Keep Your Eye on the Ball: The Untold Bush Story
Thanks to Greg, Craig and Greg (hey, I feel outnumbered in the "similar name department" ;-] ) for participating. All three are distinguished figures. I would like to particularly tip my hat to Greg Mitchell, who was kind enough to admit up front that he has not read Family of Secrets. From the relatively narrow comments of the others, it seems as if they have not either.
That's perfectly understandable. But our audience should know this: the book is not a polemic or a conventional analysis of the Bushes' politics in the normal framework of liberal vs. conservative. It is a voluminous work of investigative reporting--500+ pages of almost all new revelations about the Bushes, based on documents and interviews. The thrust of Family of Secrets is that our standard discussions of the Bushes fail to take into account a secret history. That secret history positions both George Bushes, H.W. and W., in the service of power elites in finance, resource extraction, and other industries, with a significant overlay of covert operations that have undermined democracy here and abroad. These activities long predated their rise to the presidency, and are therefore of enormous importance in understanding their political success.
For example, I explore the background of the elder Bush and establish, I think, very persuasively, that he was a lifelong operative of the intelligence services, much like Vladimir Putin. This predates his one-year service as CIA director in 1976 by decades. If that is not a significant revelation and cause for concern, then I do not know what is. Further, I study George H.W. Bush's peculiar public admission that he does not remember where he was on November 22, 1963. I discuss three relevant declassified documents. One has him working in the oil business in the early 50s with a "recently retired" CIA officer who goes on to have contact in 1963 with George de Mohrenschildt, a man of considerable interest to the Warren Commission who functioned as a kind of father figure to Lee Harvey Oswald. Another memo has the elder Bush working for the CIA and participating in briefings related to Cuban exiles and the JFK assassination. A third has the same George Bush, now claiming to be a private citizen, calling an FBI office on Nov 22, 1963 (the day he can't remember) to offer a tip on a possible shooter--a tip that I show was a red herring designed to confuse, not help. In addition, I reveal that the elder Bush had a longtime friendship with Oswald's mentor de Mohrenschildt dating back to the 1930s. There is much more here about our 41st president and the assassination of our 35th - four chapters of new material.
I also explore the elder Bush's activities after 1963, including new information on why Richard Nixon felt obligated to keep promoting Bush Sr. into positions for which he was seemingly not qualified--an obligation Nixon had to Prescott Bush, the grandfather of George W, dating back to the beginning of Nixon's own political career. This leads us into a discussion of H.W.'s little-known role in the events leading up to Nixon's removal as a result of Watergate. Several chapters on this, again, full of new, documented information. I provide important new information on a secret back channel with the Saudis, participation in an effort to destabilize Jimmy Carter's presidency, and more.
I do address the religion issue discussed by Craig Unger--I show that the year prior to the year that George W. Bush himself claims to have been born again, the Bushes were receiving memos from a religious adviser on the need to prove one's bona fides to the fast-growing religious right bloc. There's an entire chapter on this in Family of Secrets, complete with memos and extensive quotes from the adviser. I also reveal how the people backing the Bushes covered up George W. Bush's failure to complete his military service, how they scared off the media and coopted establishment gatekeepers, how they hid an abortion, and much more. As regards George W., the thrust of the collected evidence is that, while he certainly acted differently from his father, he was very much of a soldier in an operation that launched when his grandfather's business partner, Robert Lovett, created the blueprint for the new CIA and set it up as a proactive covert operations force in spite of President Truman's intent that it merely be an intelligence gathering outfit. The point of all this is that the Bushes, through multiple generations and a wide range of personal operating styles, have been knowingly serving the interests of power elites that have shaped--and continue to shape-- this country's history in ways we do not see and do not discuss. This construct transcends party and ideological labels.
I would hope that anyone who cares about the truth would take the time to read Family of Secrets, review the mountain of documented facts, and decide for themselves what it all adds up to, and how concerned we should be about the health of our democracy.





















i look forard to reading it.
it goes back even further with prescott bush's involvement in planning to replace FDR with a puppet as related by General Smedley Butler(sp.)
does your book delve into the Carlyle Group at all?
May 27, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I look forward to the sequel -- how big finance and other business interests controlled Barack Obama!
Knowing your work, I'm sure this volume is well researched and documented as well as persuasive.
May 27, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm trying to reconcile what little I know and events that happened, such as Team B under then DCI of the CIA, G.H.W. Bush, which effectively ambushed the agency during the Reagan years. And then under Bush II, the almost complete undermining of the CIA in the build-up to Iraq. Next, the demotion of the CIA to second fiddle under the DNI.
How do these fit in with the whole intelligence thing you are talking about?
May 27, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I forget whether it was Suskind's *One Percent Doctrine* or Risen's *State of War* that begins with George H. W. Bush calling someone at CIA about Feith's cell in the Pentagon saying, "What the heck is going on?"
May 27, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've made this comment before, but quoting myself isn't plagiarism. I'm troubled by the number of times persons invited to TPM to engage in dialogues about this book or that book confess to not having read it yet. My students are smarter than that. When they blow smoke about a book they haven't read, they don't fess up to it. And when I catch them in such an act (it happens every semester), I quickly get very cranky. But here at TPM, the editorial staff seems not to have the standards which are bedrock in academia--read, then comment. Might I humbly suggest that would be an idea worth considering? I read someplace around here that CNN might have a shortage of Hispanics in its rolodex, having brought out Gonsalez to comment on Sotomayor. Is there a similar shortage in TPM's rolodex of persons who actually read books before saying what they think about them?
May 27, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is reading Cliff Notes good enough?
May 27, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, there is a shortage - like most people, our participants have insanely busy schedules. I like to think that we do our best at Cafe - sending copies of books to all participants who need them, for example - but there's only so much we can do!
-Versha (Cafe Intern)
May 28, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I finished the book two weeks ago. I applaud TMPCafe taking on "Family of Secrets." It deserves wide attention.
I am with "amike" 100%. I would say that you don't run with the story until you actually have something. Maybe wait a month until respondents are up to speed.
May 28, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . the Bushes, through multiple generations and a wide range of personal operating styles, have been knowingly serving the interests of power elites that have shaped--and continue to shape . . . .
The Bushes don't "serve"; they "shape." Because they are the "power elite."
Now, Brent Scowcroft? Colin Powell? They're servants.
May 27, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. And they think it is their manifest destiny to lead us. Barbara once said it all in an interview. She relayed a comment that had been made at the Bush dinner table: that "making the big decisions is in the Bush genes." I think they really believe that.
May 27, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm. I think they're both. They are part of the elite group that they serve, but they do nothing to change the structure of the society. They perpetuate more than they shape -- even as they benefit (a little) more from the system than a Scowcroft of Powell.
May 27, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kevin Phillips explored some of this in his book about the Bush dynasty.
May 28, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been reading Mr. Baker's book for a few weeks now. It's simply amazing, and I'm a little disappointed that the book clubbers here both DID NOT READ yet seem to carry a dismissive attitude about it. Some of you may be thinking "Alex Jones" when really, you should be thinking "Seymour Hersh."
Sadly, I think people are just burnt-out (understandably) by the corruption and disaster of the Bush years at this point. Give it some time.
May 28, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I quite agree with the notion that one should read a book before reviewing it -- or perhaps knocking down another review -- very interesting idea.
Family of Secrets caused me to engage in a major orgy of re-reading older books. I still have some difficulty putting my arms around Baker's retelling of Watergate with Bush, at least in the last months, playing ringmaster. On the otherhand, the fact that the Ervin Committee did not follow up on the Townhouse Project during the 73 hearing always was a kind of thorn in my overall appreciation of the Senate hearings, and I have since "re-read" something of my three yards on Watergate trying to test Baker's thesis, and I still won't bet on it, but it stands up well. Baker requires that you re-evaluate the role of John Dean in Watergate -- and I am still thinking that through.
Big take-away from Russ Baker's book -- the typical Bush MOE or mode of operation. Do everything in plain sight, but never leave your fingerprints or DNA on anything, do everything by indirection!! I have recently been applying this to Cheney's sudden demonstrated ability to find his way to TV studios and talk, talk and talk. Rather that get all hot and bothered about what he is saying -- I been sitting buddha fashion on the couch wondering what kind of ploy of indirection this is all about? In fact I have been applying the basic rule to everything that drips out from the past. More torture can get me all hot and bothered, but then the "technique-bush" is remembered, and I wonder what I am being indirected away from. (see I can speak Bush too.)
As to the Kennedy Assassination material -- I still have not done enough re-reading, but last fall I spent several days with David Kaiser's "The Road to Dallas" which represents about 30 years of off and on research -- very much on after the Tunheim Commission finished work on unreleased archives during the Clinton Administration, and I find many interesting parallels with some differences between the work of Baker in Family of Secrets -- and David Kaiser's work. Kaiser, who is professor of History at the Naval War College is primarily a diplomatic historian -- his interest in Kennedy's assassination stems in part from his in depth study of Kennedy and Vietnam, resting on State Department materials, Kennedy papers, et. al., just the sort of "normal" materials one studies when writing what most consider a fairly complete analysis of Kennedy's thinking re: Vietnam by the time he was murdered. At any rate I would love for someone to set up a conversation between these two authors, Baker and Kaiser, on just the Kennedy materials...as I said, they are parallel yet different. I am still trying to compare them.
May 28, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest you read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James Douglass. It took him ten years to research and write it. Just as there were more than one Oswald, there were two Kennedys, and one of them had 'gone native' and started to believe that peace was necessary and achievable. It pushes the envelope as much as Baker's book does.
May 28, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm reading it now.
May 28, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Baker,
I'm reading Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann's 'Ultimate Sacrifice' alongside 'Family of Secrets.' Just curious to see if you've given an interview or published an article on this book's findings?
May 28, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not clear on your question. I have not given interviews regarding the other book, but I certainly have written on and given interviews about Family of Secrets. You can find links to some of them on www.familyofsecrets.com -- see, for example, the Open Source Radio interview or the CSPAN talk.
May 30, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink