Posted on 01/25/2007 10:58:20 AM PST by windchime
As I watched these events unfold two years ago, I presumed that the Bush DOJ chose not to exploit these stories for reasons of national security. Although seemingly unrelated, both of these stories lead to the same larger secret, a secret that Berger risked his career to conceal, a secret that if revealed had the potential to destabilize the nation during a time of war.
As I have since learned, however, the Bush White House is not fully in control of its own Justice Department and FBI. In truth, the decision to protect Berger may have more to do with saving the Clinton legacy than with stabilizing the nation.
(Excerpt) Read more at familysecuritymatters.org ...
yes yes yes yes yes yes
why bush is cavorting with bill is the biggest question of all
either naive or corrupt
not good
Ok let's look at a couple of possibilities:
1. Bush decides to expose Clinton's mess, even right after 9/11, only the Republican side might have believed it. Remember the beginning of the 9/11 Hearings: Richard Clark attacking Bush as if 9/11 was his fault. Now it's their word against Bush, and as we all know, Clinton is an especially good liar.
(Clinton's playbook is as follows: Let's say he robes a bank and doesn't want to get blamed. BEFORE ANYBODY knows anything he comes out and accuses Bush of robbing the bank. Voila, if evidence starts to surface, he simply brings up the earlier story and uses as his defense that you (the other guy) are just trying to blame him for something it looks like you did).
2. Do what what our government has been doing for years. Look at the Kennedy assassination: A simple murder by LBJ and Hoover but it's still too hot to handle. Lie after lie after lie, anything but deal with the truth. Bush has chosen this path.
Our foreign policy now will continue to re-establish the Reagan doctrine, screw with us and we'll kick your (rear). Iran, Iraq, North Korea saw a paper tiger and Clinton did nothing but re-enforce that image with all his screwups.
Bush is not going to deal with the past other than respond to the present problems caused by Clinton's past incompetence. Sandy Berger is part of the past that is going to be ignored. It's not that Bush is too weak, it's that he is not going to allow that can of worms to be opened. Can you imagine the havoc IF John Q Public knew beyond any doubt that Clinton covered up terrorist attacks in 1995 and 1996 which led to 9/11? Bush is not going to go there, it looks really nasty from every angle you look at it.
Thanks for the great post. Very provocative.
BTTT
We are a nation at war. Maybe Bush is putting his country first instead of going on a witch hunt that would do nothing but split this country apart. The left can't handle the truth. They are still in a state of denial over 9/11. Like kids that can't handle reality they just keep pretending it's 9/10.
Good post, Bill. Thanks.
I'm not an attorney but "Perjury" and "Obstruction of Justice" covers a multitude of sins and in this case, probably the simple truth.
Yeah, it is. And maybe it's not such a good idea, either: chowing down on tofu and raw broccoli would probably make that bullet a lot easier to take - just to get rid of the taste.
With all due reverence to the fallen civilians, in the scheme of war, the actual TWA/OKC attacks were pinpricks---if they did not create the "secondary explosion" of public fear.
Had they killed air-travel, or frightened everyone out of gov't buildings...(hey!)... then Iraq would have been credited with a huge blow to Great Satan.
By diverting the aftermath, Clinton at once diminished himself--but also the attacker's accomplishment.
So, if that is true, then by outing Clinton, Bush43 would hand those victories over to Saddam, posthumously.
In any event, for whatever justification, Bush has brought justice to Saddam, Qusay and Uday, at extreme personal sacrifice...in an honorable, if clandestine, manner that Washington, Lee, Lincoln would understand.
Call me a convoluted Bushbot, but I can see where Clinton did not have the strength to respond against Saddam---we might have lost. Everything happens for a reason.
I'm re-reading Hillary's Secret War (which we should all read now that Hillary has announced) and the author makes the point that when Clinton fired 91 (I think that was the number) US Attorneys and installed his own people, he all but guaranteed desirable outcomes for all the investigations into Clinton's misdoings.
He also arranged for 8 DC circuit court judges to be fired by using phony ethics charges and installed his own people. They meet in secret once a month and it even raised eyebrows in the Washington Post at the time.
The author details the reporters who tried to report on Clinton's misdeeds and who got beaten up. Eventually the media got afraid, got the message, and don't give the Clinton's anything but positive press.
What is all probably boils down to is that Bush is surrounded by piss poor advisors who are responsible for brushing off popular public correspondence regarding those issues we feel Bush is ignoring us on. Immigration....totally against the grain of the conservative base
Social security....bows to demoRats threats of filibuster and emotional hysteria propegated by the media
Iraq and the WOT...same emotional hysteria propegated by the media with distractions like abu graib, and everything wrong that can be fabricated against Bush.
The whole gist of this is making Bush look bad and a failure in everything he has a part in. And his advisors are totally dropping the ball and allowing the hysteria to rule the message, rather than allowing overwhelming public concerns to be heard out.
With the exception of the war.....which has been allowed to escalate the hysteria over the past 2 years during a critical election cycle. When Bush should have been fighting the dissidents squarely, he has blindly led the GOP into disorganization and ultimate defeat in the last elections. I believe much of the failures are totally based on the poor quality of Bush advisors and their disconnect of the principles of the electorate.
And some of those at the top are no longer there after the election. So serving notice on the current at the top officials that there is nothing guaranteed about their re-election if they don't listen to the people and not the media's take.
I think the underlaying problem with all of this and similar accounts is that our government has become a perpetual motion machine and many within firmly believe that the people they represent are no longer capable of making informed decisions about our welfare. They will do whatever necessary to protect those within the government that manufacture scenarios that suck the people into believing that the government is the great protector and we should not question our government's authority.
Then we enter the conspiracy theories and wonder how and why people would create and commit the atrocities in the name of the greater public benefit.
My take on all of this is, that when our government closes itsself to access by the people, we have to begin questioning it's authority to act with such secrecy and deception, despite the claims of people with first hand knowledge regarding the situations and why they appear to be questionable. Then the operatives from within start the smear campaigns against those in positions to question policy and directives. With assistance from the media with well placed press releases (disinformation perhaps?) good people are being dissected.
My conclusion. Trust nobody with your security except yourself. Believe half of what you see and a fourth of what you hear. We are dealing with a perpetual motion government machine here. Until we bring it back down to the peoples level where our voice is not only heard but counted, this mistrust will only become worse.
I've always thought that Iraq being behind something big had to be the reason that Bush was wanting him so bad. I don't doubt what you've said at all. I think Bush II is protecting Bush I to some extent as well.
wanting him so bad = wanting Saddam so badly.
Yes, Bush senior worked closely with clinton when he was Vice President and clinton was governor of Arkansas. They formed a triumvirate with General Noriega, since deposed, in the drug smuggling operations at Mena Airport. The CIA ran the operation.
However, I would differentiate between the motives of Bush Sr. and clinton. Bush Senior, working under Reagan, did it in order to arm the Contras against a threat of a Communist takeover of South America, after the leftists in the Senate pulled their funding. In other words, he did scummy things for patriotic reasons. Clinton, on the other hand, did scummy things purely for profit.
During the Mena operation, a hundred million dollars disappeared from the operating funds. Vanished. The thief had to be either Noriega, Bush, or clinton. Most people think it was clinton. That's my bet.
So, yes, Bush senior is vulnerable. But a blanket pardon was issued on the Iran Contra business. And how can clinton blackmail Bush without exposing himself to much worse criticism? What, is he going to go to the Times and say, "We ran a drug smuggling operation?" I don't thinks so. Most people are fully aware of what happened, but bringing it out into the open without smearing mud on themselves would be very, very difficult.
Minority Office Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
B350A Rayburn House Office Building
Washington , DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5074
Fax: (202) 225-3974
Letter to Attorney General Gonzales requesting the DOJ administer a polygraph to Fmr. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger (signatures pages 2 & 3)
That is an accurate assessment. Unfortunately, it is also irrelevant. Their motives don't matter - all that matters is the possible negative consequences to themselves and their agendas should these things become widely known.
Most people are fully aware of what happened...
No, they are not. Free Republic and similar internet discussion boards do not represent even a small fraction of the populace. I would wager that fewer than one in a thousand Americans has ever heard any of this.
So, yes, Bush senior is vulnerable. But a blanket pardon was issued on the Iran Contra business. And how can Clinton blackmail Bush without exposing himself to much worse criticism? What, is he going to go to the Times and say, "We ran a drug smuggling operation?" I don't think so.
No, Clinton is going to go to Bush and tell him that if he pursues any investigations which seriously threaten him or Hillary they will take the Bushes down with them by releasing the evidence of their own complicity.
It's called M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction). Just as in the Cold War nuclear arms standoff between the US and the USSR, each side has the capability to destroy the other, so they each recognize and tacitly agree to "certain limits" to their "competitive activities". Certain things are simply off-limits, and the security and welfare of the country be damned.
"the price of electing the Clintons in the first place, and if conservatives don't get their act together, Hildabeast WILL be POTUS"
You're right!
"Since learned from what? How? the link is dead."
The link in the article takes me to the current article, but on WND's site. Cashill has a third report due in this series, perhaps he'll enlighten us there.
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.