Update on interesting photos of Bush: from Lyle Courtsal's website:

Since posting this website, I've found the following interesting blips about George Bush on a website titled "dopewar," by Lyle Courtsal:

Go to Lyle Courtsal's "Dopewar" website

"...The Good Ole' Guns and Drug War, Law 'n Order Madness Page !!....

"Keep on going...down the page

just a little bit more....."

[Here, I've taken the liberty of re-creating an empty space, to help the reader envisage what is to follow--Max Standridge]:

______________________________________________

|





|_______________________________________________|

"I had this really great picture ^ of George H. W. Bush wrapped in the swastika [emphasis added] that someone gave me during the 80's, but someone stole it out of my room recently. If someone has it, please send it to me and I'll be eternally grateful."

Needless to say, for the purposes of this website, this comment and information or claim by Lyle Courtsal, who maintains this website, (address below) was stunning! Here is possible further proof of a Bush-Nazi connection. Perhaps he got the swastika in question from one of those Nazi-flag-flying Standard Oil tankers of World War II. (See Charles Higham, Trading With the Enemy, which will be cited frequently in my books listed on this website, for more on this.) I've decided to add a few more excerpts from Mr. Courtsal's website. Please note that not everything Courtsal says, or even his general "drift", is being endorsed by me in doing so. Nevertheless, there are bits and pieces of some interest here, that deserve to be followed up:

"...The CIA is. . .sophisticated and dangerous. . .acting. . . to facilitate large-scale criminal activities such as insurance and bank scams, large-scale counterfeiting, smuggling, mass slaughter, economic deprivation, gun-running, drug-running, real estate scams, etc, to finance fascist revolution/conversions in cooperation with large sectors of the international corporate financial infrastructure. These criminal interactions can be considered the greatest threat to the integrity of constitutional democracy. . . ."

"I've been following two investigations; one detailed in New York Times June 5, 1996 on the brother of the Mexican President Raul Salinas de Gortari, and the other dated June 12, 1996 which deals with drug trafficking and money laundering networks in Panama. These investigations are most of the un-investigated portions of the Iran-Contra networks. Cocaine and heroin running were the major revenue generators for those operations and also created the drug/crime problem which hurt and killed so many people during the 80's and before, and which set this country's political economic life back decades. Cocaine consumption increased in the US from 46 tons/yr. in 1980 to 260 tons/yr. in 1986 to 300 tons/yr. in 1992 according to DEA/NNICC statistics with similar proportionate upward trends in heroin consumption as well. Seattle Times May 15, 1996: 'US Forced to Admit Cocaine Supply into Country not Reduced.' . . .High Times talks about our new drug Czar former general Brian McCaffrey as being just one more "anti-communist" wacko like John Singlaub, who worked with the World Anti-Communist League, which was involved in a central coordinating role in the Iran-Contra networks. McCaffrey was involved in the Panama invasion as well.

"The pattern of mis-attribution and obfuscation which blamed Raul Salinas de Gortari is similar to another time when Bush scammed off the Mexican government in 1960-1966; the Mexican player goes down for ten years and Bush gets away clean with a large chunk of the Mexican treasury. This is detailed in Barron's newspaper September 19, 1988: 'The Mexican Connection: A Look at an old George Bush Business Venture'. Bush played a central organizing role in the Iran-Contra operations which coordinated drug running operations in southeast and Southwest Asia as well as South America. This back channel managerial apparat is detailed in an article in Covert Action Quarterly #31 fall 1992 'What Vice-President George Bush Knew and Why He Knew It' by Anthony Kimery. More recently, Bush was paid a fee in the six figures. . . to go to [Asia] and get banking stuff together ... (Seattle Times, July 25, 1996 final, p. A1). While he was there, he and Barbara appeared at a convention called the global family festival put on by a Moonie front group called the Women's Federation for World Peace (Seattle Times, Sept. 15, 1996 final p.A21).

"The Moon organizations also support the initiatives and work of the World Anti-Communist League through CAUSA and directly by supporting it's members in working with the league; both groups were closely involved in organizing and supporting the Iran-Contra operations.... More info. can be found in Covert Action Quarterly #'s 20,pp.38,39; 21,pp.36,38; 22,pp.31-33; 24,pp.34-35; 25,pp.18,19; 27,pp.36-46; 29; and in two books, Moonstruck by Allen Wood and Gifts of Deceit..."

[Find full citations for these 2 books in the Updated Annotated Bibliography file at "Go to" link in Table of Contents for Tim, George Bush and Me in this website--Max Standridge]

"Finally there is the article in Covert Action Quarterly # 41 'George Bush and the CIA: In the Company of Friends' which details both the extensive CIA operations which Bush played a central organizing and financing role in during the 60's ... Bush is closely associated with Theodore Shackley who played an important role designing and organizing the phoenix and the Iran-Contra operations. . .A radiological study done. . . in 1996 confirms. . .account[s] of Kennedy's cadaver being messed with between Texas and Washington D.C. . . [The reader will please note here that this doesn't mean I'm a JFK "conspiracist"--I simply seek the truth. There is still powerful evidence--especially the only available acoustics evidence (drawn, admittedly, from twice-copied Dallas police tapes of their radios)-- suggesting no "extra" shots (above Oswald's three) were fired.--mcs]For more specific information on Iran-Contra drug running operations, talk to the people who headed up the Christic Institute....

"This work is protected by copyright; you may share it either in paper or data form; it may also be sold on a non-profit basis only (to cover the costs of reproduction and distribution). It is copywritten to prevent any alterations or omissions of content. Servers. sysops, and other information providers will not be held accountable for alterations of content which occur due to other individuals' maliciousness. This work composes the bibliography for an forthcoming book, The Politics of Violence; The Liberation of Empowerment: US Drug Prohibitions in Cultural Perspective. So now you have it, please pass it on....

"Copyright; all rights reserved: Oct.12,1994, May 12, 1996 Lyle Courtsal write the author c/o People's Multi-service Systems, 2442 NW Market St.#108, Seattle, WA 98107, phone...(206)898-2882 pcs-vcml. Lv. msg., or e-mail dopewar@speakeasy.org."

Lyle Courtsal's "Dopewar" website is: http://www.dopewar.org

UPDATE!Yet another source website has disappeared. To prove it ever actually existed, I invite you to do a Search Engine for "Dopewar website". You'll get a Site with this address: http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id217/pg1/ At that Site, you'll find this descriptive reference to Lyle Courtsal's Site:

" The Good Ole' Guns and Drug War, Law 'n Order Madness Page !!

"Basically a very detailed bibliography on psychological warfare; authoritarian institutions; social and individual engineering; propaganda and other topics. For those interested in Wilhelm Reich's writings, there is plenty of further invaluable material here for you to discover."

He then includes this link:

http:// www.speakeasy.org/~dopewar

which is also the website address Courtsal himself gave to the Site in a 1998 e-mail to a listserv re an article in a Seattle paper here. In 2006, another was here. A Site refers to him on this page, too.

Bottom line: links to Courtsal's site no longer work. However, Netscape Search produces a series of blogs by Courtsal.

Given the disappearance of the photo above, the various disappearances, deaths and imprisonments of various parties in this whole general area, we perhaps shouldn't be surprised at yet another.

Nevertheless, because "everyone" is always such a skeptic about all of this, I'll continue to try to find this man's website again.

Latest on Leo Nadeau's credibility

I've continued to find interesting new contradictions between Leo Nadeau's account of events on June 19, 1944, and those of other young pilots and other airmen who were involved in the Battle of the Philippines Sea that day. I have been cross-referencing between Edwin P. Hoyt, Joe Hyams and Stinnett in their various accounts. Hyams and Stinnett based much of their accounts of events involving Bush and crew on Leo Nadeau. But Hoyt, basing his on data such as that of the US Naval and Marine records, and accounts such as those of Crowl, to whom I referred earlier,(and see my detailed references to him in my chapters "How It Came to Be Called the 'Marianas Turkey Shoot'" and "Tojo Out" in Tim, George Bush and Me on this website) is citing reports from numerous other young pilots.

Again, the time-frame we're looking at here, is a relatively limited one: the period of from around 10 a.m, until a little after 1 pm on 6/19/44.

First, we refer to Hoyt's official account:

"Just after ten o'clock, the radar operators saw Admiral Osawa's strike force coming, 150 miles west of them. [Admiral] Mitscher had less than half an hour to prepare. He called in all the fighters that had been vectored out on search and combat missions [this includes planes that had been sent at dawn, and arrived at 8 am to strafe and begin bombing Guam] and ordered the carriers to launch all available fighter planes. At 10:20, they were launching [Please note the time length here: twenty minutes. That is how long it took to receive the order, then turn the ships "into the wind" so that planes could take off from the decks and from the catapults--mcs] as the Japanese arrived. [That is, the Japanese arrived at about 10:20 am--mcs]. But the Japanese, instead of boring in to take advantage of shock and surprise, began to circle and regroup as they came in sight of the carriers. This delay gave the carriers time to get all the bombers off the decks and to launch more fighters and for the American fighters in the air to prepare. [--my emphasis added--Max Standridge].

"Aboard the Bunker Hill, word came to launch fighters and Lt. Cmdr. R.W. Hoel led a dozen F6F's into the air. . ." (Hoyt 150)...."

Clearly, in the context of this, Hoyt is citing the Bunker Hill as a "typical" carrier of that moment in time: about the same time frame applied to all the carriers involved.

Pausing just a moment, I reflect again on this odd behavior of the Japanese aircraft. Both branches of the Japanese air, land and sea, were ordered to do this orbiting maneuver. Please note that there was no military advantage at all to the Japanese in doing so. And clearly this maneuver was ordered by someone in the Japanese government, since it involved both branches simultaneously.

Hoyt (152) also tells us:

"...[By] 11:00 the first raid had broken up."

OK, so far, so good; but now Hoyt gives us an account of the experience of Lt. David McCampbell of an air group from the USS Essex (Hoyt 152-3). Shortly after 11, as the second wave of Japanese planes were hitting the US carriers, and while Nadeau (as I will show below) is still asserting that Bush and crew were still on the carrier, McCampbell is tangling with Japanese planes. His guns begin to jam, and he succeeds in shooting down another plane, but is then forced to

"head back to his carrier (Hoyt 153)....".

This conflicts with Nadeau's account today that appears in Stinnett. According to the current Bush-Nadeau account, even though it was well after 11 before they were allowed to take off (and even though Hoyt suggests on 150 above that Mitscher had ordered all bombers off by 10:20), they, once determining they had trouble, made two passes by their carrier the San Jacinto, and were waved off by the flagman, and not allowed to land (Hyams 83).

McCampbell's story in Hoyt above, suggests this isn't completely accurate: that planes were, indeed, being allowed land back on their carriers after 11:00. Nadeau admits in Stinnett (73) that the order they had was to "clear the decks of the San Jacinto", reinforcing the impression from Hoyt that Mitscher's order to "get the bombers off the decks" did, indeed, mean launching them.

According to Hyams (83), before Bush ever took off:

"He [Bush] listened intently [to the plane's engine to make certain it was running properly, so that when he revved up he would have full throttle (power) Something seemed wrong to him, and he looked down at his instruments and discovered that he had little oil pressure. Bush signaled the launch officer to abort the launch, but it was too late: the deck had to be cleared. As the bomb-laden Avenger was catapulted into the air, the engine sputtered.

"Bush flew for awhile and then realized the plane was in real trouble...(Hyams 83)."

Again, the difference between Hyams and Stinnett here is interesting. According to Stinnett's quoted account, Bush put the plane into a climb at this point in time. Yet Hyams's account suggests the plane was already in such bad shape it couldn't do so--in fact, it was sputtering and could hardly fly at all (Hyams 83). In a caption under a photo of shrapnel in the air, and in his account from Nadeau and Bush, Stinnett says the plane sucked that shrapnel into its oil lines and that was why it began to malfunction. Up until then, however, Bush had even put the plane into a climb. (Stinnett 73-7).

In any case, the time frame Nadeau gives for when they were ordered to launch, doesn't closely enough fit the official account. According to Hoyt above, they were ordered to take off shortly after 10:20. Yet according to Nadeau today, take off time was "1157 hours (Stinnett 73)." Over an hour later. That doesn't make sense from the standpoint of the Japanese orbit maneuver described above. The bombers were ordered off deck, into the air, by Admiral Mitscher himself, in order not to be caught on deck by Japanese raider planes. An order for them to remain on deck a full hour or more later, would have been insubordination. It would have defeated the purpose of the emergency takeoff itself.

