Replies

There is another thread running with good discussion on FreeRepublic about the same WND article:

U. S. Intelligence under Clinton sold out to Al Queda through Saudi influence

Here is a higly significant reply from that thread:

To: boston_liberty

I work for the Dept. of Defense and have been overseas working in U.S. embassies and consulates since 1988. I can well believe Hunter's ordeal - he sounds like a real rarity among the hundreds of State Department officers I've known. Of the hundreds I've known I could count on the fingers of one hand those who would have been worth the powder it would take to blow them up. The vast, vast majority are corrupt at worst and merely incompetent and/or inept at best. I know of two U.S. Ambassadors who skimmed hundreds of thousands of dollars out of embassy operating funds (one was a Reagan appointee, the other a Clinton appointee - the Reagan appointee was required to pay the funds back and banned from the Foreign Service, the Clinton appointee retired with honors and - this is the truth - bought a villa in Italy).

I know of another U.S. Ambassador who was involved with Central American narco-traffickers (Clinton appointee) and yet one more who was involved in money-laundering (also a Clinton appointee). The involvement of these Ambassadors in crime was not rumor but substantiated fact - and also a fact that while the knowledge of their crimes was "common", each had/has powerful friends in high places. I'm still overseas and currently at the U.S. embassy in Mexico City... nothing has changed under our current president. (But then I didn't expect any changes.)

24 posted on 3/8/02 2:27 PM Pacific by waxhaw

Check out this Freepers' profile on FR . He is in Mexico and is a strong,courageous Christian.

I'll go find that thread, but your #17 substantiates my point that people in Washington had to know. The FBI was there. The military was there. Even if everything in writing DID have to go through the counsulate, I don't believe that good people kept everything to themselves when they got back to their own turf or to Washington. It's utterly unbelievable to me that none of this was reported to Washington, even if it had to be done by 1-on-1s, going up the chain of command--or even outside of it.

The real questions in my mind are why wasn't the information acted on, and who is really in control?