Grandson of WWII NAZI banker accuses others of appeasement.

[TruthByDecree]

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," - President George W. Bush in Jerusalem to the Israeli parliament

Does this guy even realize he’s only sitting in the White House because his Grandfather built the family fortune and political dynasty off the backs of NAZI slave labor? The same traitor who was involved in a plot to overthrow Roosevelt and the American government.

The only appeasement I see is Bush trying to appease Israel.

[Mangoose]

The PUSA invoking Godwin's law in Israel's Knesset, of all places.

Un-freakingly-believable.

[BigAl]

Does anyone know who this senator was? The Internets don't go back that far and I'm I've been unable to google it up.

[TruthByDecree]

Does anyone know who this senator was? The Internets don't go back that far and I'm I've been unable to google it up.

New wiki entry on one William Edgar Borah

Borah returned to the forefront of public affairs via the 2008 presidential election when President George W. Bush quoted him during a speech in Israel commemorating that nation's 60th anniversary.

[CHF]

What is perhaps most ironic about Bush's revolting remarks is that his administration has been negotiating with, and working with, terror-supporting regimes from day one.

Bush maintains close ties with the rulers of Saudi Arabia - creeps who send billions of dollars around the world to fund mosques and preach wahabbism. Oh and let's not forget where 15 of 19 Sept 11 hijackers came from.

This administration has also sent WOT detainees to Hezbollah's backers in Syria for "interrogation," has negotiated with Libya (the folks who used to blow up airplanes) over WMD programs and has held nuclear talks with North Korea.

Yet there are some Dems who risk repeating the appeasement of 1939 because they want to talk to the leaders of hostile states? :eek:

[WildCat]

Does this guy even realize he’s only sitting in the White House because his Grandfather built the family fortune and political dynasty off the backs of NAZI slave labor? The same traitor who was involved in a plot to overthrow Roosevelt and the American government.
As a general rule of thumb, I've noticed that any web site or internet handle with "truth" in the name generally is full of lies. Just for ***** and giggles, would you like to back that up?

[WildCat]

The PUSA invoking Godwin's law in Israel's Knesset, of all places.

Un-freakingly-believable.
Yes, because Nazi Germany is completely irrelevant to the history of Israel. :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

What is perhaps most ironic about Bush's revolting remarks is that his administration has been negotiating with, and working with, terror-supporting regimes from day one.

Bush maintains close ties with the rulers of Saudi Arabia - creeps who send billions of dollars around the world to fund mosques and preach wahabbism. Oh and let's not forget where 15 of 19 Sept 11 hijackers came from.

This administration has also sent WOT detainees to Hezbollah's backers in Syria for "interrogation," has negotiated with Libya (the folks who used to blow up airplanes) over WMD programs and has held nuclear talks with North Korea.

How can any of your examples above be characterized as appeasement?

[JoeEllison]

What is perhaps most ironic about Bush's revolting remarks is that his administration has been negotiating with, and working with, terror-supporting regimes from day one.

Not just negotiating, but flat-out "appeasing" them by way of open support, every step of the way.

Bush and his supporters are just bad people, so we can expect no less.

[moon1969]

Are you for real? Prescott Bush worked in a bank that Fritz Thyssen owned. He had one stock, one share in that bank only one. He never said that he supported Hitler and he never said anything antisemitic. Harriman brothers had like 4000 shares in Thyssens bank. Anyway even Fritz Thyssen didn"t like Hitler in the end. Thyssen didn"t like what Hitler did to the jews so Thyssen stoped supporting Hitler. There is no proof that Bush and Thyssen were even friends. Just because somebody worked for Fritz Thyssen doesn"t proove that he supported Hitler. Whatabout Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.? Oh yeah and Henry Ford liked Hitler if I remember rigth? And if Prescott Bush was a nazi then why did he support the United Negro College Fund? To me it doesn"t sound like a nazi would support something like that in the 1950"s so why did he support it?

[moon1969]

Iraq war was wrong but it was in someway morally rigth. So Bush should have not overthrow Saddam Hussein and Chemical Ali? Who was better for Iraq Chemical Ali aka Joseph Mengele of today and madman Saddam "Stalin" Hussein or George Bush and USA. So was it wrong what Bill Clinton did to Slobodan Milošević? What is the diffrence between Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milošević?

[CHF]

How can any of your examples above be characterized as appeasement?

You don't think Bush has appeased Saudi extremism?

[WildCat]

You don't think Bush has appeased Saudi extremism?
What Saudi demands did Bush acquiesce to?

[TruthByDecree]

As a general rule of thumb, I've noticed that any web site or internet handle with "truth" in the name generally is full of lies. Just for ***** and giggles, would you like to back that up?

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

w w w .guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar


The Whitehouse Coup

w w w .bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723 shtm

[mrbaracuda]

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

w w w .guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar


The Whitehouse Coup

w w w .bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723 shtm

Someone please tell me if this is one of those cases where Alex Jones uses an article, distorts it horribly and then a sheeple goes out into the world to paste links to articles which don't support the twoofers' position.

[Bikewer]

The Bush administration has been particularly adept at conflation. Conflating Saddam with Al Qaeda, the Iraqi insurgency with Al Qaeda, etc, etc.
Now we get the notion that negotiation=appeasement.

Fascinating. Invoke images of Hitler and Chamberlain to paint the opposition as naive fools who will give away the world to the enemy.
As if Bush's foreign policy has been a resounding success....

[CHF]

What Saudi demands did Bush acquiesce to?

What is there for them to demand? Bush allows them to pump millions of dollars into funding Wahabbism in America and holds their hand afterwards.

Perhaps the correct word for it isn't appeasement so much as it is collaboration.

[CHF]

dp

[mrbaracuda]

Bush allows them to pump millions of dollars into funding Wahabbism in America and holds their hand afterwards.

Is it really Bush who allows for that or the American legislation?
How do you think is it possible for them to spend so much money on mosques in the US or abroad in general? How could you make this illegal?

[CHF]

Is it really Bush who allows for that or the American legislation?

Both. Bush seems to add hand-holding just to put the Saudis fully at ease.

How do you think is it possible for them to spend so much money on mosques in the US or abroad in general?

Oil money.

How could you make this illegal?

I'd say Wahabbism spends a fair amount of time calling for violence and terror. If that's not illegal then it probably should be.

Sometimes we in the West tend to be too tolerant for our own good.

[CHF]

dp

[mrbaracuda]

Oil money.

Ah, I didn't mean it so literally, CHF! :D
What I meant was how they can get the money through. It seems to be fine to spend money on mosques and other projects, doesn't it, so how would you do something about it?

I'd say Wahabbism spends a fair amount of time calling for violence and terror. If that's not illegal then it probably should be.

Sometimes we in the West tend to be too tolerant for our own good.

I agree, but how would you tackle the problem?

[CHF]

Ah, I didn't mean it so literally, CHF! :D
What I meant was how they can get the money through. It seems to be fine to spend money on mosques and other projects, doesn't it, so how would you do something about it?

I would argue that they can get the money through with such ease because our mindless political correctness demands that we respect all "religions" and beliefs - no matter how obviously hostile and warped they are.

If it were up to me, all Saudi funding of Islamic institutions would be banned.

Sadly, I'm afraid it won't happen unless we're faced with a stready stream of extremism and terror attacks from it's followers (Europe will probably be the first to be faced with this). In the meantime we have to play dumb and pretend that Wahabbism is just another faith, no less worthy of our tolerance than, say, Buddhism.

[Gravy]

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power
w w w .guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
The Whitehouse Coup
w w w .bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723 shtmHello, TruthByDecree. You know who really, really hate Nazis? The members of the Anti-Defamation League. Here's what they have to say about Prescott Bush:

Rumors about the alleged Nazi "ties" of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated.

Despite some early financial dealings between Prescott Bush and a Nazi industrialist named Fritz Thyssen (who was arrested by the Nazi regime in 1938 and imprisoned during the war), Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer. http://www.adl.org/Internet_Rumors/prescott.htm

[dudalb]

There is enough to blast Bush for without bringing in crappy evidence about his grandfather's alleged Nazi ties in.
Once again, the political blinders some people wear here is astounding.

[mrbaracuda]

I would argue that they can get the money through with such ease because our mindless political correctness demands that we respect all "religions" and beliefs - no matter how obviously hostile and warped they are.

If it were up to me, all Saudi funding of Islamic institutions would be banned.

Sadly, I'm afraid it won't happen unless we're faced with a stready stream of extremism and terror attacks from it's followers (Europe will probably be the first to be faced with this). In the meantime we have to play dumb and pretend that Wahabbism is just another faith, no less worthy of our tolerance than, say, Buddhism.

So you don't have a solution. Well, me neither, especially not for America. Maybe LashL can help us out! :)

[dudalb]

I would argue that they can get the money through with such ease because our mindless political correctness demands that we respect all "religions" and beliefs - no matter how obviously hostile and warped they are.

If it were up to me, all Saudi funding of Islamic institutions would be banned.

Sadly, I'm afraid it won't happen unless we're faced with a stready stream of extremism and terror attacks from it's followers (Europe will probably be the first to be faced with this). In the meantime we have to play dumb and pretend that Wahabbism is just another faith, no less worthy of our tolerance than, say, Buddhism.

I despise Wahabbism, but to be fair I think ANY administration in power will look the other way at the Saudi funding of these groups for one reason: We Need the Freaking Oil. I don't expect any change of policy if the Dems are in power.
I am not even sure we can cut off funding of Wahabbis in the US from foreign sources unless we can legallly establish that the money is being used for illegal purposes.
The problem is are you really comfortable with the Government deciding what religons should be tolerated and which should not? Sort of defeats the purpose of the First Admendment,does'nt it?
And I hope you are honest enough to admit that some of the political left is also turning a blind eye to Islamic Extremism. One of the posters in this thread swho has strong left wing leanings screams "Islamophobe" and "Bigot" if anybody dares suggest that such a thing as Islamic extremism exists.

[WildCat]

What is there for them to demand? Bush allows them to pump millions of dollars into funding Wahabbism in America and holds their hand afterwards.

Perhaps the correct word for it isn't appeasement so much as it is collaboration.
"Allows them"? Are you stating that if another country does things the US doesn't like it is only doing so because the US allows it? If I'm misunderstanding you please correct me.

[mrbaracuda]

One of the posters in this thread swho has strong left wing leanings screams "Islamophobe" and "Bigot" if anybody dares suggest that such a thing as Islamic extremism exists.

Ha, funny thing, I was looking and looking, wondering who it might be, then I noticed I got him on ignore. Good times. :cool::D

[TruthByDecree]

Hello, TruthByDecree. You know who really, really hate Nazis? The members of the Anti-Defamation League. Here's what they have to say about Prescott Bush:


Quote:
Rumors about the alleged Nazi "ties" of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated.

Despite some early financial dealings between Prescott Bush and a Nazi industrialist named Fritz Thyssen (who was arrested by the Nazi regime in 1938 and imprisoned during the war), Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer. http://www.adl.org/Internet_Rumors/prescott.htm


Hello. Yeah that’s from 2003. My Guardian piece is from 2004 and the BBC report was from 2007. The Guardian piece (that’s from a year after your ADL declaration that it’s all just a conspiracy theory) starts with…

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

It’s all very well documented and confirmed though that’s not really the point here being that the hypocrisy (the point of the op. Did you GET that?)) of Bush’s statement about appeasement is also well documented by the long history of Bush family appeasement towards tyrants and terrorists. Be it Hitler, Saddam or the Saudis, who are presently helping to terrorize our economy. And what does Bush do?

http://www.azcentral.com/php-bin/commphotos/view.php?id=150866

Gee that kind of reminds me of something…

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:LI2hrdcjy_SQ9M:http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/04/05W_IRAN_narrowweb__300x364,0.jpg

I wonder if the President feels the Prince is an appeaser too?

And did the Prince appease the President today on his oil production request? Nope. Maybe he should have put out a little more. I mean it’s got to be their forth or fifth date by now.

But if it is conspiracy theories you wish to talk about Mr. Gravy I believe there is a forum for that. Are you familiar with it?

[Gravy]

From the Guardian article:

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.This is hardly news. Your other link didn't work.

You have not supported with evidence your contention that "he’s only sitting in the White House because his Grandfather built the family fortune and political dynasty off the backs of NAZI slave labor."

[TruthByDecree]

From the Guardian article:

This is hardly news. Your other link didn't work.

You have not supported with evidence your contention that "he’s only sitting in the White House because his Grandfather built the family fortune and political dynasty off the backs of NAZI slave labor."

I couldn't post links yet before try this one though I'm sure you know all about it already. Like I said it's well documented.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

The U.S. government didn't order the seizure of everyone's assets under the trading with the enemy act during WWII just the ones they felt were helping the NAZI's. That's all I evidence I need as far as appeasement goes Mr Gravy.

In any case what I'm really interested to know from you is what you think of Bush's comments on appeasement. You know the subject you are avoiding? The topic?

[CHF]

"Allows them"? Are you stating that if another country does things the US doesn't like it is only doing so because the US allows it? If I'm misunderstanding you please correct me.

When it comes to what the Saudis do within the USA, yes - of course that's done with US allowance, especially given how the Saudi funding of Wahabbism isn't exactly a secret.

The US government knows what's going on and allows it to happen because of brain-dead political correctness and the need to not upset oil suppliers.

[CHF]

The problem is are you really comfortable with the Government deciding what religons should be tolerated and which should not? Sort of defeats the purpose of the First Admendment,does'nt it?

This is what I mean by Western nations being too tolerant for their own good, especially when it comes to the gibberish of radical religion. Radical imams (especially in Europe) are quite upfront about their desire to turn their host nations in carbon copies of the totalitarian hellholes ruled by Shria law, and unlike marginalized fringe groups like neo-Nazis, the Wahabbists are quite capable of causing serious damage given the growing Muslim populations.

As of now, we cannot do a whole lot about it because of the "slippery slope" argument and the need to defend all points of view. That's fine - I fully understand the need to do so. I just hope no one acts surprised when parts of the West find themselves faced with Islamic insurgencies.

And I hope you are honest enough to admit that some of the political left is also turning a blind eye to Islamic Extremism. One of the posters in this thread swho has strong left wing leanings screams "Islamophobe" and "Bigot" if anybody dares suggest that such a thing as Islamic extremism exists.

I think many on the far left are so fixated on the evils of colonialism that the notion of a violent or evil non-white, non-Christian is simply incomprehensible to them.

[Gravy]

I couldn't post links yet before try this one though I'm sure you know all about it already. Like I said it's well documented.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml


A crackpot dreamed up a fantasy about taking over the government by recruiting an army of 500,000, and tried to gain recruits by claiming that he had all sorts of powerful allies in U.S. industry and finance – none of which was true. That's your idea of "well-documented?" Please look more closely at the truth behind this tale, and don't believe everything you hear on the radio.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

As a general rule of thumb, I've noticed that any web site or internet handle with "truth" in the name generally is full of lies. Just for ***** and giggles, would you like to back that up?

Wiki Precott Bush

Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. was the main Wall Street partner for several German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party, but by 1939 was bitterly denouncing Hitler and had fled Germany. He was later jailed by the Nazis for his opposition to the Nazi regime.[5] Business transactions with Germany were not illegal until Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941, but, six days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act after it had been made public that U.S. companies were doing business with the declared enemy of the United States. On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of German banking operations in New York City. Roosevelt's Alien Property Custodian, Leo T. Crowley, signed Vesting Order Number 248 seizing property under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The order cited only the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), of which Bush was a director and held only one share. Fox News has reports on recently declassified material about this issue, according to a document signed by Homer Jones, chief of the division of investigation and research of the Office of Alien Property Custodian, a World War II-era agency.[6] By 1941 Thyssen no longer had control over his business empire, which was in the hands of the Nazi government.

[Gravy]

Wiki Precott BushThanks, but that's nothing that hasn't been known since the 1940's.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Thanks, but that's nothing that hasn't been known since the 1940's.

Ohh, I know. I do not think it a big deal, it is just that Wildcat seemed to not know and needed evidence of such.

[TruthByDecree]

Mr. Gravy? What's a better example of appeasement? A bank that helps and profits off of financing the enemy’s war machine or just talking to Iran who we are not at war with?

Why it is ok for the President to hold hands with someone who also holds the hand of the supposed enemy, but anyone who just wants to talk to that supposed enemy is an appeaser?

You forgot to clarify your position on the op Mr. Gravy. If you will please.

[Gravy]

Second time: You have not supported with evidence your contention that "he’s only sitting in the White House because his Grandfather built the family fortune and political dynasty off the backs of NAZI slave labor."

Nor can you.

[Texas]

The PUSA invoking Godwin's law in Israel's Knesset, of all places.

Un-freakingly-believable.

It's POTUS.

[Texas]

When it comes to what the Saudis do within the USA, yes - of course that's done with US allowance, especially given how the Saudi funding of Wahabbism isn't exactly a secret.

The US government knows what's going on and allows it to happen because of brain-dead political correctness and the need to not upset oil suppliers.
Before you condemn the Saudi Royals think about what sits within their borders and then ask yourself why they may walking a tightrope in their relationship with the infidels. It isn't oil.

[TruthByDecree]

Second time: You have not supported with evidence your contention that "he’s only sitting in the White House because his Grandfather built the family fortune and political dynasty off the backs of NAZI slave labor."

Nor can you.

Oh no? How many unfounded conspiracy theories are documented in the National Archives and Library of Congress?

Bush/Nazi Link Confirmed

http://www.nhgazette.com/the-bushnazi-stories/bushnazi-link-confirmed/

WASHINGTON - After 60 years of inattention and even denial by the U.S. media, newly-uncovered government documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his “enemy national” partners.

Hey Gravy. Do you think this guy hates Nazis?


http://www.nhgazette.com/the-bushnazi-stories/bushnazi-link-continued/

former U.S. Justice Department Nazi war
crimes prosecutor John Loftus, now honorary president
of the Florida Holocaust Museum, wrote a book and launched
a web site (www.john-loftus.com) which did breakthrough
reporting, including establishing the link between Prescott
Bush, Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation and forced
labor at Auschwitz.

Now is working for the enemy during a time of war a better comparison for appeasement then just talking to Iran or not? And is President Bush aware of these facts about his own family when he accuses others of appeasement or is he just ignorant? And who is hurting us more the Saudis or Iran? How many 9/11 hijackers were from Iran?

http://www.bestirantravel.com/images/culture/wtc_vigil/wtc-art.jpg
Iranian artist painting.

http://www.bestirantravel.com/images/culture/wtc_vigil/vigil-tehran2.jpg
Thousands of Iranians attend 9/11 candlelight vigil in Tehran.

Now why is talking to Iran appeasement again?

[Gravy]

Oh no? How many unfounded conspiracy theories are documented in the National Archives and Library of Congress?

Bush/Nazi Link Confirmed

Hey Gravy. Do you think this guy hates Nazis?

Now is working for the enemy during a time of war a better comparison for appeasement then just talking to Iran or not? And is President Bush aware of these facts about his own family when he accuses others of appeasement or is he just ignorant? And who is hurting us more the Saudis or Iran? How many 9/11 hijackers were from Iran?
You're kidding, right? This information was known in the 1940's. Prescott Bush was not a Nazi sympathizer, and he certainly didn't "build the family fortune and political dynasty off the backs of NAZI slave labor." Try not to become hysterical.

[TruthByDecree]

You're kidding, right? This information was known in the 1940's. Prescott Bush was not a Nazi sympathizer, and he certainly didn't "build the family fortune and political dynasty off the backs of NAZI slave labor." Try not to become hysterical.

Sure it's been known since the 1940's. That is when the government seized the assets. Now what are assets Gravy? And wasn't Prescott working to make some of those assets for himself and his family? Or was it just out of sympathy for the NAZI cause? What is your position?

What is appeasement to you?

[WildCat]

When it comes to what the Saudis do within the USA, yes - of course that's done with US allowance, especially given how the Saudi funding of Wahabbism isn't exactly a secret.

The US government knows what's going on and allows it to happen because of brain-dead political correctness and the need to not upset oil suppliers.
Funding Wahabbist mosques in the US isn't illegal, nor could it be made illegal since such an act would clearly be unconstitutional.

You're really stretching on this one.

[Gravy]

Sure it's been known since the 1940's. That is when the government seized the assets. Now what are assets Gravy? And wasn't Prescott working to make some of those assets for himself and his family? Or was it just out of sympathy for the NAZI cause?Out of sympathy for the Nazi cause? He owned one share in a company that did business with a Nazi opponent, Fritz Thyssen. Polish slave labor? Thyssen had left Germany before the Nazis even invaded Poland. So how was Bush involved in slave labor there?

If you think Bush was a Nazi sympathizer, please point to one specific decision he made during his one-share directorship that supports this contention.

You made two accusations about Prescott Bush. One, that he built his fortune and political career by collaborating with Nazis an benefiting from slave labor. Two, that he participated in a plot to overthrow the U.S. government. All I ask is that you do your homework before making serious accusations. Fair enough?

[WildCat]

Sure it's been known since the 1940's. That is when the government seized the assets.
So now you're claiming the Bush family got rich on assets seized by the government?

Do you know what the word "seized" means?

[Gravy]

So now you're claiming the Bush family got rich on assets seized by the government?

Do you know what the word "seized" means?I don't think he's claiming that, but that doing business with a company whose assets were seized shows culpability (the assets were returned, by the way. We had discussed this long ago in the CT subforum). As far as I can tell, he's failing to make the distinction between Germans and Nazis.

[TruthByDecree]

So now you're claiming the Bush family got rich on assets seized by the government?

Do you know what the word "seized" means?

Do you? Because Gravy is correct in that the assets were returned in 1951. What he doesn't seem to get is when they were seized the Government didn't make any distinctions between Germans and Nazis.

Now here is some modern day appeasement that seems to escape the president while he's making out with the Saudi Prince...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/08/world/main2240138.shtml

But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report released Wednesday said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.

[TruthByDecree]

Out of sympathy for the Nazi cause? He owned one share in a company that did business with a Nazi opponent, Fritz Thyssen. Polish slave labor? Thyssen had left Germany before the Nazis even invaded Poland. So how was Bush involved in slave labor there?

If you think Bush was a Nazi sympathizer, please point to one specific decision he made during his one-share directorship that supports this contention.

You made two accusations about Prescott Bush. One, that he built his fortune and political career by collaborating with Nazis an benefiting from slave labor. Two, that he participated in a plot to overthrow the U.S. government. All I ask is that you do your homework before making serious accusations. Fair enough?

You want to be fair? What didn't I show? How did Prescott Bush make a living during WWII? Are they now not a political and financial dynasty?

So the issue is that he only had one share now? How many ovens to march how many jews into equate one share Gravy? How many bullets to kill how many Allies? Does it matter?

How many shares would be appeasement to you?

[WildCat]

Do you? Because Gravy is correct in that the assets were returned in 1951. What he doesn't seem to get is when they were seized the Government didn't make any distinctions between Germans and Nazis.
What you don't get is that the assets were in a company that wasn't involved with the nazis, and in fact the owner was imprisoned by the Nazis. At the start of the US involvement in WWII all German assets were seized, whether or not they were state-owned assets or private German assets of Germans not involved with the Nazis.

Now here is some modern day appeasement that seems to escape the president while he's making out with the Saudi Prince...
Evidence that this money is supplied by the Saudi government? I'll assume without fear of contradiction that you have none.

[WildCat]

So the issue is that he only had one share now? How many ovens to march how many jews into equate one share Gravy? How many bullets to kill how many Allies? Does it matter?
Holy non sequitur Batman!

[TruthByDecree]

What you don't get is that the assets were in a company that wasn't involved with the nazis, and in fact the owner was imprisoned by the Nazis. At the start of the US involvement in WWII all German assets were seized, whether or not they were state-owned assets or private German assets of Germans not involved with the Nazis.

No you are the one who obviously doesn't get or at least are pretending not to serve your unfounded opinion.

You first claimed that I must not know what the word "seized" means implying that if the assets were "seized" they could not have contributed to the Bush fortune. You were proven to be incorrect on this because the assets were returned after the war.

So what was the point you were trying to make about the assets being "seized" Wildcat? What is your point now that you have been shown they were returned? It doesn't matter now? Why?

And your claim that German companies during WWII had nothing to do with the Nazi's makes you a good candidate towards appeasing tendencies.

Evidence that this money is supplied by the Saudi government? I'll assume without fear of contradiction that you have none.

It comes from Saudi Arabia and it results in dead American soldiers in Iraq. Why doesn't the Presidents boyfriend put a stop to it? I here they can be pretty strict over there when they want to be so what's the problem? Has the President made any request to the Prince to stop it or is he just ignoring that also while he accuses Americans of appeasement?

[boloboffin]

What you don't get is that the assets were in a company that wasn't involved with the nazis, and in fact the owner was imprisoned by the Nazis. At the start of the US involvement in WWII all German assets were seized, whether or not they were state-owned assets or private German assets of Germans not involved with the Nazis.

Union Bank was seized in October 1942. It's kind of hard to call that the "start of the US involvement in WWII".

However, Thyssen had been imprisoned by the Nazis at this time. No charges were brought against the directors of the bank, and when Prescott ran for the U.S. Senate in 1952, he won it handily and this event well within public knowledge was never raised.

Hitler put a knife into a lot of backs of the people who helped him rise to power. Prescott Bush's Nazi ties are very, very tangential.

[Shadowdweller]

While I quite detest Bush as much as the next person, I fail to see how the actions of his ancestors have any bearing on the validity of his arguments.

[Pardalis]

While I quite detest Bush as much as the next person, I fail to see how the actions of his ancestors have any bearing on the validity of his arguments.

An ad hominem priores?

I'm not really good at latin.

[The Painter]

Hey Truth..

How's this;

JFK collaborates with Nazis to put man on the moon. It's true!!!

[WildCat]

No you are the one who obviously doesn't get or at least are pretending not to serve your unfounded opinion.

You first claimed that I must not know what the word "seized" means implying that if the assets were "seized" they could not have contributed to the Bush fortune. You were proven to be incorrect on this because the assets were returned after the war.

So what was the point you were trying to make about the assets being "seized" Wildcat? What is your point now that you have been shown they were returned? It doesn't matter now? Why?
What was the value of the assets, and what percent of Bush's assets did that represent? You do have the answer to this question, right? because otherwise you'd be making a half-assed accusation based on nothing but speculation.

And your claim that German companies during WWII had nothing to do with the Nazi's makes you a good candidate towards appeasing tendencies.
If the owner of that company was imprisoned by the Nazis how does that make him a Nazi collaborator?

It comes from Saudi Arabia and it results in dead American soldiers in Iraq.
But this is not money from the Saudi government.

Why doesn't the Presidents boyfriend put a stop to it?
The same reason the US is not crime-free. What you are demanding is impossible.

I here they can be pretty strict over there when they want to be so what's the problem? Has the President made any request to the Prince to stop it or is he just ignoring that also while he accuses Americans of appeasement?
Please try to think about what you are saying, because this doesn't even make any sense.

[WildCat]

Hey Truth..

How's this;

JFK collaborates with Nazis to put man on the moon. It's true!!!
I wouldn't be surprised if Truth is a moon landing hoax proponent.

[TruthByDecree]

Hey Truth..

How's this;

JFK collaborates with Nazis to put man on the moon. It's true!!!

Though JFK dreamed of going to the moon he was dead almost six years before it happened.

I also didn't know he was key in Operation Paperclip when he was alive and long before he was President. Please source because it sounds more up Prescott's alley.

And who did JFK accuse of appeasement?

[zigaretten]

And who did JFK accuse of appeasement?

Pretty much everyone who thought he was too agressive........

".......On the one hand are those who urge upon us what I regard to be the pathway of surrender–appeasing our enemies, compromising our commitments, purchasing peace at any price, disavowing our arms, our friends, our obligations. If their view had prevailed, the world of free choice would be smaller today."

JFK

[TruthByDecree]

Pretty much everyone who thought he was too agressive........

".......On the one hand are those who urge upon us what I regard to be the pathway of surrender–appeasing our enemies, compromising our commitments, purchasing peace at any price, disavowing our arms, our friends, our obligations. If their view had prevailed, the world of free choice would be smaller today."

JFK

Don't forget the rest of it...

"On the other hand are those who urge upon us what I regard to be the pathway of war: equating negotiations with appeasement and substituting rigidity for firmness. If their view had prevailed, we would be at war today, and in more than one place."

JFK

Now if Dubya only knew of the other hand.

[Thunder]

i am no fan of Bush..but I fail to see what the actions of his grandfather (or anyone elses) has anything to do with what he did or did not do, should or should not say.

if dick cheney's grandpa was a saint..does that make dick a good guy?