The “George H. W. Did It” theory is a way of expressing suspicion of the Bush family and the CIA. It is a way to say the Bushes are not a legitimate political dynasty. It is a way of encouraging suspicion of the the agency and the U.S. government: a future CIA director was in Dealey Plaza. How scary is that?
Those are all impulses I might or might not share. But that’s a lot of political agenda loaded onto a very small amount of contradictory evidence about Bush Sr.’s actions on November 22, 1963.
Russ Baker’s account of Bush’s whereabouts on November 22 pose problems for those who think he was in Dealey Plaza. It also raises legitimate questions about his odd behavior. That’s it.
I DO think George H.W. Bush’s connections to the CIA are an interesting aspect of the JFK assassination investigation. He was director of the CIA for the calendar year 1976. As the country digested the revelations of domestic spying and assassination plots, suspicions about the CIA and JFK’s assassination ran high on Capitol Hill. How he responded to the reopening of the JFK assassination investigation is worth knowing in detail.
But I don’t want to criticize those who think Bush was somehow complicit in the death of President Kennedy. I don’t want to criticize anyone in the JFK debate for thinking what they think. It’s an important subject and if people come to strong and firm conclusions about it, that’s a not a bad thing. Better than if they are ignorant.
When talking of the about the Kennedy assassination, I think we need to focus our attention more on other deceased senior CIA officials besides Bush Sr. The record shows that Bush’s role in enabling Oswald and a gun to reach Dealey Plaza was negligible when compared to that of Richard Helms, James Angleton and their associates.
12 thoughts on “Focus on the CIA, not George H.W. Bush”
Bush mysteriously was in Dallas was supposed to be elsewhere even 3 rd graders know exactly where they were let alone a c I a agent!! He knows exactly where he was standing in the plaza watching assignation to make sure eyes on then could proceed with fonts ting agency who contacted Johnson and pro ever to get him sworn in !! Bush’s life is big can of worms and assignations what he knows would rock the foundation of the entire world this is just the tip of the huge iceberg to coin a phrase!!
Umm…No. Focus on George H. W. Bush, specifically, and what his “need to know” was for being briefed on 11/23/63 by the FBI (described as “Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency” in the relevant memo by J. Edgar Hoover) regarding the reaction in the Cuban-American community and concerns some “misguided anti-Castro group” might view the assassination as heralding a change in U.S. policy and launch new incursions into Cuba. In order to be so briefed, GHWB had to have a “need to know” – what could it have been but prior association with that community in his CIA duties, consistent with a longstanding “Bay of Pigs” nexus. Did J. Edgar Hoover take the time to personally author memos documenting briefings of other CIA personnel regarding the assassination that week?
George H.W. Bush was a WWII war hero and is a patriot. During the Cold War, I will even excuse such individuals who served even in an unofficial capacity as a contract agent for the government in the defense of the nation.
However, when GHWB is alleged to have had a role with the BOP invasion & similar operations, I can’t avoid not to think about this possibility:
Addendum: As others have alluded, mention of an ‘unknown’ George Bush of the CIA that defended the reputation of Cuban exiles per Hoover’s memo further reinforces the possibility I raised above.
(And George Bush isn’t the only one who may have heard or knew or suspected more than what the official version claimed).
Your post goes to what is call the Law of Agency.
The core principle of the law of agency can be given by an example: a shopkeeper (principal) hires a clerk (agent) to work in his store.
The law describes in detail the relationships between (a) the principal, (b) the agent, and (c) third parties with whom the agent deals.
You posit GHW Bush was an agent, not a principal. With which I cannot agree more.
GHW Bush in my estimation acted as an agent for principals hidden to history.
Leslie, I like your post because it reminds us to expand our context of the ’63 coup which toppled the Kennedy regime. The “public face of private enterprise” (priceless!) regarding the ‘politician’ who fronts his sponsors agenda – sort of like the Wizard of Oz set up, with the “man” behind the smoke, threatening(s), and illusions, pretending (for his own aggrandizement) to bestow upon citizens of his realm all their ‘special’ needs, as long as they remain obtuse to his chicanery and manipulations.
It really is apparent the rich understand the workings of the “system” better than the average person (because they can hire ‘experts’ to navigate [read: manipulate/deceive] through the maze, designed by lawyers). The rich also realize that the government needs to be controlled at all times, else a “socialist” may gain control of the reigns of power and redistribute their wealth, or plug up the leaking dyke known as the US TREASURY, now overtly used to bail out businesses, while screwing the middle class…seen any interests from your savings or certificates of deposits lately? Thanks to the 4 million dollar Fed-man, Ben Barnanke. When you have a ‘plan’ spanning generations, the origins of ideas becomes important; business and political connections can become indicators of deeper motives, as well as means to achieve goals. There are no “superior” American dynasties, but there are carefully crafted “images” created for public consumption – look at the Kennedys as example.
Leslie, your wording strikes at the heart of the rich and infamous. They do the bidding of those richer than they, and they parasitically use American political, military, financial, and human resources in service/allegiance to their masters, domestic or foreign.
A perpetual problem in dealing with the assassinations is that, the more things open out, the more bizarre they seem to be. Truth is always stranger than fiction; history, we are led to believe, is the domain of stuffy men in smoke-filled rooms–not umbrella men, George Bush behind a bush, Manchurian candidates, double Oswalds. Then when you try to tell your non-observant friends, “Also, RFK–there was a second shooter. Also, MLK–well, it’s complicated.” You can’t help but begin to worry about how you’re going to sound. But just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get you, and just because emerging facts are bizarre doesn’t make them any less possible. (Obviously my list above isn’t meant to be taken as a list of “facts.”)
The fact that Jeb Bush is expressing interest in running for President in 2016 raises a fully legitimate issue for him to address- release of the remaining secret JFK assassination records. In fact this is an issue for each of the prospective candidates for President in 2016. Under the JFK Records Act remaining secret JFK records will become public in October 2017 unless the then sitting President delays them further. Please take the opportunity to ask prospective Presidential candidates whether they will release the withheld records, or keep them secret indefinitely.
^ Incisive post, Leslie. I believe Edmund Morris quoted Nixon referring to GHW Bush as the kind of guy you appoint to something.
Facilitator of plutocracy.
Discord among JFK researchers on the topic of Bush involvement in the assassination may stem from the assumption that proponents argue solely based on government positions, CIA clandestine activities and presidential appointments (after the fact) filled by Bush family members; ergo they must have been involved in the act and/or the cover up.
In “Family of Secrets,” Russ Baker effectively consolidates much of what was already in the public domain regarding the family history; unfortunately, most critics – and some proponents – of the theory that descendants of Sam Bush (with little mention of the Walker history) were in some manner involved in the assassination will repeatedly refer to Baker’s assessment of a “Bush” political dynasty. Researchers focused on related data do not limit their considerations to the surname Bush (in spite of it resonating with a contemporary audience and a lucrative market), and recognize that there is much more to the story. Reading between the lines, it appears that Russ Baker understood that as well, and it may be that his book has been misinterpreted by some.
While the “Bush Family” (for all that term entails) and the Military Industrial Complex (a misnomer unless it is understood to include the financial, scientific, academic, medical, pharmaceutical and manufacturing components of our economic system) were and remain inseparable, history indicates that members of the family were and are mere pawns, knights, or rooks (with an occasional bishop), charged with enforcing the power behind the usurpation of our democracy by means of the assassination of President Kennedy followed by the massive and decades-old cover-up.
‘Bush family’ positions in government merely helped facilitate (and continue to do so) the agenda of private interests with whom they were and are aligned, maneuvering in symbiosis with the war machine that commandeered the original mantle of these/our “United States” and our democracy. Anyone studying the broader Bush-related family history knows that their successes – political and financial – reside in the interconnections they have enjoyed with unelected power and control, both domestic and foreign, for centuries. Further, research suggests that those Bushes elected to office are not now, nor were they ever original authors of policy, let alone true decision-makers; they are the public, elected face of a private enterprise. Isolating blame on “The Bushes” is yet another red herring (I trust that was not Russ Baker’s intention), and not dissimilar to isolating blame on “THE” Central Intelligence Agency. To do either ties all serious discussion about the assassination and the ongoing threat to our democracy in a Gordian Knot.
And why is it necessary for George H. W. to have been in the vicinity of the TSBD to argue his complicity on some level in the assassination? The debate is irrelevant, although proof of his presence would be significant given his purported memory loss; however, those questioning his pre-knowledge of the assassination should concentrate on his schedule during the preceding week. It is worthy of intense investigation. Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres.