PDA

View Full Version : Bush Plotted To Stage a Coup and Turn our Country Fascist?


Unabogie
25th July 2007, 03:36 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document.shtml

Boo
25th July 2007, 03:40 PM
The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.




Your thread title appears to be somewhat misleading.....





Boo

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 03:43 PM
Your thread title appears to be somewhat misleading.....

Boo

I prefer the term..."eye-catching".

Pardalis
25th July 2007, 03:43 PM
George W Bush was born in 1946.

Conspiracy theories are thataway (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64)

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 03:49 PM
George W Bush was born in 1946.

Conspiracy theories are thataway (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64)

I take it you didn't listen to the report?

hgc
25th July 2007, 03:52 PM
owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott


Uh, is this a coup of industrial food giants? Perhaps the Jolly Green Giant? Ho, ho, ho?

Pardalis
25th July 2007, 03:56 PM
I take it you didn't listen to the report?

So you listen to one report and think it's automatically the truth? Did you try to corroborate that story?

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 03:59 PM
Uh, is this a coup of industrial food giants? Perhaps the Jolly Green Giant? Ho, ho, ho?

I just thought that the revelation that the grandfather of our sitting President may have plotted to violently overthrow our government with an army of 500,000 mercenaries to install an oligarchy was pretty fascinating, in light of..you know...our sitting President.

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 04:07 PM
So you listen to one report and think it's automatically the truth? Did you try to corroborate that story?

Kindly put those goal posts back where you found them, ok?

You said:

George W Bush was born in 1946.

Conspiracy theories are thataway (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64)

Which clearly implied that since George Bush wasn't born, this was a conspiracy theory. Your problem there is that it exposed the fact that you hadn't understood the report, or perhaps hadn't even read it before posting.

That being said, I'll humor you on this and say that my thread title has a question mark in it, which clearly shows, ala Fox News, that I'm merely asking the question, based on this report.

We do know that Prescott Bush had assets seized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush) for allegedly trading with the enemy. Obviously there was animosity there on the part of FDR. Now, the report comes out that a plot, testified to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot) by an American General, may have included Prescott Bush.

Confirmed? Who said it was confirmed? Worthy of discussion? Why not?

Pardalis
25th July 2007, 04:09 PM
Confirmed? Who said it was confirmed? Worthy of discussion? Why not?

Claims of conspiracy based on little or no clear evidence are conspiracy theories.

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 04:14 PM
So you listen to one report and think it's automatically the truth? Did you try to corroborate that story?

Claims of conspiracy based on little or no clear evidence are conspiracy theories.

There's evidence. You have sworn testimony from a US General. You have a congressional report.

The Congressional committee report confirmed Butler's testimony:
In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist government in this country.

No evidence was presented and this committee had none to show a connection between this effort and any fascist activity of any European country.

There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient.

This committee received evidence from Maj. Gen Smedley D. Butler (retired), twice decorated by the Congress of the United States. He testified before the committee as to conversations with one Gerald C. MacGuire in which the latter is alleged to have suggested the formation of a fascist army under the leadership of General Butler.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot#_note-16)

MacGuire denied these allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principal, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various forms of veterans organizations of Fascist character.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot#_note-17)
Even though the Senate committee did take the threat seriously and did verify that a fascist coup was indeed well past the planning stage, the Senate committee expired.


Ok, so this is an interesting bit of US history. Nothing earth-shattering. But what the BBC is claiming is that Prescott Bush was one of the backers.

How is that not worthy of discussion (my snarky thread title aside)?

volatile
25th July 2007, 04:17 PM
This could have been an interesting thread if you hadn't phrased and pitched it in such a way that everyone would (rightly) jump on you as a paranoid CT fantasist.

We have a lot of those around here, and it's best to avoid looking like one if you want a sensible conversation, even if you are only joking about your conspiratorial leanings.

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 04:22 PM
This could have been an interesting thread if you hadn't phrased and pitched it in such a way that everyone would (rightly) jump on you as a paranoid CT fantasist.

We have a lot of those around here, and it's best to avoid looking like one if you want a sensible conversation, even if you are only joking about your conspiratorial leanings.

Ok, fine. I fudged the title to get a rise. I freely admit that. But still, this is a report from a reputable news source that Prescott Bush participated in a coup plot to turn our country into a dictatorship. In light of his son's tenure as President, it seems relevant.

volatile
25th July 2007, 04:25 PM
Indeed. BoingBoing (http://www.boingboing.net/2007/07/25/bbc_ws_grandpappy_pl.html) have picked this up, and have linked to some more information.

They quote someone who seems to be in the know, who says: "I think I should also mention that Prescott Bush, though he later openly expressed sympathies to Hitler, was not specifically involved with the 1933/34 coup attempt. This was mainly engineered by J.P. Morgan's forces."

volatile
25th July 2007, 04:29 PM
Oh, on top of that - would you like to be judged by the actions of your grandfather? Would comparisons be relevant?

Pardalis
25th July 2007, 04:30 PM
Seems everything is revolving around one man's claim, Butler's. I wouldn't call it very convincing evidence.

JimBenArm
25th July 2007, 04:32 PM
Ok, fine. I fudged the title to get a rise. I freely admit that. But still, this is a report from a reputable news source that Prescott Bush participated in a coup plot to turn our country into a dictatorship. In light of his son's tenure as President, it seems relevant.
Why? What my grandfathers did has absolutely no relevence to anything I do. Nothing my father did does either, for that matter. It's absurd to say this, unless he was there participating in it with him. Just taking cheap shots.

volatile
25th July 2007, 04:35 PM
Seems everything is revolving around one man's claim, Butler's. I wouldn't call it very convincing evidence.

It seems that way at first glance, although there may have been more in order to justify a Congressional Investigation.

It certainly seems pretty spurious, though. I mean, a secret coup is all very Hollywood, isn't it? Similar fascist sympathisers in the UK - people like Oswald Mosely - were very open about their fascist platform, and sought election through normal means. I can't see why those with similar views in the US would resort to secret coups, with implausible plots straight out of the movies.

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 04:43 PM
Why? What my grandfathers did has absolutely no relevence to anything I do. Nothing my father did does either, for that matter. It's absurd to say this, unless he was there participating in it with him. Just taking cheap shots.

On this point, and in response to Volatile, yes I think it's appropriate in some circumstances. A person raised in a KKK family, who then enters politics, will be judged differently if they let loose with a racial slur, or are fighting hard against issues affecting minorities than someone who was not. How a person is raised is very relevant to how they turn out (in most cases). In this case, if Prescott Bush was a man who actively tried to turn our country into an oligarchy, then that serves to inform us about George Bush, considering the way GWB has conducted himself.

Prescott's actions don't condemn George. But George's actions become clearer when put in the context of his *possible* upbringing.

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 04:46 PM
Seems everything is revolving around one man's claim, Butler's. I wouldn't call it very convincing evidence.

According to the BBC report, evidence has gone missing. On this point, I agree, it enters CT land. What I was remarking about was the alleged involvement, in any way, of Prescott Bush, which is a new revelation.

But still, our own Congress found that the coup plot was real, even if the evidence behind that has been expunged.

Pardalis
25th July 2007, 04:47 PM
From one of the few witnesses to corroborate Butler's claim:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/McCormack-Dickstein_Committee#Captain_Glazier.E2.80.99s_test imony

The CHAIRMAN. Did he say anything about what the form of the Government would be when they took the Government over?
Captain GLAZIER. Strictly a dictatorship—absolutely. That inference was very plain.
The CHAIRMAN. Did he say that?
Captain GLAZIER. Yes; he made the statement.So the "agents" who contacted him are supposed to have said literally "let's take over the government and make it a dictatorship".

Did "they" really think Cpt Glazier would answer: "Yes, that's a very good idea, I'm in!" ???

Pardalis
25th July 2007, 04:51 PM
Prescott's actions don't condemn George. But George's actions become clearer when put in the context of his *possible* upbringing.

It only becomes clear when you have a confirmation bias. So are we supposed to judge people on their "possible upbringing" now? :boggled:

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 05:00 PM
It only becomes clear when you have a confirmation bias. So are we supposed to judge people on their "possible upbringing" now? :boggled:

Don't get pedantic on me. I used the word "possible" because I agree with you that this report is not "fact". Therefore, I tried to be careful in using any language that begs the question.

Now, if George Bush was raised by fascist sympathizers, and then he's proceeded to run the country like a fascist (and will you now force me to recite the well worn charges against GWB or can we move on?), then it's fair to examine the relationship between his family and his actions.

By the way, this is the most boring aspect of this thread. Can we go back to the historical part now?

Gravy
25th July 2007, 05:07 PM
Actually, George W. Bush was raised by George H.W. and Barbara Bush, who do not appear to have had fascist inclinations. George Sr. nearly lost his life fighting in what was largely a war against fascism.

Rob Lister
25th July 2007, 05:34 PM
lol. the accusation has already made it into wiki.

gotta love wiki.

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 05:39 PM
Actually, George W. Bush was raised by George H.W. and Barbara Bush, who do not appear to have had fascist inclinations. George Sr. nearly lost his life fighting in what was largely a war against fascism.

Well, if you want to go there, George Sr. fought in the Pacific, not in Europe, so he could indeed have had dual loyalties. That point aside, what about Prescott Bush engaging in something like this?

Pardalis
25th July 2007, 05:44 PM
Well, if you want to go there, George Sr. fought in the Pacific, not in Europe

It's the same war.

Rob Lister
25th July 2007, 05:46 PM
That point aside, what about Prescott Bush engaging in something like this?

donno. is there any evidence?

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 05:54 PM
donno. is there any evidence?

It's in the original post.

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 05:58 PM
It's the same war.

Yes of course. I'm simply saying that he wasn't fighting the Italians or the Germans, which means that he could possibly still have felt sympathy for the fascists, as his father demonstrably did, even though I'm not claiming he did.

The fact that he fought against the Japanese is not dispostive in that regard, as the poster suggested.

Pardalis
25th July 2007, 06:07 PM
Yes of course. I'm simply saying that he wasn't fighting the Italians or the Germans, which means that he could possibly still have felt sympathy for the fascists

This doesn't make sense. Both fronts had the same goal, to win WW2 on all fronts.

as his father demonstrably did, even though I'm not claiming he did.

Prescott Bush had sympathies for Germany and Italy? And during the war? Care to provide proof?

WildCat
25th July 2007, 06:18 PM
Oh, on top of that - would you like to be judged by the actions of your grandfather? Would comparisons be relevant?
Family rumor has it my great-grandfather supported Hitler. But only because they were refugees from Alcase-Lorraine, and thought Hitler would get them their land back. :boxedin:

hgc
25th July 2007, 06:50 PM
I just thought that the revelation that the grandfather of our sitting President may have plotted to violently overthrow our government with an army of 500,000 mercenaries to install an oligarchy was pretty fascinating, in light of..you know...our sitting President.


Yes, I do too. I just find CT'ers who can't spell their own subject matter correctly even more interesting. The article you link to says Birds Eye instead of Birdseye, Maxwell Hse instead of Maxwell House, and I've never heard of Goodtea.

I'm reminded of JFK conspiracy nut and sometime ersatz presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, who can't properly spell Dealy Plaza or Zapruder.

FactCheck
25th July 2007, 07:02 PM
Would someone looking to become a dictator:

* create a place where people can be put in jail without a trial

* wiretap without having to go to a court and keep secret the people they wiretap. Even when they were proven not to be terrorists

* create a law that says the election is scrapped if there is a terror attack

* Waterboard people to get information

* Keep people scared

* Have an endless war

* Allow terrorists to regain strength

* Have an urban war in another country. A training exercise?

Let me make this clear. /me does not have evidence Bush is planning to become a dictator! I'm only suggesting everyone not think it's IMPOSSIBLE and take steps so that NO president can do what Bush is doing. Because someone else down the road might see these changes in rights as a stepping stone to dictatorship.

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 07:10 PM
Prescott Bush had sympathies for Germany and Italy? And during the war? Care to provide proof?

He had his assets seized in 1942 for "trading with the enemy" (Germany). So I guess doing business with the Germans while we were at war with them isn't sympathetic?

I guess under the most charitable interpretation, one could argue that business != sympathizing, but that'd be quite ironic considering that GW Bush just signed an order which freezes the assets of those who do business with or support the insurgency in Iraq.

lionking
25th July 2007, 07:32 PM
Family rumor has it my great-grandfather supported Hitler. But only because they were refugees from Alcase-Lorraine, and thought Hitler would get them their land back. :boxedin:
Now that we are into family histories, one of my grandfathers was banged up for stealing a horse, was convicted of a range of other offences and we charged (but not convicted) of rape. Here's someone who likes to think that the fruit has fallen a long way from the tree.

JimBenArm
25th July 2007, 07:47 PM
I see. His grandfather may (MAY) have had evil plans, but his father served his country with honor, and was President, and left office, turning over power freely to his opponent. Yet, his GRANDFATHER had a bigger, evil influence.

Makes sense to me. Get a rope.

Oh, BTW, seems we're still holding free elections in 2008. Just thought you'd like to know that, when looking for proof of your "oligarchy".

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 07:48 PM
Yes, I do too. I just find CT'ers who can't spell their own subject matter correctly even more interesting. The article you link to says Birds Eye instead of Birdseye, Maxwell Hse instead of Maxwell House, and I've never heard of Goodtea.

I'm reminded of JFK conspiracy nut and sometime ersatz presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, who can't properly spell Dealy Plaza or Zapruder.

Wait. You're quibbling about a misspelling on the BBC website, which is, as you probably should guess, maintained by someone other than the BBC reporter who created the documentary and is making the charge?

I've heard of poisoning the well, but this is like poisoning the well in the next county.

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 07:57 PM
I see. His grandfather may (MAY) have had evil plans, but his father served his country with honor, and was President, and left office, turning over power freely to his opponent. Yet, his GRANDFATHER had a bigger, evil influence.


Strawman. I never claimed his grandfather had a bigger influence than his father. I claimed that a BBC report suggests that his grandfather plotted to overthrow the federal government in 1933. Seems like an important thing to know.

Makes sense to me. Get a rope.

Why would anyone need this charge to condemn George Bush, considering the things he's actually done as President?

Oh, BTW, seems we're still holding free elections in 2008. Just thought you'd like to know that, when looking for proof of your "oligarchy".

Who claimed we weren't? Do you always rely so heavily on the use of straw man arguments, or is it just for me? And the proof of the "oligarchy" is in the policies. When corporations essentially write (http://www.citizen.org/documents/050406PandemicFinal_1.pdf) legislation that goes directly from a lobbyist to the house floor, how would you describe that?

An oligarchy means government by the elite. Do you not think that corporations and wealthy donors have more say in government than you do? How can you not? Did you even follow the Enron case? The Abramoff case?

David Wong
25th July 2007, 08:07 PM
I think he's got a point. When you see the way JFK basically turned Washington into a giant bootlegging operation...

David Wong
25th July 2007, 08:09 PM
An oligarchy means government by the elite.


By that definition, every government ever formed in the history of mankind was an oligarchy.


Do you not think that corporations and wealthy donors have more say in government than you do? How can you not? Did you even follow the Enron case? The Abramoff case?

And you believe this is a new trend?

This smells of someone who's only been following politics for about two years.

Gravy
25th July 2007, 08:30 PM
Well, if you want to go there, George Sr. fought in the Pacific, not in Europe, so he could indeed have had dual loyalties.That's a special comment about someone who enlisted on his 18th birthday as a seaman, not a naval aviator, and who could have been deployed anywhere. I shall cherish it.

During the squadron's fighting years, Stanley Butchart said that "we used to argue like a bunch of young kids as to whose turn it was to go on the next strike."

"I don't think any of us were really scared at the time," added Guy. "We were eager to go into battle. We were sold on the idea that Japan and Germany were our enemy and we couldn't wait to fly out and do our part."

"The cause was clear and there was a great feeling of camaraderie," said Vice President Bush. "There was a gung-ho feeling about the combat missions. But I must confess that there were twinges of fear."
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq10-3.htm


That point aside, what about Prescott Bush engaging in something like this?I haven't listened to the story yet, but I will. I've generally relied on the ADL (http://www.adl.org/Internet_Rumors/prescott.htm) for Prescott conspiracy theory information, because few groups hate a Nazi sympathizer more than they:

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.

stilicho
25th July 2007, 08:35 PM
Prescott Bush participated in a coup plot to turn our country into a dictatorship.
First of all that's 'a country', not 'our country'. I think you are talking about the USA. Not everyone here is an American, you know.

So the coup was foiled, huh?

How'd that happen? Did Prescott forget to send his Illuminati donation in on time?

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 08:50 PM
First of all that's 'a country', not 'our country'. I think you are talking about the USA. Not everyone here is an American, you know.

So the coup was foiled, huh?

How'd that happen? Did Prescott forget to send his Illuminati donation in on time?

What is it with people on this thread not bothering to listen to, or read the links posted?

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 08:53 PM
By that definition, every government ever formed in the history of mankind was an oligarchy.

Yes, to varying degrees. The BBC claims Prescott Bush attempted to swing it to an extreme.

And you believe this is a new trend?

I say this where?

This smells of someone who's only been following politics for about two years

And you smell like moldy cheese. There, now that we have our ad hominem attacks all expelled, is that all you have?

porch
25th July 2007, 08:53 PM
donno. is there any evidence?
It's in the original post.


I used the word "possible" because I agree with you that this report is not "fact".


Okay, so are you actually making any positive assertion here, or is this thread what we could at best call a "thinkpiece"?

Unabogie
25th July 2007, 08:57 PM
Okay, so are you actually making any positive assertion here, or is this thread what we could at best call a "thinkpiece"?

Actually, I just posted this to the politics forum since I thought it was an interesting report. But I found myself defending views I don't have, against people who won't read the link. I suspect it's because the mods moved it to this forum, but since I don't normally post here, I'm not sure if this is par for the course on CT.

My sole assertion is that the BBC filed this report, and that Prescott Bush had assets seized for "trading with the enemy".

stilicho
25th July 2007, 09:02 PM
What is it with people on this thread not bothering to listen to, or read the links posted?
Because it's a waste of time.

Why don't you just tell us who the brave folks were who saved American capitalism from Prescott Bush (an American capitalist)?

Schneibster
26th July 2007, 12:49 AM
OK, so here's the deal:
1. There are numerous well-sourced books on US history that are considered authoritative that state that
a. there was a plot to organize a coup against Roosevelt
b. Smedley Butler foiled it by playing along and then spilling the beans
c. the coup directly involved Irenee DuPont, yes, those DuPonts
d. the coup also directly involved John J. Raskob
e. Gen. Butler was a two-time Medal of Honor winner. Do you have the slightest idea what is required to be awarded ONE Medal of Honor? Most people who are awarded one are dead when it is awarded, and living recipients generally have it given to them personally, in a public ceremony, by the President of the United States. ALL members of the US armed forces of any rank salute the Medal of Honor on sight, regardless of the rank of the recipent. Modern recipients fly on any US airline or military transport aircraft, any time, for free, for life, period, among other substantial benefits. Pardalis, would you care to reconsider your prior statements impugning the honor or truthfulness of the General? If not, you immediately enter my ignore list. Your statement was heinous.
2. Prescott Bush was the Director of the Union Bank Corporation, which was started by George Herbert Walker, and handled the bulk of the US business of Fritz Thyssen, who has been referred to in the New York Times as "Hitler's Angel;" the reference is to venture capitalist "angels" who fund small companies and provide business expertise to help them get off the ground. (Yes, THAT George Herbert Walker.) The deal was put together in the Nazi occupied Netherlands. E. Roland Harriman (of Brown Bros. Harriman and Company- brother of Averell Harriman, you might have heard of him here and there) owned the bulk of the stock. Three days after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act, and all of the assets of UBC and all related assets of Brown Bros. Harriman were seized. These are matters of historical fact, backed up by recently declassified US government documents.

Now, I have hunted and hunted, and the only direct references I have been able to find regarding Prescott Bush and the American Liberty League (the organization that the people who tried to hire Butler all were members of) are from unreliable sources: Rense, Alex Jones, and the like. I have not yet checked into the BBC program. I do not know what evidence they claim to have found, nor its provenance, nor its reliability. I remain unconvinced until more reliable sources pick up on the story.

However, some other facts emerge if you start poking around:
1. Apparently John Foster Dulles was a member of the American Liberty League.
2. George Herbert Walker Bush was the protege of Allen Welsh Dulles, younger brother of John, and was later DCI, as Dulles had been before him.

This hints at the form of a connection between Prescott Bush and the American Liberty League, though no overt evidence exists.

There is certainly smoke to be had aplenty here; whether there is fire or not remains, IMHO, to be seen.

DarkMagician
26th July 2007, 12:56 AM
Nevermind.

Zep
26th July 2007, 01:36 AM
Wait a sec.

Is someone contending that Butler was a GENUINE participant in the coup planning, and not actually a "spy"? That he really was going to betray his country in such a fashion? I was always under the impression he was the one who gallantly played along, and then spilled the lot at the proper time.

If so, where did this come from? Rense??

And that this suggests that the tenuous link of the coup to Bush grandpere is therefore proven?

And thus by incredible association, the current president is somehow tainted, or has "dictator" implanted in his genes?

I mean, c'mon! There's drawing a long bow, and there's drawing a LONG bow! And this is farther out than that!

westprog
26th July 2007, 04:01 AM
Why? What my grandfathers did has absolutely no relevence to anything I do. Nothing my father did does either, for that matter. It's absurd to say this, unless he was there participating in it with him. Just taking cheap shots.

What your father did is relevant when you have the same job he had. And that makes the actions of the grandfather relevant as well.

In the case of the Kennedy's, the father had the ambition of making one of his sons president. I think that how he went about that is relevant in the history of Jack, Bobby and Teddy.

This is largely a historical curiosity. But it's of interest.

Gravy
26th July 2007, 05:14 AM
OK, so here's the deal:
1. There are numerous well-sourced books on US history that are considered authoritative that state that
Please name a couple.

a. there was a plot to organize a coup against Roosevelt
b. Smedley Butler foiled it by playing along and then spilling the beansMore likely that he interfered with the delusions of a couple of wishful thinkers, from what I've read.

c. the coup directly involved Irenee DuPont, yes, those DuPonts
d. the coup also directly involved John J. RaskobAhem. Conspirator MacGuire may have promised Butler the backing of these prominent people. Butler claimed no personal knowledge of involvement of anyone beyond the original couple of name-droppers who said they could muster (and presumably equip, feed, supply, transport, etc) an army of 500,000 to overthrow Roosevelt. There appears to be no evidence that the titans of industry who were opposed to Roosevelt's New Deal were aware of this crackpot plot. As several websites have mentioned, the concept of raising an army during the Great Depression, when there were so many jobless veterans around, is perhaps less absurd than it would be today (The "Truth Movement" wants to overthrow the government and it's NY groups can't motivate more than a handful of people to flyer). But 500,000? With financing and not a peep of the conspiracy leaking out? That's just silly.

e. Gen. Butler was a two-time Medal of Honor winner. ...Your statement was heinous. Butler was probably telling the truth, as the committee found corroborating evidence that a plot, however small it may have been, was afoot.

As a side note to the Medal of Honor issue, I found it interesting that during the "small" wars of the late 18th and early 19th century, the Medal was awarded at rates greatly disproportionate to the number of troops involved and casualties suffered. For instance, 110 Medals of Honor were awarded for action in the Spanish-American War, in which 385 U.S. servicemen were killed in combat. Compare that to WWI, when the U.S. had 53,402 battle deaths and awarded 124 Medals of Honor. (Medal source (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohstats.htm) Casualty source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html))

In the Siege of Veracruz, for which Butler received his first Medal of Honor, the U.S. lost 18 men in battle and awarded 56 Medals of Honor. After receiving his second medal, Butler tried to return the first, because he hadn't felt he had earned it. The medal was returned to him and he was ordered to wear it (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler)). This is not to impugn his bravery, which is unquestionable. I just found it interesting that the U.S. may have been dispensing these medals to stir up patriotic fervor for questionable military actions.


2. Prescott Bush was the Director of the Union Bank Corporation, which was started by George Herbert Walker, and handled the bulk of the US business of Fritz Thyssen, who has been referred to in the New York Times as "Hitler's Angel;" the reference is to venture capitalist "angels" who fund small companies and provide business expertise to help them get off the ground. (Yes, THAT George Herbert Walker.) The deal was put together in the Nazi occupied Netherlands. E. Roland Harriman (of Brown Bros. Harriman and Company- brother of Averell Harriman, you might have heard of him here and there) owned the bulk of the stock. All of which was legal. Thyssen apparently hadn't ingratiated himself to the Nazis sufficiently and was imprisoned in Germany from 1938 through the war.

Three days after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act, and all of the assets of UBC and all related assets of Brown Bros. Harriman were seized. These are matters of historical fact, backed up by recently declassified US government documents. Sounds good. And?

Now, I have hunted and hunted, and the only direct references I have been able to find regarding Prescott Bush and the American Liberty League (the organization that the people who tried to hire Butler all were members of) are from unreliable sources: Rense, Alex Jones, and the like. I have not yet checked into the BBC program. I do not know what evidence they claim to have found, nor its provenance, nor its reliability. I remain unconvinced until more reliable sources pick up on the story. The BBC reporter found nothing new. The information he presented from the National Archives is also on the internet, but traveling to the vaults in D.C. makes for better radio than citing a URL.

However, some other facts emerge if you start poking around:
1. Apparently John Foster Dulles was a member of the American Liberty League.
2. George Herbert Walker Bush was the protege of Allen Welsh Dulles, younger brother of John, and was later DCI, as Dulles had been before him.

This hints at the form of a connection between Prescott Bush and the American Liberty League, though no overt evidence exists.It does? How?

There is certainly smoke to be had aplenty here; whether there is fire or not remains, IMHO, to be seen.People have been digging into this for a LONG time. One researcher interviewed in the BBC story, Jules Archer, wrote a book (http://www.clubhousewreckards.com/plot/plottoseizethewhitehouse.htm) about the subject in 1973. It contains no notes. Ever hear Dave Emory? He's still playing connect the dots. In this case I see hardly a wisp of smoke.

leftysergeant
26th July 2007, 05:16 AM
And then there is the assertion among some pundits that the neo-conservatives are trying to totally undo the New Deal. GWB is the anti-Roosevelt.

Did you catch Limbaugh's oft-replayed comment:"Roosevelt is dead. His policies may live on, but we're in the process of doing something about that."

THere is no doubt in my mind that W resents what Roosevelt did to his family and wants revenge. GHWB may actually have seen himself as a patriot and acted accordingly, and, thus, did not let his father's actions influence him much. But, some reports have it that GHWB and GWB are not the most tightly knit of family members. GWB seems to have some disdain for his father's failure to have taken out Saddam in Desert Storm.

Gravy
26th July 2007, 05:54 AM
And then there is the assertion among some pundits that the neo-conservatives are trying to totally undo the New Deal. GWB is the anti-Roosevelt.I think there's some truth to that.


THere is no doubt in my mind that W resents what Roosevelt did to his family and wants revenge. Yes, FDR sure ruined the Bush family's prospects. :rolleyes:

By the way, the seized UBC assets were released after the war. Prescott Bush owned 1 share in UBC and collected $1.5 million when it dissolved in 1951.

Schneibster
26th July 2007, 08:02 AM
Please name a couple.
Schlesinger Jr., Arthur M. (2003). The Politics of Upheaval: 1935-1936, The Age of Roosevelt, Volume III (The Age of Roosevelt). Mariner Books. ISBN 0-618-34087-4
Schmidt, Hans (1998). Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-0957-4
For starters.

More likely that he interfered with the delusions of a couple of wishful thinkers, from what I've read.What, you figure J. Pierpont Morgan is gonna show up at this guy's apartment and tell him he wants to overthrow the government?

Ahem. Conspirator MacGuire may have promised Butler the backing of these prominent people. Butler claimed no personal knowledge of involvement of anyone beyond the original couple of name-droppers who said they could muster (and presumably equip, feed, supply, transport, etc) an army of 500,000 to overthrow Roosevelt. There appears to be no evidence that the titans of industry who were opposed to Roosevelt's New Deal were aware of this crackpot plot. As several websites have mentioned, the concept of raising an army during the Great Depression, when there were so many jobless veterans around, is perhaps less absurd than it would be today (The "Truth Movement" wants to overthrow the government and it's NY groups can't motivate more than a handful of people to flyer). But 500,000? With financing and not a peep of the conspiracy leaking out? That's just silly.I don't know about "silly." First, this was, as you point out, the Great Depression. Second, the year before, the Bonus Army had demonstrated in Washington, and there were quite a few of them; 30,000 by most accounts. 500,000 might have been a little over the top, but half that certainly was not. Third, General Butler had spoken before, and in favor of the goals of, the Bonus Army. Fourth, the two men Butler talked to were a Commander and former Commander of the American Legion. The American Legion at that time numbered over a million men. Doesn't sound "silly" to me.

As a side note to the Medal of Honor issue, I found it interesting that during the "small" wars of the late 18th and early 19th century, the Medal was awarded at rates greatly disproportionate to the number of troops involved and casualties suffered. For instance, 110 Medals of Honor were awarded for action in the Spanish-American War, in which 385 U.S. servicemen were killed in combat. Compare that to WWI, when the U.S. had 53,402 battle deaths and awarded 124 Medals of Honor. (Medal source (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohstats.htm) Casualty source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html))

In the Siege of Veracruz, for which Butler received his first Medal of Honor, the U.S. lost 18 men in battle and awarded 56 Medals of Honor. After receiving his second medal, Butler tried to return the first, because he hadn't felt he had earned it. The medal was returned to him and he was ordered to wear it (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler)). This is not to impugn his bravery, which is unquestionable. I just found it interesting that the U.S. may have been dispensing these medals to stir up patriotic fervor for questionable military actions.Doubtless they did so; the number of Medals of Honor awarded in the Civil War (which was when it first was made a recognized war) far outstrips any conflict since.

All of which was legal. Thyssen apparently hadn't ingratiated himself to the Nazis sufficiently and was imprisoned in Germany from 1938 through the war.Actually, Thyssen became disenchanted with Hitler, but not until it was too late to stop him.

Sounds good. And?I believe this is known as "trolling."

The BBC reporter found nothing new. The information he presented from the National Archives is also on the internet, but traveling to the vaults in D.C. makes for better radio than citing a URL.That was about what I figured.

It does? How?More trolling. I think this discussion is about over. Apparently my post is not sufficiently in favor of your predetermined conclusion. Whatever, not my problem. This is apparently what passes around here for skepticism.

Schneibster
26th July 2007, 08:07 AM
And then there is the assertion among some pundits that the neo-conservatives are trying to totally undo the New Deal. GWB is the anti-Roosevelt.The current anti-Roosevelt. Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 have, among them, managed to undercut the Social Security system quite effectively, don't you think?

Gravy
26th July 2007, 08:28 AM
Schlesinger Jr., Arthur M. (2003). The Politics of Upheaval: 1935-1936, The Age of Roosevelt, Volume III (The Age of Roosevelt). Mariner Books. ISBN 0-618-34087-4
Schmidt, Hans (1998). Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-0957-4
For starters. Thanks!

What, you figure J. Pierpont Morgan is gonna show up at this guy's apartment and tell him he wants to overthrow the government? I sure hope not. Morgan died in 1913. :jaw-dropp

I don't know about "silly." First, this was, as you point out, the Great Depression. Second, the year before, the Bonus Army had demonstrated in Washington, and there were quite a few of them; 30,000 by most accounts. 500,000 might have been a little over the top, but half that certainly was not. Third, General Butler had spoken before, and in favor of the goals of, the Bonus Army. Fourth, the two men Butler talked to were a Commander and former Commander of the American Legion. The American Legion at that time numbered over a million men. Doesn't sound "silly" to me. A few points about the "Bonus Army"

1) They weren't an army
2) They weren't armed
3) Many of them were families
4) They came to D.C. to peacefully protest
5) They were removed by a real army

So, yeah. Some financiers in the shadows are going to raise a half-million man army, and fund it, and arm it, and feed it, and mobilize it, and not get found out? That's silly.


Actually, Thyssen became disenchanted with Hitler, but not until it was too late to stop him. I just saw a reference to Thyssen leaving Germany in 1939, so I'll have to check that out.

I believe this is known as "trolling." No, I was asking what your conclusion was about the bank funds being frozen. You didn't make a point.

More trolling. I think this discussion is about over. Apparently my post is not sufficiently in favor of your predetermined conclusion. Whatever, not my problem. This is apparently what passes around here for skepticism.It's a strange world you inhabit when someone asking you to clarify a statement is considered trolling.

Pardalis
26th July 2007, 08:41 AM
e. Gen. Butler was a two-time Medal of Honor winner.

snip

Pardalis, would you care to reconsider your prior statements impugning the honor or truthfulness of the General? If not, you immediately enter my ignore list. Your statement was heinous.

Whoa, calm down there, I never said anything about Butler being a liar or anything alike:

Seems everything is revolving around one man's claim, Butler's. I wouldn't call it very convincing evidence.

Here I'm just stating that one single testimony is not real hard evidence of anything. He had a conversation with someone, that's hardly enough to conclude anything.

What if he misunderstood or misinterpreted the conversation?

From one of the few witnesses to corroborate Butler's claim:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/McCormack-Dickstein_Committee#Captain_Glazier.E2.80.99s_test imony

So the "agents" who contacted him are supposed to have said literally "let's take over the government and make it a dictatorship".

Did "they" really think Cpt Glazier would answer: "Yes, that's a very good idea, I'm in!" ???

Here I'm not talking about Butler, but Cpt Glazier. I just find it odd that the plotters when they first met with Cpt Glazier, a known patriot, would say these things quite literally and expect him to join them.

Maybe they did say those exact words, but colour me doubtful.

If you have any other sources that prove that there was a coup, I'd be willing to see them.

ETA: I just saw the list you provided to Gravy, I'll try to check them out.

Snide
26th July 2007, 09:38 AM
I think we need to investigate John Kerry's in-laws' role in all of this (Heinz).

Pardalis
26th July 2007, 10:08 AM
I also find very odd that MacGuire explained in great detail the intended "coup" to Paul Colmy French, a guy whom he never met before, and a reporter of all people.

Maybe this conspiracy is true, I just find it odd.

Unabogie
26th July 2007, 12:05 PM
I also find very odd that MacGuire explained in great detail the intended "coup" to Paul Colmy French, a guy whom he never met before, and a reporter of all people.

Maybe this conspiracy is true, I just find it odd.

I don't know if it's true or not, but I also don't think we should discard the story out of hand. From what little I could find online, MacGuire sounds like a crackpot, but those he talked to do not. So we at least know that he did, in fact talk to people about a plot to remove FDR.

So one fair reading would be that he was a self-aggrandizer who dropped names to run scams. That would mean no real plot took place. However, that's the sort of guy you might want to send out and approach people, since he's so easily discredited should he get caught. I don't find MacGuire dispositive either way.

However, the question has been asked how it all unraveled, and MacGuire's ineptitude would be the answer.

JJR
26th July 2007, 01:41 PM
Ok, fine. I fudged the title to get a rise. I freely admit that. But still, this is a report from a reputable news source that Prescott Bush participated in a coup plot to turn our country into a dictatorship. In light of his son's tenure as President, it seems relevant.

America is and always will be too silly to knuckle under to the kind of dictatorship you are implying Prescott Bush wanted. If someone with that kind of money wanted that kind of dictatorship, he'd just go take over Honduras or something and make himself a god to hispanics.

The Great White Hooter Hunter theory is just that . . . a theory . . . and that sort of thing just wouldn't work in America.

GregoryUrich
26th July 2007, 02:37 PM
George H W Bush may have been unaffected by his father, but his leadership during the first gulf war would indicate that he would have been a great supporter of Hitler's tactics.:jaw-dropp

The military under GHWB was in egregious violation of the Geneva convention by bombing and destroying civilian infrastructure. Norman Schwartzkopf has been quoted as saying "we bombed Iraq into the stone age". These people were very clear about what they were doing and what the effects would be. The effects were such that, combined with the sanctions, 1.5 million people (U.N numbers) died by 1996 (above the normal death rate) from disease and malnutrition. If that's not genocide, I don't know what is.

So what was it the military bombed? The following were attacked directly and systematically:


All of the irrigation systems
Food warehouses and cold storage facilities
Food production facilities including babyfood
Grain silos
28 civilian hospitals
52 community health centers
676 schools
8 multipurpose dams (irrigation, hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial water supply)
90% of electrical power facilities
139 automobile and railroad bridges
4 of 7 water pumping stations
31 municipal water and sewage facilities
nearly half of all phone lines
27 central telephone exchanges
All major cement plants
100s of farms and farm buildings
the tractor assembly plant
the major fertilizer plant
12 television stations
5 radio stations
11 oil refineries
5 oil pipeline and production facilities
Oil storage tanks
6 oil tankers
Rail stations and yards
Bus stations
Car lots
5 construction facilities
4 car assembly plants
7 textile factories
3 chlorine plants
Baghdad City Hall
Supreme court
Ministry of justice
Ministry of Labor
Baghdad Central Post office


Stone age. 1.5 million died, 500,000 of them children. No wonder Bush won't ratify the International Criminal Court.

beachnut
26th July 2007, 02:50 PM
George H W Bush may have been unaffected by his father, but his leadership during the first gulf war would indicate that he would have been a great supporter of Hitler's tactics.:jaw-dropp

The military under GHWB was in egregious violation of the Geneva convention by bombing and destroying civilian infrastructure. Norman Schwartzkopf has been quoted as saying "we bombed Iraq into the stone age". These people were very clear about what they were doing and what the effects would be. The effects were such that, combined with the sanctions, 1.5 million people (U.N numbers) died by 1996 (above the normal death rate) from disease and malnutrition. If that's not genocide, I don't know what is.

So what was it the military bombed? The following were attacked directly and systematically:

All of the irrigation systems
Food warehouses and cold storage facilities
Food production facilities including babyfood
Grain silos
28 civilian hospitals
52 community health centers
676 schools
8 multipurpose dams (irrigation, hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial water supply)
90% of electrical power facilities
139 automobile and railroad bridges
4 of 7 water pumping stations
31 municipal water and sewage facilities
nearly half of all phone lines
27 central telephone exchanges
All major cement plants
100s of farms and farm buildings
the tractor assembly plant
the major fertilizer plant
12 television stations
5 radio stations
11 oil refineries
5 oil pipeline and production facilities
Oil storage tanks
6 oil tankers
Rail stations and yards
Bus stations
Car lots
5 construction facilities
4 car assembly plants
7 textile factories
3 chlorine plants
Baghdad City Hall
Supreme court
Ministry of justice
Ministry of Labor
Baghdad Central Post officeStone age. 1.5 million died, 500,000 of them children. No wonder Bush won't ratify the International Criminal Court.source?
You left out the main telephone exchange, but then your source is full of BS. I have a better source, and you could too if you tried, but then you argue heading when you do not know variation, you argue wings when you do not understand dihedral. What do you understand? You blame us for killing 1.5 million Iraqis while Saddam rebuilt his palaces and just let his people watch as they starved? Why did Saddam not buy food and fix his hospitals? Why are multiple palaces with shelters more important than food? Why do you defend Saddam? You forgot Saddam occupied another country and could have ended the war before it started, or are you research challenged on presenting the truth?

GregoryUrich
26th July 2007, 03:59 PM
source?
You left out the main telephone exchange, but then your source is full of BS. I have a better source, and you could too if you tried, but then you argue heading when you do not know variation, you argue wings when you do not understand dihedral. What do you understand? You blame us for killing 1.5 million Iraqis while Saddam rebuilt his palaces and just let his people watch as they starved? Why did Saddam not buy food and fix his hospitals? Why are multiple palaces with shelters more important than food? Why do you defend Saddam? You forgot Saddam occupied another country and could have ended the war before it started, or are you research challenged on presenting the truth?

Source: Challenge to Genocide: Let Iraq live, Ramsey Clark et al., ISBN 0-9656916-4-0

You're right. We needed to bomb them back to the stone age.

I'm defending Saddam. Right. He's my buddy.

beachnut
26th July 2007, 04:40 PM
Source: Challenge to Genocide: Let Iraq live, Ramsey Clark et al., ISBN 0-9656916-4-0

You're right. We needed to bomb them back to the stone age.

I'm defending Saddam. Right. He's my buddy.
Ramsey Clark? Wow, I thought you had a source like Radio Islam or some other unbiased source, but Saddam's defense council.

You missed thousands of targets. Just how do you get a country to leave another country? Saddam should have used all the money he used to build his palaces and pay off bribes to feed his people. What do you think? Better yet he should have left and not let the war start. He must of thought we lost Vietnam, he missed the facts we won every single battle. And in the Gulf War, a simple goal was reached. Guess Saddam thought his planes were safe in the bunkers. Guess Saddam is too dumb to feed his people. My favorite picture is Saddam before the War with American kids he kidnapped to hold hostage so he would not be bombed by us. I am glad you find Saddam to be such a sweet guy. I guess our POWs wanted to be raped and beat up. I guess Kuwait wanted to be taken over by Iraq, and I guess you believe we tricked Saddam to invade, and then tricked him into rebuilding his palaces instead of feeding his people. I guess you saved some Iraqis by sending food after 1991. Or are you just a reader of propaganda by people who have tricked you?

Your target list sound like it is from Radio Islam, but you got a special council, Ramsey Clark. Good job. How do you rate Ramsey Clark as a source.

Unabogie
26th July 2007, 05:15 PM
America is and always will be too silly to knuckle under to the kind of dictatorship you are implying Prescott Bush wanted. If someone with that kind of money wanted that kind of dictatorship, he'd just go take over Honduras or something and make himself a god to hispanics.

The Great White Hooter Hunter theory is just that . . . a theory . . . and that sort of thing just wouldn't work in America.

This took place in the 1930's during the Great Depression. The world was far different back then, we didn't have the type of standing military that we do now, and Fascism wasn't the reviled system it is today. Many people admired Mussolini, and later Hitler.

Oh, and I never "implied" Bush wanted this. I said that the BBC claims he was implicated, and I later said I wasn't sure if this was true. But I find your dismissal of this alleged coup plot - based on your assessment that America is too "silly" to be taken over by moneyed interests during a time when a pretty radical President was making such fundamental changes to our country - highly unconvincing.

Unabogie
26th July 2007, 05:18 PM
Ramsey Clark? Wow, I thought you had a source like Radio Islam or some other unbiased source, but Saddam's defense council.

You missed thousands of targets. Just how do you get a country to leave another country? Saddam should have used all the money he used to build his palaces and pay off bribes to feed his people. What do you think? Better yet he should have left and not let the war start. He must of thought we lost Vietnam, he missed the facts we won every single battle. And in the Gulf War, a simple goal was reached. Guess Saddam thought his planes were safe in the bunkers. Guess Saddam is too dumb to feed his people. My favorite picture is Saddam before the War with American kids he kidnapped to hold hostage so he would not be bombed by us. I am glad you find Saddam to be such a sweet guy. I guess our POWs wanted to be raped and beat up. I guess Kuwait wanted to be taken over by Iraq, and I guess you believe we tricked Saddam to invade, and then tricked him into rebuilding his palaces instead of feeding his people. I guess you saved some Iraqis by sending food after 1991. Or are you just a reader of propaganda by people who have tricked you?

Your target list sound like it is from Radio Islam, but you got a special council, Ramsey Clark. Good job. How do you rate Ramsey Clark as a source.

Do you have different numbers than those he listed? Is it your contention that Clark is outright lying, or just lying by omission?

Gravy
27th July 2007, 07:58 PM
Do you have different numbers than those he listed? Is it your contention that Clark is outright lying, or just lying by omission?Gregory is claiming that in the first Gulf War the U.S. (not the UK, Canada or France, to name a few others) "directly and systematically" attacked

28 civilian hospitals
52 community health centers
676 schools
100s of farms and farm buildingsThat claim is absurd on its face.

GregoryUrich
28th July 2007, 03:02 AM
Gregory is claiming that in the first Gulf War the U.S. (not the UK, Canada or France, to name a few others) "directly and systematically" attacked

28 civilian hospitals
52 community health centers
676 schools
100s of farms and farm buildingsThat claim is absurd on its face.

Argument by personal incredulity. How is it possible to hit 676 schools without trying?

I assume you accept the rest which is bad enough by its self.

stilicho
28th July 2007, 04:12 AM
Schlesinger Jr., Arthur M. (2003). The Politics of Upheaval: 1935-1936, The Age of Roosevelt, Volume III (The Age of Roosevelt). Mariner Books. ISBN 0-618-34087-4
Schmidt, Hans (1998). Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-0957-4
For starters.
The mention in Schlesinger is mighty oblique, I thought. And I've read two biographies of FDR, including Lord Black's and, unless my memory is faulty, neither of them mentioned it either. I completed Galbraith's most recent book and it didn't say anything about it either.

This is one of those classic examples of cherry-picking history for "connections" that just don't exist. Magnifying specific events to fit political agendas.

stilicho
28th July 2007, 04:41 AM
I had to search and search for Hans Schmidt, too, and couldn't find much on this "esteemed historian". Where does he hold his professorship? What's his bibliography look like?

As for Smedley Butler, it's odd that virtually every article on the web mentions, in the first sentence or paragraph, that he is a two-time recipient of the Medal Of Honor. Why is this so important? Why would that lend more credence to his opinion?

And why did it take him more than thirty years to arrive at the Road To Damascus? Just a little disingenuous.

stilicho
28th July 2007, 04:58 AM
Hate to look like I am talking to myself, but I located a review of one of the most prominent "exposes" of the "Business Plot": http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/47815.html

Jules Archer is frequently mentioned along with Hans Schmidt as being authorities on Butler and his involvement with the "Business Plot". I don't know. For such an important and deep-rooted "conspiracy", it doesn't appear to get much attention from schooled historians. Even the Wiki article is short on references (mostly cropped from Schlesinger, even though it isn't even the thesis of his chapter).

Plenty on rense, infowars, and other such sites, however.

Grimlorn
28th July 2007, 07:11 AM
This was during The Great Depression and it sounds like it was already around for 4 years. Although, I don't believe in one man ruling a country, I could see someone trying to snatch leadership up if the country was in such a terrible condition for so long, to help fix it. Maybe thats what Prescott was going for. Who knows?

Alt+F4
28th July 2007, 07:43 AM
Prescott's actions don't condemn George. But George's actions become clearer when put in the context of his *possible* upbringing.

Today, around the world, there are probably millions of people who's grandfathers were full blown Nazis. So what?

beachnut
28th July 2007, 09:50 AM
Argument by personal incredulity. How is it possible to hit 676 schools without trying?

