Did Bush Sr. Kill Kennedy and Frame Nixon?
by David Swanson
by David Swanson: Did
Bush Sr. Kill Kennedy and Frame Nixon?
book presents an account of the U.S. government that is both remarkably
new and extensively documented. According to this account, George
H. W. Bush, the father of the current president, devoted his career
to secret intelligence work with the CIA many years before he became
the CIA director, and the network of spies and petroleum plutocrats
he began working with early on has played a powerful but hidden
role in determining the direction of the U.S. government up to the
and newly highlighted information assembled by Baker presents at
least the strong possibility that Bush was involved in assassinating
President Kennedy, and that Bush was involved in staging the Watergate
break-in (and the break-in at Dan Ellsberg's psychiatrist's) with
the purpose of having these break-ins exposed and the blame placed
on President Nixon. In this account, those in on the get-Nixon plot
included John Dean and Bob Woodward. While this retelling of history
would make a certain Robert Redford movie look really, really silly,
it would on the other hand make Woodward's performance
during Watergate fit more coherently with everything he's known
to have done before and since. It would also give new meaning to
Dean's recent book title "Conservatives Without a Conscience."
I would love to see either of these men's response to Baker's book.
of this review may now be rushing off to declare Baker either profoundly
insane or (probably in fewer cases) indisputably correct in his
views regarding the removal of Kennedy and Nixon from the White
House, but I would strongly urge reading the book before doing so.
It's called Family
of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It In
The White House, And What Their Influence Means for America.
Those of us
who have pushed for years now to have Bush Jr. impeached or prosecuted
have heard all imaginable excuses and then some. One has been this:
"Punishing the figurehead puppet president would amount to
excusing the real powers behind the throne." And, of course,
some of us have never doubted that such powers existed, but considered
letting Bush and Cheney walk free as a surer way to protect other
guilty parties than punishing them would be. There are guilty parties
in Congress too, of course, but how the pervasiveness of guilt justifies
letting everyone off the hook has always escaped me. The arrests
have to begin somewhere. In any case, I bring up the image of presidents
as puppets because Baker provides a new variation on that theme.
In his account, Bush Jr. is indeed not the driving force, but a
clique centered around his father is.
not focus on Bush Jr.'s grandfather, Prescott Bush, and does not
even mention his role in the plot
to overthrow President Roosevelt in 1933. Baker's focus is on
Poppy, although Prescott and his anger toward Kennedy are in the
background. It is not a completely new idea to suppose that Kennedy
was killed because he angered the CIA and powerful Americans with
business interests in Cuba. It is, as far as I know, new to show,
as Baker extensively documents and then summarizes, that:
Bush was closely tied to key members of the intelligence community
including the deposed CIA head with a known grudge against JFK;
he was also tied to Texas oligarchs who hated Kennedy's politics
and whose wealth was directly threatened by Kennedy; this network
was part of the military/intelligence elite with a history of using
assassination as an instrument of policy.
Bush was in Dallas on November 21 and most likely the morning of
November 22. He hid that fact, he lied about knowing where he was,
then he created an alibi based on a lead he knew was false. And
he never acknowledged the closeness of his relationship with Oswald's
handler George de Mohrenschildt.
the rest of the article
is the author of the new book Daybreak:
Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union
Seven Stories Press. Visit his