Update: This article has been reinforced by a series of articles that appeared on the internet in 2003, in the wake of the alleged killing of Saddam Hussein's sons and the subsequent alleged capture of Saddam Hussein:

"Uday and Qusey Dead. Again."


See also this article from New Scientist magazine online:

the seven hour DNA test to determine Saddam's identity, allegedly completed in six hours.

This new material takes on special significance in light of data revealed here at The George Bush-Undercurrents Website/annotated bibliography regarding the Dulles cover-up and protection of Tsuji Masanobu, Japanese war criminal that Dulles kept from war crimes trials, but then apparently had murdered by CIA personnel in Laos in the 1960s to silence him as to Dulles's ties to him. Similarly, Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney may not want the world to see the real Saddam on the stand revealing their lucrative ties to his horrific regime. So, a Saddam double could stand trial, while the real Saddam is silenced forever, unannounced.

On first glimpse, one wouldn't think that Saddam Hussein would have much appeal in the West. But Loftus and Aarons point out that Saddam has long been allied with the major petrochemical conglomerates. With the release of their book, the ghastly story has been revealed in its entirety. They show that horrible German chemical and biological weaponry was developed in Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations by the same "German scientists" who worked for Hitler during World War II. The nerve gases Soman, Sarin and Tabun all originated in Nazi concentration camps. (Loftus and Aarons 573-4).
     George Bush has mysterious ties to Saddam Hussein. Through them, he had an awesome power on hand at the time of the Iranian hostage crisis--one which he used to provide a "carrot and stick" incentive to Iran and Iraq to vary from previous negotiations with the Carter Administration. Clearly, Bush has usually been an ally of Saddam Hussein. I've learned through detailed research that the real reason for this goes all the way back to World War II. Bush is an ally, not just of Saddam but of Saddam's party, the Ba'ath Party. And in particular, Bush is an ally of Saddam's wing of the Ba'ath Party. That's because that wing of the party is the original one, with which Bush's father allied his family's wealth in World War II.
      Loftus and Aarons add that for ten years prior to press disclosures, the US government protested to the West German government to no avail concerning its tolerance of the export of genocidal gas factories to the Middle East. (573-4).They say that, according to one Israeli source, Jonathan Pollard's discovery of this led him to leak information to Israel.(Loftus and Aarons 573-4).
     In a seemingly distant event is a conversation between Saddam Hussein and U. S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie on July 25, 1990, shortly before Saddam invaded Kuwait. Bowen provides a complete transcript of their discussion. In part, the transcript reveals the following: <>

"Glaspie: (Pause, then she speaks very carefully) 'We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. "Saddam smiled. "On August 2, 1990, four days later, Saddam's massed troop~ invaded and occupied Kuwait." (Bowen 145-8).     <>Bowen also noted that, on August 29, 1990, the Miami Herald reported that the State Department had been ordered to give its files concerning the meeting between Hussein and Glaspie to a federal judge to decide whether they must be released. He noted the AP reported the State Department's fighting a lawsuit filed by Public Citizens contending the files must be released under the Freedom of Information Act. State contended that the documents were "either 'classified in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, or reflected the agency's deliberative process (Bowen 145-8)." Bowen further notes that the meeting between Glaspie and Hussein was a critical issue in the debate over whether the United States led Hussein to believe it would not interfere if he invaded Kuwait, which he did a week later.(Bowen 145-8). Bowen points out that Iraq: released the transcript of the meeting in which Glaspie said the United States would not take sides in 'Arab-Arab' conflicts such as the dispute with Kuwait. (Bowen 145-8). 

     "However, Glaspie declared in Congressional testimony that she also told Hussein that the United States would insist that any dispute be settled peacefully." (Bowen 145-8).

      Bowen describes how, a month after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, British journalists obtained a tape and transcript of the Hussein-Glaspie meeting. Astounded, they confronted Ms. Glaspie:
"Journalist 1: (Holding the transcripts up) 'Are the transcripts correct, Madam Ambassador?'
(Ambassador Glaspie did not respond).
"Journalist 2: 'You knew Saddam was going to invade [Kuwait], but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite that America was not associated with Kuwait.'
"Journalist 1: 'You encouraged this aggression, his invasion. What were you thinking?'
"U.S. Ambassador Glaspie: 'Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.'
"Journalist 1: 'You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed, he would give up his Iran [Shaft al Arab waterway] goal for "the  <>whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be." You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!'
  " (Ambassador Glaspie said nothing, pushing past the two journalists to leave.)
"Journalist 1: 'America greenlighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the alRumeilah oil field, the  <>disputed border strip and the Gulf islands, territories claimed by Iraq?'
"(Again, Ambassador Glaspie said nothing as a limousine door slammed and the car drove off.)" (Bowen 145-8).

      In order to make a little more sense of the connection between these two events, we must refer to Charles Higham's book, Trading with the Enemy. He describes the foundation of Saddam's Ba'ath Party by Nazi agent Charles Bedaux, who "helped pledge Syria as a base for a prospective Battle of Suez...worked with Vichy Admiral Darlan in planning to destroy the British Empire..[and] presented the German government his plans for camouflaging refineries at Abadan against Allied bombing...On April 12,1943, J.Edgar Hoover (arrested) Bedaux (for treason)...Bedaux... died on February 14, 1944..." (Higham 178-88).

    Matching the dates and times of Bedaux's operations for the Axis in the Middle East, Bennis and Moushabeck tell us that Ba'athism is a form of Pan-Arabism founded in Syria in the "mid-1940's" by Michel Aflaq and two colleagues. Pan-Arabism focuses on Baghdad as the central city of all the Arab nations because it is the capital city of present-day Iraq and the traditional capital city of the Arab world. This is probably the reason Saddam Hussein's faction of the Ba'ath Party is the original Ba'ath Party. It is also why it came to make Baghdad rather than Syria its permanent home.
     Khomeini did not declare the monarchy itself to be illegitimate by nature and didn't claim the right to rule. (Bakhash 22-3). He accepted a limited role of cooperating even with bad governments in upholding the state. (Bakhash 22-3). Khomeini may have been reluctant to offend Ayatollah Mohammed Hosaim Boujerdi, the religious leader, who pursued a policy of quietism and a nonpolitical clergy, since Khomeini's activism started only after Boujerdi's death in 1961. (Bakhash 22-3). 

<>   In February, 1963, the Ba'ath Party entered Iraq from Syria again. It retook power and began to exterminate Communists, Jews and other opponents.(Bakhash 22-3). But now the CIA was no longer headed by Allen Dulles, who had been ousted by Kennedy shortly after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. Ba'ath's Hitlerlike beliefs were no longer viewed sympathetically at CIA.
    Even so, Ba'ath was possibly in possession of crucial documents about George and Prescott Bush's activities during World War II. These had occurred in connection with Standard Oil's Pacific Ocean shipment to "neutral" Thailand from "neutral" Saudi Arabia in 1944. But although these documents were a powerful blackmail item against the Bush family, the Bushes were powerless to influence events in Iraq since the ouster of Allen Dulles. Ba'ath was ousted from the alliance of power in Iraq on November 22,1963. (Bakhash, 2-3).
<>     But twenty-four hours later, JFK was shot. Therefore, no attempt to exploit Ba'ath's fall from power could be made. The documents, which otherwise would have been vulnerable to investigation, were safe in the confusion which followed in the wake of JFK's death. The documents could be hidden or moved to a safer location by agents of George Bush. They couldn't, however, be destroyed, because they were a valuable negotiating tool. In 1963 they showed the Arab regimes in the Middle East the Bush family's genuine commitment to the Arab cause, even on pain of treason during World War 2. It wasn't until some years later, in 1968, with America tied down in Vietnam, that Ba'ath retook power in Iraq (Bakhash 20-3).
    Ba'ath was founded in Syria in the mid40's by VichyNazi agents with connections with Charles Bedaux and, through him, with the Windsors and Standard Oil. Ba'ath's original platform, which hasn't changed much since, is antiMarxist, adopting a vague notion of socialism and virulent antiSemitism. (Bennis and Moushabeck 30). Many Nazi agents were in formerly Vichy Syria until 1945 (Higham 177-88). Syria was also the base for the Nazi agent Bedaux, who had strong ties to the Windsors (Bush's relatives) to 1943. He was arrested in April of 1943 (Higham 177-88).
    In Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf, New York: Random House, 1990, 85-7) Judith Miller, a reporter for the New York Times, and Laurie Milroie, a Harvard Mid-East expert, describe the pre-and post-World War II history of Ba'ath and its founders and give a more detailed history of the beginnings of the Ba'ath Party in the Middle East:
<>    <>"The February 1964 coup against Qassim marked the arrival of a new and ruthless player in Iraqi politics--the Baath Party of Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr and, later, Saddam Hussein. The Baath (Arabic for 'renaissance') began as a political movement in Syria in the 1930s. It soon cmae to be dominated by two Damascus high school teachers, Michel Aflaq and Salah Bitar, who had studied together at the Sorbonne between 1928 and 1932....
    "As a student in Paris, Aflaq was attracted to the fascist ideas then fashionable in Europe. He was 'full of enthusiasm for Hitler' and other German fascists, according to the Syrian-born historian Bassam Tibi. Aflaq saw in Nazi Germany a model for his ideas of a synthesis between nationalism and socialism. At the time of the 1941 coup of the pro-German Rashid Ali, he and Bitar formed a "Society to Help Iraq," the nucleus of what later became that country's Baath party, according to the Princeton historian Bernard Lewis. Aflaq's view of Arab nationalism was quite romantic and far more radical than that of the Arabs as a race, as expressed in the Baathist slogan, 'One Arab nation with an eternal mission.'...
   "Though the Ba'ath were strongly anti-communist, they were organized as a secret political party along Leninist lines. The basic unit of the party was the cell...Cell leaders were organized in cells of their own in a hierarchical order extrending all the way to the party's regional command in each Arab country...The Baath... moved to secure their hold on power through the National Guard...Despite the bloodiness by which the Baath had seized power [in their first coup of February, 1963], they initially enjoyed the support of those elements in Iraqi society who had opposed the Communists, including the business community...The success of the Baath in Iraq encouraged the Baath party in Syria to make a similar bid for power, and in March 1963 they succeeded in overthrowing the parliamentary regime in Damascus again in cooperation with Nasserite army officers...[But] Nasser's increasingly hostile attitude [to the Baath] began to undermine the Baath in Iraq...friction was growing between the army and the Baath, and public opinion in Iraq was growing restive. The Baath's popularity was further diminished when the National Guard inaugurated a campaign of harassment in the cities. Members of the guard broke into homes, intimidated the occupants and stole their property. They accorded themselves the power to arrest people without warrant and to take them for interrogation to the Palace of the End, where the young Saddam Hussein was a torturer...(Miller 85-7)."
     In 1958, Sheol Bakhash tells us, the Ba'ath Party in Iraq ousted the pro-British Nuri (19-24). Nuri had retained power in 1941 with British help against a coup led by Raschid Ali and Axis elements operating out of Vichy-held Syria (Baker 278-81). But Ba'ath had grown in power in Iraq by 1958 with help from the CIA headed by Allen Dulles, whom we now know was a friend of Nazis seeking escape from Nuremberg prosecutors. Dulles was also attorney for George's father, Prescott Bush (Bowen 4-11). Qassim, in ousting Nuri had help from Dulles's CIA in seizing power (Bakhash 20-3).
    Meanwhile Khomeini, in Iran, had been silent while the "old" Shah (who was pro-Nazi) was in power. He spoke out only to criticize the new, pro-British Shah, who had been installed in August 1941 by Britain and Russia to thwart an Axis takeover.    
     His criticism was couched in supposed "historical" criticism of the by-then deposed old Shah. Khomeini became actively opposed to the "new" Shah in 1961 and ousted him in 1978 (Bakhash 20-3). Bakhash notes that, shortly after Reza Shah's abdication in 1941, Khomeini gave vent to his feelings about the Old Shah in his book, The Unveiling of Secrets. He treated Reza Shah as a usurper, without a legitimate parliament. He said that the old Shah, before his ouster by the British for pro-Nazi sympathies in 1941, had created bad laws that were too Western. He said that his advisors and policies toward women had also been too Western (Bakhash 22-3). Since the new Shah was even more Western than the old, all of these criticisms, it might be inferred, "went double" for the new Shah. But Khomeini did not declare the monarchy itself to be illegitimate by nature and didn't claim the right to rule (Bakhash 22-3). He accepted a limited role of cooperating even with bad governments in upholding the state (Bakhash 22-3). Khomeini may have been reluctant to offend Ayatollah Mohammed Hosaim Boujerdi, the religious leader, who pursued a policy of quietism and a nonpolitical clergy, since Khomeini's activism started only after Boujerdi's death in 1961 (Bakhash 22-3).  
<>   In February, 1963, the Ba'ath Party entered Iraq from Syria again. It retook power and began to exterminate Communists, Jews and other opponents (Bakhash 22-3). But now the CIA was no longer headed by Allen Dulles, who had been ousted by Kennedy shortly after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. Ba'ath's Hitler-like beliefs were no longer viewed sympathetically at CIA.  
    Even so, Ba'ath was possibly in possession of crucial documents about George and Prescott Bush's traitorous activities during World War II. These had occurred in connection with Standard Oil's Pacific Ocean shipment to "neutral" Thailand from "neutral" Saudi Arabia in 1944. But although these documents were a powerful blackmail item against the Bush family, the Bushes were powerless to influence events in Iraq since the ouster of Allen Dulles. Ba'ath was ousted from the alliance of power in Iraq on November 22, 1963 (Bakhash 20-3).
   To see why Iraq was such a pivotal point in all this, we must go back to 1941. We noted that the Nazis had agents in Iraq who backed the overthrow of the pro-British Nuri. These agents staged a coup which briefly seized power in Iraq. I quote here from the "on the spot" book, Oil, Blood and Sand by Robert L. Baker:

"The pro-Axis, anti-British campaign culminated in the revolt let by General
Raschid Ali el Gailaini in the spring of 1941. He had the support of several
prominent politicians and high army of ficers and of a part of the army. An
illegal session of Parliament ratified his acts, and, ironically, he was
recognized by the Soviet Government. He had expected German aid, and
had apparently been promised it. When it failed to arrive he was doomed.
    Only a part of the army followed him, and the country failed to rise, though
the river tribes below Baghdad cut the dikes in an attempt to obstruct the
British troops that were coming up from the Persian Gulf. Though
besieged, the British air base at Habbaniya, sixty miles west of Baghdad,
held out. A rift occurred between Rashid and his generals, and the British
encountered little resistance. After Rashid's flight to Iran with the ex-Grand
Mufti, who had been permitted to escape by the Vichy government in Syria
to help stage the revolt, and a few other supporters, it was reported that he
had pleaded for German help. Dr. Grobba...had made such help conditional
upon the restoration of the original German concession for the Baghdad
Railway, the transfer of the Iraq Oil Company's concession to Germany,
and German control of all airdromes for the duration of the war. Rashid
agreed, but the generals who had joined him in the revolt flatly refused the
terms... The pro-British government that took control after Rashid's flight
explained that the revolt had been engineered by Fifth Columnists
cooperating with a foreign power in order to reduce military pressures in
another theater of the war. A number of the rebels were tried for treason
Rashid Ali appears to have struck before the Germans gave the word...(Baker 216-17)."

   Japan had a powerful interest in the Middle East dating from the early thirties. And he notes that, in both Iran and Iraq, Japanese influence and imports persisted for some time because of anti-British sentiment in their governments (Baker 278-81). In Iran, Reza Shah (the "old" Shah who was ousted by Britain in 1941) brought in Japanese engineers to supervise new railway construction in 1938 as a purposeful barb at the British (Baker 278-81). The Japanese legation in Teheran gave refuge to Amin el Husseini, the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, after his flight from Iraq, and then aided him to escape to Turkey (Baker 278-81). For its part, the Iraqi government permitted Japan to maintain a large trade mission at Baghdad that is said to have aided Rashid Ali and the ex-Mufti in staging the revolt in 1941 (Baker 278-81). It was not ordered to leave undl the revolt had been crushed and a pro-British government assumed power. (Baker 278-81).
   Baker further notes that the Japanese were able to make capital of Moslem fears of atheist, Communist Russia, in 1938 officially inviting one hundred and twenty Moslem notables to attend the inauguration of a Mosque in Tokyo. Among them were fanatic opponents of Britain in the Middle East. Amin el Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hitler's main ally in the Middle East, however, was unable to attend because of his internment by the British in Syria. (Baker 278-81). Baker noted, however, that the Mufti, though depending mainly on Berlin and Rome to restore him to power was determined to insure his future in the event that the Japanese got to the Middle East first. (Baker 278-81).
   There are thus hints in Baker's book that the Iraqi coup of 1941 may have been as much Japanese as German inspired. Interestingly, too, we note that Standard Oil may have been responsible for some of the activities of the "tribes" hostile to Britain, since Baker points out that oil companies in the area were concerned about the "safety" of their oil pipelines in the midst of such a civil war. (Baker 278-81). Even if only to get what seemed the inevitable over with sooner, Standard Oil clearly had temptation to help the pro-Axis Iraqi rebels defeat Britain.
   The reason why the possible Ba'ath Party documents are important is that they may reveal that Standard Oil supported the Raschid Ali coup and sought to help it to succeed. Standard agents may have hampered efforts by British intelligence to stop the coup and re-instate Nuri in power in Iraq. Some evidence that this was the case is provided in Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1941 (Washington, DC: 1956, GPO) which was written by the US State Department at the time. In relation to pro-Axis activities in Iran, the US Minister in Iran, Dreyfus, wired Sumner Welles that:

"...the German fifth column organization... is large...it is more likely that the organization is the routine Nazi fifth column type with its agents and branches in important German business concerns throughout the country. Its activities have increased since the beginning of the German-Russian war particularly among White Russians, Americans and disaffected elements in the north [of Iran]. While Iranian police have been fully aware of fifth column activities...police action has been too desultory and weak to prevent the building up of...German forces...[emphasis added]." (Foreign Relations, 383-4).

    This event occurred in July 1941. (Foreign Relations 383-4). It gains in significance when we note that, in Iraq, earlier in the year, January 1941, Britain's ambassador Sir Basil Newton noted that "the Iraq Government were contemplating obtaining arms from Japan (Foreign Relations 487)." Closer in time to the July events in Iran, the US Minister Resident in Iraq, on April 30, 1941, cabled to Washington that "a mixed lot of Americans and miscellaneous foreigners and some Iraqi subjects numbering about 100 fearing mob violence have taken refuge in Legation." (Foreign Relations 504). He further notes that

     "160 men, women and children of various nationalities have taken refuge in the legation since April 30th (Foreign Relations 505)." On May 5, he cabled Washington that "I am informed by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs that the Jesuit Fathers of the Jesuit College and Dr. and Mrs. Staudt of American Boys School who elected remain at their respective schools are well and also that one American Jesuit Father and a Miss Adams at the British Embassy are presumably still there...American women ...left here for Basra via Habbaniya and also regarding Americans at Basra [as to their safety and/or evacuation] (Foreign Relations 506)."
<>     The Resident Minister also notes (513) that during the pro-Axis occupation of Baghdad, "British Air Force...evacuated American women with their own." He states shortly before this that "inquiries" were then being made regarding efforts to evacuate virtually all Americans, male and female, from Iraq (Foreign Relations 506). This means that virtually the only "Americans" left in the Middle East a month later, at the time of Dreyfus' cable to Welles, were Standard Oil/oil industry employees. And some of these, we recall from Dreyfus' cable, were engaged in aiding the Axis coup attempt in Iran in July, 1941 (Foreign Relations 383-4). 
     Significantly, too, since the coup was partially inspired by Japan, authorities there would have been aware of any assistance rendered by Standard Oil, which had sent them  "cables...promising to continue trading with Japan regardless of any conflict or break in trade (Higham 42-53)."
      It seems reasonable to believe that Prescott Bush, as a top official of Standard Oil and its related banking companies during this time, may have put his signature on documents authorizing funds for activities which helped Japanese agents in Iraq. What seems equally evident is that, later in the war, this document was delivered to the Japanese on Guam by George Bush in 1944. It was useful to George in proving that his family and his company were friends of the Japanese. With such a detailed knowledge of Japanese activity in 1941, George was clearly a friend of Japan. And with a new negotiated peace offer from Allen Dulles for the OSS to accompany it, Bush was assured of a ticket out of Guam and back to his carrier. 
     Having been delivered to the Japanese, the documents could then proceed back to Ba'ath Party headquarters in Syria, where they ended up after the war. Or at least, this is the charge that could have been made about them. How else could the Ba'ath Party of the Middle East have known about oil shipments to "neutral" nations like India and Thailand unless they had been delivered by an Axis courier?
    Barbara Honnegar speculates that the document which Licio Gelli had on George Bush in the 1970's when he joined the P-2 organization may have been related to his membership in the CIA much earlier than he has ever admitted. Bush would have been forced to give Gelli such an incriminating document as part of his initiation into the membership of P-2, a Fascist political organization in Italy (Honnegar 229-44). She points out that Bush's "Zapata oil" company is listed as a CIA "assist" during the Bay of Pigs invasion preparations of 1960 (Honnegar 229-44). This powerfully suggests that Bush was a CIA agent before 1963. This, in turn, means he could have been an agent in Allen Dulles's CIA. This also fits due to his father's ties to Dulles and Standard Oil.
     Allen Dulles was Prescott Bush's attorney and, by some method, Prescott was able to get George into the Navy at the age of 18, rather than 21, and without two years of college. Both of these were normally requirements to get into the Navy as an aviator in 1942. Dulles at OSS could have "pulled strings" to get George in.
    Dulles headed the CIA at the end of World War II. Dulles had originally been an OSS station chief in Switzerland in the war and OSS was the forerunner of the CIA. It would fit that the connection Prescott had used to get George into the Navy as an aerial photographer, was Allen Dulles. He could then be an "asset" of the OSS as an aerial reconnaissance photographer as well as a pilot.
    Ironically, in a strategic and sensitive national security position, Bush had been able to behave as an OSS agent during the summer of 1944. This was during the time when Dulles was engaged in his "Sunrise" and "Safehaven" negotiations with the Axis. George helped when it came time to shut down radio transmissions and switch to couriers in order to continue to preliminary negotiations with the Axis and avoid FDR's surveillance. (Loftus and Aarons 367). George was the courier to get the job done.
   At the very highest levels of the Japanese government, it was known a courier was to land on Guam on June 19, 1944, in advance of the US landings on Saipan. This was a good will gesture from Secretary of the Navy Forrestal. Forrestal, an early critic of the bombing of Japan (Bagby 273) had wanted to give the Japanese government a chance to negotiate, avoiding the ugly bombing of Japan proper that would follow America's seizure of the Saipan airstrips. He wanted, instead, an alliance with Japan against Mao and Russia.
    Therefore, the highest Japanese government officials had ordered all planes--both naval and land-based--attacking the US task force off Saipan to circle around for a few moments (Hoyt 271). There was no military advantage at all to the Japanese in this maneuver. It was a signal to the Standard Oil courier. And that courier was George Bush.
    Forrestal covered George's tracks after he left Guam. He arrived on Guam shortly after the airfield there was secured on July 29, 1944. He'd then flown Bush's unmarked, off-limits Avenger to Saipan, an area the OSS was to keep under a continuous high security blanket from then on (Goerner 130-50). There, a night or two later, Forrestal, perhaps with George's help, set fire to George Bush's airplane. He was seen involved in these things by Thomas Devine, who, however, didn't comprehend what was going on, and remembered these events in distorted form later, as someone burning "Amelia Earhart's plane." (Devine 39-42).
    The Japanese within a month had reshuffled their cabinet, ousting Hideki Tojo. (Butow 131). This may have been upon receipt of the message from Dulles, Forrestal, Standard Oil and maybe even the GOP faction supporting Thomas Dewey. The Cabinet shuffle was their response to the offer of negotiations, a peace gesture.
   At the same time, a major Japanese offensive in China was greeted by Chiang Kai Shek with cooperation rather than opposition. Chiang saw the Japanese as a force to make his position in China more secure against the Communists and other opponents (Bagby 130-6). He no doubt had been encouraged in this by right-wing elements in the OSS (Bagby 130-6). It became fairly clear to General Wedemeyer that Chiang had collaborated with the Japanese during this offensive (Bagby, 133-4). Rumors of a deal between Chiang and the Japanese were rampant as Wedemeyer confronted Chiang about them (Bagby 133-4). Chiang would "neither confirm nor deny" but merely laughed. Wedemeyer regarded this as an admission by Chiang that he had in fact collaborated with the Japanese (Bagby 133-4). In fact, Bagby flatly says Chiang did so (134). As a result of the success of the Japanese Ichigo offensive, seventeen major US air bases in China were destroyedand this destroyed for a time America's ability to bomb Japanese shipping (Bagby 130-6).
    It's interesting that shipping should have been rendered less vulnerable to US bombers during this time of a Standard Oil plans for shipments to fascist-leaning "neutral" countries. Allen Dulles was conniving to negotiate with the Axis behind FDR's back. He was also sneaking his Nazi gold into Japanese-occupied Manchuria (Loftus and Aarons 367). This latter was an area sure to be attacked by the USSR if the US remained allied with it. Hence, Dulles concern lest it fall to Soviet troops.
    The reason why the Ba'ath Party documents are important is that they may reveal that Standard Oil (the "Americans" referred to by Dreyfuss in his cable to Sumner Welles) supported this coup and sought to help it to succeed. They hampered efforts by Britain to stop the coup and reinstate Nuri in power in Iraq. They appear to have encouraged "tribesmen" in an area below Baghdad to obstruct British troop movements, including destroying dikes and flooding an area the British were attempting to travel through (Baker 216-17). It seems evident that Prescott Bush, as a top executive at Standard Oil, could have signed documents authorizing funding for these operations.
    What seems equally evident is that later in the war this document was delivered to Japanese commander on Guam as a courier activity by George Bush. They ended up in the hands of the Ba'ath Party again because Ba'ath was a pivotal connecting point to the whole activity. Utilizing Ba'ath Party personnel, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia would all be used by Standard Oil for this potentially most profitable of all late war oil shipment to Japan. Having been delivered to the Japanese on Guam by George Bush in 1944, the documents would have proceeded back to Ba'ath Party headquarters in Syria in 1944. Or at least, this is the charge that could have been made about them. How else could the Ba'ath Party of the Middle East have known about oil shipments to the "neutral" nations, India and Thailand, unless they had been delivered by an Axis courier?
     And, to paraphrase Russell Bowen in his book's advertising and final pages (and the Democrats in the 1984 and '88 conventions) where was George from July 4, 1944, (the official date of his downing off Chichi Jima) and September 2, 1944, when he was filmed being picked up? Where was George for 24-48 hours off Guam? Did he land his plane on Guam?         
    Marines stationed on the neighboring island of Saipan state an aircraft without military markings was seen in flight into Saipan from a neighboring island during mopping up operations on Guam and Saipan (Goerner 270). Goerner also intriguingly notes that, during a search for signs of Earhart's plane on Saipan in 1960, while the CIA was under the command of Allen Dulles, he had been "tailed" by three unidentified agents (136). He confronted the San Francisco CIA head about this, and, though he denied a CIA connection for Goerner's tail, shortly afterward it stopped (Goerner 145).
    Marine Tom Devine stated he saw an aircraft without military markings being discussed among top officers near the captured Japanese airfield on Saipan (39-42). Devine alleged that he later saw this plane on fire in an "off limits" area (Devine 39-42). Devine says that one of the non-uniformed officers guarding the plane in its "off limits" hangar, was Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal (Devine 39-42). He says that Forrestal had been instrumental in flying the civilian plane into Saipan from a nearby island (Devine 39-42). Guam is near Saipan.
     Loftus and Aarons state that Forrestal was a business partner in Standard Oil and other Nazi-oriented corporations with such lights as William Draper, William Stamps Farrish, Allen Dulles and Nelson Rockefeller, all known traitors during World War II (Loftus and Aarons 378).
    Devine assumed at the time that the secret being held was Amelia Earhart's plane. However, the aircraft he saw--at least three--were at a distance (Devine 39-42). The twin-engine aircraft he saw could have been a captured Japanese "Betty" bomber, with its markings removed. And, intriguingly, also, Devine described how, in the distance, he'd seen two single-engine planes, far enough away that he couldn't readily discern their identity or model (Devine 39-42). He assumed that they had military markings, since he wasn't looking as closely at them as at the twin-engine aircraft (Devine 39-42).
    Intriguingly, equally reliable sources have recently found what appear to be the remains of Amelia Earhart's plane off Howland Island, near where her last radio broadcast was heard (Wilkinson 26). This powerfully suggests that the plane seen flying into Saipan was not Amelia's plane.
    And if it wasn't Amelia Earhart's plane which was seen on Saipan (near Guam) in 1944, whose plane was it ? Devine himself notes that Amelia Earhart's own sister, even in the 1970's before this latter find, "abandoned the belief that her sister had crashed near Howland Island after hearing [Fred Goerner's] progress report in September-October 1961 and after his second expedition to Saipan. By 26 June 1962, however, Mrs. Morrissey had returned to her original conclusion. She wrote to me somewhat bitterly,
     'The claims of Captain Brian and CBS have been shown to be completely false and unsubstantiated, so why continue the discussion? Amelia's plane went down near Howland Island [and] because of a radio failure...the Coast Guard cutter could not home in on her."'(Devine 82 footnote).

     Devine also acknowledges that one of the main sources of all "Amelia Earhart" afficionados, Thomas J. O'Hare, one of the Itasca Coast Guard cutter radiomen who recorded messages from Earhart "accepted the idea that Earhart had run out of gas and had 'splashed' within 200 miles of the Itasca [near Howland Island]." (Devine 165).
    George Bush didn't really land in the water off Guamhe landed on Guam itself, carrying Allen Dulles's offer of a negotiated peace. Dulles's plan had been that the Standard Oil documents would proceed on to Saudi Arabia, where the King would sign off on the shipment to Thailand. The shipment would then leave Saudi, go through the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean to Bombay, and from there head for Thailand.
    Once again, the time frame here is intriguing. In May, 1944, Standard Oil had succeeded in pressuring the Roosevelt Administration to allow it to sell oil again to "neutral" nations such as Spain. Roosevelt had, in January, 1944, attempted to ban such oil sales on the grounds that Spain and a group of other socalled "neutral" countries were not nearly neutral enough. Virtually all oil sent to Spain went almost directly to Germany from there. And Thailand was in a similar relationship with Japan as Spain was to Germany. Technically, it was neutral, but it was an open secret that Thailand sympathized with Japan and had willingly provided roads and even aircraft runways for Japanese forces invading Malaya. Like Spain, Thailand was nonindustrialyet shipments of oil could have been sent there. Now, in May and June of 1944, with the trade route with Germany through Spain reopened, Standard Oil (and its attorney Allen Dulles) had no reason to believe FDR would really stand up to them if they attempted to also deliver oil to Thailand.
     Radioing the Japanese ahead of time of the tanker's route would allow Japanese forces from Burma to be waiting on the Thai-Burma coast to waylay the sympathetic Standard Oil tanker. It could be rationalized as a normal business deal, through a neutral nation. So what if it enhanced Standard Oil's reputation with the Japanese enemies? Perhaps in 1944, an election year, the Japanese would talk sense, negotiating a settlement with Republican Party "spokesmen" such as Allen Dulles, who was even then deeply involved in negotiations to get his gold and money out of Germany and other Axis countries or Swiss banks which might be subject to investigation, into Japanese-occupied Manchuria.
    So paperwork and documentation was arranged and later this was back in the hands of top leaders of the Ba'ath Party, delivered back to them all the way from Guam in the Pacific. Through his membership in Ba'ath in the 1960's, Saddam Hussein came into possession of this document.
    But it isn't only the Ba'ath Party which had access to these documents. Through his group's World War II ties to Ba'ath, they were probably accessed by Licio Gelli as he founded P-2 in the 1960s. In setting up his blackmail network, Gelli had to get powerful, scandalous information on key military, police and political figures around the world, in nations that were important to his operations. Barbara Honneggar tells us that in order to become a member of P-2, George Bush had to give an incriminating document about himself to Gelli (Honnegar 229-44). It could be that the document which Gelli was given by Bush was the Iraqi document implicating both Prescott and George in treason during World War II. This document may tie in with the J. Edgar Hoover memo described by Honnegar which proves George's early membership in Dulles's CIA (Honnegar 229-44).
    In 1980, with political pressure on George Bush at a white heat, Gelli made his move. At first, he was simply intrigued to have a man of his own so close to the White House. But later in 1980, as the Iranians seized the Poet, with his agents and tons of heroin aboard, he had an even more urgent reason to pressure Bush to turn against Iraq in favor of Iran--at least, temporarily (Honnegar 229-44). To do this, he saw to it that the documents were placed into the hands of a rebelling CIA agent named Russell S. Bowen.
    Bowen wanted to write about the CIA by 1979, as did Phillip Agee, a fellow renegade agent who had written exposes of his own about the CIA (Bowen ix). Gelli may have learned from sources around Agee--such as Alexander Haig, a "double agent" who was a member of P2 and the Knights of Maltaof Bowen's plans for a book. Gelli then got the scandalous document to Bowen and allowed him to write about it in his book, the first edition of The Immaculate Deception.
   Gelli presented the book and a request for an ad for it in the American media to British publishing tycoon (and British and Israeli secret agent) Robert Maxwell. Maxwell was an Israeli agent interested in stymieing Saddam's efforts to destroy Israel in 1980 via prolonging the Iran-Iraq War. He'd have been willing to threaten Bush, a pivotal person in plans to use the "carrot and stick" approach, into agreeing to work with a renegade faction of Mossad (then coincidentally in alliance with Licio Gelli). He did this by threatening to advertise and publish the first edition of Russell S. Bowen's book, The Immaculate Deception.

