Jump to content

Obama's Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years


Recommended Posts

Here's something to ponder.

 

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/102913-677116-197-military-officers-purged-by-obama.htm?p=full

 

What the president calls "my military" is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving the compliant and fearful.

 

We recognize President Obama is the commander-in-chief and that throughout history presidents from Lincoln to Truman have seen fit to remove military commanders they view as inadequate or insubordinate. Turnover in the military ranks is normal, and in these times of sequestration and budget cuts the numbers are expected to tick up as force levels shrink and missions change.

 

Yet what has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture. We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.

 

Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to "assist and provide intelligence for" military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham.

 

Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.

 

From Breitbart.com's Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from "leaving blast doors on nukes open" to "loss of confidence in command ability" to "mishandling of funds" to "inappropriate relationships" to "gambling with counterfeit chips" to "inappropriate behavior" to "low morale in troops commanded."

 

Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is under way.

 

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, notes how the White House fails to take action or investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders "who have given their lives for their country." Vallely thinks he knows why this purge is happening.

 

"Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama's ideology," Vallely said. "The White House protects their own. That's why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and ObamaCare. He's intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged."

 

Another senior retired general told TheBlaze on the condition of anonymity, because he still provide services to the government and fears possible retribution, that "they're using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don't agree with them or do not toe the party line. Remember, as (former White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis."

 

For President Obama, the military of a once-feared superpower is an anachronistic vestige of an America whose exceptionalism and world leadership require repeated apologies. It must be gutted and fundamentally transformed into a force wearing gender-neutral headgear only useful for holding the presidential umbrella when it rains. It is to be "his" military and used only for "his" purposes.

 

Food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I googled "How many generals relieved of duty under Bush" and the first 4 pages were

about Obama firing military leaders!

 

How many centuries of experience did he cut? He most definitely is anti-military and anti-America!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The overwhelming majority of officers that were relieved were guilty of some sort of misconduct. This is never to be tolerated by anyone in or out of the military. We hold our senior leaders to a higher standard and when they do not meet that standard, they know the consequences. It is more permissible in the lower ranks of officers, but once you have attained the rank of colonel, you have to be perfect because you live in a fish bowl. It is not about being accountable to your superiors, but being accountable to your subordinates. You can not reasonably expect them to adhere to the Uniform Code of Military Justice while you ignore it.

 

Being a leader means being accountable for not only your actions but those of your subordinates. This concept eludes certain elected officials and political appointees. Some of these officers were reprimanded because of the actions of their subordinates. They fully accept their commission knowing that may happen one day. Rest assured, the military is biding their time hoping for someone who will look out for them. Above all else, they never forget that the military is subordinate to our civilian leadership and the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The overwhelming majority of officers that were relieved were guilty of some sort of misconduct.

Link??

 

They are being given litmus and being asked if they will fire on American Citizens. If they answer no, they are given the boot.

 

Former Navy SEAL Ben Smith warns that the Obama administration is asking top brass in the military if they would be comfortable with disarming U.S. citizens, a litmus test that includes gauging whether they would be prepared to order troops to fire on Americans.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-asking-military-officers-will-shoot-americans/#gJmDvl0V8WgZ9OwL.99

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-asking-military-officers-will-shoot-americans/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.military.com/topics/relieved-of-command

 

This link deals with the senior military leaders who have been relieved. I would have to see the entire list referenced to really dig into the reasons and do some research.

 

Sorry it took so long, had a hard time pasting it for some reason.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're falling victim to media hype, or infowars if you will. Ask yourself what kind of access a former enlisted man has to senior leaders in the military. Also, I saw a video from the Alex Jones show about an hour ago where he swears they are talking about martial law. Well they are, but it is a bunch of National Guard guys sitting around shooting the breeze. I'm not saying to discount these theories entirely, but take them with a grain of salt and not as the final word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.military.com/topics/relieved-of-command

 

This link deals with the senior military leaders who have been relieved. I would have to see the entire list referenced to really dig into the reasons and do some research.

 

Sorry it took so long, had a hard time pasting it for some reason.

 

Well, that explains 4 or 5. What about the other 192 or so?

 

Word around the net is many are being let go because they answered no to firing on American Citizens..

 

I wouldn't put it past him/Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food for a shredder, more like. What the fck does any of this have to do with Obama. Did he actually sign the orders?

 

I googled "How many generals relieved of duty under Bush" and the first 4 pages were

about Obama firing military leaders!

 

How many centuries of experience did he cut? He most definitely is anti-military and anti-America!

And I'll bet all of those sights were either Breitbart, Blaze (Glenn Beck's website BTW) or sites with even less credibility. What did po'whitetrash.com have to say about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The overwhelming majority of officers that were relieved were guilty of some sort of misconduct. This is never to be tolerated by anyone in or out of the military. We hold our senior leaders to a higher standard and when they do not meet that standard, they know the consequences.

The OP article is not criticizing the removal of officers for serious misconduct. But noting there is reasonable doubt whether some of those removed actually engaged in misconduct at all. Was it their superiors who engaged in misconduct and they are being removed to eliminate a possible threat of that being exposed? The real issue here is that top civilian officials, who clearly have engaged in misconduct are not being held accountable. And the reason they are not may be related to the reason military officers are being targeted ... their politics. If the Obama administration is purging people whose politics don't agree with theirs, we face a serious threat to this country.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A retired enlisted man, regardless of specialty is still a retiree with little to no access to senior leaders to form the basis for his opinion. He can only speak for his own experiences and that may have been a question as part of a special operations psychological test. We don't know and he's not putting it in full context. I guarantee you he does not have the access needed to fully support his position.

 

BING-you know I'm not an Obama fan, but good point. The military does a good job of policing themselves and until I see the list of names, I won't speculate as to why they left the military and on what terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I googled "How many generals relieved of duty under Bush" and the first 4 pages were

about Obama firing military leaders!

 

How many centuries of experience did he cut? He most definitely is anti-military and anti-America!

Did Bush even know he could fire officers in the military? What comic book was that in?

 

Link??

 

They are being given litmus and being asked if they will fire on American Citizens. If they answer no, they are given the boot.

 

Former Navy SEAL Ben Smith warns that the Obama administration is asking top brass in the military if they would be comfortable with disarming U.S. citizens, a litmus test that includes gauging whether they would be prepared to order troops to fire on Americans.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-asking-military-officers-will-shoot-americans/#gJmDvl0V8WgZ9OwL.99

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-asking-military-officers-will-shoot-americans/

Dude. Tap, Tap, no links that cause virus's. Find some real material or STFU.....

 

Obama is the devil and is planning on a take over of the government. He wont succeed

BWAAAHAHHAHAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHA

 

He's the president you stupid fcknut!!! Who do you expect he's attempting to take over the government from you jackoff?!!! What an idiot...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The military does a good job of policing themselves

Do they? How about in the case of the death of Ron Brown? That's a good example of where a Democratic administration corrupted the top military officers who were supposed to be doing the policing. Instead, they punished a group of military officers who did nothing more than expose the truth of what appears to have been the murder of a Secretary Of Commerce (and thirty odd others).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Veterans Issues & Education

 

Founding Member

DVG

 

avatar.jpgblank.gif posted Fri 17 June 2011 08:52 PM

From Washington post

 

 

The Navy has fired a dozen commanding officers this year, a near-record rate, with the bulk getting the ax for offenses related to sex, alcohol or other forms of personal misconduct.

 

The terminations, which follow a similar spike in firings last year, have shaken the upper ranks of the Navy, which has long invested enormous responsibility in its commanding officers and prides itself on a tradition of carefully cultivating captains and admirals.

 

Over the past 18 months, the Navy has sacked nine commanding officers for sexual harassment or inappropriate personal relationships. Three others were fired for alcohol-related offenses, and two on unspecified charges of personal misconduct. Combined, they account for roughly half of the 29 commanding officers relieved during that period.

 

~~

The Navy is not the only military service dogged by poor performance in its upper ranks. The Army has relieved or disciplined three brigade commanders this year who were en route to — or returning from — war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

One case involved Col. James H. Johnson III, commander of the 173rd Airborne Brigade, whom the Army fired in March for “inappropriate conduct” after his wife accused him of carrying on a long-term affair with an Iraqi mistress and repeatedly visiting her in Europe, according to an Army statement and divorce papers. Johnson declined to comment through an Army spokesman.

