How Clinton TWA800 Lies Enabled 9/11!! LIBERALS ACTUALLY HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39129
Friday, June 25, 2004
Clinton silence on Flight 800 speaks volumes
By Jack Cashill © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Posted: June 25, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
Editor's note: Jack Cashill is the author of the newly released, "Ron
Brown's Body," already in its second printing.
He and James Sanders wrote the definitive expose on the downing of TWA
Flight 800, "First Strike."
Imagine if you were Bill Clinton on July 17, 1996. It is 8:30 in the
evening. You are resting in the family quarters of the White House,
but not easily.
Just three weeks earlier, terrorists bombed the Khobar Towers, an
American barracks in Saudi Arabia, and killed 19 American servicemen.
After that attack, you tell the chairman of the Coordinating Security
Group on terrorism (CSG), Richard Clarke, that you want to see plans
for "a massive attack" against Iran should the need arise to retaliate
in the future. In his book "Against All Enemies," Clarke calls this
plan, "the Eisenhower option."
On this fateful day of July 17, Liberation Day in Saddam's Iraq and
two days before the start of the Atlanta Olympics, the United States
military is reportedly on its highest state of home-front alert since
the Cuban missile crisis. Two communications have ratcheted up the
tension. The first is an editorial in the respected London-based paper
al-Quds al-Arabi that outlines the logic for escalating the armed
terrorist struggle against the United States. The editorial makes a
compelling case that the truck bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi
Arabia three weeks earlier was the beginning of a larger terrorist
campaign. "Thus," concludes the editorial, "we would not be surprised
if such attacks on the Americans continue on a large scale in the
future." The editor is a close friend of Osama bin Laden.
The second communication comes in the early hours of July 17 in the
form of a fax sent to Al-Hayah in London, the most prestigious Arabic
language newspaper. Sent by the Islamic Change Movement - the name
used by Iraqi intelligence to take credit for terrorist acts,
according to Iraq scholar Laurie Mylroie - the warning comes one day
after the group has taken responsibility for the destruction of Khobar
Towers. It is as serious as a truck bomb:
The mujahedeen will deliver the ultimate response to the threats of
the foolish American president. Everyone will be amazed at the size of
that response. Determining the time and the place is the hand of
Al-Mujahideen, and the invaders should be prepared to leave ... dead
or alive. Their time is at the morning-dawn. Is not the morning-dawn
near?
July 17 is the most important day on Iraq's revolutionary calendar.
That date marks the coup that brought Saddam Hussein's Baath party to
power in 1969. On July 17, 1996, Saddam gives what Mylroie calls the
"most angry, vengeful speech of his entire life." He blasts the U.S.
for its troops on Saudi and Kuwaiti soil and demands the lifting of
sanctions.
Given your nature, of course, you are arguably more worried about the
effects further terrorist actions might have on your re-election
chances than on the future of the nation. After your tough - "The
cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished" -
talk on Khobar Towers three weeks earlier, you had adviser ***** Morris
run a poll to see if talk sufficed. "I was concerned about how Clinton
looked
in the face of [the attack] and whether people blamed him," writes
Morris.
When Morris's first poll shows less support for you than you had
hoped, you talk even tougher. After some serious bluster, your public
approval response climbs. Morris records the following in his written
agenda for a meeting:
SAUDI BOMBING -
Recovered from Friday and looking great
Approve Clinton handling 73-20
Big gain from 63-20 on Friday
Security was adequate 52-40
Bottom line:
It's not Clinton's fault 76-18
With the political fallout contained, you hand this case off to law
enforcement just as you had after the World Trade Center bombing in
1993. Still, you dread that "Greg Norman" moment. You were horrified
when your buddy Norman blew a six-stroke week on the final round of
the Masters just three months earlier, and the last thing you want to
do now is blow what appears to be a sure thing in November. "Greg
Norman," you repeat to your staff when something goes politically
awry. "Greg Norman."
Shortly before 9 p.m., that Greg Norman moment arrives. An American
airliner has fallen out of the sky 12 minutes out of JFK without a
word of warning from the cockpit and with 230 people on board. The
news gets quickly worse.
At the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center two veteran
controllers have observed a target arching and intersecting with TWA
800 just as it exploded. They report what they see immediately. A
manager from that center rushes the radar data to the FAA technical
center in Atlantic City for further analysis. In Atlantic City a
playback of the data is recorded on videotape and plotted on to paper.
From there, it is faxed to FAA headquarters in Washington and rushed
"immediately" to the White House.
"Holy C-----, this looks bad," says Ron Schleede of the National
Transportation Safety Board upon first seeing the data that "suggested
something fast made the turn and took the airplane."
Richard Clarke gets the message, too. By 9 p.m., he is driving in to
the White House to convene a meeting of the NSG. As you know, he did
not call such a meeting after the ValuJet crash two months earlier.
Clarke is worried.
"I dreaded what I thought was about to happen," he writes, "The
Eisenhower option." Had Iran been behind the downing of TWA Flight 800
- or Iraq for that matter or al-Qaida - the president would have had
to
respond. In fact, Clarke labels this chapter of his book, "The Almost
War, 1996."
As president, you choose not to join Clarke and the other agency
representatives in the White House situation room. You remain holed up
in the family quarters. Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz"
Patterson and others confirm this. Patterson is in a position to know.
He carries the nuclear football for you, and this night he too is in
the White House, though clearly out of the loop. Patterson is not sure
who is in the residence with you. The one person he tentatively cites
is Sandy Berger, the deputy director of the NSA and a political
insider.
All night you gather information. The eyewitness accounts are now
confirming what the FAA radar picked up. Two-hundred seventy people
along the Long Island coast - surfers, fishermen, pilots, vacationers
-
will eventually tell the FBI that they saw flaming objects streaking
up toward the plane and culminating in a series of massive explosions.
You are probably aware of the video taken of the incident, reportedly
bought by MSNBC.
Whether or not you have seen the satellite data only you know. On Oct.
4, 2001, Defense Department satellites equipped with infrared sensors
captured a Ukrainian missile striking a Russian airliner 30,000 feet
above the Black Sea. Our government informed Russia within five
minutes. After TWA Flight 800's demise, all satellites are said to be
malfunctioning. Only you can confirm or deny.
Curiously, your National Security Adviser Tony Lake - and Sandy
Berger's boss - is downstairs in his office during that night. By 3
a.m. you have apparently gathered enough information to call Lake with
the following message: "Dust off the contingency plans." The
Eisenhower Option. But right now, especially on these terms, with the
1996 election comfortably in your pocket, war is the last thing you
want or need, especially when you are not even sure who the enemy is.
In "My Life," here is how you summarize this night of high drama, a
night that we might have gone to war, a night that could have cost you
your re-election, a night that did cost 230 people their lives.
On July 17, TWA Flight 800 exploded off Long Island killing some 230
people. At the time everyone assumed - wrongly, as it turned out -
that this was a terrorist act; there was even speculation that the
plane had been downed by a rocket fired from a boat in Long Island
Sound. While I cautioned against jumping to conclusions, it was clear
we had to do more to strengthen aviation safety.
This is it, Mr. Clinton? The reader is asked to believe that everyone
assumed it was a terrorist act, but that you were all wrong, and we
are to content ourselves with that? You literally devote more space to
a June 1996 day in Albuquerque "to support the community's curfew
program" than to a July 1996 night when 230 people are killed and
America almost goes to war. How can the rational American not be
suspicious?
Much to your good fortune, The New York Times - and the media that
followed its lead -are not suspicious at all. That should not surprise
you. Times' reporters have never inquired about satellites or military
intervention and have interviewed none of the 270 eyewitnesses. When
your administration offered a transparently false account of how
explosive residue got on the plane, the Times never questioned your
story. When the CIA presented its preposterous animation discrediting
the eyewitnesses, The Times never challenged that account either or
even the rationale for the CIA's involvement.
But you always have known more than The New York Times. One morning
Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson identifies only as "late-summer" 1996, he is
returning a daily intelligence update to the NSC when he notices the
heading "Operation Bojinka." As Patterson relates in his book,
"Dereliction of Duty," "I keyed on a reference to a plot to use
commercial airliners as weapons." As a pilot, he has a keen interest
in the same.
In the way of omen, Islamic terrorist Ramzi Yousef is on trial in New
York on the day of July 17, 1996, for his role in Bojinka
(Serbo-Croatian for "loud bang"). The publicly known part of this plot
is Yousef's plan to blow up 11 American airliners over the Pacific. A
lesser-known element of Bojinka, the one Patterson stumbles upon, is
the plan to use planes as flying bombs.
Patterson is not in position to connect Bojinka and TWA Flight 800.
The knowledge of what happened the night of July 17, 1996, has been
kept remarkably tight. What Patterson does learn from seeing your
hand-annotated response to this intelligence report, Mr. Clinton, is
that you have read it carefully.
"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."
That you are reviewing this information in the immediate aftermath of
TWA Flight 800's demise suggests more than mere coincidence: The FBI
received these documents from the Philippine police 18 months earlier.
This revelation leads to the real tragedy of TWA Flight 800 and the
likely reason you are so reluctant to talk about it. After Clarke
engineers - and Jamie Gorelick enforces - the "exit strategy," the
plan that enables America to avoid war and enables you to get
re-elected, you must have been feeling pretty clever. But by
suppressing the truth about TWA Flight 800, you alone knew just how
entirely vulnerable you
left America's skies. On September 11, you were reminded big time.
Here I quote Yossef Bodansky, director of the Congressional Task Force
on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, from his book on Bin Laden
written in 1999.
The case of TWA 800 served as a turning point because of Washington's
determination and to a great extent ability to suppress terrorist
explanations and "float" mechanical failure theories. To avoid such
suppression after future strikes, terrorism-sponsoring states would
raise the ante so that the West cannot ignore them.
I would encourage the media to take the night of July 17, 1996, more
seriously than they have and at least start asking questions. The 230
dead and their families deserve more than one paragraph.
So do the 3,000 dead and their families.
--
Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being. They
are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, selfish, intolerant,
bigoted and racist.
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