Now, this does fit the USS San Jacinto's deck log's record as to the take-off time, if one assumes the 1157 time is the correct one. Yet, it's interesting to note that the San Jac's log for June 19, also records individual launches of Avenger TBMs as early as 5:21 a.m., apparently toward Guam for reconnaissance purposes. One other interesting point on this, is that the San Jac's log also notes this in a rare setting:

"0521 launched (2) TBM's." It's interesting to note the use of parenthesis here. I have found no other instances in the San Jac's log of placing the number of aircraft launched within parenthesis. The reference to the "Bush crew" on the CK Bronson's log of June 21, 1944 was "FIT". This was done in reference to their transfer of them to the USS Lexington, an unusual action in itself--as contrasted, for example, with the treatment of Dick Houle's crew, which water-landed in exactly the same location and same situation, exactly 24 hours later: they were eventually sent, not to the Lexington, intelligence hub of the Seventh Fleet, but to back to their home carrier, the San Jac). This "second" reference to the Bush crew is actually longer than the ostensible "first" reference in the Bronson's June 19 log--about which, see more on elsewhere on this website.

In recording the water-landing and pick up of what is interpreted in the official account, the San Jac is clearly confused as to what ship picked up Bush's crew:

"1157 launched 2 TBM aircraft. . .1302 TBM aircraft serial #25123, piloted by Ens. G.H.W. Bush, with Nadeau, L.W. AOM2c, and Delaney, J.L., ARM3c, as aircrewmen made forced landing in water off starboard bow, plane sank, crew was recovered by destroyer. . ."

Exactly 24 hours later, the water-landing and recovering of Houle's plane and crew in the same situation and location is described in the San Jac's log:

"1115 Commenced maneuvering to take station for launching method Baker. 1155 launched last of 4 VF for CAP. . .heading into wind for flight operations. . .1211-1215 Lnched 8 F6Fs for search. 1217-1223 Recovered 4 F6F's for CAP #2, 4 TBM's from ASP #2. . .1451-1455 launched 4 F6F's for CAP #4. 1455 while attempting deck launching, TBM #1 was lost in water; pilot, RR Houle, USNR and crewmen Mintus, W.F., RM3c, USNR, and Bynam, CY, AMM3c, USN, were rescued by the USS Healy. . .".

Please note that this account would have been drawn from the Healy's deck log--which might be suspected of being "dated ahead", with the date at the top of its deck log pages reflecting the date on which the events recorded ended rather than the dates on which they began, as was usually the case with ships' deck logs. See "Permission to Date Ahead" elsewhere on this website for how this was possible. Please note, too, that, while the San Jac knows the name of the destroyer that picked up Houle off its bow, it doesn't know that of the one that picked up Bush. This could be caused by a confusion of the versions of events due to the Healy's dating system. These records, in other words, could all be referring only to Houle's plane.

This suggests that Nadeau has to be off by a least a few minutes in his account. That would be best explained, if he weren't on the plane that day, but was attempting to re-create the events of the day. That being the case, the account given (by Bush to Nadeau?) could be off by about an hour, without anyone "noticing" on more casual perusal.

It's interesting to note, too, that Bush and crew would have been in the air at least an hour, even by Nadeau's account, before Bush decided there "wasn't time for a landing on the carrier (Stinnett 73)." That also conflicts with Hyams's account, which suggests Bush tried at least once to land back onto the deck of the carrier.

Things like this are important, given the backdrop of all this. If the plane were already malfunctioning before they ever took off, as Hyams's account suggests, Bush definitely didn't decide that there was too little time for a landing back on the carrier, at the last minute. Bush had signaled he didn't think they should take off, in the first place, according to Hyams (83); yet according to Stinnett, Bush and crew seemed rather anxious to launch and were kept waiting ("bak[ing] in the tropical sun") that rather mysterious 45 minutes to an hour before take-off (Stinnett 69). That is, if you can really believe either of these accounts.

UPDATE: I want to reiterate here that much is up in the air about what all this is suggesting, or what happened, or whose credibility is at stake--if anyone's. As I try to mention, and will soon try to describe in more detail, my favorite personal scenario in all of this, is that there is a paranormal dimension possibly involved here, wherein Bush's inner conscience has been "betraying" his conscious efforts to rationalize some things he feels somewhat guilty about. These things may not actually involve any messages to anyone, but may involve both his knowledge aforehand of some of the material about Dulles that investigators have since found, and also his own action over Chi Chi Jima when he decided to bail out. Was he later to feel guilt that his decision to bail out so quickly had been overly influenced by his interest and desire, as a virtual youngster at the time, to fulfill the requirements of the Caterpillar Club--of which he wanted to become a member at that time?

