by Russ Baker
If indeed we are so totally in the dark, how come?
Trying to answer that question, I began studying the messengers themselves, and even directly querying those who had participated in the creation of the Bush narrative—and indeed the larger American narrative—as “witnesses” or scribes. What I found was something that the mainstream media in the United States resists. Namely, there have been concerted efforts to control the way in which the big stories are told, and these efforts go deeper into the American establishment—corporate and government both—than most people would like to believe.
Among the themes that emerged:
• Presidents have a lot less power and independence than I had assumed. Party affiliation is not a major factor in this regard.
• Initiating reforms or standing up to powerful interests can invite retribution of a kind I had not imagined. Presidents are subject not only to pressure but also to entrapment, blackmail, and even, in one way or another, removal.
• The constant recourse to the “lone wolf” theory to explain assassinations and comparable national traumas is not only empirically challenged but also represents a kind of large scale cop-out. At what point, I wondered, is it permissible to doubt that the assassinations of both Kennedys and Martin Luther King Jr.—all of whom challenged the status quo in significant ways—were the result of independent actions by three “crazed loners”?
Time and again, there has been a rush to bury inquiries into the most perplexing events of our time, along with a determination to subject dissenting views to ridicule. And the media weren’t just enabling these efforts; they were complicit in them—not least by labeling anyone who dared to subject conventional views to a fresh and quizzical eye as a conspiracy theorist.
I’ll admit it. Fear of being so labeled has haunted me throughout this work. It’s been an internal censor that I’ve had to resist again and again. And also an external one, as friends within the journalistic establishment reviewed my findings, found them both credible and highly disturbing, and yet urged me to stay away from them for my own good.
I began to realize that I was experiencing the very thing the process is designed to induce. The boundaries of permissible thought are staked out and enforced. We accept the conventional narratives because they are repeated and approved, while conflicting ones are scorned. Isn’t this how authoritarian regimes work? They get inside your mind so that overt repression becomes less necessary.
Whose interests does this serve? As this book demonstrates, the deck has long been, and continues to be, stacked on behalf of big-money players, especially those in commodities and natural resources—from gold to oil— and those who finance the extraction of these materials. The defense industry, and the aligned growth business of “intelligence,” provide muscle. On a lower level is an army of enablers—the campaign functionaries, the PR people, the lawyers. This was the Bush enterprise. The Bushes embodied it as a dynasty, but it is larger than them, and will prove more enduring.
DECEPTION RESIDES AT the very center of our national psyche. It affects us in incalculable ways, from decisions in the voting booth to our own life choices.
The solution, clearly, is to pull away the veil.
Now the good news. Telling stories that need to be told is less dependent on the good graces of those with a vested interest in concealment. This book would not have been possible ten years ago, before the Internet’s tremendous search and storage capabilities, and the new ways it offers to exchange information and ideas with others. Much has been made of the havoc the Internet has wrought with old business models, from publishing to recorded music. Less has been said about emerging opportunities to crack the wall of secrecy and disinformation—not just in authoritarian regimes abroad, but right here at home as well.
Whether professional journalists or concerned citizens, we are all offered a new lease on life with these technologies, provided we neither abuse the privilege nor allow the apparatus itself to fall under the control of those who keep the secrets.
My work, and that of many others, would not be possible without good laws—the First Amendment, the Freedom of Information Act—and the untiring efforts of individuals and groups devoted to transparency in government and in society at large. Also, we must thank the legions of anonymous individuals within both government and private business who try to do the right thing while bringing home the paycheck. They continue to be our best sources of information.
Under the aegis of the Bush enterprise, we have seen constant efforts to circumvent, ignore, and even repeal constitutional protections for free speech and inquiry. I hope this book has helped demonstrate why some people work so hard at such repression—and why we cannot allow them to prevail. It is not simply a matter of arcane legal disputes in Washington, but of the determination of powerful and secretive forces to twist our national story to their own ends.
Afterword
Research that led to Family of Secrets convinced me that some of our most entrenched national narratives are simply wrong. This includes specific episodes—such as the Kennedy assassination and Watergate—as well as subtexts concerning the nature of our democracy and of power itself in the twenty-first century.
In the year since the hardcover edition of Family of Secrets went to press, many individuals have come forward to validate my thesis that self-serving elements have shaped this country’s trajectory in hidden and significant ways. Even the most casual followers of recent events such as the financial meltdown and the stymied state of President Barack Obama’s early initiatives on medical insurance and climate change understand the urgent need to go beyond surface explanations, and to question why it is still so difficult to achieve substantive reform.
The research that goes into a book like this is enormously difficult and time-consuming. To put this simply, I need your help. Please visit the nonprofit journalism site www.whowhatwhy.com and become a part of this ongoing project. Your financial support will enable my colleagues and me to produce paradigm-shifting journalism on a regular basis.
With your help, we will continue to unravel the mysteries of power and democracy in America.
Author’s Note
The research for this book, by definition, is a work in progress. You are invited to visit www.familyofsecrets.com for more detailed background information and for updates.
Acknowledgments
My agent, Andrew Stuart, understood the project and helped find it a great home. My editor, Peter Ginna, publisher and editorial director of Bloomsbury Press, saw the possibilities immediately, and has been unfailingly thoughtful and supportive. Also, thanks to all of the people at Bloomsbury, including managing editor Mike O’Connor, who handled my endless changes to the manuscript with dexterity and grace; Peter Miller and Sabrina Farber, who enthusiastically went forth to sell the book and the ideas in it; Pete Beatty; publicist Gene Taft; counsel Alan Kaufman; and copy editor Maureen Klier, who edited with enthusiasm and offered many good suggestions.
The book likely would not have come to fruition without the central role of Jonathan Z. Larsen, a former editor of mine, who talked through the concept extensively, helped me get the operation off the ground, traveled with me to conduct research, and provided invaluable guidance, assistance, and substantial material support. Jon has been a valuable sounding board, advisor, and friend for many years. My aide-de-camp during the final year, Akiva Gottlieb, served efficiently, amiably and capably, and had his hand in everything: research, brainstorming, coordinating fact-checking, editing. Jonathan Rowe, an old friend and one of the more contemplative journalists I know, played a crucial role in helping me work out my thinking on matters large and small, and suggested improvements in how I told this story. Jon devoted hundreds of hours to this, and I am deeply grateful to him for this and for his ongoing counsel. I also cannot offer enough thanks to Gerald Jonas, with whom I go way back, who looked at the manuscript through endless iterations over several years, offering superb suggestions for clarifying and sty
ling sprawling, difficult material. Charlotte Dennett extensively researched several key topics with enthusiasm, and, with her husband Gerard Colby, offered advice from their years as serious biographers. A critique from my good friend David Margolick markedly improved the manuscript; David has long counseled me on the vagaries of the publishing world. Inez Baker uncomplainingly and skillfully transcribed hundreds of hours of interviews and provided a steady stream of amusing e-mails. Photo researcher Nancy Novick worked quickly and effectively to put together a picture gallery that does justice to this story. John Beckham, Eric Stoner, Lyle Deixler, and Mark Levey helped with research. Tanya Elder organized my files and books. Linda Minor offered me her vast knowledge of financial intrigue and Texas history. Joseph Coscarelli, Juliet Linderman, and Susan-nah Vila were dedicated and professional fact-checkers; Joe also made sure that the footnotes were right. Adam Federman served as a savvy and even-keeled assistant in earlier stages of the book. There are many other people to thank for providing help of all kinds, large and small.
With apologies to anyone whom I may have overlooked, my appreciation goes, in no particular order, to: David Callahan, Steve Weinberg, James Rosen, James Moore, Len Colodny, Jonathan Beaty, Jim Hougan, Bill Moyers, Richard Cummings, Jim Baldauf, David Smallman, John Moscow, Sam Smith, David Cay Johnston, Corey Pein, Rex Bradford, John Connolly, Peter Dale Scott, Jo Thomas, Randall Henriksen, Mark Dowie, Anthony Lappé, Jonathan Wimpenny, Nadine Eckhardt, James Huang, Tom Zoellner, John Hawkins, Louis Wolf, John Labbé, Roger Morris, Alice Concari, Tom “Smitty” Smith, Jack Blum, Nicholas von Hoffman, David Armstrong, Harvey Gough, Jonathan Winer, Michael Klare, Victor Navasky, Richard Gooding, Hendrik Hertzberg, Sissy Farenthold, Paul Lukasiak, Bruce Shapiro, Paul Myers, Bob Fertik, David MacMichael, Dan Arshack, Ann Louise Bardach, Dave Block, Neil Reisner, Jim Mulvaney, Ben and Coco van Meerendonk, James Hamilton-Paterson, Roane Carey, Melanie Einzig, Craig McDonald, Herbert Parmet, James Lesar, John McGarvey, Adam Davids, Ron Baker, George Knapp, Hamilton Fish, Mike Hoyt, Wim Dankbaar, Jerry Shinley, Dusty Martin, Frosty Troy, George Shipley, Erika Mayo, Dan Alcorn, Jim Norman, Ron Brynaert, Ryan Wadle, Steve Wasserman, John Fine, Bob Mahlburg, Dan Moldea, Robert Dreyfuss, Ellen Hopkins, Todd Gitlin, Steve Ross, Steve Rose, Bryan Farrell, and Steven Aftergood.
Many archives, libraries, and newsrooms provided access to and copies of articles and files, including the Palm Beach Post; Sixth Floor Museum; Richard M. Nixon and George H. W. Bush presidential libraries; National Archives; Texas State Archives; Texas Secretary of State’s office; Princeton, Columbia, Stanford, and New York University. Thanks to David Smith of the New York Public Library for helping obtain unusual materials through interlibrary loan. With appreciation to the remarkable Strand Bookstore, which invariably had most of the out-of-print books I needed. I would also like to acknowledge Dragon Naturally Speaking, a voice dictation program that allowed me to continue writing when the endless typing began to take its toll on my hands and elbows.
The opinions in this book are not necessarily shared in whole or in part by anyone on this list, and of course any errors or omissions are mine alone, and unintended.
Finally, special thanks to my family and friends for their support and forbearance.
Notes
Note: For the Mary Ferrell Foundation, visit www.maryferrell.org.
2: POPPY’S SECRET
1. Joseph McBride, Frank Capra: The Catastrophe of Success (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1992).
2. Joseph McBride, “The Man Who Wasn’t There, ‘George Bush,’ C.I.A. Operative, ”Nation, July 16, 1988.
3. The Rowland Evans and Robert Novak column, appearing January 1, 1976, in the SyracusePost-Standard under the title “CIA: Maxi vs. Mini,” in the same month Bush’s nomination went to the Senate, quoted one CIA insider as saying: “We have to get rid of those three little letters, C-I-A. Sure, it’s a cosmetic change, but the CIA won’t ever overcome its unfair stigma as a government-sanctioned international murder organization until it gets a new name.”
4. Actually, the memo had been written twenty-five years previous, not twenty-seven.
5. Joseph McBride, “Where Was George?”Nation, August 13, 1988.
6. George William Bush’s affidavit had been filed as evidence in a suit brought by the nonprofit Assassination Archives and Research Center that sought an emergency injunction compelling, before the 1988 election, release of records on Bush’s past (AARC v. CIA). Judge Charles Revercomb of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia declined the request, and the CIA continued its refusal to confirm or deny a relationship with George Herbert Walker Bush.
7. The Mary Ferrell Foundation, founded in the name of JFK researcher Mary Ferrell, has for the past few years been scanning and making available online documents from her collection and that of the Assassination Archives and Research Center, History Matters, and others, most of them obtained over the years under the Freedom of Information Act. They can be accessed online at www.maryferrell.org. Not insignificantly, the documents regarding the Bush memo were declassified under the Clinton administration in 1997. Few, if any, documents that shed light on these activities were declassified under either George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush.
8. Jim Hougan, Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat, and the CIA (New York: Random House, 1984).
9. An article by Richard Cummings (“An American in Paris,” American Conservative, February 16, 2004) asserts that Paris Review cofounder and editor Peter Matthiessen was a CIA agent whose literary activities served as cover for intelligence work. Also, the Review’s longtime editor George Plimpton “was an ‘agent of influence’ for the CIA . . . invariably paid for [his] services.” Also see Hugh Wilford, The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), p. 106; and Frances Stonor Saunders, Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (London: Granta, 1999).
10. Joseph J. Trento, Prelude to Terror: Edwin P. Wilson and the Legacy of America’s Private Intelligence Network (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2005), p. 16.
11. John A. Kouwenhoven, Partners in Banking: An Historical Portrait of a Great Private Bank, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., 1818–1968 (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1983 reprint), p. 189.
12. Kevin Phillips, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush (New York: Penguin Books, 2004), pp. 19–20.
13. Ibid., pp. 38–39.
14. Thomas Petzinger Jr., Oil & Honor: The Texaco-Pennzoil Wars (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1987), p. 93.
15. George H. W. Bush’s nickname became a way to distinguish him from his son George W. Bush. But H. W. had long been known as “Poppy” to relatives and close friends. His older brother, Prescott Bush Jr., became known as “Pressy.” As the second son, H. W. had been named George Herbert Walker Bush, after his maternal grandfather. Because his Walker uncles called their father “Pop,” they decided to call his young namesake grandson “Poppy,” and the name stuck. See Peter Schweizer and Rochelle Schweizer, The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty (New York: Doubleday, 2004), p. 37.
16. Robert B. Stinnett, George Bush: His World War II Years (New York: Brassey’s, 1992), p. 89.
17. Terence Hunt, Associated Press, “Bush Praised for War Heroism,” September 2, 1984.
18. James Bradley, Flyboys: A True Story of Courage (New York: Back Bay, 2002), p. 182.
19. George Bush with Doug Wead, George Bush: Man of Integrity (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1988), pp. 4–5.
20. Associated Press, “Gunner in Squadron Disputes Bush on Downing of Bomber,” New York Times, August 13, 1988.
21. The closest he came was Looking Forward: An Autobiography (New York: Doubleday, 1987), co-written with longtime Washington PR man Victor Gold, which was styled as an autobiography but was notably brief and episodic. It was also full of self-serving inaccuracies.
3: VIVA ZAPATA
1. Kitty Kelley, The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty (New York: Doubleday
, 2004), pp. 342–43.
2. Robin Winks, Cloak and Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, 1939–1961 (New York: William Morrow, 1987), p. 247. According to Winks, both the war time Office of Strategic Services and its successor, the CIA, wanted “young men with high grades, a sense of grace, with previous knowledge of Europe . . . and ease with themselves, a certain healthy self-respect and independent means . . . Oh yes, and good social connections.” That was one reason that the “OSS” was said to stand for “Oh So Social.” Winks, himself a former Yale professor, says the university’s crew coach even received ten thousand dollars annually from the CIA for his efforts to direct team members to the agency, though by all indications, many recruiters were unpaid.
