RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Parry begins: "A three-decade-old mystery has finally been solved – who was George H.W. Bush's unidentified 'alibi witness' on Oct. 19, 1980, when other witnesses allege the then-Republican vice presidential candidate took a secret flight to Paris for meetings with Iranians – but the mystery's answer only raises new questions."

Former President George H.W. Bush, 04/26/11. (photo: AP)
Former President George H.W. Bush, 04/26/11. (photo: AP)

Taking a Bush Secret to the Grave

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

28 September 11


Parry continues to peel back the layers of one of the great political scandals of the 20th Century and gives us a deeper insight into the prevailing culture of secrecy that dominates American government. -- JPS/RSN


Special Report: The National Archives has approved an appeal by journalist Robert Parry seeking release of a 30-year-old secret, the address where George H.W. Bush supposedly went on an October weekend in 1980 - when several witnesses put Bush in Paris meeting with Iranians. But it turns out the "alibi witness" is now dead.

three-decade-old mystery has finally been solved - who was George H.W. Bush's unidentified "alibi witness" on Oct. 19, 1980, when other witnesses allege the then-Republican vice presidential candidate took a secret flight to Paris for meetings with Iranians - but the mystery's answer only raises new questions.

After 20 years of rejecting requests from various investigators for the identity of the "alibi witness," the U.S. government finally released enough information from Secret Service files - in response to an appeal that I filed with the National Archives - to ascertain the person's identity.

The person who perhaps could have verified where Bush was or wasn't on that day was Richard A. Moore, a Bush family friend best known for his role in the Watergate scandal as a special counsel to President Richard Nixon. In 1973, Moore was Nixon's point man in attacking the credibility of fired White House counsel John Dean after Dean turned whistleblower.

In 1980, Moore, who somehow managed to escape indictment for his Watergate role, and his wife, Jane Swift Moore, were living in an exclusive tree-lined neighborhood in Northwest Washington about one mile from the home of George H.W. and Barbara Bush.

According to Secret Service records that I found in the files of Bush's White House counsel C. Boyden Gray - and which have now been more fully released - Bush's Secret Service detail left the Bush family home at 4429 Lowell St. N.W. at 1:35 p.m. on Oct. 19, 1980, and arrived at "Moore Residence, 4917 Rockwood Pkwy." at 1:40 p.m.

By checking Washington D.C. real estate records, I discovered that Richard A. Moore owned the house at 4917 Rockwood Parkway in 1980.

If George H.W. Bush actually made the visit to Moore's house with his wife Barbara Bush on that afternoon - rather than Barbara possibly going alone - that would make Bush's alleged trip to Paris virtually impossible. So it would have seemed to be in Bush's interests to release this information to investigators and have then interview Moore, if Moore would confirm that Bush dropped by that day.

In the early 1990s, Moore also was Bush's ambassador to Ireland and thus presumably inclined to help both his boss and his friend. However, when investigators were trying to determine whether Bush had traveled to Paris - and were looking for evidence to prove that he hadn't - the Bush administration whited-out Moore's address before releasing redacted versions of the Secret Service records.

Moore died on Jan. 27, 1995. So, if George H.W. Bush's purpose in delaying release of Moore's identity was to ensure that no one could check with Moore about Bush's alibi for Oct. 19, 1980, Bush achieved his goal.

Though most of us who were examining this mystery two decades ago gave great weight to the Secret Service records seeming to place Bush in Washington, not Paris, there was the question of whether Bush, a former CIA director, might have convinced some friendly Secret Service supervisor to cook up some alibi to cover the flight to Paris.

Those suspicions deepened with the Bush administration's continued refusal to provide seemingly innocuous information, like Moore's address.

Justifying a Secret

In 1991-92, President George H.W. Bush's administration continued to insist on keeping the "Moore Residence" destination secret even after Congress authorized an investigation into the so-called October Surprise case, whether Republicans in 1980 had contacted Iranians behind President Jimmy Carter's back to frustrate his efforts to free 52 American hostages.

Carter's failure to gain release of the hostages made him look weak and inept, setting the stage for Ronald Reagan's landslide victory, an election which dramatically changed the course of the nation. The Iranians released the American hostages immediately after Reagan was sworn in on Jan. 20, 1981, further making Reagan appear to be an imposing world figure.

Though there were early rumors about a secret Republican deal with Iran, the October Surprise mystery didn't gain much traction until the exposure of secret Iran-Contra arms shipments approved by Reagan to Iran in 1985-86. Suddenly, the notion that Reagan and his Vice President George H.W. Bush would lie about covert dealings with Iran didn't seem so preposterous.

Essentially, the October Surprise question was whether Reagan's secret contacts with Iran dated back to Campaign 1980, as a growing number of witnesses - from inside the governments of Iran, Israel, France and the United States - were alleging.

However, when Congress finally agreed to look into the October Surprise case in 1991-92, Republicans were determined to circle the wagons around the then-sitting President George H.W. Bush, who was facing a tough reelection fight against Democrat Bill Clinton.

Rather than welcome any truth-seeking, the Republicans and their media allies went on the attack claiming that the October Surprise case was a baseless "conspiracy theory."

At the time, the Republicans also suggested several reasons why the alibi witness for Oct. 19, 1980, should remain secret. One was that Bush might have been off on a romantic rendezvous and that Democrats simply wanted to pry into the visit as a way to neutralize accounts of Bill Clinton's womanizing.

However, that "tryst" rationale fell apart when I obtained the Secret Service records for Barbara Bush and they showed her on the same trip, with the destination again whited-out.

Then, there was the suggestion that the unidentified Bush family friends were very private people who shouldn't be dragged into the middle of a political controversy. (As it turned out, the Moores were very much public figures, both having worked in the Nixon White House and Richard A. Moore serving as U.S. ambassador to Ireland during the first Bush administration.)

In 1992, as Bush's team continued to stonewall the identity of Bush's "alibi witness," Bush angrily demanded at two news conferences that Congress specifically clear him of the allegations that he had taken a secret trip to Paris in 1980.

Bowing to those pressures in June 1992, Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Indiana, chairman of the House investigative task force, agreed to a curious bargain in which he and a few senior investigators were shown the destination of Bush's supposed afternoon trip on Oct. 19, 1980, but with the proviso that they never interview anyone who was there or disclose any names.

So, without verifying Bush's alibi, the House task force cleared Bush of going to Paris. When I asked Hamilton about this strange agreement this week, in the wake of the National Archives' release of the "Moore Residence" document, he responded through a spokesman that he was "not able to provide any answers" because he no longer has his official records.

Moore's Silence

Though the Oct. 19, 1980, visit could have involved either Moore or his wife or both, the "alibi witness" being kept secret in 1992 had to be Moore, since his wife, Jane Swift Moore, died in 1985.

When I contacted one of Moore's sons, Richard A. Moore Jr., he told me that he didn't think that any of the family's five children were still living in the Rockwood Parkway house in 1980. Nor did he think there would likely be any photographs of the visit since the Bushes were "almost neighbors," often popping in.

But the question remains: If Richard A. Moore could have confirmed that Bush was definitely in Washington on Oct. 19, 1980, not on a secret mission to Paris, why wasn't he questioned? Why was the Bush administration so determined to block the House task force from interviewing Moore.

Moore owed a huge debt to Bush, who had lifted Moore from his Watergate-tainted purgatory in 1989 by appointing him to be U.S. Ambassador to Ireland. Moore would seem to be a friendly witness who would happily want to cover for Bush, if possible.

Which is why Moore's silence in 1992 only adds to the mystery. Moore served in Dublin until June 1992, departing the same month as the battle over withholding his identity was playing out in Washington.

Given Moore's close call with a criminal prosecution for his role in the Watergate cover-up - he was often in meetings where all the other participants ended up going to jail - he understandably might have been very leery about lying to Congress even to protect another U.S. president and a personal friend, if Bush indeed had snuck off to Paris.

Another document released to me under my appeal to the National Archives raises further suspicions about Bush's whereabouts on that Sunday. Undated handwritten notes that I found in the files of one of White House counsel Gray's assistants, Ronald Von Lembke, indicate that some of the Secret Service records for Oct. 19, 1980, were missing.

For that date, the notes say, "*NO Residence Report. *0000 [midnight] - 0800 - missing. 0800-1600 - okay. *1600-2400 - missing." Stars were used to highlight the references to missing material.

Written in the margin, next to the time references is the name "Potter Stewart," the late Supreme Court Justice who was another Bush family friend. The reference suggests that the White House counsel's office was checking on how to bolster Bush's alibi for Oct. 19, 1980.

The same notes include a check mark next to the name "Buck Tanis," suggesting that the author of the notes had contacted Secret Service supervisor Leonard "Buck" Tanis, who was a Bush favorite from his Secret Service detail. Tanis was one of the supervisors for Bush's Secret Service detail in October 1980.

Tanis was also the only Secret Service agent on Bush's detail for Oct. 19, 1980, who claimed to recall another dubious part of Bush's alibi mentioned in the Secret Service reports, a morning trip to the Chevy Chase Country Club.

When the redacted Secret Service records were first released in the early 1990s, Bush's supposed Chevy Chase visit was cited as slam-dunk evidence that Bush couldn't have gone to Paris.

Relying on Republican sources, friendly journalists reported that Bush had been playing tennis that morning at the club. But the tennis alibi collapsed when it was discovered that rain had prevented tennis that morning.

Then, Tanis came forward with another story, that George H.W. and Barbara Bush had brunch at the club with Justice and Mrs. Potter Stewart. By 1992, however, Justice Stewart was dead and Republicans said Mrs. Stewart was in poor health, suffering senility and couldn't be interviewed.

So, another Bush alibi couldn't be checked out - and Tanis's recollection would have to stand unchallenged.

However, I learned that reports of Mrs. Stewart's physical and mental decline were greatly exaggerated. She was going out with a retired CIA official whom I knew. When I called her, she was quite lucid and told me that she and her husband never had brunch with the Bushes at the Chevy Chase club.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, I also obtained redacted reports from Barbara Bush's Secret Service detail and they showed her going to the C&O jogging path that morning, not to the Chevy Chase club.

When I passed on this information to congressional investigators, they interviewed Tanis again - and he backed away from his story of the brunch. He joined the other Secret Service agents in saying he had no specific recollection of Bush's travels that day.

The newly released handwritten notes suggest that, at minimum, an official from Bush's counsel's office discussed the Potter Stewart alibi with Tanis, thus raising questions about whether Tanis's initial testimony about the alleged brunch was tainted.

Bush's Curious Actions

With Tanis and his brunch alibi discredited, investigative attention in 1992 turned to the afternoon trip on Oct. 19, 1980. But there again Bush's alibi proved curious, especially with his "alibi witness," who we now know was Ambassador to Ireland Richard A. Moore, kept away from the congressional task force.

All this strange behavior piqued the suspicions of House Foreign Affairs Committee chief counsel R. Spencer Oliver. In a six-page memo, Oliver urged a closer look at Bush's whereabouts and questioned why the Secret Service was concealing the name of the alibi witness for the afternoon trip.

"Why did the Secret Service refuse to cooperate on a matter which could have conclusively cleared George Bush of these serious allegations?" Oliver asked. "Was the White House involved in this refusal? Did they order it?"

Oliver also noted Bush's odd behavior in raising the October Surprise issue on his own at two news conferences.

"It can be fairly said that President Bush's recent outbursts about the October Surprise inquiries and [about] his whereabouts in mid-October of 1980 are disingenuous at best," wrote Oliver, "since the administration has refused to make available the documents and the witnesses that could finally and conclusively clear Mr. Bush."

From the newly released White House documents, it is clear that Oliver's suspicions were well-founded regarding the involvement of Bush's White House staff in the decision to conceal the name of his supposed afternoon host.

Keeping the tough-minded Oliver off the October Surprise investigation also became a high priority for the Republicans. At a midway point in the inquiry when some Democratic task force members asked Oliver to represent them as a staff investigator, Republicans threatened a boycott unless Oliver was barred.

In another gesture of bipartisanship, Hamilton gave the Republicans the power to veto Oliver's participation. Denied one of the few Democratic investigators with both the savvy and courage to pursue a serious inquiry, the Democratic members of the task force retreated. [See's "Inside the October Surprise Cover-up" or Secrecy & Privilege.]

The Case for the Trip

All this Republican resistance to the October Surprise investigation also must be viewed against the backdrop of significant evidence that Bush did go to Paris and that the Reagan campaign did undercut Carter's efforts to free the hostages.

Though some of those suspicions dated back almost to the time the hostages were freed on Jan. 20, 1981, other allegations emerged as the Iran-Contra investigation progressed in the late 1980s. That led PBS "Frontline" to recruit me in 1990 to examine whether the October Surprise case had been a prequel to the Iran-Contra Affair.

That Frontline documentary, which aired in April 1991, coincided with a New York Times op-ed by former National Security Council aide Gary Sick, giving new momentum and new credibility to the October Surprise allegations.

As the October Surprise controversy heated up - with the Republicans and Bush allies in the news media waging a fierce counteroffensive - Frontline asked me to stay on the story, which led to another discovery that bolstered the Bush-to-Paris claims.

Because of the April 1991 documentary, David Henderson, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer, recalled a conversation that he had had with a journalist on Oct. 18, 1980, about Bush flying to Paris that night to meet with Iranians regarding the American hostages.

Henderson couldn't remember the reporter's name but he passed the information on to Sen. Alan Cranston, D-California, whose staff forwarded the letter to me. By cross-checking some other information, we determined that the journalist was John Maclean of the Chicago Tribune, the son of author Norman Maclean who wrote the novel, A River Runs Through It.

Though John Maclean was not eager to talk with me, he finally agreed and confirmed what Henderson had written in his letter. Maclean said a well-placed Republican source told him in mid-October 1980 about Bush taking a secret trip to Paris to meet with Iranians on the U.S. hostage issue.

After hearing this news from his source, Maclean passed on the information to Henderson when the two met at Henderson's Washington home to discuss another matter.

For his part, Maclean never wrote about the Bush-to-Paris leak because, he told me, a Reagan campaign spokesman officially denied it. As the years passed, the memory of the leak faded for both Henderson and Maclean, until the October Surprise story bubbled to the surface in 1991.

The significance of the Maclean-Henderson conversation was that it was a piece of information locked in time untainted by later claims and counter-claims about the October Surprise dispute.

One could not accuse Maclean of concocting the Bush-to-Paris allegation for some ulterior motive, since he hadn't used it in 1980, nor had he volunteered it a decade later. He only confirmed it - and did so reluctantly.

French Intelligence

And, there was other support for the allegations of a Republican-Iranian meeting in Paris.

David Andelman, the biographer for Count Alexandre deMarenches, then head of France's Service de Documentation Exterieure et de Contre-Espionage (SDECE), testified to congressional investigators that deMarenches told him that he had helped the Reagan-Bush campaign arrange meetings with Iranians on the hostage issue in summer and fall of 1980, with one meeting in Paris in October.

Andelman said deMarenches insisted that the secret meetings be kept out of his memoir because the story could damage the reputations of his friends, William Casey and George H.W. Bush.

The allegations of a Paris meeting also received support from several other sources, including pilot Heinrich Rupp, who said he flew Casey (then Ronald Reagan's campaign chief and later CIA director) from Washington's National Airport to Paris on a flight that left very late on a rainy night in mid-October 1980.

Rupp said that after arriving at LeBourget airport outside Paris, he saw a man resembling Bush on the tarmac.

The night of Oct. 18 indeed was rainy in the Washington area. And, sign-in sheets at the Reagan-Bush headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, placed Casey within a five-minute drive of National Airport late that evening.

There were other bits and pieces of corroboration about the Paris meetings.

A French arms dealer, Nicholas Ignatiew, told me in 1990 that he had checked with his government contacts and was told that Republicans did meet with Iranians in Paris in mid-October 1980.

A well-connected French investigative reporter Claude Angeli said his sources inside the French secret service confirmed that the service provided "cover" for a meeting between Republicans and Iranians in France on the weekend of Oct. 18-19. German journalist Martin Kilian had received a similar account from a top aide to intelligence chief deMarenches.

As early as 1987, Iran's ex-President Bani-Sadr had made his own claims about a Paris meeting, and Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe testified that he was present outside the Paris meeting and saw Bush, Casey and other Americans in attendance.

Finally, the Russian government sent a report to the House task force, saying that Soviet-era intelligence files contained information about Republicans holding a series of meetings with Iranians in Europe, including one in Paris in October 1980.

"William Casey, in 1980, met three times with representatives of the Iranian leadership," the Russian report said. "The meetings took place in Madrid and Paris."

At the Paris meeting in October 1980, "former CIA Director George Bush also took part," the report said. "The representatives of Ronald Reagan and the Iranian leadership discussed the question of possibly delaying the release of 52 hostages from the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran."

Requested by Hamilton, who was in charge of the lackadaisical congressional inquiry into the October Surprise mystery in 1992, the Russian report arrived via the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in January 1993. But Hamilton's task force had already decided to dismiss the October Surprise allegations as lacking solid evidence.

The Russian report was kept hidden until I discovered it after gaining access to the task force's raw files. Though the report was addressed to Hamilton, he told me last year that he had not seen the report until I sent him a copy shortly before our interview.

Lawrence Barcella, the task force's chief counsel, acknowledged to me that he might not have shown Hamilton the report and may have simply filed it away in boxes of task force records.

Casey in Spain

I also discovered in the files at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, another document that supported allegations that Casey had traveled to Madrid, as Iranian businessman Jamshid Hashemi had claimed. Hashemi testified under oath that Casey met with Iranian emissary Mehdi Karrubi in Madrid, Spain, in late July 1980 to discuss delaying the release of the American hostages until after the presidential election so as not to help President Carter.

Searching through the archived files at the Bush library, I found a "memorandum for record" dated Nov. 4, 1991, by associate White House counsel Chester Paul Beach Jr.

Beach reported on a conversation with State Department legal adviser Edwin D. Williamson who said that among the State Department "material potentially relevant to the October Surprise allegations [was] a cable from the Madrid embassy indicating that Bill Casey was in town, for purposes unknown."

However, the House task force was apparently never told about this confirmation of Casey's presence in Madrid and proceeded to reject the Madrid allegations by citing a particularly bizarre alibi for Casey's whereabouts on the last weekend in July 1980.

The task force placed Casey at the exclusive all-male retreat at the Bohemian Grove in California although the documentary evidence clearly showed that Casey attended the Grove on the first weekend of August, not the last weekend of July. [For details, see Secrecy & Privilege. For more on Casey's alleged travels, see's "October Surprise Evidence Surfaces."]

Stranger Than Fiction

Another stranger-than-fiction twist in this story is the new revelation that a figure from the Watergate cover-up was Bush's "alibi witness," although the witness apparently could not be counted on to support Bush's October Surprise alibi.

Though Richard A. Moore was not one of the household names from the Watergate cover-up, a review of literature on the scandal reveals that he was a trusted aide to President Nixon and helped formulate both legal and public-relations strategies to fend off the Watergate investigations.

In The Haldeman Diaries, White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman describes Nixon frequently sending his top aides to consult with Moore about developments in the scandal. At one point, as White House counsel Dean is starting to talk with prosecutors, Haldeman notes that "Moore was very close to Dean, how about having him talk with Dean and see what he has in mind."

In Dean's Blind Ambition, Dean credits Moore with first coming up with the memorable phrase that the Watergate cover-up was becoming "a cancer" on Nixon's presidency, a metaphor that Dean used in a key confrontation with Nixon and repeated during the Watergate hearings.

During those hearings, Moore was dispatched by the White House to dispute Dean's assertion that Nixon was complicit in the cover-up of the June 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Headquarters at least as early as that September.

On July 12, 1973, Moore told the Senate Watergate Committee that "nothing said in my meetings with Mr. Dean or my meetings with the President suggests in any way that before March 21 [1973] the President had known, or that Mr. Dean believed he had known, of any involvement of White House personnel in the bugging or the cover-up."

Perhaps because of his status as a lawyer to Nixon, Moore escaped the fate of many other White House insiders who were indicted and prosecuted for false testimony and obstruction of justice.

Being a Yale alumnus and a friend of the well-connected George H.W. Bush, who was then chairman of the Republican National Committee, probably didn't hurt either.

Moore had started his legal career working as a lawyer for the American Broadcasting Company in the 1940s. He was a close friend of Nixon's Attorney General John N. Mitchell who brought Moore into the Nixon administration as his special assistant. Moore moved over to the White House in 1971 to serve as special counsel to Nixon.

After leaving the White House, Moore returned to the television industry, becoming a founder and associate producer of "The McLaughlin Group" political chat show.

In September 1989, President George H.W. Bush named Moore as Ambassador to Ireland, where he stayed until June 1992, when his testimony in another political scandal might have proved very important in either exonerating Bush or exposing a phony cover story that protected Bush's participation in an operation that bordered on treason.

Without ever being questioned in the October Surprise mystery, Moore died in Washington on Jan. 27, 1995, at age 81. He succumbed to prostate cancer, according to his daughter Kate L. Moore.

For more on these topics, see Robert Parry's "Secrecy & Privilege" and "Neck Deep," now available in a two-book set for the discount price of only $19. For details, click here.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, "Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush," was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at His two previous books, "Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq" and "Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth'" are also available there. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+69 # stonecutter 2011-09-28 16:41
This is the kind of exhaustive investigative journalism that used to be the hallmark of free press in this country, and is reminiscent of the best of Edward Murrow, Seymour Hersh and others. It's the kind of factual puzzle solution that scares the crap out of very powerful people in our own government and other governments who have reasons, both private and professional, to keep things secret and away from public scrutiny.

Think of it: if this is true, Bush and Casey were bargaining with the Iranians in Europe, in treasonous secrecy, just weeks before the 1980 presidential election to DELAY THE RELEASE OF THE HOSTAGES, so Reagan could continue to use their prolonged captivity and suffering to politically bludgeon Carter; and in return, Reagan agrees to sell U.S. Weapons to Iran at some later date behind a trumped-up cover (i.e., aiding the Nicaraguan "Contras"). The implications are disturbing and illuminating.

I can't help feeling Parry is exposing the tip of a colossal iceberg. This incident at the very least demonstrates the shadow world of secret, usually odious deals between global power players, at odds with the scripted drivel and lies they feed the public to obscure their hidden agendas. It makes Wikileaks appear heroic and indispensible. It reveals the "Darth Sidious" lurking in "amiable" George H.W. Bush. They don't deserve respect. Period.
+29 # Anarchist 23 2011-09-28 19:56
And yet so many trust Bush 2's version of 911! Amazing!!!
+70 # Texan 4 Peace 2011-09-28 16:55
So much investigative journalism to prove, 30 years later, what we already knew: that Bush was a liar and a traitor. I wish all those who have re-written Reagan's history to make him some kind of saint would confront that fact that he KEPT AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN DANGER long, and covertly sold arms to a terrorist regime, just to secure his own election. Having lived through that time, I always think of 1980 as the point where the US really started to go downhill. I seldom saw homeless people before then -- now one sees several every day.
+18 # Ralph Averill 2011-09-30 02:22
The fact that the hostages were freed just after the election convinced me. Plus, all those burning helicopters in the failed attempt to free the hostages had Ollie North's fingerprints all over them. For my money, this was treason. This was high treason.
As to homeless people, Gov. Reagan closed California's mental hospitals and soon after "Reagan's rejects", former patients, could be seen shuffling along the streets of San Francisco begging for money, or just sitting and drooling.
+59 # angelfish 2011-09-28 17:08
Ah, the Bush's, they have MUCH to answer for. They're up to their eyeballs in Corruption! Schmoozing with the Saudis who dropped the World Trade Center then got flown out of the Country when ALL other Flights were canceled, conniving with the Iraqis, Afghanis, Pakistanis and God only knows who else that stole TRILLIONS of dollars IN cash sent over to them on pallets. Unaccounted for but presumably stolen by War Lords and Mercenaries, such as Xe, (formerly Blackwater) & Halliburton, et al. WHERE is Justice? WHY is there no Special Prosecutor? WHY is there no Accountability? They have PERVERTED the American Dream and turned us into Murderers and Torturers! No wonder there are Earthquakes in Virginia, the Founders are spinning in their graves over the garbage that passes for Politicians these days! Our President has been saddled with a bunch of "ME FIRST!" Sycophants who drop, squat and yell "WHAT COLOR!" every time one of the Koch's or Grover Norquist says, "Sh*t"! They are Fascists who would rather see this Country FAIL as long as the President only serves one term. Hopefully, the Tide is beginning to turn as sane and thoughtful Americans are coming to terms with the Trauma that has been wreaked on us and are standing up to DEMAND Justice! See Wisconsin, Wall Street, and other cities across the Country and the World! It is NOT to be borne much longer! Justice WILL be served!
+28 # frdboesl 2011-09-29 01:33
angelfish, You are 100% right!! I've been saying the same for years! The evil self serving deeds that they have done, must be payed for. Their Greed has has destroyed our country. And add Cheney into the criminal crew. But how? They own the Courts. We have to keep doing what has happened in Wisconsin and is now under reported on Wall St.
We can't let corporations write law for the citizens
+19 # AndreM5 2011-09-29 11:20
They don't call them the BUSH CRIME FAMILY for nothing! Starting with Herbert Walker and the Third Reich, the source of the family fortune.
-55 # 2011-09-28 17:23
Perhaps Bush simply did not want his friend involved in (harrassed by) a federal investigation.

Thia seems to be more a traditional conspiracy theory than a news story.

I am no fan of Bush or his son or his father and never voted for any of them but I think we should stick to verifiable facts and forego our suspicions and speculations.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
+12 # stonecutter 2011-09-29 05:44
To Lnason: You're kidding, right? You're a troll? Otherwise, your comment is so fundamentally cockeyed as to be near-blind in its conclusions. Bush was not the president of some school board when this matter was poorly investigated by Congress in 1991, he was president of the U.S. in the post-Watergate era. Mr. Parry's article is FULL OF VERIFIABLE FACTS, the very reason it's a model of investigative journalism that exposes secret wrongdoing, not a "more traditional conspiracy theory" as you inanely describe it.

You're either a right-wing troll or a God-fearing, malleable citizen still entitled to his opinion, but either way, your comment is stunning in its ignorance and wrong-headednes s.
+2 # AndreM5 2011-09-29 09:01
Hey, c'mon. There are two sides to every story, for example "right and wrong" and "true and false." Some people just prefer "wrong and false" when it better suits their twisted world view.
+9 # NanFan 2011-09-30 04:31
...I think we should stick to verifiable facts and forego our suspicions and speculations.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts

Ya think, Lee? There is so much dirt on H.W. that if it ALL were out, he would be in jail a long, long time ago. I know...I was there and I was young. Had the goods, the voice of the media, and was...I'll admit it...too scared, as a young journalist, to tell anything, let alone to write the book to expose him that I was hired to write. I gave up after lots of threats. I was looking over my shoulder at all times.

But suffice it to say, this man is a criminal of the highest order and he's untouchable because of his power and who he's in bed with...and I ain't talkin' Barbara.

Call coward. I deserve it. I had 11 tapes that would have nailed him before he became president, and I was afraid to do it. The tapes, by the way, mysteriously disappeared. This was in 1983. I was strong enough to protest Vietnam in the 60s-70s, non-violently, but this was really in my backyard, during the murderous Reagan admin. when H.W. was VP.

No excuse, though. Wish I had.

+51 # lin96 2011-09-28 17:31
Larry King asked GJWBush if he thought he was going to heaven. After at least a minute of silence he said, "I think so." If we were to know all that GHWBush has done I think we'd know what he couldn't answer that question. Now I'd like to know why there is a picture of Bush in front of the Book Depository on 11/22/63. As head of the CIA and with knowledge that there was evidence of an assasination threat, what did Bush know and when did he know it? I wish someone would investigate his past thoroughly before anything happens to him so he can be presented with that question again. I absolutely think that Carter was set up.
+24 # AndreM5 2011-09-29 09:02
As was Kennedy.
+3 # NanFan 2011-09-30 05:12
Quoting AndreM5:
As was Kennedy.

Now you know who and what I am talking about above, right?

Right...not good.

+2 # AndreM5 2011-09-30 09:11
Yes, I know. While very young I worked with Mark Lane for a short while, but he was mostly wrong with his conclusions. The problem was far worse that he wanted to imagine.
+44 # LetJusticeRoll 2011-09-28 18:22
Parry makes a very good case for this version of the story, with the latest and earlier evidence combined. I am sick at heart when I learn the depths of evil to which GWH Bush and cronies were apparently willing to stoop in order to gain power. They were seemingly willing to keep our fellow countrymen hostage for several additional agonizing months. I wonder how the former hostages and their families feel about this.
+39 # noitall 2011-09-28 18:26
What these people will do to get into office to do what they do sends chills down my spine. Is it such a leap to call the discrepencies and ignored testimony, when questioned, "conspiracies" thereby forced to believe the "official story" of 9/11? as etched in bronze? Especially when many of the same names would come up when investigated. They have been peeing in our soup, on our dime, for decades. It is a sad, sad, reality that we live in when aspiring leaders would jeopardize the safety of 52 citizen captives in order to win a position where they are expected to protect the rights of those 52 and the rest of us? to sacrifice the lives of 3000 to open a new pioneer for our oil execs? Is it possible for one to become a holder of high office in this country and not leave it a millionaire? Honest Jimmy and honest Abe did. How is it that we are still able to expect these animals to live up to the standards that they expect us to abide by? They are the very ones who concoct the scenario that we eat up that paints the hero of Wikileaks as a traitor. They fear and attack truth; this should be a tip-off to us.
+47 # Brian Grogan 2011-09-28 18:28
It is interesting to note how closely these events parallel those of Richard Nixon's secret contacts with the South Viet Namese prior to the 1968 elections. Nixon and his team were actively undermining the Lyndon Johnson's efforts towards a negotiated peace. These Republicans seem to have no concerns about committing treason if it furthers there political electoral aims.
+8 # AndreM5 2011-09-29 11:23
They consistently re-use successful tactics and this is just one of many. How about the Dieboldt faux voting machines? LBJ knew about Nixon's treason and he was recorded on the telephone making this very statement. It's now released and in the Natl. Archives.
+26 # Erdajean 2011-09-28 19:11
Ah, just another "conspiracy theory" -- concocted to persecute God's Omnipotent Party by the sniveling curs of the Left.
Really, folks, are any of us surprised? What these revelations may show, above all, is that the truth WILL find these slime-bags out. The evil that they do (and that they DID it) will come out. The pity is that it may come too late to hang them for it -- or for the victims who suffered because of them to rejoice in vindication.
+4 # motamanx 2011-09-30 16:54
If only wikileaks had existed then!

No wonder the power players want to shut it down.
+3 # motamanx 2011-09-30 16:59
"The pity is that it may come too late to hang them for it "

Hang them for it? We don't even censure them for it. I guy gets censured for playing footsie in the men's room, but when truly treasonous acts like Bush's and Cheney's occur, they get away scott free. A shame. We are still a nation of laws, aren't we?
+36 # Kayjay 2011-09-28 19:17
Often, when Olympic athletes are caught cheating, even years later, they are forced to give up the gold. So....if Parry's efforts uncover solid evidence that Bush and Reagan indeed committed treason and stole the 1980 election, does Carter get to serve four more years in the White House? Considering the knuckleheads running for the top spot in 2012, this might not be a bad idea. Would you like Carter or Christie????
+16 # Merschrod 2011-09-28 19:44
The time line in this article is impressive - great research. Another timeline needs to be reviewed

B/c the ban on arms to the contras came two years later, and becauee the Iran-Iraq war came almost a year before the secret meetings between the Iranians and the Bush team, there had to be other motives or promises in exchange for the delay of the hostage release. One can understand the neo-con motive for delaying the release b/c it would have helped Jimmy Carter if they were released, but what was the quid pro quo? Was it a promise of lifting the blockade imposed by the Carter Administration? That did not come to pass b/c of Neo-con opposition. The idea of the lifting and secret arms way before the Boland Amendment does not make sense. There is more to this - what was a likely quid-pro-quo in the FAll of 1980?
+10 # Merschrod 2011-09-28 19:59
Eventhough the Iran-Iraq war was yet to begin, what appears in later years in exchanges for other hostages not necessarily held by Iran, but held by people overwhom the Iranians had influence, is order after order of TOW missles by Iran (probably crucial to fighting the Iraqis) hundreds and hundreds of TOWs were swapped for hostage releases. Perhaps the Iranians inspite of ther arms embargo and public anti-Iranian stance by the US Administrations.

The israelis played an intermediary role in this - so on paper, at least witjh the Iranian military the US and Israel seemed to be on good terms. Could the agenda be to coopt the Iranian military vs. the Revolutionary guard? (We lost out big time on that gambit!
+12 # Howard T. Lewis III 2011-09-28 22:39
This dog can hunt.Right on target, too.

It seems to me that Bush41 is the point man of piracy and rapine and pillage in the U.S. for the alliance of Grand patron of freemasonry/Rot hschid . The major offensive seems to have started with 9-11 and has progressed to numerous HAARP weather attacks. The preloaded charges in the WTCs were augmented by nanothermate placed much later, since it was not available when the WTCs were built. Someone retriggered the original preset. Same alliance for the past 300 years and their names are all over it. The granted bid to perform alchemy in creation of the exterior fasteners was ridiculous. They never worked out the problem using other materials and it failed. As expected and anticipated. There was a 4$ billion insurance policy granted on a 166$ million building losing 12$ million/yr and scheduled for demolition in 2007.

3,000+ counts of first degree murder.
+13 # Paul Scott 2011-09-28 23:45
This Lee Hamilton would be the same Rep Lee Hamilton that as chairman of the Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran, chose not to investigate President Ronald Reagan or President George H. W. Bush, stating that he did not think it would be "good for the country" to put the public through another impeachment trial. However, the only other impeachment trial, in this nation, was of Andrew Johnson on February 24, 1868 and I think there had been ample time for the nation to have gotten over it.

There’s been so much no investigation “for the good of the country” BS, by congress, since Nixon was allowed a pass for Watergate crimes that DC has become the city of congressional authorized crime.
+12 # giraffe 2011-09-28 23:57
Here is a little known fact about G.W. Bush's grandfather
"How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power" (and he was also an "elected" office holder of the USA)

+13 # sandyboy 2011-09-29 05:21
Lee Nason's comment is hilarious. "Stick to verifiable facts"? If people refuse to provide an alibi because they or their witness "don't want to be harassed" how are we to get the facts without an investigation. It is thunderingly obvious that these crooks let US citizens suffer longer than need be for political gain.
+15 # Chick Dante 2011-09-29 07:19
Many questioned why George H. W. Bush was appointed to head up the CIA. Years later we learn that the Bay of Pigs operation was named "Operation Zapata" which was the name of George H. W. Bush's oil company at the time. We now know that Bush had close connections to the CIA long before that.

Hamilton and Kean keep recurring whenever the CIA needs a cover up that looks like an official investigation - that provides "Plausible Deniability" a hallmark of CIA operations. The 9-11 Commission is but another of these "official coverups" headed up by the tandem and characterized by strange omissions, seemingly lazy investigations, unmet time frames, compromised or ignored evidence and other tricks of the trade perfected by Kean and Hamilton.
+17 # MainStreetMentor 2011-09-29 08:35
Mr. Parry: Congratulations on proving that REAL investigative journalism is still alive. I am in respect of your efforts, and the above article. I pray your efforts become a role model for other journalists.

It would seem, too, that the acorn, indeed, doesn't fall far from the tree - and perhaps now we have a bit more insight into the inner-workings of the George W. Bush (the son) administration. Miscreant malfeasence seems to be a family trait.
+14 # Steve5551 2011-09-29 11:27
I'd like to know the role H.W. Bush played in the Kennedy assasinations (John's and Bobby's. I'd also like to know how the Bush family has been able to pull the dirtiest deeds in US history with impunity???? Help me?
+9 # Tom Camfield 2011-09-29 11:50
It's this whole damned thing about assumed privilege.
+2 # ncmcpherson 2011-09-29 13:29
If you want to add another level of information to this inquiry, check the flight log for AFOne or whatever jet was used to fly to Paris at the time. Also check the maintenance schedule. Follow the trail made by the transportation. And check travel(financia l) records for the trip to Madrid. It might not have required the security and been on a commercial flight paid for by the erefore a record MIGHT be available, dependent on record retention requirements.
+8 # Palli 2011-09-29 20:52
Imagine where America would be regarding alternative energy and energy self-sufficienc y if President Carter could have been elected to a second term!
That motive only fuels understanding this reporting as truth
+6 # reiverpacific 2011-09-30 02:34
We really know nothing for sure but that certain people and dynasties will do anything to maintain the status-quo of power in a few hands and despise, lie to and manipulate the rest of us, wherever under "This inverted bowl we call the sky, beneath which crawling coop'd we live and die".
To go further back than "Palli" suggests (and I agree that most of the latter-day rot came from the now-sainted Reagan era), where would we be if Kermit Roosevelt at the behest of B.P., had not succeeded in having Mohammed Mossadequ deposed as Iran's most popular socialist elected leader in 1953, because he had the temerity to nationalize the county's oil for their own use?
-And what followed? Carter's pal the Shah, then the vengeful and hostile Ayotollah and the hostages, and now the continuing theocratic rule of the Mullahs with Ahmedinijad as their mouthpiece. All for profit.
What price the endless and inbred, tightly-woven tapestry of power, oil, ruthless ambition, military might and secrecy within and beyond these shores?
Y'all know that and it happens again ad infinitum unless we break the cycle somehow as a solid, irresistible, ground-swelling mass.
+3 # motamanx 2011-09-30 17:30
What is described here is another in a long, long list of Bush Family vicissitudes--s ome outright treasonous, some merely corrupt. If ever anything ever gets done in the name of justice for these serial crimes (that is what they are), the country and the world will be the better for it.
0 # blue99 2011-10-01 18:21
If the medieval powers are still excercising political alchemy, the proof would be a certain tie in with say rothschild/rock efeller to excon/mobil-she ll. The fact is the same powers that are ruining the environment through supressing new energy &/or efficiency in engine design(look at the young guy who developed the gasoline vapor engine -found dead in the desert), or, the oil co. Political supression of public transit((in "in los angeles)).the automobile in its 100 years devestated the ecology to an irreparable extent. Needless to say this process was criminal.
0 # wgalison 2011-10-02 22:00

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.