Did Sandy Berger “Fry” Flight 800 Records?

During the 1980s, renowned radio commentator Paul Harvey said something that I’ve quoted often to my friends. Opining about various wars and upheavals — in the Middle East, Central and South America, Northern Ireland, and Cambodia — Harvey said, “Sometimes you have to laugh, just to keep from crying.”

During this election year — while the country is at war with shadowy terrorist networks, both here and abroad — Paul Harvey’s advice seems especially appropriate. Americans have already come up with various combinations of “Berger & Ketchup” to describe the relationship between former Clinton Administration national-security advisor Sandy Berger and presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (who is married to ketchup-fortune heiress Teresa Heinz-Kerry). Adding to that, I will say that Berger’s recently-abdicated title as an “informal advisor” to the Kerry campaign is starting to look a lot like the “unofficial spokesman” on the Wendy’s Hamburgers TV commercials. (Oddly, the Wendy’s theme has shown up in another of my articles about the Flight 800 mystery.)

The recent revelation by Sandy Berger that he removed highly-classified documents from the National Archives, and then “lost” them, has numerous implications during this election season. Berger was the national-security advisor to Bill Clinton, who is the most scandal-laden president in US history. Flight 800 was destroyed in mid-air during the 1996 re-election campaign of Bill Clinton. Another high-level Clinton insider — former White House chief of staff, turned ABC-TV news analyst, George Stephanopoulos — referred to the bombing of Flight 800 on the air. With that remark — and his associated description of being inside the “other situation room” in the White House at the time of the Flight 800 disaster — a direct link was made between Clinton and Flight 800. This link was, of course, overlooked by the “mainstream” news media.

So, what does this link between Bill Clinton and Flight 800 have to do with the current John Kerry presidential campaign? Well, perhaps nothing, except thatJohn Kerry also referred to Flight 800 as a terrorist incident in a televised interview. The problem is that, with the upcoming release of the final report of the “9-11” Commission, the general public will have the opportunity to refresh their memory about the link between Flight 800 and terrorism. Having spent years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, it is now impossible for Kerry to deny that he had access to information about any link between Flight 800 and terrorist acts. Therefore, if such a link is proven, then a line can be drawn between the downing of Flight 800 in 1996 and the “9-11” attacks in 2001. Again, because of his committee experience and his televised interview, Kerry cannot now distance himself from his comments about “9-11”. Follow along: if a link is made in the public’s mind between terrorism, Flight 800, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and “9-11”, then what is the logical result? Surely, donations to the Democratic Party and to the Kerry campaign would dry up rapidly. Therefore, it is imperative to the Kerry campaign to destroy evidence of such a link. Enter: Sandy Berger. He is a person that had intimate knowledge of high-level decisions about terrorism, and access to the records of those decisions. Now, it is public knowledge that Berger has “lost” some of those documents. Were the “lost” documents related to Flight 800? The only person that knows hasn’t talked.

What is known is that there are numerous pieces of evidence that point to the involvement of a missile in the TWA Flight 800 disaster. What is known is that President Clinton issued an executive order that was targeted to silence the Navy SEALs that were on scene at the Flight 800 debris field in the Atlantic Ocean. What is known is that the FBI was very embarrassed when news of Bureau interest in missile technology became public. (Read the portion about the Teledyne fax to Dee Muma.) What is known is that the Navy SEALs are following the Flight 800 story. What is known is that there were other terrorist plots on US soil between 1996 and 2001. What is known is that the Clinton Administration ignored warnings about Operation Bojinka, and thus paved the way for the “9-11” attacks. What is known is that Clinton wanted to cover his tracks about the probable Bojinka—“9-11” link. What is known is that Berger is a close ally of both Clinton and Kerry. What is known is that Berger removed highly-classified documents from the National Archives. What is known is that those documents were related to information examined by the 9-11 Commission about the extent of terrorist operations in America prior to 11 September 2001. (operations that apparently continue today) What is known is that Bill Clinton and his ilk will do anything to gain and retain political power. And, just recently, it became known that Operation Iraqi Freedom had more justification than Kerry has admitted.

As this article is being written, a Federal appeals court is in session in Massachusetts. The topic is the secrecy over autopsy reports of the Flight 800 crash victims. As I reported last week, independent researcher and electrical engineer Graeme Sephton — vice-president of FIRO, and founding president of FOIAC — is winning so far in his lawsuit against the FBI. The suit is trying to force the Bureau to release autopsy reports, which allegedly contain proof of missile shrapnel in the bodies of Flight 800 victims. If the lawsuit is successful, then the official Clinton Administration story about Flight 800 will be blown to bits. The political explosion, however, will not only affect the elusive “Clinton legacy”. The fireball would also burn up the chances of John Kerry to become elected as President of the United States. And, with that would come the destruction of any potential pardons of criminal charges for culpability in a Flight 800 cover-up. And, the shrapnel from this explosion would also shred the hopes of other Democratic Party candidates, especially in Massachusetts. The timing of Berger’s revelation that he “lost” valuable documents — coming in between last week’s article about the lawsuit, and today’s court hearing — seems quite suspicious. And, the fact that the hearing is being held in Kerry’s home state certainly adds fuel to the speculation — especially considering that a Fox-TV news item mentioned the lawsuit on the Flight 800 anniversary last Saturday. It appears to me that Berger’s revelations about illegal activity are designed to take heat off Kerry, in the same way that Janet Reno’s raid on the compound outside Waco seemed timed to take media attention away from the indictment of Hillary Clinton.

Because of my own experience in the Air Force, I know that it might never be possible to determine which documents disappeared at the hands of Sandy Berger. When documents reach a certain level of classification, even the table of contents listing the documents is classified. Therefore, only people with that level of clearance, and a specific “need to know”, may be granted access to even the table of contents. Most members of the public do not realize that there are actually several layers of classification above Top Secret. If the Clinton White House did, in fact, engage in a cover-up of the shoot-down of Flight 800, then the most likely “classification authority” would have been Sandy Berger. He would have been under great incentive to hide the proof under the highest classification possible. Thus, even proof that such documents ever existed would be difficult to access.

Were the missing documents shredded, and/or burned? If so, then did Berger “fry” any records of the truth about the downing of Flight 800? (I had to make a joke about it, because, “Sometimes, you have to laugh, just to keep from crying.”)

It would take overwhelming evidence, which you don't have, to make me disblieve either.

But maybe Berger has such hard, incriminating evidence, which he stuffed in his socks and drawers, which is the point of this thread. Apparently, he was concerned that the review process of the 911 commission witnesses would lead to some *inconvenient* revelations during the questioning phase.

So, if that's true, that he made off with pages of documents with handwritten notes by guilty parties, that would indicate that the present administration may be complicit in not bringing these crimes to light. (whether it's twa800 or not- let's leave that premise for a moment.)

So here's the deal- Berger made off with something. If it's incriminating, it incriminates Clinton's people for crimes of commission, and it may incriminates Bush's people for crimes of omission, namely, letting crimes slide.

I think Berger will walk, maybe get a slap on the wrist for doing the deed, but nothing for any Clinton people implicated in the documents themselves.

"Nobody on this thread is asking, let alone answering, the obvious question: if all this is true, why is Bush continuing the coverup?"

Possibilities that I see:

1. Bush is continuing the coverup because he is part of the good old boy network of corrupt officials. There are bodies buried on borh sides of the aisles so everybne protects each other about the big stuff. Mutually Assured Destruction philosophy insures both parties survive.

2. Bush and Ashcroft have stupidly been relying on the major media to learn about everything and they are clueless.

3. Bush and Ashcroft know that they can't obtain convictions on anything and that it would be a net loss for the country if they attempted to persue truth and justice in these matters.

4. We are wrong about TWA 800, MENA, VWF, Chinagate and everything else.

I fully agree on Berger: he was looking for/had something of great significance to the CLINTON administration, but I don't think it had anything to do with TWA 800 or OK City. I think it was a very damning document on the WOT, though. And you're right. He'll probably walk.

I have held a security clearance and can tell you if I even did half of what he is accused of, I'd have gone to jail.

You keep saying that you "believe Bush," but I don't remember a single case in which any member of the Bush administration came out and stated that the crash of TWA Flight 800 was caused by an explosion in the center fuel tank.

You also haven't provided one possible reason why the FBI and NTSB would have staged a fraudulent "test" to support their explanation for the crash.

In addition to these, you should consider the following:

1. Why was the CIA involved in this "accident" investigation from the start? This itself is very peculiar, as airline disaster investigations come under the authority of the NTSB.

2. On the night of the crash, why did CNN report that Bill Clinton was preparing to address the nation about the airline crash -- an address that was later cancelled? Airline crashes are tragic, but U.S. presidents have never felt a need to address the nation after each one of them.

3. If you have friends with military backgrounds, you should ask them the following: a) Was the naval zone designated W-105 (the area off the south shore of Long Island where the crash occurred) "active" on the night of the Flight 800 crash?; b) In the mid-1990s, was the U.S. Navy in the process of testing a new surface-to-air missile that used a new tracking system (tracking its target via its own radio signature) to replace the older heat-seeking technology?; and c) Would an explosive warhead on such a missile -- which is designed to cripple its target by shredding it with hundreds of tiny tungsten-carbide cubes (as opposed to a heat-seeking missile designed to impact an aircraft's engine) -- cause the damage that destroyed Flight 800?

I simply don't believe your possible explanations 1) and 2). Explanation 4) is incoherent, I am only concerned here with TWA 800, and 4) simply avoids the question.

Explanation 3) has some plausibility, but who said anything about prosecutions and convictions? Bush could just release info, and only prosecute if there was a public outcry for it or if the facts were actually serious enough and solid enough that prosecution is mandatory and non-discretionary, in which case the political factors would FAVOR releasing the info.

I simply don't believe your possible explanations 1) and 2). Explanation 4) is incoherent, I am only concerned here with TWA 800, and 4) simply avoids the question.

Explanation 3) has some plausibility, but who said anything about prosecutions and convictions? I'm just asking for Bush to release info. If there was a public outcry for it, or if the facts were actually serious enough and unquestionable enough that prosecution is mandatory and non-discretionary, he can prosecute, but in that case it would not be politically costly to do so.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.