Alexander Haig and the First Edition of The Immaculate Deception

A series of events that occurred in 1981 could reveal a plan for a timetable to power on the part of then-vice-president George Bush. That plan seemed designed to assist Bush in becoming defacto President of the United States so that he could cover up his dark secrets, some of which go all the way back to World War II.

On March 22, 1981, Bush was named to head a new "Emergency Crisis Management Staff," in a Cabinet meeting. That role conferred new roles and powers on Bush, including "unprecedented powers for a vice-president," according to Tarpley and Chaitkin (The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush. New York: Executive Intelligence Review/Ben Franklin. 1991. 2-7). That, in turn, opened the door for the creation by the vice-president of new structures in the United States Government's National Security Agency bureaucracy (Tarpley and Chaitkin 2-9). The conferral of unprecedented powers on vice-president Bush is also confirmed by Loftus and Aarons ( 407-11).

Then, on March 30, 1981, shortly after these powers were conferred on Bush, President Reagan was shot. Based on my research, that shooting of Reagan seems not just a coincidence. It fit Bush's plans for power and served to make him Acting President of the United States for the duration of the Reagan Administration.

It wasn't until May of 1982 that Bush's role as head of Crisis Management Staff with new powers and structures was actually formalized. But Tarpley and Chaitkin note that this role had actually been assumed by Bush much earlier, in that March 22, 1981, meeting, when the Cabinet had internally approved this "Bush initiative." Bush's proposal had been approved by the Cabinet instead of another organizational suggestion known as the "Haig initiative," that had also been presented to President Reagan and the Cabinet by then-Secretary of State Alexander Haig in early March, 1981.

Tarpley and Chaitkin point out how problems might have come for Bush in his take-over plans from the oversight functions in the Congress, such as Congressional investigative subcommittees. However, they note that the Congress was at that point being weakened if not destroyed as an investigative body after a number of Congressmen were convicted on "a set of manufactured charges" whose timing and convenience to George Bush seem suspicious. (Tarpley and Chaitkin 2-7).

With the Loyal Opposition out of the way as far as an investigation by the Congress, the next potential problem was that of Director of the National Security Council. Here, the authors say, Bush accomplished his task of removing potential opposition by downgrading the job (Tarpley and Chaitkin 2-9). Richard Allen, the new NSA head, reported not to President Reagan but to Attorney General Meese. In addition, Bush arranged a quick succession of NSA directors: William Clark, Bud McFarlane, John Poindexter, Frank Carlucci, and Colin Powell--a new NSC Director a bit less than once a year--a virtual merry-go-round at the NSC, which prevented any one director from having enough time to mount or present a serious challenge to Bush's authority. The “merry-go-round at NSC” meant no serious challenge emerged against Bush from that quarter (Tarpley and Chaitkin 379-87).

Alexander Haig, during this first year of the Reagan Administration, attempted to challenge Bush on several points. But, he, too was gotten rid of by Bush, through manipulation of Reagan (Tarpley and Chaitkin 379-87).

A review of the succeeding years of Reagan's Administration shows the steady growth in Bush's power: in the Federal Government. Bush set up a series of previously unheard of structures to project and maintain his "unprecedented" powers, starting with a "Special Situation Group," together with a built-in substructure called the "Standing Crisis Pre-Planning Group," set up on May l4, l982. The following February, Bush had himself named head of a new organization called the "Crisis Management Center," another "standing" group that bestowed a new set of permanent powers on the vice-president. (Tarpley and Chaitkin 379-87).

In April of 1984, Bush decided he needed to head a "Terrorist Incident Working Group," which further increased his power to surveil, shadow and otherwise locate "potential terrorists". Still Bush wasn't satisfied. He wanted to be sure his previously bestowed powers were solidified, so in July 1985, the summer following the re-election victory over Mondale and Ferraro, Bush had himself named of yet another new "counter-terrorist" structure called the "Task Force On Combating Terrorism," also known as the "Terrorism Task Force." Finally, to ensure that his "secure line" to British intelligence remained inaccessible to the ordinary intelligence structure at CIA and NSC, Bush created and named himself head of the "Operations Sub Group," on January 20, l986 (Tarpley and Chaitkin 379-87).

As Tarpley and Chaitkin note, despite the fact that no one was protesting, nothing of this is to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In all of these secret, official structures newly created for the federal government, a secret command role was given to vice-president Bush. Despite his official status as subordinate to President Reagan, Bush, in these agencies was subordinate to no one. All of these agencies revolved around George Bush. He was key to any decisions made, and no consultation with the President or the Congress was necessary or even allowed for. (Tarpley and Chaitkin 379-87).

On January 20, l981, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as President.

Shortly thereafter, in a special meeting of the Cabinet on March 25, l98l, Vice-President George Bush was named to lead the beginnings of the new U.S. "Crisis Management Staff" that now existed as part of the National Security Council. As head of this new body, Bush could act on his own, with special "emergency powers" that required no consultation either with Reagan or the Congress (Tarpley and Chaitkin 379-87).

In short, after March 25, 1981, no one was in George Bush's way as far as running the United States government in a "crisis." And then, with a timing that seems a bit too convenient, on March 30, l981, only five days later, President Reagan was shot as he walked to his limousine. According to senior White House correspondent Sarah McLendon, Reagan's Secret Service escort suddenly seemed to stand at an unusually great distance from him (Honnegar 242-4 ).

And the would-be assassin, John W. Hinckley, had some intriguing connections to George Bush and his family (Tarpley and Chaitkin 379-87). More on both these latter points in a moment.

