Jack Cashill: Reopen the TWA Flight 800 Case

American Thinker ^ | June 07, 2009 | Jack Cashill

[neverdem]

Nearly thirteen years after the destruction of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island, I had begun to think that the case was a dead issue, but then two unexpected and unrelated events caused me to think otherwise.

The first was a phone call from one of the three most important eyewitnesses to the case.  The second, two weeks later, was the still-mysterious crash of Air France Flight 447 off the coast of Brazil. 

This eyewitness put a further dent in the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) claim that a fuel tank explosion brought down TWA Flight 800.  The crash of Flight 447 has put TWA 800 back in the news again.   If the media are going to look to 800 as a template for 447, they need to know what the eyewitnesses to the 800 crash actually saw.

The eyewitness in question may be prepared to tell his story publicly.  After giving his testimony to the FBI in July 1996, for personal reasons, he had chosen to remain silent.  He is still sufficiently wary that I will shade his testimony and refer to him only as "Surfer."  What I will share, however, is his one, entirely damning, new revelation.

The other two critical eyewitnesses I will identify by name and FBI number.  The first is Mike Wire, #571. I have become good friends with Mike and his wife Joan since meeting them while doing research on the book, First Strike, that I co-authored with James Sanders in 2003.  (The documentary that Sanders and I produced in Spring 2001 is available online.  Part 1 sets the scene) 

The second key eyewitness, Joseph Delgado by name, 649 by number, was at the time the principal of Westhampton Beach High School.  He was not thrilled that Sanders and I had identified him in First Strike, but he acknowledged that our facts were accurate.  No one provided the FBI a more precise description of the event than Delgado.  His illustration of the same is stunning.

The surfer saw the events just about as clearly as Delgado.  What he also saw, in addition to the apparent missile, was the break-up sequence of the aircraft.  He described it accurately to the FBI long before the NTSB came to the same conclusion based on radar and the debris field. 

These are just three of the 270 eyewitnesses by the FBI's own count that saw a flaming, smoke-trailing, zigzagging object appear to destroy TWA Flight 800.   All three followed the object off the horizon.  Delgado and the surfer tracked TWA 800 separately from the object and witnessed the moment of impact.  Wire and the surfer saw the object "arch over" before the strike. The New York Times interviewed none of these three, none of the 270 for that matter.

A no-nonsense, 6'-7" millwright and U.S. Army vet, Mike Wire watched events unfold from the Beach Lane Bridge in Westhampton on Long Island.  He came to play a key role because the CIA based its notorious video animation on Wire's perspective.  Why the CIA was involved in a domestic airplane "accident" is anyone's guess.  The media never bothered to ask.

The FBI showed the CIA video just once.  That was in November 1997 when it officially bowed out of the case.  The FBI needed it to negate the stubborn testimony of the eyewitnesses.

A key animation sequence in the CIA video showed not a missile but an internal fuel tank explosion blowing the nose off the aircraft. According to the video's narration, TWA 800 then "pitched up abruptly and climbed several thousand feet from its last recorded altitude of about 13,800 feet to a maximum altitude of about 17,000 feet."  This rocketing aircraft was alleged to look like a missile and to have confused the eyewitnesses.  (The animation begins at the 8:30 mark of Part 2 of "Silenced"). 

This animation was essential to close the investigation. Without it, there was no way to explain what these hundreds of official FBI eyewitnesses, many of them highly credible, had actually seen.

According to the official record, the three key eyewitnesses were re-interviewed by the FBI in 1997.  The authorities paid most attention to Delgado.  On May 8, 1997, agents from the FBI and the Naval Air Warfare Center in China Lake, California, interviewed Delgado at his Long island school.  According to FBI notes, the China Lake rep was introduced to Delgado simply as "a member of the Department of Defense."

Delgado told the authorities once again that he had seen an object like "a firework," ascend "fairly quick," then "slow" and "wiggle" then "speed up" and get "lost."  Then he saw a second object that "glimmered" in the sky, higher than the first, then a red dot move up to that object, then a puff of smoke, then another puff, then a "firebox."  The agents seem to have taken him seriously.

In Mike Wire's first interview on July 29, 1996, at his Pennsylvania home, he told an FBI agent exactly what he had seen, and it tracks closely with Delgado's account.  Here is how the agent recorded the conversation on his "302:"

Wire saw a white light that was traveling skyward from the ground at approximately a 40 degree angle.  Wire described the white light as a light that sparkled and thought it was some type of fireworks. Wire stated that the white light 'zig zagged' (sic) as it traveled upwards, and at the apex of its travel the white light "arched over" and disappeared from Wire's view. . . . Wire stated the white light traveled outwards from the beach in a south-southeasterly direction.

After the light disappeared, the 302 continues, Wire "saw an orange light that appeared to be a fireball."  Although the CIA chose to build its animation squarely on Mike Wire's perspective, the story the CIA video told bore almost no relation to the one Wire had told the FBI. 

The NTSB transcribed its 1999 conversations with the CIA analysts responsible for the video.  (NTSB Witness document, Appendix FF, Docket No. SA-516, April 30, 1999).  In this document, the CIA analysts concede the problems that Mike Wire's original 302 presented. 

Said one, "We realized that if he [Wire] was only seeing the airplane, that he would not see a light appear from behind the rooftop of that house."  In other words, the CIA could not square its account of a self-imploding airline turning into a rocket with Wires' account since TWA 800 was at least 20 degrees above the horizon, well above the rooftop. So, claimed the CIA analyst, "We asked the FBI to talk to [Wire] again, and they did."

It was during this follow-up interview with the FBI, some time in 1997, that Wire was reported to have changed his mind, now admitting that he had first seen the ascending light high above the rooftop. How high?  Said the CIA analyst,  "[Wire] said it was as if - if you imagine a flag pole on top of the house it would be as if it were on the top or the tip of the flag pole."

The CIA analysts based their video on this second interview with Mike Wire.  "FBI investigators determined precisely where the eyewitness was standing," says the narrator while the video shows the explosion from Wire's perspective on Beach Lane Bridge. "The white light the eyewitness saw was very likely the aircraft very briefly ascending and arching over after it exploded rather than a missile attacking the aircraft."

The CIA animation converts Wire's "40 degree" climb to one of roughly 70 or 80 degrees. It reduces the movement of an obvious smoke trail from three dimensions, south and east "outward from the beach," to a small, two-dimensional blip far off shore.  It places the explosion noticeably to the West of where Wire clearly remembers it.  Most problematically, it fully ignores Wire's claim that the streak of light ascended "skyward from the ground" and places his first sighting 20 degrees above the horizon, exactly where Flight 800 would have been.

In fact, Wire never told the FBI anything about a flagpole.  He could not have.  He never talked to the FBI, the NTSB or the CIA after July of 1996. The CIA and/or the FBI fabricated the entire interview and added the flagpole detail to make the interview seem real.  The 302 from this alleged second interview is not in the official NTSB record.

The surfer added confirming detail to Wire's account.  After thirteen years, he finally read the 302s the FBI had prepared.  The first one from 1996 was entirely accurate.  The second one from 1997 added very specific new details about the surfer that served to discredit his testimony.  Not only were the details untrue, the surfer told me, but, as in Wire's case, there was no second interview.

Delgado presented more of a challenge.  The serious nature of his second interview suggests that there was still a force within the bureaucracy struggling to get at the truth.  By the time of the NTSB's final hearing in August 2000, that force had obviously been suppressed. 

At the hearing the task of discrediting Delgado fell to one Dr. David Mayer, who headed up the NTSB's Orwellian-titled "Human Performance Division."  He too solved his problem with a flagpole.  As Mayer described events, everything Delgado saw occurred "between these two flagpoles."  Mayer then used an illustration to show where those flagpoles were located and vectored Delgado's line of sight from between those flagpoles out to sea.

"So again," said Mayer, "it doesn't appear that this witness was looking in the right location to see where flight 800 would have been when it would have been struck by a hypothetical missile."  If he were looking in the wrong direction, Mayer implied, none of his testimony could possibly matter.

One major objection here. In none of the FBI notes does Delgado ever mention a flagpole, let alone two flagpoles. With good reason. There weren't any at his location in Westhampton. Like the CIA analysts, Mayer created flagpoles that did not exist and entered them into the official record.

Mayer knew better.  In researching this article I discovered a detail I had missed before.  On July 20, 1996, three days after the crash, the Suffolk County Police went to the high school parking lot where Delgado had been standing and did a GPS reading of his angle of vision.  Mayer had total access to this information.  He suppressed it.  And he was not the only one to suppress information.  There is powerful evidence to suggest that the authorities consciously corrupted the testimony of the three most critical eyewitness to the crash.

The NTSB has since fully abandoned the CIA "zoom-climb" explanation, but it worked to distract an administration-friendly media.  For a new administration so keen on transparency, and a media so keen on exposing the past abuses of our intelligence agencies, and for the families of air crash victims looking for closure, TWA Flight 800 would seem like a very good place to start clearing the air. 

It is time to reopen the case.

[killjoy]

What I said is that he didn’t tell what he knew, as it was classified, and he agreed that we didn’t find any WMD

So what was President Bush's motive for keeping quiet about this? The material you are citing is all open source so security classification is a moot point.

[Star Traveler]

It’s the stuff that is not being said that’s classified... :-)

The fact that they went over there is merely a bunch of stuff said by others and the U.S. simply ignores it or dismisses them, as either having an agenda of their own, not being reliable or mistaken or any number of reasons. And then the U.S. goes to their “standard line” that “we were mistaken, and there was no WMD there...

Like I said, it works beautifully, as we can well see even here on Free Republic...

[BILL_C]

I’ve found that once you understand the truth in one of these “conspiracies” the outline of all of them have striking similarities:

JFK was killed by a conspiracy with LBJ and Hoover at the top. There were 5 shots fired and the last two were 0.7 seconds apart. Hoover was the guy who supplied the altered evidence, no lie was too big for this cross dressing pervert to supply. LBJ was corrupt beyond belief.

TWA800, OKC were products of state sponsored terrorism. IRAQ was training these guys and supplying them to the United States. In OKC, Jayna Davis tied the eight Iraqi soldier false defectors to McVeigh BUT the media, which is manipulated by the government goes back to the big lie, McVeigh and Nichols did it alone.

WHO is behind this? Clinton when he heard of the OKC explosion reportedly said I hope it is NOT Middle Eastern Terrorism. By Presidential proclimation, it wasn’t. No lie was too big, READ Jayna’s book again, it’s all over, tied directly to Iraq.

TWA800? Jayna made a phone call to a number in NYC.

9/11: The 1993 attacks were tied to Iraq, the 2001 attacks had ties too.

9/11 Commission: Gorelick was to that commission as Gerald Ford was to the Warren Commission. Gerald Ford gave Hoover what he needed to kill the truth just like Jamie Gorelick’s mission was.

Sandy Berger: It was always pretty obvious that Sandy Berger’s exposure in 2004 was about hiding the truth but WHY?

It was to keep WE THE PEOPLE from HANGING BIll Clinton, Sandy Berget, Gorelick and the rest of these dumb asses. Thousands died because of the lies told by Clinton in 1993, 1995, 1996.....

Clinton wanted to keep it secret that we were attacked before his 1996 election. Bush wasn’t going to tell the truth either. Sandy Berger? A slap on the hand for stealing TOP SECRET special catagory documents, I have a video SOMEWHERE that shows Clinton laughing about Berger’s “messy desk” which was like him stuffing documents into his UNDERWEAR!

In 1963 and 1964 the government learned how to tell any lie, it’s the outline of what we see now with this lying SOB named Obama. The press members are even dumber than you think, and the American public follows them.

What part don’t you understand or believe? The odds of the last two shots being 0.7 seconds apart are well over a million to one, well over that.

I think it is/could be the gateway to restoring sanity to this country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBpHSyuueMU

Regards

Bill Charleston

[killjoy]

And then the U.S. goes to their “standard line” that “we were mistaken, and there was no WMD there...

Again, what was President Bush's motive for keeping quiet about this?

[BILL_C]

“what was President Bush’s motive for keeping quiet about this?”

Our “leaders” understand that the government is a house of cards, once the truth becomes apparent much of their game is over (the argument eventually progresses to Obama but you have to travel through history first). The way a typical American makes decisions is that they look at the extremes that they are presented and they figure that the correct answer is somewhere in between, they make a decision based on the media and their biases from other information.

