Am I supposed to believe you're an expert on this man whose name you've misspelled three times now?
And, the main/original reporting on this was by the Guardian in '04 and the BBC in '07 after more files were released. I don't know where you pulled Democracy Now! from?
> But what involvement did Prescot Bush have and when? Your links aren't conclusive at all.
Did you read the link? Or my comment? They're pretty clear as to where they're getting this information:
> Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush's involvement. All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.
If you have any proof that the BBC and The Guardian were lying about this, feel free to present it.
Honestly it's really, really weird that you'd double down on this after being presented with the above articles. If they don't convince you, fine, but it doesn't seem you've actually read them.
> If anything Prescot Bush is known for his opposition to McCarthy, for example.
Sorry; opposing McCarthy (20 years later) means he didn't support Nazis how exactly? Not trying to be mean or anything but you seem a bit too confused on this topic to be making declarations of innocence.
Sorry that mention of Democracy Now was from an interview or separate article. Actually your cite[53] from the Wikipedia quote.
I'm not an expert, but I knew of the history of Smedley Butler and the Prescott Bush/Union Bank history.
Those articles don't add anything substantial. Maybe if you like you could mention the most substantial or damning fact from among them. You shouldn't feel the need though.
And, the main/original reporting on this was by the Guardian in '04 and the BBC in '07 after more files were released. I don't know where you pulled Democracy Now! from?
> But what involvement did Prescot Bush have and when? Your links aren't conclusive at all.
Did you read the link? Or my comment? They're pretty clear as to where they're getting this information:
> Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush's involvement. All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.
If you have any proof that the BBC and The Guardian were lying about this, feel free to present it.
Honestly it's really, really weird that you'd double down on this after being presented with the above articles. If they don't convince you, fine, but it doesn't seem you've actually read them.
> If anything Prescot Bush is known for his opposition to McCarthy, for example.
Sorry; opposing McCarthy (20 years later) means he didn't support Nazis how exactly? Not trying to be mean or anything but you seem a bit too confused on this topic to be making declarations of innocence.