Archive | November 19th, 2011

A Nuclear-Armed Iran: A Blessing In Disguise


They Say If God Didn’t Exist We’d Have To Invent Him

By Kam ZarrabiIntellectual Discourse

I was actually shocked when I saw the news on my laptop about the casual exchange between Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama in Cannes, France, over microphones that were inadvertently left open. Sarkozy tells Obama, “I can’t stand to see him anymore, he’s a liar.”, referring to the Israeli PM Netanyahu; to which Obama responds, “You are fed up with him, but me, I have to deal with him every day.”

PARIS–Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama is receiving a very warm welcome by French President Nicolas Sarkozy at a joint press conference here. Sarkozy told Obama, “Here in France we are watching with great interest what you are doing.”

I was shocked not because I was surprised to hear the honest feelings of two among most global leaders regarding the Israeli Prime Minister, but because, when it comes to news about the Jewish state, the American and European media are usually extremely careful not to reveal anything that might blemish Israel’s pretty face. But, here it was; what many already knew but weren’t supposed to talk about was suddenly out there for the world to see.

But the world did not, and will not, get a chance to hear any in-depth review or analysis of the potential implications or ramifications of that exchange. The event has already been pushed under the rug and damage control, both here and inEurope, is underway.

The supposedly free and uncensored Western media have thus far only tangentially glanced at the topic with bemused, dismissive casualness of discussing, say, Mr. Obama’s efforts to quit smoking or how some bimbo celebrity was dressed at the Country Music Awards event!

We are being bombarded with the alarming news of possible Israeli and/or American military attack on Iran and potentially opening the gates of Hell in the process. We are talking about another step closer to a WWIII if the crazies are allowed to implement their objectives.

As the global economy nears potential collapse and socioeconomic chaos seems to be spreading out of control, the prospects of another war in the Middle East should be taken more seriously than even the earth shaking news about the Pizza Man’s sexual misadventures some twenty years ago, or Rick Perry’s not remembering the third federal department he’d eliminate as the President.

Does Veterans Day mean anything anymore? Is going to another war, bloodshed and mayhem just another source of entertainment, like the Tonight Show or Monday Night Football, in the media’s mind?

The increasing intensity of steps currently underway to create the groundwork in the public domain to initiate a war with Iran is strangely taking the back seat to Penn State sex scandal and Mat Lauer’s globetrotting adventures. All this, while the media hype about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the West’s reaction could lead to a global catastrophe more horrendous than Vietnam. Remember, it’s Veterans Day!

Does this make any sense?

There’s little doubt that Israel is the actual ringleader or master manipulator behind the big hype about Iran, and Netanyahu’s bark is getting louder about Iran’s alleged nuclear bomb projects and the need to eliminate that possible threat by preemptively bombing Iran’s strategic targets.

So, what’s really going on here? To answer that question, let’s start with another one:

What is the best thing that could serve the agendas of the Likud-led Israel?

Answer: A nuclear armed Iran, in actual fact or perceived as fact!

Kam Zarrabi

I am not the only one who thinks that the threats of regime change and military attacks against Iran during the past decade have been giving the Iranians more reasons and justifications to beef up the nation’s defenses and even to acquire the technology needed to create the ultimate deterrent, the nuclear weapon. Most impartial observers in the field are of the opinion that the Iranians are still in the process of acquiring that technical knowledge, with so far no assurance that the regime would actually embark on developing the bomb.

The most recent IAEA report is no more than a slightly modified, politically motivated repeat of the previous series of allegations of maybe, could be, perhaps, and other less-than-concrete statements, where the interpretation or conclusion by any observer depends entirely on the observer’s own motives and agendas.

Again, I am far from being the only analyst who believes that, should Iran ever manage to obtain or manufacture a nuclear device, it would only serve as a deterrent. It would not be to Iran’s advantage in any conceivable way to initiate an attack on anyone, near or far, with or without a nuclear capability. And that includes attempting to wipe Israel off the face of the map, a phrase that was cunningly and deviously  attributed to the Iranian President Ahmadinejad a few years ago, an absolute lie that has now been established as a historical truth, like so many other so-called undeniable truths that have wormed their way into our untouchable historical archives.

