Whistleblowers gone with the wind: Catalan nails Sen. Feinstein for terror complicity

The media has been abuzz recently with the story of whistleblower Coleen Rowley, the FBI special agent who called Director Mueller on the recent fumble on terrorist threats. Let me start off by stating that I, too, commend Agent Rowley for her bravery in becoming a whistleblower – for I know firsthand the risk one takes in the federal government when making the decision to come forward.

What I would like for someone to explain to me is why this whistleblower is getting well-deserved attention by the mainstream media when stories like mine that happened mostly under the Clinton administration have gotten little or no attention.

I was a U.S. Customs special agent when I resigned in disgust in October 1999. I and several of my coworkers had come forward with information regarding not only a valid terrorist threat, but we also had identified what we felt was high-level corruption within Customs.

This threat involved the potential for terrorists to use pressurized rail tanker cars as instruments of destruction. While running a counter-narcotics smuggling operation in Southern California, I found that narco traffickers were using rail tanker cars to import literally tons of illegal narcotics into the country.

These suspicions were confirmed when I seized 8,000 pounds of marijuana and 34 kilos of cocaine in one of these cars. As a result of this high-level, multi-taskforce investigation, we were shocked at the ease with which the narco traffickers accomplished not only the smuggling of these narcotics into the U.S., but also the delivery to their destinations in the U.S. via these rail cars. With phony I.D. and cash, the deliveries were easily made over the Internet or via telephone with the railroads' customer service departments.

In 1999, years before 9-11, we concluded that our nation was at serious risk of terrorist attacks. It would be easy for terrorists simply to copy the modus operandi of the narco traffickers and send these cars to any rail spur in the U.S. – loaded with explosives, bio-hazards or a combination thereof.

Over two years ago, we took these concerns – as well as our concerns of corrupt Customs managers – to the FBI, Office of Special Council, the Commissioner of Customs and to several senators and congressional leaders. In fact, 24 Customs employees signed a letter begging for an investigation into what we all felt was outright corruption, obstruction and violation of civil rights in Southern California. This letter was sent to California Sen. Diane Feinstein through certified mail. Not only did Sen. Feinstein fail to initiate an investigation into our allegations, approximately two weeks after her office received this letter, she was seen on a Customs yacht with one of the very managers against whom we were making these allegations.

I saw Sen. Feinstein on national television yesterday and heard her make a number of accusatory comments about the Bush administration, giving the perception that the administration had dropped the ball on the 9-11 incident. I find it appalling to hear Sen. Feinstein make such hypocritical statements when she herself refused to act on the information we were trying to surface during the Clinton administration.

The retaliation has been tremendous and well-documented. In fact, this is one case in which a former federal prosecutor – now a Superior Court judge – was witness to much of the corruption and terrorist threats that we identified. This case is well-documented – with many credible witnesses – yet, my brave coworkers and I suffer.

With the exception of The Patrick Henry Center (a non-profit organization in Fairfax, Va.) offering us much-needed protection and help, our story has been virtually swept under the rug. As a result of the extreme retaliation we received from U.S. Customs, so far the whistleblowers involved in our specific case have become cannon fodder.

Why is this FBI whistleblower receiving so much attention? Please understand, I heartily believe that she deserves and needs this attention and protection. But why have the rest of us have virtually been thrown to the wolves by the mainstream media and our elected officials? My life and career were destroyed by the U.S. Customs Service when I did the right thing and came forward with this critical information about our national security.

Can someone please explain to me why we have fallen victim to yet another political war for doing the right thing, but when Coleen Rowley becomes a whistleblower she is celebrated by the mainstream media and "concerned" politicians?

Lord God, it seems to me that Feinsetin long ago stepped not only over the line but beyond the planet the line was on.

Father, please change her, demote her; remove her from office; convert her; give her an overriding obsession with grandkids, turtles, cats or tropical fish; move her to Australia; cause her to have new and enormous experiential empathy with Job; let her reap suddenly what she has so liberally sown; transport her to a permanent Holodeck on some Star Trek set in a distant galaxy far away; or whatever else your wisdom would decree, Oh, God. And cause whatever other FREEPERS who read this and concur to pray in agreement thereto. In Jesus' Name, Amen.

Thank you for this post. For some reason, I had not heard of or read of this particular Clinton treachery until now.

Of course, we know the answer to the question posed here. This whistleblower, like all the other whistleblowers whose lives and careers were attempted to be or successfully destroyed (one thinks just off the top of Gary Aldrich, Linda Tripp, and Barbara Alice Wise....just to name a few) during the Clinton reign from hell did not achieve the needed attention from the Congress or Senate or the media and certainly not from the security agencies designed to protect this country ----- because:

1. They were making their claims during the administration of the greatest Traitor America has ever known.

2. They were making their claims during the time when the Clinton White House had and used FBI file information to blackmail members of the US Congress and Senate into silence.....

3. They were making their claims to a Democratic Party controlled government which is another name for the largest Criminal Organization this nation has ever known.

4. They were making their claims (if they did) to a media which is part and parcel of the Communist Party-USA - otherwise known as the Democratic "Party"

Today, on the other hand, we have a Republican led administration which is loathed and despised by these groups:

1. The Democratic Party - otherwise known as the largest criminal organization in this country

2. The terrorists who want to kill us all

3. The world's communists who want this administration toppled.

4. And the neocons who are siding with the Demoncraps and the terrorists by joining in the verbal attacks on a Republican administration which inherited a government STILL RUN in its bureaucracy by the largest criminal organization in our nation's history - during a time of war.

In this time, then, bringing a whistleblower into the public media's attention in an attempt to condemn the Bush administration when it was the Clinton installed anti-American bureacracies that stonewalled this whistleblower - makes perfect sense.

Now.

What to do.

The Patrick Henry Foundation is a terrific group and so is WorldNet Daily. Can't these groups combine and make a dent in some of the major media's stonewalling about whistleblowing during the Clinton years by trying some combination of persistant diplomacy with some of the people in the "major media" who could give it legs? Or will this story just die a quiet media death like so many others the "alternative media" has brought to light......

(Not that the "alternative media" is today just as powerful as the presttitutes. We are. But only for a select group in this country. We need to find a way to "hit" the "other group" out there with the facts. THAT part of the media, the press whores still control.

Remember this ole story?

The Chinese buying political influence? In 1997, we granted the Chinese fast access to our ports. The same year President Clinton made a significant attempt to give China the Long Beach Naval Station, a deep water port once used for submarines.

So concerned were members of Congress that both "Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer sent a letter to National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger and Defense Secretary William Cohen asking them to analyze [the plan]" (Navy Base Lease To Chinese Questioned, Tribune-Review, PIttsburgh, March 13, 1997).

Just so there is no misunderstanding, the 2 CA Senators were all for this plan.

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.