Is George W. Bush keeping Daddy out of jail?
by
Gerald Plessner
geraldplessner.com
September 25, 2006 -Will George W. Bush have to pardon his father so that George H. W. Bush may never be prosecuted for participating in a criminal conspiracy and violating Federal law in the months before the election of Ronald Wilson Reagan to the presidency and George H. W. Bush to the vice-presidency of the United States?
This question, which brings into question the legitimacy of the Reagan presidency, is much more significant than the details of an Arkansas land deal. They are raised by the facts contained in documents recently discovered by Robert Parry, an outstanding journalist who exposed many of the details of the law-breaking Reagan-Bush years, including the Iran-Contra scandal.
Americans who are upset by the criminal ethos of current Republican politicians need to understand that the Republican principles and conduct are nothing new.
The truth is that what happened to Al Gore in 2000 involves many of the same players and tactics involved in the defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980 --- that a Republican criminal conspiracy assured the victory of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush for president and vice president of the United States. But like all things Republican, the story wouldn't be complete without a cover up.
(Robert Parry is a distinguished journalist who did important work in exposing Republican machinations during the 1980 presidential election campaign. Parry continues to write and his work can be read at Consortiumnews.com. Much of what follows comes from his articles and exhibits on that site. All Americans owe him their gratitude for his excellent reporting.)
Shortly after taking office in January 2001, George W. Bush signed an executive order blocking the declassification of all records from the Reagan-Bush years. After September 11, 2001, the president signed an additional document giving former presidents, vice presidents and their heirs power over the release of such documents.
Though the election of Ronald Reagan and George Bush happened more than a quarter-century ago, more than most others it shaped the world we now live in. Voters, especially young voters, need to understand how the first of a number of massive electoral frauds have given Republicans the power they have today.
IRAN HOSTAGE CRISIS - There is little disagreement that Jimmy Carter lost his 1980 bid for re-election because of the Iran Hostage Crisis. On November 4, 1979 and until January 20, 1981, Iranian students, after taking control of the United States Embassy in Tehran, captured 66 American diplomatic officials and private citizens, holding them hostage to demands upon the United States.
After extensive negotiations, eleven hostages were released and the 52 remaining hostages were held for 444 days. They were released on January 20, 1981 on Inauguration Day and shortly after the inauguration speech of Ronald Reagan. Reagan got the credit for freeing the hostages but he sent president Carter to represent him at the homecoming ceremonies, a magnanimous gesture.
President Jimmy Carter had, without success, made extensive efforts to gain the hostages' earlier release. Upon his orders, the U.S. military had mounted a rescue effort which ended in the humiliating crash of rescue helicopters and the deaths of eight American servicemen.
THE OCTOBER SURPRISE - In the middle of the presidential campaign in 1980, rumors surfaced that the Reagan campaign was planning an "October Surprise" to secure the hostages' release. Though the rumors were never confirmed by the national press, and investigations in both the Senate and House of Representatives found no basis for the allegations, we now know that they were true and that people at the highest levels of the Regan-Bush campaign were involved in a plot and lied about it.
Now the truth can be told. On October 18, 1980, George H. W. Bush, Republican candidate for vice president of the United States, flew to Paris to negotiate with representatives of Iran over the release of 52 hostages held by that country.
By doing so, Bush and his co-conspirators were in potential violation of the International Commerce Acts of 1798 which prohibit any American citizen or party from negotiating with a foreign power in matters of national policy or military action.
Although numerous Republican activists and two Congressional committees claimed that no such effort or trip was attempted, more than a dozen credible sources told of their knowledge of the trip and its results.
Bush, representing Ronald Reagan and himself, told representatives of the Iranian government, including cleric Mehdi Karrubi, that a Reagan administration would provide arms and other assistance to Iran in response to its release of the 52 remaining hostages.
According to reports by Robert Parry, ". . . Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe . . . said he saw Bush attend a final round of meetings with Iranians in Paris."
"Ben-Menashe said he was in Paris as part of a six-member Israeli delegation that was coordinating the arms deliveries to Iran. He said the key meeting had occurred at the Ritz Hotel in Paris."
"Ben-Menashe said the Paris meetings served to finalize a previously outlined agreement calling for release of the 52 hostages in exchange for $52 million, guarantees of arms sales to Iran, and unfreezing of Iranian moneys in U.S. banks. The timing, however, was changed, he said, to coincide with Reagan's expected Inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981."
THE ISSUES RAISED - The issues raised by this new information are both profound and simple. If the two candidates knew of a conspiracy to violate the laws of the United States, and evidence indicates that at lease one did, shouldn't they be held to account for their actions?
Do the people of the United States have a right to know the truth about their own history, particularly as it affects their relationship with countries with which we issues today?
Is the president acting honorably with the American people if he hides vital but not life-threatening information from them?
Does the United States of America owe something to the former hostages who suffered for a longer period than necessary for political purposes? Might a public apology be in order?
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Gerald Plessner is a Southern California businessman who writes regularly on issues of politics and culture. He would be pleased to hear from you and may be contacted at gerald@geraldplessner.com. |
