Senior Bush scandal question

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

10 posts / 0 new

Does anyone here know anything about a 4.5 billion dollar scandal that Bush Sr. gave to Saddam or Iran? Sometime in the 1980's or 1990's PBR had a segment about it. But I can't seem to find much. I would like to find out if this investment was tax dollars or personal and if the monies were repaid.

Rey Blanco's picture
Rey Blanco
Joined:
Jul. 12, 2014 12:34 pm

Comments

Assuming that your query is sincere and not a ruse to help discover what additional scrubbing needs to be done, my guess would be that you are recalling a seldom-referenced portion of the Iran-Contra Affair.

Technically (since it involves counterfeit funds) it was taxpayer dollars, but not of the kind that Congress approves for spending.

Do your search on "Super bills" or "deep black lies" and "the pegasus file".

Recall that daddyBush was Director of the CIA the last year of the Ford Administration (as far as having been in a position to know who had what where, etc.)

Separately one finds the fake bills were first discovered in the early 1990's as reported in a 1996 New York Times article.

The dot-connecting comes from a so-called former CIA/DIA operative, Chip Tatum.

Although I was onPlanet at the time, so far as I know there is no credible information publicly available which would substantiate that I ever knew or worked with any of these people.

Rodger97321's picture
Rodger97321
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yes, thank you the question is sincere. What my underlying question is not only 1) "what happened to the money" but was this part of 2) a motive to get even with Saddam? I don't want to believe it, but it seems to beg the question. Perhaps, I should look more at the IRAN CONTRA NORTH PoINDEXter Chip operations. My problem is that I don't want to appear unpatriotic. I served in the U.S. Army and do respect military intelligence. But I do have problems with the Senior Bush or the son of big brother in so far as emphasis on international over domestic issues and don't know how much "private" corporations require U.S. patriotism to gain resources. I want to trust their judgments when it comes to pitting evil against evil.

Rey Blanco's picture
Rey Blanco
Joined:
Jul. 12, 2014 12:34 pm

Recall that at the time Saddam was on "our" side (and CIA payroll) - so there would be nothing to get even with him over back then.

He got on "our" bad side when he started working to get oil taken off the $dollar standard (yes, we were told everything except that). I was not there so I do not know if the folks running the oil in Kuwait were told to start drilling diagonally (so as to steal oil from under Iraq's land) in order to bait Saddam into taken military action - or if that was just serendipitous timing for the daddyBush crowd.

There is nothing unpatriotic in pointing out the illegal activities of scoundrels who happen to hold (or have held) Federal Office. It would be unpatriotic not to do so.

There is no lucid way to trust that the judgment of an evil doer will lead to anything beneficial for anyone except themself. We should be able to trust our public officials, but once they have betrayed it - if we let them gain our trust again - we become the betrayers of ourselves and posterity.

Rodger97321's picture
Rodger97321
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thanks. I admit it is difficult to sort out the bad from the good guys. The brainwash I have gotten, seemed to be that "well, they are bad, but at least they are on our side." In times of war, it's hard to argue with that one, even if we don't believe in what we are fighting for. Somehow, it seems that history is rewritten so that our domestic problems (crime, economy, etc) were always addressed by the Republican focus. But I learned better. Like many, there is a problem with "celebrity awe" that leaves us to like them, in spite of it all. I want to trust American leadership. But it seems hard to consider the world as one globe without seeming un American.

Those conservative talk show hosts, like Dr. Michael Medved, say that "nationalism" is bad for a global economy. But what about when the leadership says we need "nationalism" as a patriotic duty, otherwise we strangle our flow of resources? After stuying logic and rhetoric and comparing their reasoning, I find that their arguments are "valid" but based on poor and untrue antecedants.

When Winston Churchill managed to convince Roosevelt to enter the war against Hitler, the idea of a noble war, reinforced by a flow of funds to the dumb masses seemed to convince people wars are an obligation. I can tell you (I lived in Chicago) that a place on Western Avenue had built parts of aircraft that was sold to a neutral country ( I think Swiss sales reps) that resold it to enemies (Viet Cong). A place on Ashland and Archer made "camoflauge paint" sold it to the Chrysler corporation in Poland which sold it to Russia who painted their tanks (they weren't allowed to paint them the regular military colors) that went into AFghanIStan. I am sure this goes on all the time by many other business people, justified by "what is wrong with making money" argument from Republican mentality. How can we sort out the mess? I am tired of jeapordizing my life and my family and I am sure many people live in fear.

Rey Blanco's picture
Rey Blanco
Joined:
Jul. 12, 2014 12:34 pm

The more we mature the more we are able to shed the necessary efficiencies of our younger selves in seeing everything in black and white.