I assume you accept the rest which is bad enough by its self.
You handlers at "scholars" are spoon feeding you junk to push your biased political agenda like Richard Nixon, the ends justify the means. So you make up false ideas about 9/11 to discredit some official story. Why not use rational ideas and logic to push your political ideas instead of going off the deep end with the tin foil hat crowd.

BTW, I saw the target list, the whole list, not one school was on it.

Sorry, you list is tripe made up by idiots. Are and of the real targets on the list? Why do you have fake ones too? Most of your list is made up. Why were the schools not on the real target list? That means your statement that they were systematically attacked it wrong! You are wrong again. Why do you insist on publishing false stuff?

GregoryUrich
28th July 2007, 03:57 PM
You handlers at "scholars" are spoon feeding you junk to push your biased political agenda like Richard Nixon, the ends justify the means. So you make up false ideas about 9/11 to discredit some official story. Why not use rational ideas and logic to push your political ideas instead of going off the deep end with the tin foil hat crowd.

BTW, I saw the target list, the whole list, not one school was on it.

Sorry, you list is tripe made up by idiots. Are and of the real targets on the list? Why do you have fake ones too? Most of your list is made up. Why were the schools not on the real target list? That means your statement that they were systematically attacked it wrong! You are wrong again. Why do you insist on publishing false stuff?

So, you checked the list of 110,000 sorties. You know where each of the 88,500 tons of bombs was supposed to hit. You are imagining a conspiracy at "scholars" (I assume you mean Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice) that just doesn't exist. I have never even been contacted by a member. I obtained these sources long before the existence of the truth movement.

So who is the conspiracy theorist?

beachnut
28th July 2007, 04:28 PM
So, you checked the list of 110,000 sorties. You know where each of the 88,500 tons of bombs was supposed to hit. You are imagining a conspiracy at "scholars" (I assume you mean Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice) that just doesn't exist. I have never even been contacted by a member. I obtained these sources long before the existence of the truth movement.

So who is the conspiracy theorist?
OMG, I spent Oct 1990 to March 1991 very close to USCENTAF headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. I could see each night the list we actually executed. Sorry, your list of schools was not on the list. I worked 12 hours shifts for the entire time, did not see your schools on the list. I guess your list of schools is a lie. What other lies do you have. (gee, not all the sorties were bombing sorties, were they?)

Pay attention, your lie includes that the schools were planned targets, I was able to see every target. Do you understand what an ATO is? Have you served in the military? There is no conspiracy at the "scholars", and there are no scholars either. Scholars do not fall for the lies of 9/11 truth.

GregoryUrich
28th July 2007, 05:38 PM
OMG, I spent Oct 1990 to March 1991 very close to USCENTAF headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. I could see each night the list we actually executed. Sorry, your list of schools was not on the list. I worked 12 hours shifts for the entire time, did not see your schools on the list. I guess your list of schools is a lie. What other lies do you have. (gee, not all the sorties were bombing sorties, were they?)

Pay attention, your lie includes that the schools were planned targets, I was able to see every target. Do you understand what an ATO is? Have you served in the military? There is no conspiracy at the "scholars", and there are no scholars either. Scholars do not fall for the lies of 9/11 truth.

It would seem the schools are the only thing you have issue with. Take whatever you want away from my list. What do you have left? It's still civilian infrastructure. So you were part of bombing the civilian infrastructure. That makes you a war criminal. I can see why this would be a sore issue for you.

beachnut
28th July 2007, 05:49 PM
It would seem the schools are the only thing you have issue with. Take whatever you want away from my list. What do you have left? It's still civilian infrastructure. So you were part of bombing the civilian infrastructure. That makes you a war criminal. I can see why this would be a sore issue for you.
A war criminal? You are a truther, I think a war criminal is preferable if it means I do not pass on lies and make up false statements like the "scholars" you are a part of.

Darn, I am a war criminal. (your list sucks, too bad you are unable to find truth)

leftysergeant
28th July 2007, 06:48 PM
Would someone looking to become a dictator:

* create a place where people can be put in jail without a trial

* wiretap without having to go to a court and keep secret the people they wiretap. Even when they were proven not to be terrorists

* create a law that says the election is scrapped if there is a terror attack

* Waterboard people to get information

* Keep people scared

* Have an endless war

* Allow terrorists to regain strength

* Have an urban war in another country. A training exercise?

Let me make this clear. /me does not have evidence Bush is planning to become a dictator! I'm only suggesting everyone not think it's IMPOSSIBLE and take steps so that NO president can do what Bush is doing. Because someone else down the road might see these changes in rights as a stepping stone to dictatorship.

You forgot an important one. Create a private army not answerable to the representatives of the people and not accountable for their training or open about their mission.

Anybody checked out lately what Blackwater USA has been up to? Their personnel are answerablew only to the company, not to civilian law or the UCMJ, in Iraq. They are almost as heavily-armed as regular Army forces.

Waffen SS-sounding, don't you think.

stilicho
31st July 2007, 03:35 PM
You forgot an important one. Create a private army not answerable to the representatives of the people and not accountable for their training or open about their mission.

Anybody checked out lately what Blackwater USA has been up to? Their personnel are answerablew only to the company, not to civilian law or the UCMJ, in Iraq. They are almost as heavily-armed as regular Army forces.

Waffen SS-sounding, don't you think.
I knew I'd find this:
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/smedley.htm

There's the exact conspiracy theory on the web dated 1999. Instead of Prescott Bush (irrelevant before the Bush presidency) there's "banker's lackey" Al Gore.

In this version of the conspiracy theory, Smedley Butler is bravely holding out against the re-establishment of the gold standard (which is rightly identified as something bankers would want). This version of the CT says that FDR is a hero, although some versions I've seen paint him, too, as a villain in the piece.

A word to the wise:

Historical conspiracy theories like this often feign respectability and relevance by cutting out one guy's name and pasting in another one.

Lyte Trip
31st July 2007, 04:44 PM
Prescott's son is George HW Bush right? Didn't George HW Bush's friend and contributor to his presidential campaign, John Hinckley Sr., have a son who tried to kill HW's former opponent, then running mate, President Ronald Reagan? That's right! John Hinckley Jr was the son of the John Hinckley Sr. If I'm not mistaken, if Ronald Reagan died wouldn't HW have become President? Wasn't Scott Hinckley supposed to have dinner with Neil Bush, HW's son, the night of the shooting?

I am sure it's all just one big coincidence.

T.A.M.
31st July 2007, 04:47 PM
yes it is Lyte...bye.

TAM:)

Dog Town
31st July 2007, 04:54 PM
Prescott's son is George HW Bush right? Didn't George HW Bush's friend and contributor to his presidential campaign, John Hinckley Sr., have a son who tried to kill HW's former opponent, then running mate, President Ronald Reagan? That's right! John Hinckley Jr was the son of the John Hinckley Sr. If I'm not mistaken, if Ronald Reagan died wouldn't HW have become President? Wasn't Scott Hinckley supposed to have dinner with Neil Bush, HW's son, the night of the shooting?

I am sure it's all just one big coincidence.

Why would an ubber string puller, like GHWB, wanna off his meal ticket? You know, the one who singlehandedly, got him elected as POTUS later! As usual, you can't even buy a clue!

Dr Adequate
31st July 2007, 05:39 PM
From one of the few witnesses to corroborate Butler's claim:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/McCormack-Dickstein_Committee#Captain_Glazier.E2.80.99s_test imony

So the "agents" who contacted him are supposed to have said literally "let's take over the government and make it a dictatorship".