While it wasn't until May l4, l982 that Bush's position as chief of all covert action and de facto head of U.S. intelligence--in a sense, the acting president--was formalized in a secret memorandum, unofficially this role had been conferred on Bush secretly by the Cabinet exactly five days before Reagan was shot (Tarpley and Chaitkin 379-87).

During the time that Reagan was hospitalized, and after Reagan's recovery, Bush had put together a secret command structure capable of running the Reagan Administration, without any annoying opposition from the President, (now in the hospital), the Congress (now either controlled by his party or paralyzed by internal investigations), the Secretary of State (who was fired by Reagan, acting on misinformation fed him in the hospital by Bush), or the NSC head (who was replaced every few months, before he could get his bearings or put together a legal case for limiting the Vice-President).(Tarpley and Chaitkin 379-87).

Also during this time, Prescott Bush's old friend, William Casey, was beginning to work as the CIA head at Langley, Virginia. He kept in close touch with George Bush. (Tarpley and Chaitkin 379). But there was really no need, since Bush had his own secret intelligence organization run directly from the White House straight to Britain's M-16, on a secure telephone line that was accessible by Bush and virtually no one else (Loftus and Aarons 407-11).

Only five hours after Reagan was shot, Bush led a Cabinet meeting that decided "officially" that there was no conspiracy to shoot Reagan. However, it is clear that there was a major internal debate led primarily by Secretary of State Alexander Haig, whose subsequent behavior is best explained by the extreme nature of the "Bush initiative." It is understandable that someone would have at least wondered about this conclusion, since the official police investigation was not even started, much less completed at this time. In short, the Cabinet was clearly pressured by then-Vice-President George Bush to come to its "no conspiracy" conclusion (Tarpley and Chaitkin 379-87).

In the weeks before the shooting of Reagan, Haig's principle action was his submission to Reagan of a draft executive order to organize the National Security Council and interagency task forces, including the crisis staffs. Haig's draft would have made the Secretary of State the chairman of the SSG crisis staff as Reagan's "vicar of foreign policy." Haig refers to this document as National Security Directive l (NSDD l), and laments that it was never signed in its original form

Ultimately, a document called NSDDl would be signed, establishing a Special Situation Group (SSG) crisis management staff. (However, it's intriguing to note that, as of 1995, NSDD1 remained classified.) But when it finally came to be, it was chaired, not by Haig but by Bush. Bush made sure that Haig's draft of NSDD l would never be signed. There was thus a secret power struggle between Haig and Bush. It was to culminate toward the end of Reagan's first l00 days in office (Tarpley and Chaitkin 366-70). On March 22, l98l, Haig saw an elaborate leak to reporter Martin Schram in the Washington Post. Under the headline, "White House Revamps Top Public Policy Roles; Bush to Head Crisis Management Staff." Haig's attention was drawn to the statement that this Crisis Management Staff, originally proposed by Haig, was to be chaired, not by Haig, but by Bush, an unprecedented role for a Vice-President in modern times. In the Carter Administration, the crisis management structure had been chaired by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor. (Tarpley and Chaitkin 365-70). This had been the model for Haig's proposal to Reagan, since he, though now Secretary of State, had been a National Security Advisor in previous administrations, and thus felt he had some experience in that area.

Bush cited his own experience as the reason that he was now going to head the Situation Room in times of crisis. "[T]he Secretary of State might wish he were chairing the Crisis Management Structure, but it is pretty hard to argue with the Vice-President being in charge," said a "Reagan Administration spokesman" quoted in the article. Haig was thus being told, not directly, but in a newspaper story, that he was out the door as Crisis Management Staff head. (Tarpley and Chaitkin 365-70).

Haig then contacted Reagan and his staff. He got contradictory comments from the Reagan and Bush staff people. There was some indication of a reluctance on Reagan's part or his staffers in delegating such unheard-of powers on the Veep. So, Haig says, though he then drew up his letter of resignation, he hesitated to sign it. (Tarpley and Chaitkin 365-70).

At this point, Tarpley and Chaitkin ask an intriguing question: "Can it be that Haig was so naive that he did not realize that Bush was his ruthless rival and the source of many of his problems? Haig undoubtedly knew, but chose not to say so in memoirs written after he had been defeated. For Haig also knew that Bush was vindictive (Tarpley and Chaitkin 366-70).”

In the meantime, by the March 25, 1981 Cabinet meeting, Bush had seized control of the Special Situation Group, which would take control of the Executive branch in time of crisis or national emergency:

"It was a superb starting point for a coup d'etat (Tarpley and Chaitkin 366-70).”

"Then, in the midst of Bush's drive to seize control of the Reagan Administration, John Warnock Hinckley, jr., carried out his attempt to assassinate President Reagan on the afternoon of March 30, l98l. As Tarpley and Chaitkin recount the events: George Bush was visiting Texas that day. . .Bush had unveiled a plaque at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, the old Hotel Texas, designating it as a national historic site. This was the hotel, coincidentally, in which JFK had spent the last night of his life. . .

"It was Al Haig who called Bush and told him that the President had been shot. . . Back at the White House the principle Cabinet officers had assembled in the Situation Room, and had been running a Crisis Management Committee during the afternoon. Haig says he was at first adamant that a conspiracy, if discovered, should be ruthlessly exposed. . .But the truth has never been established. . .

"Just a few minutes after George Bush had walked into the room, on the basis of the most fragmentary early reports, not more than five hours after the attempt, before Hinckley had been properly questioned and before a full investigation had been carried out, a group of Cabinet officials, chaired by George Bush, had ruled out a priori any conspiracy (Tarpley and Chaitkin 366-70).