It seems as though the nonstop allegations, accusations, sanctions and threats were designed to push the Iranian regime toward procuring nuclear capabilities and, at the same time, empowering the hardliners within the Iranian government to impose stricter controls against any internal opposition that seemed potentially likely to weaken the regime. This combination of imageries assured the success of the portrayal of the Islamic Republic as a dangerous, unpopular rogue state that aimed at destabilizing the oil-rich region for gaining control over the industrial world’s bloodline, oil, and ultimately pushing the West’s only vanguard or sentinel, Israel, into the sea.

The Israeli regime has been, and continues to be, benefiting from this charade. And as long as this portrayal of Iran remains at play in the public domain in the United States, the American Congress and the Executive leadership see clear sailing, albeit begrudgingly (hence Obama’s comments to Sarkozi about Netanyahu), in accommodating the Israeli demands in exchange for the support of the powerful Zionist lobby and its vast tentacles, come election times.

No doubt Israel is facing hard times. It is increasingly isolated and mistrusted globally, its manipulated (by the United States) alliances with Egypt and Turkey are rapidly breaking up, and its image as a ruthless apartheid regime that remains in violation of international law and the UN Security Council resolutions is not helping it either.

The only thing that is helping the Jewish state stay afloat is the financial, military and diplomatic support by the United States through a parasitic relationship that is gnawing on the host and benefactor.

Interestingly, and as expected, no matter what the Israeli regime does that raises the ire of the international community, the negative global reaction is taken by the Zionist mind as yet another proof why Israel, in dire straits, deserves more friends and assistance. This reminds me of the oft repeated anecdote about the Jewish boy who kills his parents and demands mercy because he has been orphaned!

Quoting LA Times: Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, faulted the president for not disputing the claim that Netanyahu is “a liar.’’ “President Obama’s response to Mr. Sarkozy implies that he agrees with the French leader,’’ Foxman said. “In light of the revelations here, we hope that the Obama administration will do everything it can to reassure Israel that the relationship remains on a sure footing and to reinvigorate the trust between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, which clearly is not what it should be.’’ 

Back to the topic; initiating a new war in the Middle East is quite clearly to nobody’s advantage, not even to Israel’s, and definitely not to America’s. But how do we avoid getting into this catastrophic mess in the face of the unrelenting barrage of hostile rhetoric, fabricated stories of assassination plots and baseless IAEA insinuations against Iran?

I submit that the only way to prevent the lit fuse to reach the powder keg is to assume that Iran already has the dreaded nuclear weapons and the capability of launching them aboard their successfully tested missiles.

We are actually pushing the Islamic Republic in that direction and we have been doing that for some time. If we drag our feet and continue playing this cat and mouse game a little longer, as we are actually doing, it would give Iran enough time to at least appear as though the goal has been achieved.

Watch Mainstream U.S. Media Panel with Council on Foreign Affairs Director Richard Haas Clash in Nuke Debate with Iranian Government Official

sit for breaking newsworld news, and news about the economy

The benefits of a nuclear-armed Iran

1- First of all, a nuclear capable Iran would not benefit in any conceivable way by using this weapon to initiate any aggression regionally or globally. The worst case scenario would be if Iran might use this deterrent capability to engage in other types of regional adventurisms with greater impunity. That possibility, however remote, leads us to the next point:

2- Our clients Gulf states, supposedly fearing Iran’s emboldened ambitions, will be sold tens of billions of dollars worth of American made arms, mostly outdated or obsolete stuff, and technical assistance to protect themselves against their big, powerful neighbor.

3- Large scale sale and shipment of arms to the Arab regimes would automatically force the US Congress to approve increasing military, financial and diplomatic aid to the Israelis to “defend their lives” by maintaining Israel’s military superiority against the combined forces of the entire Arab states.

4- Furthermore, under such circumstances, it would appear increasingly “unfair” to press Israel to bow to international pressures to compromise anything toward the settlement of the Palestinian grievances and other illegal or inhumane activities.

5-  Israel would no longer be expected or pressured into disclosing its own nuclear arsenal or to join the IAEA, and the whole concept denuclearization of the region would become a moot point, especially when there is actually no likelihood of ever implementing such program on a global scale.

