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.
Thanks for the ping!
Un-freepin-believable!
Bump
ping
Thank you so much for your encouragements!
Actually, it governs a range of things far beyond unionization, the Federal labor Relations act governs measures applying to the federal employees of such things as the Federal Whistleblower act.
For you to consciously MISREPERESENT what Executive Order 13039's impact was, can only have been so as to MISLEAD the followers of this thread. You attempted to ham-handedly palm off the Red Herring of "unionization rules" instead of the broader federal employment rule impacts...and this bad faith on your part was egregious.
It is we who owe thanks to you, AG.
Your works have made possible for us to keep a handle on the beast, and to know where the skeletons are, so to speak. Particularly relevant in this chain of discussion was your research summary thread on Executive Orders By Bill Clinton
I so very glad the Downside Legacy has been helpful. Hugs!
IF WE DON'T GET OUR ACT TOGETHER WE ARE GOING TO BE SUNK.....
we escaped Clinton by the slimmest of margins....yet he still managed to give us 911 because of his corruption....
IF we don't get ourselves organized then we will be doomed...I am meaning shutting our voices, stealing our guns, taking our young sons and dtrs for the "new" global military......
we need literally and figuratively a "Tsunami".......
The Stonebridge Advisory board also includes former GOP Senator Warren Rudman and Craig Fuller who worked for Reagan.
My son did military Intel in the service, if he had done what Sandy Berger did, he'd be in prison for 10-20 years. It's utterly disgusting how these Washington people of both parties play the "special rules for special fools" game with nary a twinge of conscience.
Interesting that Berger gave $$ to Harmon, who as of last fall, was considered the most likely new chair of the House Intel committee (instead, politics gave us the doofus who didn't know who Hezbollah was). I wonder what Matsui's connection to the intel world is.
bttt
This is a FReeper Keeper - Bookmark
Part 1: The Secret Sandy Risked His All For
I can't say much about satellites and what I am going to say right here is speculation. I can think of three reasons why they might not do that.
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).
I'm sorry, I don't know anything about that. In the past, DOD assets have been used many times to find and recover mishap aircraft wreckage, but I don't know about spy satellites. I do know that anybody who does know about their capabilities and operations is briefed ("read on") and warned not to ever disclose anything about it. Many of the personnel are subject to security polygraph in order to make sure they are keeping that promise. So if the story is as you recount it, either someone risked jail to tell the London Times this material, or someone who did not have access to this material made it up and "fished" the Times.
Secrecy for reconnaissance technology doesn't exist because of some conspiracy, of course; it exists so that the technology can work. If the enemy knew its capabilities and limitations, they would be able to mislead us.
Why the deceit and suppression of the eyewitnesses at the Baltimore hearings?
I don't know what "deceit" you mean. There were eyewitnesses who wanted to speak at the hearing. They weren't permitted to, this is true. I will see if I can find out more about how that decision was made. Here is some speculation, again.
It's not like a Congressional hearing, which an opportunity for grandstanding and seeking one's fifteen minutes of fame. The chance for the witnesses to speak came when they spoke to investigators back in 1996. The Board members (who are political appointees, not accident investigators themselves) are not about to give a forum to people whose only objective is to rant and abuse them. Not gonna happen.
I mentioned that the NTSB often suggests rule changes or procedures changes. In this case, the FAA ultimately issued over 40 Airworthiness Directives. An AD is sort of like a recall for your car, except, the manufacturer does not pay. The owner or operator does. The airlines would not have taken these ADs gracefully if they were not clearly safety related (the airline and pilot community does occaisionally push back on ADs. They didn't here).
One AD required B747 operators to never let the CWFT get too close to empty. (If the mixture is too rich, too much fuel to air, it's not inflammable. You can actually put out a match in jet fuel -- kids, don't try this at home because the mixture in the air right above that jet fuel is inflammable -- but if the fuel/air mix is stoichiometric -- engineer speak for "just right" -- WOOM). Another AD required the inspection (and often replacement) of millions of miles of Kapton-insulated wiring. (Even if no replacement turned out to be needed, just the inspections cost the lines millions. A plane being inspected is not carrying passengers and earning money). Some of these changes were universal and not to a specific type of aircraft, so the FAA published them as a Special Federal Aviation Regulation, SFAR 88.
In addition, FAA changed the rules under which aircraft are certified. New aircraft (like the 787 and Airbus 380) have to be protected against this type of fire. Currently, the FAA has a proposal to require that fuel-tank-inerting systems be retrofitted to all passenger jets. These systems would ventilate the ullage in some way, or replace the air with an inert gas (there are several approaches; the Air Force already does this, using nitrogen gas IIRC). The NTSB says this rule does not go far enough (they would see it applied to cargo planes, too).
The airlines don't have an extra nickel, and they haven't since 2001. If anyone there thought that these ADs were not necessary for safety, the lines (and the jet manufacturers, Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier and Embraer) would fight them.
For people interested in the technical side of fuel-air explosion prevention in aircraft, there's a good overview in the December 2006 Air Safety World (published by the Flight Safety Foundation). The article mentions TWA800; just about everybody in professional air safety understands the risks of near-empty Jet A tanks, and these guys have no problem understanding what happened (and working to prevent it from happening again).
Hope this information is of use to you and those others who actually seek information.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
PS. I mentioned how the Navy often helps in mishap recoveries. In the last couple weeks, a navy auxiliary (USNS ship) found the missing Adam Air airliner in Indonesia in 1800 feet of water. I think it was the Navy that sent an ROV down and solved the mystery of a Peruvian crash back in the nineties, too. Business as usual? Or more signs of the conspiracy? (cue Twilight ZOne theme. Fade).
PFL
Yes. military special operators and the handful of civilians that work in military special operations are not subject to "such things as the whistleblower act." They are the only people covered in 13039, which again has complete bupkus to do with the naval units mentioned by Ian Goddard in his raving web page, or with TWA Flight 800 in any way.
Apparently all you loons who were too busy hiding from ZOG to try out for military special operations didn't pick up on that.
For you to consciously MISREPERESENT what Executive Order 13039's impact was, can only have been so as to MISLEAD the followers of this thread.
Sorry. I am exactly stating what EO 13039s impact was. Nobody on USS Grasp or Grapple was covered by it. Maybe some SEAL diver who pitched in to bring stuff up was, but the purpose of the EO is clearly to protect the routine operations of Development Group from public revelation, and nothing to do with TWA800, in which DevGru's involvement is unproven (and frankly, doubtful. They are great fellows but not your first call for investigation).
this bad faith on your part was egregious.
You and your conspiracy-minded confederates are the ones demonstrating bad faith, as any reasonable reader of the published materials can see. Your attempt to "prove" that this EO is part of a cover-up when it doesn't even relate to the elements you guys say it does is pathetic. Shouting louder in capital letters doesn't make a fellow more persuasive.
I can prove that there is no massive conspiracy to suppress the truth in two steps.
If "they" were really murdering people, you'd be in line to get whacked. You and I both know that isn't going to happen. Eat right and exercise, and you should be able to rave for many more years yet.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
This is also false. You're on a roll. It explicitly added that unit. Hence, your disinformation operation is blowing up in your face.
And you know it.
You've already started calling everyone who is investigating this, whichever side they are actually on..."loons". And your continued evasion and further misrepresentation can be filed in the circular orifice because it is clear...you make no acknowledgement of your error about "UNIONIZATION" as the point of the EO.
I am exactly stating what EO 13039s impact was.
No, you're not. You're MISREPRESENTING it.
Now your claims as to it only applying to "special operators" and the "handful of civilians" that work in the military special ops...are totally unsupported. And you have established NEGATIVE PERSONAL CREDIBILITY. We're supposed to take your word that that the EO had no operational relevance to the Flight 800 recovery and investigation. I.e., "Move along. Nothing to see here." That's why Bubba announced his blizzard of EOs over in England right after Flight 800? Just a coincidence. Totally normal procedure. Happens all the time. Rooooight.
Hard to fathom how being a Clinton-defending stooge, such as you are, is in any way better than being a supposedly paranoid loon.
What is so damned important about defending the Clintons for you that you disgrace yourself this way?
"Another good rule of thumb with that crowd is, "follow the money".
Or "protect the legacy."
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.