This is interesting in light of the behavior of the police at several levels in the days immediately before and immediately after Reagan's being shot. Police at the local, state and federal levels--many of whom were working with Bush's secret new agencies on "drug enforcement" and "anti-terrorism" activities--seemed to have engaged at times in a cover-up of Hinckley's potential threat to President Reagan.

Hinckley had been arrested by airport authorities in Nashville on October 9, 1980 for carrying three guns. Yet, he'd been quickly released. Reagan had been in Nashville on October 7, and Carter arrived there on October 9. Such a firearms charge against him in the same days that presidents were coming town should have put him on Secret service, FBI and police watch lists of potential assassins. Yet the FBI failed to transmit this information to the Secret Service (Tarpley and Chaitkin 374-7).

Hinckley allegedly had an obsession for Jodie Foster and she'd indeed received a series of letters and notes from him. She had passed these on to her college dean. The dean allegedly gave the letters to the New Haven police, who supposedly gave them to the FBI. Nevertheless nothing was done to restrain Hinckley, who had a record of psychiatric treatment. Hinckley had been buying guns in various locations across the US (Tarpley and Chaitkin 374-7).

"Was a network operating through the various law enforcement agencies responsible for the failure to restrain Hinckley or put him under special surveillance?" ask Tarpley and Chaitkin (ibid). In an action that raises further suspicions in that very area, the FBI rubber stamped the Cabinet's conclusion that no search for a conspiracy be undertaken (Tarpley and Chaitkin 374-7).

Hinckley's parents wrote memoirs that include their son's conviction for shooting Reagan. In these, they refer to notes written in pencil by Hinckley and found during a search of his prison cell. His parents say in their memoirs that John Hinckley's notes "could sound bad." The notes, they say, described "an imaginary conspiracy--either with the political right or left--to assassinate the President (Tarpley and Chaitkin 374-7).”

Hinckley's lawyers said the notes were too absurd to be taken seriously. Acting with unusual cooperation with a defense team, the tough law and order judge in the case thereupon ordered them suppressed. However, in July, 1985, the FBI was compelled to release some details of its investigative file about the Hinckley case under the FOIA. As investigators read these newly released details, they became more skeptical of the official conclusion that there was no conspiracy to shoot Reagan.. Even so, no explanation has ever been offered as to how it was determined that Hinckley acted alone (Tarpley and Chaitkin 374-7).

Tarpley and Chaitkin say that, according to a wire service account, the FBI's official Hinckley file made no mention of additional papers seized from his prison cell at Butner, N.C., that reportedly refer to a conspiracy. Those were also ruled inadmissible by the trial judge and never made public. The FBI has refused to release 22 pages of documents concerning Hinckley. The Hinckley defense team argued he was insane and he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and remanded to St. Elizabeth Mental Hospital, where he remains, "with no fixed term of service (Tarpley and Chaitkin 374-7).”

Tarpley and Chaitkin point out that there was yet another aspect of the Hinckley case that certainly appears to have merited attention that it never got. This was the relationship of John W. Hinckley , sr., the gunman's father, to the US intelligence community. He was frequently a close associate of Robert Ainsworth, the director of the Ministries for World Vision, Inc. World Vision is a notorious non-governmental organization that functions as a defacto arm of U.S. Ainsworth's was a foreign area analyst for the State Department, an advisor during Vietnam, and chaired an international committee that dealt with unofficial intelligence gathering. The largest contributor to World Vision is the U.S. State Dept. Agency for International Development (Tarpley and Chaitkin 370-3).

This unprecedented, aggressive push for power by Bush has also been noted by Loftus and Aarons. They found that, on May 15, 1984, Bush began a warrantless surveillance program, largely against Jewish Americans, built on Ronald Reagan's having rescinded, in 1982, Carter's policies restricting electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens (Loftus and Aarons 420).

This Reagan action had come precisely as Bush was setting up his extraordinary powers in his newly-created role as secret Acting President of the United States. According to the co-authors, "the scope of the surveillance would have made Dulles and Forrestal blush (Loftus and Aarons 421).” Dulles and Forrestal were part of a post-World War II anti-Semitic oil industry cabal that tried to prevent the establishment of the state of Israel. It is here that we begin to see the depths of George Bush's anti-Semitism--an anti-Semitism that explains his Axis-sympathizing actions during World War II.

To see how this affected Alexander Haig during World War II, we refer again to Loftus and Aarons. They tell us that Haig, as a United States military officer stationed in Europe at the close of World War II, had been stationed at a top-secret training base established by Allen Dulles. The base, code-named "Pullach," was to be a training and hiding grounds for Nazis that Dulles was illegally sneaking out to avoid their trial by Nuremberg prosecutors for war crimes. Haig, stationed there, had encountered the "agents" that Dulles was recruiting. These included former Nazis like Franz Six, whom Adolf Eichmann had nicknamed the "Eager beaver" for his enthusiastic efforts to exterminate Jews. He was also ordered to work with the disgusting Reinhard Gehlen, who had headed German espionage against Russia. Dulles had been interested in Gehlen's potential as an information source about the Russian military. But this wasn't all that Gehlen had done. He had also participated in the slaughter of thousands of Jews, Poles and Ukrainians. This was known, after a time, by those who worked closely with Gehlen at the Pullach base, though it didn't become available to the general public until the 1988 publication of Blowback by Christopher Simpson.

Once Haig learned of Gehlen's true past, as a World War II veteran he must have been disgusted with Allen Dulles and his associates. These included Prescott Bush, George Bush's father. Allen Dulles was Prescott's attorney. Haig's disgust with and distrust of Prescott undoubtedly carried over to Prescott's son, George.

