Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Shock and. . . Oil?
As George W. Bush leaves office, pundits are reviewing "The Bush legacy" -- a legacy sure to be defined by the disastrous Iraq war (with financial meltdown as icing on the cake). In the new book Family of Secrets, a probing history of the Bush dynasty, investigative journalist Russ Baker, shows that George W. Bush was hatching ideas for war on Iraq not only before 9/11, but even before he was elected president.
Baker reveals that as early as 1999, Bush candidly said that being a victorious war president would be essential to securing his place in history. His father, he believed, had "wasted" the political capital from the first Gulf War, but "If I have a chance to invade . . . I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed." Tragically for Bush, he failed to contemplate the flip side of his fantasy: by launching a calamitous war, he assured most of his other big initiatives would be defeated or forgotten. In this excerpt, Baker gives us a look at the pre-presidential Bush, blowing smoke about his own abbreviated military service even as he daydreamed of sending other Americans to war:
During his presidential campaign, W. collaborated with a professional writer on A Charge to Keep,
a book that was intended to introduce the candidate to the American
public. Mickey Herskowitz was a longtime Texas journalist, known both
as a sports columnist and as a prolific ghostwriter of biographies. He
had worked with a wide range of political, media, and sports figures,
including Texas governor John Connally, Yankees slugger Mickey Mantle,
Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, and newsman Dan Rather.
The project originally had been his agent's idea. Herskowitz whom I
interviewed in October 2004, considered himself a friend of the Bush
family, and has been a guest at the family vacation home in
Kennebunkport. In the late 1960s, Herskowitz designated President
Bush's father, then-congressman George H. W. Bush, to replace him
briefly as a guest sports columnist at the Houston Chronicle, and the two had remained close since. 
In 1999, when Herskowitz called the George W. Bush presidential campaign, to propose a book "by W.," it was supposed to be Karl Rove's decision whether to green-light the book project. But Rove was busy with other things, and he said that if it was okay with W., it was okay with him. W. said he was amenable as long as he didn't have to do too much. Most of all, he wanted to know how much money was involved. Herskowitz, whom I interviewed in 2004, said that he and Bush quickly arrived at an agreement in which they would split the proceeds.
W. did have one other concern: he worried whether there would be enough content for such a book. He openly fretted to Herskowitz: what had he accomplished that was worth talking about? Bush thought it a better idea for the book to focus on his policy objectives. And what might those be? Herskowitz inquired. Ask Karl, Bush replied.
Finally, though, the two began what would total approximately twenty meetings so Bush could share his thoughts. As a writer, Herskowitz knew that too much canned, self-serving material could be commercially toxic. Even in a book intended to be self-serving, it could destroy the credibility -- and hence the marketability -- of the product. So he hoped to tease out some unguarded revelations, on the assumption that these would simply humanize his subject. At the beginning, Herskowitz had no idea the extent to which W. was treading on eggshells.
According to Herskowitz, W. was a confusing combination of cautious and candid. Sometimes, he would say something in an offhanded way that would later prove to be explosive. One such bombshell concerned his military service.
Herskowitz says that Bush was reluctant to discuss his time in the Air National Guard -- and inconsistent when he did so. Among other things, he provided conflicting explanations of how he came to bypass a waiting list and obtain a coveted Guard slot as a domestic alternative to Vietnam.
When the subject came up, W. sought to quickly deflect the conversation to the summer of 1972 -- when he moved to Montgomery, Alabama, to work on the Winton Blount senatorial campaign. And what did you do about your remaining military service? Herskowitz asked. "Nothing," Bush replied. "I was excused." [emphasis added]
It didn't take Herskowitz and Bush long to work through W.'s life story and accomplishments. Soon they were discussing what Bush hoped to achieve as president. While W. seemed somewhat hazy on specifics, on one point he was clear: the many benefits that would accrue if he were to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Herskowitz recalled that Bush and his advisers were sold on the idea that it was difficult for a president to realize his legislative agenda without the high approval numbers that accompany successful -- even if modest -- wars.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," Herskowitz told me in our 2004 interview, leaning in a little to make sure I could hear him properly. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander in chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade . . . if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed, and I'm going to have a successful presidency.' "
Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow.
That opportunity, of course, would come in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at ninety-one percent in the polls," Herskowitz said, "and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker." Just four days before, according to a Gallup poll, his approval rating was 51 percent.
Herskowitz said that George W. Bush's beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House, and ascribed in part to Dick Cheney, who was then a powerful congressman. "Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade."
Bush's circle of preelection advisers had a fixation on the
political capital that British prime minister Margaret Thatcher had
amassed from the Falklands War with Argentina. Said Herskowitz: "They
were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the
troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher]
and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these
magnificent speeches." It was a masterpiece of "perception management"
-- a lesson in how to maneuver the media and public into supporting a
war, irrespective of the actual merits.
The above is an excerpt from the book Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, The Powerful Forces That Put it in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America by Russ Baker (Published by Bloomsbury Press; 978-1596915572).
- Posted in




34 Comments so far
Show AllNice read.
The politicians know that one event like a 911 can turn your political frown upside down. Bush went from a 49% disapproval rating to 9%.
Yet "we the people" believe there is no need to investigate those around him for involvement in 911? In fact, let's just leave the investigation up to his friends that he appointed to his investigation of his wrongdoing.
How sad.
Baker sez: "Bush thought it a better idea for the book to focus on his policy objectives. And what might those be? Herskowitz inquired. Ask Karl, Bush replied."
***
That's the real tragedy of the Bush legacy: it would have made a superb farce were it not for the fact that it's true.
That, and the rivers of blood, of course.
Good point. But I think it's only half of the Bush legacy tragedy, the other half being the Dick Cheney.
Just imagine the following farce: The Bush family gets the Dick to help the Chimp by looking for a VP candidate. Gosh durn, he found himself, and then proceded to completely take over the presidency of the Chimp, to the point that he had the Chimp sign over to him major powers, etc.
Rove had what he thought was a clever, can't-fail plan to make the Rupugs the ruling party for decades, if not more. And the Dick wanted US global hegemony and an imperial presidency. (Which was all part of the plan for long-term Repug dominance.)
As nasty and criminal as is the Chimp-in-Chief, the mess is not really his. He was in the gym, on his bicycle, or vacationing while the dynamic fascist duo of Rove/Cheney ran amok.
Poop.
That Bush built upon the legacy of presidential criminal conduct should come as no surprise. He leartned his lessons well by watching his dad and those around him and accepted their criminal behavior as normative. The Senate's behavior yesterday portrayed by voting to approve Israeli crimes provides a clear example of the prevalence of such crinimal behavior as normative and provides a very good reason why the US government has ZERO moral authority because of its blatant deviance. Too bad the Statue of Liberty didn't get taken out by Atta's Kamakazis for it is a massive lie and affront to peoples seeking freedom, peace and justice.
The candor with which George W. Bush acknowledged the linkage between waging war abroad and strengthening his personal partisan position on the home front is disquieting.
Reagan gave us Grenada (the original post-Vietnam era Wag the Dog scenario). Then Bush the First served up the invasion of Panama to capture Noriega, followed by Operation Desert Storm to kick Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait.
These traditional military operations were openly hailed at the time as evidence that America was finally overcoming "Vietnam syndrome", the "malaise" that had supposedly sapped the Pentagon and the nation itself of its virility courtesy of the 1960's antiwar movement. Each of these missions also were spectacularly successful in the textbook operational sense, and were accompanied by very low US troop casualties - proof positive that militarism can indeed achieve tangible, beneficial political end results. Quagmire and stalemate were not inevitable, you see. Risks and costs could be minimized and managed, by putting our trust in a new breed of high tech warrior professionals.
Okay, it now stands exposed as a stupid, tragic illusion. To me, there is a world of moral difference between capitalizing upon one's past military credentials to gain political office (think Zachary Taylor, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower), and starting a war in conscious hope of maximizing domestic partisan advantage.
Thank you for the insights, Mr. Herskowitz.
Bill from Saginaw
Conservatives will rise again unless:
http://ni4d.us/
Iraqi journalist Muntadar al-Zeidi provides a fine commentary
on Bush's presidency, hurling invectives and insults along with his shoes
at this warmonger.