Did "they" really think Cpt Glazier would answer: "Yes, that's a very good idea, I'm in!" ??? Well, the thing about organising a fascist coup is that at some point you have to explain to your co-conspirators that this is what you're organising, and not, for example, a fancy dress party or a potluck lunch. Otherwise, when the great day dawns and you cry: "Now, comrades, let us put our plan into action!" you don't get a blackshirt horde taking over the government, you just get a lot of confused-looking guys in pirate costumes with little Tupperware bowls of potato salad.

stilicho
31st July 2007, 07:59 PM
Well, the thing about organising a fascist coup is that at some point you have to explain to your co-conspirators that this is what you're organising, and not, for example, a fancy dress party or a potluck lunch. Otherwise, when the great day dawns and you cry: "Now, comrades, let us put our plan into action!" you don't get a blackshirt horde taking over the government, you just get a lot of confused-looking guys in pirate costumes with little Tupperware bowls of potato salad.
I wonder why people here miss the point sometimes.

The point of my link was not that there was or wasn't a fascist conspiracy. My point was that the exact CT of Butler bravely standing up against a coup of businessmen, using the "Bonus Army" of all things, has been around a long long time.

Prescott Bush is not mentioned in the version I posted, nor in any of the versions that go back into the days prior to the Second World War. (Yes, this CT has been around that long). But suddenly Prescott Bush becomes important in the OPs link and "banker's lackey" Al Gore vanishes from it. FDR becomes a hero of the Democratic Party in the 1999 version and sort of a pawn in the 2007 version.

Here's why I think debunkers ought to think this is relevant: Regardless of what happens over the next several years (say a decade), the 9/11 conspiracy will warp to fit the current circumstances. As Cheney and Bush vanish from the scene, CTrs will "discover" new elements that fit into the present political situation. Prescott Bush will vanish from the Butler/Bonus Army/Dupont "conspiracy". Someone else will fill his place.

Is there anyone else who has seen other versions of the Butler "conspiracy"?

Dr Adequate
31st July 2007, 08:13 PM
I wonder why people here miss the point sometimes. Me too. You notice how I quoted Pardalis at the top of my post? That was, like, a hint that I was replying to his post, not yours.

Lyte Trip
31st July 2007, 08:19 PM
yes it is Lyte...bye.

TAM:)

Oh of course it is. They happen all the time. Just look at all the ones on 9/11 in front of the Pentagon.

~enigma~
31st July 2007, 08:24 PM
Oh of course it is. They happen all the time. Just look at all the ones on 9/11 in front of the Pentagon.Tired of having your butt handed to you by IVXX over at LCF? If your tired and want a place where everybody knows your name...go to Cheers...anyplace but here :)

JimBenArm
31st July 2007, 08:29 PM
Oh of course it is. They happen all the time. Just look at all the ones on 9/11 in front of the Pentagon.
Yes, they do happen all the time. Every day. Gee, imagine that, nothing sinister about it, just a flippin' coincidence.
Any luck in getting anyone to listen to you without laughing yet?

~enigma~
31st July 2007, 08:31 PM
Yes, they do happen all the time. Every day. Gee, imagine that, nothing sinister about it, just a flippin' coincidence.
Any luck in getting anyone to listen to you without laughing yet?
You want a laugh?

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12765&st=0

Watch light try to mentally masturbate...

David Wong
31st July 2007, 08:38 PM
George H W Bush may have been unaffected by his father, but his leadership during the first gulf war would indicate that he would have been a great supporter of Hitler's tactics.:jaw-dropp

The military under GHWB was in egregious violation of the Geneva convention by bombing and destroying civilian infrastructure...

You demonstrate a masterful grasp of history, as indeed bombing of civillian infrastructure was, prior to now, the sole property of one Adolph Hitler. When you read about what Hitler did to Dresden, and Hamburg, and Hiroshima, and Nagasaki...

Truly whenever I hear of a city being bombed, I immediately think "Hitler." When George H. W. Bush ordered the bombing in Kosovo, I shook my head and thought, "wow, this is absolutely Hitlerian."

Thank you for your insight.

stilicho
31st July 2007, 11:41 PM
Me too. You notice how I quoted Pardalis at the top of my post? That was, like, a hint that I was replying to his post, not yours.
Yeah, Pardalis missed it too.

This "business/fascist coup against FDR" thing has been around for a long time. The critical point that both you and Pardalis are missing is that Prescott Bush is a very recent addition to it.

He is missing from the 1999 version and virtually any other version prior to that.

Why do you suppose he suddenly appeared in it?

funk de fino
1st August 2007, 01:38 AM
It would seem the schools are the only thing you have issue with. Take whatever you want away from my list. What do you have left? It's still civilian infrastructure. So you were part of bombing the civilian infrastructure. That makes you a war criminal. I can see why this would be a sore issue for you.

Says it all really

take the lies out of my list and see what is left, or we just continue to look at the other lies in it

i was there too at the same time, my aircraft were not bombers, so your sortie list is also down a few eh?

civilian infrastructure means electricity, communications, transport roads and bridges et etc

viable targets and not something me and beachnut would be hung as war criminals for

gumboot
1st August 2007, 04:03 AM
George H W Bush may have been unaffected by his father, but his leadership during the first gulf war would indicate that he would have been a great supporter of Hitler's tactics.:jaw-dropp


Yes, one of the most blood-less, rapid wars in Human history, in which the victorious force left the sovereignty of the aggressor entirely intact. Just like Hitler. :rolleyes:




The military under GHWB was in egregious violation of the Geneva convention by bombing and destroying civilian infrastructure.


I think you mean the Hague Convention. The Geneva Convention is regarding the treatment of POWs.

I also don't think you have ever read the Hague Conventions nor the Geneva Conventions.

One question.

Do you know what "duel use" means? Do you know how it is relevant to your "claims"? Are you familiar with Saddam's well documented tactic of parking SAMs and radar sites (amongst other things) inside churches, schools and hospitals?





The effects were such that, combined with the sanctions, 1.5 million people (U.N numbers) died by 1996 (above the normal death rate) from disease and malnutrition. If that's not genocide, I don't know what is.


Someone as clued up as you would of course be aware that the UN sanctions were never applied to food or medical supplies, and indeed that the world supplied Iraq enormous amounts of food during the time in which your 1.5 million people (I heard it was closer to 2 million) died. The overflowing warehouses that the allied forces discovered when they invaded Iraq in 2003 are a testament to this.

Saddam kept the food and medical provisions from his people, so he could control them. It was genocide, but the blame lies squarely with the dictator of Iraq, not the United Nations.

-Gumboot

CHF
1st August 2007, 07:44 AM
Anybody checked out lately what Blackwater USA has been up to? Their personnel are answerablew only to the company, not to civilian law or the UCMJ, in Iraq. They are almost as heavily-armed as regular Army forces.

Waffen SS-sounding, don't you think.

By all indications I've seen, Blackwater is largely tasked with guard duty and not combat.

The SS, meanwhile, carried out mass executions and spearheaded Nazi offensives.

But yeah, I don't like the idea of such a force being outside the usual command structure.

Dr Adequate
1st August 2007, 09:42 AM
Yeah, Pardalis missed it too.

This "business/fascist coup against FDR" thing has been around for a long time. The critical point that both you and Pardalis are missing is that Prescott Bush is a very recent addition to it. I am not "missing" this point, I am simply not discussing it in any way. My post is about something else entirely. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Prescott Bush is a recent addition to the CT --- and vice versa.

T.A.M.
1st August 2007, 09:45 AM
Oh of course it is. They happen all the time. Just look at all the ones on 9/11 in front of the Pentagon.

That's right Lyte, and you were right when you said you were "sure" this is the case.

Bye

TAM:)

stilicho
1st August 2007, 10:05 PM
I am not "missing" this point, I am simply not discussing it in any way. My post is about something else entirely. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Prescott Bush is a recent addition to the CT --- and vice versa.
Why, then, would you post on a topic like this one? It is about Prescott Bush, Smedley Butler, and the "Bonus Army".

Are you even aware of the history of this conspiracy theory? Are you also aware that the "Business Plot" is "supported" by a Wikipedia article? That's the same one that Schneibster ran to in order to claim that the plot actually existed. His five points are stolen straight from that article, which is based (unwisely) on cropped sentences from Schlesinger.

I have issued a protest on Wiki against that entry since it is unsupported by what Schlesinger actually wrote.