   Alexander Haig also conveyed Bowen's book plans to George Bush. Gelli's thinking was that he would leave Bush an out. By providing information to Bowen and Bush at the same time, he gave Bush a chance to silence Bowen on this matter and save his reputation. After Bush agreed to Haig and Maxwell's demands, they agreed to put off publication of the book until after Bush's election as vicepresident. Once elected, Bush pressured Bowen to rejoin the CIA, at which point he promptly seized Bowen's materials, preventing his publication of his original charge of treason against Bush in World War 2. Instead, Bowen wasn't able to retire from the CIA until the late '80's, at which time he was able to write and get into print a later version of The Immaculate Deception, minus the original World War II allegation (the evidence for which was now no longer in Bowen's possession).
Haig may also have seen an excellent opportunity to exploit the situation for Israeli intelligence and possibly to help insure there was no investigation of his earlier assistance to Israel during the Yom Kippur War (Loftus and Aarons 304-25; also Honnegar 178-81). Bush was a much more vulnerable target than Carter, in terms of his usefulness in such a cover-up. In the shake-up of the change from Carter to Reagan, Haig's 1973 activities could definitely be covered up.
    And clearly, something would have had to have been done by Bush to placate Gelli. Gelli himself was under a lot of pressure. Barbara Honneggar notes that, during the same time that they took the embassy hostages in Tehran, the Iranian radicals also seized a group of Gelli's agents on the heroin-carrying ship, the Poet. Not only this: the Iranian radicals had also seized several tons of heroin in the process (Honneggar 236-40). Without ties to any established regime, the Iranian radicals had no pressure on them to release any of these hostagesor even allow them to live. The only reasonable source for pressure on these radicals must come from a world power. This, in an election year, would have been America. It fit Republican presidential campaign's needs to have a lever to extend the hostage crisis and hurt Carter politically. But even if such an activity had not benefited the GOP one iota, Bush would still have been under tremendous pressure to see to it that Gelli was placated in his blackmail demands.
    So Bush made use of his connection with Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party, the one spoken of in the Ba'ath Party document implicating he and his father in treason during World War 2. He had to have that document silenced. Otherwise, his vice-presidential and then presidential ambitions would be doused with cold water. So he must have flashed back to his family's ties with Ba'ath in Iraq to find a way to speed up negotiations with the Iranian radicals via a "stick" as well as a "carrot."
    In 1968, when the Ba'ath Party retook power in Iraq, Saddam Hussein had been Vice President of Security Forces. But after that there had been infighting, with a proSoviet faction of Ba'ath opposing Saddam's "original" anti-Communist faction of Ba'ath. In January, 1977, outgoing CIA head George Bush had helped Saddam's faction, the rabidly anti-Communist and un-apologetically anti-Semitic one, to seize ascendancy in Iraq, according to Robert C.Aldridge in Desert Folly: A Background Paper On the War with Iraq. Saddam's faction was the one with the closest direct link to the Ba'ath Party founded by Nazi agents in Syria in WW2. Bush may have been under pressure to support this faction due there being persons in that faction who had the incriminating document about Prescott and George's WW2 treason in their possession. In return for a promise of being anti-Communist to give George Bush a cover for his support, Ba'ath began a long drive to seize power in Iraq.
    In 1978, 1979 and 1980, Saddam's faction, the original Ba'ath Party, had lived up to its word, completing the extermination of all Communists in Iraq. Concentration camps became the norm and there was a widespread use of poison gas, both in battle and in the extermination camp format. Saddam, in short, was "Hitler-esque." This is not surprising to us now that we see that Saddam's party was originally founded, in essence, by Adolf Hitler. In a remarkable coincidence of events, Saddam's army attacked Iran after Gelli's agents were seized, just as admittedly Republican operatives, including Richard Allen, met with Iranian radicals in New York--though they today deny their discussion of the hostages (Honnegar 200).
    Skeptics of the "October Surprise" scenario have pointed out that the "carrot" of an offer of better arms shipments to Iran during this time wouldn't have been a sufficient incentive to have prodded the Iranians to act fast enough change their position before the U.S. election--or even to have guaranteed the safety of the American hostages. An additional incentive, a threat or "stick" would have been needed. Clearly, Bush sympathized with Iraq more than Iran anyway. He may have been willing to have provided proof of his ties to Saddam--perhaps proof of his assistance to him in 1977 as outgoing CIA head--to pressure the Iranians to spare Gelli's people as well as the embassy hostages. Showing he had old ties to the Ba'ath Party may have been the message Bush sent to Iran to ensure the radicals there "acted right" in relation to Gelli's people.  
    We are supposed to believe that some years later, this same Ba'ath party, under the same Saddam Hussein, would have willingly fought the Gulf War against the same George Bush. It is at this point that we begin to see a possible connection to the "friendly fire" casualties and other mysteries of the Gulf War. 
   Without much doubt, the Gulf War has become one of the most controversial wars the United States has ever fought. While initially appearing to be a dramatic military success, several intriguing mysteries surround its conduct. Given George and Prescott Bush's somewhat shady records in the whole area of national security even during the second world war, one might wonder what might have been going on.
    For example, we've seen how a close examination of the comments of US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie before Saddam's invasion of Kuwait has convinced several observers that her words were a thinly-veiled invitation by the United States government for Saddam's Iraq to in fact invade Kuwait. It was only after those words were closely read by agencies such as the governments of Israel, Kuwait and, above all, Saudi Arabia--that the US administration claimed it had not authorized Glaspie's words or intended them as such an invitation. But none of this came out, in any great substance, until after the war was over.
    During the war, US military commanders made a number of mysterious--and, to some, troubling--moves. (House/GAO: Operation Desert Storm: Evaluation of Air Campaign). Overall commander in the field Schwartzkopf demanded that all US forces move ahead rapidly to capture the Iraqi Republican Guard forces as they retreated across a large plain before Baghdad. However, a major central column advanced slowly and cautiously through the thick smoke and fire which the Iraqi military was, somewhat mysteriously at the time, leaving in its wake.
    As a result of this caution, there may be an interesting correlation between the level of "Gulf War Syndrome" casualties for those forces versus other allied forces that rushed on ahead of the center columns into the massive smoke and flames (Ember 7-8).
     We now know--from memos and documents made public by investigators such as the erstwhile nurse Joyce Reilly--that the Iraqi military was in fact transporting huge amounts of chemical and biological weaponry in this same area during this same period of time (Ember 7-8).
      One is almost irresistibly drawn to the conclusion, just by examination of the battlefield scenario, that Iraqi chemical and/or biological weapons were thus either accidentally or purposely leveled against advancing Allied forces pursuing the Republican Guard. In the huge smoke and flames on this area of open plain, it would almost have been impossible for them not to have been.
    One must also wonder about other things, as well. Were there other reasons besides the "geopolitical" and military alliance with Arab nations which caused Bush to choose to leave Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq, after initially calling him "Saddam Hussein the dictator" and "a Hitler?"
    The massive petrochemical complex that Bush has been a major part of most of his life was a major supplier of the poisonous gases and even biological weaponry which Saddam used to destroy his opposition in Iraq (Friedman 171). Bush, we've seen, was a major supporter of Saddam in 1977--indeed being the pivotal factor in Saddam's success in seizing power in Iraq (Aldridge 198).
    The "October Surprise" of 1980 involved Bush in a slight variation on the earlier theme involving the scenario of Bush using a Kissinger-esque "carrot and stick" approach to Iran during 1979 and 1980. This involved not only a promise of arms but the threat of Bush's "war dog" Saddam Hussein. Bush let the Iranians know of his connection to Saddam's Ba'ath Party. Saddam, after all, had also, like them, "opposed Communism."
     According to a National Public Radio report on Morning Edition of June 18, 1993, a study of US intelligence reports during the Gulf War reveals that US intelligence was in fact seriously compromised and that this was known at the very highest levels of the allied command structures, including the White House (NPR 6/18/93). Satellite photography of military activity within and around Iraq was transmitted directly to the Iraqi military even after hostilities had begun--and this continued to occur, sporadically, throughout the months of the allied build-up and even during the actual battlefield combat (NPR 6/18/93).
    This breach of intelligence security occurred via Jordan, whose interior ministry seemed quite in sympathy with Saddam (NPR 6/18/93). It saw to it that he got a sizable chunk of any military intelligence sent Jordan's way by Allied forces, including sensitive satellite photographs (NPR 6/18/93). But when this fact was presented to headquarters, it was promptly passed higher and still higherand then it seems to have disappeared for periods of time.(House Report On Desert Storm, 1997). No action was taken of any lasting impact, since the breach occurred again and again (NPR 6/18/93).
    The suggestion is thus powerful that George Bush was in fact "hip deep" in Saddam Hussein for several compelling reasons. And some of them may go all the way back to World War II. Those scandals involve the ties of Bush's father's company, Standard Oil, to the Ba'ath Party founded by the Nazis in Syria. They were reinforced by Bush's possible activities in the "October Surprise" scenario. Saddam and his party now had several blackmail items on Bush. These gave Saddam several levers to use against George Bush. He could use these to keep himself in power.
    This unpleasant possibility is reinforced by the troubling issue of the high level of "friendly fire" casualties in the Gulf War. These casualties occurred at such a high level--almost an impossibly high on--that one must become suspicious. At the beginning of the Second World War shortly after Pearl Harbor America's soldiers and sailors were admittedly "green" and panicked by the Japanese attacks, and a few friendly fire casualties occurred. It should be remembered, however, that these occurred over a very large area of the Pacific Ocean. <>And even then, these were only one-tenth of the level of the friendly fire casualties that occurred in the relatively short Gulf War and in an extremely limited area. In fact, no other war in history--by any nation, anywhere--has produced as many friendly fire, percentage-wise, as were produced during the Gulf War among US forces (GAO: Fratricide Incident Senate Report). Such a level of friendly fire casualties is just too high to be merely the result of pure chance and accident, it would seem.
In the context of all the other mysteries about the Gulf War, including Gulf War Syndrome, one is forced to come to the conclusion that young Americans may have died as part of a cover-up by higher commanders in the Gulf War area. Exactly what the cover-up entailed is not clear.
    Perhaps in one case--that of a helicopter which was attempting to fly over an area of Iraq supposedly held by friendly forces--it may have been that the fly-over produced a view of something someone didn't want seen. That someone may have been in the US high command. Even though no adequate explanation has been offered for the downing of this helicopter by America's own forces, little media coverage has continued about it. This, despite the fact that it came out during the investigation that the copter was sending out radio signals to all US forces in the area that it was a "friendly." It was also clearly marked as a friendly US 'copter (GAO: Fratricide Incident Senate Report). The American forces that shot down this copter were commanded to do so by American officers (GAO: Fratricide Incident Senate Report). And the radio message which was the original source of this command to fire is alleged to have come from outside of the immediate area (GAO: Fratricide Incident Senate Report).
    The one characteristic which this flight had in common with several other harassed or fired on missions by Allied forces or subsequent UN inspection teams, was that it was attempting to fly over an area which has long been suspected to be a location for Iraqi nuclear reactor development.
   European banks and industries have put pressure on their respective governments not to investigate the funding of Saddam Hussein's development of chemical and biological weapons, missiles, and the vaunted "super gun." (Friedman, 8 and 285-7).
    According to some sources, a real investigation of these companies' funding of such Iraqi research would reveal that many of the same corporations which had supported Hitler illegally during World War 2 have also been instrumental in the rise and continuance in power of Saddam Hussein. These companies appear to have been a prime source of materials for his development of poison gases and biological weapons,long thought to be beneath the dignity of "civilized" Western industries. (See, for example, United States Steel Export Company as referred to in Friedman 8 and in Foreign Relations, 1941, 360).    
    Was the Iraqi attack with chemical-biological weaponry in fact planned by right-wing fanatics in the Pentagon and petrochemical industry with ties to both the petrochemical conglomerates and racial-supremacist groups such as the ones Prescott Bush had belonged to? Did such groups in fact tolerate and even encourage biological experimentation upon our soldiers who belonged to racial groups whom they deemed to be inferior? Were such tests also conducted on soldiers whose families were lower class or had been members of the forbidden labor union movement?
    Many of these fanatics have been tied to the Ba'ath Party since the Second World War. Their number included William Stamps Farrish, William Draper and Prescott Bush, George Bush's father. They helped design, build and fund the Auschwitz concentration camp. They'd have thought nothing of performing such "medical experiments" on allied troops in the field against their ally the Ba'ath Party in Iraq.
    A way for George Bush to please them and simultaneously meet the blackmail demands of Saddam's Ba'ath Party against his family, would have been to expose thousands of American troops to experimental Iraqi poison gases and biological weaponry. There, on that plain as they pursued the fleeing Iraqi Republican Guard forces, is this what happened to them? Is this what produced much of the "Gulf War Syndrome?" Is this part of the reason why Gulf War Syndrome is being covered up and denied by segments of the Pentagon?
    As if to answer these questions, English author Charles Higham tells us of the Bush family's company, Standard Oil, and its old ties to Fascism:
    "The Chairman of the Texas Company and partner in Standard Oil of California, Torkild 'Cap' Rieber...supplied Franco in the Spanish Civil War...with orders not to stop for inspection by any man-of-war, including United States gunships... supplied polymerization techniques to I.G. Farben in the Ruhr and to I.G. Farben-connected companies in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria... flew with Goering in a plane piloted by Pan American Airways pilot Pete Clausen on a personally-conducted tour of the main industrial centers of Germany... sailed his vessels through the British blockade to fuel U-boats after 1939, and simultaneously sent more to aid Nazi corporations in South America. [and] told Life magazine in 1940: 'If the Germans ever catch any of my ships carrying oil to the Allies, they will have my heartfelt permission to fire a torpedo into her.' [But] on August 20, [1940] fifteen directors for the corporation...trying to improve...image...[replaced] Rieber with W.S. Rodgers and Harry D. Collier ...[Their subsidiary Caltex] jointly brought up millions of dollars worth of oil from the Arabian Sea. (in the 1940's)...Saudi Arabia had intricate economic and political links with Adolf Hitler. On June 8,1939, Khalid Al-Hud Al-Qarqani, royal counsel of Ibn Saud, was received by Ribbentrop in Berlin...On June 17, Hitler received him...[making arrangements for trade that] were in effect on November 21,1941, [when]the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem...among the bitterest enemies of the Jews, met with the Fuehrer in Berlin... [and] with the authorization of the Arab world, expressed his admiration of Hitler and named the same enemies..." (Highsm 76-92).