6- With an already nuclear-armed Iran, there would no need to continue ever harsher economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic, as the main purpose and justification for the imposed sanctions was to prevent Iran from accessing the nuclear weapons.

7- That would open the door to a rapprochement with Iran, which would reinvigorate Iran’s economy and boost its trade with the West, particularly the United States, and channel much of Iran’s resources and markets away from the East and toward the West.

8- The normalization of relations with the West, particularly with the United States, will undoubtedly lead to a moderation of the current “state of emergency” antidemocratic internal policies in Iran, and tilt the scale in favor of reform oriented, more secular liberal elements, a much anticipated and long awaited social evolution.

So, why not?

Kam Zarrabi is the author of In Zarathushtra’s Shadow and Necessary Illusion. He has conducted lectures and seminars on international affairs, particularly in relation to Iran, with focus on US/Iran issues. Zarrabi’s latest book is Iran, Back in Context.
More information about Mr. Zarrabi and his work is available at:

Iran Back In ContextAuthor: Kambiz Zarrabi
Paperback: 144 pages
Publisher: Xlibris, Corp. (October 14, 2011)
Language: English
ISBN-10:1465376003Kamran Zarrabi has just completed writing his memoirs of his 2011 trip to Iran. The manuscript called “Iran, Back in Context” also contains the accounts of several interviews with a broad cross section of people, photographs, and details of travels to remote areas of the country.

order from amazon

Source : Payvand news

Double Vendetta: The Insanity of the Iran Confrontation


Posted in IranComments Off on A Nuclear-Armed Iran: A Blessing In Disguise

The 911 Cat Is Out of the Bag


by Stewart Ogilby

The lid has blown off the story broadcast by American TV on September 11, 2001. The question now is whether or not owners and managers of America’s mainline media will be able to continue burying facts, questions, controversy, speculations, and conclusions contradicting that day’s professionally crafted narrative. When will the American people be given access to documented facts unearthed over the years since that tragic and exceptional day?

We were told repeatedly, even while the towers in New York were still standing, that a man in a cave in Afghanistan was responsible. We were led to believe that he managed a group of Arab terrorists who flew our commercial airliners on 911. Today, our own FBI claims they lack any evidence linking that man to 9/11.

We are still repeatedly shown, in newspapers and on TV, photos of 19 “Arab terrorists” supposedly on the planes, with no other proof of their even being there. Poorly produced and obviously faked videos of the big bogeyman have been trotted out periodically. Where were they produced? The “flying Arabs” keep turning up alive and well. Who stole, forged, and assumed their identities? Other Arabs? Why?

There is evidence that the bogeyman was seriously ill with kidney disease requiring dialysis, and that he died late in December, 2001. The CIA knew this because he was one of their assets right up until 911. What an ideal patsy, if there ever was one! Dead men tell no tales and they can never be captured.

We are now told by over a thousand architects and engineers that steel and concrete buildings do not explosively disintegrate due to fires within them. What really happened? Why have our leaders and pundits carefully avoided explaining the obvious demolition of WTC-7 hours later? Many of us think we know why.

Wars, torture, bankruptcy, the Patriot Act’s overturning of our cherished Bill of Rights, official lies, scare propaganda, a police-state mentality, are these intended consequences of planning and executing the improbable events of that day?

If H.L. Mencken were alive today and writing for newspapers he would be having a field-day other than for the fact that his articles would never be seen in today’s press. As I watch “911 truth” unfold I am reminded of Mencken’s comment when asked why he, who was critical of this country, did not simply leave. Mencken quickly replied, “Why do men go to zoos?”

If the consequences to my country were considerably less than those resulting from Sept. 11, 2001, I, as Mencken, would find the spectacle to be incomparably amusing. We will all watch the spectacle unfold because the cat is out of the bag. Nobody and nothing can put it back in. Amusing is one thing it is not.

Some things I do know about my fellow countrymen. We’ve been free in the past, and have developed a uniquely American sense of personal independence and comraderie, i.e, have historically been slow to rise in anger. TV is powerful but we know it is not real. It is an illusion. In the real world, civilized human beings understand that to conquer lies and murder the forces necessary are truth and justice.

Today we recoil in horror and in anger at those criminally responsible for 911. If we discover that those responsible for the murders of our citizens and the destruction of our heritage are, in fact, among us, we will demand the removal of those directly responsible and of accessories before and after the fact.

I am turning 79 in six months and I love life. I have a personal trainer, as I want to maintain physical health and stamina. I want to be around to see what happens when Americans repudiate what TV and a controlled press have obliged viewers to believe happened on September 11, 2001.

I will, to the best of my ability, support the identification and prosecution of these murderous traitors to the best country in the world, the one in which I grew up. This each of us owes to America’s next generation. Any alternative is unacceptable.

Posted in USAComments Off on The 911 Cat Is Out of the Bag

Zionist Bullets Shot Across Obama’s Bow?


by Kevin Barrett

Is the state of Israel threatening the life of the President of the United States?

To those brainwashed by America’s Zionist corporate media, the question sounds like paranoid fantasy. But the truth is that powerful geopolitical actors do sometimes attempt to intimidate each other through “plausibly deniable” threats. And the Zionists, masters of hardball realpolitik, are said to do such things with some regularity, not to mention chutzpah.

Item: Obama leaves his microphone on to tell the world that Netanyahu is a liar. Zionist flack Dennis Ross is ejected from the White House. It looks like Obama isn’t going to obey Netanyahu’s orders to attack Iran.

Item: A bullet slams into a White House window. A “lone nut,” branded like a steer by the word Israel tattooed on his neck, is arrested and charged with the crime.

Item: The FBI arrests some anti-Obama “good ole boys” armed with 52 weapons, including assault rifles, and 30,000 rounds of ammunition, including special sniper rounds.” The crackers were targeting Obama, Eric Holder, and Cynthia McKinney. The ostensible message: “Us crackers gonna get you uppity communistic niggaz.” Translated from cracker-speak, the real message might be: “Us Zionists gonna get you uppity pro-Palestinian schwartzes unless you attack Iran when we tell you to.”

Any way you parse it, Netanyahu is obviously out of control, and he and his doomed, illegitimate settler colony are trying to drag the world down with them. Maybe it’s time for the US to retaliate in kind, and send out some bullets with Netanyahu’s name on them.

Posted in USAComments Off on Zionist Bullets Shot Across Obama’s Bow?

The Arab League: Prelude to a US-NATO-led military campaign against Syria


The decision comes at a time when President Bashar al-Assad has accepted the reforms proposed by the Arab League. by Ismail Salami 

In an unprecedented move, the Arab league decided to suspend Syria and call for sanctions on the country, an act which evidently reeks of the influence the West and others exercise on those who should be the main game players rather than being merely influenced by others. What a shame!

It is not difficult to conjecture that the move is a prelude to a US-led military invasion of Syrian in the style of Libya war and an eventual war in the region. It hardly needs saying that the Arab League would have acted with calculated wisdom and prudence, if it had thought about the consequences of such irrationality.

The decision comes at a time when President Bashar al-Assad has accepted the reforms proposed by the Arab League.

Arab League suspends Syria

A statement, read by the Qatari Prime Minister, Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani, said the League had decided “to suspend Syrian delegations’ activities in Arab League meetings” and to implement ”economic and political sanctions” against Damascus.

Sheikh Hamad said the suspension would last “until the total implementation [by Syria] of the Arab plan for resolving the crisis accepted by Damascus on November 2.”

In response to this move fraught with impending threat, tens of thousands of Syrians poured into the streets of Damascus, Aleppo, Latakia, Tartous and Hasakeh to protest the move which they see as clear betrayal of their country by the Arab League.

The facts on the ground suggest that there is an urging demand for social and political reforms in the country but the situation is not as bad in Syria as in other Arab countries where the hope for reforms is zero. Calling for reforms on some levels is one thing but demanding an ouster of the ruler is a horse of a different color. As the situation stands in Syria, there is little demand for the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad. However, Western powers are calling on the Syrian president to step down. The influence of Western media on the international public opinion is so powerful that they are reluctant to see a foreign hand manipulating the events.

Several mass graves have been found in Syria believed to contain the dead bodies of Syrian soldiers killed by Wahhabi insurgents.

