Exclusive: One of the strange mysteries from the Reagan-Bush era is where did George H.W. Bush go on one Sunday in October 1980 when some witnesses placed him meeting with Iranians in Paris. More than three decades later, Bush’s supposed alibi remains a state secret, Robert Parry reports.
By Robert Parry
More than three decades ago, on Oct. 19, 1980, then-Republican vice presidential candidate George H.W. Bush supposedly took an afternoon trip to visit a family friend in Washington, an alibi that could prove he could not have traveled secretly to Paris for treacherous meetings with Iranians.
But Bush’s White House in 1992 and his presidential library now have refused to release the name of this alibi witness or even the address where Bush allegedly went. The insistence on keeping this secret has just been reaffirmed by Debra Steidel Wall, deputy archivist of the United States.
So, rather than release what theoretically should be a fact the Bush Family would want out proof that the elder George Bush did not engage in secret talks with Iranians behind President Jimmy Carter’s back regarding 52 Americans then being held hostage in Iran the U.S. government is saying that only a costly federal court lawsuit can dislodge this historical detail.
Or, perhaps the reason that this secret has been so zealously guarded for so long is that Bush never took the afternoon trip, that it was just part of a cover story to conceal his mission to Paris, and that the host — if questioned — would discredit Bush’s alibi .
Whatever the truth, as long as the Bushes and the government prevent the corroboration of his purported afternoon visit, it remains impossible to disprove contrary evidence that Bush did sneak off for the alleged Paris meeting and simply arranged with friends in the Secret Service to concoct an alibi.
Another part of Bush’s alibi for Oct. 19 a morning trip to the Chevy Chase Country Club previously collapsed when no one at the club recalled the visit and the account from Secret Service supervisor Leonard Tanis, who described a brunch also involving Barbara Bush and Justice and Mrs. Potter Stewart, turned out to be false.
Disproving Tanis’s account, Mrs. Bush’s Secret Service records showed her taking a morning jog along the C&O Canal, and Mrs. Stewart told me that she and her late husband never had brunch with the Bushes at the Chevy Chase club. When questioned by congressional investigators, none of the other Secret Service agents on the detail recalled going to the Chevy Chase club at all.
After his Chevy Chase story was debunked, Tanis a Secret Service official who was known to be personally close to Bush withdrew it
A Mysterious Alibi
That left Bush’s supposed afternoon trip on Oct. 19 as his key alibi. But there were problems with that story as well.
In 1992, when allegations of Bush’s secret trip to Paris in 1980 were being investigated, Republicans suggested that Democrats were simply trying to embarrass the then-President because the afternoon trip might have involved a rendezvous with a woman.
Since Bush’s reelection campaign was matching up against Democrat Bill Clinton, who was under fire for his own womanizing, the GOP complaint boiled down to that the Democrats were looking for dirt against Bush to counter the dirt against Clinton.
However, that Republican argument also fell apart when Mrs. Bush’s Secret Service records showed her participating in the afternoon trip. Given Barbara Bush’s presence, the idea of a romantic tryst certainly didn’t make much sense.
So, either Mrs. Bush had gone together with her husband or a sympathetic Secret Service official had used Mrs. Bush’s visit to a family friend to create another false cover story for George H.W. Bush.
Yet, two decades ago, with Bush in the White House and the Democrats almost as timid as they are today, it proved relatively easy for the President to quash requests from federal prosecutors, congressional investigators and journalists for release of the details about his whereabouts on Oct. 19, 1980.
While keeping these details from the public, Bush angrily insisted that he be cleared of the Paris allegations. Congressional investigators looking into the 1980 suspicions were eager to comply, but there remained this peculiar refusal of the Bush administration to supply a confirmable alibi.
In June 1992, a compromise of sorts was struck. A few senior congressional investigators were given the identity of Bush’s mysterious host but only under the condition that they would never interview the alibi witness nor disclose publicly who it was.
The deal may have represented the first time in investigative history that a suspect provided authorities an alibi witness with the proviso that the alibi not be checked out and the investigators agreed. Maybe only a member of the Bush Family could pull that off.
Evidence of a Paris Trip
Contradicting the shaky Secret Service records were several accounts of a Bush trip to Paris on the night of Oct. 18, 1980, and into the day on Oct. 19.
For instance, I informed the congressional investigators in 1992 about contemporaneous knowledge of the Bush-to-Paris trip provided to me by Chicago Tribune reporter John Maclean, son of author Norman Maclean who wrote A River Runs Through It.
John Maclean said a well-placed Republican source told him in mid-October 1980 about Bush taking a secret trip to Paris to meet with Iranians on the U.S. hostage issue.