We invaded IRAQ due to their involvement with several terrorist attacks on the United States; Clinton chose to hide the ties to Iraq and 9/11 was the result. For anybody to expose those lies now would be looked at as a threat to national security, hence the games about WMD and the 9/11 Commission. Not even Sandy Berger being caught red handed will make Americans tie the dots together, the media brain washing is much too effective (saying it another way Americans are functional idiots).

Most Americans believe that the government could not keep a secret and could not pull off an elaborate lie, Vince Bugliosi is probably the best spokesman for that reasoning. The video I put together shows anybody with an IQ even approaching room temperature that this is not true, the government can pull off any lie they need to tell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBpHSyuueMU

[killjoy]

So again, what was President Bush’s motive for keeping quiet about this? Why is this question so difficult to answer? If what you are saying is true, that WMDs were moved to Syria, why not make the case for it? What would be the motivation for President Bush to fall on his sword and keep quiet? How does he benefit?

[BILL_C]

Why is this question so difficult to answer?

It’s not difficult to answer, it’s very easy. Bush is protecting the OFFICE, he’s protecting the government with a lie, he is not protecting Clinton and he is not gaining an advantage himself. It’s the same reason we tell the lies about LBJ killing Kennedy, if the American public understood the truth even a half century later the consequences would be serious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBpHSyuueMU

[killjoy]

Bush is protecting the OFFICE, he’s protecting the government with a lie

You are not answering the question. Why would Bush fall on his sword with a lie when he could have simply told the truth?

[BILL_C]

You are not answering the question. Why would Bush fall on his sword with a lie when he could have simply told the truth?

In Bush's mind he is doing the noble thing, he is PROTECTING the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES. Clinton made an incredible mess by not addressing the Iraq/terrorist problem during his two terms, the mess started with the first WTC bombing in 1993, the OKC bombing in 1995, the 1996 shootdown of TWA800, the Cole and the African embassy bombings, all setting up 9/11/2001.

Several of these events are addressed under "CONSPIRACY THEORY." No theory, just an incompetent DUMBASS liar as President (Clinton). The man never saw a lie he wouldn't tell.

OBVIOUSLY someone is lying, the media says it's the witnesses, common sense (which you apparently ignore) says it's the government.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link. IIRC, the Warren Commission said it was 3 rounds in about 3 seconds in a bolt action rifle. Just opening and closing the action of a bolt action will take close to one second, if you're really fast with a typical bolt action like a Carcano. Opening requires rotating the bolt, and then pulling it to the rear. Then you have to do the reverse. Then you have to reacquire your target which if moving requires a certain lead factor.

Add on then the wild terminal ballistics, i.e. when the bullet strikes a body, and the Warren Commission stank. Your link with the two almost simultaneous bullets contradicts Warren conclusively, although I can't prove it wasn't tampered with.

Category:12.30 pm, 22 November 1963

Mannlicher-Carcano rifle 6.5-millimeter weapon with telescopic site used to kill President Kennedy, that could not be fired faster than once every 2.3 seconds.

IIRC, Mannlicher just meant a rifle stock with the wood extending almost to the very end of the barrel.

[BILL_C]

In the video I show that the Audio Evidence IS VALID, I do that by showing there is 4.8 seconds between the time Connally first reacts after the sign to the time JFK is shot in the head (Z frame 224 to Z313 and knowing the film speed) then the next shot after JFK's head shot is the shot to Connally's back (Z313 to Z325, the time Connally's head snaps downward marking the time the bullet hits him in the back.

Now, go to the Acoustic evidence: Time between Shot 3 and shot 4: 4.8 seconds, Time between Shot 4 and 5, 0.7 seconds.

Now you have two intervals in the Zapruder film match PERFECTLY two intervals in the acoustic evidence. Do you believe that just happened? Probably not, in fact the odds putting several facts together force the odds to astronomical numbers very quickly.

WHAT DOES KNOWING THE AUDIO EVIDENCE IS VALID BUY YOU? First thing is you know where the shooters were located. Shots 1, 3 and 5 were fired from the Texas School Book Depository. The intervals between the shots were 2.7 seconds and 5.5 seconds, PLENTY of time for the bolt action rifle to be shot.

Shots 2 and 4 came from other places. Shot 4 matches test shots from the grassy knoll which is the shot which hit JFK in the head, knocking him violently to the rear directly away from the gunman JUST like common sense tells you. YOU no longer have to believe IDIOTS who say you can't tell where the shot came from (people who say this are either fools OR liars).

What else does the acoustic evidence tell you? It tells you either the government investigations were done by the most incompetent dumb asses in history OR the fix was in. OK, the fix was in, who was it? It wasn't a couple of conspirators in Dallas who got together to kill a President, it was some really powerful people who could alter evidence, silence witnesses, force investigations to come up with the "right answers." With some more informatin, it will become clear WHO THEY WERE.

I've told you where shots 1, 3, 4 and 5 came from. We know those shots match test shots fired from the Grassy Knoll and the TSBD during the House Select Committee tests ni 1978. I am probably one of only a few people who knows where shot 2 came from, I think the other few know because I showed them the evidence.

So why is this important? An earlier post of mine showed the newspaper ad accussing the CIA, NTSB and FBI of lying about their testimony in TWA800 event. The FBI/Warren Commission did the same thing in 1963/1964, IGNORE the witnesses and you can tell ANY STORY and the press will parrot the lies over and over, and over if necessary. The 45th anniversary of JFK's murder had at least two new major TV documentaries done, how long will it take to shut all the sheeple up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBpHSyuueMU

So now you KNOW the government is lying about several very significant events in American history, your question should be WHY? It's important for you to know why because now the people who understand how to manipulate the press and the public are about to tighten the noose around our necks. The truth will set us all free but they are betting you'll buy the lies exactly like you bought the Warren Commission. YOU may not have believed it, but you and millions just like you have done NOTHING about it except talk. Continue doing nothing and they will win, they will take everything you and I think important away from us.

[killjoy]

In Bush's mind he is doing the noble thing, he is PROTECTING the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES.

The discussion is about alligations President Bush knew that there was WMD moved from Iraq to Syria in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

Given the outcry and the damage done to the reputation of the United States because of the failure to find WMD in Iraq, how does concealing this information protect the "OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT"?

Again, why would Bush fall on his sword with a lie when he could have simply told the truth?

[neverdem]

Again, why would Bush fall on his sword with a lie when he could have simply told the truth?

He couldn't just make assertions any more. Without proof in hand, talking about it did no good. They, Saddam's regime, knew we were coming. We told them as much. They used that time.

[Star Traveler]

Well, killjoy, you were asking — Again, what was President Bush’s motive for keeping quiet about this?

—

Well, let me take you back to the Cuban Missile Crisis and Kenneday, for an example. The U.S. had very high-resolution photos of what the Cubans were allowing the Soviets to put on their soil, those nuclear tipped missiles that they had in the photos that the U.S. Intelligence had taken.

But, the U.S. did not want to reveal their assets, in making their case before the other nations and for why the U.S. was confronting the Soviets on this issue, and especially after the failed “Bay of Pigs”.

And Kennedy did not want to release those photos, while he was “making his case” to the world about the U.S. having the right to confront the Soviets on what they were doing. It seemed that public opinion and other governments’ opinions were turning again Kennedy and the U.S. and saying that they were simply “making it up” and there was nothing there. It was said that the U.S. simply was trying to create a “pretext” for war, and wanted to invade Cuba like it had attempted to do before (especially since it was Kennedy that gave the prior authorization to do it, and here he was coming up with “this story” now).

BUT, finally, others in the administration prevailed on Kennedy to *finally release* the photos and actually *show* what we knew to be true. Unfortunately this revealed our assets and it actually *shocked* many of the other governments in the world, not so much that the Soviets were doing this — but rather — that *we had those kinds of assets* in the first place.

It was literally *shocking* to them to see the resolution of those photos. No one else had that high of a quality to be able to tell that kind of fine detail.

So, we exposed our assets and then it allowed others to shift their defenses to compensate for the assets that we had.

—

I would say that President Bush had absolutely *nothing* to gain by revealing assets, since we had already invaded Iraq and since we had already deposed Saddam. There’s absolutely nothing to gain — except “personal pride” —and I’m sure Bush was not going to reveal U.S. Assets in the region — simply on the basis of personal pride (especially since the “goal” was already accomplished in Iraq).

[Star Traveler]

You said — In Bush’s mind he is doing the noble thing, he is PROTECTING the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES.

—

He’s actually doing much more than that. He’s protecting our Intel Assets in the region. Why expose them in “telling the world” — and for no *net gain* to the U.S. (as we had to do with the Cuban Missile Crisis).

Bush isn’t going to expose Assets in the reason for no good (and *very good* reason). Simply to “bolster his pride” is not a good enough reason.

We already accomplished our goal of invading Iraq and deposing Saddam. There was nothing more to be gained there, by exposing assets — other than “pride”...

Bush was not going to be “prideful” (like Clinton would have been), and reveal our precious assets in the region. You better believe we’ve got those assets trained on those WMD and are currently watching them closely.

That’s probably why there was also that raid by Israel on that nuclear reactor that no one knew that Syria had (and no one is talking about, even now... LOL...).

Nope, our assets will remain secret and hidden while there is still danger in the region.

[Star Traveler]

You said — He couldn’t just make assertions any more. Without proof in hand, talking about it did no good. They, Saddam’s regime, knew we were coming. We told them as much. They used that time.

—

The U.S. government had “proof in hand” — they did not think it was “worth it” to reveal our secret assets in the region, to the public, just to “prove it”. The region is still dangerous and we need all our assets.

The goal was already accomplished in invading Iraq and deposing Saddam, so why reveal assets that are useful in the future? There’s no good reason.

Thus, the government went with the line that the Democrats provided them (which was *beautiful cover* compliments of the Democrats) and said “We were mistaken; there were no WMD in Iraq.”

That’s the “best cover” you could ever have — cover that your own political enemies gave you... LOL...

[killjoy]

I would say that President Bush had absolutely *nothing* to gain by revealing assets, since we had already invaded Iraq and since we had already deposed Saddam.

It wasn't about deposing Sadam. It was about WMD. Go back and read any of the pre-March 2003 talking points of the Bush administration. If WMD was moved to Syria, it would have been fully in line with the policy of the Bush Administration to go to war with Syria. It didn't happen because it didn't happen.

There’s absolutely nothing to gain — except “personal pride” —and I’m sure Bush was not going to reveal U.S. Assets in the region — simply on the basis of personal pride (especially since the “goal” was already accomplished in Iraq).

No need to reveal assets. That is what open source material is for. The same open source material you are familar with. If it was trustworthy, it would have been used to make decisions. It wasn't.

[Star Traveler]

No, the case that was “made” aftewards, by President Bush, that we still *needed* to depose Saddam. Sorry, they changed their “line” after the fact.

It was just useful “before the fact” to use that (which was true) but it served no good purpose “after the fact” ... we did what we came to do in the first place, which was to get that government out of power which was threatening the region.

Mission accomplished...

[ and the government also probably *knows* the Iraqi connection to the Oklahoma City bombing, too (even though Clinton covered it up). That would be one very good reason to get Saddam deposed, just by itself, seeing what he was willing to do in this country...]

—

You show a picture, you reveal assets. You show a document, you reveal assets. Every little thing you do to “prove” something, reveals assets. To use other material (that is so-called “open source”) is simply *not conclusive*.

And we can see it’s not conclusive — otherwise *everyone* would believe that there was WMD in Iraq — and they don’t...

[neverdem]

If WMD was moved to Syria, it would have been fully in line with the policy of the Bush Administration to go to war with Syria. It didn't happen because it didn't happen.

It didn't happen because the Congressional Resolution authorizing war didn't give any authority beyond Iraq. To go after Syria, Iran's ally, had the potential for a regional war from Syria to Pakistan. We had a full plate with Iraq and Afghanistan.

There was every reason to think Saddam had WMD. He used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iran already. He also sought biological and nuclear weapons.

They assaulted Iraq from Kuwait wearing NBC(nuclear, biological & chemical) suits! Have you ever worn that gear? It's the last thing you want to wear in the heat and conventional combat.

[killjoy]

It didn't happen because the Congressional Resolution authorizing war didn't give any authority beyond Iraq.

...and it would have been trivial to take the updated information to both Congress and the UN for additional resolutions.

To go after Syria, Iran's ally, had the potential for a regional war from Syria to Pakistan. We had a full plate with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Israel went after Syria without this regional war taking place. If a public case was made, everyone, including the Democrats and the UN would have supported going into Syria. It is very simple.

Again, the allegations that President Bush knowingly sabotaged his own presidency, and the long term security of the United States, is laughable.