("Quid coniuratio est?")
TERRY REED / JOHN CUMMINGS INTERVIEW
[...continued...]
TOM DONAHUE:
Well George Bush, I think it's been proven beyond a shadow of a
doubt, was "in the loop". Ollie North reported to him, George
Bush, "Mr. CIA". He was vice-President. He was put in place to
keep Reagan in check. {1}.
And so, it almost seems that the perfect successor to George Bush would be Bill Clinton, because of his involvement -- not only through Bilderbergs and TriLats [Trilateral Commission] and CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] -- but because of what he knew and to keep those secrets, secret indeed, in Arkansas.
TERRY REED:
That's exactly correct. I had lunch about 3 weeks ago with some
very interesting people in Washington. One of these men was the
actual drafter of what is called the "Reagan Doctrine". And he
made a statement that I thought was interesting. He said, you
know, George Bush would not have survived a second term. The
Iran-Contra affair was going to nail him in the first quarter of
the first year of his second term. At the rate Walsh [Lawrence
Walsh] was moving -- which, as this man said, was with the speed
of a glacier, uh he was going in a certain direction. And it was,
you know, the moment he nailed "Cap" Weinberger in (what, I
believe it was what, October or November of 1992?), the moment he
got to the President's men, the President was next. And that
decision had been made that Bush would basically not be re-
elected.
As they sat there -- and these were Republican handlers! These people, one is Dr. Jack Wheeler(sp?), who helped draft the Reagan Doctrine. And I have no reason not to believe him as he sits there and says, "These decisions were made. And [we] decided we wanted Clinton in because we could control him, and eliminate him in his first 4 years, and get a Republican back in after 4 years." And I thought, "Now this sounds like a master intelligence plan to me." So I subscribe to that theory right there.
And I compare that to the Republicans being in the White House for 12 years. If you stay in 16 [years], the people are gonna probably get a pretty good idea that, I mean, the Democrats are gonna field a strong candidate, probably seize power for at least 8 [years]. But if you allow a weak Democratic candidate to elevate himself to that position {2}, chances are he'll only be in 4 [years]... or less, as I think this is gonna turn out to be. And the Republicans will be back in '96, if not sooner. And I think that's the way it's gonna play out, personally.
The millstone, truly, beyond "Whitewater rafting" {3}: Is it gonna be Mena, Arkansas? Or is it gonna be... And I guess Mena as well as the bond peddling that went on.
Terry Reed, John Cummings. We're gonna come back with their final words. And we can squeeze a call or two in as well. Right back.
[...to be continued...]
--------------------------<< Notes >>---------------------------- {1} "He [Bush] was put in place to keep Reagan in check." Here's what Bo Gritz has to say (from Conspiracy for the Day, March 11, 1994, excerpts only):
In Mesa, I met with him [Cleon Skaas(?)] and I said, "Why in the world did Ronald Reagan sell us down the tube by taking George Bush as his running mate?" And I really didn't know that Cleon knew Ronald Reagan rather well. But he told me: He said, "Bo, George Bush was Ronald Reagan's greatest opponent," (if you'll remember, back in the 1980 elections), "and Ronald Reagan said he would never have him. Then, Ronald Reagan was invited to New York to go see Rockefeller. When he saw Rockefeller, he was told, 'If you do not take my head of the Trilateral Commission'" (remember, the Council on Foreign Relations, George Bush) "'as your running mate, the only way you'll see the inside of the White House is as a tourist.'"
"Now, when you read Kitty Calley's junk about the Reagan family, even if one percent of it is true, you can see a man with great vanity wouldn't want that dirty laundry exposed. And who even knows the vice-President? So I honestly thought Ronald Reagan said, 'Well, George Bush will never hurt any of us. Because I'm going to be President.'"
[...]
Two months after he was inaugurated, two months is all that Ronald Reagan lasted. March 30th, 1981, two months after his inauguration in January of 1981, he was shot -- was he not? And the news said that he was shot by John Hinckley, jr. and that John Hinckley, jr. was some kind of a Jodie Foster freak. And that he came out of nowhere, and that he shot Brady in the head, and he shot a policeman in the neck, and he shot a Secret Service man and blew him back over the vehicle, and he shot Ronald Reagan. Right?
[...]
When Brady was shot, no question. Here we've got John Hinckley, jr. Oh, by the way, is John Hinckley, jr. just some kind of a "weirdo?" Isn't it strange that John Hinckley, sr. is the owner of Vanderbilt Oil? And, of course, George Bush is the owner of Zapata Oil. Was it a coincidence, then, that John Hinckley, sr. and George Bush are neighbors for years in Houston, Texas, working together? Is it any coincidence that John Hinckley, sr., when you go back through the FEC, the Federal Election Commission, his own record of giving maximum donations every year to Mr. Bush even when he started running for Congress. Well now, does that make his son, John Hinckley, jr. seem a little bit less of a coincidence? I think it does. Here's why:
When the President was shot, if you'll remember, he was pushed into the car by a man named Jerry Parr(sp?) that was his Secret Service guard. Jerry Parr fell on top of him and, I just saw in the Reader's Digest where Jerry Parr was telling his "valiant story." And the limousine tore off, didn't it? Now it was five minutes later that the ambulance arrived and they put the Secret Service man, the Washington, D.C. policeman, and Brady in the ambulance and it roared off. Using normal time-rate/distance, who should have arrived at George Washington University Hospital first? The President should have. Well, who did? You know it's a trick question. The ambulance arrived 15 minutes before the President. When asked, "What happened?" the Secret Service simply responded, "We got lost."
The Secret Service does not get lost in Washington, D.C. They don't get lost in most places of the world. And so, now the investigation starts to get a little interesting. When they take Ronald Reagan in, they can see that he... matter of fact, his heart almost stopped. And he is convulsing; there's blood on his lips. They know he's hurt... seriously. But they can find no wounds. They X-ray him 3 times and can find nothing.
Finally, a nurse notices a tiny entrance wound right at the seventh rib, underneath the armpit. And a doctor takes a probe, and by... very carefully, because they couldn't see it on X-ray, the doctor is able to extract what he said was a planchet, thinner than a dime, that was one-quarter inch from Ronald Reagan's aorta.
Now, Ronald Reagan says... as a matter of fact, let me just see if I can just read it to you... best what Ronnie says. I've got all this in the book... This came right out of a
I knew I had been hurt, but I thought that I'd been hurt by the Secret Service man landing on me in the car. As it was, I must say it was the most paralyzing pain. I've described it as if someone hit you with a hammer. But the sensation, it seemed to me, came after I was in the car and so I thought that maybe his gun or something had broken a rib. I set up on the seat, and the pain wouldn't go away -- and suddenly, I found I was coughing up blood.
Now you see, to almost anyone else you might say, "Well, just some kind of a fluke." But I'm a skeptic. Because I know how these things have happened ever since they "took out" John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I think maybe JFK was the last honest President that we had...
{2} "But if you allow a weak Democratic candidate to elevate himself to that position..." As also with Carter. Carter and Clinton, both Governors, both unfamiliar with the Washington scene, both novices.
We have (1) JFK, a Democrat, gets killed; (2) Johnson is somehow controlled so a serious investigation of the JFK assassination doesn't happen; (3) Nixon, a Republican. No serious investigation of the JFK assassination; (4) Carter, a Democrat. Finally, an attempt is made at a serious investigation, but hidden forces seek to hamper it; (5) Reagan and Bush, no investigation; (6) Clinton. Claims to be a reincarnation of JFK, but why no investigation nor any moves in that direction? Instead, Clinton does a rare thing: promotes the movie "Line of Fire" which supports the official version of the JFK assassination. How often does a President go out of his way to endorse a movie?
Also, after the movie "JFK" came out, reporters asked Bush what he thought of it. Here's Bush: "Huh? A movie called 'JFK' did you say?"
{3} "Whitewater rafting". This seems to be a euphemism for the public perception of Whitewater (i.e. a land deal gone sour) versus the deeper complexities of drug and gun running, murder, intimidation, etc. In other words, "Whitewater rafting" conjures up an innocent perception, or indeed a surface perception -- rafting. But beneath the surface there is much more.
{4} "Uncle Tom's Cabin" A bestselling book from the time of the American Civil War. The book had an enormous popular reaction.
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
"Justice" = "Just us" = "History is written by the assassins."