Loftus and Aarons provide confirmation of their claim that Haig had been forced to work with Gehlen. Over the several years after the war, they say, CIA agent John McIntyre hinted that one of the officers he had served alongside at the Pullach camp had later served in the National Security Council. McIntyre added that his friend was later a candidate for president. This, to persons familiar with Haig's personal history, made the identification complete. McIntyre died before he could add definitive details about Haig's role in the Gehlen base. However, Loftus and Aarons found other sources who added corroboration of McIntyre's story. These latter sources also vouched for Haig's disgust with the Nazis whom Dulles, Prescott Bush and others were working with (Loftus and Aarons 583 ).

Tarpley and Chaitkin tell us how Haig, whose memoirs talked most about the possibility of a conspiracy, didn't seem to object to the "incredible decision" not to have a police investigation of a conspiracy. And yet, they note: "Curiously enough, press accounts emerging over the next few days provided a prima facie case that there had been a conspiracy around the Hinckley attendat, and that conspiracy included members of Bush's immediate family (Tarpley and Chaitkin 370-3).”

On Tuesday, March 31, l981, the Houston Post published a copyrighted story under the headline: "Bush's Son Was To Dine With Suspect's Brother," by Arthur Wiese and Margaret Downing. The lead paragraph read: "Scott Hinckley the brother of John Hinckley, jr., who is charged with shooting President Reagan, was to have been a dinner guest Tuesday night at the home of Neil Bush (Tarpley and Chaitkin 370-3).”

In the article, Neil Bush said he knew the Hinckley family. He referred to large contributions made by the Hinckleys to Bush's l980 campaign. Neil Bush and Scott Hinckley had both lived in Denver at that time. During the same time, John W. Hinckley, jr., the would-be assassin, lived on and off with his family in Evergreen, not far from Denver (Tarpley and Chaitkin 370-3).

Sharon, Neil's wife, asked about her acquaintance with the Hinckley family, said "From what I know and have heard, they have given a lot of money to the Bush campaign (ibid).” The next day, Neil Bush announced he wanted to "set straight" inaccuracies that had appeared in the Houston Post about the relations between the Bush and Hinckley families. Regarding Sharon's reference to large contributions from the Hinckleys, Neil asserted l980 Bush campaign records showed no money coming in from any of the Hinckleys. All that could be found was a contribution to John Connally (Tarpley and Chaitkin 370-3).

But another issue of the Post had raised regarded l978, when George W. Bush, of Midland, Texas, Neil's oldest brother, had run for Congress. The article pointed out that Neil had worked for George W. as his campaign manager. In that connection Neil had lived in Lubbock, Texas in l978. This raised the question of whether Neil might have been in touch with the gunman, John W. Hinckley that year, since Hinckley lived in Lubbock from l974 until l980 (Tarpley and Chaitkin 370-3).

Intriguingly, the previous day, George W. had himself been less categorical about not having met gunman Hinckley. He'd said, "It's certainly conceivable that I met him or might have been introduced to him. I don't recognize his face from the brief, kind of distorted thing they had on TV, and the name doesn't ring any bells. I know he wasn't on our staff. I could check our volunteer rolls.” But on the following day, Neil was adamant that there had been no contact by any Bush family member with Hinckley (Tarpley and Chaitkin 370-3).

Bush spokesman Pete Teeley denied any campaign donations from the Hinckleys to Bush. When asked why Sharon and Neil Bush had made the reference to large contributions from the Hinckleys, Teeley responded, "I don't have the vaguest idea. We've gone through our files, and we have absolutely no information that he or anybody in the family were contributors, supporters, or anything (Tarpley and Chaitkin 370-3).”

It isn't known how many newspapers chose to print the AP dispatch that carried the Houston Post story, but it would appear that even the Washington Post didn't. Nor did the electronic media. Once the Cabinet had decided there was no conspiracy, all such facts were irrelevant anyway. There is no record of Neil, George W., or Vice-President George Bush ever being questioned by the FBI or appearing before a Grand Jury or Congressional investigating committee regarding the contacts described. (Tarpley and Chaitkin 370-3).

According to Barbara Honnegar, there are reports that President Reagan, at his first White House National Security Council meeting on January 21, l98l ordered his National Security advisor, Richard Allen, to tell Iran that "the deal's off " unless American citizen Cynthia Dwyer was freed in Iran. This "deal" reportedly involved a secret promise of U.S. arms. Authorization for the Israelis to ship weapons to the Khomeini regime was not given until after Mrs. Dwyer was released in February, a month after Reagan's inauguration (Honnegar 242-6).

Also according to Honnegar, as in the case of the assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme, this threat of a delay in a promised shipment of U.S. arms to Iran (President Reagan's threat to call the "deal" off) may have triggered the shooting. (ibid). Honnegar refers to an article in the Investigative Reporter by columnist Jack Anderson that allegedly revealed assassin John Hinckley to be associated with a US-based faction of the Khomeini-loyal Islamic Guerrilla Army. Anderson's informant, former Islamic Guerrilla Army member Tony Rollini told the Secret Service two months before the shooting and only about ten days after Reagan's inauguration, that Hinckley was planning to kill the president, and had been arrested in Nashville, Tennessee, for illegally possessing firearms. (Honnegar 242-6).

Honnegar adds: "According to senior White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, the Secret Service agents who accompanied President Reagan as he approached his waiting limousine outside the Washington Hilton Hotel on the morning of March 30, l98l, were not in their usual tight formation around the Commander-In-Chief. During the time that President Reagan was under anesthesia for treatment of the wounds he had received in the assassination attempt, a decision was made not to invoke the 25th Amendment of the Constitution, which would have made Vice-president George Bush Acting President (Honnegar 242-6).”

Honnegar notes that this is curious in light of the fact that the opposite decision was reached four years later when Reagan was in far better condition during his surgery for and recuperation from colon cancer. (ibid). On July l3, l985, George Bush did become Acting President of the United States (ibid). Honnegar then goes on to note, "The Vice-president was in Austin long enough to take Governor Bill Clements, who had purchased President John F. Kennedy's West Virginia estate where Reagan had stayed during the l980 election, on board (ibid).” She then notes, as had Tarpley and Chaitkin, that the Hyatt Regency Hotel, the former Hotel Texas, where Bush had just given a speech, was the hotel where President John F. Kennedy had stayed the night before his assassination and that, the night of the attempt on Reagan's life, Bush's son, Neil, had a scheduled dinner appointment with the would-be assassin's brother (ibid).

Tarpley and Chaitkin detail how, in the aftermath of the shooting, Bush's henchmen proceeded to give Reagan misleading information about what Haig was about. They say the "I'm in control here" story on Haig was made into the leitmotif for his sacking and that Reagan's autobiography gives an idea of what Bush arranged to tell Reagan about what went on during his absence. "On the day I was shot, George Bush was out of town, and Haig immediately came into the White House and claimed he was in charge of the country (Tarpley and Chaitkin 352).”

It was a preposterous situation, seemingly made even more humorous and preposterous response by Alexander Haig. We've seen that Haig had a similar background as former National Security Advisor to Nixon and Ford that Zbigniew Brzezinski had when he had been given powerful succession-type powers during the Carter years. So, Haig had even more experience in the military and also as NSA head. Now as Secretary of State sensing unstated animosity between Nixon-hating Reagan and Nixon friend Bush, Haig felt that he should be higher up the scale of succession.

But was there an even more powerful reason Haig behaved in such an erratic manner that day? When he made the "I'm in control here" TV appearance, there was possibly a book or manuscript floating around that is no longer extant. The best way to describe it, is to quote a letter I wrote to someone whom I felt might know more about it.

Ben Franklin Booksellers

107 South King Street

Leesburg, Virginia 22075

Dear Publishers:

I am writing to ask your assistance in locating a book. I don't have a title or author, but I wonder if you might be the publisher: I do have a topic or description of the book. Some time around l980, I was listening to my car radio, in theHouston area (as I was a Houston resident at the time). I believe this may have been in the late summer or early fall, as I believe I heard the word "candidate."

As I listened, I heard a radio commercial for a book. The book alleged that the "vice-presidential candidate " did, in fact, land his plane on a Japanese-held island, deliver a message or document to the Japanese (perhaps for Standard Oil?); that he then arranged to be returned to his ship; and that he subsequently delivered additional messages or materials to the Japanese (this, during World War 2).

In reading. . .I have been struck by how much "circumstantial evidence " there is that Mr. Bush did, in fact, defect to Japan during World War II.

In fact, The Unauthorized Biography dances all around saying this;and, since you (and the LaRouche organization) are referred to in that book, I thought that perhaps someone in the LaRouche movement might have authored the book in question, sometime around l980, and that you might have published it.

I would appreciate any "light " you could shed on this subject, and/or any other information you might have (such as other publishers you might work closely with or be aware of who might have published this, or any authors who might have authored such a work).

It might also be helpful to have a list of books you have published. (I enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope).

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely yours,

Max C. Standridge

After this letter to Ben Franklin Publishers got no response, I called them on the phone. Their representative referred me to America West, the publishers of The Immaculate Deception. I thought at the time that this was an intriguing connection. Why would LaRouche--for all his extremist views a constant, consistent critic and opponent of George Bush and his family even before Bush's presidential aspirations and an expert on many of the "hidden" aspects of Bush and his family--have referred me to Bowen's book? The Ben Franklin staff also informed me that the Unauthorized Biography of George Bush had just recently gone out of print. (Though I am happy to report that it can be accessed online: Go to The Unauthorized Biography of George Bushonline).

I then contacted America West and received their catalog in the mail. The catalog includes an advertisement for The Immaculate Deception. It is a very interesting ad and may say worlds about what Bowen 's original text had stated. One powerful hint that this is the case is that The Immaculate Deception ad has the word TREASON in bold letters. Yet, Bowen doesn't use this word in the text itself, except in connection with Bush 's father.

However, he does make the rather cryptic statement, "Standard 's dealings with the Axis continued to the end of World War 2 (Bowen 2-4).” It is interesting that Bowen chooses to leave it to other authors--such as Charles Higham in Trading With the Enemy: The Nazi-American Money Plot, 1933-1947. New York: Delacorte, 1983.)--to detail the manner in which Standard Oil continued to betray its mother country during WW2, and how it was ultimately prosecuted and found guilty of violating the Trading With the Enemy Act. Interestingly, too, Higham, for all his powerful passages, never specifically points to this fact, which is incontrovertible: Standard Oil did violate the Trading With the Enemy Act, not only before, but right up to the end, of WW2.

There would thus seem to be a gap in what Bowen had originally intended to say in this regard and what he now said. His book's advertising really plays up the treason angle. And his subsequent cryptic statement--without even a reference to Higham, even though Higham does reinforce his statement as fact--suggests he had some material of his own that he was originally going to detail in this connection, but which he ultimately was forced to delete from a possible Edition Two of his book.

On top of this, I kept thinking of how the phonetic pronunciation of the book's title sounded so much like the sounds of the title I'd heard advertised on the radio that day in Houston in 1980: "ack--oold--elld." "Black gold," or "Black knight,"--or, "Immaculate Deception."

