Bush's G'father's Nazi Connection

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2008 3:42 PM GMT
    Interesting article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2008 3:48 PM GMT
    Thank you for posting this !!! I had read some about this before, but this is more informative than what I had previously found. The Bush family has a very sordid history, and the one currently occupying the white house has been involved in some pretty rotten stuff, it appears that they have litterally gotten away with MURDER over and again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2008 5:24 PM GMT
    Clickable: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

    Wiki article on Prescott Bush: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2008 5:30 PM GMT
    i read this info someowhere else about 8 months ago... very very very not cool. give me blue dresses and real estate over nazi money any day...

    come back, bill... all's forgiven. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2008 5:53 PM GMT
    Thanksd Caslon for making it easy to click on!

    You are always there to the Rescue!

    Very interesting so do we say now "HEIL BUSH"?
  • neon4u

    Posts: 1152

    Mar 01, 2008 7:24 PM GMT
    Hey, dudes look forward.... not back.. Bush is out in a few months. What about Hussein Obama...?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2008 7:25 PM GMT
    Actually if you think about it, in many ways Democrats are closer to National Socialists than Republicans. Remember they were socialists!

    State run economy, socialized medicine, support for euthanasia, abortion, environmental issues. Issues that both democrats and the National Socialists support.

    Not saying I am a Bush supporter or anything, just find it ironic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2008 12:10 AM GMT
    Nothing wrong with a socialist i figure. I took a little quiz on myspace actually and that seems to be the closest party to my belief system. I don't mind it so much. I am who i am. I was clasified as a socialist democrat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2008 12:17 AM GMT
    Rhodielifter saidActually if you think about it, in many ways Democrats are closer to National Socialists than Republicans. Remember they were socialists!


    The loonysphere has been pushing that lie for decades. For the historical record, the National Socialists were a socialist party, and one that essentially went defunct. It was taken over by Hitler in the early 1920s, and there was nothing "socialist" about the Nazis except the leftover name.

    Fascism is never leftist. It is the exclusive and disgusting province of the right. That isn't to say that the left can't be totalitarian (see Stalin, Josef) but fascism has to do with the confluence of nationalism, totalitarianism, and corporatism. It can also include racialism, though that's not a necessary part of the package (see Mussolini, Benito).

    It can also include being very stupid and gullible (see RealJock, certain moronic members of).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2008 3:43 AM GMT
    You left out the church. It almost always sides with a fascist government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2008 6:57 AM GMT
    JPICHVA-

    I have to disagree. The whole concept of Fascism goes back to Mussolini. You can call him a right winger, but in reality he was the epitome of giving all control to a centralized government. As did Hitler, Mao, Castro, ect. They just wanted to control that central government. Same as the Kmer Rouge. Talk about taking power away from the powerful and giving it to the people, but they never do. They just take it for themselves. Democrats argue for greater centralized government. Rebublicans argue for individual rights. In theory. Both want control once they get it.

    But can you say Castro has not been fascist, if not in name but in action? Is he not leftist? ( Again, I have to point out that the biggest anti-Castro and anti-Communist President was John F. Kennedy, the icon of liberals and Democrats).

    Call it fascism, communism, socialism, Nazism (though I would not), it is about singular control of a countries economy, military, and people. Nothing more.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2008 7:36 AM GMT
    CASLON-

    I read the link and thank you for offering it. I am not a Bush fan, Bush one or two, but I am also not a big conspiracy theorist also.

    What I get from that, and granted it is hard to follow, is that industrialists of that era were very intertwined. I also note that I have not heard of any of the "explosive" books mentioned in the article. If they have been published and are credible, I would love to read them. If not, it kind of reads like the National Enquirer, hinting about things, slightly alleging things, taking certain facts and coming to slightly dubious conclusions. Nothing new. People still argue, with the same slight facts, that Roosevelt let Pearl Harbor be bombed to get us into WWII.

    Plus, and this might only be inside baseball to some people, but the same Harriman mentioned so prominently was the money behind Pamela Harriman, a huge benefactor to Bill Clinton. According to Democrat insiders,(and reported repeatedly in Vanity Fair) she was the force and money behind Bill Clinton. So I guess Nazi profiteering is the reason Bill Clinton became our President? How far can we take this?

    Hate Bush or love Bush. What Prescott Bush did or did not do is a great fun political debate. But it is irrelevant. The country voted for GW twice. Money his grandfather made legally or illegally had nothing to do with it. If you think so, you really really do not understand politics. He did not spend his grandfather's money to win election. He spent money raised by current political donors. Same as Hillary, same as Barrack, same as Bill.

    I love a great mystery as much as anyone. This has no legs. Being a Bay Area guy, I am still more interested in the Zodiac Killer.

    Which I am not.

    Z
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2008 9:47 PM GMT
    triggerman --- your discription of fascism is a very good discription of the bush we have right now along with cheney. They have basicly thumbed their nose at the separation of powers, through about all their actions such as signing statements, refusal to allow staff testimonies,hiding behind "STATE SECRETS, using the DOJ office to get around any justifiable oversight, doing away with habeaus corpus, their version of justice via the military commissions (umder which its impossible for real justice to prevail) going against our laws and those adopted through treaties/geneva convention aggreements, and I read recently where bush has what he calls a continuity of government which is to take place in case of another major terrorist attack, (however he refuses to share this with congress) and he under the reigning republican congress back when the patriot act was pushed through has taken the power to declare Martial law, and set aside the constitution by his and his alone decree, not one to be dependent upon the agreement of congress. these power grabs, under the NEOCON and New American Century goals and ideals didn't start with this Bush, His father was over the CIA, and did some very crooked things with the Iran hostage situation for them to keep those hostages until after the Reagan/bush election came to be. they were afraid if Carter was successful at getting them released that he would be re-elected. and of all people it was Clinton who squelched the facts about this from comming out. The neocons came about during the time of Reagan/bush, what the current bush/cheney cabal has accomplished has been in the works for decades, the original post about grandpa bush just shows that this bush "DIDN'T FALL TOO FAR FROM THE TREE". Most Americans have no idea just how close we are to be taken over and relieved of our democrasy. President Kennedy spoke of some of this just shortly before he was assasinated, he spoke of the power behind the sceenes back of the Federal Reserve Bank(which is privately owned, has nothing to do with our Federal Government) who were even then seeking to control our government and media. We now are in a precarious position where one more 9-11 or false flag operation could take us out of our democracy. I'll look up the facts behind these statements of mine so you can read for yourself if you wish. I have posted them on many other forums in the past. I am very distrustful of the motives behind bush/cheney/wolfowicz/ rumsfeld and company's actions/power grabs. we shouldn't be caught asleep thinking that THIS CANNOT HAPPEN IN THE USA !!! Well its happening, and it will take a lot of effort to counter what they have already accomplished through their promoting fear of terrorism. Serious issues to think about for sure !!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2008 3:58 AM GMT
    I have the utmost respect for what you have said and written. You obviously think deeply and care deeply about that which you have written. I don't agree with it all, or even the vast majority, but I may be wrong. It seems to me that we really only know what is happening years, and I mean 30-40-50 years, after the fact. I love history. I love the History Channel. I am always amazed to see how what was really happening and what the public at the time thought was happening are two different things. It takes years for state secrets, ours, our allies and our enemies, to come out.

    That is why I do not jump on any current administration. They obviously have access to info that they cannot release. Not to say their reactions are correct but I can't judge someone's reactions unless I know the full story.

    Look back at the public sentiment and the articles written before WWII. Roosevelt ran on a No War with Germany platform, knowing both that the public would not accept it and that he had info that would eventually get us involved. He did what he had to do. He stated specifically that he would not go to war with Germany while secretly planning it with Churchill. Was he right? Was he wrong? Did he lie? Did he do what he had to do knowing things that the American public did not? You decide.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2008 4:32 AM GMT
    triggerman -- thank you !!! and I think you make a good point about how long it takes for the facts to come out, and that there is merit to a "WAIT AND SEE" frame of mind IN MOST CASES. But Honestly THIS BUSH GANG HAS SHOWN THEIR ASSES FOR WHAT THEY ARE in so many ways, and their gang of NEOCONS and NEW AMERICAN CENTURY thinkers that they surround themselves with have shown plenty and written plenty about their motives of control over middle east oil, a more powerful executive branch (the presidency), that they have left no need for the American public to wonder whats going on. THESE POWER GRABBERS NEED TO BE STOPPED, THERE'S NOT TIME TO SIT BACK AND SEE HOW THE CARDS FALL, I AM CONVINCED THAT THE BUSHIES ARE NOT OUT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZEN. THEY HAVE MADE THEIR AGENDAS PLENTY OBVIOUS AND I THINK GIVING THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT SHOULD HAVE ENDED BEFORE WE WENT TO WAR IN IRAQ !!!! THEY ARE DANGEROUS TO OUR DEMOCRACY, AND THEY HAVE GIVEN PLENTY OF GOOD REASONS TO FEAR THEIR MOTIVES.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2008 5:28 AM GMT
    OK, you have made the acccusations. Now, show me the facts, not the accustations, the facts. You state that it is so obvious that we do not need to wait for time, show me the facts to back what you say. I will wait to hear what you can offer. But keep it to facts, not innuendo and gossip.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2008 5:38 AM GMT
    Plus, your use of Capitals shows your need to prove a point. Not that the point is right or wrong, but that you find a need to prove it.

    Also, you mention oil. Bush's need to control it. That is why we got into this to begin with, control oil. No offense, but oil prices are at record level. For cheap oil, now oil has just set record levels pricewise? Again, what is it? Did America get into this for cheap oil? Although oil now is at record levels? Do you need to change the argument that Bush went into this to RAISE oil prices? Nobody said that pre war or during the war. It was always Bush did this for cheaper oil. Go figure....

    Either Bush went into this to control oil, or he didn't.