The rise of Hillary Clinton, to the point where the New Yorker magazine could describe her as a popular member and potential “master” of the Senate, can be traced to the corruption that continues in the FBI. If we had an FBI that was doing its job, Mrs. Clinton would be facing time in prison or would have been so disgraced by all the scandals associated with her husband’s administration that she would never have attempted to run for the Senate.
The FBI became an instrument of the Clinton administration against its enemies and was used to cover up the worst Clinton scandals, including Travelgate and Fostergate.
The Bush administration has failed to reform the FBI and bears some responsibility for Hillary’s success. Dick Morris, Bill Clinton’s one-time political adviser, has pointed out that, by ordering the Justice Department to move beyond the Clinton scandals, the administration gave the Clintons a free pass from justice, enabling them to stage a dramatic comeback.
Senator Clinton, a ruthless First Lady whose political philosophy borders on Marxism, is now calculating her political future, appearing on women’s programs such as “The View” on the ABC network, and basking in the glow of the October 13 New Yorker profile by Elizabeth Kolbert on how she has “charmed” her Senate colleagues.
In her appearance on “The View,” Clinton said she has a Senate campaign coming up in 2006, but she ducked questions about whether she would run for president.
If the truth about Mrs. Clinton is to be told, the corrupt political influences in the FBI must be exposed and purged. The FBI must be held accountable for subverting the administration of equal justice under law and protecting people in power.
In this regard, Patrick Knowlton and his attorney have performed a tremendous public service by producing two explosive CDs telling the story of how the FBI was manipulated to support the Clinton White House storyline that deputy counsel Vincent Foster killed himself in 1993 in Ft. Marcy Park. It was the most controversial death of a federal official since JFK, and Hillary Clinton was right in the middle of it. Knowlton, a key witness in the case, is featured on the CD, asking, “If our press and the government will lie to us about the murder of a White House official, we should ask what else are they lying to us about?”
A key element of the suicide-in-the-park theory was that Foster drove himself to the park and shot himself there. Knowlton, who had stopped by the park on the afternoon that Foster’s body was discovered, told authorities that Foster’s car, later identified as a light-gray 1989 Honda Accord, had not been there at the time, and that he saw two other cars, including a brown Honda Accord, and a blue car with a suspicious looking man inside. The implication of this testimony, plus other evidence developed and publicized by Accuracy in Media, is that Foster was murdered and his car driven to the park after he was dead. Our 2001 AIM Report #13 goes into the evidence in detail.
Miquel Rodriguez, the lead investigator into Foster’s death who is also featured on the CDs, says Knowlton had nothing to gain from what he said and that he is a “hero” in the case for telling the truth. But what happened to him as a result? Knowlton and his lawyer John Clarke were forced to file a civil-rights lawsuit on his behalf when FBI agents were used to harass and intimidate him in an effort to change his testimony before a Grand Jury.
As a result of their experience, Clarke and Knowlton produced a critique of the Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr Office of Independent Counsel investiga-tions that was so persuasive that the three-judge panel that appointed Starr ordered it appended to every copy of the final report.
On the CDs, Rodriguez, who disputes the suicide theory and resigned from the Office of Independent Counsel when he was not allowed to pursue the truth, says that he provided a great deal of information to the media, hoping that journalists would put pressure on the government and Congress to help uncover the facts. Rodriguez says he spent hours on the telephone with Stephen Labaton, a Washington correspondent for the New York Times, who he said became “a believer” and “knows” that Foster did not commit suicide. AIM also provided important documentation to Labaton so he could pursue the story. All of this led to his co-authoring an investigative story about the case that was suppressed by his editors.
This is a scandal that dwarfs the Jayson Blair plagiarism debacle at the Times. It is simply unconscionable that the murder of a high federal official can be brushed aside because political forces and the media would rather see the issue go away. Other journalists such as Bob Woodward have justified their disinterest in the case because they don’t precisely know the motive for the murder and who the killer or killers might have been.
It’s true that questions remain about the Foster death, but the fact that it was murder cannot be disputed by anyone who examines the evidence that AIM has assembled and published. The Knowlton-Clarke CDs, now being offered by AIM at a cost of only $9.95 for both, are unique in that they feature the comments of a top investigator who saw the evidence, obstruction and cover-up from the inside.
We encourage you to order them from AIM, using the enclosed postcard.
Another FBI failure is apparent in the anthrax-letters case.
Just a few months into the search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the media are demanding answers. But it has been more than two years since the anthrax-letter attacks killed five people, and the media are content to give the Bureau a pass.
The new FBI Associate Director in charge of the investigation, Michael Mason, recently entertained Big Media reporters, promising progress in the case. Mason also said it was probably a mistake for Attorney General John Ashcroft to use the phrase “person of interest” to refer to Dr. Steven Hatfill, whose life and career have been ruined by the FBI’s pursuit and surveillance of him.
The FBI’s installation of electronic eavesdropping equipment in Hatfill’s apartment has failed to produce any evidence, and its search of a Maryland pond for biowarfare equipment turned out to be another foolish waste of time and money. Having run Hatfill out of at least two jobs and made him unemployable, he has been forced to file a lawsuit for damages from the Justice Department. His attorney is the former federal prosecutor Tom Connolly, who believes in Hatfill’s innocence so strongly that he is taking the case free of charge.
Lawsuits against the media, including Hatfill’s chief journalistic accuser, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, may be forthcoming.
The FBI’s approach looks increasingly like the Bureau’s persecution of Richard Jewell, the security guard falsely suspected of being the Atlanta Olympic Park bomber, or Brian Kelley, a CIA officer investigated by the Bureau for years as the Russian mole in the U.S. government who turned out to be FBI special agent Robert Hanssen.
No progress in the anthrax case has been made primarily be-cause the FBI made an early mistake, perhaps under political pressure, in assuming that because the anthrax was a “military strain” called Ames, used in U.S. defense labs, the perpetrator had to be a current or former U.S. government scientist.
In his study, “The Anthrax Evidence Points to Iraq,” published in the International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, Dr. Dany Shoham (who is affiliated with the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Israel), debunks the notion that Iraq never got access to the Ames strain and writes that Saddam’s use of Ames as a weapon would have been preferred “because its origin would seem to be from within the U.S.” He explains, “In conducting an act of bio-terrorism against the U.S., Iraq would reasonably make an effort to mask, rather than manifest, its involvement.” He also discusses 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta’s reported meeting with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague.
In a taunting “open letter” to the West on October 29, 2001, Saddam said that, “We have heard in the news, recently, that American officials think that the source of anthrax is probably the US itself. Is this?just a tactic to divert the attention of those who were terrorized to hear that bin Laden is the source of anthrax?Or have they done this to divert attention from the incompetence of American official bodies in the events of September 11?” The anthrax letters included praise for Allah.
But the Bureau dismisses evidence implicating al Qaeda, such as that the hijackers had been shopping for crop dusters for possible use in a biological attack. The evidence also shows that Atta went to a pharmacy in Florida to get medicine for a red rash on his arm. The pharmacist reported this to the FBI and suspected that the rash had been caused by bleach used to decontaminate the scene of an anthrax accident. Another 9/11 hijacker, Ahmed Ibrahim al-Haznawi, went to a hospital to get treated for a black sore on his leg that was later determined by the doctor to be anthrax-related.
There is also a possibility that the FBI interviewed and released the killers or their accomplices in the roundup of Muslim militants after 9/11. Many of these “detainees” had come from New Jersey, from where the anthrax letters had been sent. Two of them had passports, cash, hair dye, box-cutting knives, and magazines with articles about chemical and biological weapons.
Similarly, the Bureau interviewed and released an Iraqi in New Jersey who was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center attack. Abdul Rahman Yasin, who fled to Baghdad and now has a $25 million price tag on his head, is suspected of having ties to al Qaeda.
The FBI may have ignored a foreign connection for other reasons. The White House, which is now unfairly accused of hyping an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, did not want to focus on Iraq at the time because of the Afghanistan war. Second, a key staff member in the office of liberal Senator Patrick Leahy, the target of one of the anthrax letters, believed the culprit was a “right-wing zealot deliberately targeting liberals,” according to Marilyn Thompson’s book, The Killer Strain. This description matched the FBI profile of the killer. Senate Democratic Leader Thomas Daschle, another target, offered his opinion that the suspect probably had a U.S. military background. And third, left-wing groups conducted a campaign to blame the U.S. military or the CIA. Their advocate, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, met with the FBI and Leahy’s staff.
So while the Democrats yell about missing WMD in Iraq, they may bear a large part of the blame for the missing anthrax killers.
In their dubious campaign against Hatfill, news organizations have cited a return address on one of the anthrax letters, a “Greendale School,” and reported that Hatfill once lived near a place called Greendale. But a website (anthrax2001.blogspot.com) devoted to the case has discovered an interesting piece of information that may link the attacks to the 9/11 Muslim hijackers.
Curiously, the FBI’s “Amerithrax” investigation focuses only on the four anthrax letters sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy, Tom Brokaw and the New York Post, and ignores those received at the headquarters of AMI in Florida, the publisher of the National Enquirer and other tabloids. These are the tabloids that made themselves potential targets of al Qaeda by having interviewed an alleged concubine of Osama bin Laden, who complained of his sexual inadequacy. The letters to AMI were addressed care of Jennifer Lopez, the actress and singer. One letter, described as having a white powder and a Star of David pendant, was handled by AMI employee Bob Stevens, who died from an anthrax infection.
Using the Lopez name would almost certainly get the letter noticed and opened. But the fascinating aspect to the case is that CBS News reports that Atta lived near the AMI headquarters in the weeks leading up to 9/11 and was communicating by code with a terrorist contact in Germany that he called “Jenny.”
If the media and the FBI are going to examine the significance of “Greendale,” they should also take the “Jenny” connection seriously.
One expert with civilian and military experience in the biological and chemical warfare field, who requested anonymity, has provided an analysis to AIM that describes how the FBI may have gone off-course. What follows is this expert’s analysis.
“As an outside observer of the anthrax investigation, two questions come to mind: did the FBI make a major mistake focusing on domestic terrorism or is the investigation itself a form of misdirection to divert attention away from some politically inconvenient conclusions?
“The domestic terrorist theory has been based primarily on the fact that the Ames strain, which is of U.S. military origin (Fort Detrick), was used in the attack. As far as one can ascertain from public sources, there is no other solid evidence supporting the domestic terrorist theory. In fact, the FBI has admitted that it was unable to back-engineer the production capability of the weapons-grade anthrax used in the attack. More importantly, the Ames strain was distributed to a number of other domestic and foreign laboratories, any one of which could have been an additional source of a pilfered culture.
“The FBI has produced a Unabomber-like profile and linguistic analysis has been used to support the notion of domestic terrorism. Although some of it is too comical upon which to comment, there are alternative hypotheses to counter some of the arguments made by those promoting the domestic terrorist theory.
“Much has been made of the “Take Penacilin [sic] Now” phrase [in one of the anthrax letters]. Even FBI Assistant Director Michael Mason is now suggesting that an alleged domestic perpetrator may not have wanted to kill anyone. ‘I suppose the leading thought might be the person didn’t intend to cause harm, and did,’ he said.
“This is the correct conclusion, but for the wrong reasons. For a terrorist, killing is only a vehicle to produce fear. And in whom else to induce fear better than the frequently hysterical news media and the opposition Democratic Party? The latter is perceived, rightly or wrongly, of turning a blind eye to al Qaeda terrorism.
“‘Are You Afraid,’ is the phrase contained in the letters to Senators Daschle and Leahy. Alternatively, the ‘Take Penacilin Now’ conclusion would be erroneous if the terrorist believed that the strain was antibiotic-resistant, which in the perpetrator’s mind would be a way to increase rather than reduce fatalities?
“Much of the data pointing to foreign involvement has been published exhaustively elsewhere?
“The basic error, however, may have been treating the anthrax attacks as a domestic criminal investigation for which the FBI is well-qualified to conduct as opposed to analysing a foreign intelligence operation for which it is not.
“Many people have been perplexed by the FBI’s apparent focus on domestic terrorism because the bulk of the evidence seems to point to a foreign connection…One could come to the conclusion, and many have, that the investigation is a diversion, which is politically motivated to prevent attention being directed to a source of the anthrax, which might complicate the global war on terrorism.
“One does not have to look very far. It is presumed that the Soviet Union had the Ames strain and has manipulated anthrax genetically to increase its virulence. It has been reported that the anthrax in the letters may have been genetically manipulated and was about two years old at the time of the attack. It is known that Iraq did not have but was seeking the Ames strain as late as 1988. It has been reported that the mobile biological laboratories found in Iraq closely match a Soviet design and that there were high-level military meetings involving biological warfare between Russia and Iraq in 1995.
“From publicly-available information, one cannot connect all the dots. The anthrax used in the attack could have been pilfered from Fort Detrick, the British Biodefence Establishment at Porton Down or any one of about twenty other labs in possession of the Ames strain. The choices narrow, however, when one asks who had the capability of producing a weapons-grade product? Did Iraq have such a capability within two years of the attack or was it processed elsewhere? A finished product could have been transferred to Iraq, who passed it to Mohammed Atta via an Iraqi intelligence operation in Prague. Other routes into the U.S. could have been easily used, i.e., was there more than one batch delivered?
“It makes sense that Saddam Hussein, wanting both revenge and to operate clandestinely, would choose a strain of U.S. military origin. It is also known that the Soviet Union had, for a long time, the ability to sanitize any evidence of the biological or chemical assistance it provided to rogue states?
“The precise timing of the anthrax letters, first mailed within a week of 9-11, and the success of the perpetrators in eluding capture both suggest a sophisticated level of planning not usually associated with an opportunistic attack.
“Is it that the FBI, quite literally, doesn’t have a clue or is there an alternative explanation for the current impasse?”
This expert added that, “I think the FBI will be overtaken by events before they will change direction,” meaning that the case may not be solved before another biological attack occurs.