The notion (it hardly even qualifies as a theory) that the first President Bush was somehow complicit in JFK’s death is often heard in the comments section of this site. Exactly how he was involved is never explained.
Four claims are adduced to support this quasi-libelous claim.
1) An FBI memo from November 1963, which says that “George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency” orally advised the Bureau about the reaction of Cuban Miami to JFK’s death;
2) Bush’s statement, quoted in Kitty Kelly’s biography, that he couldn’t recall where he was when JFK was killed;
3) A photograph of a person purported to be Bush in Dealey Plaza;
4) A 1976 letter to Bush from George de Mohrenschildt, an itinerant geologist who did favors for the CIA and knew Lee Oswald in 1963.
The CIA claimed, not surprisingly, that the FBI memo refers to a different “George Bush” and produced a former employee who said he worked for the agency in 1963. There are reasons to doubt the CIA’s denial. So let’s assume the memo does refer to George H.W. Bush, the man who became president. It does not constitute evidence of anything about the assassination. It constitutes evidence that Bush was associated with the CIA and provided information to the FBI.
If accurately reported by Kitty Kelly (not the most reliable of sources), Bush’s inability to remember where he was is curious but it tells us nothing about JFK’s assassination. In fact, Bush’s whereabouts on Nov. 22 are known. He was staying in Dallas and flew to Tyler, Texas, for an appearance in his campaign for U.S. Senate. How exactly does that indicate conspiratorial involvement? It doesn’t.
The purported identification of Bush in Dealey Plaza is in the eye of the beholder. It is uncorroborated by any other evidence.
De Mohrenschildt’s letter to Bush is noteworthy. Bush acknowledged that he knew de Mohrenschildt, which corroborates de Mohrenschildt’s close relations to the CIA, but the letter is not evidence of either man’s involvement in a conspiracy.
I say this claim is “quasi-libelous” because Bush, as a public figure, effectively cannot be libeled under U.S. law. But the allegation is so weak and defamatory as to qualify as libelous in an ethical, if not a legal, sense.
I’ll address some other lame JFK theories in the future. Until then, I think reader Bill Pierce has the right take on such speculations.
“Yes, there are lots of fascinating, ominous, backbiting, double-crossing and mutually beneficial interrelationships among powerful people. And there are lots of supportable reasons to ‘believe’ that the listed individuals and hundreds of other powerful people (and hate groups) strongly disagreed with the Kennedys’ policies and personalities. Maybe all of them wanted JFK murdered. Maybe Joe DiMaggio and Arthur Miller planned the execution because they were jealous about Marilyn’s sexy birthday song to JFK. Maybe . . . but there’s no evidence to support it.”