The Bush book that was burned...

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Had an interesting day at Barnes & Noble...



That Clark book is flying off the shelves. Just as many of the other anti-Bush/Neo Conservative books.



One customer (lady in her fifties I'd say) asked me if I had heard of a 1999 Bush biography called "Fortunate Son" by J. H. Hatfield. Nope. Well she said that probably the reason was that when the book was first published by St. Martins things got a little strange. See, this is the book that stated that W. Bush had been arrested for cocaine possession which was later expunged by Daddy Bush.



All hell broke loose and the press was rabid. Suddenly, Hatfield's past came into play. A reporter found out that Hatfield had been convicted of conspiracy to murder (never carried out and he served 5 years). This was probably enough to get the publishers nervous...but then came the Bush lawyers...and they balked...they stopped print of the book and burned all existing copies.



End of story? Nope.



An indie publisher Soft Skull decided to republish the book in 2002 with more information and the author explaining his checkered past (how many writers haven't had one?) and also devulged the sources he kept secret in the first publication on the cocaine story. Again there were allegations of the authors past (though most reviewers seemed to feel the book was well written, even sympathetic to W. Bush in amny ways) and then the death threats to his family and himself. Seems Hatfield couldn't take the pressure...he committed suicide in a hotel room one year after the book was republished.



Well, I was definately intrigued. I searched B&N's database to see if there were any copies of the book. One. I pulled it. I'm buying it and going to read it.



I've been doing a little more researched online. Reading reviews and looking for more info. And boy, hit a motherload. An interview with the author just after the first printing of the book was stopped and the burning of the 70,000 available copies were done.



Here's a link to the interview (also in audio)...Link.



He devulges who the one source was on the cocaine scandal...



Former Chief of Staff to elder Bush Michael Dannenhauer.



It was mentioned elsewhere (and in the new printing of the book) that another source to this was Karl Rove...we all know who he is...



But another thing about this interview that stopped me in its tracks was this...remember, this interview was in 1999...prior to 9|11...



AMY GOODMAN: Let?s talk about his time in Midland as an oil businessman. You go into great detail in the book about the kinds of people who bailed him out. Their connections to his father and the family. The connections to the Persian Gulf war, etc. Why don?t you give us a little more detail.



J. H. HATFIELD: Yeah. He?s made a lot of money by?being bailed out by his dad?s friends. For example. his first company Arbusto. One of the major investors was James Bath who had connections to the BCCI scandal and Osama Bin Laden family. And why would somebody invest in the son of a vice-presidents first little oil company. I mean you have to have an interest. Just like right now, he?s raised 70 million dollars. When he gets to the White House, if he gets to the White House, you?re naïve if you don?t think those corporate people who got him there, they?ll want something in return.



AMY GOODMAN: His oil company ?Arbusto? is Spanish for Bush?



J. H. HATFIELD:Spanish for bush



AMY GOODMAN: Now, You mentioned Osama Bin Laden. Can you talk about what you think those connections are?



J. H. HATFIELD:Well, not just myself. I also documented the book that a couple of award-winning former Time correspondents wrote a book on BCCI and they also mentioned Bath. They said that the 50 thousand dollars that he invested in Arbusto had to come from BCCI because he didn?t have any money on his own. And from the connections he had with the Osama Bin Laden family. So?



AMY GOODMAN: You said that Osama Bin Laden is the son of the business man he did work with. Do you know that for sure? Is that right that the Bin Laden brothers that is Osama Bin Laden is one of their sons.



J. H. HATFIELD:Well, its in the family they said. You can?t say that he actually did business with Osama Bin Laden but you have to say it came?it was family. It would be like if somebody did business with the Bush family. Well?I don?t know if George W was involved so it would be with the family. And there?s no denial there.



AMY GOODMAN: How do you know that the Bin Laden brothers are related to Osama Bin Laden?



J. H. HATFIELD: Well that?s been documented in lots of places. Not just me but in other newspapers, other journalists, TV elsewhere.



AMY GOODMAN: And what is Bath?s connection to the Bushes?



J. H. HATFIELD: Well he was also in the National Guard with George W. back in the 70?s which is interesting too because in 1972 in August, my publisher was able not too long ago to get hold of Bush?s national guard records. And in 1972, at the same time we alleged he was doing community service for cocaine arrest James Bath who was in the unit with him. Both of them were grounded for failing to show up for medical exam.




Oh boy. OBL? Maybe not but another book out now, "House of Bush/House of Saud" seems to be expanding the relationship the Bushes have had with Saudi Oilmen and the Bin Laden family...going all the way back to elder Bush...



My head's spinning with all these books coming out. If I am correct...this is the definitive one. If you can, find this book.



Soft Skull



The third edition of the book has expanded footnotes, an update from the author and analyses by noted historians, attorneys, and professors and a new introduction by NYU Media Professor Mark Crispin Miller.



Remember this book was burned!



Oh, and there was a documentary filmed of the republishing of the book called "Horns and Halos"







paging scott...paging scott...3,2,1...
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 53
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    My father knows *someone* who has been exploring this connection in regard to the 9/11 attacks and the victim's families lawsuit......



    He has dirt, much of it... This fellow was involved in the extradition of the Saudi royal family member...
  • Reply 2 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    My father knows *someone* who has been exploring this connection in regard to the 9/11 attacks and the victim's families lawsuit......



    He has dirt, much of it... This fellow was involved in the extradition of the Saudi royal family member...




    As I stated...I think this guy beat him to it. I'm reading this one right now...







    They're holding hands...isn't that cute?



    " House of Bush, House of Saud begins with a politically explosive question: How is it that two days after 9/11, when U.S. air traffic was tightly restricted, 140 Saudis, many immediate kin to Osama Bin Laden, were permitted to leave the country without being questioned by U.S. intelligence?"



  • Reply 3 of 53
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    There is a picture of a 13 or 14 year old OBL in that book, just a normal rich kid with his family. How did he become so messed up?
  • Reply 4 of 53
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artman @_@

    ...



    " House of Bush, House of Saud begins with a politically explosive question: How is it that two days after 9/11, when U.S. air traffic was tightly restricted, 140 Saudis, many immediate kin to Osama Bin Laden, were permitted to leave the country without being questioned by U.S. intelligence?"







    That's wrong but I'm sure you don't care to correct it.
  • Reply 5 of 53
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    Care to elaborate Scott? What are your sources?
  • Reply 6 of 53
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Several different source. This lie is one of those that's repeated over and over until it's true. But it's not. It's mostly wrong and a little bit true. But I'll let it twist in the wind a little longer. Give Artman @_@ a chance to correct the lie.
  • Reply 7 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Several different source. This lie is one of those that's repeated over and over until it's true. But it's not. It's mostly wrong and a little bit true. But I'll let it twist in the wind a little longer. Give Artman @_@ a chance to correct the lie.



    ... because a little arrogance on your part helps make your point, huh?



    Just post the sources, and your side of the argument.
  • Reply 8 of 53
    ludwigvanludwigvan Posts: 458member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artman @_@

    ...they stopped print of the book and burned all existing copies.



    Not quite all. There are about 100 libraries that own the original edition of "Fortunate Son".
  • Reply 9 of 53
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    Quote:

    Several different source. This lie is one of those that's repeated over and over until it's true. But it's not. It's mostly wrong and a little bit true. But I'll let it twist in the wind a little longer. Give Artman @_@ a chance to correct the lie.



    I've read the book - it's very well researched. I want to know what your sources are.
  • Reply 10 of 53
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    It's not hard. Just because a lie is anti-Bush doesn't make it true. My information comes from a reputable site that references NYT, Boston Globe, Vanity Fair, Tampa Tribune, AP, Independent, CBSnews.com and some others.







    So when it's shown to be largely false and a lie are you all are going to eat crow? Promises to come back and admit you are wrong and will correct the lie when other tell it?
  • Reply 11 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    It's not hard. Just because a lie is anti-Bush doesn't make it true. My information comes from a reputable site that references NYT, Boston Globe, Vanity Fair, Tampa Tribune, AP, Independent, CBSnews.com and some others.



    So when it's shown to be largely false and a lie are you all are going to eat crow? Promises to come back and admit you are wrong and will correct the lie when other tell it?




    So when you decide not to be so damn arrogant, those of use who are interested in hearing the other side of the story of this alleged flight will be allowed?
  • Reply 12 of 53
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    It's not hard. Just because a lie is anti-Bush doesn't make it true. My information comes from a reputable site that references NYT, Boston Globe, Vanity Fair, Tampa Tribune, AP, Independent, CBSnews.com and some others.







    So when it's shown to be largely false and a lie are you all are going to eat crow? Promises to come back and admit you are wrong and will correct the lie when other tell it?




    Less spoof more proof
  • Reply 13 of 53
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    You got the crow on your plate? Ready to correct the error when others make it?
  • Reply 14 of 53
    we've been down this road before......i think the objectionable words are 2 days after 9/11.
  • Reply 15 of 53
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Scott:



    Is there a point to your childish and insipid baiting? Post your goddam source already and get the conversation moving.
  • Reply 16 of 53
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    Odd how nobody has also asked artman to lend credibility to his statement as well, choosing instead to pester scott for having the apparently unpopular opposing viewpoint. Where's the fairness?
  • Reply 17 of 53
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    what is it 3?
  • Reply 18 of 53
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rageous

    Odd how nobody has also asked artman to lend credibility to his statement as well, choosing instead to pester scott for having the apparently unpopular opposing viewpoint. Where's the fairness?



    Artman was quoting the book...
  • Reply 19 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Scott:



    Is there a point to your childish and insipid baiting? Post your goddam source already and get the conversation moving.




    it's probably this

    scroll down to the second story.
  • Reply 20 of 53
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rageous

    Odd how nobody has also asked artman to lend credibility to his statement as well, choosing instead to pester scott for having the apparently unpopular opposing viewpoint. Where's the fairness?



    he was talking about a book, and he provided a link to buy that book, as well as quoting from it.



    Scott just said he had a link, but he won't post it \



    it's not like you have to buy a link, that's an easy source to provide.
Sign In or Register to comment.