After hearing this news in 1980, Maclean passed on the information to David Henderson, a State Department Foreign Service officer. Henderson recalled the date as Oct. 18, 1980, when the two met at Henderson’s Washington home to discuss another matter.
For his part, Maclean never wrote about the Bush-to-Paris leak because, he told me later, a Reagan campaign spokesman officially denied it. As the years passed, the memory of the leak faded for both Henderson and Maclean, until the so-called October Surprise story bubbled to the surface in the early 1990s.
Henderson mentioned the meeting in a 1991 letter to a U.S. senator that was forwarded to me. Though not eager to become part of the October Surprise story in 1991, Maclean confirmed that he had received the Republican leak. He also agreed with Henderson’s recollection that their conversation occurred on or about Oct. 18, 1980.
The significance of the Maclean-Henderson conversation was that it was a piece of information locked in time untainted by later claims and counter-claims about the October Surprise dispute.
One could not accuse Maclean of concocting the Bush-to-Paris allegation for some ulterior motive, since he hadn’t used it in 1980, nor had he volunteered it a decade later. He only confirmed it and did so reluctantly.
And, there was other support for the allegations of a Republican-Iranian meeting in Paris.
David Andelman, the biographer for Count Alexandre deMarenches, then head of France’s Service de Documentation Exterieure et de Contre-Espionage (SDECE), testified to congressional investigators that deMarenches told him that he had helped the Reagan-Bush campaign arrange meetings with Iranians on the hostage issue in summer and fall of 1980, with one meeting in Paris in October.
Andelman said deMarenches insisted that the secret meetings be kept out of his memoir because the story could otherwise damage the reputations of his friends, William Casey and George H.W. Bush.
The allegations of a Paris meeting also received support from several other sources, including pilot Heinrich Rupp, who said he flew Casey (then Ronald Reagan’s campaign chief and later CIA director) from Washington’s National Airport to Paris on a flight that left very late on a rainy night in mid-October 1980.
Rupp said that after arriving at LeBourget airport outside Paris, he saw a man resembling Bush on the tarmac.
The night of Oct. 18 indeed was rainy in the Washington area. And, sign-in sheets at the Reagan-Bush headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, placed Casey within a five-minute drive of National Airport late that evening.
There were other bits and pieces of corroboration about the Paris meetings.
A French arms dealer, Nicholas Ignatiew, told me in 1990 that he had checked with his government contacts and was told that Republicans did meet with Iranians in Paris in mid-October 1980.
A well-connected French investigative reporter Claude Angeli said his sources inside the French secret service confirmed that the service provided “cover” for a meeting between Republicans and Iranians in France on the weekend of Oct. 18-19. German journalist Martin Kilian had received a similar account from a top aide to intelligence chief deMarenches.
As early as 1987, Iran’s ex-President Bani-Sadr had made similar claims about a Paris meeting, and Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe claimed to have been present outside the meeting and saw Bush, Casey and other Americans in attendance.
A Russian Report
Finally, the Russian government sent a report to the House Task Force, saying that Soviet-era intelligence files contained information about Republicans holding a series of meetings with Iranians in Europe, including one in Paris in October 1980.
“William Casey, in 1980, met three times with representatives of the Iranian leadership,” the Russian report said. “The meetings took place in Madrid and Paris.”
At the Paris meeting in October 1980, “former CIA Director George Bush also took part,” the report said. “The representatives of Ronald Reagan and the Iranian leadership discussed the question of possibly delaying the release of 52 hostages from the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran.”
Requested by Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Indiana, who was in charge of the lackadaisical congressional inquiry into the October Surprise mystery, the Russian report arrived via the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in January 1993. But Hamilton’s task force had already decided to dismiss the October Surprise allegations as lacking solid evidence.
The Russian report was kept hidden until I discovered it after gaining access to the task force’s raw files. Though the report was addressed to Hamilton, he told me last year that he had not seen the report until I sent him a copy shortly before our interview.
Lawrence Barcella, the task force’s chief counsel, acknowledged to me that he might not have shown Hamilton the report and may have simply filed it away in boxes of task force records. [For more on Casey’s European travels, see Consortiumnews.com’s “October Surprise Evidence Surfaces.”]
Though the Bush library continues to withhold the details about Bush’s purported afternoon trip on Oct. 19, 1980, thousands of other records were released to me this summer under a Freedom of Information Act request.
The documents shed some additional light on how far the Republicans were prepared to go to protect Bush on the October Surprise issue. The records reveal that GOP members of the congressional task force were collaborating, behind the scenes, with Bush’s White House on a strategy for shielding Bush from the accusations.
For instance, Bush’s White House and Capitol Hill Republicans worked hand in glove to blackball from the task force one Democratic investigator who had the strongest doubts about Bush’s alibi. The suspicions of the investigator, House Foreign Affairs Committee chief counsel Spencer Oliver, had been piqued by the false account from Secret Service supervisor Tanis.
In a six-page memo, Oliver urged a closer look at Bush’s whereabouts and questioned why the Secret Service was concealing the alibi witness’ name.
“Why did the Secret Service refuse to cooperate on a matter which could have conclusively cleared George Bush of these serious allegations?” Oliver asked. “Was the White House involved in this refusal? Did they order it?”
Oliver also noted Bush’s odd behavior in raising the October Surprise issue on his own at two news conferences.
“It can be fairly said that President Bush’s recent outbursts about the October Surprise inquiries and [about] his whereabouts in mid-October of 1980 are disingenuous at best,” wrote Oliver, “since the administration has refused to make available the documents and the witnesses that could finally and conclusively clear Mr. Bush.”
From the newly released White House documents, it is clear that Oliver’s suspicion was well-founded about the involvement of Bush’s White House staff in the decision to conceal the name of the supposed host.
Keeping Oliver off the October Surprise investigation also became a high priority for the Republicans. At a midway point in the inquiry when some Democratic task force members asked the knowledgeable Oliver to represent them as a staff investigator, Republicans threatened a boycott unless Oliver was barred.
In a gesture of bipartisanship, Rep. Hamilton gave the Republicans the power to veto Oliver’s participation. Denied one of the few Democratic investigators with both the savvy and courage to pursue a serious inquiry, the Democratic members of the task force retreated. [For more, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Inside the October Surprise Cover-up.“]
A Never-ending Cover-up
Now, nearly two decades after the congressional investigation and three decades after the events in question this strange cover-up continues.
In June 2011, the archivists at the Bush library in College Station, Texas, denied release of these Secret Service files, citing an exception for law-enforcement procedures, such as the number of Secret Service agents assigned to a detail or routes they might use for transporting a protected person.
However, I didn’t want that information. I only wanted the location of where Bush went on that Sunday afternoon three decades ago. So I appealed.
In a July 26 letter to me, deputy national archivist Wall rebuffed my appeal.
She wrote that the relevant U.S. Secret Service logs “contain the identities of USSS agents. Based on the numerous court decisions upholding the withholding of agents and third person names, I affirm our initial determination that releasing these names could endanger the life or physical safety of the agents of the USSS.”
My first reaction was to assume that Wall must not have understood what I was after. How on earth could an address supposedly visited by George H.W. and Barbara Bush on Oct. 19, 1980, endanger the lives of Secret Service agents today?
I tried to reach Wall by phone two weeks ago without success. I then sent an e-mail to Robert Holzweiss, chief archivist at the Bush library, and noted that “Ms. Wall did not seem to address the central point of my request.
“All I was after was the address where Mr. Bush purportedly went on the afternoon of Oct. 19, 1980. Ms. Wall does not specifically deal with that point and I fear she may have misunderstood the purpose of my appeal.
“Frankly, it stretches credulity that where a vice presidential candidate might have gone on an afternoon more than 30 years ago would somehow put Secret Service agents or those they protect in any jeopardy.
“This information also is something that a number of other interested parties have sought in the past. Twenty years ago, there were requests for this one fact from federal prosecutors, defense attorneys, congressional investigators and other journalists.
“The irony is that this information could put to rest, once and for all, suspicions that Mr. Bush took part in a scheme to contact Iranian officials behind President Carter’s back. So, this detail does have historic significance, which should be weighed against any countervailing concerns, especially given how far-fetched those concerns appear to be.”
In my e-mail, I requested that officials at the National Archives rethink their response. However, they have not gotten back to me.
So, where George H.W. Bush went on the afternoon of Oct. 19, 1980, remains a state secret.
[For more on these topics, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege and Neck Deep, now available in a two-book set for the discount price of only $19. For details, click here.]
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book,Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’ are also available there.
