Howdy Malice,
Well I should have expected this kind of response. Within the 17 links you gave, most of them linked to each other, and several of the rest were actually reports of the same source story, the NH Gazette story in link #1.
So while it might look like a lot of sources, you really only had about two or three. For that matter most of the link are to far left leaning blogger-type sites.
You doubt it? Here's what one site, Spectazine said about itself:
"A spectre is haunting Europe...
....Welcome to Spectrezine
Spectrezine is a radical journal of the European Left, with a global perspective"Commondreams.org describes itself in it's subtitle.
"Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community." (for those asleep in the last year or so, the word "progressive" has been co-opted for "liberal." A term which apparently is politcal suicide these days. Try to find one middle of the road columnist in that site. Much less a conservative. That's fair and balanced huh? Even the Drudgereport does better than that.
Now about those links of yours...
The source story in the NH Gazette was written by a man named Buchanan who is discussed in link #7. The Guardian described him as a "muckraking reporter" suffering from manic depression. Continuing on the Guaridan wrote, "when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him..... Most seriously, he faced aggravated stalking charges in Miami, in connection with a man with whom he had fallen out over the best way to publicise his findings."
From what I can tell Buchanan is the primary torch bearer of this story carried though most of these sites. Hardly a real journalist.
Maybe you should have read those links you provided. Here's a few quotes I found interesting:
"While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade."
"Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.
"You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks."(By the way, I noticed you didn't comment on that)
Regarding the investigation into Bush's involvement with Thyssen:
"Prescott Bush acted quickly and openly on behalf of the firm, served well by a reputation that had never been compromised. He made available all records and all documents.
Viewed six decades later in the era of serial corporate scandals and shattered careers, he received what can be viewed as the ultimate clean bill.""The Anti-Defamation League in the US is supportive of Prescott Bush and the Bush family. In a statement last year they said that "rumours about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years.
These charges are untenable and politically motivated ... Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser."This is despite the fact that the Jewish community still votes strongly Democratic.
"Fritz Thyssen was an early financial supporter of Hitler, whose Nazi party Thyssen believed was preferable to communism.
The documents do not show any evidence Bush directly aided that effort. His position with Union Banking never was a political issue for Bush, who was elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 1952."Suddenly your hardcore accusations don't carry as much weight.
Bear in mind, these are quotes from the very sites you listed. While there are legitimate issues raised about these dealings, pre-war dealings with Germany and Japan got very sticky for many businesses. Anyone who studied the 1930s knows that there was tremendous US investments in Germany after WWI. And while hindsight is 20/20, read Manchester's book on Churchill, "The Last Lion" and you'll see how few really understood what Hitler was really about until the invasion of Poland. Even after that many, Joe Kennedy in particular, still supported Hitler. The fact that he was the Ambassador to Britian and held unauthorized meetings with Nazi party heads assuring them FDR would lose the 1940 election, particularly puts him in a much worse light than Bush. (Joe's stated opinon was the Jews had "brought on themselves" whatever Hitler did to them)
Even still your original statement I'll quote:
| Les Ismore wrote on Tue, 22 February 2005 14:19 |
GW Bush's grandfather and great grandfather were the finaciers of Hitlers Nazi party and financed their rise to power, and were instrumental in the begining of world war 2. .
|
Taking the worst possible scenario against the reputation of Bush, all of the links you provided prove your statement to be wrong. Thyssen was the financier of Hitler. Bush financed nothing. He was only one of seven directors of one of only one of Thyssens' banks. Bush's stake, only one share, compared to almost 4000 of another director demonstrates his small role in the bank. And beyond that, the assests of the bank were worth only a few million or so. (so states your links) Hardly a serious role in the rearming of Germany. Don't fogret that Bush son, George, while he could have opted out, instead of enrolling into his first year at Yale, enrolled in the Navy and flew in the Pacific. He just as easily could have been serving in Europe. Do you really think his Dad would be trying to help the enemy his own son was fighting?
Doesn't the fact that over 50 years later no serious journalist has pursued this hit you with a little reality? There's no story there. Even Dan Rather didn't go down this route....despite his new standard for sources "fake, but accurate!"
And your other quote:
| Les Ismore wrote on Tue, 22 February 2005 14:19 |
These are the people now in control of the US and soon the rest of the world.
|
Still now answer about how W will manage this?
And even still....beyond all that....even if Bush's ancestors
were guilty...SO WHAT? It staggers the mind that one will judge a man for the actions of something that occurred before he was born. It's not just un-American. It's not befitting ANY civilized country. If you believe this to be true and find Bush guilty, how then do we deal with the Germans? Or ever make progress toward peace?
This kind of idiocy is why Jews and Arabs, Irish Protestant and Catholics, Sudanese Musilms & Christians (as well as those in the Balkans) are still fighting each other. Your accusations promote that kind of bad thinking and are the bad fruit of policial correctness we've had to endure for these many years.
You don't like Bush? Fine. Deal with him why don't you? I'll make my last line your last one...too bad you don't understand it.
"If you want make a wave, make it about something that matters."
Sorry for being so long-winded.
