The Attempted Bush assassination of Ronald Reagan - 1981

[seventhson]

Can we elect a Bush again after we know they even tried to kill Reagan (the evidence is pretty damning for this conclusion).

For those unfamiliar with some details of the events which basically made Reagan a puppet of the Bushes in the 1960's:





The Attempted Coup D'Etat of March 30, 1991

"Bizarre happenstance, a weird coincidence"

--Bush spokeswoman Shirley M. Green, March 31, 1981

cui prodest scelus, is fecit

--Seneca, first century AD

For Bush, the vice presidency was not an end in itself, but merely another stage in the ascent towards the pinnacle of the federal bureaucracy, the White House. With the help of his Brown Brothers, Harriman/Skull and Bones network, Bush had now reached the point where but a single human life stood between him and the presidency.

Ronald Reagan was 70 years old when he took office, the oldest man ever to be inaugurated as president. His mind wandered; long fits of slumber crept over his cognitive faculties. On some days he may have kept bankers' hours with his papers and briefing books and meetings in the Oval Office, but he needed a long nap most afternoons and became distraught if he could not have one. His custom was to delegate all administrative decisions to the cabinet members, to the executive departments and agencies. Policy questions were delegated to the White House staff, who prepared the options and then guided Reagan's decisions among the pre-defined options. This was the staff that composed not just Reagan's speeches, but the script of his entire life: for normally every word that Reagan spoke in meetings and conferences, every line down to and including "Good morning, Senator," every word was typed on three by five file cards from which the Reagan would read.



http://www.tarpley.net/bush17.htm


I STRONGLY recommend you read this chapter of Tarpley's Bush biography (and more) and get the details (well footnoted) of the Bush ties to the would be assassin. It is pretty scary and puts into perspective not only the death (life) of Reagan and its being used by the Bushies to prop them up grotesquely behind his corpse --- but it also exposes their evilness for thos repubs who honestly believed in Reagan.

[SALChamps03]

1. Bush Attempted Assassination???????

You have evidence of this? I sincerely doubt it.

[seventhson]

4. There's plenty of evidence - read the link and the notes

the chapter is well-sourced and verifiable.

Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Who knows? Bush was in charge of the investigation and said he didn't do it. Honest. Heh.

Typical, eh?

[LittleApple81]

2. BFEE...BFEE...BFEE... It is too much of a coincidence with

this family how stuff like this surrounds them everywhere and every time.

What is that Bush* tried to say: "There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."

Well, what the heck. He is the spawn of the BFEE after all... But I think they have been able to fool, buy, or kill too many people.

[seventhson]

7. HINCKLEY: HITMAN FOR THE SHADOW (BUSH) GOVERNMENT

http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/HINCKLEY.html

Just so y'all know I did not make this up

[Bluzmann57]

3. I read the article you had a link to

and still have seen no concrete evidence of a plot, or conspiracy, or whatever in the hell you want to call it, to kill Reagan. If you are going to allege something like this, you need hard facts, not innuendo and maybes. NOT EVERYTHING IS A FUCKING CONSPIRACY! And to answer your original question, I have no intention of voting for bush this year, or any other year for my entire life. He's no good as a president, his father was no good as a president, and his brothers are no good as politicians and , apparently, as human beings as well.

[seventhson]

5. it is not an article, but a chapter in a book - the unauthorized Biography

of George H.W. Bush

concrete evidence is subjective. There IS evidence that the Bushes had close intelligence and political ties to the family of attempoted assassin David Hinckley and that his brother was scheduled to have dinner with the Bushes the day of the Reagan shooting.

coincidence or conspiracy?

I think it looks like conspiracy and the evidence for that is pretty damn good. The best evidence is "who benefits from the crime" - look there and you will find motive, means and opportunity.


Do you really think Bush would allow a serious investigation of himself and his cronies?

Be for real. It is a web of lies and crimes. Do you trust ANY of them to tell us the truth after what we have seen from Hitler, to Iran-Contra to Bush-Iraq???

Gimme a break.

[seventhson]

6. "Whom does it benefit?" ( for cui prodest scelus, is fecit)

"Whom does it benefit?" (short form for cui prodest scelus, is fecit
in Seneca's Medea - the murderer is the one who gains by the murder)

Like Oliver Stone's quote "follow the money" you find the criminal by seeing who profits from the crime.

[leyton]

8. Erm... that sounds suspicious.

I haven't read the evidence yet, but that sounds like a poor way to prove a case. Leads to too much circumstantial evidence.

[seventhson]

13. MOTIVE

Means

Opportunity


were all present.

Ability to cover it up.

Lies about the Hinckley ties indicate consciousness of guilt.

The evidence may be circumatantial to some degree, but so was the OJ murder. Direct evidence is often hard to prove, but circumstantial evidence of such crimes, especially political crimes, is often the best evidence you can find or get.

[leyton]

9. How is this well footnoted? It's hardly documented at all.

Yeah, it's got some footnotes at the bottom, but while the essay goes into considerable detail, and not "common knowledge" stuff, the first footnote is a whole seven paragraphs in. So we can assume that the first six paragraphs were just made up from a documentation point of view.

[seventhson]

10. hogwash - here's the list of footnotes (Jeesh) 34 for one chapter alone

why dissemble?


