will the real GWB please stand up

[Jsnow915]

I found this online about a George William Bush who declares he wasn't the one who passed along info about Parrot to FBI http://www.aarclibrary.org/notices/Affi ... 880921.pdf

[Bob]

That is the George W. Bush that Poppy and his minions claim was in the CIA at the time of the assassination, and was in those VERY important memos from the FBI. Remember, Poppy told Congress that he was NEVER in the CIA when he was being questioned as the potential director of the CIA when Gerald Ford appointed him for the job. Poppy is George Herbert Walker Bu$h, not George William Bush.

[nephew23]

Bob wrote:That is the George W. Bush that Poppy and his minions claim was in the CIA at the time of the assassination, and was in those VERY important memos from the FBI. Remember, Poppy told Congress that he was NEVER in the CIA when he was being questioned as the potential director of the CIA when Gerald Ford appointed him for the job. Poppy is George Herbert Walker Bu$h, not George William Bush.I'm glad this was brought up because it reminded me of something I meant to bring up. While I've always believed that "George Bush" is/was President GHWB, the major sticking point for me has always been the fact that, in my opinion and many others, no President is going to appoint someone without CIA experience and involvement to head the agency as Director. HOWEVER, the newly elected President BHO did that very thing by appointing Leon Panetta. Panetta was never in the CIA and has extremely little experience in and around Intelligence.Thoughts, Bob?

[Bob]

nephew, I do NOT trust Panetta for a couple of reasons. One, he is another Clinton aide (chief of staff etc.), and I have already mentioned the Bu$h/Clinton alliance that I am wary of. I also thought his hearing on being named director of the CIA did not go well, as he backtracked and sounded like he endorsed the CIA interrogation tactics (waterboarding etc.) of the Bu$h administration. There have to be other candidates that have much more experience than Panetta. This looks and smells like political payback instead of making practical sense. I have not been pleased with some of the appointments that Barack Obama has made with some of his cabinet positions and jobs like this one. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is a good example. In the Presidential campaign for the Democratic nomination, the biggest and clearest difference between Obama and Clinton were their views on foreign policy. So who does Obama make his Secretary of State? Hillary. Makes no sense practically, but may be a payback. Remember the meeting that Obama and Hillary had at the last Bilderberger meeting. JFK also had some people in his admininistration that he didn't want...see LBJ...but still had him for political reasons because of the 1960 Presidential election. I think JFK was going to jettison LBJ and others from his administration in 1964. But back to Panetta, I don't like the choice. Poppy was made the CIA director for one BIG reason. To stop the HSCA in it's tracks pertaining to any cooperation from the CIA in terms of the JFK administration. A lot of key witnesses also died while he was the head of the CIA as well.

[Jsnow915]

I agree with you Bob about Hillaryas SoS...and to me,there are way too many coincidents that travel with the Bush clan

[nephew23]

Bob wrote:nephew, I do NOT trust Panetta for a couple of reasons. One, he is another Clinton aide (chief of staff etc.), and I have already mentioned the Bu$h/Clinton alliance that I am wary of. I also thought his hearing on being named director of the CIA did not go well, as he backtracked and sounded like he endorsed the CIA interrogation tactics (waterboarding etc.) of the Bu$h administration. There have to be other candidates that have much more experience than Panetta. This looks and smells like political payback instead of making practical sense. I have not been pleased with some of the appointments that Barack Obama has made with some of his cabinet positions and jobs like this one. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is a good example. In the Presidential campaign for the Democratic nomination, the biggest and clearest difference between Obama and Clinton were their views on foreign policy. So who does Obama make his Secretary of State? Hillary. Makes no sense practically, but may be a payback. Remember the meeting that Obama and Hillary had at the last Bilderberger meeting. JFK also had some people in his admininistration that he didn't want...see LBJ...but still had him for political reasons because of the 1960 Presidential election. I think JFK was going to jettison LBJ and others from his administration in 1964. But back to Panetta, I don't like the choice. Poppy was made the CIA director for one BIG reason. To stop the HSCA in it's tracks pertaining to any cooperation from the CIA in terms of the JFK administration. A lot of key witnesses also died while he was the head of the CIA as well.True and true ... but my point is this ... If Panetta could be appointed to Director of the CIA without any type of CIA background, then clearly PGHWB could have been as well. The implication has opened up a brand new bag of tricks! Like I said, I'm hooked on PGHWB's involvement ... BUT ... what if he really was not part of it ... never in the CIA and never in Dallas on 11/22/63???Wim?

[Bob]

In terms of Panetta, again this smells of a political appointment. Also, who knows what he has done via intelligence briefings etc. that has not been reported like when he was chief of staff for instance for Clinton. For example, Dick Cheney was the chief of staff for Gerald Ford. Then he became a Congressman. Then Poppy named him Secretary of Defense. What qualifications did Cheney have for that position? But there is a TON of evidence AND connections that links Poppy Bu$h to the CIA, even without those memos mentioned previously.Wim says it ALL very well in his section on Poppy, that also brings up the memos from the FBI...http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush.htm

[tom jeffers]

poppy bush was an integral part of cia gun and drug running in the late 50's early 60's. his off shore oil rigs were for that very purpose. look a little deeper at the new cia director, i guarantee he has ties to the agency somewhere in a big way. you don't name someone as head without approval from the insiders. those inside controlling various operations have their own agendas.HW bush always wanted to be president. the problem is his personality does not attract the average guy. he has lost most of the campaigns he has been in where he is the principle. his only way up was riding on others shirt tails and by appointment. It is my opinion that things happen for a reason and that watergate was a payback to nixon for bush not getting the VP position. He lost the senate race and I think set up nixon. it would have happened either way because if HW was VP then nixon was going to be taken down so king george could wear his crown. when that went haywire he wanted to replace ford as Vp. things weren't going georgies way and rockafeller got the nod. but don't give up on him yet, there is always 1980 but reagons charm was too much and they had not invented the electronic voting booth yet so again he weaseled into the #2 spot. just one step away. Now lets go back to 1980 and remember the little parable going around about how every president voted in on an even year starting a decade had died in office since 1840. everyone was expecting reagon to die and if it wasn't for the brave ss agents, manchurian candidate hinckley would have put the crown on king george's head. they couldn't quite pull off 2 coup de tate's in a row so he had to wait out ronnie. it didn't matter since he controlled what was going on behind the scenes anyway since atltheimers had been affecting reagon since 1983. Old georgie porgie rode his white horse into Dc finally following the moral majority's coattails. Remember kids, always follow your dreams, and do not get discourage, if you try real hard and kill a few presidents, you can accomplish anything!

[nephew23]

tom jeffers wrote:poppy bush was an integral part of cia gun and drug running in the late 50's early 60's. his off shore oil rigs were for that very purpose. look a little deeper at the new cia director, i guarantee he has ties to the agency somewhere in a big way. you don't name someone as head without approval from the insiders. those inside controlling various operations have their own agendas.HW bush always wanted to be president. the problem is his personality does not attract the average guy. he has lost most of the campaigns he has been in where he is the principle. his only way up was riding on others shirt tails and by appointment. It is my opinion that things happen for a reason and that watergate was a payback to nixon for bush not getting the VP position. He lost the senate race and I think set up nixon. it would have happened either way because if HW was VP then nixon was going to be taken down so king george could wear his crown. when that went haywire he wanted to replace ford as Vp. things weren't going georgies way and rockafeller got the nod. but don't give up on him yet, there is always 1980 but reagons charm was too much and they had not invented the electronic voting booth yet so again he weaseled into the #2 spot. just one step away. Now lets go back to 1980 and remember the little parable going around about how every president voted in on an even year starting a decade had died in office since 1840. everyone was expecting reagon to die and if it wasn't for the brave ss agents, manchurian candidate hinckley would have put the crown on king george's head. they couldn't quite pull off 2 coup de tate's in a row so he had to wait out ronnie. it didn't matter since he controlled what was going on behind the scenes anyway since atltheimers had been affecting reagon since 1983. Old georgie porgie rode his white horse into Dc finally following the moral majority's coattails. Remember kids, always follow your dreams, and do not get discourage, if you try real hard and kill a few presidents, you can accomplish anything!All great points. But why was he not re-elected?

[tom jeffers]

He rode into the oval office on reagans shirttails. Reagan was one of our most popular presidents. he had this way of stickin it to you but he would come on tv and make you think everything was ok. after america had 4 years with george, they had enough of him. plus he did not finish the iraq takeover and in a lot of peoples minds, that was a mistake. The CFR had primed Bill Clinton to take over as early as 1987. one insider said that while reagan was still president, clinton was introduced as the democrat that would run for office when america was tired of republican presidents. george got to be king and it fed his ego. he can do a lot more deals and make more money behind the scenes. ever wonder why him and bill are seen together alot? the crowd they hang with are above political affilliations. at that level everyone works for the same agenda....NWO.