Reports reveal that the US and Israel have hired Saudi elements and the Saudi-backed Lebanese March 14 forces in order to foment tension in the country, thereby creating a rift between the Syrian people and the government. Washington is monitoring every move with minute precision as the fate of Syria is politically of paramount importance to the empire as it serves as an ally for Iran and poses a danger to the Zionist regime. Indeed there are some parties which follow their interests in the country.

Apart from Washington who cherishes the idea of overthrowing the regime of Bashar al-Assad and installing a puppet regime in Syria with the firm intention of serving the interests of the Zionist regime in the region, the Saudi Wahhabis also insist on the collapse of the Syrian regime. For Washington and Israel, the ouster of al-Assad will ensure the two regimes’ vantage point in the Middle East to contain the ever-increasing influence of the Islamic Republic in the region and for the Saudis, it serves a similar purpose on a wider scope. In fact, the Saudi Wahhabis hold the Shia Muslims in abhorrence and make every possible effort to create Shiaphobia and Iranophobia in the world.

To the Wahhabis, Shia Muslims and moderate Sunnis are but infidels and should be killed and their blood is not upon their shoulders. What they conceive of the Shia Muslims is indeed a horrid image which fails to fit into any plausibly logical order. This irrational hatred becomes the prime motivation for the Wahhabis to engage in stoking up unrest in some border cities in Syria which throws full support behind Iran and Hezbollah. In a similar vein, the Saudi Wahhabis fully backed the dictatorial Bahrain regime in eliminating the Shia Muslims and crushing with brutality the popular uprising in the country. This double standard in Saudi policy deserves due attention. They back the despotic Bahraini regime which spares no efforts in quelling the pro-democracy protesters who are killed on a daily basis while on the other hand, they fund and back the insurgents in Syria to overthrow the regime. It seems that democracy is defined differently in different contexts and situations.

Parenthetically, the Saudi Wahhabis play a double game in their relations with Washington and Israel. In fact, they have an ambivalent feeling for these two. On the one hand, Wahhabis treat them with hatred and eliminate their elements under the influence of their extremism and on the other hand, they enter into easy alliance with the Zionists and the US when the trio have a common enemy in several regions of the world.

There are times when you marvel at how events happening in one place are twisted to the benefit of one group and to the loss of another.

Concerning the US interference and the conspiracy of the Saudi Wahhabis in Syria, either we should choose to remain ignorant or we should open our eyes to the reality of things with surmountable doubt and reluctance.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on The Arab League: Prelude to a US-NATO-led military campaign against Syria

Was George H.W. Bush Involved in Assassination of JFK?

George Herbert Walker Bush was there

by Jim Fetzer and John Hankey

Perhaps the strongest case implicating George H.W. Bush (#41) in the assassination of JFK 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 “CITKA”,  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 CITKA’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 CITKA 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 CITKA.

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 LBJNixon 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 CITKA 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 CITKA 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:


“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.


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.


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.

Posted in USAComments Off on Was George H.W. Bush Involved in Assassination of JFK?

Kissinger in ’72: Zionist ‘self-serving bastards’


Secret US State Department docs released for publication indicate Jewish-American politician suffered from Jewish lobbyists’ pressure prior to Yom Kippur War; reveal he suggested to divide Sinai Peninsula into ‘security zones’


WASHINGTON – Confidential files released for publication in the United States on Friday reveal a new side to the Jewish-American politician Henry Kissinger, which might anger the Jewish community.

Kissinger, who served as the United States National Security Advisor and later as Secretary of State in the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, had demanded to divide the Sinai Peninsula into “security zones” prior to the Yom Kippur War in 1973.

According to the secret documents released by the State Department, back in 1972 Kissinger wished to put economic and ethical pressure on Israel, calling American Jewish groups lobbying the Nixon White House self-serving “bastards.”

The files also show that Russia had claimed the “Arabs” were willing to recognize the State of Israel at that time.

Kissinger had a huge impact on American foreign policy, helping reach certain degree of conciliation between Washington and Moscow during the cold war. As the relations between both countries grew warmer, the Jewish American lobbyists amped up the pressure on Washington in an attempt to aid their Soviet brothers.

One of Nixon’s advisors, Leonard Garment, reported he was flooded with letters and phone calls from Jews and asked for Kissinger’s advice on the matter.

According to the transcripts, Kissinger, who is Jewish, replied to Garment: “Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?”

In response, Garment, also Jewish, said: “None in the world.”

Kissinger responded: “What the hell do they think they are accomplishing? You can’t even tell bastards anything in confidence because they’ll leak it.”

Despite these remarks, Kissinger said he would bring up the issue during his meeting with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin and also meet again with Jewish leaders.

“They ought to remember what this administration has done,” he added.

Dividing Sinai?

The State Department documents also reveal that a year before the Yom Kippur War, Kissinger had suggested to divide the Sinai Peninsula into “security zones” between Israel and Egypt as part of a temporary agreement. He spoke of the issue during his meetings with the Soviet Foreign Minster Andrei Gromyko.

Gromyko had demanded the US force Israel to return to 1967 borders and resolve the Palestinian issue. Kissinger warned that this all or nothing policy plays into the hands of the Israeli government. The US was willing to pressure Israel economically, but had refused to any military sanctions or any kind of commitment to the United Nations.

During one particular meeting between Kissinger and Gromyko in Washington, on October 2 , 1972, the two discussed the matter further.

“Our view is that it is important to make an initial major step with respect to Egypt,” said Kissinger. “The longer it stays the way it is, the harder it will be… Without a final determination, we should approach the problem from a standpoint of security, of security zones, without raising the issue of sovereignty.

“For example, the notion that Egyptian sovereignty extends up to the 1967 borders but for a certain period the Sinai will be divided into zones—one zone where both sides can station their forces, other zones where there can be some patrolling but no stationed forces, and maybe a buffer zone between them. Thus, for example, Sinai could be divided into five regions. In that event Egyptian civil administration would extend immediately to the borders.”

Kissinger continued, saying: “I doubt Israel would accept this. In fact I am sure Israel would not

accept this without massive pressure. If it is conceivable we could perhaps apply something like it to the Golan Heights. The major problem is to get some movement, or else the situation will be frozen so no movement can ever get started. Once movement starts, other pressures can continue to work.”

Gromyko replied: “The Suez Canal cannot be separated from withdrawal and the Palestinian Question.”

Kissinger: We would like to separate out the question of the Canal, but I see that the others are related to each other. 

“But in my view the only justified solution is one all sides can accept. We would like to make progress towards a settlement. If it can be achieved only by a global approach, we will consider a global approach. Our view up to now, which has not changed, is that we should see if we can get a settlement on the Suez Canal first.”

Posted in USAComments Off on Kissinger in ’72: Zionist ‘self-serving bastards’

Nazi only Democracy in the World

From Elana


Here is an approximate English translation of Daphne Banai’s Hebrew email note here below:


Since yesterday I remain extremely restless and bothered that a legal radio station has been shut down by the police; its director, former Meretz party Knesset member Mosi Raz, arrested and threatened that he shall remain in detention, being compelled to shut it down.  True, it’s only one of the many signs of the times.


True that it wasn’t the most popular station (Kol LaShalom).


Still, there has been no announcement, [let alone outcry – Elana] on the news and not a word from the news sources on the internet.  Total silence in the face of such an extreme muzzling of free speech.


Did I miss something?  Has Mosi joined Hamas and been captured at a checkpoint with three explosive



I am flabbergasted that such an event occurs and is met with total silence!!!!


Daphne Banai


[Who decides, and on what basis, what is ‘news’, and what is or isn’t broadcast/disseminated to the public?  In this regard, please see the article from the New Yorker that I’m sending around today by Seymour Hersh about the current IAEA report on Iran’s current use of atomic energy – or Google it and find it for yourself.  Doubtful if you will find his views in the mainstream media. – Elana]


[I just now spoke to Daphna and to Mossi Raz.  Mossi is no longer in detention, but only because he agreed to shut down the station.  The story won’t end here, but it is chilling to see how rapidly not Weimar -is here- as Uri Avnery said yesterday but Nuremberg-laws-is-here.  Scary indeed.  There has in fact been no law yet to close down media, but apparently outlawing those not in lockstep with Israeli government policy will be shut down regardless. Next to come will be outlawing all anti-government policy protests!  For details about the radio station at issue see



From: [] On Behalf Of Daphne Banai

Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 8:58 AM

To: ‘ORG’;

Subject: [MachsomORG] רדיו כל השלום



מאתמול מטריד אותי מאוד ולא נותן לי מנוח- תחנת רדיו חוקית לחלוטין נסגרה ע”י המשטרה, מנהלה, ח”כ לשעבר מוסי רז,  נעצר ובאימים שיוחזק במעצר הוא נאלץ לסגור אותה.


נכון שזה רק עוד אחד מססני התקופה.


נכון שהיא לא היתה התחנה הפופולארית ביותר.


ובכל זאת  – אף ידיעה בחדשות , אף מילה בערוצי החדשות באינטרנט. שתיקה מוחלטת לנוכח סתימת פיות כזו חמורה.


אז אולי פיספסתי משהו ומוסי הצטרף לחמאס ונתפס במחסום עם 3 מטעני צינור…


אבל אני המומה מכך שזה עובר בשקט כזה !!!!





Posted in Human RightsComments Off on Nazi only Democracy in the World

U.S. Defense Secretary Panetta–Iran strike will hurt world economy



Panetta speaks on eve of talks with Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Canada; says world should focus on diplomatic pressure, sanctions over Iran nuclear program.


U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned on the eve of talks with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that a strike on Iran could harm the world economy, saying the U.S. focus was on diplomatic pressure and sanctions.

“There are going to be economic consequences to that (an Iran strike), that could impact not just on our economy but the world economy,” Panetta told reporters traveling with him on Thursday to Canada, where he will attend a security forum and hold bilateral talks with  Barak.

In an interview with Army Radio, Barak warned on Thursday that the Iranian nuclear program is not aimed solely at Israel, and urged world leaders to impose further sanctions on the Islamic republic.

Speaking with Army Radio from Canada, Barak said Israel is currently struggling to recruit the international community to stand firm against Iran and impose concrete sanctions in order to stop its nuclear program.

“In order to do this,” Barak explained, “we must convince world leaders and the public that the Iranian nuclear program is not only targeting Israel, but the foundations of the entire world order as well.”

Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Thursday it wants to send a special high-level mission to Iran to address mounting concerns the country may be seeking to design nuclear weapons.

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said he had written to the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency earlier this month to suggest the visit, which would air issues raised by the IAEA’s latest report on Iran.

Last week’s report presented the agency’s clearest findings to date that Iran has been conducting research and experiments relevant to developing a capability to build nuclear bombs, and that some activities may continue.

Iran denies that it is seeking atomic weapons, dismissing intelligence information in the IAEA report as fabricated.

Posted in USAComments Off on U.S. Defense Secretary Panetta–Iran strike will hurt world economy

Russian military chief–NATO expansionism portends nuclear war




Russia is facing a heightened risk of being drawn into conflicts at its borders that have the potential of turning nuclear, the nation’s top military officer said Thursday.

Gen. Nikolai Makarov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, cautioned over NATO’s expansion eastward and warned that the risks of Russia being pulled into local conflicts have “risen sharply.”

Makarov added, according to Russian news agencies, that “under certain conditions local and regional conflicts may develop into a full-scale war involving nuclear weapons.”

A steady decline in Russia’s conventional forces has prompted the Kremlin to rely increasingly on its nuclear deterrent.

The nation’s military doctrine says it may use nuclear weapons to counter a nuclear attack on Russia or an ally, or a large-scale conventional attack that threatens Russia’s existence.

Russia sees NATO’s expansion to include former Soviet republics and ex-members of the Soviet bloc in eastern and central Europe as a key threat to Russia’s security.

Makarov specifically referred to NATO’s plans to offer membership to Georgia and Ukraine as potentially threatening Russia’s security. Russia routed Georgian forces in a brief August 2008 war over a separatist province of South Ossetia. Moscow later recognized South Ossettia and another breakaway Georgian province of Abkhazia as independent states and increased its military presence there.

Makarov warned that the planned pullout of NATO forces from Afghanistan could trigger conflicts in neighboring ex-Soviet Central Asian nations that could “grow into a large-scale war.”

In its military doctrine, Russia has also described U.S. missile defense plans as another major security challenge, saying it could threaten its nuclear forces and undermine their deterrence potential.

Moscow has agreed to consider NATO’s proposal last fall to cooperate on the missile shield, but the talks have been deadlocked over how the system should operate. Russia has insisted that the system should be run jointly, which NATO has rejected.

