Bush dynasty weaves tangled Mideast web (MAJOR HIT PIECE)

In that example, the tone would be the problem. In other examples, the facts could be challenged. But the fact/tone problems are interrelated. For instance, let's take this example:

> As early as 1964, George H.W. Bush, running for the U.S. Senate from Texas, was labeled by incumbent Democrat Ralph Yarborough as a hireling of the sheik of Kuwait, for whom Bush's company drilled offshore oil wells.

Now the word "hireling" here both asserts a fact and conveys a certain tone, i.e., implying that the Sheikh of Kuwait dictated to "Bush's company" (as if no one else but Bush participated in the company) as a boss dictates to a "hireling". No mention is made of the fact that there were numerous investors in "Bush's company" (including associates of leading Democrats Joseph Kennedy and Katherine Graham), nor is there consideration of the role they played in managing the company or how Bush's participation functioned in that context. What was Bush's position and function within the company? Did he make managerial decisions by himself, or did others have input? Were company policies dictated solely by the Sheikh of Kuwait or were there other variables involved? Phillips considers none of these questions. The entire dynamic of the company is reduced to labelling Bush a "hireling". BTW, Phillips is getting his information for this statement--probably indirectly--from Chapters 8 and 9 of Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin's (i.e., Lyndon LaRouche's) "George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography", which are largely rehashing dirt dug up against Bush by Ralph Yarborough during the 1964 campaign. Phillips is not breaking any news here, just repeating an old hit piece, here and elsewhere in the article.

You're welcome, and thank you. It is convoluted, isn't it? It makes my head spin sometimes :)

I appreciated Alissa posting the article--I like to know what the opposition is saying. I think the term "hit piece" describes the intent of an article rather than necessarily asserting error, so the label is accurate even without going through the lengthy process of pointing out individual errors. There are errors, but to identify and refute each one would take an extended commentary on virtually every sentence of the article--I have already spent an hour or more just commenting on two sentences so far-- and I don't think Alissa is obligated to do that just to post the article. And yes, Nelson Rockefeller would be another example of a VP with oil interests. Every administration since the 1870s has had oil interests. But oil interests are not intrinsically evil, unless one begins from the premise that capitalism is intrinsically evil, as Phillips seems to. However if one does not accept the premise that oil interests are intrinsically evil, the real issue is when such interests become a conflict of interests, which is what Phillips would need to establish to make this article's allegations stick. But the article doesn't do that, it just makes silly statements like "In each of the government offices he held, he encouraged CIA involvement in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries, and he pursued policies that helped make the Middle East into the world's primary destination for arms shipments."--what does Phillips expect, that Bush should've discouraged the CIA from gathering intelligence in the Middle East while the Soviets were busying overthrowing the government of Iran and invading Afghanistan?

This guy is a moron.

Here's what intelligent people have to say about George W. Bush, and the Bush Doctrine.

A Grand Strategy of Transformation

Al Gore would be yet another VP with oil interests.

Thank you! :) Yes, Al Gore would be another one. Somewhere in my archives I have some stuff on Occidental's role in the Clinton administration's Middle East policy--here's one I happen to have handy without too much digging:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/590960/posts

Also, here's some old stuff I clipped on the Taliban, Clinton State Department official Robin Raphel, and an oil company called Unocal:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bb505324c51.htm
(Terrorists had a friend in Clinton White House called Robin)

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bb52b6e0d48.htm
(Rep. ROHRABACHER (1999) -- How the Clinton Administration brought the Taliban to power)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html
(Regional Pipeline Plans)

I only scratched the surface of this when I was looking into it back then--been meaning to do some follow-up on this, if anyone else has anything to add I'd be interested.

From that first link, here's the part I was calling attention to: > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/590960/posts > Arab-Americans-Making a Difference, by Casey Kasem > Among business leaders is the founder of an international, billion dollar engineering firm, Jacobs Engineering Group, Dr. Joseph Jacobs. A former chemist with dozens of patents became Armand Hammer’s successor as Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Occidental Petroleum – Dr. Ray Irani.

I've been a member since 1998 and I also contribute money to maintain this site.

I've been gone almost all day, so MAYBE you should stop assuming things you don't know anything about!

I know-I was making a point.

Great posts on this thread. Please post articles on the topic given an opportunity.

My2cents: Instead of a listing the article as a Hit Piece, I would have wrote NO BushBots post here! I think the article is great. When it comes to rulers of industry, finance and government the guilt-by-association is a good standard to follow. Elitistism doesn't congregate in any political ideology, nation or creed. Corruption is the facilitator and power is the goal. Both Bush and Clinton interests are very good at it.

Hi, endthematrix, (BTW does your screen name mean you didn't like the third movie? :-)

My own two cents: It's certainly true that no ideology or political group has a monopoly on corruption--I agree with you on that general principle. But the specifics of the article are very derivative (from various other sources--LaRouche's unauthorized bio is one, another is Pete Brewton's "The Mafia, the CIA, and George Bush") and superficial, IMO. You can do a "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" hit piece on anybody if you try. (Example: My brother once worked at IBM. IBM has been charged with trading with Germany during World War II. Therefore according to this article's logic my brother is a "hireling" of a company connected with the Nazis.) Making a case that will hold up in court or withstand historical cross-examination of the primary sources is a lot tougher. What does the article actually prove? That people who work for oil companies know people in the intelligence community and the Middle East, basically--which isn't really surprising when you think about it: logically to run an effective intelligence agency in a world driven by an oil-based economy you have to have agents in the Middle East. But where does the article show such associations affecting Bush's policies in a scandalous way? It doesn't, IMO--or at least if it does, someone will have to point it out to me, because I'm not seeing it. The article makes much of saying that members of the Bush family knew people in BCCI. It doesn't mention that BCCI was originally set up for a legitimate purpose: so British and American intelligence could track terrorist money. Nor does it mention that BCCI was penetrated by a double-agent working for Syrian and Soviet intelligence--perhaps there's more to the BCCI story than a simple CIA scandal centered on Bush? IMO there's some information in this article which does point towards genuine scandal, but to determine its significance requires looking beyond "so-and-so knew Bush" to deeper questions about how so-and-so's relationship with Bush functioned in the broader context of their individual motives and relationships with other individuals and organizations and countries. But instead of pursuing these types of questions, the article limits itself to saying things like Bush "worked closely with Kamal Adham, the head of Saudi intelligence, brother-in-law of King Faisal and an early BCCI insider", which doesn't really tell us anything about the nature of their relationship (what exactly does "worked closely with" mean?) other than the not-surprising fact that the head of the CIA had a liaison with the head of Saudi intelligence (along with every other intelligence agency in the world!). Two questions I'd raise which I'd like to see answered in a more penetrating analysis: 1. What intelligence agencies and foreign influences besides the CIA and the Saudis were involved with BCCI?--how do the British, French, Germans, Israelis, Syrians, Iranians, Soviets, Cubans, Chinese, Koreans, etc. fit in? 2. How did the BCCI investigation relate to the partisan conflict between the Reagan administration and its critics, how did that conflict play into John Kerry's decision to take on the BCCI investigation, and how did that influence which suspects he chose to pursue and which he chose to let off?. That last series of questions also raises the question in my mind, why is this article repeating 10-15 year-old information suddenly coming out now?

re: (Example: My brother once worked at IBM. IBM has been charged with trading with Germany during World War II. Therefore according to this article's logic my brother is a "hireling" of a company connected with the Nazis.)

But...the connection IS there. First question would be: Who is your brother? CEO, CFO, VP Operations, large stockholder, etc.

Most plots of coruption have less than SIX degrees of separation, i.e. IRAQ > UNSCON > CIA or BCCI >Milken, Saudi buisnessmen, Chineese Communists, etc > Crooked financal deals.
Most of the players are well known and have had their hands dirty for years. It's the new players (or new deals)that make the news, such as Lord Black to Hollinger to Perle to Kissinger to a myrad of things...9/11 hearings, Chile, etc.

"Bush dynasty weaves tangled Mideast web (MAJOR HIT PIECE)" fatigue.

Regarding you last post on partisan tactics, please keep me informed on your research. Very interesting...To me there is a LOYALTY factor not necessarily a PARTY factor. The gray market areas of arms dealings and drugs are connected to shady people interlinked with people in high places. BCCI was a playground for the CIA and others. To think that collusion did not exist or to deny it out of partisanship is ignorant of a larger issue.

> Regarding you last post on partisan tactics, please keep me informed on your research.

Will do.

> Very interesting...To me there is a LOYALTY factor not necessarily a PARTY factor.

That can be another factor.

> The gray market areas of arms dealings and drugs are connected to shady people interlinked with people in high places. BCCI was a playground for the CIA and others. To think that collusion did not exist or to deny it out of partisanship is ignorant of a larger issue.

BCCI was a playground for some in the CIA, but to attribute this to Bush directly simply because he was director at one time--as this author tends to (not saying you're doing that)--is a leap that requires evidence. The CIA like any large company (no pun intended) is divided into departments, as well as factions that arise during transitions from one administration to the next (starting with the transition from Truman to Eisenhower), and the director during one adminstration doesn't personally supervise every field operation--and Bush's personal habit was to delegate, so he probably supervised less than most, he was mostly installed in that position for political reasons rather than operational ones because he was known for loyalty. Just because Bush was director for a very brief period while the BCCI operation was going forward doesn't by itself imply that he had any knowledge of the inner workings of an operation set up and run by others. The investigation should begin with the actual agents involved, IMO. The question of Bush's role is one that it's natural to ask, but it's a secondary question that you can only attempt to address after other questions have been answered, and this article doesn't do that because it's primary purpose is simply to implicate Bush.

> But...the connection IS there. First question would be: Who is your brother? CEO, CFO, VP Operations, large stockholder, etc.

That's part of the point of what I'm getting at above. To extend the analogy, the CEO doesn't supervise everything that goes on in Tech Support. To define Bush's role in BCCI we'd need to know how his job function related to that of the departments and agents involved in the actual operation. This article doesn't provide that information, just insinuates.

> Most plots of coruption have less than SIX degrees of separation, i.e. IRAQ > UNSCON > CIA or BCCI >Milken, Saudi buisnessmen, Chineese Communists, etc > Crooked financal deals.
> Most of the players are well known and have had their hands dirty for years. It's the new players (or new deals)that make the news, such as Lord Black to Hollinger to Perle to Kissinger to a myrad of things...9/11 hearings, Chile, etc.

My method is to start from the known players and work towards the unknown. BTW Seymour Hersh, who is another known player long opposed to the Angleton/Bush faction of the CIA, played a major role in stirring up the Perle controversy, so that's another factor to consider.