Actually, it was Reagan’s 1980 campaign manager, William Casey, who made the secret deal with Iranian kidnappers/terrorists to hold on to the American hostages until after the November 4, 1980 election. In fact, it was St. Ronald Raygun who insisted that the release of the hostages was delayed even further so that it would coincide with his inauguration on January 20, 1981. It is likely that George H.W. Bush was merely the “money man” who met with the Iranians in Paris to secure the deal with some of his wealth that was attained from Prescott Bush’s unethical business transactions. Diplomatic headway toward resolving the hostage crisis occurred in early October of 1980, a couple of weeks after Iraq (cue the photograph of Don Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein!) and Iran went to war on September 22, 1980. President Carter and his Deputy Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, had an “October surprise” up their sleeves that was thwarted by Reagan and Casey with the help of Bush’s money. Regardless of the events, it clear that George H.W. Bush was not in Paris in October of 1980 to have a romantic rendezvous with his geriatric wife, Barbara. We have suffered enough as a nation thanks to the fruit of Bush’s loins, and it is still a shame that George H.W. Bush wasn’t sterile or impotent.
Paul Haider, Chicago
Every single one of you are crazy. Bush was the outgoing CIA Director and part of the “evidence” is a Russian report.
I feel sorry for this guy – that he is so naive and obsessed with something that upsets his little utopia about how the world should work. Grow up. Take off your tye-dyed shirt and live with the fact that sometimes leaders have to lead regardless of your feelings or infantile views
That’s right, Mark —
It’s entertaining to see you fall back on one of a handful of classic propaganda frames. In this instance: “If the facts don’t support your position, make every effort to impeach the presenter.”
As have the other propaganda frames in common use by the Right, this one has worn quite transparently thin, too.
The fact that he was the outgoing CIA director and part of the evidence was Russian means what exactly? Sorry if Parry’s quest for truth runs counter to your pre-conceived, brain-washed notion of what has happened in Amurca but you’re gonna need to offer some more compelling argument to refute the evidence Mr. Parry has offered.
This article is further evidence that President Jimmy Carter’s “October surprise” was thwarted by Reagan and his henchmen: George H.W. Bush and William Casey, Reagan’s campaign manager. Although Carter would have lost the 1980 election based on the economy and inflation, a Reagan landslide would have not occurred if Carter had been able to free the hostages before the election on November 4, 1980. The other aspect to this cynical and despicable coup is the fact that Reagan claimed that he would never negotiate with terrorists (yes, he often did!), and he delayed the release of the Aamerican hostages in Iran by several months so that it would coincide with his inauguration in January of 1981. When will Americans finally recognize that St. Ronald Raygun will always be our country’s most overrated president? Reagan was not close to being our nation’s greatest Republican president; it is only Abraham Lincoln who deserves this honor. In fact, Reagan was not the greatest Republican president of the 20th century; this honor belongs to Dwight Eisenhower. Reagan was not even the second greatest Republican president of the 20th century; this honor belongs to Teddy Roosevelt. It truly is lucky for Reagan and his worshippers that so many Americans are ignorant and don’t know the real history of their own country. For the record, Franklin Roosevelt will always be our greatest president, and this fact is confirmed by historians and erudite scholars.
Paul Haider, Chicago
Twenty-four hours ago, I posted a comment (ostensibly directed to “C”, the Oracle, and “M”) echoing other posters’ appreciation and deep regard for Mr. Parry’s long dedication and integrity.
I also pointed out that fortunately for all of us, Mr. Parry is NOT the *only* investigative journalist of quality pursuing this “sensitive” story — of the Bush clan’s broader secret history — in today’s “difficult” news/media environment.
The person I was referring to is Russ Baker — whose book, “Family of Secrets”, is the product of five years of research, hundreds of interviews and the examination of thousands of pages of documents. His efforts have yielded 500 pages of “dots connected”, fascinating and deeply disturbing revelations (not including the additional 60 single-spaced pages of annotational footnotes.) Unsurprisingly, Mr. Parry is one of the sources quoted in Russ’s book. I could not possibly recommend Russ’s book any more highly — I feel very strongly about his conscientiousness and the meticulous care he takes to “get the story right.” In Baker’s multiple decades as a journalist, he has never once had to issue a major retraction, and he’s never been sued, for libel or any other misrepresentation of facts in his reporting. That in itself speaks volumes.
Family of Secrets
(The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years)
by Russ Baker
Russ is also the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of a very fine team-based investigative unit, equally highly recommended: WhoWhatWhy dot c*o*m*
I posted this information over twenty-four hours ago, but it has never appeared on this Consortium News page. I’d very much appreciate knowing why that is the case. Was my original post auto-filtered because it contained two URLs (website addresses) at its conclusion, and therefore scanned as possible message board SPAM? If so, I’d ask that someone please examine/review the filter rules being applied. The presence of a URL in a message post shouldn’t result in automatic disqualification by flagging.
Or did it not post for some other reason?
I know!! The image is priceless. Do you suppose she wore her pearls?