In any case, in conversing with America West on the phone some months later vis a vis Bowen, I mentioned that I'd like to drop him a line, per his suggestion in his book's Introduction. Where might I reach him? "General Bowen," America West's spokesman informed me, "is now in hiding in South America. He has told us not to refer any inquiries to him for now." Why? "Mr. Bowen is under a death threat from person's presently or formerly in the CIA." That was in 1999. I've had no further word on Gen. Bowen since then, though I've often feared for his well being.

But could a book that had been advertised in the mass media have completely disappeared from virtually all evidence of existence? This wouldn't be the first time this had happened, it turns out:

"Again and again in the course of the following pages we will see stories embarrassing to George Bush refused publication, documents embarrassing to Bush suspiciously disappear, and witnesses inculpatory to Bush overtaken by mysterious and conveniently timed deaths . . . (Tarpley and Chaitkin 2-7).”

There are several instances of this suppression of published "unauthorized" material about George Bush. For example, a novel called Sarkhan was suppressed in 1965, as described in It's A Conspiracy! Volume One, by Michael Litchfield and the “National Insecurity Council” (Berkeley, Cal: Earthworks, 1991. 102-5):

"In the early l960 's, The Ugly American, a controversial novel written by William Lederer and Eugene Burdick, shot to the top of the bestseller lists. In l963, it was made into a movie starring Marlon Brando. Then, in l965, co-authors Lederer and Burdick published their next work, a novel called Sarkhan (Litchfield 102-5).

"The Ugly American, first published in the fall of 1958, had become a great success when it became public that the U.S. government had tried to suppress the sale of that book in foreign countries. Later, when the book was being made into a movie, the government once more attempted to abort the growing popularity of the book. The Agency for International Development sent "Asian experts" to persuade the movie producer that some things in the book were impossible (Litchfield 102-5)."

This is an interesting additional activity by AID, an agency we recall had interesting connections to John Hinckley, sr., father of the would-be assassin of Ronald Reagan. The long-time connection between the State Department and the CIA, and, through them, the unofficial connection to AID, shows that the same persons may have been involved in the suppression of Sarkhan as were involved in associating with John Hinckley's father. If George Bush has the ties to the CIA and/or the OSS that some authors, notably Barbara Honnegar, seem to think, one of those persons may have been George Bush (Honnegar 229-45).

When first published in the fall of l965, Sarkhan seemed as if it would be a tremendous success. There were advance orders of several tens of thousands in the bookstores. Sarkhan was the choice of the Reader's Digest Book Club. However, strange things began happening even before books were available in the stores (Litchfield 102-5).

It was, for example, reviewed in Time several days before it appeared on the bookshelves for sale (Litchfield 102-5). That Time review seemed done to discredit the book, without reviewing the contents or grading the book's quality. It was extremely off-center. The authors wondered whether the Time reviewer had even read the book and were sufficiently curious about it to ask an old friend who was an editor at Time. He told them that about a month before the review, two men from Washington called on the publisher and told them that it was “against the interest of the United States that <.em>Sarkhan be a success (Litchfield 102-5).”

Shortly after the publication date, William Lederer, one of the authors, was scheduled to be on a TV show in New York. On the way to the studio, he stopped at a Brentano's bookstore and saw two large stacks of Sarkhan on display. From the store he went to the studio. After the broadcast he returned to Brentano's to buy a copy. The two big stacks of Sarkhan were no longer there, however. He knew it was improbable that so many books had been sold so quickly. He then asked the clerk for a copy, but she couldn't find one, though she said there were a lot of them in front that morning. She looked around the store but in a few minutes returned and told Lederer they'd received a phone call and all the books had been sent back (Litchfield 102-5).

In addition, previously the authors had received vigorous interest from. Hollywood. Then that interest stopped. A studio executive told the authors that Washington had called the studio and informed them that if Sarkhan were made into a movie, they might have problems in obtaining their export licenses. As a result of all this, Sarkhan's sales dried up and the book went out of print. . .for more than a decade. Some years later, a CIA source told the authors that the plot of Sarkhan was "almost a blueprint of an Agency operation in Thailand." The CIA assumed the authors had somehow gotten classified documents, so had suppressed the book for that reason.

But there may also have been another reason. The CIA often implements State Department. policy and State wasn't pleased by the earlier Ugly American. Not until l977, long after the Vietnam War had ended, was Sarkhan reissued as The Deceptive American (Litchfield 102-5).

Still another example of Bush's efforts to manipulate and control the media and its access to and release of pertinent information is detailed by Russell Bowen, who describes how documents obtained by reporter David Martin revealed that former CIA head Richard Helms had lied to the Congress about the CIA's ever having had contact with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the shooting of JFK. According to the documents obtained by Martin, CIA had discussed internally whether to interview Oswald for possible intelligence service employment. George Bush, concerned that the exposure of this lie by Helms to the Congress might be harmful if it reached the media, arranged to have the story squelched. Even though Martin's story had been accepted by the AP to be published, Bush and his assistants managed to intervene and pressure the news outlet not to publish the story on the grounds that it was "sloppily done," a diplomatic way of asking the media not to print the story for national security reasons. (Bowen 55-6)

In truth, the only "national security" issue raised by the story was whether presidents of the United States are safe from CIA involvement with persons who assassinate them. And it was George Bush, who is left-handed, who tried to bottle up this story. Interestingly, some JFK conspiracy theorists (as described in Litchfield'sIt's A Conspiracy! ) have noted that whoever fired the rifle that killed JFK--the one found at the Texas School Book Depository--had been left-handed. Oswald was right-handed.

JFK's administration was responsible for closing down the classified status of many ships logs from World War II. JFK also fired Allen Dulles as head of the CIA. It could be that this combination of events was too big a threat for George Bush. Perhaps he, Dulles and Standard Oil and its petrochemical conglomerates were too threatened by the potential declassification of Bush's carrier's log from World War II to allow this to happen right away. Certain documents had to be altered or eliminated.

