Time: Fri Dec 12 17:45:07 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA04368
for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:37:33 -0700 (MST)
by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA20768;
Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:36:00 -0700 (MST)
via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd020644; Fri Dec 12 17:35:27 1997
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:22:45 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Brown And Coverups ... (fwd)
<snip>
>
> RON BROWN REDUX
> Was A Bullet Hole Found In His Head?
>
>By Edward Zehr
>
>
>Here we go again folks. After spending virtually the entire year
>muckraking, I was about to do a piece on global warming when
>Chris Ruddy weighed in with an expose of yet another bungled
>investigation.
>
>Ruddy's story is about the April 3, 1996, crash of an Air Force
>jet carrying Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and 34 others,
>including 14 business executives on a trade mission to Croatia,
>as it approached Dubrovnik airport. Brown and the others were
>killed in the crash. The Air Force issued a massive 22-volume
>report in June of the same year that "confirmed" their initial
>surmise that the crash resulted from pilot error and faulty
>navigation equipment. Ruddy has never been one to bury his lead,
>so I will just quote the opening sentence in his article that
>appeared last Wednesday in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
>
> "A circular hole in the skull of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown
> could have been a gunshot wound and certainly should have
> prompted an autopsy, according to an Air Force lieutenant
> colonel and forensic pathologist who investigated the jet
> crash in which Brown died."
>
>That, as Bill Buckley would say, is the gravamen of the
>complaint. Because the responsible authorities failed in their
>duty to conduct a thorough investigation and resolve the issue at
>the proper time, questions of a highly scandalous nature are now
>being raised, and it is altogether proper that they should be.
>
>
>Needless to say, the bloviated gasbags who represent themselves
>as a "free press" in this country will attempt to blame
>everything on the messenger who brings the bad news. In truth,
>the blame rests heavily on their own shoulders. For decades they
>have been able to suppress such information and get away with it,
>but now their power to manipulate the minds of the public is
>slipping away from them, due to recent advances in information
>technology, and they don't like it one little bit. On Thursday
>evening ABC "News" carried a TV special on the scandals of the
>Kennedy administration. Most of the scandals had been common
>knowledge for oh, the past twenty years or so, to anyone who had
>the initiative to question the conventional wisdom. This at a
>time when ABC was still feeding the public the obligatory pablum
>about Camelot and suppressing the scandalous truth about those
>Kennedy boys and Marilyn Monroe. The pony express was lightning-
>fast compared to our dauntless newshawks. Instead of dealing with
>the problem, they krex and whine like a bunch of "two-year-olds"
>(to use Peter Jennings' simile), spewing venom at those who
>undertake to do the job they refuse to do, whether out of
>arrogance, treachery, cowardice or plain stupidity.
>
>No doubt those who turn to the Internet to get the news that the
>newsies refuse to report will now be subjected to a fresh barrage
>of personal insults and puerile namecalling. To cut a long story
>short, why don't I just take a quick run through the litany of
>feeble vituperation that comprises the repertoire of the
>mainstream press? We are a bunch of "conspiracy theorists,"
>right? We are animated by the "paranoid tradition" of American
>politics as we work our way up the "right wing food-chain" of
>"conspiracy consciousness," is that correct? We are, in short, a
>bunch of "right wing-nuts," "crazies," "loonies," "nutballs,"
>"weirdos," "whackos," and "wigouts," n'est pas? Now that the
>infantilism of the mainstream media has been indulged, can we get
>on with the part of the program of interest to grown-ups?
>
>
>ITS LOOKS LIKE A BULLET HOLE
>
>Cybersnitch Matt Drudge heralded the article late Tuesday night
>with an announcement on his Web site that Ruddy was about to
>break a story that would "hit the internet harder than just about
>anything in its history."
>
>Well, that remains to be seen. Drudge is heir to a tradition
>(Walter Winchell, Jimmy Fiddler) that uses hyperbole as freely as
>most of us use salt and pepper. Nevertheless, the story clearly
>has caused quite a stir. By Thursday morning it was reverberating
>in the European press -- the London Telegraph carried a story
>that quoted an Air Force deputy medical examiner as saying, "Even
>if you safely assumed accidental plane crash, when you have got
>something that appears to be a homicide, that should bring
>everything to a screeching halt."
>
>It goes without saying that the American mainstream press have
>primly averted their gaze and pretended not to notice Ruddy's
>story. What else is new? The mere fact that the story has gained
>currency on the Net is enough to relegate it to the category of a
>non-event in their jaundiced eyes. How did the Boston Globe put
>it? "...the Internet realizes the anarchist's dream of an
>unmediated conversation between each and all."
>
>So don't be too hard on them -- they are only trying to save us
>from "anarchy." Of course, they were quick to add, "Government
>must not censor that conversation..." if only to demonstrate that
>they are truly on the side of the angels. But then there is no
>need for the government to censor anything. In the supreme
>hypocrisy of their guilty silence, the mainstream press take care
>of the censorship themselves.
>
>Drudge announced that Ruddy's piece would deal with a participant
>in the investigation of the late Secretary of Commerce, Ron
>Brown's plane crash in Croatia. The participant, Lt. Col. Steve
>Cogswell, is a doctor and deputy Armed Forces medical examiner
>with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, His discovery,
>according to Drudge was that "essentially... Brown had a .45 inch
>inwardly beveling circular hole in the top of head, which is...
>the description of a .45-caliber gunshot wound."
>
>That, at least, is Drudge's interpretation. Others have expressed
>doubt that a gunshot wound caused by a large caliber weapon would
>fit the description given by Cogswell, or by Air Force Col.
>William Gormley, described by Ruddy as "an assistant armed forces
>medical examiner with approximately 25 years' experience," who
>said that Brown's death "was caused by multiple blunt force
>injuries as a result of an aircraft mishap. The manner of death
>is accidental." It should be noted that Cogswell did not actually
>examine Brown's body, as did Gormley, but based his opinions on
>discussions he had with colleagues who had examined the body "and
>on reports, records, photographs and X-rays," according to Ruddy.
>
>Gormley admitted that the wound did seem disturbing at first
>glance, "A perfectly round, nearly round .5-inch hole makes one
>think, 'Tell me more about this gunshot wound,' right?"
>
>But he nevertheless maintained that Brown had probably been
>struck on the head by "a metal fastener or rivet," although he
>acknowledged that nothing had been found in the wreckage of the
>aircraft that would explain the wound.
>
>A half-inch rivet in the sheet-stringer structure of a passenger
>aircraft? A fastener that size might be found in a bridge girder
>or an oil rig, but not in the structure of an aircraft cabin,
>which is made of thin sheet metal.
>
>Still, the notion that the wound on the top of Brown's head was
>caused by a large caliber bullet presents certain problems. Ruddy
>wrote that Gormley did not believe that the wound could have been
>caused by a bullet because it had failed to penetrate the skull.
>
>Cogswell disagrees, however. After examining photographs of the
>wound, he maintained that brain matter could be seen, suggesting
>that the hole did penetrate the skull, and not just the upper
>layer, as suggested by Gormley. He also said that examination of
>into the head when the skull was penetrated by a "cylindrical
>object."
>
>This is not characteristic of a gunshot wound caused by a large
>caliber weapon, which would more likely scatter bone fragments
>inside the head. Also, Gormley observed a wide area of denuded
>scalp at the top of the skull where the wound was located, but
>made no mention of flash burns or powder residue which might be
>expected if a gun had been fired in close proximity to the head.
>Of course, the weapon might have been fired from a distance, but
>why then would there be "a wide area of denuded scalp at the top
>of the skull"?
>
>Perhaps the most puzzling detail is Cogswell's observation that
>the frontal head X-ray that shows the defect at the top of the
>head, also reveals "something perhaps more sinister." Within the
>left side of Brown's head, in the area behind his eye socket,
>"there are multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are
>metallic density on X-ray. That's what we might describe as a
>'lead snowstorm' from a high-velocity gunshot wound."
>
>The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review claims to have copies of
>photographs and X- rays that show the wound on Brown's head.
>Cogswell has said that at least one of the original X-rays has
>"disappeared," but Ruddy says that the Tribune-Review has
>obtained a photograph of it. About all one can really say of
>these descriptions of Brown's head wound is that they are
>inconsistent. Unfortunately, the responsible authorities did not
>see fit to conduct a post-mortem examination on Brown's body,
>although, as Cogswell observed, the presence of a circular hole
>in Brown's skull, that could have been a bullet hole, should have
>triggered an autopsy. Cogswell was not alone in noting the
>resemblance of the hole to a gunshot wound. Kathleen Janoski, a
>photographer with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP),
>was said by a source of Ruddy's to have taken a look at the head
>wound and exclaimed, "Wow! Look at the hole in Brown's head. It
>looks like a bullet hole."
>
>The possibility exists that Brown, and other potential survivors,
>were killed by being struck with blunt objects while lying on the
>ground after the crash. The London Telegraph article noted that
>Croatian soldiers were already at the scene when the US military
>arrived, "and there is evidence that the site had been looted."
>
>Ruddy noted that Cogswell and others at AFIP describe the mishap
>as a "relatively low-impact crash." Hugh Sprunt, a graduate of
>MIT and Stanford who is also a qualified pilot (though not
>current) wrote last year in an article for Media Bypass that the
>crash was survivable, contrary to the opinion of the Air Force
>Accident Investigation Board.
>
>Cogswell also mentioned that this was the first aircraft accident
>investigation in his experience in which the Air Force did not
>follow its usual two-step investigative process. The first step,
>known as a "safety board," which treats all crashes as though
>they were suspicious, was skipped. The possibility of foul play
>is considered in this first phase of the investigation.
>
>There is no way to resolve the differences without an autopsy.
>The authorities will not reopen the matter unless somebody lights
>a fire under them -- and who would do that? The press? They
>evidently do not perceive covering events that might prove
>embarrassing to the Clinton regime to be part of their agenda --
>at least, not if they can avoid it. The fact that nine out of ten
>Washington reporters are liberals who supported Clinton in 1992
>has nothing to do with it, of course. They are far too
>professional to allow their judgement to be colored by such
>paltry considerations as passionate ideological commitments.
>
>I don't doubt their professionalism. The only question in my mind
>is what the specialty of most mainstream editors truly is. I
>would guess that most of them practice a profession that is said
>to be far older than journalism. The thing that they need to
>understand is that they do not own the news. It belongs to all of
>us. The withholding of information from the public out of
>consideration for the cosmetic appearance of public figures
>favored by the press represents an arrogant betrayal of public
>trust.
>
>
>BROWN HAD BECOME A LIABILITY TO CLINTON
>
>What gives this story impact is the fact that Clinton's Commerce
>Secretary Ron Brown had become an embarrassment to the
>administration, and was said to be facing indictment for
>financial crimes. The indictment of such a high-ranking cabinet
>officer could have proven disastrous in an election year, and
>many believe that Brown's death is all that averted his
>indictment. Of course, this may represent nothing more than pure,
>blind luck on Clinton's part, but there have been other deaths of
>people closely connected to the Clinton administration, under
>circumstances that leave much to the imagination.
>
>For example, Barbara Wise, a 48-year-old Commerce Department
>employee whose bruised, nude body was found inside her locked
>office on November 30, (the Friday after Thanksgiving) of last
>year. It was explained that Wise had a drinking problem and often
>spent the night in her office. The bruises were explained as the
>result of recent cancer surgery. Maybe so, but some find it odd
>that anyone would be sleeping over at the office on the Friday
>after Thanksgiving. Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch recently
>pointed out that John Huang and Barbara Wise occupied the same
>suite of offices at the Commerce Department and that Ms. Wise may
>have had access to some of the documents that are known to have
>been shredded immediately following Ron Brown's death. Judicial
>Watch is conducting its own investigation into Wise's death.
>
>And then there was Admiral Boorda, who is said to have committed
>suicide out of chagrin after being accused of wearing
>unauthorized combat decorations. One of his accusers, retired
>Col. David Hackworth, who was a columnist for Newsweek at the
>time, was himself later accused of wearing unauthorized combat
>decorations. If so, it hardly seems likely that Hackworth did so
>deliberately, since he is said to be the most decorated American
>veteran still living. The problem would seem to be that the
>regulations governing the wearing of certain decorations are so
>ambiguous that it is easy to misinterpret them. All of which
>gives one pause to wonder if this is really a credible reason for
>an officer of such senior rank as Boorda to kill himself.
>
>Not long before Boorda's death former Navy secretary James Webb
>delivered a scathing address at the Naval Academy in which he
>faulted the Navy brass, and by implication Boorda, for failing to
>stand up for career officers who had been caught in the crossfire
>of sexual politics and political correctness. In particular he
>mentioned Stan Arthur, who had been ordered into early retirement
>because, as vice chief of naval operations, he had approved a
>report upholding a decision to wash out a female officer from
>flight school.
>
>There is evidence that Boorda had come to regret the mocking
>sobriquet, "little Mikey," that his acquiescence had earned him
>from contemptuous naval officers. Washington Times columnist John
>McCaslin told of a conversation that he says took place between
>Adm. Boorda and retired Adm. Bobby Ray Inman, a former Deputy
>Director of Central Intelligence, in which Boorda told of his
>differences with the White House and complained that they were
>not interested in the military. At that point, according to a
>witness, "Adm. Inman pointed his finger at Adm. Boorda and
>admonished him against resigning."
>
>Is it possible that resigning from the Clinton administration is
>not as straightforward a procedure as it may seem to be at first
>glance? Is that perhaps what Vince Foster had in mind when he is
>said to have become so "depressed" that he just cried and cried
>at dinner, although he seemed quite capable of planning family
>outings with his children at the same time? Wouldn't resignation
>have made just a bit more sense than committing suicide on the
>very day his sister, whom he had invited to visit himself and his
>family in Washington, was flying up from Little Rock?
>
>Ask yourself what each of these people had in common. Is it not
>just possible that, in every case, their deaths averted extreme
>embarrassment, or worse, to the Clinton administration and its
>leader, a sociopath who is said to have lain on the floor of his
>car, mortified and ashamed to show his face, after losing his bid
>for a second term as Governor of Arkansas?
>
>Then again, perhaps these deaths (with the exception of Foster's,
>the official version of which is just too phony to be believed by
>anyone but a congenital idiot or a mainstream journalist)
>occurred much as has been reported. How are we to know, if the
>official investigation is conducted in a superficial manner and
>the result is treated as a foregone conclusion in order to avoid
>embarrassment to the president? Who is going to tell us these
>things -- our craven, cowardly castrato press whose taste these
>days runs to licking the boots of the power elite? (Not that this
>is really such a recent trend, as witness their nauseating
>sycophancy toward the Kennedy family).
>
>Make no mistake about it, Ron Brown was in a whole heap of
>trouble, and not just nickel-and-dime stuff either. (What is it
>about Clinton that attracts him to such freebooters as Brown and
>James McDougal?) According to Brown's "business" partner, Nolanda
>Hill, Brown had made a deal with the government of Vietnam to use
>his influence to facilitate the normalization of relations with
>that country in return for $700,000 up front. Hill told ABC's
>Brian Ross, "He was considering it. He saw it as an opportunity
>to afford to be Commerce Secretary."
>
>When the story surfaced in the press, Brown denied it, but
>according to Hill, he lied. He was tipped off that the FBI were
>aware of what he was doing and quickly withdrew from negotiations
>with the Vietnamese government. FBI agents who had been working
>on the case told ABC News that they had suspected as much.
>Congressman Dan Burton (R-Ind) says that the FBI abandoned its
>investigation of Brown, citing "budget cuts" as the reason.
>
>But Nolanda Hill's most serious allegation against Brown is her
>charge "that two big Democratic contributors, Nora and Gene
>Lum... actually did pass money to Ron Brown when he was Secretary
>of Commerce," according to Brian Ross. They did this by hiring
>Brown's 28-year-old son Michael into a well paid job with their
>Oklahoma gas company, Dynamic Energy Resources. According to
>Hill, Michael then transferred much of the money to his father.
>Brown later maintained that his son was merely paying him back
>for his college tuition. When Hill suggested that Brown use
>another explanation since the story was not true, Brown replied,
>"Well, nobody can prove that."
>
>And then there was the strange business deal whereby a company
>owned by Nolanda Hill continued to pay a company owned by Brown
>$12,000 a month interest on a loan of $875,000, even as Hill's
>company was going bankrupt. Rep. Burton is about the only person
>who has been so awkward as to ask where Brown got the $875,000.
>According to Burton, the FBI confirmed that "there was an
>electronic transfer from the Government of Vietnam to this bank
>in Singapore, and here all of a sudden we have a mysterious
>$875,000 turning up that was invested into this corporation."
>
>All of this and more were explained in greater detail in my
>previous column, "Ron Brown's Booty." None of it has elicited
>much comment from the mainstream press -- and then they ask why
>nobody seems to care about the sleaze in the Clinton
>administration, as though the reason were some kind of deep, dark
>secret.
>
>As Nolanda Hill, who was left holding the bag when Brown died put
>it, "The press jump-started his sainthood when he died. And quite
>frankly, I resent the hell out of being left with the cleanup
>operation."
>
>
>THE RON BROWN EXPRESS
>
>Last summer The American Spectator charged that ninety minutes
>before the White House announced that Ron Brown's plane had
>disappeared, just after the Commerce Department had heard the
>news, two secretaries entered Brown's office, opened his safe and
>shredded some documents that he kept there. Two large cardboard
>file boxes, filled with documents, were also removed from his
>office. Sound familiar? The only difference is that Vince Foster
>was not under criminal investigation as was Ron Brown.
>
>When the New York Post reported that Newt Gingrich had mentioned
>the Spectator article at a closed meeting of Republican bigwigs,
>White House flack Michael McCurry immediately accused Gingrich of
>making "an outrageous suggestion." White House chief of staff
>Leon Panetta said it was "racist" as well. Interestingly, nobody
>from the administration actually went so far as to deny that the
>documents were removed or destroyed. The name of the game is
>Spinball. The White House press corps know the rules and play
>right along. When it comes to Clinton's White House spin their
>complacency (or is it complicity?) knows no bounds. These are the
>guys who staked out Reagan aide Richard Allen's house after a
>cheap gift watch was found in his office safe, remember?
>
>John Corry, writing in the August American Spectator mentioned
>the "Ron Brown defense," citing the response of the New York
>Times Washington bureau chief R.W. Apple, a panting, wheezing
>lump of profane corpulence who could pass for the reincarnation
>of Sidney Greenstreet, to a query from the London Spectator as to
>why the Times now seemed "reluctant to follow up leads which
>discredit the President."
>
>Apple replied, 'Who do you think broke the [bleepbleep] story in
>the first place?' adding, 'Do you want us to go round giving
>credibility to every piece of dirt thrown at the president like
>those [bleepbleeps] at the American Spectator?'
>
>Comparing Apple's comment to the defense Panetta used against
>Gingrich, Corry commented: "Apple could not deny anything
>reported in the Spectator; he just did not want it to be
>reported."
>
>But what was in those documents that provided the raw material
>for this particular batch of Clinton confetti? In mid-September
>U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the Commerce
>Department employees suspected of shredding the documents
>following Brown's death can be deposed by the public-interest
>group Judicial Watch.
>
>The group's chairman, Larry Klayman, has alleged that Brown sold
>seats on his various trade trips to executives who kicked in
>contributions of $100,000 or more to the Democratic Party.
>Judicial Watch was also given the authority to question Jude
>Kearney, the presidential confidant who is said to have overseen
>the task of awarding seats on the trade trips to well-heeled
>contributors.
>
>Kearney, who had been a Clinton aide in Arkansas, and is now a
>deputy assistant secretary of commerce, was quoted as saying in a
>Commerce Department memo, "As a political appointee, [Mr.
>Kearney] would push those that were politically connected" for
>places on what came to be known as the "Ron Brown Express"
>
>Although Kearney has since denied making the statement, other
>Commerce Department memos make abundantly clear the close
>correlation between political contributions made by corporate
>executives and flying express via Ron-air.
>
>Judge Lamberth also directed the Commerce Department to produce
>"any communications with the Democratic National Committee and/or
>White House which refer or relate to plaintiff's FOIA requests."
>Andy Thibault of the Washington Times wrote that Klayman has
>accused the Commerce Department of holding out on his FOIA
>request, citing reports that Brown's secretaries had shredded
>documents on the day of his death.
>
>Judge Lamberth brushed aside the efforts of Commerce Department
>lawyers to explain the department's failure to produce the
>records, saying, "The search was either inadequate or documents
>were destroyed. That's the only conclusion."
>
>It would seem that a score and more of those corporate execs who
>booked a flight on the Ron Brown Express got a bit more than they
>had bargained for -- a once-in-a-lifetime chance to ride that
>plane to glory. However, it appears that not all of their
>survivors are entirely satisfied with the service provided by
>Ron-air. Attorneys for more than half of the 35 people killed in
>the crash have filed suit against the Air Force for wrongful
>death. An Air Force spokesman told UPI last August that it will
>probably settle with many of the plaintiffs if they determine
>that it was a "valid claim."
>
>The Air Force's position would seem to be a shaky one. The
>accident investigation found that:
>
> "...command failures, pilot error and poorly designed airport
> approach procedures were responsible for the deadly accident.
> Investigators determined that the CT-43, the Air Force
> version of a Boeing 737, was almost 2 miles off course and
> that pilots trying to land during a violent thunderstorm
> brought the plane in too low and too fast."
>
>The UPI got it wrong, of course. There was no "violent
>thunderstorm." That bit of misinformation (disinformation?) has
>been repeatedly corrected on Internet, yet the mainstream media
>continue to repeat the error. The pilots had been making an
>instrument approach and the hilly terrain was obscured by cloud
>cover.
>
>What the Air Force actually did wrong was to have only one ADF
>(Automatic Direction Finder) receiver on board when the approach
>procedure called for two in order to conform to the relevant
>regulations. The rather antiquated navigational aids used at the
>Dubrovnik airport comprised two non directional beacons, one
>designated "CV", located 1.9 nautical miles from the Runway 12
>threshold, and the other, designated "KLP", located 11.8 nautical
>miles from the Runway 12 threshold.
>
>The Air Force Accident Investigation Board (AIB) report indicates
>that Brown's Air Force T-43 was using the KLP beacon at the time
>of the accident, which perhaps explains why the aircraft was so
>far off course. In order to conform to Air Force regulations it
>would have been necessary that two receivers be used, one tuned
>to the KLP beacon and the other tuned to the CV beacon. The
>latter beacon would have alerted the flight crew that they had
>missed the approach, allowing them to turn to the right, toward
>the Adriatic, in time to avoid the high terrain.
>
>Ruddy wrote that, "Questions about the ground beacons were never
>fully resolved." It seems that a few days after the crash, the
>person responsible for maintenance at Dubrovnik airport was found
>shot to death -- "an apparent suicide."
>
>The latest word, even as I write this, is that a gag order has
>been placed on Cogswell, and his home has been searched. The name
>of the game is Whack the Whistleblower. You can always tell when
>the bureaucracy is becoming rattled -- the benign "liberal" mask
>slips, ever so slightly, and the ugly, fascist countenance shows,
>just a bit. But don't worry -- they are only trying to save us
>from our own flawed nature. If we knew the terrible truth, we
>wouldn't be able to handle it, you see. Why, we might man the
>barricades, stop listening to Larry King, cancel our subscription
>to The Washington Post. (Of course, the wife would sure miss
>those supermarket coupons). Anything could happen -- free speech
>might even break out. (That would spell anarchy and the end of
>civilization as we know it).
>
>So, that's all there is to that -- or is it? Will ABC run another
>special 30 years from now, telling us what really happened? You
>know, just fill in a few of the missing details as they did last
>week with JFK -- such as the fact that he stole the 1960
>presidential election with a little help from the Mafia? Or that
>he shared a mistress with Chicago Mafia boss Sam Giancana, whom
>they also used as a courier to send messages back and forth? Or
>that JFK was a speed freak who took Dr. Feelgood along with him
>to Vienna to provide his daily fix while he met with Soviet
>leader Nikita Khrushchev? (That was just before he and Mr. K.
>nearly incinerated us all in a nuclear war). You know, a few
>little arcane tidbits of possible interest to buffs.
>
>So why didn't they tell us this already? Well, gosh -- I guess
>they didn't know about it until just the other day when they read
>Seymour Hersh's book. That's odd, I knew about all of those
>things 20 years ago, at least. Aren't they supposed to be the
>professionals?
>
>The bottom line would seem to be that if you know about such
>things too soon, that makes you a "conspiracy theorist." And if
>you find out what is going on 30 years or more after it ceases to
>matter, what does that make you? An historian -- or just a
>schnook?
>
>
> Published in the Dec. 8, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly
> Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)
> Reposting permitted with this message intact
>
<snip>
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail