How Sandy Berger Paid Back the GOP

World Net Daily ^ | January 29, 2007 | Jack Cashill

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Liberty Valance]

Un-freepin-believable!
Bump

[GQuagmire]

ping

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements!

[Paul Ross]

And what it does is exclude DevGru from federal unionization rules. It has absolutely bupkus to do with TWA800.

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.

See Executive Order 12171

[Paul Ross]

Thank you so much for your encouragements!

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

[Alamo-Girl]

I so very glad the Downside Legacy has been helpful. Hugs!

[cherry]

folks.....this is getting as bad as the clinton era.....corruption....inside deals....money exchange...

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".......

[cookcounty]

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.

[cookcounty]

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.

[Dante3]

Some people have wondered if the incredible promotion of Judge Hillman was President Bush rewarding him for going easy on Sandy Berger - that Berger actually stole items for Bush. I find that hard to believe. But it sure is weird - perhaps I have missed an explanation for this act.

[JerseyJohn61]

bttt

[b4its2late]

This is a FReeper Keeper - Bookmark

[b4its2late]

Here's the complete series for future reference:

Part 1: The Secret Sandy Risked His All For

Part 2: Why Bush Justice Rolled Over For Sandy Berger

Part 3: How Sandy Berger Paid Back the GOP

[Criminal Number 18F]

why hasn't the government squashed the entire conspiracy with satellite recon?????

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.

1. Their denials are true and they don't have anything showing anything. This is less strange than it might sound, because the US is likely to use technical ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) means on unfriendly nations -- not on our own shoreline.

2. Maybe they have something, but national ISR technical means are used to gather critical intelligence and to provide early warning; therefore, the capabilities of this technology are very closely guarded EEFI (essential elements of friendly information). Maybe publishing this info, if it exists, would reveal too much about how well (or how poorly) our systems work. Imagine how such a release would be received in Moscow, Beijing and Teheran. (Not to mention at the desks of the New York Times -- while I'm enumerating the nation's enemies).

3. I have no idea if they considered this, but they could release just about anything, and it wouldn't make any difference to the conspiracy buffs. They'd just say the data was fake, or they'd focus on some non-germane detail. After all, there's already a DVD worth of data, available online for all to see. Few if any of the conspiracy buffs have read it all; most have read none of it. A few read looking for things where they can say "gotcha!" and even they their lack of basic, fundamental knowledge of the subjects they're reading about embarrasses them (like Ian Goddard saying that a bunch of Navy salvage and rescue and amphibious vessels are a "subset" of the Special Warfare Development Group).

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.

1. The subjective recollections of witnesses -- many of whom have told wildly varying stories over the last ten years -- tell us less about what happened than the physical evidence.

2. While the focus of the conspiracy movement has been on witnesses who claimed to see a missile, they are a very small subset of the over seven hundred witnesses interviewed.

3. Several "witnesses" who are now celebrated for "speaking truth to power" are demonstrated in the appendices to the report as having been in places from which they either could not physically see the detail they claimed to see, or did not have a sight line to the mishap site. (The mishap point can be located pretty accurately in three dimensions thanks to multiple radar traces; the timing of the CVR and FDR's cutoff gibes with that location, too. ISTR that the math is in the appendices if anyone wants to check it).

It's important to understand what an NTSB hearing is, and is not. The hearing is not part of the investigation -- it's a public airing of the results of the investigation, and announcement of the finding of probable cause (if a finding can be made). Long before the hearing (months, sometimes) the factual findings of the investigation have already been released, and suggestions have been made to the FAA or other agency (NTSB also investigates train, ship and pipeline mishaps) if changes are in order. (more on that below).

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).

[Greystoke]

PFL

[Criminal Number 18F]

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.

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.

1. All you loons say that the government will stop at nothing to cover this up, even murdering hundreds (or covering for the murder of hundreds).

2. None of you loons "speaking truth to power" have been murdered.

Conclusion: they're not murdering folks now, and they weren't doing it in 1996, either. They don't really need to: I would imagine that the real criminal investigators, FBI agents, etc. that you guys malign so enthusiastically, just laugh at you. I know for a fact that the aircraft accident investigators and scientists involved (like the ones at Cal Tech's EDL) just kind of shake their heads, pity you, and wonder about the basic state of science education in America.

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

[Paul Ross]

.. 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.

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?

[JSteff]

"Another good rule of thumb with that crowd is, "follow the money".

Or "protect the legacy."