Intriguingly, after JFK's death, Bush's small carrier's log did remain classified until the 1980's, when Reagan and Bush were in the White House. Attempts to declassify it met with failure. The administration of Lyndon Johnson, sympathetic to the interests of Big Oil, made no attempt to do so. The only "open" administration subsequent to Johnson was the Democratic administration of Jimmy Carter. But Carter made many enemies at the CIA with his plans to shut down many agency functions and his getting rid of a number of agents. I can recall from watching TV at the time that Carter also was cooperating with the Congress in re-investigating the assassination of JFK.

In an interesting coincidence of timing, Congress became subject to a series of bogus investigations by 1980, paralyzing many members from further investigation of the JFK assassination. This also had the effect of making it easier for the Reagan-Bush controlled GOP to take over the Senate in the 1980 elections, shutting down forever the JFK re-investigation. Important witnesses were also killed under suspicious circumstances during this period of time.

As a result of Big Oil's manipulation of petroleum and gasoline prices, inflation soared in Carter's last year in office, forcing him on the political defensive and preventing he and the Democratic congress from pursuing other matters such as the JFK investigation and the investigation of the content of previously classified World War II warship logs.

Another example of Bush's power over the media and publishing is found in Pete Brewton's investigative book, The Mafia, CIA and George Bush (New York: SPI/Shapolsky, 1992). Brewton is a mainstream news reporter working for the Houston Post. Yet he found it almost impossible to publish his columns revealing Bush's S&L wheeling and dealing. He details how, having decided to publish his exposé about the illegal activities of Bush, he was contacted by Simon and Schuster about possible publication. He agreed to their terms, but began to have difficulty getting them to follow up on his request for publication prior to the 1992 election. As a result, he was finally forced to change publishers, as it became clear that Simon and Schuster was determined not to publish his book before the 1992 presidential election.

Brewton subsequently learned that Simon and Schuster is literally run by George Bush. Bush's top campaign advisor and assistant, Hugh Liedtke, is a controlling partner in Simon and Schuster's parent company, Paramount. This explains the determination not to publish before the presidential election (Brewton 370-9).

Brewton also discovered that Bush had gained a powerful influence even over the Houston Post's law firm, which Bush's business associate Walter Mischer had hired out, along with every other law firm west of the Mississippi. His reason? The more law firms worked for him, the fewer could work against him: there would always be a conflict of interest. As Brewton noted, as a result of all these machinations by Bush, it was a "miracle" that any investigative reporting about Bush appeared in the Houston Post (370-9).

Russell Bowen gives us yet another example of attempts to suppress news not complimentary to Bush: "On Friday, May 27, l983, the Tico Times of San Jose, Costa Rica, under the headline, U.S. BEATING VICTIM BACK IN TEXAS, reported that Mark Clark, 'The U.S. tourist who was mugged on a Gulfito Street, then apparently falsely accused of murdering a Civil Guard, viciously beaten by a group of police in the middle of the street, and held in jail for a week, is home in Houston, Texas, sore and bitter.' Many serious questions still linger about this event eight years later, but to my knowledge there has never been any further investigation into the mugging, beating, and escape of Clark from Costa Rica. Since Clark's escape, private individuals attempting to reconstruct details of the event have been told by employees of the Tico Times . . .that the newspaper office burned down and the original issues were lost in the fire. The replacement issues with which they were provided carried a completely different story in the section previously containing the Clark escape story by Linda Frazier. . .She was one of the eight journalists and contras killed in the bombing of a press conference held almost exactly one year later by Eden Pastora, the dissident former Sandinista hero at La Penca, Nicaragua to denounce the CIA 's role in the Contra war. Is it possible that the La Penca bombing, which specifically targeted journalists, was also planned to eliminate Linda Frazier?” (Bowen 123-8).

It's interesting that so many of these instances seem to center on Houston, Bush 's home town. I'd like to interject a personal experience I had while a resident of Houston in the '80 's.

The Pacifica Radio Network maintains a station in Houston which goes by the call letters, KPFT. During the years I lived there, KPFT presented a great deal of left-leaning programming not at all friendly to the big oil interests there. An interesting event occurred at KPFT a couple of years into the Reagan/Bush Presidency: the station was blown up. That 's right: blown up. As of the last time I checked, in the late eighties, it had still not been determined who the culprit was, nor was any further police investigation being planned.

I remember being a subscriber to KPFT for periods of time in the '80 's in Houston. I also remember my relief when it returned to the air, although I had tried to keep from thinking too much about it back then. After all, what could have been done? How much could one do when Big Oil, including Standard Oil, was so clearly running the show in the Houston area during the Reagan/Bush ‘80s?

I don't want to impugn the integrity of former President Bush's wife, Barbara. To my knowledge, she has never done anything illegal. She was an active participant in a worthwhile organization called National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse, of which I have been a member at various times in my life. It is a laudable and noble charity. However, although Barbara has not herself participated in anything illegal, I believe that she has been used by those who would and have done so. I believe she was used to promote Bush and his family financially--and in more sinister ways. Russell Bowen notes that, after leaving the Navy in l946, Bush contracted his "corporate merger marriage" to Barbara. These, he says, were popular in the l940's and '50's.

Then, powerful groups intermarried for power more than for any other reason. George Bush married Barbara Pierce, Smith College educated daughter of publisher Marvin Pierce of McCall's Magazine. (Bowen 16-17). This "merger marriage" gave Bush, through Barbara's family, ownership, strong influence or virtual control over many major eastern glossy magazines, such as McCall's, Redbook, Cosmopolitan, Lady's Home Journal, Mademoiselle and a host of others. These are all often interconnected through editorial staff sharings, common board members, advertisers and linked story sources. Several control book publishing companies, advertising firms and even major chain bookstores. Thus, as the result of Bush's marriage to Barbara, many of his connections got powerful media and publishing positions or positioned to make the airing of embarrassing data much more difficult. Clearly, then, books can disappear from the bookstore shelves. Newspapers can burn down. Law firms can be hired out. Radio stations can blow up. And publishers of magazines and books can be owned.

Fred Haobsch, former CIA operative, described to the ABC News Nightline program and in Friedman's Spider's Web, (176-84, 260-6), how former CIA operatives find it exceedingly hard to retire. They are frequently terrorized by Agency operatives as a way of pressuring them to return to employment with the Agency (Friedman 176-84; 260-6).

It could be that Bowen met a similar fate. By 1981, Bowen says in his autobiography in the front of The Immaculate Deception, he was already initially interested in writing about the CIA (vi). He may have been terrorized as Haobsch subsequently was, until he agreed to return to or remain with the Agency. At that point, as an Agency employee, he'd have then been forced to turn over to his boss, George Bush, any written material he had about Bush's secret activities, including those of World War II.

These written materials, I believe, possibly constituted a first edition of his book The Immaculate Deception. In the cold of January 1981, that first edition was about to appear in print, just as Reagan and Bush were being sworn into the White House. In fact, the mere existence of that manuscript may have been a major motivator of the campaign of that previous fall.

As the weather warmed and Reagan took the reins, Bush must have realized that an unpredictable Irishman was at the helm--a former liberal Democrat and member of the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League, who had been virtually blackmailed into becoming a Republican by the threat of the blacklist. Reagan was a dangerous man to let read Bowen's charge of treason against him in World War II. Reagan might even ask him to step down, rather than cover up the charge. Bush may have stared and stared at that initial manuscript of CIA agent Bowen.

Alexander Haig may have also been looking at that initial copy of Bowen's book when he became concerned about the ability of George Bush to become Vice-President of the United States. He may have been concerned, in light of the book's then very recent revelations, that Bush would be arrested before he could be sworn into office as Vice-President of the United States.

It's certainly clear that Haig was looking at books and data from another CIA whistle blower left over from the Carter years, Philip Agee. Agee had been blowing the whistle for the past couple of years of the Carter Administration, had written and published two books on the subject and had been a target of Carter's own efforts at silencing. Carter had brought suit to prevent Agee's getting a passport as a way of limiting and/or punishing him for his CIA whistleblower activities. Haig, in support of Carter, had agreed to act as his stand-in at the NSA in the aftermath of the Carter Administration, during the first year of the Reagan Administration.

It may be that Agee wasn't the only whistleblower at CIA during this time, perhaps not even the original one. Perhaps he was only following General Bowen's act. Or maybe he inspired Bowen. Either way, it begins to look like neither of these men was working in a vacuum. And certainly Haig was most amenable to shoring up any damage caused by these leaks of "national security" information.

His method of doing this may have been the "I'm in control here" statement, made at a time when Reagan, though just having been shot, had not yet decided which of the two "initiatives," Haig's or Bush's, to sign off on. If he had signed off on Haig's, then the emergency succession powers traditionally delegated by the Constitution would have been altered to allow the Secretary of State to become Acting President in charge of National Security Affairs (essentially the Red Phone or "hot line" between Washington, DC and the Kremlin), something which had to be attended to constantly, until the official swearing in of the Vice-President.

If Reagan had signed off on Haig's initiative, he had increased Haig's powers enormously. He'd also have refused to go along with the new increases in Bush's powers unofficially delegated by the Cabinet earlier that same month.

Thus, there may have been a secret but important crisis of succession to power just at the moment when Reagan was shot. And the lack of clear information as to who was "in control here" due to Reagan's not having signed off on either initiative at that point, kept both Bush and Haig in a state of limbo. It was this state of limbo which Haig may have been attempting to address in his claim to be "in control here." But it's pretty clear he wasn't. George Bush was.

Works Cited:

Bowen, Brig. Gen. Russell S. (ret.). The Immaculate Deception: The Bush Crime Family Exposed. Carson City, NV: America West, 1991. vi, 55-6, 123-8

Brewton, Pete. The Mafia, CIA and George Bush. New York: SPI/Shapolsky,1992. 370-9.

Colodny, Len, and Robert Gettlin. Silent Coup: The Removal of a President. New York: Bantam, 1993. 27, 197-203, 420-440

Friedman, Alan.Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq. New York: Bantam, 1993. 176-84, 260-6

Higham, Charles. Trading With the Enemy: An Exposé of the Nazi-American Money Plot, 1933-1947. New York: Delacorte, 1983. 39-42 Honnegar, Barbara. October Surprise. New York: Tudor, 1989. 177-200, 229-45

Litchfield, Michael and the "National Insecurity Council." It's A Conspiracy, Volume One .Berkeley, Cal: Earthworks, 1991. 102-5

Loftus, John and Mark Aarons. The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People. New York: St. Martin's, 1994. 407-11, 420-1 Sick, Gary. October Surprise. New York:. Houghton-Mifflin, 1992. 27, 197-203

Simpson , Christopher. Blowback: America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War. New York: Delacorte, 1988. 150-79ff

Tarpley, Webster Griffin, and Anton Chaitkin. The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush. New York: Executive Intelligence Review/Ben Franklin, 1991. 2-7, 350-70, 366-87, 583

Go back to The George Bush-Undercurrents Website