The first casualty of war is the truth. Planned since 1999. The patterns of government in "pride" in this and that trojan horse, sleight of hand on environmental science, Cheney and Blackwater and Haliburton -theories about theories about ideas about economics...oops there go a some trillions... the only trickle down effect is profound pathology. The sewer level is definitely rising. The man has not been impeached. oops, and these people actually believe they are right... Someone once responded to an observation like this with "Its the only game in town" that is the only worse evil.
when, among the general populace, the reality of an America awash in blood and ill-gotten booty is finally able to supplant the misty-eyed nostalgia for an America that never was, the journey forward will begin...those in power know the reality, so don't have this handicap...
Why is Common Dreams ignoring the real bombshells in this book:
* the new material on H.W. Bush in Dallas on 11-22-63 and H.W. and Barbaras' proven double alibi lies.
* the incredible new details about Jack Alsoton Crighton, H.W. Bush and what happened in Dallas
* the incredible new details about H.W. Bush's and the CIAs real role in the the Real Watergate.
* the incredible new details about the narrators of the all too traditional narrators of Watergate
Bob Woodward and Stanley Kutler.
It is as if Common Dreams took the LEAST INTERESTING PARAGRAPHS OF THE ENTIRE BOOK AND POSTED THEM HERE.
Not that they are all that uninteresting; its more a comment on the rest of the book. Is Common Dreams interested in tamping down on the radical revelations found in the incredible book Family of Secrets? Anyone who has read this book will certainly have to wonder if these paragraphs represent its pinacle of revelation!
I cannot recommend Family of Secrets enough. The negative review (the MOST NEGATIVE I HAVE EVER SEEN) IN THE LA TIMES SHOULD BE ENDORESEMENT ENOUGH! Recall that is was the LA Times that played a key role in making the former Pulitzer prize winning journalist Gary Webb unemployed after his series Dark Alliance appeared in the San Hoes Mercury News. That series exposed CIA complicity in drug running to resupply the Contras during the 1980s.
The LA Times atomic hatchet job on Family of Secrets is worse than any review I have ever seen. Not a single fact or idea is even mentioned in the review . Its all wall to wall name calling, with obligatory cliches pasted from The Paranoid Style of American Politics.
Such condemnation form such a compromised institution is the highest praise imaginable.
___
Please read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, or people will remain thinking that the Presidents Chosen by Wolf Blitzer will change everything, and we-- as a species will devlove into quivering lime Jello, and not even cold quiverin
I don't think Commondreams is avoiding it. I think the vast majority of material on here is successfully taking the other side to task. Don't worry
Why the paranoia about CD...?
The books author wrote this article, amongst others published here on CD previously...
that went into more specifics about the Bush/JFK connection...
Also to note... These "new revelations" aren't really all that new...
I read the same info on JFK conspiracy websites two years ago...
And it wasn't breaking news then either...
Sounds to me like an author plugging his new book by writing articles about related topics and publishing them on progressive websites...
Unfortunately, old goat January 9th, 2009 5:15 pm, in our country, the first casualty of peace is also the truth, and it will be as long as we are in thrall to the Military-Industrial-Intelligence Complex.
Left out of Mr. Baker's article are the plans of the neocon Project for the New American Century which sent a letter in January 1978 to Bill Clinton [1] asking him to invade Iraq. Not surprisingly, among the signators to that missive were such neocon luminaries as Elliott Abrams, Richard Armitage, William Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, former CIA man R. James Woolsey, and the main architect of the whole Iraq disaster, Don Rumsfeld.
Of course, PNAC also admitted, in 2000's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" [2], that sparking Americans acceptance of PNAC's 'full-spectrum US world military dominance' plots would require a "catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." I guess 9/11 was sufficient for their purposes.
Junior has been nothing more than a dimwitted puppet for PNAC's grandiose schemes, and what we have seen playing out the past seven years is consonant not only with enriching PNAC member Dick Cheney's personal cash cow Halliburton, but transferring massive amounts of taxpayer money and foreign assets to the elites of the MIIC, under the guise of establishing an American empire.
[1] * PNAC letter to Clinton: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
"...which sent a letter in January 1978 to Bill Clinton..."
You mean 1998...
getreal January 10th, 2009 3:27 am, you're right, sorry for the typo, but I'll bet some of these characters might have been thinking about it in 1978.
Apparently Wolfowitz was thinking about it almost that far back.
getreal January 10th, 2009 8:30 pm: "Apparently Wolfowitz was thinking about it almost that far back."
I read somewhere years ago that Nixon and Kissinger, had he not been impeached, were planning to remake the map of the Middle East, including installing US nuclear bases in Iraq to protect the oil from the Soviets. You might even say they were thinking about this from the end of WWII.
George Herbert Walker Bush was smart enough to convince Bill Clinton that was
supposed to represent the "Working Class Democratic Party", that he should
support The New World Order, and Nafta. For being so dumb that he listened to the
Bush Cadre, Clinton should be exposed and removed from any of the Democratic
party Powers and doings. If this was WWII period, and Cliton did what he did to us,
The sell-out of our industrial base to China, he would be charged with Treason.
Why is Obama still hung up on that Clinton Crowd? The Sell-out of our industrial
base began with Clinton. Hillary could not outsource jobs fast enough to India.
The Billions of Dollars that Foreign countries are donating to Clinton should
raise eyebrows in Congress. If Congress was also duped into this Quagmire that
has brought on this depression that we may never recover from, What hope is there?
Our complaints are falling on deaf ears.
There was very little on the statute book by the time Clinton took office to prevent anyone from shifting the manufacturing base to China or Mexico or anywhere, and from outsourcing to India or Singapore or anywhere else. If a greedy CEO and corporate board wanted to do that, there was very little Clinton or anyone else could have done anything about it. The process of eliminating any sort of tariff-based protection and introducing all sorts of tax loopholes had already been completed. Think about it. This is not to excuse Clinton's policies or his bluffs about his 'superior' economic management (in retrospect, anyone would look superior!) - what I'm saying is that certain policies to benefit a tiny section of the population had already been put in place systematically. The evangelicals, liberals, lefties, righties, etc., had no clue as to what was happening - because many of them also benefited initially to some extent by these policies. That these were not sustainable did not occur to anyone - even now, 'sustainability' is not something that gets talked about.
Of course, NAFTA was another matter - though any other President would also have gone along with it. It's not as if Clinton, in all his brilliance, thought up NAFTA - there were powerful forces at play (the same forces are at work even now. Just Google "deep integration" and "security prosperity partnership" )
Highintel: Can we do better?
Not
Another
F***ing
Trade
Agreement
Freddie Kilowatt January 9th, 2009 8:18 pm: "Why is Obama still hung up on that Clinton Crowd?"
Obama's a pragmatist who wants to, and needs to, accomplish some things quickly, and he doesn't want to start from scratch, the mistake both Carter and Clinton made. The last Democrats with any experience in government and how to get things done in Washington were the Clinton crowd. Keep in mind, though, that they all work for Obama now, he sets the agenda, and that's a major difference.
It is impossible to capture the degree of detail that Russ Baker's new book offers. Here, however is a summery of his new revelations and how they relate to
H.W. Bush CIA agent in 1963 and
George de Mohrenschildt, long understood to be the 1# CIA handler of Oswald in Dallas, who was killed two days before being scheduled to testify before the House Select
Committee on Assassinations in 1977.
----
By now, we have enough information to show, fairly conclusively, that Oswald was being managed by Poppy's old friend de Mohrenschildt. We also have others connected with
Poppy (H.W. Bush) closely associated with the evnts of November. And we have Poppy creating an alibi for himself.
Details on who fired the gun, whose gun it was, and how many shots were fired from where remain releveant, but become of secondary importance. The central question is the story
that lies behind these details.
In summation, here's just some of the new, relvant information:
* Poppy 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 instument of policy.
* Poppy 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.
* Poppy's business partner Thomas Devine met with de Mohrenschildt during that period, on behalf of the CIA
* Poppy's eventual Texas running mate in the 1964 election, Jack Crichton, was connected to the military intellignece figures who led Kennedy's motercade.
* Crichton and D. Harold Byrd, owner of the Texas School Book Depository building, were both conected to de Mohrenschildt-- and directly ot each other though oil-
buisiness dealings.
* Byrd brought in the tenant that hired Oswald shortly before the assassination.
* Oswald got his job in the building through a friend of de Mohrenschildt's with her own intelligence conncections-- including family ties to Allen Dulles.
Even Jack Ruby's slaying of Oswald fits the larger pattern seen here-- one in which Oswald is indeed a "patsy"-- a pawn in a deadly game who would never be permitted to say
what he knew (78)
Ruby himself practically admitted as much. After his trial, he made a statement to reporters as to his motives in shooting Oswald, and essentially admitted to a conspiracy.
RUBY: Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts, of what occured,
my motives. The people had, that had so much to gain and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in , will never
let the true facts come above board to the world.
REPORTER: Are these people in very high positions, Jack?
RUBY: Yes (79)
Family of Secrets pp. 117-118
____
Please read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, or people will remain thinking that the Presidents Chosen by Wolf Blitzer will change everything, and we-- as a species will devlove into quivering lime Jello, and not even cold quiverin
KaBAMM!!
And don't forget the Bush family piggy bank sugar plantations located in Cuba, nationalized by Castro, which Kennedy 'failed' to reclaim when he didn't send in the air support for the CIA pigs moving from the bay to the ground. Paybacks a bitch if you fuck over the Bushes.
And DEFINITELY DON"T MISS Shane O'Sullivans new movie "RFK Must Die".
http://www.rfkmustdie.com/
with new scientific evidence using the newest audio analyzing software to examine old audio recording made at the scene, which we now know recorded at least 10 to 14 gun shots, exceeding the capacity of Sirhans gun:
http://rfkmustdie.blip.tv/file/1362352/
and the identification of three CIA operatives in the lobby and the ballroom at the time of the shooting, who had no domestic jurisdiction and one of whom was supposed to be stationed in Laos at that time:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/20/usa.features11
you can also see parts of the story on the BBC,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/11/who_shot_bobby_kennedy_1.html
fakedemocracy,
Good post. I visited the website, RFKmustdie.
You'd think the state of California might have some interest in this case.
oujiQualm34 January 9th, 2009 9:44 pm, without getting bogged down in too many of the weeds of the JFK assassination, there are a few factoids, as well as the ones you presented, that are very curious:
-- Why were Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover, both of whom hated JFK, in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, along with Poppy Bush? What are the odds?
-- Why is it, according to Oliver Stone's research, that Nixon would never talk about the JFK murder directly and only, when absolutely necessary, refer to it obliquely as 'that Bay of Pigs thing'?
-- Among the three 'bums with new shoes' arrested just after the JFK shooting and then quickly released (and no records exist as to their fingerprinting or interrogation) were men later identified as US intelligence community operatives: well-known Nixon henchman and ex-CIA agent E. Howard Hunt; CIA contract player and Watergate 'plumber' Frank Sturgis; and hitman-for-hire Charles Harrelson, father of actor Woody. Hunt, on his deathbed, admitted to a CIA/LBJ conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy [1] [2], Sturgis was murdered under mysterious circumstances after acknowledging his role in the assassination, and Harrelson died in prison after he began to speak out on his involvement in JFK's killing.
-- Also recall in this context that JFK had promised to "shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter the remnants to the wind," and it's said he told his brother Bobby that, if he was reelected in 1964, he was going to fire FBI head Hoover. In the fall of 1963, the popular JFK's reelection was nearly certain.