To “C”, The Oracle, “M”, and other Consortium News readers —
I completely concur with the various comments concerning your high regard for Mr. Parry’s professional dedication and tenacity, and with those concerning the disturbing nature of his piece on, “Poppy in Paris?”
But fortunately, I must disagree with “M” on one point: Mr. Parry is not the *only* voice of investigative journalistic dedication and integrity working on such stories in today’s “difficult” newsmedia environment.
As disturbing as Mr. Parry’s revelations are — and as sad as it is to say this — I don’t find his information shocking, or even surprising. Why not? Because of the work of another superb, deeply dedicated muckraking journalist. Russ Baker — whose book I cannot recommend highly enough:
Family of Secrets
(The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years)
by Russ Baker
Russ spent five years researching three generations of the Bush family, conducting hundreds of interviews and poring over thousands of pages of documents. The mind-boggling result — one revelation after another — is 500 pages long (and that doesn’t include the additional *sixty* single-spaced pages of footnotes.) Perhaps unsurprisingly, Mr. Parry is one of Russ’s quoted sources.
While Baker was doing research for “Family of Secrets”, reading some of his more surprising findings, one of his colleagues suggested that Russ consider calling his book, “Everything You Thought You Knew Is wrong.”
I guarantee that anyone who reads it will never view what passes for “conventional wisdom” in the American historical narrative the same way again.
In addition to his book, Baker is also the Founder and Editor-In-chief of an outstanding team-based investigative unit: WhoWhatWhy.com.
Barbara Bush jogged????
Further, supporting evidence of this CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE committing MASS FRAUD can be found in the April 13, 2011, Report by the United States Senate, PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The Committee is Chaired by Hon. Carl Levin and assisted in bipartisan fashion by Tom Coburn, Ranking Minority Member and is titled WALL STREET AND THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: ANATOMY OF A FINANCIAL COLLAPSE. The Report is located at the following URL, hereby fully incorporated in entirety by reference herein,
This detailed stinging report alleges fraud over 200 times in 650 pages, yet still NOT A SINGLE ARREST, while most of this Criminal Activity defined in the report is continues to take place in New York, and why not, when the â€œFoxâ€ and â€œFixâ€â€™ is in the Henhouse with this Court?â€ Crime Pays when no one is protecting the People and Justice is complicit in the crimes. One must ask where the New York Attorney General and the Governor of New York are, the â€œSheriffsâ€ of Wall Street, whom instead look more like Criminal Accomplices disguised as Sheriffs. Who are these â€œBarney Fifeâ€ Sheriffs? Again, we find more ATTORNEYS AT LAW, all with interests in the CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of the markets, betting against the People in rigged market collapses, fearing no Justice as they have disabled Justice.
â€œThe Torture Memos: just following orders, just following [LEGAL] advice?â€ Posted on July 12, 2011 by Richard Moorhead Law Professor at Cardiff University, LAWYERS WATCH
July 11, 2011 â€œUnited States: Investigate Bush, Other Top Officials for Torture – Inquiry Into 2 Deaths in CIA Custody Insufficientâ€ by Human Rights Watch
â€œJohn F. Kennedy 2 – The George H. W. Bush Connection-Full Length Documentary – The sequel to Oliver Stone’s JFK, you won’t see in the cinema. A thoroughly documented criminal indictment establishing beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of George H.W. Bush as a supervisor in the conspiracy to assassinate John Kennedy.â€
October 28, 2007 – Bush Family , C.I.A. , Nazi Connection
In 1939, Harriman and Prescott hired the Dulles brothers [law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell – http://www.enter.net/~torve/trogholm/secret/rightroots/dulles.html ] to hide Nazi involvement with U.B.C. because they knew the things they had done were not in the best interest of America. But it didn’t work and U.B.C. was seized by the federal government on Nov. 17, 1942, under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The bank was a money laundering operation for Hitler. Prescott was also forced to give up support to his favorite political ally Hitler. Prescott went to a Congress Hearing to try to get his Bank back. J. Edgar Hoover told him [Prescott Bush], “That’s right your a Nazi, and you run a Nazi Bank.” Prescott was denied and lost his bank. There were many other American & British Elite that funded Hitler & the Nazi’s rise to power. Henry Ford of Ford Motor Company, The Rockefeller family of Standard Oil, Thomas Watson of IBM, J. P. Morgan, Coca Cola, General Motors, The Rothschild Banking Family of England , etc… etc…etc… How do you think Germany built a Military big enough to take on the world in about a 10 year period?
Agenda 21, EUGENICS “taking lives considered not worthy to be lived”
Saturday, Apr 25, 2009 â€œTranscript: Interview with U.N. torture official Manfred Novakâ€ By Glenn Greenwald, Salon Media Group, Inc.
I thought Don Gregg was with bush one the washington to paris trip.
In his book “Understanding Iran” p. 194-195, William R. Polk (Kennedy administration and former professor of history at the Univ of Chicago) writes :
– “Although … so far … not been proved, there is substantial evidence that members of Ronald Reagan’s election team, led by William J. Casey … and allegedly including George H.W. Bush, began a series of meetings in Madrid in July 1980 and subsequently in Paris with secret representatives of Ayatollah Rhuhollah Khomeini.”
– “This is a thesis developed by Captain Gary Sick, who was the Iran specialist on the NSC”
– Notes p. 232 : “Gary Sick made an exhaustive study …”
– “… the Iranian government had been trying to get its overseas funds unblocked and to acquire spare parts it urgently needed for its military forces.”
– “… Carter … if he did … he probably would win.”(the presidential election)
– “Captain Sick believes that these factors formed the basis of a deal : Casey promised that,if he was elected, Reagan would return the blocked assets and supply the requested equipment and supplies but that Iran must release the hostages to him, not to Carter.”
– “At least two Israeli agents got involved in the discussions to enable Israel … to develop a market for military equipment in Iran.”
– At this time also, the Carter administration was discussing the possibility of using arms supply to get the hostages released. Sick notes that, in the middle of these discussions, the Iranians told the U.S. government that it was no longer interested in acquiring American arms from the Carter administration.”
– “Although some aspects of this scenario cannot be proved or disproved, the end of the story is public knowledge. As Captain Sick wrote, the Iranians released the remainig 52 hostages in January 1981 ‘exactly five minutes after Mr. Reagan took the oath of office’, and hundred of millions of dollars worth of ‘arms started to flow to Iran via Israel only a few days after the inauguration’.”
You are a lone voice for truth in an Ocean of deception and corruption. How logical it seems that sometime in the summer before the election, Republicans woke up to the horrific possibility that a master statesman like Jimmy Carter who had successfully negotiated the Arab-Israeli Peace Accord would somehow pull off the release of the hostages, become a National Hero and easily win reelection.
Bush Senior had motive and opportunity to actively engage the Iranians in what was the precursor to the Iran-Contra Scandal. It makes so much sense that Iran-Contra was merely a continuation under Reagan of what had already transpired in the pre-election season.
Negotiating with an Enemy Nation without diplomatic ties to the USA to prolong the captivity of citizens of the United States in order to manipulate election results is as treasonable a crime as I have ever heard.
This story deserves more attention but as with the Kennedy assassinations and following coverups, all is shrouded in perpetual mystery by our media.
We will never know the truth because the same interests that covered up the original story are still in control and have a vested interest in continuing more dastardly and treasonable crimes that have thus far ensured a conservative legacy that they continue to enhance to this day. Among these myth makers is their chief publicist of the day, Rupert Murdoch.
Your coverage of Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his manipulation of the Washington Times and his influence on that paper’s conservative slant as well as the participation of the Wa. Post and NY Times in past and recent conservative initiatives have revealed a National News media-scape that is corrupt and controlled by powerful special interests that have waged a “culture war” to alienate liberal truth seekers like yourself and who endlessly defend the traitorous and despicable tactics of the elite oligarchy that run the USA.
But this is not new and can really be called normal for the USA’s news media. William Randolph Hearst and a number of National News Moguls have for decades spun the news to gin up foreign wars and cover up scandalous actions by conservatives.
Americans have always been played like a violin and have always reliably reproduced sweet election result reverberations that are music to the ears of the conservative media moguls and their political conservative cronies.
Americans were whipped up into a foaming froth by Hearst over the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor and War was the result. There is the legendary story of the reporter who was sent to Havana to cover the story and reported that there was no evidence to support Spanish involvement in the sinking of the US ship. It is reported that William Randolph Hearst responded “You supply the pictures, I’ll supply the War”
And so it has gone with Viet Nam and the “Gulf of Tonken” incident that historians have now concluded never occurred and the real possibility that the attack on 9/11 was desired and allowed to “happen” by the Bush and Cheney administration since by their own admission in PNAC documents Cheney lamented that without a “New Pearl Harbor” the American people would not likely be willing to support wars against Iraq, Iran and North Korea all envisioned as necessary by Cheney in his “Project for the New American Century” PNAC.
Americans are clueless as to the windfall profits that the Bush family and other investors reaped when as Bin Laden family members were meeting at the offices of the super powerful Iron Triangle based private investment firm called the Carlyle group as they watched the planes smash into the Twin Towers. The investors of the Carlyle Group had their financial dreams and wishes come true as defense stock prices which were a majority of Carlyle’s investment strategy soared after the attacks. Motive? Opportunity? We will never hear any such accusations coming from the Main Stream Press.
The story that has been left untold has been left untold by the very media that attacks itself as “liberal”. What a hoot. How easily we are manipulated and it seems like any chance that the truth will ever emerge is as dim as a distant star.
In the end, it is clear that there is a great dichotomy preserved by the wagers of war and the owners of the media to hide the truth of American Political and Business corruption in the name of preserving our way of life and the cruel and inhumane acts that have been conducted to further our nations power and influence all paid with blood. From Indian Wars to 9/11 we have all benefited from the naked aggression of our political leaders financed by private wealth.
It wouldn’t be so bad if they had not been simultaneously been engaged in decades long war against average Americans as well. But from the Bushes ties to Nazi Germany and trading with the Axis Enemy Nations to the Republican Challenger to FDR (Charles Lindbergh)an avowed Fascist and Nazi supporter, the conservatives have shown a pattern over the better part of a century that their aim is not just to engage Americans in acts of foreign aggression to further their militaristic dreams of conquest and power but to install a political system in the United States that seeks to replace elected democracy with a theologically based rule by elite capitalists whose actions and misdeeds are covered up in perpetuity by a commercial press that is essentially in their pocket. They seek nothing less than to establish a rule of law that would look a lot like the Rule of Law imposed by England on the Colonies.
I really have no hope for this situation since it is powerful and persistent and has its tentacles deeply rooted in the halls of politics and the media and has so far successfully deluded the American People by playing to their prejudices in every election cycle and won.
At least, there is you who are but a brief and shining star in the heavens where there is a faint glimmer of truth that you have conveyed through your sheer braveness of heart and convictions.
Perhaps only a handful of people will listen and be willing to hear your words. Many will be afraid and choose not to listen. Many will be waiting to attack you should your glimmer threaten to become a beacon. I hope that never happens.
Keep up the fight for truth. One day when average Americans wake up on a Soup Line, they may yet see the depths of their propaganda induced delusions.
But I fear that that day will never emerge. Americans will follow the Pied Piper of the Media and Conservative Politicians to a future where the middle class evaporates and our Nation becomes a land of the Haves and Have Nots. Such is the power of propaganda and what can happen when any entity either commercial or governmental has the motive and opportunity to deceive the masses.
I honestly do not know how you have the conviction to keep on against such an overwhelming opponent. You could just decide to cash in and use your website to get rich by spewing conservative party line bullshit like so many other pundits that have sold out.
Only those whose pursuit of justice consumes them and those who have a passion that overrides self preservation instincts could do what you do. Jesus Christ comes to mind as one who was willing to take such risks willingly. He really did die for our sins. Sins that continue to this day and that are committed by the Pharisees of our own time.
I have the utmost respect for you. You are a fine example of one who exemplifies Christ’s teachings in the midst of the “Rome” of our modern day.
Keep on Keeping On!
Thank YOU for your added comments and their articulate rationality. (Seriously.)
I even agree with your comparison of Bob to the efforts of Jesus against the (inherently corrupt) Roman bureaucracy, and I am Jewish!
The one hope is that 21st Century communication technology will allow the Truth of be known and publicized (e.g., Wikileaks), despite Murdoch and Koch and other members of the Kleptocracy. What is scary is that we still have people “in authority” making decisions protecting the lies that are disciples of Kissinger (Geithner) and Casey (Robert Gates).
That is not good.
Well said. I suspect Mr. Parry has a deep-seated respect and reverence for the truth. Some say “Time heals all wounds” but time does nothing if the truth does not surface. I will add this: the Democrats are as complicit in deceiving the American/world population as the Conservatives and Republicans. They all serve the same master, walking down different paths that untimately lead to the same place. Maurice Strong, Al Gore, George Soros…..all are working toward Global Governance – which requires the destruction of the United States.
The Bush family cover-ups continue and never seem to cease. Thank you Mr. Parry for keeping after this story. BTW, aren’t you a write-in vote tomorrow in Iowa? Oh, wait, that’s Stephen Colbert’s “Rick Parry” write-in Super-PAC ad suggestion/snark.
But back to the Bush family. What is the common thread that runs through al Qaeda’s pre-9/11 build-up, the aftermath of the attacks and the Iraq War? Saudi Arabia, or more specifically, Saudi Arabian citizens…and the Bush family’s close connections, business and personal, to Saudi Arabian citizens.