1. Joan Quigley, "What Does Joan Say" (New York, 1990), p. 112.

2. Clay F. Richards, "George Bush: 'co-president' in the Reagan administration" United Press International, March 10, 1981.

3. Alexander Haig, Caveat (New York, 1984), p. 54.

4. Haig, Caveat, p. 115.

5. Haig, Caveat, p. 302.

6. Haig, Caveat, p. 60.

7. Washington Post, March 22, 1981.

8. Haig, Caveat, pp. 144-145.

9. Washington Post, March 22, 1981.

10. The Daily Texan, March 31, 1981.

11. Haig, Caveat, p. 151.

12. Caspar Weinberger, Fighting for Peace (New York, 1990), p. 91.

13. Weinberger, Fighting for Peace, p. 93.

14. Weinberger, Fighting for Peace, p. 94.

15. Donald T. Regan, For the Record (New York, 1988), p. 168.

16. Weinberger, Fighting for Peace, p. 95.

17. Washington Post, April 1, 1981.

18. Haig, Caveat, p. 160.

19. Ronald Reagan, An American Life (New York, 1990), p. 271.

20. Jack and JoAnn Hinckley, Breaking Points (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1985), p. 169.

21. Breaking Points, p. 215.

22. Judy Hasson, United Press International, July 31, 1985.

23. Joan Quigley, What Does Joan Say? (New York, 1990), p. 12.

24. Newsweek, April 20, 1981, p. 29.

25. Weinberger, Fighting for Peace, pp. 230-231.

26. For Bush's staff see "George Bush--Keeping His Profile Low So He Can Keep His Influence High," National Journal, June 20, 1981, p. 1096 ff.; and Arthur Wiese, "The Bush Team," Houston Post, April 1, 1981.

27. Jack W. Germond and Jules Witcover, "Why Do Conservatives Hate Bush?", The Washingtonian, April 1982.

28. Washington Post, March 2, 1990.

29. See Gordon Thomas, Pontiff (New York, 1983).

30. Gordon Thomas, Averting Armageddon (New York, 1984), p. 74.

31. Averting Aramgeddon, p. 268.

32. Averting Armageddon, p. 75.

33. Barbara Honegger, October Surprise (New York: Tudor Publishing, 1989), p. 240. Many are the names that have been attributed to informant "Y," including Ibrahim Razin, Racine, Oswald Le Winter, Oscar LeWinter, and George Cave, who was supposedly once a CIA employee specializing in Iranian affairs.

34. See Corriere della Sera and La Stampa, July 24, 1990.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[leyton]

16. You obviously didn't read my post.

Yeah, there are 34 footnotes. Good job, that means there are 34 facts somewhere in this essay (assuming the sources are reliable). As for the rest of the essay, there's no reason not to assume it's made up, since there's no documentation. Read the first six paragraphs - they make some pretty bold and detailed claims, like the bit about how Reagan couldn't say "Hello, Senator" without reading it off a notecard or how Al Haig was "frustrated in his own lust for power." None of this is substantiated in the footnotes.

Don't be fooled by some footnotes at the bottom. Check and see how much of the essay they actually support.

[weedthesmoke]

11. Tarpley as a credible factual source? You're kidding right?

I think Webster G. Tarpley got his fiction and documentary classes switched in grade school.

[seventhson]

12. It is his sources that are solid

his opinions are his own and I do not agree with mny of them. But many of his conclusions are based on the facts he cites which are valid.

I will use any source for further research and when the facts are borne out by citation then I trust the conclusions.

Tarpley's work here is often impeccable due to his sources. The fact is that some of his info (espoecially the last chapter) is based solely on his opinion.

Unfortunately I believe that Tarpley and Chaitkin (his coauthor) are victims of the Rove tactic of "innoculation" , i.e. this book, because it is published by a source which is idealogically suspect (and I believe a disinformation tool of the right) APPEARS to be untrustworthy when, in fact, the sources are trustworthy and the facts are solid.

This is a standard blackop tool: release true damning and damaging info through a source which is easily attacked. Jim Hatfield had the same treatment for his book "Fortunate Son" - the facts were mostly solid, but he was discredited in general due to a prior criminal conviction and his book was killed by St. Martin's Press (he had lied about the conviction and thus jis truths about Bush's cocaine use was "discredited" - even though it was most likley true. Innoculation is a standard Rove tactic and, I believe, is a very effective tool of the BFEE.

You can CHECK Tarpley's facts via his footnotes. You may disagree with his opinions - but where he has solid verifiable sources for his info Tarpley is a damn good credible source (where verified).

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seventhson]

15. "Like Clinton. Reagan was NOT INTO MICROMANAGING...?" WHA....?

Okay, I see where you are coming from....(NOT)

Clinton was a brilliant micromanagaer and NOTHIUNG like Reagan.

Damn obfuscator!


"time for you urinalysis" is a personal attack however and I take offense in this context.

[Stuckinthebush]

17. Why wouldn't Hinkley squeal?

Admittedly, I haven't read the link yet, but my thought is that if the Bushies had something to do with it, why hasn't Hinkley said so?

[wyldwolf]

18. What does Skull and Bones have to do with this?

... I know you'll make the connection eventually.