-- E. Howard Hunt's wife Dorothy died in a strange explosion just after take-off of a United Airlines passenger jet in 1972 when she was allegedly on her way to Washington with evidence that would prove US government complicity in JFK's death. Her son said she had been traveling around the country paying off the families of those involved in the Watergate scandal to keep silent. [3]
"Brigadier General Russell Bowen, in Immaculate Deception, analyzed key Nixon tapes in which he referred to “Texans,” “the Texans,” “Cubans,” “the Bay of Pigs,” and “some Texas people.” One of the “brown shoe boys” of the OSS and decades of intelligence work, Bowen saw the references as referring both to recent money laundering and to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. When the most relevant of these tapes was released, Nixon advisor Dean Burch said of George H.W. Bush: “He broke out in a**holes and sh*t himself to death…” The Warren Commission Report documents included a memo in which J. Edgar Hoover said he gave a full briefing on the assassination to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency, and there in a photograph of someone who looks very much like Bush standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963. Comparison of that image with known photographs of the young Bush only strengthen the impression that it he was there that day." [...]
"E. Howard Hunt always insisted he was in Washington, D.C. the day Kennedy died. However, the picture of three bums picked up in Dallas that day has fueled speculation that one of them was Hunt. Another looked like Frank Sturgis, who was never directly employed by the CIA. The picture allegedly showing Sturgis is convincing. Sturgis, who was murdered in 1992, told investigator Henegan that the three hoboes were Sturgis, Hunt, and Charles Harrelson. Sturgis said that his job that day was to act as a spotter for 'sewer assassins,' and added that there was more than one hit team there. Investigator Jim Fetzer also identified Harrelson, but substituted Charles Rogers ( aka Charles Montoya) for Sturgis.
-- Sherman De Brosse, From "The Death of Dorothy Hunt," May 22, 2007.
http://forwardamerica.blogspot.com/2007/05/death-of-dorothy-hunt-probing_22.html
"Listen, if and when I get out of here (prison) and feel free to talk, I will have something that will be the biggest story you ever had…November 22, 1963. You remember that!"
-- Charles Harrelson, as quoted by Dallas Morning News reporter Chuck Cook.
http://www.thepresidenthasbeenshot.4t.com/custom3.html
[1] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt
[2] Audio clip of Hunt's deathbed confession:
http://www.saintjohnhunt.com/testament.html
[3] http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/300407deathbedconfession.htm
Thanks to oujiQualm34 and RSJ for your enlightening posts.
You can watch the Zapruder film assassination of JFK on Youtube!
In other words, we have all these textual tools and VIDEO but we the people
refuse to look into the case of the public execution of JFK.
To our shame I agree with you that we are devolving/degenerating into quivering jello.
People refuse to look into the US military COUP taking place in 1963, just TWO SHORT YEARS after Eisenhower warned of the rising MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. We still live under the control of that US Military Industrial JUNTA who dictates ALL POLICY in ALL FACETS OF AMERICAN LIFE.
"W. did have one other concern: he worried whether there would be enough content for such a book. He openly fretted to Herskowitz: what had he accomplished that was worth talking about? Bush thought it a better idea for the book to focus on his policy objectives. And what might those be? Herskowitz inquired. Ask Karl, Bush replied."
"ASK KARL"!!! Hilarious.
getreal January 10th, 2009 3:26 am, this is why it's so hard to satirize the Bush Gang -- everything you invent eventually turns out to be true.
Exactly. A stage satire would have the chimp saying: "Ask Turd Blossom", whenever his opinion was sought, and it would sound like an exaggeration. No!
getreal January 10th, 2009 8:29 pm, ironically, it is all of the things Junior didn't want to talk about that would have made his biography interesting -- passing out drunk in Hunter Thompson's hotel room bathtub in 1976; ordering a secret abortion for an underaged girlfriend; doing so much cocaine his father had him arrested and sentenced, without a record, to do community service; and his various spectacular business failures -- that's a made-for-TV movie right there. It should have been called "A Charge to Keep It Quiet."
I read a 'zine several years ago titled "George Bush: Super Spy" which I believe was sourced from Covert Action Quarterly detailing HW's role in Bay 'o'Pigs, JFK, watergate, Zapata oil, and more elaborately about his role in BCCI, Iran-Contra and running cocaine and heroin into the US...
It is good to see this info come to light on more legitimate sources like CommonDreams...
busterkikki
To: Bill from Saginaw
Why didn't you include John McCain in your list? Through his ignorance and false pride he depended upon his military experience to qualify for the Presidency. He lost, and may have saved the USA from unrecoverable damage.