For example, in several instances above you refer to "Republican" as if it is a static thing. But especially when discussing a span of time, if we are to understand better and be understood better we need to distinguish between "that" Republican group and "today's" Republican group.

As is mentioned frequently on Thom's shows many Republican Party Leaders from 20 years back wouldn't be welcome in Today's Republican Party.

Terminology such as "patriotic duty" are phrases contrived as important values marketed by the wealthy to convince other peoples children that to sacrifice themselves for the good of the wealthy is a patriotic duty. It is used as part of an indoctrination - not an education.

If there is such a thing as a Patriotic Duty - it would be to be the best you that you can be - because that would be the greatest benefit you could bestow upon your country.

All of the isms can be understood as tribal mechanisms. They are about preserving institutions not people.

Rodger97321's picture
Rodger97321
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yes, I believe you are correct. But.

You provide a good focal point. The irony is easy to spot at times. For example, in the 1980's Reagan had a "What makes an American Speech" that said we did not succeed by ourselves and credited teachers, etc. Now that a democratic president offered the same attitude, the Republican dumb masses said it was an insult, with the "I got here by myself."

It is as if they scored a touch down, told the cheering crowd that it was not them, the team or coaches. They did it all by their lonesome. They sure don't recognize their own "Hell No Party."

Your tribal mechanisms is pretty close to my particular study about non localized stupendous thinking machines. That machine is "invisible" because the language limits peoples views to point to the locals without regards for the "whole." I see people as part of a biosphere, similar to ants, beasts, swarms and herds. Everything is a "clock." The defintition of a clock is not necessarily a coherent chronological flow. It is also "intuitive," "synthetic" and even manipulated. From my perspective, the current Republican stance is dead set on dividing the United States government and leading the "tribes." It seems, that they think people are stupid enough not to connect the historical facts and willing to forget so that emotive behaviour rules. You can see their eyes roll like bovines ready to snap and ready to strike in violence if we do not conform.

Rey Blanco's picture
Rey Blanco
Joined:
Jul. 12, 2014 12:34 pm

The tribalism aspect was well explained in a talk I heard several years ago, but the speaker's name eludes me. I think he was a retired Catholic Priest. Perhaps someone else on the board can help remember his name for me.

We have a difference in that what you view as "current Republican" - I see as "current Democrat/Republican". For the most part, without name tags - I can no longer tell them apart (most have the same deception-colored auras) and the so-called distinctions just look like window dressing designed to give the impression that there is a difference (deceive and conquer 2.0).

Rodger97321's picture
Rodger97321
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Roger, ...

Yeah, I seem to have a hang up there. No doubt that behind closed doors, running a business like that is different than normal business in the way we'd like to see it. Customers don't go through the back, side doors or warehouse and make side deals without checking with the billing office.

From my perspective, it appears that the persuave and even convincing arguments from Republican duckspeakers are valid, except with an ambigous antecedant, save for an emotive starting point. Hermenuetic circle, loops around their audiences who have donkey blinders focus like a laser beam on their misplaced concreteness, a half baked point. The other side of the token seems to snake bac into an emotive nod.

I see the rhetoric more compassionate, perhaps not as devious, i hope, from Democrats. Republicans appear more willing to follow "survival of the fittest" in terms of might. The ideologies seem, for me to have a clear distinction, and somehow, i tend to discern in favour of Democratic bs.

Joke: Nice looking female journalist asking a president, "Sir how do you feel about the draft?" He smiles, nods and suggests,

"Allow me to close the windows." (and the blinds, he thought)

B

Rey Blanco's picture
Rey Blanco
Joined:
Jul. 12, 2014 12:34 pm

Peace, in American history, has never been given half a chance against War. There was a period after the Civil War when the horror and devastation of war removed all public taste for such conflict. But it coincided with the Western genocide and "expansion" into what was treated as "unihabited" territory in our narrative.

There have been serious advocates and intellectuals who have made the case for peace. Some of them have become famous or even politically influential; but none of them could beat the "war to end all wars" self-delusion that war can cure war. You gotta study war no more.

While I decry the Neocon Dems and all the Warmongers on the Right who suck off this corrupted imperial infrastructure, the positive corrective is to admit that war is the failure of politics and just about every thing, so when you have gotten there you cannot justify anything about it. You may have to do it anyway, but shove the justifications up your warbutt and get focussed on what will end the war and what it will take to heal the wounds on the way to peace.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Will Racism Backfire on Trump...Or not?

Thom plus logo Trump's son Eric said on Fox News that he's loving the Democrats being upset about Trump's racist language. He argued that it's playing right into their hands.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system