So, the Bush administration missed all the warning signs of an imminent domestic terrorist attack in 2001, an attack funded, planned and carried out primarily by Saudi Arabians. Deliberate or just incompetence? During the transition between the outgoing Clinton and incoming Bush administrations, incoming Bush officials blew off warnings by outgoing Clinton officials about the al Qaeda threat. Deliberate or just incompetence? Top Bush officials before 9/11, including former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, were reportedly unaware before the 9/11 attacks of Saudi nationals connected to al Qaeda being in the United States, two out on the West Coast in California (not picked up, flew the plane into the Pentagon on 9/11) and one in the Midwest (picked up by the FBI three weeks before 9/11 after drawing suspicion to himself at a flight school over wanting only to fly 747s, while in the air, not take-off or land them. He cooled his heels in custody for weeks. FBI field agents tried repeatedly to get a search warrant to check out his personal effects, but FBI headquarters rejected them every time). Deliberate or just incompetence?
IOW, Bill Clinton had no familial or business connection to the Saudi royals or other Saudi Arabians, so his administration vigorously went after the al Qaeda terrorist network, primarily in Afghanistan but also elsewhere. Once George W. Bush became president and before 9/11, a shroud of silence and secrecy seemed to descend over al Qaeda, almost as if it became official Bush administration policy to take a “hand’s off” position. Was this because of the Bush family’s close ties, business and personal, to the Saudi royals and major Saudi Arabian companies, like the one run by the bin Laden family? Deliberate or just incompetence?
One clue may be in how the Bush administration handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Remember when there was a no-fly zone all across America, no jet contrails in the sky for days after 9/11? Within minutes after the attacks and the determination that Saudis were primarily responsible, the Bush administration leapt into action, arranging for government jets around the country to pick up members of the Saudi royal and bin Laden families, to ferry them out of the country, most before authorities even had a chance to question them. And then the Bush administration tried to block any official government inquiry into the 9/11 attacks and those responsible.
See a pattern forming? But what about the Iraq War? Simple. The Bush administration after 9/11 routed the al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan, but allowed Osama bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora. Too few troops were on the ground in Afghanistan, and then these became even fewer as the Bush administration reassigned many to Kuwait to await orders to attack Iraq. At the same time, the Bush administration ramped up anti-Iraq rhetoric, claiming that Saddam Hussein was more dangerous than bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorist network, including the false claim that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. And then came the invasion of Iraq itself. Result? By diverting America’s (and the world’s) attention onto Iraq and Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration deflected attention away from the Saudi royals and other Saudi families, like the influential bin Laden family, some of whom we have since learned were (and probably still are) financing religious terrorist groups.
We all know how much George W. Bush valued loyalty, with oil greasing the loyalty skids for him and his family. So, was it this that drove his, his administration’s, and his family’s, relationship with the Saudi royals and other Saudi Arabians like the wealthy bin Laden family? No matter what the Osama bin Laden-headed al Qaeda terrorist network did? Both before the 9/11 attacks and after, with Iraq thrown in as a diversionary tactic?
The Saudi connection to the Bush family also explains the targeting of Saddam not only for his attempted “hit” on Bush 41 but also as a favor to the Saudis for getting rid of Saddam as a competitor to their attempts at an oil monopoly. Saddam was threatening to open the oil floodgates and destroy the Saudi profitability. It has been in Saudi Arabia’s best interest NOT to have Iraqi oil ruin their market control.
Then there’s the known pic of him on the couch with Saddam Hussein. Ronnie was selling him WMD. He said this would yield great dividends for the US.
Oh my God! This made me dizzy! So . . . where was he?????
Your report about Mr HW bush is one of the most significant I have read.
y thesis is that HWB arranged the downing of IR655 to secure his election. Sufficient, and I can go 100 times further.
Here is another example of just how corrupt the Bush Crime Family is. No one in it ever deserved to hold public office. It will come out one fine day that the allegations made against the old man are true and that it was an act of treason.
And so what? We are looking forward, not backward, doncha know.
Really? Looking forward to what? Nothing good the way things are going. Treason is treason regardless of when it happened. To overlook it means the ones we have in government NOW will be encouraged to do it again.
I think he’s sarcastically using Obama’s justification for failing to prosecute Bush criminals. I don’t think Greg is serious.
Not looking backward means, you repeat the past out of ignorance of what it was. We are our past, we don’t want the future to be a result of our stupidity.
And Bush 1 was just following in his fathers footsteps. Prescot Bush, along with other rich people of that time tried to overthrow FDR. They made the mistake of trying to get Congressional Medal of Honor winner Marine Corp General Smedley Butler invovled in ther coup but he would have none of it and warned Roosevelt of the conspiracy. If you want the story just Google it.