     "Named the same enemies" is an interesting point in connection with Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party and its longstanding ties to the Allen Dulles CIA after WW2. Ba'ath was frequently used by Dulles and subsequent CIA heads in GOP administrations.   
     The reason for the partisan nature of this particular act becomes clearer when we remember that FDR's party had no incentive not to investigate this treason. Only the GOP was desperate enough for support and votes--and ideas--during this time not to expose them. Not until July 17,1968, when Ba'ath again seized power, with Ahmed Hassan AlBakr as Premier and Saddam Hussein as head of the secret police and all security forces, including the National Guard (Bennis and Moushabeck 32), was the Bush family's secret really secure again. Helping this was the fact that one of the special "appeals" Saddam made to the West in his bid for funding was a promise to stay with the Ba'ath Party's original goals of opposition to Communism.
    Founded in Syria with the assistance of Axis agents in 1943, Ba'ath was in communication with Charles Bedaux, Standard Oil, Ibn Saud and the Mufti of Jerusalem. One of Khomeini's main bodyguards during the Iranian hostage crisis was a man who was a head disciple of the Mufti of Jerusalem, that Jew-hating ally of Hitler (Honnegar 117).
     But it isn't only the Middle East where these events going back to World War 2 still have an effect. What about George Bush's original host, Japan? Japan has been rearming, and much faster than one might think. Most of that rearming went on in the ReaganBush years. According to Julie McCarthy on NPR's April 18, 1995, "Morning Edition," Japan also wants a seat on the UN Security Council. In the 1980s, America had difficulty getting Japan to abide by its guidelines for supplying chemical and biological weapons to Middle Eastern terrorist states, especially Ba'athist Iraq (Shultz 190-5).
     Finally, in their eyebrow-raising book G. Friedman and Lebard tell us:

    "1990 was a turning point for Japan in two ways: first, it was the year in which the Cold War ended; second, it was the year in which Japan's largest postwar rebuilding plan, its 1976 National Defense Program Outline, was completed...In developing their forces, Japan frequently went beyond the role of supplementing the U.S. toward capabilities that would prove themselves useful to Japan in its own right...The sense that the Japanese are in a position to rapidly expand their military force and are restrained only by the American presence is not based solely on the views of the America military leaders in Japan. It can also be gleaned from looking at the weaponsprocuring policies pursued by the Japanese. The Japanese have the wherewithal in place to rapidly expand their forces should the need arise." (Friedman and Lebard 347-48).

    Old chums, old ties.

Click on "Back" (above) to return to the Tim, George Bush and Me Table of Contents on the George Bush-Undercurrents Website.

                                                                        Works Cited:

Aldridge, Robert C. Folly in the Desert: A Background Paper on the War with Iraq. Santa Clara, CA: Pacific Life Research Center, 1991

Bagby, Wesley Marvin. The Eagle-Dragon Alliance: America's Relations With China in World War II. Cranbury, NJ: Associated UP, 1992

Baker, Robert L. Oil, Blood and Sand. New York: D. Appleton-Century, 1942.

Bakhash, Shaol. In the Reign of the Ayotollahs. New York: Basic, 1984.

Bennis, Phyllis and Michel Moushabeck. Beyond the Storm: A Gulf Crisis Reader. New York: Olive Branch, 1991.

Bowen, Brig. Gen. Russell S. (Ret.). The Immaculate Deception: The Bush Crime Family

Exposed. Carson City, NV: America West, 1991.

Butow, Robert J.C. Tojo and the Coming of the War. Stanford, CA: UP, 1961

Devine, Thomas. Eyewitness: The Amelia Earhart Incident. Frederick, CO: Renaissance House, 1980.

Ember, Lois. "Panel Looks for Causes of Gulf War Illnesses," Chemical and Engineering News, February 19, 1996. 7-8

Friedman, Alan. Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq. New York: Bantam, 1993

Friedman, George, and Meredith Lebard. The Coming War with Japan. New York: St. Martin's, 1991

Goerner, Fred. The Search forAmelia Earhart. New York: Doubleday, 1966

Higham, Charles. Trading with the Enemy: An Exposé of the Nazi-American Money Plot, 1933-1947. New York: Delacorte, 1983

Honneggar, Barbara. October Surprise. New York: Tudor, 1989

Hoyt, Edwin P. To the Marianas: War in the Central Pacific, 1944. New York: Avon, 1980

<>Loftus, John and Mark Aarons. The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People. New York: St. Martin's, 1994,

McCarthy, Julie, "Report from Japan," Morning Edition. NPR. KUAR, Little Rock, AR, April 18, 1995.

Morning Edition. Narr. Bob Edwards. NPR. KUAR, Little Rock, AR, June 18, 1995.

Shapiro, Laura and Ray Sawhill. "Amelia Earhart: Was She Or Wasn't She?" Rev. of Lost Star by Randall Brink. Newsweek. January 31, 1994. 59

<>Shultz, George P. Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993

Tirnmerman, Kenneth R. "Whatever Happened to Iraqgate?" American Spectator, November, 1996. 34-41

<>United States Congress. House Committee on National Security. United States Policy Toward Iraq.Washington, DC: GPO, 1997

United States Congress Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Intelligence Assessments of the Exposure of U.S. Military Personnel to Chemical Agents During Operation Desert Storm: Joint Hearing Before the Select Committee on Intelligence, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, Second Session, Wednesday, September 25, 1996. Washington, DC: 1997, GPO

<>United States Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1941. Washington, DC: GPO, 1956

United States General Accounting Office. Operation Desert Storm Investigation of A U.S. Army Fratricide Incident: Report to the Honorable Fred Thompson, U.S. Senate.Washington, DC: GPO, 1995

---------. Operation Desert Storm: Evaluation of the Air Campaign: Report to the

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives/United States General Accounting Office. Washington, DC: GPO, 1997

Click on "Back" (above) to return to the Tim, George Bush and Me Table of Contents on the George Bush-Undercurrents Website.