 

It would be silly to say I wasn’t concerned,” Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the Army chief of staff, told reporters recently. He said the Army was considering amending its command selection process to rate officers based on feedback from subordinates and peers, instead of just superiors.

Looks to me, that officers can't keep their dicks in their pants.....

 

Do they? How about in the case of the death of Ron Brown? That's a good example of where a Democratic administration corrupted the top military officers who were supposed to be doing the policing. Instead, they punished a group of military officers who did nothing more than expose the truth of what appears to have been the murder of a Secretary Of Commerce (and thirty odd others).

Another Blaze article?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


BeAChooser- the death of Ron Brown, the crash, was never proven to be anything more than a plane crash. If you have something else, besides a theory, please post it. Additionally, yes, the military does do a good job of policing themselves. Do not confuse senior civilian leadership with the military. It has become harder for senior military leaders to get away with anything, hence they are getting caught more often.

 

Again, please provide this list of names and reason stated why they got out. I will be more than happy to explain all of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BeAChooser- the death of Ron Brown, the crash, was never proven to be anything more than a plane crash. If you have something else, besides a theory, please post it. Additionally, yes, the military does do a good job of policing themselves. Do not confuse senior civilian leadership with the military. It has become harder for senior military leaders to get away with anything, hence they are getting caught more often.

 

Again, please provide this list of names and reason stated why they got out. I will be more than happy to explain all of it.

And I'm happy to have you look at it . And see how you challenge it. Others have tried.

 

Here from a single thread is some of it ...

 

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/119154-the-p-b-s-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/?p=2450943

 

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/119154-the-p-b-s-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/?p=2465547

 

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/119154-the-p-b-s-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/?p=2600877

 

Please post your response on that thread if you would.

 

Try not to act too much like the ClintonTruthers on that thread.

 

By the way, you might also look at what I posted about the facts in the death of Vince Foster on that thread. Because that's another case where *official* *investigations* found nothing criminal happened ... when the facts clearly point to that. Here:

 

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/119154-the-p-b-s-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/?p=2450002

 

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/119154-the-p-b-s-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/?p=2450033

 

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/119154-the-p-b-s-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/?p=2453002

 

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/119154-the-p-b-s-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/?p=3328563

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at the thread and I'm not going to comment simply because that's not what I was asking about. I was talking about the list of officers, you're talking about people disappearing.

 

First of all, I never said or implied that a military officer in the Ron Brown case "disappeared". I said they were "punished" and they were … for doing exactly what I said … exposing what appears to have been foul play in his death.

 

And http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/119154-the-p-b-s-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/page-6&do=findComment&comment=2465547 listed the names of a slew of military officers and described what happened to them.

 

Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski was both chief of forensic photography at AFIP and the official photographer in this case. During the examination of Brown's body by AFIP forensic pathologist Colonel Gormley, CPO Janoski watched and exclaimed in a loud voice, "Gee, this looks like a gunshot wound." As she has stated, what led her to that conclusion is that the wound on top of Brown's head, which she documented in pictures that are available on the internet, was "perfectly circular" and "inwardly beveling". Colonel Gormley told her to "shut up". More on Gormley later.

 

Lt. Colonel David Hause, of AFIP, was considered one of the military's leading experts on gunshot wounds. He was working on a body two tables away from the one where Brown's was being examined. When Janoski voiced her comment, he went over to look at the wound and said "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." He said he suggested that Gormley get authority from superiors for an autopsy, or if that was impossible, seek permission from the next of kin. Hause said he did not pursue the issue or investigate further at the time because he assumed Gormley concluded it was not a gunshot after looking at the x-rays (more on that in a moment). More on that in moment.

 

Lt. Colonel Cogswell was another top forensic pathologist at AFIP. He was at the crash site when Brown's body arrived at Dover. He testified under oath that the wound was described to him over the phone by Colonel Gormley, that he told Gormley it sounded like a gunshot wound and that Brown needed an autopsy. Gormley ordered Cogswell to search the wreckage for any piece of debris which might explain the wound. Cogswell found nothing that matched the description even though later, an AFIP official named Erich Junger (AFIP's chief forensic scientist) would claim they'd found "a very reasonable explanation" for the hole "when we looked around the aircraft area itself." Junger lied. In fact, both Cogswell and Hause said they couldn't remember finding a similar wound in a plane crash victim's head (and they'd been involved in hundreds of plane crashes). Both said that while parts of the plane could certainly pierce the skull during a crash, the resulting hole probably would be left jagged or irregular after the object entered and exited the skull. That hole was certainly not jagged or irregular. In the end, Cogswell didn't pursue the matter further because, like Hause, he assumed Gormley had sound reasons to rule it death by blunt force trauma in the official reports.

 

And that's where matters stood for about six months. Then CPO Janoski, who later signed a sworn statement to the effect, said that she was told by Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was at the examination, that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" (indicative of gunshot) was discovered in the x-rays. Janoski further testified under oath that Sentell said a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" (to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image) and that Colonel Gormley was involved in their creation. When later asked about these accusations by journalists, Sentell declined to comment.

 

After talking to Sentell, CPO Janoski says she realized that she had taken slide photos of the first set of x-rays while they were displayed on a light table in the examination room. She located the slides and showed them to Colonel Cogswell. After looking at these slides, Cogswell began to publicly state that an autopsy should have been performed. He even included this case in a talk he gave on "mistakes in forensic pathology" at professional conferences and training courses (remember, he was considered a top expert in the field). He told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" like that you'd see from a gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in photos of the wound and that the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole that is displaced under the skull and into the brain. All of that is contrary to what Gormley *officially* claimed.

 

Here are best images I can find on the internet (better ones have gone down the black hole over the years) of the frontal x-ray, wound and side x-ray:

 

browng03.gif

 

xray09.gif

 

The frontal x-ray photo is very poor but if you manage to find a decent image, you will clearly see that there were small white flecks of something on the left side of the head behind and above the eye socket, the so-called "lead snowstorm". So for Gormley to have officially stated that there was nothing suspicious in the x-rays is a transparent lie. Likewise, the images prove that Gormley's reasons for declaring the death a result of blunt force trauma (the wound did not penetrate the skull and because the brain was not visible) are obvious lies. The above images DO shows brain matter and that a bone plug driven was into the brain and offset from the hole proving the brain was penetrated. Clearly, Gormley lied.

 

Now here's where the punishment begins. And the lies continue.

 

After these facts became known to members of the press, AFIP imposed a gag order on Cogswell, forcing him to refer all press inquiries on the Brown matter to AFIP's public affairs office. Cogswell said he was told he could leave his office only with the permission of Dr. Jerry Spencer, Armed Forces Medical Examiner. He was then escorted to his house by military police, who, without a warrant, seized all of his case materials on the Brown crash.

 

At that point, Lt. Col. Hause came forward and publically agreed with Cogswell that an autopsy should have been performed. Hause's eyewitness examination also contradicts Gormley's claims. He said "what was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain. I didn't remember seeing skull". Hause concluded that the piece of skull "punched out" by the impacting object had displaced into the head. And that's what the x-ray does show. Hause stated that "by any professional standard" Brown should have received an autopsy and that the AFIP's actions against Cogswell was "shooting the messenger."

 

After Hause talked to the press, the gag order was extended to include ALL AFIP personnel. They were ordered to turn in "all slides, photos, x-rays and other materials" related to the Brown case. All personnel at the AFIP were prohibited from talking to the press and had to stay at their work stations for the duration of their working day. All personnel, including ranking officers, even had to obtain permission to leave for lunch.

 

But the cat was already out of the bag. The photos and the x-ray slides were already in the public domain. Alan Keyes, the spokesman for AFIP at the time, had already acknowledged that the internet photos were authentic. So the controversy grew.

 

A journalist showed Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory, the photos of the wound and x-rays and asked for his expert opinion. Fackler responded "It's round as hell. ... That's unusual except for a gunshot wound." He also said brain matter was visible in the wound, again contradicting Gormley's "official" claim.

 

The x-ray and photos were shown to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. After examining the photos of Brown's wound, he said the white flecks in the frontal x-ray suggest a "lead snowstorm" of fragments left by a disintegrating bullet. He added that the "tiny pieces of dull silver-colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the circular wound itself and near the hole suggest "metallic fragments" as well. He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone." Wecht also said Brown's body was relatively intact … that lacerations were superficial, and that other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. He said x-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable. Wecht concluded, "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied." And to this day, not a single forensic pathologist in the US has come forward to contest that statement.

 

The truth is that every single forensic pathologist who has made a public statement with regards to this case (except the head of AFIP, Mr. Dickerson, who can be easily shown to have lied about both the nature of the wound and the opinions of his own staff to the press) has gone on record stating that Brown should have been autopsied based on the suspicious nature of the wound. Even Colonel Gormley, as I'll note next, eventually did so.

 

Leading members of the black community (such as Jesse Jackson Jr.), who had heard about the possibility of a gun shot wound in Brown's head, began to ask for an investigation. So despite the gag order, in a clear attempt at "damage control", Colonel Gormley was allowed to give a live interview on Black Entertainment Television. In the interview, Gormley immediately attacked the other pathologists and regurgitated the official lies. He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound. He also stated that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He also denied that two sets of x-rays existed.

 

But then, on live TV, he was confronted with the photograph taken during the examination by Janoski, which clearly shows brain matter in the wound. He ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible, excusing his former statements as a "memory lapse". He then acknowledged that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry (i.e., an autopsy). Next he was confronted with copies of Janoski's x-ray slides and he again immediately changed his story. He said that this first set of x-rays had been "lost" so that a second set was required. It was then pointed out that the Janoski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm", which he didn't refute during the interview. Only later would he claim the flecks of metallic density near the eyesocket in the frontal x-ray were caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassettes (thus dropping the "lost slides" explanation). But Janoski, an expert on cameras and film, responded that this could not be true since none of the other images from that day showed this so-called defect, so the cassette cannot be the cause. All in all, Gormley's interview was a disaster for the government. The doubts about the case only multiplied.

 

Another month went by and the Clinton friendly Washington Post, in an effort to help out, reported that AFIP had convened a review panel of all its pathologists, including Cogswell and Hause. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the unanimous conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot. But according to Cogswell, he refused, following the advice of his lawyer, to participate in the review because he thought it would be unfair and biased. So it wasn't unanimous. Dickerson lied. Cogswell said that most of those participating in this review panel were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He said that all of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and a new name ... Air Force Major Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion. Yet, even though Hause and Parsons soon corroborated Cogswell's statement, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly continued to state AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous ... an unabashed lie.

 

Then, in yet another press statement intended to defuse the controversy, AFIP claimed that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory. But Chief Petty Officer Janoski said, under oath, that she was present for the entire examination and did not observe any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue. And the government supplied nothing material to prove there actually were tests of any kind.

 

Next, Janet Reno joined the coverup. She told the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime. But I ask you … how "thorough" could that review have been when no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists or military photographer who blew the whistle in the first place? Hmmmmm?

 

Colonel Gormley has since, in documents submitted to a court admitted to Judicial Watch that he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they agreed that the hole looked like a gunshot wound, "at least an entrance gunshot wound". Furthermore, Gormley confessed that the highest levels in Commerce, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the White House "requested" there be no autopsy. But Cabinet Members at the time, such as Ron Brown, were covered by federal laws that dealt with assassinations of federal officials and certain acts of terrorism. As such, the matter should have been referred to the FBI as soon as an apparent gunshot wound was discovered. But that didn't happen. It all smacks of a coverup that included top military brass.

 

In the end, one event more than any other saved the Clinton administration from seeing this house of cards collapse. The discovery of Monica and the blue dress. Because that story immediately took the pressure off the mainstream media to cover the Brown controversy. Perhaps being supportive of Clinton, the MSM let the matter die and instead devoted all their *journalistic* efforts to Clinton's affair with Monica. Or perhaps they just knew that sex will outsell murder any day of the week.

 

Now let's talk some more about the military's involvement in this coverup. Bring a few more facts to light, so to speak.

 

Prior to Ron Brown's death, an Air Force crash investigation consisted of two phases, a Safety Investigation Board (SIB) and an Accident Investigation Board (SIB). Ron Brown's crash was the first time in US Air Force history, other than a clear case of friendly fire shooting down a helicopter in Iraq, where the Air Force skipped the SIB. Top Clinton Administration and Air Force officials claimed that the reason they ordered the SIB skipped was to speed up the investigation process, due to Brown's *important* status. But this Air Combat Command link (http://www.acc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2356) states: "AIB Reports are completed and released in approximately 60-90 days. This figure includes time after the reports are written for completion of technical review and coordination, then approval by the convening authority (the Major Command Commander), and a briefing to family members (if applicable)." Since it took the Air Force 60 days (from the crash on April 3, 1996 to June 7, 1996) to release the Accident Investigation Report in the Ron Brown Crash, what time was actually saved? The reason is transparently bogus.

 

Now why would they skip the SIB? Air Force documents state that "Safety investigations take priority over accident investigations" and that "the sole purpose of safety investigations is mishap prevention and to determine the cause(s) of accidents." But in this case, they just ASSUMED the cause, didn't they? The mere act of convening an AIB and skipping the SIB pre-supposes an accident and not foul play. The stated purpose of AIB is to "provide a publicly releasable report of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident and include a statement of opinion as to why the accident happened." Further, Air Force documents state that "AIBs are further used by the Air Force for the adjudication of wrongful death, personal injury and property damage claims resulting from the accident." Isn't it curious that a document the Air Force was giving Brown family members AND THEIR LAWYERS left out such crucial facts as the concerns of the pathologists that day about a possible bullet wound and the original x-rays of Brown's head? Try to convince us there wasn't a coverup involving top military officers here, VoR.

 

To make this coverup work, they also needed a few key individuals at AFIP to be involved. Besides Dickerson, they had their man Gormley, also now a proven liar, examine the body *officially*. He had complete control over the official conclusion regarding the cause of Brown's death. If Janoski hadn't been standing nearby, voiced her thoughts (based on photographing many other cases of gunshot) and taken photos of the first set of x-rays before they were destroyed by Gormley, no one in the public would ever have known the hole in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound or that there were x-rays showing suspicious features.

 

After the Whistleblowers came forward, the Air Force also tried to control matters by having Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters knowingly or unknowingly lie to family members of the air crash victims in a letter attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. Perhaps they were just hoping to keep those families from lawyering up to pursue the matter, even though they'd already signed an agreement not to sue in return for the millions of dollars in compensation that each family received on average (an agreement, by the way, that blamed weather for the crash even though the official crash report ruled out weather as the cause). Or perhaps the reason was less innocent.

 

Anyway, Peters stated in the letter that: "Due to the initial appearance of Secretary Brown's injuries, the medical examiners carefully considered the possibility of a gunshot wound. However, their examinations combined with X-rays ruled out that possibility." But, as noted above, this claim is an absolute lie. Peters' letter also said "the medical examiner determined there was no gunshot wound, and therefore concluded there was no need for further examination. Had there been suspicion regarding the nature of Mr. Brown's death - or the death of any other person on the aircraft - medical examiners would have pursued permission to perform a full internal examination." That's another clear lie, given that calls for an autopsy were voiced repeatedly during the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing one have been shown to be bogus. And Peters' letter stated that "The alleged 'bullet fragments' mentioned in the reports were actually caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassettes. Medical examiners took multiple X-rays using multiple cassettes and confirmed this finding." Still another lie, for the reasons already noted above.

 

As a final bit of control, Clinton administration military heads punished every one of the military officers who went public about the suspicious activities at Dover and AFIP. Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski were all reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise. With no explanation, Janoski was given 32 hours to clear out of her office (with no replacement available), had her staff taken away from her, and was made an assistant to an audio-visual manager at another location in a job that had never existed before. Cogwell was banished to dental pathology, a field in which he was not qualified. Hause was transferred to Fort Leonard Wood and made a hospital pathologist, a significant demotion. Parsons likewise was made a hospital pathologist. The government also tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences. In short, their military careers were all ruined.

 

They were also given negative job evaluations (for the first time in careers spanning over 10 years). For example, Cogswell's evaluation, which was six months late, states that he was "disruptive to the work environment with immature behavior." He has been "unresponsive to counseling," it continues, adding that he has used "inappropriate language" and worn "inappropriate dress." Cogswell was even criticized for his manner of driving in the AFIP facility's parking lot. The belated report bears three signatures, including those of Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer and AFIP Director Col. Michael Dickerson, both proven liars. The signatures are not even dated. But just a year earlier, Dickerson and Gormley wrote in an evaluation that Cogswell was "the number one forensic pathology consultant in the Department of Defense." That he was "an extremely capable officer" who was given "the toughest assignments." That "his professional acumen is incomparable" and that he was "an exemplary officer and outstanding physician." And in an evaluation in 1995 signed by Gormley and Dickerson, Cogswell was called AFIP's "expert on gunshot wounds."

 

Now seriously, VoR, do you think this was fair treatment of outstanding military officers who only raised what appear to be quite valid questions? Don't YOU find the destruction of their careers and reputations the least bit suspicious and worthy of investigation?

 

And that's just the tip of the iceberg in this case.

 

Do you know that Croatian Ministry Of Transportation announced shortly after reaching the crash that the black boxes had been found. The US Air Force in Germany confirmed this. Several foreign news stations reported it. The Department of Commerce log mentioned above even states, "Chief of protocol Misetic called...The flight data recorder has been recovered." Then, a week later, the Air Force claimed the plane had no black boxes and that some boxes that looked exactly like the recorders had been found instead. But what boxes on this plane looked exactly like recorders? No one has ever said or shown a photo of such boxes. Another problem with the claim that there were no black boxes is that this exact plane, just a week earlier, carried the First Lady and Chelsea and, several weeks before that it carried the Secretary of Defense. Regulations in place at the time required that the First Lady and Cabinet Members only fly on aircraft with black boxes. So was anyone ever punished for this "violation" of regulations? No.

 

Here's another puzzle. The original x-rays and photos of Brown's head injuries disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP … a safe to which only the top people at AFIP had access. Hause, along with Dr. Jerry Spencer, confirmed this happened. Yet neither the AFIP, FBI or DOJ investigated or offered any explanation for how the x-rays or photos disappeared. Just as they never really investigated anything else mentioned above. It looks like every effort was made by key people to coverup what happened.

 

Then there's the matter of the flight path.

 

The last communication between the plane and the airport was when the plane is still 12 kilometers from the airport ... almost 8 miles. Why did they lose communication? Aviation Week stated they lost both radio and transponder contact at the same time. Why? What could have happened? This loss of communication has never been explained by the Air Force. Ever. It was just been ignored. Don't you think a loss of communication would be a major factor in this crash, VoR? That it would be something that should have been focused on and explained by the military? But they didn't.

 

The official Air Force report on the crash contained detailed data showing the plane's course based on AWACS airborne radar. The data showed that shortly after the loss of communication, when the plane was still miles from touching down at Dubrovnik, it suddenly changed course radically. It turned to the left almost 90 degrees then a few seconds later, made a U turn back to the right. It then fixed on a course with a heading of 110 degrees, which it followed for over a minute, ending with the plane crashing into the mountain, nearly two miles off course. When Major General Coolidge, the military officer in charge of the crash investigation, was asked about these sudden flight maneuvers at a press conference, all he had to say is that they were anomalies of no significance. I supposed the loss of communication was an anomaly of no significance, too?

 

A credible scenario is that something (perhaps a bomb) knocked out communication with the plan, then the plane was spoofed into the mountain to provide a reasonable cover for Brown's death and perhaps cause that death. Aviation Week (a source of some authority in the aviation world back in the 90s) stated that the flight path of the plane was consistent with a portable beacon spoofing the plane into the mountain. The government later admitted that a portable airport beacon went missing from the airport they were headed to sometime before the crash. And what a coincidence that the person in charge of that airport's beacons died after the crash before investigators could interview him (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1290&dat=19960409&id=PCpUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=V44DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6467,2654271 ) … died under curious circumstances as well … supposedly shooting himself in the chest with a shotgun to the heart over a failed romance.

 

It's time time you add 2 and 2 and get 4, VoR. If you still think the military wasn't involved in a coverup, then you haven't been listening and I'm eager to hear your innocent explanation or rationalizations for all of the above facts involving conduct by top military brass … conduct which suggests they colluded with Clinton to cover up a mass murder involving someone who at the time was threatening to expose serious misconduct by the Clinton Administration … indeed, treason. And if they would do that under Clinton's watch, I wouldn't be surprised to find left leaning officers who'd be willing to do the same under Obama's watch. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...