If my thinking on this is halfway correct, Bush's conscience has been the hidden instigator in a whole series of events that resulted in "funny looking" military records, as well as the overall confusion his fellow squadron members were to express vis a vis some of his actions. This may turn out to explain at least part, if not all, of the bizarre things relating to the radio ad and book of 1980. It may even be that Bush's own behavior, with this subconscious guilt dogging him, may have triggered a series of events that caused the "suspicion" about him. In addition, Dulles's and/or Forrestal's efforts to ensure he was in good standing as an OSS rather than regular Navy pilot, may have caused some other odds and ends to appear "different" in Bush's records. He may have been "on tap" in a Dulles/Forrestal scenario involving couriers, that never materialized.

Clearly, planes were being allowed to re-land on their carriers after 11:00, per Hoyt's account of flier McCampbell's experience, cited earlier. And referencing Hoyt's information also suggests to us that, even if we allow that the second Japanese wave of attacking planes, which arrived at about eleven, as the first wave broke up and off (Hoyt 152) was the one being avoided by the San Jacinto's commander, even that second wave had ended by around noon to 12:30 (Hoyt 156-8) as the Japanese carrier Shokaku exploded from a US torpedo hit. That is, it was still in the air over the US fleet--and still a threat the commander would have been anxious to avoid by launching planes--at 12:30. It is unlikely he'd have waited yet another hour to order launches. Yet the current time-frame in the (secondhand?) Nadeau account suggests we tack yet another hour onto the take-off time of Bush's plane. While this seems reinforced by the San Jac's record of "1157" for one TBM launch on June 19, there was also a launch of two TBMs at 521 a.m. referred to above-- the one in the mysterious, unusual parenthesis.

Clearly, too, the plane seemed to have problems before take-off in Hyams, but not in Stinnett. Bush was climbing, etc., in Stinnett's account, with no trouble, whereas in Hyams, from the beginning, he is just trying to land the plane.

Something, therefore is off--in fact, two or three things, in these accounts. We have to go with the accounts of these outside sources, given the lack of credibility already noted as to Nadeau.

The more precise the data, the more firsthand it is, the less credible Nadeau's account appears. Instead of seeming stronger, it seems less credible.

More on McCain's grandfather, Vice-Admiral McCain

We noted earlier (see annotated Works Cited list in the chapter "Disappearing Act: James Forrestal Under Surveillance"), John McCain's grandfather, Vice-Admiral McCain, seems to have been apprised on some level, and apparently opposed or in favor of stronger measures per his superior, Admiral Halsey, to the "mere" reprimand (as opposed to a court martial) of Bush's immediate superior officers due to the mix-up in connection with the Pelelieu photos. The result of that, we may recall, was that the Marine Pelelieu invasion commander, General Rupertus was unable to verify his maps based on Naval photos, so that US forces were unable to make full use of the reconnaissance maps. US casualties on landing and in operations were consequently higher. Stinnett reports this, but in a way that downplays the impact of having to send the photos back up the chain of command, rendering them useless to General Rupertus.

Another instance of Vice-Admiral McCain being "on the scene" during a "mysterious" Bush activity, is seen on June 21, 1944, when, on the same date and day as Bush and his crew are (mysteriously) transferred to the Lexington (instead of their home carrier the San Jacinto), the Vice-Admiral, according to Lexington's log, is transferred to the carrier from the USS Dortch, a destroyer, (the same destroyer, perhaps coincidentally, that was used to transfer Houle and his crew back to the San Jacinto after a stay on the destroyer Healy). This transfer of McCain occurred, according to the Lexington's log, at around 8:58 a.m. Some hours later, according to the USS C K. Bronson's log, Bush and his crew were transferred from that latter destroyer to the Lexington (at around 3:51 in the afternoon).

One must wonder if Admiral McCain didn't notice these two mysterious incidents pertaining to Lt. jg. Bush--first, a mysterious transfer, not to his own carrier, but to the USS Lexington, the intelligence hub of Admiral Mitscher's section of the Seventh Fleet. (McCain's immediate commander was Admiral Halsey, rather than Mitscher.) This transfer of Bush and crew to the Lexington came after what was supposedly only a mere water landing; then, a month later, came the incident in which Bush instigated the "illegal" use of descriptive terms in his report on the Pelelieu photos he'd taken. According to the Naval regulation on the topic, described in Stinnett, this action should have called for a court-martial. Instead, Bush--perhaps in part due to his older brother's upcoming marriage to destroyer fleet commander Rear-Admiral Kaufman's daughter, as well as intervention by Secretary of the Navy Forrestal and OSS Swiss Station Chief Allen Dulles, as well as Assistant Secretary of War for Air Artemis Gates and Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Air Robert Lovett, all of whom had ties to Bush's father and/or Standard Oil-- was untouched and his superior officers were merely reprimanded, rather than court-martialed as Naval regulations called for, with the photos being tied up for days in the process, unusable to the US forces needing to verify reconnaissance photo-based maps. Though the photos didn't come up for need to use for some weeks, the time when Bush did this would still have been in the time-frame of Dulles's attempt to negotiate a settlement of the war with the Axis--that is, the attempt on Hitler's life had not yet failed. The Palau islands, along with North China and the Marianas, was one of the places where US bombers could hit Japan's home islands. Dulles seems to have stopped US bombers from using N. China by getting Chiang to betray his own forces during the Ichigo offensive. And we've seen what may have been some "activity" in the Marianas. Perhaps an attempt to undercut the quality of aerial reconnaisance of Palau prior to the US invasion there was Dulles's other mission for Bush?

So we have another interesting possible "glimpse" of Bush in suspicious or "mysterious" circumstances by Rear-Admiral McCain. Could such data have caused the Admiral to later tell some bits and pieces of his suspicions to his grandson, the now-GOP Presidential hopeful who has apparently been crossed off George W. Bush's list of apparent VP possibles? Could those bits and pieces help explain McCain's resistance to a Bush as another GOP candidate? Perhaps not, but there are certainly a lot of interesting coincidences here, if not. Even though McCain is a clear "plus" to Bush in the polls, Bush apparently is going to run without him on the ticket. And McCain doesn't seem interested in running with Bush, either--reflections, perhaps, of some "undercurrent" in both men's lives. Could that undercurrent cross with this possible undercurrent?

Balkans and Bush: Big Oil, Rudolph Hess and Saddam's Party Marxists (whose website I refer to below) have their own "spin" on the Balkans interventions that I'm not sure I share. However, I am concerned about what may happen as the result of the U.S. military presence in the Balkans. My concern is that it is a "foot in the door" for Big Oil to order "maneuvers" that could have the eventual effect of the US accessing or seizing the vast oil resources of nearby Rumania.

The Rudolf Hess "mission" of early 1941 seems to have tied in with the ties of Big Oil to the Ba'ath Party--Saddam's branch of it--in the Mideast. At that time, we now know (see Loftus and Aarons) that Hess offered anegotiated settlement with Britain that involved Germany gaining ground in Iraq as the result of the then-ongoing coup in Iraq that involved the group of Arabs that eventually came to be Saddam's branch of the Ba'athists. In the event, of course, the coup failed. However, Hess was part of an "unofficial" German effort to negotiate with Britain, and, later in the War, conservatives read into it that it was a passed-up opportunity to have Germany turn on Russia alone and get the West out of the War.

Anyway, those ties to Ba'ath were ongoing for Big Oil--and the Bush family--ever since. That was the key to Bush's "October Surprise." Saddam's invasion of Iran in September, 1980, was the pivotal thing that made Iran need US military parts more. Bush communicated to Iran not only a better deal, but the "stick": his ties to Saddam, which went back, in the shorter term, to January, 1977, when he supplied, as outgoing CIA Director and Ambassador, arms to Saddam's Ba'ath faction (the one that went back to 1941 and the Nazi-Vichy Syria-supported coup plotters in Iraq that included Saddam's uncle). By revealing his connection to Saddam and the way Saddam could become Bush's "war dog", he let Iran know that, if they didn't follow up fast on his better deal, his "stick" would hit even harder, possibly with nuclear weapons; and that, if they cooperated, he'd reveal to them the source of Saddam's weaponry. (As if to confirm this, early in 1981, Israeli planes made a pre-emptive strike against an Iraqi reactor.)

"Carrot and stick" negotiating methods were virtually invented by Henry Kissinger, who was at that time (1980) a close Bush associate. Of course, Big Oil never intended to "follow up" on its promised arms to Israel and Iran, and banished Alexander Haig before he could deliver most of the "Reforger stores" of NATO in Europe that had been promised to Iran and nearly all of the weaponry that had also been promised to Israel. Some of that weaponry probably was also originally promised out of Japan's arsenal, via Hirohito's intervention. The latter was a person with whom Bush had a secret tie most people don't know about! However, again, it was a false promise.

How interested is Big Oil in accessing Romania's oil in the name of "defending" it the way we did Saudi Arabia's oil in the aftermath of the Gulf War? It is this "uneasiness" that I share with the Marxists. There are sometimes parallels between their views on specific foreign policy issues, and mine, due to the actions of Big Oil. Of all the corporate groups, Big Oil is the one whose actions most nearly parallel those of the "imperialists"--the multnationals of Marx and Lenin. Perhaps Big Oil, indeed, is the "grain of truth" of that part of Marxism? Big Oil constantly seeks to manipulate events, including military activities, to its benefit.

In this case, the situation is such that US/NATO forces are currently already stationed in the Balkans, up to now, in a limited "peacekeeper" function. However, what concerns me, is that this situation could be manipulated such that the maneuvers could change in nature, political upheavals could be instigated, such that US forces (and perhaps NATO forces, too?) could be used to seize the Romanian oilfields at Ploesti and elsewhere in the name of "defending" them against those dastardly Serbs or others (perhaps the ever-threatening Russians--who, even after virtually throwing in the towel, are still viewed as a "threat", especially given those huge oil fields of theirs in Bessarabia area).

Princess Diana's car crashed as a result of it being "bumped" by a white Fiat, which some suspect was driven by a photographer who seems to have had ties to the CIA. Diana's lover at the time, the son of an Arab billionaire, was also killed in the crash. The timing of the crash has made me somewhat suspicious. Dodi, (Diana's Arab lover/fiancé) was the son of an Arab whose name has frequently been bandied about in connection with--you guessed it--October Surprise! Not to mention Iran-Contra. Could it be "they" were really after Dodi, after learning he'd "talked" to Diana--whose ties to the British government were a little too dangerous--that he'd talked to her about his father's ties to October Surprise and Big Oil's other future plans? One other point on this: the photographer who owned the Fiat claimed he had rental receipts showing he was elsewhere and not driving the Fiat that day. But his CIA/French Intelligence (SDECE) connections suggest he could have been instrumental in allowing the car to be driven by the "bumper" who caused the crash. Then, he could have been killed to silence him. He'd been having emotional turmoil--about to divorce his wife--and talked of a "career change" in his life, of making big changes in his life. He also indicated he wanted to "make it big yet." Maybe he started trying to pressure someone or unsuccessfully [sic] attempted to blackmail someone. (Jewish/Israeli intelligence, in contrast, used blackmail to good effect against Nelson Rockefeller.)

Not only did Bush leave Saddam, his puppet in the Middle East, in power: he arranged it so that all of Saddam's military and revolutionary opponents came out in the open in the ensuing year after the Gulf War. Bush then arranged for them to be virtually exterminated by Saddam's military, while the US, under Bush, after having promised them aid, allowed them instead to be decimated. My concerns here are very real,and perhaps yours should be, as well. The "undercurrents in all our lives" strike again!

What follows is a brief posting and website address for Marxist source (above):

---------- From: Socialist Appeal Subject: The Media and the Kosovo Crisis (Book review) Date: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 10:37 AM What's new at In Defence of Marxism http://www.marxist.com July 5th, 2000 "Book review: 'Degraded Capability: The Media and the Kosovo Crisis' http://www.marxist.com/Europe/degraded_capability_review.html "Over the last year Socialist Appeal has carried a number of articles on the Balkans conflict which have challenged the official interpretation of events. This is also considered in depth by a number of the contributors to "Degraded Capability: The Media and the Kosovo Crisis." Although, as the title suggests, this book deals mainly with the role and actions of the media, [interesting: Bush family media control parallel here--mcs]it does start with a consideration of the conflict itself. See also: Crisis in the Balkans, a Marxist analysis (http://www.marxist.com/balkans.asp)... new@socappeal.easynet.co.uk... Yours in solidarity, Socialist Appeal's 'In Defence of Marxism' website socappeal@easynet.co.uk http://www.marxist.com http://www.socialist.net PO Box 2626 London N1 7SQ Britain"

Data for BCCI and related scandals from a reliable source: www.web.com/~pinknoiz/covert/banks.html (That's Pete Brewton's BCCI Scandal Site.)

Go back to ">The George Bush-Undercurrents Website