Posted on 01/30/2007 3:22:10 AM PST by kellynla
On July 6, 2006, Stonebridge International, a global strategy firm, announced that it had added a new member to its high-profile, five-member advisory board – former Democrat Rep. Lee Hamilton.
True to form, the major media ignored the Hamilton appointment. They should not have. Hamilton, who had served as vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, had just joined a firm headed by the man who had criminally undermined that very Commission, Stonebridge chairman and founder Samuel "Sandy" Berger.
In the words of a recent House Committee report, Berger had perpetrated "a disturbing breach of trust and protocol that compromised the nation's national security," a breach that had come at the expense of the 9/11 Commission's very mission.
(Column continues below)
The unseemly nature of this new alliance apparently did not trouble Hamilton, Berger or the Washington media. By the spring of 2006, Berger felt sufficiently comfortable in his relationship with that media to execute a brazen, political drive-by on the one man who most seriously threatened the Clinton legacy and his own reputation, namely Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania.
Berger began his spring offensive in March 2006 with a fund-raiser for Weldon's opponent, Joe Sestak. Almost universally despised by his Naval colleagues, the former vice admiral was forced into retirement for what the U.S. Navy charitably called "poor command climate." Before being recruited to run for Congress, Sestak had not lived in Weldon's district for 30 years.
Although hosted by Berger, the fund-raiser was held at the law offices of Harold Ickes, a veteran Clinton fixer, and Janice Enright, the treasurer of Hillary Clinton's 2006 Senate campaign.
Before the campaign was through, Clinton insiders would enlist Stonebridge's director of communications to serve as Sestak's campaign spokesperson, summon former President Clinton to rally the troops, and finally call in the federales. Their motives were transparent even to the local media.
"A Sestak victory," observed suburban Philadelphia's Delco Times early in the campaign, "would muzzle a Republican congressman who blames Clinton for doing irreparable harm to America's national security during the 1990s."
As the No. 2 Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, Weldon had not only exposed the Clinton administration's lethal "Able Danger" breakdown, but he had also catalogued the CIA's failures before Sept. 11 in his book "Countdown to Terror." And he wasn't stopping there.
In late July 2006, I accompanied Mike and Joan Wire to visit Weldon in his D.C. office. The Wires, who live in suburban Philadelphia, had arranged the interview.
I happened to be in New Jersey at the time so we drove down together. The interview lasted two and a half hours and ended only because I had to leave.
Mike Wire just happened to be the most critical of the 270 eyewitnesses to an apparent missile strike on TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996. As is well enough known, the government had argued that a mechanical failure brought down the plane.
To make the story work, however, the FBI and/or the CIA had to manufacture from whole cloth a second interview with Wire that fit their invented scenario.
This was criminal obstruction, and it is easily verified.
To get some sense of what Wire and others actually witnessed, I have put two relevant sections of the video "Silenced" on YouTube. The skeptical reader would do well to review these clips: Part 1 and Part 2.
As late as 2001, I was as skeptical about TWA Flight 800 as the next guy. It was then that I met James and Elizabeth Sanders. The Sanders and TWA Capt. Terrel Stacey had been arrested in 1997 and charged with conspiracy.
An investigative reporter, Sanders was doing the job the major media had chosen not to do. Elizabeth, a TWA trainer, had introduced her husband to Stacey, then working inside the investigation; nothing more.
Before committing to co-produce "Silenced," I had flown to Ft. Lauderdale, where the Sanders were living, and spent three days reviewing their evidence and assessing their character. As I learned, the government arrested the three of them – and convicted the Sanderses – only because they had been closing in on the truth.
When the Wires and I met with Weldon and his aide Russ Caso, we showed them sections from "Silenced," but we were not revealing anything they did not know or at least suspect. What most intrigued Weldon was the cast of characters involved in the misdirection of the TWA Flight 800 investigation. Many of those characters were working to unseat him.
Sandy Berger: Col. Buzz Patterson, who carried the nuclear football the summer of 1996, identifies then Deputy National Security Adviser Berger as the one person holed up in the family quarters with the president on the night of July 17, 1996. In addition to his other services, Berger donated $1,000 to the Sestak campaign. Sestak was the only congressional candidate to whom Berger gave money.
