even on the basis of my mixed experience with them in the past, I have been surprised by the blunders that are committed in the course of their critique of Hankey’s work. Here I will illustrate with three. (1) Coogan faults him for reporting 6 or 7 wounds That there be no doubt of what Coogan is claiming, I will cite the specific passages vertatim: 18:43 Hankey tries to sell the idea that, in all, there were 6 wounds in Kennedy and Connally. Yet you may recall that at the time of 14:23 Hankey had already utilised the iconic courtroom clip from “JFK” in which Garrison (Kevin Costner) utilises Alven Oser (Gary Grubbs) and Numa Bertel (Wayne Knight) to demonstrate the trajectory of the 7 wounds in both Kennedy and Connally. Hankey somehow missed the fact that, most of the time, entrance wounds leave exits. But JFK had an entry wound to his throat (#1), an entry wound to his back 5.5″ below his collar just to the right of the spinal column (#2), an entry at the back of his head in the vicinity of the external occipital protuberance (#3), and another entry in the vicinity of his right temple (#4), while Gov. John Connally was hit at least once in the back (#5) and perhaps as many as twice more, once in the right wrist (#6) and once in his left thigh (#7). While there is room to argue that (#7) may have resulted from (#6), even then there are 6 or 7 hits–plus we know that 3 other shots missed! The evidence can be found in Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), but more effortlessly in “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What happened to JFK?”, for example, which is easily accessible on-line. For Coogan to imply that Hankey is wrong strikes me as a rather important blunder. These shots were fired from in front, from the side, and from behind.
Lansdale walking past "the three tramps" (2) Coogan assumes that the Zapruder film is authentic In another passage, Coogan takes for granted that the Zapruder film is authentic as a resource: You may be asking: “So what if Connally had used the incorrect term, and anyhow Hankey did eventually admit Kennedy slumped.” Well actually it’s quite an issue. Because Hankey uses the slump to launch into a diatribe about Connally seeing Kennedy ’choking on a bullet and being shot in the head’ when there is no evidence for this on the Zapruder film. As adjudged by the Z film, everybody in the world – except Hankey – can clearly determine that Connally only gives Kennedy a brief glance. And he is clearly turning back around at the time of the fatal headshot. But the proofs that the film has been reconstructed to remove the limo stop and conceal the blow-out to the back of JFK’s head is abundant and compelling. I organized the first symposium on Zapruder film alteration at the Lancer Conference in Dallas in 1996 and have published a book and many articles about it, including “JFK: Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?” and “US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication” on Veterans Today. The Zapruder camera used a 16mm strip of celluloid by shooting the “A” side and then flipping over to shoot the “B” side. To be projected in an 8mm projector, it had to be split and spliced together. But an 8mm split film developed in Dallas was brought to NPIC in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, 23 November, while a 16mm unsplit film developed in Rochester was brought there the following day. There are five physical differences between the original and the extant version. As though that were not enough, Clint Hill has been describing his actions that day the same way for 47 years, including rushing forward, climbing on the limo, pushing Jackie down and lying across their bodies while peering down into a massive, fist-sized hole in the back of JFK’s head, then turning to his colleagues and giving them a “thumb’s down” before the vehicle reaches the Triple Underpass–yet none of this is in the extant film. Anyone who compares frame 374, in which that blow-out can be seen, with frames following 313 can determine for themselves that it has been blackened out in earlier frames. And Connally also reported in his early testimony that he looked over his right shoulder to see what was going on, but then turned back to his left to get a better view when he felt a doubling-up in his chest from a shot fired from the side. Which means that Connally’s own testimony provides another proof of Zapruder fakery. Those who write without understanding this much about these things appear to be either incompetent or dissembling. (3) Coogan denies the body was secretly removed from the plane The occurrence of body alteration has been established by the meticulous research of David S. Lifton, Best Evidence (1980), which has now been corroborated–in spades!–by the ARRB, as Douglas Horne, who served as its Chief Analyst for Military Records, has demonstrated in his five-volume study, Inside the ARRB (2009). That, however, does not inhibit Coogan from taking Hankey to task over the prospect that JFK’s body was secretly removed from Air Force One while the official, ceremonial bronze casket was being off-loaded under the glare of the bright lights of the national new media. He is thus moved to make observations such as the following:
Lansdale waiting to speak with Bush I have to wonder how many people have ever watched the arrival of Kennedy’s coffin? It’s virtually impossible for anything to have gone on. Now while the runway suddenly goes black and there is mention of a power cut as the plane comes in, the plane is still very much in motion when the lights are restored making it pretty hard to disembark a ton worth of casket. What most authorities believe today is that there was post-autopsy fakery in the x-rays, and perhaps the photos. And clearly, some of the photos are missing. (See for example, Gary Aguilar’s excellent essay in Murder In Dealey Plaza, pgs. 175-218) But the throat wound, which was described as a small, round wound of entry by Malcolm Perry, M.D., three times during the Parkland Press Conference at Parkland Hospital, which I published as Appendix C in Assassination Science (1998) but was not provided to the Warren Commission, is very different than the large, ragged wound photographed during the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, as I display in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), page 14 (but also in my public presentations). Perhaps the most stunning indication of the incompetence of Coogan, however, is his favorable citation of the chapter by Gary Aguilar in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000). Aguilar’s study is devoted to demonstrating consistency between the observations of the massive blow-out at the back of the head as it was observed at Parkland and the descriptions of the wound as they were reported from Bethesda. We know from Horne’s work that Aguilar has exaggerated their consistency, since James Humes, USN-MC, who was in charge of the autopsy, actually took a cranial saw to the head to enlarge the wound. More importantly, however, is that, if Aguilar were right, then the film has to have been altered, since the blow-out he documents is not visible in most of the film. As I have explained to others who have wanted to endorse Aguilar’s work while denying that the film has been altered, you can’t consistently do both. If Aguilar is right, then the film is fake; and if the film is authentic, then Aguilar is wrong. There are other blunders in Coogan’s critique, including his taking at face value Richard Nixon’s contentions that he only learned of the assassination when he arrived in New York–of which he gave several versions, one of which was that “Nixon says he heard a screaming woman, stopped the cab, and wound down the window”. But if the window was up, how could Nixon have heard the woman scream? And surely screaming is not so uncommon in New York that it would have attracted the attention of this very self-centered and devious man. Like Bush and LBJ, Nixon was also complicit in the assassination of JFK. I am not saying that Seamus Coogan got everything wrong or that John Hankey got everything right. But I do believe that the role of George Herbert Walker Bush in the assassination of JFK is a subject that deserves a great deal more attention than it has received in the past and which, I must infer, it most certainly is not going to receive from Jim DiEugenio and Seamus Coogan. And this, in turn, makes me think that, when CTKA was being formed, my decision not to join was wiser than I could have known at the time. I am increasingly disturbed by the role it has taken in suppressing what we know about the medical evidence, including the alteration of the body, and the Zapruder film, which has been massively revised. If those who run CTKA can’t get even the most basic of our important scientific findings about the assassination right, then it is hardly surprising that they are going to trash those who are doing decidedly better than they are at pursuing the truth about JFK. It Never Ends – MORE Startling Evidence of Bush in Dallas by John Hankey I don’t think we are much encouraged to see History as science. Quite the opposite, actually. And of course, that’s all politics. The winners write history, and the truth be damned. Even science can have trouble trying to act like science when political issues are involved, as we see with evolution, tobacco-and-cancer, and global warming. But I think History does have a lot in common with physical science. For example, I can remember when “Continental Drift”, the idea that Africa and America were once stuck together, was very much considered “just a theory”; ridiculed by some, and regarded with amusement by many, and promulgated as likely by a tiny minority. But as time goes by, the evidence accumulates; and the meaning of old evidence begins to settle in; and ideas that were once considered outrageous gradually get worn in and start to be regarded as obvious common sense. Part of this process is the continual accumulation of new evidence. New pieces are added to the puzzle and the picture becomes more clear. And sometimes the hidden meaning of old evidence, that has been lying around for years, suddenly jumps out. Evidence of the fossils and minerals that can be found on the east coast of Africa, and on the west coast of Brazil, may have been lying around for years, before someone decided to look and see if they matched, and found that they did; and proved conclusively that west Africa and Brazil were once attached. With regard to George HW Bush and the murder of John Kennedy, Joseph McBride found this memo in 1988:
Memo about "George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" FBI director J. Edgar Hoover wrote this memo 5 days after the assassination, naming George Bush as a CIA officer. The last, and most crucial paragraph, is very hard to read. The following is a transcription: “The substance of the forgoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. V.T. Forsyth of this Bureau.” When it was first released in 1978, George Bush was an obscure bureaucrat, a virtual unknown. So when the best researchers on the planet saw this memo in 1978, they didn’t pay much attention to it. When Bush became vice president two years later, no one was able to connect his now well-known name to this obscure memo. But when Joseph McBride was messing around in 1988, Bush was running for president; and when McBride saw the memo, he jumped up and shouted “Hey, this memo is about Bush! It says he was in the CIA, way back in 1963!” And for the longest time, the focus was on this simple isolated fact: that Hoover said Bush was in the CIA in ’63. Bush said the memo must be referring to another “George Bush,” because he wasn’t in the CIA at that time. But over the years, people were able to assemble the facts from Bush’s personal life, showing his deep involvement with the CIA at that time, and with the CIA’s anti-Castro Cubans (in the memo, Hoover calls them “misguided anti-Castro Cubans”). And over time, it has become undeniable; that Hoover was referring, in his memo, to none other than George Herbert Walker Bush. And for a while, that was it. End of story.
RUSH TO JUDGMENT (2nd edition, 1992) But the title of this Hoover memo is, “Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy”. Isn’t that important? Well, you’d think so. But for the longest time, no one made much out it. Besides, Hoover scarcely mentions the assassination in the memo, instead focusing on these “misguided anti-Castro Cubans.” The body of the memo does not appear, at first, to be in any way related to the title of the memo “the assassination of President John F Kennedy”. But then Mark Lane, in Rush to Judgment , did the fabulous work of demonstrating, and in fact persuading a jury, that E. Howard Hunt, a major lieutenant in the CIA’s “misguided anti-Castro Cuban” program, was in Dallas and involved in the assassination. With this background–with this framework to guide the researcher–it was then possible to assemble the evidence linking Bush to Hunt. People might have taken some notice before that Bush made the unusual request, as Nixon’s ambassador to the UN, to be given an office in the White House. They may have noticed that Hunt, although he was not being paid by anyone in the White House, or answering to anyone that we know of in the White House, also had a White House office. But with the Hoover memo in hand, establishing Bush as a supervisor of the CIA’s “misguided anti-Castro Cuban” operation, it is possible to connect Bush to Hunt at the Bay of Pigs. With this memo in hand, it is possible to connect Bush and Hunt as two CIA operatives with offices inside the White House. With this memo in hand, it is possible to answer who it was that Hunt answered to inside the White House; and how he got the office in the first place. And with all that, it is possible to connect Bush to Hunt, and therefore to Dallas, to Hunt in Dallas, and to the “misguided anti-Castro Cuban” assassins of John Kennedy. Which is what Hoover did for us when he wrote the title of the memo. Little by little, the pieces start to fall into place. And pieces that in isolation meant nothing, become key parts of a whole picture. But even so, this is not a rock-solid connection: Hunt was directly involved in the murder of JFK. And Bush supervised Hunt. But Bush probably supervised a lot of CIA people, not all of whom were directly involved in the assassination. A high-ranking officer may be connected to all of the acts of all of his troops, by reason of his being their commander. But it’s not a direct connection. It doesn’t establish that the officer knew about, or approved of, or was involved in, all the actions of those troops. Enter FBI memo # 2:
Memo about the "President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company" It will come up again in a minute, so please read the first line carefully. Bush identifies himself to the FBI as an independent oil man from Houston. This memo establishes that sort of direct connection between Bush and Hunt, in Dallas, on the day of the assassination. This memo records Bush’s phone call to the FBI, precisely an hour and fifteen minutes after the assassination. When I first encountered this memo, and when I first put it into my movie, JFK II, I simply called it “weird”. I saw it only in isolation, a weird, isolated connection between Bush and the assassination. It took me years to see it in context. That is, to see that this phone call demonstrates, clearly, that George Bush, was on duty that day. He was staying at the Dallas Sheraton because his duty assignment was in Dallas. His phone call to the FBI cannot have been random. This James Parrott worked for Bush as a sign-painter; he was not an assassin; this phone call is not what it purports to be; Bush was fulfilling some obscure under-cover function in making this call. So the phone call has to be seen as part of his CIA assignment; which was clearly connected to the assassination. This memo then establishes that Bush was in the Dallas area, and on duty; and that his duty assignment was connected to the assassination. And if his men were in Dallas shooting the President, as they were, he was certainly on duty supervising them. If he were not supposed to be supervising them, his bosses would have assigned him to be at his home office in Houston, Texas; or on his oil rigs in the Caribbean. But, even in context, this memo and the phone call it describes is still weird, no? I mean, how could Bush have been so stupid as to make this insanely incriminating phone call? Without this FBI memo, recording this phone call, we don’t know, or even have a good clue as to where Bush was, or what he was doing the day of the assassination. Do we? Bush has, until recently, simply said that he did not remember what he was doing the day of the assassination. But with this memo, Bush tells us where he was and what he was doing — he hands us his head on a silver platter. What could possibly have motivated him to make such a stupid error as making this phone call to the FBI? It’s a valid question. It’s not an essential question. We can still value this memo, and extract a great deal of important content from it without answering the question of why, but the question remains. Why the phony phone call? And we can make a stab at answering it. Russ Baker in his fine book, Family of Secrets, suggests that Bush was attempting to establish an alibi. Now, by making this phone call, he, in fact, establishes that he was in the Dallas area, and that he was on duty, related to the assassination. So if he’s trying to establish an alibi to cover-up where he actually was and what he was actually doing, what he is trying to cover up must be some pretty bad stuff, some pretty incriminating stuff, if it’s worse than what he gives us with this alibi. And what could be worse than what he gives us? Well, obviously, he must have actually been in Dallas. In fact, I think, this situation suggests he must have actually been in Dealey Plaza. I mean seriously. Think about it. He’s so panicked about the truth coming out, that he puts his head in a noose and hands it to us. It makes me think he must have been in Dealey Plaza, he must have been in the company of the shooters, and he must have felt that there would be evidence to prove that. We’re just speculating at the moment. We’ll get to the evidence right now, but I’m trying to set the scene. If a guilty party is in a panic, trying to cover evidence connecting them to a crime, they may invent an explanation, or an alibi, that seems like a good idea at the time; but that in fact constitutes a very damaging admission. Anyway, stew on that while you consider this photo:
A familiar figure on 22 November 1963 You see this tall thin man in a suit, with a receding hair line. Many people claim this is Bush, standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository. And it might be. It might be a lot of people. And perhaps, when he called the FBI and incriminated himself, Bush was concerned that he might show up in a better picture than this, where he was positively recognizable, looking towards the camera. Personally, I don’t think this photo looks much like Bush; and in fact, I didn’t think he’d be stupid enough to just be hanging around the murder scene. I thought he was sufficiently high ranking that he’d leave such on-scene stuff to his underlings. Right? At least in my mind, if you’re an officer like Bush, you’re the coach. You plan, you train and prepare your people, and then you stand back and watch it happen. Or so I thought. Fletcher Prouty was certain that he saw pictures of Ed Lansdale, a military operative of the highest rank, signaling to the “tramps” arrested behind the grassy knoll to “be cool,” that everything was alright. Hunt was a high-ranking CIA officer, chief of the CIA’s Mexico station; and his son says he is one of the “tramps” who show up in several photos of men who were arrested behind the grassy knoll. So, some of the highest ranking members of the killers’ operation were apparently there, on the front line, to make sure that when things went wrong, as they inevitably do, these high ranking officers could be there to fix whatever the problem was. So, given that high- and low- ranking CIA officers were present, this photo of this thin man in a suit might, indeed, be Bush. It’s possible. Shooters at the Dal-Tex And now, look at this picture of the Dal-Tex building. The Dal-Tex building is across the street from the Book Depository, and many leading researchers into the assassination, including Jim Garrison, say there was certainly a team of shooters in this building:
Altgens photo with close-up of Dal-Tex window
Colorized version of blow-up of the Dal-Tex window And as you can see, some imaginative individual has added some color to indicate three men in this window. Very creative, very imaginative; and at least plausible. Still, it takes way too much imagination and effort, to see Bush’s face. But now observe this link about Roger Craig. Actually, you don’t have to stop and read it, because I’ll quote the relevant part. It’s a statement from Roger Craig, winner of the deputy of the year award for Dallas in 1960, and one of the most honest men working that day in Dallas. He’s an amazing and heroic fellow, worthy of all the time you could take looking into his background and character. And here, in the following passage, he is describing a conversation he had with Jim Garrison, and he says, “Jim also asked me about the arrests made in Dealey Plaza that day. I told him I knew of twelve arrests, one in particular made by R. E. Vaughn of the Dallas Police Department. The man Vaughn arrested was coming from the Dal-Tex Building across from the Texas School Book Depository. The only thing which Vaughn knew about him was that he was an independent oil operator from Houston, Texas. The prisoner was taken from Vaughn by Dallas Police detectives and that was the last that he saw or heard of the suspect.” (emphasis added) Holy Moe Lee! Please notice that, in speaking to Jim Garrison, Craig says “in particular”. Apparently he and Vaughn thought this was the most significant arrest made that day; pretty amazing given that E.Howard Hunt was arrested in the rail yard behind the grassy knoll. And the only thing Craig knew about this “particular” arrestee was that he had exactly the same singular CIA-cover, “an independent oil operator from Houston, Texas”, that George Bush had used that same day in his contact with the FBI. Now, there are a very limited number of possible explanations for who this “independent oil operator” was. Let’s look at them. Who was the “independent oil operator”? It is conceivable that the CIA had two men in Dallas area that day, supervising the shooters, who both had the designated cover of being an “independent oil operator from Houston.” Bush was one, as the evidence above clearly shows; and perhaps there was another who was with the shooters in the Dal-Tex building, supervising them directly. But unless the CIA overlords were trying to set Bush up, they would not have told anyone else to use Bush’s CIA cover to identify themselves to the police. If another man was involved in the crime, and was arrested for it, and he told the cops he was an “independent oil operator from Houston,” this would tend to throw suspicion in Bush’s direction. Bush’s association with the CIA’s Cubans was already widely known. Fletcher Prouty knew and wrote of it. Fabian Escalante, the head of Cuban counter intelligence, knew and has written about it. James Files, who claims very credibly, to have been a driver for the Mafia shooters in Dallas, has spoken on-camera about it. And FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, knew about it and wrote about it in his memo. So Bush was already a suspect in Hoover’s eyes. The CIA planners, then, would not have told anyone else, “in case you get arrested, tell the cops you’re an independent oil man from Houston”. Right? They would not have done this, since it would tend to incriminate Bush, who was already in a highly visible, highly suspicious position. Another unlikely possibility is that this “independent oil operator from Houston” was just some innocent oil operator, who somehow managed to attract suspicion, and was arrested. Do you think it’s possible that another oil man from Houston just happened to be in that corner of Dealey Plaza? I hope you think it’s possible. Because, as unlikely as it seems, if you think it was possible, then certainly Bush would have been reasonable in thinking that, as he was being arrested, there were other independent oil operators in the crowd who witnessed his arrest. You see, Bush spoke to a group of oil men in Dallas the night before the assassination (*2). If it were possible that some of them were in Dealey Plaza, he would need to be terrified of the possibility that some of them might actually have seen the arrest, and would have been able to identify him as the object of that arrest. No wonder, then, that Bush freaked out and made this stupid incriminating phone call to the FBI. Even if it showed that he was not in Houston, or in the Caribbean, but in Dallas, at least it suggested that he was not in police custody for the murder of the President, in Dealey Plaza. But now stop and think a minute: why was he arrested? What was he doing that drew this cop’s attention at all? What could he possibly have been doing to make this cop think that he needed to arrest Bush? Perhaps walking out of a building without attracting attention is harder than it sounds; and it reasonable to suppose that the crowd outside the Dal-Tex building had heard the shots, had heard that the President had been wounded, and they were carefully scrutinizing anyone who came out of the building. But this story shows clearly that Bush was not the sort of cold-blooded killer who could take part in the murder of a man, and then act and look like nothing was going on as he tried to leave the scene of the crime. And it turns out that as an old man, Bush continues to suffer from this character trait, of being unable to hide feelings that need to be kept secret. As you can see in this link, at Gerry Ford’s funeral, Bush suddenly breaks into a wide grin while speaking of the Kennedy assassination. This is not a Mona Lisa smile. This is face-wrenching spasm of glee. In a minute we’ll take up the question of why Bush would grin at his recollection of watching John Kennedy’s brains splatter; the point for us now is that he apparently had a similarly inappropriate, show-stopping expression on his face as he attempted to exit the Dal-Tex building; he had the look of a murderer in his eye, so clearly that it could not be missed; as this funereal-grin could not be missed. And the guilt plastered all over Bush’s face drew people’s attention. And this cop, Vaughn, arrested him. Now remember, Roger Craig tells this story in the context of his discussions with New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison about the suspects who were arrested that day and who then evaporated without leaving a mugshot, interview, fingerprint, or name. Garrison spoke not only to Roger Craig, but he no-doubt spoke to Vaughn, who made the arrest. And Garrison adds the following:
ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS (1991) “At least one man arrested immediately after the shooting had come running out of the Dal-Tex Building and offered no explanation for his presence there. Local authorities hardly could avoid arresting him because of the clamor of the onlookers. He was taken to the Sheriff’s office, where he was held for questioning. However, the Sheriff’s office made no record of the questions asked this suspect, if any were asked; nor did it have a record of his name. Later two uniformed police officers escorted him out of the building to the jeers of the waiting crowd. They put him in a police car, and he was driven away. Apparently this was his farewell to Dallas, for he simply disappeared forever.” (On the Trail of the Assassins, p. 238) This vision of the panicked Bush being arrested, no-doubt terrified as he was taken to the police station, and possibly even booked (though the record of any such booking has been destroyed) provides a context that explains a number of Bush’s otherwise-mysterious actions. Certainly Bush was freaked out and panic-stricken! An angry crowd clamored for his arrest, and jeered his release. Being a newbie in these dark affairs, Bush didn’t have confidence in the ability of the old devils at CIA to make water run uphill, to make time run backwards, to silence the witnesses, to destroy the records, and make it all go away. And so he panicked; he acted on his own, stupidly; he called the FBI, thinking that he was “cleverly” providing evidence that it wasn’t him who was arrested in front of the Dal-Tex building that day. In his panic-stricken state, this seemed like a good idea. He was unable to see that he was actually creating a permanent absolutely-positive record of his involvement. We can now also explain the grin. He grins ridiculously at Gerry Ford’s funeral, at the mention of John Kennedy’s murder, not because he is such a ghoul that he thinks splattering the contents of Kenney’s head all over Jackie Kennedy was funny; but because mentioning the assassination causes him to recall the comedy of errors that produced his own ridiculous panic, arrest, more panic, and so on. Garrison wrote his paragraph about Bush’s arrest in 1988. Deputy Craig’s article was written in 1971 and posted in 1992. But the significance of these paragraphs was discovered last week. There hardly was an internet in 1992 when Craig’s article was posted. And for 19 years, no one noticed that this phrase, “independent oil man from Houston”, is a very unique description of Bush. No one noticed until last month, when one of the moderators of JFKMurderSolved showed it to me. And I wrote about it to some friends, and one of them suggested I read what Jim Garrison had to say.
THE FAMILY: THE REAL STORY OF THE BUSH DYNASTY (2004) So the pieces continue to fall into place. Little by little, the picture is filled in, the questions get answered. And the conclusions become more incontrovertible. This is just the sort thing that happened with the theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory; and the theory of continental drift. And someday they may start to teach history, as a science, based on evidence, in the universities. Really! It could happen! At which point, Bush’s involvement in JFK’s murder will be taught, like evolution, as the only plausible explanation of the available reliable evidence. Final note: Until recently, Bush had nothing more to say about his whereabouts the day of the assassination than that he doesn’t remember where he was. That in itself is extraordinarily incriminating. Everyone who was alive at the time remembers where they were on 9-11, and on the day Kennedy was murdered. But, saying that he doesn’t remember, however improbable, is at least consistent with Bush’s autobiography, which mentions nothing. The Oil Man’s Cover Story Lately, however, perhaps at least partly in response to my work, Bush and Co. have concocted a story that he was speaking in Tyler, Texas to the Rotary Club. The vice-president of the Rotary Club, Aubrey Irby, says that Bush was speaking when the bellhop came over and told him, that Kennedy was dead (*1). Mr. Irby passed the information on to Mr. Wendell Cherry, who passed it on to Bush; who stopped his speech. Irby says that Bush explained that he thought a political speech, under the circumstances, was inappropriate; and then he sat down. As a would-be alibi proving Bush’s innocence, there are at least three huge problems with this story. PROBLEM 1: The first is that it is inconceivable that Bush would not have remembered such an event; or that he would have left it out of his autobiography, since it shows what a fine and respectful fellow he is. If he didn’t remember it sooner, or include it in his autobiography, it’s clearly because it never happened. PROBLEM 2: The second huge problem with this story is that it couldn’t possibly have happened; that is, it is made impossible by Bush’s original alibi, his phone call to the FBI, as you’ll see: The witness who tells this story, Aubrey Irby, says that Bush excused himself and sat down. It doesn’t say that he rushed out of the room in a frantic search for a phone. The problem is that Walter Cronkite’s announcement to the world that Kennedy was dead came at 1:38. Certainly, no one was listening to Walter Cronkite in the same room in which Bush was speaking. Therefore we can be sure that this bellhop, who told Irby that Kennedy was dead, was in another room. The bellhop had to make the decision that he had heard enough of the news to leave off listening to the news. This is no small point. Texas governor Connally was severely wounded. Lyndon Johnson was reportedly wounded. There was much other news to be confirmed. At some point, then, the bellhop decided to stop listening and go make an announcement. There’s no reason to think Irby would be the first person he would tell. But at some point he went to the room where Bush was speaking and informed Mr. Irby that the president was dead. This walk to find Irby took time, of course. Mr. Irby had to receive the information, and then he had to decide to inform Mr. Wendell Cherry, the president of the Kiwanis. Mr. Cherry had to decide that he should interrupt Bush’s speech; Mr. Cherry had to then walk over to Bush and tell him the news.
FAMILY OF SECRETS (2008) Bush had to decide what to say; and he had to say it. And, according to the only witness, Mr. Irby, Bush “then sat down”. Somehow, when he was finished sitting, without attracting Mr. Irby’s attention, Bush had to seek and find a phone. This would have been a hotel phone, so he would likely have had to go through the hotel switchboard to get an outside line. Do you suppose the switchboard was busy after the announcement of the President’s death? It’s a good guess. In Washington D.C. so many people rushed to make a phone call that the phone system went down. In any case, once he got through to the hotel operator and got an outside line, Bush then had to call information and get the number of the FBI. After getting through to information, and getting the number, he then had to call the FBI; and penetrate their switchboard, which was, no doubt, very busy; and he had to locate an agent, on what must have been the busiest day in the history of the Dallas bureau. How many minutes do you suppose that would take? Twenty seems a fair guess, though it seems implausible that a civilian could even get through, given all the official police business going on at the time. We know that the Dallas FBI was all over the murder scene, confiscating camera film and intimidating witnesses; so it’s hard to imagine how Bush, an hour after the shooting, was able to reach an agent at all. Given the “sitting” that Mr. Irby observed Bush doing, for all this to have transpired in 45 minutes would be tidy work. But Bush had to do all of this, as the FBI memo states, by 1:45, seven minutes after the news of Kennedy’s death first went out; which is blatantly impossible. PROBLEM 3: The third problem is this question of why Bush would feel that it was necessary to concoct such a story at all? Why does he have to tell us this lie? Why does he have to get others, like Irby, to lie for him? The irony is that the harder he tries to make himself appear innocent, by lying, the more evidence he gives us of his guilt. (*1) Kitty Kelley, The Family: the Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, p.213; cited by Russ Baker, Family of Secrets, p. 54
(*2) There are some people who manage to point to this and say “Ahha! That’s why Bush was in Dallas! Not to kill the President, but to speak to the other oilmen!” But as the Hoover memo shows, being an oilman was just a cover for Bush’s real occupation as a CIA supervisor of trained killers. He needed an excuse for being in Dallas. This speaking engagement provided him with one. ———————- “George Bush killed Kennedy. Or was it the Mafia? Maybe Castro did it. Who cares? It was 40 years ago. What difference does it make?” It matters. The day he died we lost an invaluable treasure. This video documents that we lost a man of peace, who tried to cool off the cold war, and to get the American people to see their Russian enemies, not as despicable inhuman monsters, but as people like us. On November 22, 1963, you lost the man who saved your life on October 17, 1962. At the height of the missile crisis, Kennedy’s generals and advisors were urging him to launch a first strike attack against Cuba. They assured Kennedy that the Russian missiles in Cuba were not nuclear and were not ready; but that he and they should quietly slip away to the safety of bomb shelters anyway, just to be safe; and then launch an attack, leaving the rest of us out to die. Kennedy thought about it. And then he told them that nobody was going anywhere. If anyone died, they would be the first to go, sitting as they were in the Whitehouse, the prime target of those Russian missiles. Together they then figured out a safer plan. Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense at the time, recently learned from the Russians that the missiles were armed, were ready, were nuclear, and that their commanders were authorized to use them in case of an attack. If you live in the northern hemisphere, the lives of your parents, and your future, were certainly saved by John Kennedy on that day. It matters that his killers be exposed. In his farewell address, President Eisenhower had warned Kennedy, and the rest of us, of the threat posed to democracy by what Eisenhower called “the military industrial complex.” And while Kennedy famously went after the CIA, and refused to commit troops to Vietnam, I always wondered why he didn’t more openly attack this military industrial complex. And then I stumbled upon a speech he gave at the United Nations. As you will see in the video, he called upon the Russians, and United Nations, to help him to take on this military industrial complex, in order to “abolish all armies and all weapons.” But he was swept away. And in the years since, millions have died in needless wars, trillions of dollars have been wasted on “defense”, and millions more people have lived and died needlessly in poverty. It matters that we lost him.
Bruce Willis speaks his mind about JFK In 2007, Bruce Willis told Vanity Fair magazine, “They still haven’t caught the guy that killed Kennedy. I’ll get killed for saying this, but I’m pretty sure those guys are still in power, in some form. The entire government of the United States was co-opted.” Now Willis probably would not mind my suggesting that he’s no genius. At best, his observation is common sense. 80% of the American people agree with him. Indeed, this video, proving that Kennedy was brought down by the most powerful men in the world and their hired thugs, is not based on secret documents. It is all information that has merely been suppressed. Oswald allegedly shot Kennedy from behind. But the day he died, the NY Times carried the story, told by the doctors in Dallas, that Kennedy had an entrance wound in his throat, another in his right temple, and a large gaping exit wound in the back of his head. After talking to the emergency room doctors, Kennedy’s press secretary described, to the assembled press, a shot to the right temple from the right front that went “right through the head.” All of the witnesses near the right front, the grassy knoll, described hearing shots from that direction, and dozens of witnesses raced up the knoll in pursuit of the shooters. These witnesses talked to the press. But all of this information has been suppressed for the last 50 years. By whom? Who could? You will also see in this video the overwhelming best evidence, from the best witnesses, proving beyond a reasonable dispute, that Kennedy’s body was stolen from Air Force One, and the wound to his throat was mutilated, before the autopsy. Jackie Kennedy kept watch over an empty casket on the flight from Dallas to Bethesda Naval Hospital. Then the body was quietly taken to Bethesda for the autopsy, arriving 20 minutes before Jackie and the empty casket. Who had the power to arrange this? Who HAS the power today to suppress all this evidence and to continue to bombard us with ridiculous lies about a lone gunman? It’s a short list, isn’t it? It doesn’t include the mafia, or the Russians, or Castro. It does include the Bush family – or rather their masters in Big Oil; the banking elite; the backbone of the military industrial complex. These men, and their successors, carried out the attacks of 9-11. It matters. From FDR to today, the Bush Crime Family and their fixated core of corporate fascists have, using unbridled corporate power, been tightening their grip on the throats of the American political, legal, economic and media systems -- as the following excerpt from the Democratic Underground so well outlines: "A Pocket History of the Bush Organized Crime Family Crime Line Hitler's "Angel" -- Prescott Bush and his Wall Street cronies helped finance and arm the Third Reich.* Some continued trading with the enemy even after Germany declared war on America. Bay of Pigs -- Bush the Oilman and his Cuban and Mafia friends raise hell in Miami, New Orleans and Houston. Nice fellahs. LBJ called their organization "A regular Murder Inc in the Caribbean." 22 November 1963, Dallas* -- George DeMohrenschildt the "White Russian geologist" is friends with both Lee Harvey Oswald and George Herbert Walker Bush. Small world, as the coincidences get bigger. Almost 40 years later, FBI memos surface that detail how George Herbert Walker Bush fingered a young conservative the day of the assassination and "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" cleared the anti-Castro Cubans in Miami days later.
A thoroughly documented criminal indictment establishing beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of George HW Bush as a supervisor in the conspiracy to assassinate John Kennedy. The evidence relies primarily on governement documents and public records. The center piece of the evidence is a memo entitled “Assassination of President John F. Kennedy”, signed by J Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, 5 days after the assassination, which names Bush as a supervisor of CIA-trained assassins. Another FBI memo establishes Bush’s presence in the Dallas area at the time of the assassination
Anderson’s papers contain information on George H. W. Bush’s role in Dallas in November 1963. Dubya ordered papers seized and withheld as “classified” U.S. government documents. It is clear that the man standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository and his son have much to be worried about. The FBI also 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. Spook in the White House All eyes on George Bush. Here is the man who, as Director of the CIA, fronted the agency's public relations campaign during those strained years of the House Select Committee on Assassinations' investigation into the murders of JFK andMartin Luther King, Jr. Bush's efforts at wooing Congress saved the CIA from a lot of penance over its unspeakable sins. Behind the BushesThe architects for the Bay of Pigs were Vice President Richard Nixon and CIA director Allen Dulles. JFK inherited the plan from the Eisenhower administration. Nixon lost the race for the presidency to JFK and Dulles was fired by JFK for the failure of the Bay of Pigs. Yet Dulles is appointed by president Johnson as a Warren Commission member to "investigate" JFK's murder. The proof for Bush's lie about his CIA past can be found in a document, declassified in 1988.It's a memorandum of FBI director J Edgar Hoover to the State department, dated 29 November 1963. It describes a meeting, one day after JFK's murder, between FBI and CIA officials talking about the reaction of the Cuban exile community to the Kennedy Assassination. The last paragraph states that the "the substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to us and George Bush of the Central Intelligence agency". Here we have the name of George Bush mentioned as a CIA official in direct connection to the Kennedy assassination. When asked by journalists, he initially stated "It's not me, must be another Bush!" This was checked and found to be NOT true When asked again, a spokesperson for Bush declined to comment any further. The obvious question is: Why does Bush need to lie about it?
Let's see how the Assassinations Records Review Board dealt with this information in their final report, chapter 6 : | Note to readers: In an effort to minimize the patterns of chronological and geneological confusion that define the “Bush” family history, we have developed a "guide" to chart the relationships, have reduced the names to more easily recognized symbols (their initials) and attached them to overviews highlighting their relevant qualities. It should also be noted that for those people who have two identities, they are symbolized as both, with the initials in boldface to indicate the identity being described. We suggest that you first digest the “personality key.” Once you have a working knowledge of the “players,” you will be ready to begin reading this article with the greatest possibility of making the connections suggested therein. We also suggest that you refer to the personality key as often as necessary. The “Bushes” 7. DW - daughter of George and Lucretia Walker. b. 1 July, 1901, Walker’s Point, ME, d. 19 Nov., 1992, Greenwich, CT. Marriage: 6 Sept., 1921, Kennebunkport, ME, to “Prescott Sheldon Bush” (GHS1/PSB). Prescott Sheldon Bush So we now have two disputable claims entered in the history books and current genealogical records: According to the University of Iowa, “President Theodore Roosevelt called Chautauqua, ‘the most American thing in America’; Woodrow Wilson described it during World War I as an ‘integral part of the national defense’ and William Jennings Bryan deemed it a, ‘potent human factor in molding the Only the most perceptive reader will have noticed the intentional variation in the spelling of “Scherf” with one “f.” Why the variation in spelling? That question will be answered after a closer examination of the real identity of George H. Scherf, Sr. (GHS1/PSB) and his real mission. What was the master plan, and how did the Scherf family come to play such a distinctive role? GHS1/PSB and Nicola Tesla: Nikola Tesla had emigrated from Austria to the U.S. in order to fulfill his
The above-referenced “errors” are attributable to GHSI/PSB, not his children. Below is excerpted from the 1930 Connecticut U.S. Federal Decennial Census, Fairfield Co., Greenwich: 1930 Connecticut, Fairfield Co., Greenwich, ED 134, sheet 4A, line 21Rel Age Status Birthplace Father's Birthplace Mother's
GHSII/GHWB, still using his "Bush" alias, ran for public office in Texas, obtaining a seat in the House of Representatives from 1967-1971. Less than two months after the resignation of President Richard Nixon, GHSII/GHWB, then Chairman Some folks to think about? Castro? Nelson Mandela? John Kennedy? It took 63 days to shoot a couple of bullets at Ronald Reagan. It took Bush the Lesser only a few months to do what he did.
Our 9/11 was planned on paper in 1999 by PNAC. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were orchestrated through falsified intelligence while the world economy was pushed from “minor distress” to $2,500,000,000,000 in “private debt without currency basis” and $38,000,000,000,000 in public debt backed by “currency.” If you don’t understand the numbers, one involves “thousands of trillions” and the other “tens of trillions” and is grossly understated. Either figure is enough money to buy the entire solar system, yes, Bush and his friends, Bush and the banksters of the world are that deluded. Best part? They expect you to pay interest on that to them.
Vietnam -- OK for poor kids to fight an illegal war started over the phony Gulf of Tonkin Incident, just as long as "W," the son, "destined" to become president some day, or the rest of his rich frat brothers don't have to go. Meanwhile Poppy's rich friends became very, very, very rich. Watergate -- Nixon was willing to throw anyone and everyone to the wolves -- except George Herbert Walker Bush and "The Texans" because "They'll do anything for our side." Gee. Would "murder" qualify as "anything." Think so, especially seeing how Nixon got the ziggy and Bush ended up in the clear.
|
|
Toledo Blade, January 19, 2002
Bin Laden Death Deemed Murder of CIA Case Officer as 9/11 Coverup
by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor
President George W. Bush knew Osama bin Laden was a CIA agent and in no way ever involved in 9/11.
He knew bin Laden personally from family visits and knew bin Laden had been to the White House while living in the US under the cover name of “Tim Osmon.”
This has been verified by CIA officials.
Bush also knew bin Laden died on December 13, 2001. How did he know? He read it on Fox News:
Report: Bin Laden Already Dead
Published December 26, 2001 FoxNews.com
This is not how it happend
Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.
“The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead,” the source said.
Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.
About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some “Taliban friends,” attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the “great leader.”
The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden’s face before burial said “he looked pale … but calm, relaxed and confident.”
Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said “no.” Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of “pagans” against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.
When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, “I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished.”
Tim Osmon and Brzezinski
CIA officials report that, even after 9/11, they were actively seeking a kidney transplant for bin Laden to keep him alive. They confirmed that he was actively being paid, had security clearances and was working on assignments received on or after 9/11.
They also confirmed bin Laden had, because of health reasons, not been living in Bahrain as thought but San Diego. While there, he visited the White House and met with George H. W. Bush and other members of the Bush family including George W. Bush.
Bin Laden felt betrayed when the President, a man he knew as a personal friend, ordered his killing after 9/11, particularly since bin Laden was an active CIA agent.
Other “hunts” for bin Laden were staged to provide him cover while his severe illness put him in and out of American hospitals, something that would have destroyed his credibility with many groups he worked with.
I confirmed bin Laden’s death in a personal meeting with General Athar Abbas and his staff in 2010. They confirmed that America has been aware of bin Laden’s death for all along. General Abbas refused to answer other questions on this subject.
MURDER
Bin Laden died of kidney disease, being forced to leave his dialysis machine behind when American troops came to his home to kill him. As a response, bin Laden did an interview with Al Jazeera denying any involvement with 9/11 and suggesting America look elsewhere.
This is from the official CIA transcript of Osama bin Laden’s last public statement:
CIA Official Transcript
General Hamid Gul
This statement was made September 24, 2001.
There are no further statements from Osama bin Laden.
This transcript is officially certified by the Central Intelligence Agency.
By what information we have, from the CIA, from Pakistan, from interviews with ISI Director General at the time, Major General Hamid Gul, the death of Osama bin Laden was the murder of a CIA agent by Presidential order so as to silence dissent and cover up what appears to be a conspiracy of sorts, as many now see 9/11.
MORE MURDER
Presidential Order
With bin Laden, a CIA operative, murdered through denial of needed medical care, at presidential order, who else was similarly murdered?
Minimally, we can consider all who died searching for, not just someone uninvolved in 9/11, but a decorated CIA operative, as a victim of an illegal cover operation meant to hide a criminal act.
Every soldier killed in Afghanistan, hunting the imaginary Al Qaeda or the long dead Osama bin Laden was murdered.
EVEN MORE MURDER
Pakistani television interviewed individuals who witnessed a helicopter crash killing its American crew and passengers at Abbottabad, a mission supposedly meant to credit President Obama with the killing of a long dead CIA agent.
The video has been suppressed, classified and removed from Youtube and the records of the TV network that held it. However, Veterans Today has a full translated transcript of that video:
This is a screenshot from the interview you are reading
Anchor: Welcome back, Mohammad Bashir is a resident of Abboottabad’s Bilal Town. Muhammad Bashir might seem an ordinary guy but he is no ordinary guy.
Muhammad Bashir lives in front of Osama Ben Laden’s house in Bilal Town Abbottabad.
On 2nd of May, Muhammad Bashir was present on his rooftop from where he saw the whole American operation against Osama Ben Laden with his own eyes.
Yesterday when our team was present In Bilal Town, Abbottabad, near Osama Ben Laden’s hose, Muhammad Bashir came to us and said, “Sister, I need to tell you something, something that is a burden on my heart and soul”, just listen to what he said.
Bashir: I am going to share something about the Abbottabad operation which till this day nobody else has told you.
Anchor: But Muhammad Bashir was a little afraid too, while talking to me he telephoned his relative, Vice President of Jummat-e-Islami, Abdur Razzaq Abasi, watch it
Who Really Was There?
Reporter: Tell me your name and tell me whare do you live
Bashir: Let me first, Let me talk to him one minute, i will give you full interview, full or half?
Reporter: Full Full
Bashir: Let me first talk to him
Reporter: To whom? To Abbasi?
Bashir: yes, to Abbasi
Anchor: Muhammad Bashir told us something that no one said before. So we checked his identity card, we also confirmed that he really lives there, we asked from the senior fellows about him. We were very astonished by his story just see and listen what he said.
Bashir: We were awake, not asleep, a helicopter came, some men came down from that, into that house, then that helicopter went away
Reporter: How many men?
Bashir: 10-12, then that helicopter took rounds of those rear hills, then he came bac…k and when he came bach, two more helicopters arrived, one from the west and other from the north, there was a blast in the first helicopter and it was on fire, we immediately came out, when we reached there, the helicopter was burning, then after about 20 minutes the army and police arrived, they pushed us back, now we are asking that if Osama was here then who took him to america because all those men that came in the helicopter died in the blast, now if Osama was in that helicopter he must have died and got burnt in that helicopter too, then how they took him? this is a question of serious concern. America claims they they killed him and picked him up. How they picked him up? This is what we are thinking
Pakistani Video Screenshot
Reporter: Was there only one helicopter?
Bashir? Yes the other that came flew away to Mansehra, there was only one that landed the men and came back to pick them but as he was picking them up, it blew away and caught fire.
Reporter: Then were in it when it blew?
Bashir: Yes They were.
Reporter: How you know?
Bashir: We saw it with our own eyes
Reporter: You saw dead man?
Bashir: Yes, dead men,
Reporter: How many?
Bashir: I couldnt count them because then the compound was on fire. The gate was open, we went in, the army and police hadnt arrived then, there were some people but they werent stopping them. The whole neighborhood has seen that but they are silent now.
Bashir: We saw the helicopter burning, we saw the dead bodies, then everything was removed and now there is nothing
The only unburned part of the helicopter
Reporter: How many dead bodies you saw?
Bashir: We couldn’t count them because they were blown into pieces.
The reporter asked Bashir to narrate the story again.
Bashir said we could see the faces of those men but they were speaking pashto. I dont know whether they were Pakistani or American army or people of agencies, as you know that agency people can speak many languages.
May be they were speaking Pashto so that we consider them Pakistani.
They knocked and banged at our doors and told us not to come out.
I laid down on my rooftop and was watching them.
My kids were calling me, I told them to go to their rooms and let me check whats going on.
The reporter asks Bashir, that when he saw that the helicopter was American what was he thinking then?
Bashir said that he got afraid. He didn’t had in his mind that they will attack that house. He thought that they might have come to attack the Pakistan Army.
The reporter asked so when was your cousin Shamraiz taken away?
Bashir: Shamrez was at our home, as the helicopter exploded, me and many others went out of our homes to see what happened. Shamrez also came out and the gate of the compound was open, we went in, every thing was lying scattered, as it is a huge compound, some body parts were lying here, some there, legs, arms, heads, broken and torn body parts, during that time some part of the helicopter inside, may be the engine or other fuel related part had an explosion so we rushed out. During that time Shamrez was taken away, he is in his home now, but no one is allowed to meet him and i couldn’t get a chance to talk to him later.
Then the anchor says that they had vegetations inside the compound and Shamrez was their gardener. We know that two men Arshad and Tariq used to live there. They had good relations with the neighbours, they used to buy things from the local store. Sometimes imported dates and used to send many things to their neighbours.
Burned helicopter wreckage
Then the reporter is at Abdullah Ben Zubair Mosque, which is the nearest to compound of Osama.
She asks a guy: do you think people would have been glad and happy if they would have ever met osama?
The guy : Yes, possibly. Because he was a muslim and he believed in God.
This is the whole story! Every aspect and point translated.
The gentleman being interviewed lives across from the compound. His cousin Sahab Jamrez Khan used to grow vegetables in the compound. He was taken away in all the hullabaloo on tape @10.29 Bashir says he did not see when they wisked his cousin away.
Interviewer asks “Have you spoken to your cousin?”
Bashir “No, I have not seen him yet he in in the house. “They will not let him get out” “They will not let me get in.”
2 other men Arshad Sahib and Tariq Sahib used to go to market to shop for that compound and bought international brand items. Dates, dried meat found in compound. Also food used to come from compound to Bashir’s house Kabulu Pilau and things like that used to be presented to Bashir. They will follow up with more information. In the end the lady is standing in front of Abdullah Bin Zubair mosque. The mosque was with in walking distance of the compound. She asks people if Osama did attend this mosque people would have be happy? The one answered maybe. The other said Osama did “not” live here but he was muslim and believed in God. Interview ends.
Another thing to note is that Bashir mentioned that we are very “sharif” meaning law abiding honest people. His town was a peaceful place no excitement no murders, fights, and he is unhappy how they have made his town so frightful with all this news. One thing is very clear in this video. Two helicopters hovered never landed. One landed dropped Pashto speaking poeple on the roof 10-12 of them Helicopter left fo 20 minutes returned to load people in and small blast engine failure fire helicopter parts all over. Body parts arms, legs, head, all over. Pakistani Army/Police came in dispersed crowd. The whole scene is cleaned up totally now. No evidence left to examine.
This is the Official Media Version – One that has gone through several stages of evolution
Several days later, an “official” helicopter crash happened to account for the deaths of those who died on the staged phony bin Laden killing, victims of poor planning and a helicopter pilot who flew into a wall when his night vision goggles were disabled by light sources on the ground. I’ve been to this dance once or twice before.
From a Veterans Today story, August 6, 2011:
Today 31 NATO troops, 20 of them Navy Seals from the Osama bin Laden operation died in what is reported as a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.
The chances of this story being true is almost nil. The chances of this being a staged coverup is over 80%. We believe these people were murdered to silence them. This is why.
We have solid information on two areas:
Depleted Uranium Ammunition
How do we count murders? Was bin Laden a murder? Were the 3000 on 9/11 murdered and, if so, by whom?
Were all killed in the War on Terror, nearly 1.4 million dead, murder victims including some found to have died of radiation sickness, not from Depleted Uranium but from the illegal use of nuclear weapons by US forces.
That story including a BBC report and interview transcripts is available here.
Do we include the terrorist deaths in Pakistan, now numbering over 30,000 or their 8500 military dead as murders tied to 9/11?
Then we have the planes though no part, be it black box, engine, wing component or even cocktail napkin survived 9/11. Every piece of evidence was systematically destroyed immediately in direct contravention of law.
Do you now wonder why a man dead for a decade was thrown into the sea or why Navy Seals were piled onto a National Guard helicopter for the first time in history and then conveniently plowed into the side of a mountain?
AMERICA’S WORST KEPT SECRET
By Gordon Duff , Senior Editor
I learned about 9/11 from the news. Before the second plane had crashed, people in the crowd told me and the rest of America it was Osama bin Laden and Arab hijackers trained in Afghanistan with the help of Saddam Hussein. A BBC reporter then told me Building 7 had just collapsed, though it was almost totally undamaged and standing 47 stories tall, right there on the TV screen behind her.
Hours before the attack, they began their drive, selecting the perfect spot, setting up their cameras and perhaps some other electronic equipment as well. Their rationale, “We were there to film the planes crashing into the World Trade Center.”
“God bless us all,” those news people are clever ones, prescient to a fault.
Nearly a decade later, rigged elections, phony wars, more CIA drug dealing, economic thievery beyond imagination, accusations of war crimes and more, so much more, faith has been lost in every American institution. Nothing can be trusted, least of all the American government.
The one truth stands out beyond all others. 9/11 was a combined operation between Israel’s Mossad and rogue groups in America including the leadership of the White House, Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA. It is called a truth because this is where the evidence leads and with it public opinion.
If evidence can’t all be destroyed and public opinion controlled then both evidence and public opinion can be “exiled.” Thus, a news blackout for 9 years has descended over the US, blocking all reporting of alternative theories on 9/11 with the same vigor used to block questions about Israel’s nuclear weapons.
It worked for the Soviet Union, will it work for America? Can a government and press alliance, only possible in a dictatorship, exile reality, sending it to a veritable Siberia, replacing it with myth?
Is the real America a dictatorship?
All rational judgement based on forensic evidence, testimony and documentation leads no other possible direction. It is science, it is law, it is reason. Any other assumption is myth, conspiracy theory but most of all, treason. There is little left in Washington anymore but treason, treason and silence.
Do Americans really believe this, is this how they think? If this is true, then why is nothing done, no general strikes, no marches on Washington? Is there also proof that Americans have lost so much confidence in themselves and each other that no change that isn’t “Fox News approved” can hope to succeed?
Do Americans feel powerless and humiliated? Is this why so many troops returning from war are killing themselves?
It is estimated that the current “off year” elections will cost 1.2 billion dollars. Half of that money will come from sources tied to narcotics smuggling from Afghanistan and Mexico and much of the rest will be from arms, oil and insurance industries. The most powerful nation in the history of earth continues to fail in two areas, the endless stream of narcotics coming into America from Mexico and the massive seasonal increases in opium/heroin production in Afghanistan despite billion dollar “eradication” efforts.
This isn’t conspiracy theory, it is fact.
With talk about Koran burnings organized by Fox News and how angry the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims will be, we see that number again, why is the myth of 9/11, the staged attack on America by Israel and their paid Washington lackeys, so important to sell? Why is the American government so afraid of the American people, why if America is really a democracy?
There is a reason.
People simply don’t believe the lies anymore. How do we know this? Did we read it in the papers or hear it on television. Think about it. “A poll today indicated that 74% of Americans no longer accept the findings of the 9/11 Commission.” Actually, you will never hear that because we can’t discuss the findings of the 9/11 Commission.
There was a report, one rescinded by most of the members, but the findings themselves were something else. Findings are facts, a “report” is what was said, not what was proven, not what was true, not even what was possible.
The Commission found that it had not been allowed to investigate properly, that evidence had been withheld and that crimes were committed by government and military leaders including, not only the destruction of evidence but perjured testimony. The findings of the 9/11 Commission were simple, they found evidence of a criminal conspiracy that prevented an honest investigation.
Those are the findings.
The findings were not published though they were announced, written of in books, articles, speeches were made but the findings are a problem. The findings “found” those that had empowered the Commission were criminals. Is it possible to define a conflict of interest more clearly than this?
How about the “court of public opinion.” Let us define “public opinion.” We know this, at one point, several years ago, 65% of Europeans believed that 9/11 was an “inside job,” meaning that the Bush administration was complicit in the planning and execution of 9/11.
That number is much higher today, estimated at 80%.
The question, however, has never been asked in the United States. Do 65% of Americans believe that 9/11 is was an inside job? Maybe. I think the falling poll numbers of George W. Bush were always based on 9/11 and the belief by some Americans he was complicit. CBS followed Bush popularity ratings and found some startling evidence of a mysterious and inexplicable mistrust many Americans developed after 9/11 and the Iraq War began to fall apart. President Jimmie Carter left office with an approval rating twice that of Bush, even while Iranians held 52 Americans hostage.
(CBS) President Bush will leave office as one of the most unpopular departing presidents in history, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll showing Mr. Bush’s final approval rating at 22 percent.
Seventy-three percent say they disapprove of the way Mr. Bush has handled his job as president over the last eight years.Mr. Bush’s final approval rating is the lowest final rating for an outgoing president since Gallup began asking about presidential approval more than 70 years ago.
The rating is far below the final ratings of recent two-term presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, who both ended their terms with a 68 percent approval rating, according to CBS News polling.
Recent one term presidents also had higher ratings than Mr. Bush. His father George H.W. Bush had an end-of-term rating of 54 percent, while Jimmy Carter’s rating was 44 percent.
Harry Truman had previously had the lowest end-of-term approval at 32 percent, as measured by Gallup.Views of Mr. Bush’s popularity are highly partisan. Only 6 percent of Democrats approve of the job he has done as president, while 57 percent of Republicans approve. Eighteen percent of independents approve.
Interestingly, Mr. Bush also has the distinction of having the highest approval rating for a president, as well as the lowest.
In November 2008, just before the presidential election, only 20 percent approved of the job he was doing as president – the lowest of any president since Gallup began asking the question in 1938.
But Mr. Bush enjoyed a high approval rating of 90 percent — the highest of any president — following the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.
With total control of the press and the “Mission Accomplished” victory in Iraq under his belt, the execution of Saddam Hussein and the full and total backing of the oil, defense and financial sectors of the economy, the American people mistrusted Bush like no other person in their history.
There is no other explanation than 9/11. Bush popularity/disapproval ratings were tied to his personal credibility in two areas, Iraq and 9/11. There was no public outcry over the invasion of Iraq but there may well have been a public outcry over treason involving 9/11. There is no other explanation possible.
It isn’t “conclusive proof” but it is certainly beyond reasonable doubt. No wonder the media in the United States avoids asking hard questions about 9/11.
With only most recent trends bringing Israeli complicity in the planning and execution to the forefront, the ‘Dancing Israelis,” the Larry Silverstein admissions and recent revelations of Mossad sponsored terrorism, empirical evidence of a strong public outcry against Israel doesn’t exist. The same, however, can’t be made for President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their closest associates and advisers.
Only one possible thing could bring a 90% approval rating down to 22%.
By 2009, 78% of Americans believed that President Bush was responsible for 9/11, either directly or indirectly. How many simply believe Bush was “asleep at the switch?” How many believe something more? Is the most common belief that he had foreknowledge and chose to do nothing?
Is the media frenzy, even to the point of endangering our troops in the field, a admission that 9/11 treason may blow America apart? Is this why President Obama has kept so many of the illegal Bush security protocols in place? Is this why a “kill switch” has been installed on the internet and a “conspiracy czar” has been appointed by President Obama, one who has openly stated”
“attempts by conspiracy theorists to tie Israel to 9/11 are the greatest security threats to the United States”…..Cass Sunstein, Obama Regulatory Czar.
September 2001, 90% – January 2009, 22%
Were the numbers to have crashed when the economy tanked in 2007 it would be one thing. Bush was down in the 20% range in 2006. Were people to hate Bush as they did Nixon or see him as ineffective as they did with Carter, this could also be a rationale. Neither factor applies, there is little question of this. Even those who most strongly disapproved of Bush never found him indecisive.
What is clear is one thing and one thing only, trust, not just minor suspicions of lack of ability or political game-playing.
The suspicion is clear. A majority of Americans suspect President Bush may have been involved in treason.
Ask this question anywhere in the world, Europe, Canada, Latin America or the Middle East, even ask it in Japan. The truth, the only truth available to Americans, is that they are not that different than the rest of the world. America is not a nation of fools or dupes.
They are simply reported that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment