Did Sandy Berger “Fry” Flight 800 Records?

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.