Tony Lake: As national security adviser, Lake was Berger's immediate boss. Although he stayed out of the family quarters on July 17, he, too, was in the loop that night. At 3 a.m. he received a call from the president asking that he "dust off the contingency plans." Lake donated $500 to Sestak. It was his only federal donation in 2006.
Richard Clarke: The anti-terror honcho takes credit for discovering the exploding fuel tank theory that provided a mechanical explanation, however contrived, for TWA Flight 800's demise. He is likely also responsible for bringing the FBI and CIA together to create the "zoom-climb" animation seen in the YouTube clip, which was used to discredit the eyewitnesses. Clarke donated $2,100 to Sestak. It was the only federal donation he made in 2006.
John Deutch: Deutch was serving as CIA director the night TWA Flight 800 went down. Several months later, in a scandal that foreshadowed Berger's own, Deutch was discovered to have loaded classified documents onto to his personal computer and taken them home. His motives were never made clear. He eventually signed a plea agreement and agreed to pay a $5,000 fine only to be pardoned the next day by President Clinton. Deutch donated $500 to Sestak, one of of only two congressional candidates he supported in 2006.
Mary O. McCarthy: In 1996, McCarthy, a CIA analyst, served as an intelligence officer on the National Security Council. In 1998, Berger appointed her as special assistant to the president. In 2006, the CIA fired her for allegedly leaking secret information about overseas prisons to the Washington Post. The only federal candidate to whom she donated in 2006 was Joe Sestak. To give some sense of the politicized nature of the CIA, McCarthy donated $2,000 to John Kerry in 2004.
Jamie Gorelick: Gorelick does not have the excuse of knowing Sestak from his work on the National Security Council. Gorelick served as deputy attorney general in the Justice Department. Still she donated $3,000 to the Sestak campaign, the most she gave to any candidate in 2006.
Gorelick, of course, was one of five Democrats appointed to the 9/11 Commission – and for no more obvious reason than her stake in keeping talk of TWA Flight 800 out of the commission room.
On Aug. 22, 1996, the politically reliable Gorelick met with the FBI brass and directed their efforts away from any serious terror or missile leads. From this point on, the FBI was tasked with finding an alternative explanation for the explosive residue found throughout the plane and duly reported to the New York Times for the previous month.
This FBI search culminated in an exculpatory tale of a sloppy dog-training exercise aboard the Flight 800 plane five weeks before the crash. Though easily disproved, the story satisfied a painfully incurious media.
Unfortunately for America, by suppressing talk of TWA Flight 800, the Clinton administration had to suppress talk of a very real terror plot against the United States that culminated in the events of Sept. 11.
In the way of background, in January 1995, the Philippine police shared with the FBI detailed plans for an aerial terrorist assault on the United States. Those plans called for the use of hijacked airliners and/or explosives-filled private aircraft as flying bombs to attack the United States.
The architect of those plans was Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing and a cohort of 9-11 chief strategist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, his alleged uncle.
Richard Clarke obviously took Yousef's planes-as-bombs plots seriously. In planning security for the Atlanta Olympics in 1996, Clarke warned of the possibility of terrorists hijacking a 747 and flying it into a packed Olympic stadium.
The U.S. Navy apparently took Yousef's plans seriously as well. On July 17, 1996, National Liberation Day in Saddam's Iraq and two days before the start of the Atlanta Olympics, a small fleet of ships and subs, some perhaps NATO, cruised off the coast of Long Island, locked and loaded.
One of two things happened next: Either Navy missiles intercepted a terrorist plane and inadvertently took out TWA Flight 800 in the process; or, more likely, while practicing to intercept a terrorist plane in the kind of crowded air corridor where such an attack would likely occur, Navy missiles accidentally destroyed the 747.
In either case, the U.S. Navy did not have the will or the wherewithal to conceal this on its own. That decision would have been made in the family quarters of the White House in the early morning hours of July 18.
Those few subordinates in the know would have been told that the decision was made for reasons of national security. A more urgent reason, of course, was to secure Clinton's re-election a few months hence.
The evidence for Navy involvement has been greatly enhanced by the research of Capt. Ray Lahr on the west coast and the legal work in the federal courts by his counsel, John Clarke. Highly useful, too, has been a new and stunningly sophisticated crash analysis drafted by an apparent insider (or insiders), whose identity remains stubbornly unknown.
As a result of Lahr's work in particular, the NTSB and FBI have quietly abandoned the CIA zoom-climb scenario shown in the YouTube clip and rely now only on a quiescent media to ignore the un-rebutted testimony of some 270 eyewitnesses to a missile strike.
In the summer of 1996, President Clinton had a keen interest in the planes-as-bombs plot as well. Soon after the destruction of TWA Flight 800, Col. Buzz Patterson was returning a daily intelligence update from the Oval Office to the National Security Council when he "keyed on a reference to a plot to use commercial airliners as weapons."
"I can state for a fact that this information was circulated within the U.S. intelligence community," Patterson writes, "and that in late 1996 the president was aware of it." The president's handwritten comments on the documents verified the same.
Most likely to keep the subject of TWA Flight 800 off the table, all talk of planes as bombs ended in the summer of 1996. Incoming National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was not even warned about the possibility. Richard Clarke verified as much when he testified before the 9/11 Commission.
"Knowledge about al-Qaida having thought of using aircraft as weapons," admitted Clarke, was "5-years, 6-years old." He asked that intelligence analysts "be forgiven for not thinking about it given the fact that they hadn't seen a lot in the five or six years intervening about it."
As to President Clinton's legacy-killing notes on the Yousef plot documents, they obviously did not find their way to the 9/11 Commission. Not surprisingly, according to the National Archives staff, "Berger was especially interested in White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke's personal office files." Berger reviewed these and "original NSC numbered documents" on his first visit to the Archives.
The House report noted, "Had Berger seen 'a smoking gun' or other documents he did not want brought to an investigatory panel's attention, he could have removed it on this visit."
When the Wires and I left Weldon in July 2006, he was on his way to review the Berger evidence. Weldon was the one man in Washington willing and able to put all the pieces together of what loomed as the most serious scandal in American political history. But this was not to be. The Clintons and their cronies had other plans.
During the now legendary Chris Wallace interview with President Clinton in late September 2006 on Fox News, the nation saw just how potent were the guns aimed at Weldon.
"A three-star admiral," Clinton announced out of nowhere, "who was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror, by the way, is running for the seat of Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania." He did not even mention Sestak by name. He may not have known it. Other than President Bush, Clinton mentioned no other Republican than Weldon.
It is not easy to take out a popular 10-term congressman. Weldon's enemies, however, had a nasty little ace up their sleeves. A week after President Clinton visited Weldon's district to fire up the troops, the McClatchy Newspapers broke a story attributed to two anonymous sources, namely that Weldon had "traded his political influence for lucrative lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter."
Alleging a need to act quickly because of the leak, the FBI raided the homes of Weldon's daughter and a friend on Monday, Oct. 16. By noon of that same day, a group of nearly 20 Democrat protesters were milling outside Weldon's district office in Upper Darby, carrying matching signs that read "Caught Red-Handed." The story received a great deal of unreflective attention from a media desperate for a Democrat win, and Weldon went down to defeat.
The move against Weldon was naturally attributed to the Bush Justice Department. As the Berger case proved, however, there are powerful forces operating in the Justice Department and FBI that seem to have no greater goal than protecting the Clinton legacy and advancing the Democrat agenda. The idea that Karl Rove somehow orchestrated the Weldon hit makes sense only in the nether reaches of the liberal blogosphere.
Sometimes, as in the case of Watergate, conspiracy is not a theory. It's a crime. Still, the major media will use the "conspiracy theory" mantra as an excuse to ignore this story.
To this point, the "respectable" conservative media have been intimidated into following their lead. It is past time for those media to show some sand.
I heard one fellow speak a while back. (Can't remember if it was Rush's show or not.) He spoke of how the left has worked so hard to discredit the bible and Christians. Once you get rid of the bible, where there are no absolute truths, then truth no longer matters.
I always think of Pontius Pilate's question to Christ, "What is truth?"
So telling in today's world.
Whoops... what I mean't to say was:
Once you get rid of the bible, where there are no longer truths anymore, then truth no longer matters.
Coffee...coffee....
Burglar SHOULD have named his business StoneWALL instead of StoneBRIDGE! I detest these Clintonoids and these lovers.
That's clear.
've been involved in politics for many moons now
Everybody's "involved in politics." As Trotsky said of the revolution, even if you're not interested in it, it remains interested on you. Good for you for getting involved, but make sure you're informed before you take action. I posted enough factual material... if you followed my numbered links and read that material, you will know more about TWA800 than 99% of the people commenting on this.
As for your stand against anyone who goes after such twits as Sandy "Paper cut" Burglar, you give yourself away.
I don't stand "against anyone who goes after such twits as Sandy "Paper cut" Burglar" -- I think he should be in Federal Prison, and should never get his security clearances back. Which is what happened to many people I knew over the years who mishandled classified materials much less deliberately and maliciously than that jitbag. But let's hang him for the crime he did commit, not a crime that didn't happen.
As for the Navy shooting down TW800, BULL!!!
I AGREE. But I never said they did. Some of the conspiracy dweebs think they did. Indeed, that was Jack Cashill's original position. It was only after 9/11, five years and some after the TWA800 tragedy, that he set on Islamist terrorists as the fall guys. And then imagined that the Clinton admin was in league with the terrorists. Look, Clinton, Berger, Reno, et al, were a disaster for America, no question. But they didn't knock this plane down and they didn't keep us from finding out who did. The Clinton administration took more high-level action in the JFK Jr. accident than they did in TWA800 -- no kidding.
What is sad but rather humorous about your post, you claim to be a Vet which would lead one to think that would come with maturity but the maturity and articulation is not coming across.
I think every sentence I posted was more grammatical than that last. And I made my post in the middle of the night -- like most conservatives, I work for a living most of the day. I take it you think I am not a vet? The VA would care to disagree. Airborne, Ranger, SF. Combat Infantry Badge. No big medals or anything, but I can feel satisfied with what I did and what I am. Like the old sixties country song says, "I've been everywhere, man." The FReepers who did similar stuff know how to check out a guy, and they're not calling BS on me.
I went through SOT right after it had been Blue Light, so I was on to terrorism before terrorism was cool. I went to SF school while Mike Yon was on admin hold there (read his book to see why he was on hold at Bragg). A novelist used me as a tech advisor in developing an SF character in one of his books -- after going to the local SF association chapter for a recommendation. My real name's in the credits of his book (along with several other SF vets who helped him all of whom I know face to face). Oh, I'm real alright. Sorry you don't think so.
Some of the vets stepping forward and taking the side of the very party (Democrats) that would only spit on the vets, if the spit served their purpose, is suspect at best.
Not very grammatical, again, but I actually agree with you and I have taken great pride in participating in the "outing" of several phonies among the VVAQ/VVAI "veterans." (My copy of Stolen Valor is autographed). I also was one of the WaPo's sources for their story busting Micah Wright, the only time in my life I've dealt with that paper. There are some vets who turn on our own, but most of the ones raving about atrocities in the papers turn out to be fakes. Notice I am not raving about atrocities -- only ones I ever saw were done by the Taliban. Read the military threads, and I'm consistently calling BS when there's BS. (Which is the principle which had me comment when OESY flagged me to this thread).
Please give us all a break and toot your little whistle somewhere else....say perhaps the Left wing boards and blogs?
Not gonna happen. What's a real vet going to do at DailyKOS or HuffPo? (Although, Markos Moulitsas is a peacetime vet -- he's a jerk, but he's a real vet, and I believe in giving credit where it's due, even to my opponents). I'd stick out like a sore thumb. (Not to mention, I've voted for Republicans since Gerry Ford, and the most conservative ones, in the primaries. John Kerry is my Senator but not because I've ever voted for the Lurch-lookin' lefty).
Look, if you want all-conspiracies-all-the-time, go to Mike Rivero's whatreallyhappened.com, where you'll be entertained endlessly. He was banned from FR for saying that Jews and the USG, excuse me, ZOG, committed 911, and -- no surprise -- his site's a congenial home for TWA 800 hotheads. As far as I know, he hasn't hung that one on the Chosen People yet, but I don't hang out there -- maybe he has by now.
Again, whether Sandy is a slimebag -- he is, and on that, you, me and Jack Cashill can all agree for once -- that has nothing to do with whether TWA800 was the victim of any kind of attack -- it wasn't. Missiles leave physical evidence. Bombs leave physical evidence. (Get a Pacer account -- it's free -- and read the Pan Am 103 trial documents to see some descriptions of the physical evidence left by a bomb. Or, if you like, I could aim you to some books on accident investigation, but they're expensive and assume an engineering and aviation background). The absence of physical evidence has led Cashill et al to change their story for the forty-eleventh time and say that the FBI destroyed all the physical evidence. Uh-huh... except there's still thirty tons of airplane in Virginia. Including all the parts where the breakup sequence started. None of which contains the distinctive signatures of high explosives, which deform metals in completely different ways from a low-velocity fuel-air explosion. (What's "high" about high explosives is the velocity of the explosion. It pits metal and makes it flow in highly distinctive ways).
By about day five of the investigation, the NTSB experts had seen enough wreckage to know it was a fuel-air explosion, not HE. (For instance, you can tell what temperature a fire got to by the discoloration of metals). Everything else from that point on was trying to convince the FBI guys, who just couldn't believe a plane can "just blow up." (Same problem they've had with the general public). The extensive investigation continued to determine what the ignition source might have been (they have several possibilities, but never pinned it down 100% -- it could have been any of 'em) and confirm various hypotheses and rule out others.
There is enough documentation in that docket for anyone of scientific mind to understand what happened and understand completely that a bomb or missile could not have happened. Which means that the attack believers are: those who will not read or can not understand the material (I assume you are a "will not read"); those who don't understand cause and effect, believing like Homer Simpson that "life is a whole bunch of events that just happen," who are therefore primed to believe in shady conspiracies controlling everything; those who watch too much TV; and a handful of charlatans who make a living off the others.
Basically, the difference between my position and yours is that I read the evidence and reached a conclusion. You appear to have reached a conclusion and will not read the evidence.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
I too have wondered what the heck is in that report that we cannot get released by anyone. Must be a real dilly, huh?
.
BUMP
Richard Clarke, aka the Forrest Gump of American history!
Look at the names in this article; the gangs all here!
Looks like we were right all along -- they WERE running a shadow government!
bttt
.
I hope to live long enough to see the BARRETT REPORT! BUT, really, I would hope that SOMEONE, some lackey....anyone....would LEAK THE WHOLE THING!
Glad I could make you happy.
you have again avoided addressing the chief criticisms of NTSB report and elements of this news article:
Well, since it physically can't have been a bomb, and it physically can't have been a missile, playing whack-a-mole with the various permutations of conspiracy-think is somewhat pointless. It was a fuel-air explosion, which is also not an unknown event (as the FSF's list of 23 FAE-initiated hull losses indicates). But hey, in for a penny, in for a pound. Let's play... set up yer moles.
And I'll admit I didn't read all of Cashill's article.
I have yet to understand your animosity toward Cashill, Sanders and Rivero. You attack them by innuendo rather than argument.
I'll take them in reverse order.
Rivero: Let's dismiss him right off, because he's an anti-semite running a hate site who never met a conspiracy he didn't like. I'm not going to waste any time on him... period. I'll just point out that if conspiracies reached as far and were as malevolent as Rivero thinks, he'd be at the bottom of the sea somewhere and you'd never have heard of him. It's a free country. If you wanna believe in Scientology, Theosophy, trapanation or Michael Rivero it's all the same. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.
Cashill: my beef with Jack Cashill is, as I have stated, he's lying and profiting by it. For him TWA800 and the victim faqmilies are a bottomless ATM. He reminds me in that way of the POW-MIA scammers of the 80s -- some of them were well-meaning, and some of them were scamming suffering relatives. I do think he believes his own stuff, but that doesn't change the impact he has.
Sanders: My issue with Sanders is threefold: he tries to inflate his own expertise (how many people has he told he was an "aviation professional" without revealing where his only aviation experience, and his interest in the case comes from (his stint as TWA flight attendant and friend of some of the deceased cabin crew)? Two, who entitled him to violate procedures (and laws) to try to manipulate the investigation? The law is clear on who participates, on how, and on the purpose of these investigations. Sanders became a law unto himself... wrong. Three, his book contains many misstatements of fact. It is dishonest in detail as well as in conclusion. I named/linked one of those details in my previous post -- his misdescription of bottom sediment as "rocket fuel" -- but since that's his signature piece of "evidence," what else is there?
do you have a comment about this link
Ah, Ian Goddard. Or, as I think of him, "Goddard NOT the rocket scientist." The link says that the vast conspiracy disappeared EO-13039, but he sheepishly admits that it isn't disappeared at all right at the top. Give him credit for the admission. I will read the EO tonight and compare it to what he's saying about it... I assume that your interest is the EO itself, not the non-factual "fact" that it "was disappeared."
Let me address some specific claims you make. Now, you define "the chief criticisms of NTSB report and elements of this news article" as:
Er... you are the guy propounding a conspiracy. The government case is made, game, set, match, by the positive proof that the breakup sequence began in the CWFT, and the complete lack of any evidence of high explosive or external penetration of the CWFT.
Probably the hardest thing for people to believe is that a fuel tank with the right combination of temperature, pressure, and ignition source can just explode... but it has happened repeatedly. Look at the KC-135 mishaps and the measures the USAF subsequently took to prevent further ones (mostly, keeping fuel in that tank so that the ullage doesn't contain an inflammable fuel-air mixture. The same was ordered as an AD for the 74 right after TWA800 -- one of forty-odd ADs to come from this accident). "As that which is impossible is ruled out, that which remains, however improbable, is the truth, Watson."
But if you see "other obvious flaws" that are greater than the flaw in the conspiracy case, namely, that the airplane was not brought down by anything but a bad combination of fuel, air and spark, please say what they are. They're not obvious to me, nor to the investigators, nor to the vast majority of people toiling in the vineyards of air safety.
Thanks for the opportunity to engage on the issue.
.d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Ditto.
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayEO.cfm?id=EO_13039_
(I just googled "EO-13039" it with "site:.gov" and this was the first government site of several that had it). And what it does is exclude DevGru from federal unionization rules. It has absolutely bupkus to do with TWA800.
DevGru's mission is classified. It is an element of the Joint Special Operations Command, and the DOD does not comment on such special operations elements. Here is a description of DevGru at a slightly anti-military site:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/nswdg.htm
I cannot comment beyond that link, even to say whether the link is correct or not.
Goddard may not be a veteran, as he seems to misunderstand what DevGru is and what its assets are. He says they include these:
Navy assets and units that recovered the debris of TWA 800 included:USS Grasp (ARS 51) USS Grapple (ARS 53) USS Trenton (LPD 14) USS Oak Hill (LSD 51) Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 1 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 2 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 6 Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit 2
These assets and units are subsets of the Naval Special Warfare Development Group. E.O. 13039 removed all personnel in this Group from whistle-blower protections for reasons of "national security."
Mr Goddard is incorrect in suggesting that these units belong to DevGru.
USNS Grasp retired from the Navy to continue its rescue and salvage work as a civilian ship last year. Prior to that, a little googling tells us, Grasp was a salvage ship, as is Grapple. USS Trenton has been decommissioned and sold. Oak Hill is still at Little Creek. None of these vessels belong to DevGru.
All the units Goddard lists are based at Little Creek, Virginia, I believe:
http://www.nablc.navy.mil/virtual_tour.htm
The reason I think that Goddard might not be a vet is that he refers to these elements as "subsets" of DevGru... I've never heard a soldier, sailor or Marine talk about "subsets." Have you?
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
My opinion is that I think in the end Weldon just gave up. He tried like hell to get at some truth, but there are too many evil people in high positions with the ability to game our system at every level. You can't beat them.
While your credentials are impressive and your insight is appreiated, why hasn't the government squashed the entire conspiracy with satellite recon????? Even though they initially denied that any of the three satellites were in range or functioning properly, apparently one of our covert spy satellites recorded the entire accident (see London times story). Why the deceit and suppression of the eyewitnesses at the Baltimore hearings? This behavior seems contrary to a party vindicated by the scientific truth you outlined. Just a few fundamentional questions which really a throw monkeywrench into this entire mystery.
Thanks for the ping!
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.