Makarov also said Russia is struggling to get enough recruits for the 1-million military, as the number of draftees has shrunk dramatically because of demographical changes.

He said that the military is aiming to gradually increase the number of contract soldiers and eventually form an all-volunteer army. He didn’t mention a specific time frame.

The statement marked a sharp change of course for the top military brass who previously insisted that Russia needs to maintain the highly unpopular draft because an all-volunteer military would be too costly.

Posted in RussiaComments Off on Russian military chief–NATO expansionism portends nuclear war

Nazi Settlers ‘attempted to kill’ Zionist soldiers



Though fairly hair-raising, the blog Haim Har-Zahav wrote about how his Israel Defence Forces unit was attacked several times in the West Bank back in September would have gone almost unnoticed – except for one thing.

The attacks were not by Palestinians, they were by Israeli settlers. Mr Bar-Zahav, 33, who has two young girls and loyally does annual reserve duty, is not easy to surprise. A veteran of combat in Lebanon and in the West Bank at the peak of the intifada, he calls himself a “mainstream Israeli”. But today, over a cup of coffee round the corner from the TV station where he works as a successful editor and producer, he says: “All of a sudden you find yourself being attacked literally by the people you left your home to defend… that’s what shocked me. I wasn’t even slightly aware that there was such violence towards soldiers in the West Bank.”

He was on duty when the Israeli military demolished three buildings in the outpost of Migron, a Jewish settlement that is illegal under Israeli and international law. The demolitions sparked a series of “price-tag” (a euphemism for revenge) attacks by extremist settlers on Palestinians and their property. Mr Har-Zahav described in his blog how settlers erected a barricade of burning tyres to block a West Bank road, apparently in a “price-tag” operation.

The military always rushes to dismantle such barriers, used in the past by Palestinian militants, because if a settler’s car is stuck, “he becomes an easy target for terrorists”, Mr Har-Zahav said.

But this time, as soon as the military patrol arrived young teenage settlers in ski masks began pelting it with large stones – Mr Har-Zahav indicates a diameter of about 8in – from the terraces 10 metres above the road. “It’s physics,” he says. “If someone gets banged with one from that height, that person is either dead or seriously injured.”

We know the name of the settlement, but Mr Har-Zahav does not want it publicised in case he is pursued through the courts by its members. But he does not hesitate to specify the attack on the Beit El military base near Ramallah, where, as he wrote in his blog, the settlers – on several occasions he uses the word “terrorists” – not only wrote “price-tag” graffiti, but cut wires under the bonnets, put sugar in the petrol tanks and cut brake cables of the vehicles “the army uses to protect them”.

He wrote: “I don’t know how it works… in the parallel universe. But in the universe I come from, the State of Israel, when someone cuts your brakes, it is an attempt to kill or assassinate.” Normally Mr Har-Zahav’s blog gets 20,000 hits. This one got 44,000. By some on the far right he was accused of treachery; by some on the far left he was criticised for serving in the West Bank at all.

The pro-settler newspaper Makor Rishon published the blog, fuelling an already lively debate among its readers about the “price-tag” tactic. “I didn’t write the blog just to put down the settlers or smear mud in their faces,” Mr Har-Zahav says. “It’s far more important to me that the settlers discuss it than the readers of The Independent or, for that matter, Maariv or Yedhiot Ahronot. Much of the response, he says, was “apologies and shame” and he says that relations between the IDF and settlers have traditionally been good.

But he also says that while “officially” there is no difference in the constraints on the way soldiers confront Palestinians and settlers, “actually there is a huge difference. You still think two, three, four, five, six times more [before shooting at settlers] than if you encounter Palestinians”. He cites the recent example in which a soldier is facing trial for accidentally shooting dead a settler rabbi who failed to stop at a makeshift checkpoint and one of his own in which a Palestinian was shot dead in similar circumstances, when there was no official investigation.

Mr Har-Zahav, who testified to the veterans’ organisation Breaking the Silence after writing his blog, feels he performed a public service by highlighting a topic seldom discussed. “I told the truth,” he says.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi Settlers ‘attempted to kill’ Zionist soldiers

Shoah’s pages


November 2011
« Oct   Dec »