[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Music

The Ones That Didn't Make It Back Home [featuring Pacman @ 0:49 - 0:57 in his natural habitat]

Let’s Talk About Grief | Death Anniversary

Democrats Suddenly Change Slogan To 'Orange Man Good'

America in SHOCK as New Footage of Jill Biden's 'ELDER ABUSE' Emerges | Dems FURIOUS: 'Jill is EVIL'

Executions, reprisals and counter-executions - SS Polizei Regiment 19 versus the French Resistance

Paratrooper kills german soldier and returns wedding photos to his family after 68 years

AMeRiKaN GULaG...

'Christian Warrior Training' explodes as churches put faith in guns

Major insurer gives brutal ultimatum to entire state: Let us put up prices by 50 percent or we will leave

Biden Admin Issues Order Blocking Haitian Illegal Immigrants From Deportation

Murder Rate in Socialist Venezuela Falls to 22-Year Low

ISRAEL IS DESTROYING GAZA TO CONTROL THE WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT SHIPPING LANE

Denmark to tax livestock farts and burps starting in 2030

Woman to serve longer prison time for offending migrant men who gang-raped a minor

IDF says murder is okay after statistics show that Israel killed 75% of all journalists who died in 2023

Boeing to be criminally INDICTED for fraud

0:35 / 10:02 Nigel Farage Embarrasses Rishi Sunak & Keir Starmer AGAIN in New Speech!

Norway to stockpile 82,500 tons of grain to prepare for famine and war

Almost 200 Pages of Epstein Grand Jury Documents Released

UK To Install Defibrillators in EVERY School Due to Sudden Rise in Heart Problems

Pfizer purchased companies that produce drugs to treat the same conditions caused by covid vaccines

It Now Takes An Annual Income Of $186,000 A Year For Americans To Feel Financially Secure

Houthis Unleash 'Attacks' On Israeli, U.S. And UK Ships; 'Trio Of Evil Hit' | Full Detail

Gaza hospital chief says he was severely tortured in Israeli prisons

I'd like to thank Congress for using my Tax money to buy Zelenskys wife a Bugatti.

Cancer-causing radium detected in US city's groundwater due to landfill teeming with nuclear waste from WWII-era atomic bomb efforts

Tennessee Law Allowing Death Penalty For Pedophiles Goes Into Effect - Only Democrats Oppose It

Meet the NEW Joe Biden! 😂

Bovine Collagen Benefits


World News
See other World News Articles

Title: British Backtrack on Iraq death toll
Source: Independent
URL Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2396031.ece
Published: Mar 27, 2007
Author: Jill Lawless
Post Date: 2007-03-27 06:38:41 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 24558
Comments: 394

British government officials have backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, the BBC reported yesterday.

The Government publicly rejected the findings, published in The Lancet in October. But the BBC said documents obtained under freedom of information legislation showed advisers concluded that the much-criticised study had used sound methods.

The study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence.

The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636.

The conclusion, based on interviews and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the US and British governments. But the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice". Another official said it was "a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-106) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#107. To: BeAChooser (#102)

Iraq was still working with terrorists post 9/11.

Iraq was allowing al-Qaeda to operate freely on Iraqi soil.

Talk about building a foundation of lies...

You can't possibly believe the stuff you post.

Diana  posted on  2007-04-03   17:53:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: Destro, ALL (#99)

The Croatian air traffic controller responsible then "committed suicide" by firing a shotgun blast into his face.

A correction. The person who did this was the chief maintenance officer (in charge of the portable beacon which went missing and which Aviation Week said could have been used to spoof the plane into flying into the mountain like it did) and he shot himself not in the face (which wouldn't be so unusual in a suicide) but in the chest. And he did it before he could be interviewed about the Ron Brown crash.

Then stories spread that ROn Brown had a gunshot to his head. That was BS

Not according to the forensic pathologists who actually saw the wound and x-rays and who have made public statements about the matter. These were some of the finest forensic pathologists in the country at the time.

It all started when Captain Kathleen Janoski, head of the AFIP photo documentation unit, took photos at the examination of Brown's body. She exclaimed in a loud voice that there appeared to be a bullet wound on the top of Brown's head. The wound, which is documented in the pictures she took and that are available on the internet, was "perfectly circular" and "inwardly beveling", which she says led her to that conclusion. According to Janoski, Colonel Gormley, who was in charge of examining Brown's body, told her to "be quiet" and "not to remark about the wound."

Pathologist Lt. Colonel Hause, who was examining another body 2 feet away, heard Janoski's remark and came over to look. Hause, who was considered to be one of the military's leading experts on gunshot wounds at the time, remembers saying "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too."

Gormley called Lt. Colonel Cogswell, an AFIP forensic pathologist and an expert in gunshot, at the crash site. He asked him to search for something that could cause Brown's head wound. According to Cogswell, nothing was found. Cogswell says that when Gormley called, he told Gormley that it sounded more like a gunshot wound and that "this man needs an autopsy."

Yet, Erich Junger, AFIP's chief forensic scientist and who was also present at the examination, was quoted telling the press that a "very reasonable explanation" for the hole was found "when we looked around the aircraft area itself." However, Junger never visited the crash site and since then, Gormley has himself acknowledged that no piece of the aircraft was found to explain the hole.

Despite all the above reasons to question the cause of the wound, Gromley ordered no autopsy. He ruled it death due to blunt force trama. He later indicated in various forums that he ruled out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible and the x-rays showed nothing unusual. But as you'll see, this was a lie.

The official AFIP explanation is that the wound was probably caused by a rivet, rod, or bolt from the airplane wreckage. However, neither Cogswell, who had been involved in more than 100 plane crash investigations, nor Hause, who had been with AFIP for five years, could remember finding a similar wound in a plane crash victim’s head. 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." This hole, however, was not jagged or irregular.

Now here's where it gets even more interesting, Destro.

Janoski has a sworn affidavit saying that six months after Brown's death, she was told by Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was present at the examination of Brown, 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 that Sentell said that 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 its creation.

After talking to Sentell, Janoski says she realized that she had taken slides 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 the pictures and x-rays slides, Cogswell decided that an autopsy should have been performed and began to say so publicly. He even included this case in a talk he gave on "mistakes in forensic pathology" at professional conferences and training courses. He reportedly 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" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain ... both are contrary to what Gormley was then claiming.

On December 5, 1997, AFIP imposed a gag order on Cogswell, forcing him to refer all press inquiries on the Brown case to AFIP's public affairs office. Cogswell was told he could leave his office only with the permission of Dr. Jerry Spencer, Armed Forces Medical Examiner. He was escorted to his house by military police, who, without a warrant, seized all of his case materials on the Brown crash.

On December 9, 1997, Lt. Col. David Hause decided to come forward and publically agreed with Cogswell that an autopsy should have been performed. Hause's eyewitness examination also contradicts Gormley. "What was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain. I didn't remember seeing skull" in the hole, he said. Hause has stated that "by any professional standard" Brown should have received an autopsy and that the AFIP's actions against Cogswell are a classic case of "shooting the messenger."

Before joining AFIP, Hause spent two years as division surgeon for the Army’s 1st Cavalry Division, including duty as a surgeon during the Gulf War. He also served as the Army’s regional medical examiner in Germany. After he 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, had to obtain permission to leave for lunch.

But by then, the photos and the x-ray slides were already in the public domain. And in case you are wondering, Alan Keyes, a spokesman for the AFIP, has acknowledged that the internet photos are legitimate.

On December 11, 1997, despite the gag order, Gormley was allowed to give a live interview on Black Entertainment Television. Members of the black community, who had heard rumors about the possibility of a gun shot wound in Brown's head, had begun to ask for an investigation. This appears to be a clear attempt at "damage control". Gormley immediately attacked the other pathologists. 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 denied that two sets of x-rays existed.

Then, on live TV, he was confronted with a photograph taken during the examination (by Janoski) that showed brain matter visible in the wound. He ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible, excusing his former statements as a memory lapse. He then admitted that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry. Next he was confronted with a copy of Janowski's x-ray slides. He immediately changed his story and claimed 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.

A few years later, Judicial Watch stated in a document submitted to a court that Colonel Gormley now admits 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, he confesses that no autopsy was requested based on "discussions" at the highest levels in Commerce, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Whitehouse.

On January 9, 1998, the Washington Post reported that the 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. According to Cogswell, however, he refused, following the advice of his lawyer, to participate in the review because he thought it would be unfair and biased. He says that most of those participating were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He says that all of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion. Even though Hause and Parsons cooberated Cogswell's version, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly said AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous ... a clear lie.

On January 13, in violation of the gag order, Kathleen Janoski went public. She did this, according to her, for self protection and out of concern for the careers of Cogswell, Hause, and Parsons. Since then she has been interviewed repeatedly and has provided a sworn affidavit regarding what happened (as noted above).

The AFIP now claims that the x-ray film used in the first set of x-rays (i.e., those captured in Janowski's slides) was defective. They say this explains why a second set of x-rays was taken (now the story is that the first set wasn't lost ... just discarded) and why the first x-rays might "appear" to show a lead snowstorm. Janoski responds that the photos she took of other Brown X-rays on the light box do not show any film "defect".

Hause, along with Dr. Jerry Spencer, have confirmed that Brown's x-rays are missing from his case file, as well as the photographs of the x-rays that were stored in a safe and the negatives for those photographs. According to Hause, all that remains of the x-rays are the color slides in Dr. Cogswell's slide presentation and the copy of Brown's head x-ray in the possession of the Tribune-Review. Gormley and the AFIP did not investigate or offer any explanation for how the X-rays or photos disappeared. Gormley now refers calls to Chris Kelly, who simply says that Gormley will not grant additional interviews.

In a press statement, the AFIP reportedly said that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory. Janoski said she was present for the entire examination and did not observe any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue.

Janet Reno 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. However, no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists. The review was conducted by the same AFIP personnel responsible for the decision not to autopsy.

Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski were all reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise and the Government tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences. They had their homes searched without a search warrant and were 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 is "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.

The Accident Investigation Report (produced during the second phase of the normal Air Force crash investigation ... the first phase is the Safety Board, which was suspiciously skipped in the Brown crash) presumes that the cause was "accidental". It does not contain anything regarding the opinions of the pathologists about a bullet wound or the evidence (x-rays, photos) cooberating those opinions. Strange, given that the document is to aid lawyers in any legal matters following a crash. In fact, neither the Brown family or other families were ever told about the possibility of a bullet wound. They had to learn about it years later.

Then, the acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a letter to family members of the air crash victims attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. He wrote that "The reports resulted from the opinion of an Air Force medical examiner who did not personally examine any of the CT-43 casualties. They are his opinions only. The consensus of Col. (Dr.) William Gormley, who personally examined Secretary Brown, and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology forensic community is that Secretary Brown, like the others tragically killed in the plane crash of an Air Force CT-43 aircraft in Croatia on April 3, 1996, died of injuries sustained during the mishap."

However, since all of the pathologists who did examine Brown's body, including Gormley, and all of the pathologists at AFIP with experience in bullet wounds who looked at the photos and x-ray, have now agreed that an autopsy should have been done, this is disinformation ... at best.

He wrote "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." Both statements are demonstrable lies. He wrote "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." Of course, as has already been pointed out, this is also a lie. Medical examiners did not confirm this finding. The photographer who took the pictures says it is untrue and could not be true given that only that one photo of Brown's heads shows the so-called "defect".

He wrote "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." This too is a lie given that calls for an autopsy were voiced at the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing an autopsy have been shown to be bogus ... which Gormley himself admitted on live TV.

Before ending with his "heartfelt apologies," the Peters statement revealed its real purpose: "We hope these actions will preclude credible media from pursuing this story."

Brown's daughter, Tracey, said that the family hired their own forensic pathologist after the bullet wound controversy surfaced and that one of the key reasons they were satisfied that Brown was not shot is that the pathologist told them there was no exit wound. Janoski has testified, however, that Brown's body was never examined or photographed for an exit wound and Gormley admits he didn't look for one.

Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-ray slides and wound photos to Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory. Fackler said "It's round as hell. ... That's unusual except for a gunshot wound." He also said brain matter was visible. "They didn't do an autopsy. My God." he said. He was surprised that the hole was described on Gormley's report as "approximately .5 inches." Using calibrated instruments, he noted it was somewhat smaller than .5 inches, "and a little bit small for a .45-caliber bullet hole." Fackler explained that the skull can be slightly "elastic" and bullet holes can be slightly larger or smaller than the actual bullet caliber. He said the hole was more consistent with a .40-caliber or 10 mm bullet, like those widely used by law enforcement agencies.

Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-rays and photos to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht, a democrat, said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied." Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments". He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone." If the metal is from a bullet, he said the array of fragments would indicate a shot fired before the crash. Wecht said Brown's body was relatively intact. Lacerations were superficial, and other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable.

Given all the above, Destro, do you still want to claim the allegations of a gunshot are just BS and nonsense?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   18:42:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: Morgana le Fay, Destro, ALL (#100)

he explains how rin brown was shot the instant the plane went in and there are even pictures to prove this.

Why do you fear the Ron Brown allegations so much? I said no such thing.

there is an autopsy

Why do you fear the allegations in the Ron Brown case so much? There was NO autopsy.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   18:46:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: Diana, ALL (#104)

In this country, the citizens are still suppose to rule with their majority opinions

No, Diana ... we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   18:48:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: Diana, ALL (#105)

I know full well about American lies since this scumbag of a nation launched 78 days of airstrikes against mostly civilian targets in Serbia.

BAC, can you explain why this was done?

Just check out the timing with respect to other disclosures about Clinton and Clinton administration crimes, Diana.

I'm sure you can figure it out.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   18:49:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: Diana, ALl (#106)

I also used to wonder why anyone would have bothered to shoot Ron Brown in the head when he was going to be dead anyway in the plane crash.

Folks survive plane crashes all the time. This was a low speed impact. The back portion of the plane was even still intact. And in any case, you are avoiding the real issue. The photo, x-ray and what the pathologists say.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   18:51:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: Diana, ALL (#107)

"Iraq was still working with terrorists post 9/11."

"Iraq was allowing al-Qaeda to operate freely on Iraqi soil."

Talk about building a foundation of lies...

You can't possibly believe the stuff you post.

Diana, during the invasion our troops discovered suicide bomb making factories and foreign nationals who said the Iraqis were training terrorists.

We have documents showing that the Iraqi regime was playing catch and release with al-Qaeda terrorists. al-Zarqawi even felt confident enough to meet IN BAGHDAD the terrorists who Jordan eventually caught with the materials they planned to use to kill tens of thousands.

Who really has their head in the sand here, Diana?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   18:57:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#114. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#108)

The official AFIP explanation is that the wound was probably caused by a rivet, rod, or bolt from the airplane wreckage.

The problem with shooting Ron Brown in the head is that the plane is packed and the shooter can't get away as the plane goes down. Even if he pulled a DB Cooper and jumped out he would be landing in an area that would probably kill or cripple him regardless.

Therefore the plausible explanation is that the head wound was a result of the crash. But putting out a flase story that he mayhve been shot makes all who question the crash look like loons.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   19:01:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#110) (Edited)

No, Diana ... we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.

Let me know when congress declares war and makes this war legal.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   19:02:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#111)

Just check out the timing with respect to other disclosures about Clinton and Clinton administration crimes, Diana.

Bush fully supported the bombings over the Republican party's objections.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   19:03:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#112)

Folks survive plane crashes all the time. This was a low speed impact. The back portion of the plane was even still intact. And in any case, you are avoiding the real issue. The photo, x-ray and what the pathologists say.

NO ONE SURVIVED THAT PLANE CRASH!! Hence the shooter died as well and Ron Brown would have been shot in front of terrified business reps he brought with him. And if any survived they would have had to have been shot as well. Thus I don't think Ron Brown was shot to t he head - though I think he was murdered. Then they get their honey pot stories out to lure in teh conspiracy flies who will muck up any investigation because now diging for this truth makes you seem looney.

This was an impact on the side of a mountain - they did not skid to a stop it was a full frontal impact.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   19:08:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#118. To: BeAChooser, Diana, (#113)

We have documents showing that the Iraqi regime was playing catch and release with al-Qaeda terrorists.

When can we bomb DC? America was fully funding al-Qaeda linked armies in the Balkans. Let me know when war will come against the real people spreading al- Qaeda like jihad - Pakistanis and Saudis and Americans in the State Dept.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   19:10:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#119. To: BeAChooser (#103)

I'm glad to see you hold America in high esteem

You are wrong - I don't hold this nation in esteem at all nor it's citizens except for a handful - myself included in the exception.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   19:32:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#120. To: Destro, Diana, ALL (#114)

The problem with shooting Ron Brown in the head is that the plane is packed and the shooter can't get away as the plane goes down.

Aren't you getting the cart before the horse?

All of a sudden, it seems you don't want to know what the pathologists said?

They said it looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied.

If an exhumation and autopsy revealed that it was, then what?

Would you still just say Brown couldn't be shot because the plane was packed and the shooter couldn't get away?

Now as to that claim ... since you want to speculate ... let's note a few other facts that might be pertinent.

They don't really know who was on the plane since the passenger manifest just happened to get lost.

Something clearly happened on that plane long before it just "accidently" crashed into the mountain. When it was still 8 miles from the crash site both an AWACS and the airports in the area simultaneously lost both voice and transponder contact with the plane. And about that time, there was an odd jog in the flight path of the plane ... which to this day has also not been explained. Just ignored.

Do you know that the rear door of the aircraft was found open when rescuers first arrived at the crash site? Given that, could someone have jumped out of the plane before it crashed? Perhaps after setting off a small bomb to take out the communications on the plane? Also, the hand gun of Brown's bodyguard was never located at the crash site. It just disappeared.

And why do you assume Brown was killed while in flight? I've never insisted on that. If this was a plot to spoof the plane into hitting a mountain, the perpetrators would know where the plane was going to hit. It wouldn't be that hard to have someone on the ground at that location make sure that everyone was dead. With that in mind, note the following. Although the crash occurred within two miles of the airport, it "officially" took at least 7 hours for the U.S. Air Force to arrive. This was reportedly hours after the Croatians had reached the crash site. But curiously, an Associated Press report stated that the first Croatian rescuers were met by three Americans who were already on the ground. Hmmmmmm...

After the crash, businesses that had employees on the plane were told there were no survivors. Later, they were told there was one (Sergeant Kelly). However, a Commerce Department document uncovered by Judicial Watch indicated that two (2) people survived the impact. The document, a chronology of events, was prepared for Secretary of State Warren Christopher. The log included the following item 40 minutes after the wreckage was discovered: "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash." The government has never mentioned in any forum the second survivor. Why is that? The log also indicates that 45 minutes after notification of two survivors, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott asked that a TV crew "not film at the crash site." The request was granted without any explanation from the State Department as to why it was made. In fact, a State Department spokesperson was quoted as saying it would be "a waste of taxpayers' money" to respond to questions raised by the log.

Do you know that Ira Sockowitz was supposed to be on the Brown flight but missed it for some "unspecified" reason? Amazing how he was still able to get to the crash site in time to be the point man for sending information back regarding the two survivors. And, by the way, Ira Sockowitz was an associate of John Huang (a known Chinese spy) and is himself implicated in illegally obtaining Secret materials while at Commerce (another matter never pursued by the RENO DOJ).

The Croatian Ministry Of Transportation announced shortly after 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 states, "Chief of protocol Misetic called...The flight data recorder has been recovered." Then, a week later, the Air Force said the plane had no black boxes and that some boxes that looked exactly like the recorders had been found instead. The problem with this scenario is that flight recorders are designed to be unique in appearance and the people in Croatia who reported finding them were certainly qualified to know what one looks like.

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, had carried the Secretary of Defense. Regulations require that the First Lady and Cabinet Members only fly on aircraft with black boxes. Curiously, noone was ever punished for this "violation" of regulations.

You see, Destro, this incident is full of facts with which to speculate.

Therefore the plausible explanation is that the head wound was a result of the crash. But putting out a flase story that he mayhve been shot makes all who question the crash look like loons.

The only indisputable facts are that TRAINED, EXPERIENCED forensic pathologists ... some of the best in the country at the time ... concluded that what they saw was indicative of a gunshot wound. Yet there was no autopsy. And now you seem desperate to ignore that fact. Curious ...

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   20:22:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#121. To: Destro, ALL (#115)

Let me know when congress declares war

Let me know when you find the section in the Constitution where it defines how Congress is to declare war.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   20:25:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#122. To: Destro, ALL (#116)

Bush fully supported the bombings over the Republican party's objections.

I've never said that Bush is a good guy.

In fact, I'm on record stating that he's complicit in the coverup of the crimes committed by the Clinton administration.

And that would include suspicions about the death of Ron Brown.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   20:27:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#123. To: Destro, ALL (#117)

NO ONE SURVIVED THAT PLANE CRASH!!

Not true. Ira Sockowitz reported back to the State Department that there were TWO SURVIVORS. Sergeant Kelly was alive after the crash by most accounts. And Dr Wecht stated that Ron Brown's wounds (other than the head wound) were survivable.

Hence the shooter died as well

You assume the shooter was on the plane. That may be a false assumption. And you ignore the open door the rescuers found in the rear portion of the plane. You just seem desperate to avoid the facts and conclusions of the most expert people in this instance ... the forensic pathologists.

Thus I don't think Ron Brown was shot to t he head

It doesn't matter what you think. That's IRRELEVANT. What matters is what the experts in such things ... the forensic pathologists ... say the wound said to them ... what the photo and x-ray of the wound say to other pathologists who didn't see it first hand. And they all say (except for a couple of proven liars) that the wound is suspicious and that Brown should have been autopsied. And that fact puts all the other facts surrounding the case into a different light.

though I think he was murdered.

Now you have me confused as to what you believe, Destro. Murdered how, when and by whom?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   20:36:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#124. To: Destro, ALL (#119)

I don't hold this nation in esteem at all nor it's citizens except for a handful - myself included in the exception.

ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   20:38:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#125. To: BeAChooser (#109)

on lp you said there were photos of the bullet hole. which were lost of course. you also said he was shot right before the plane went in. someone even asked you why they bothered to shoot the guy if the plane was going to crash. why don't you tell us the whole story. it sounds really kookey.

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   21:12:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#126. To: BeAChooser (#123)

Now you have me confused as to what you believe, Destro. Murdered how, when and by whom?

is he really murdered if bill clinton had him brought back to life as a zombie?

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   21:13:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#127. To: BeAChooser (#121)

Let me know when you find the section in the Constitution where it defines how Congress is to declare war.

i assume you can't say that congress would declare war the same way it conducts every other piece of business. and has conducted every other piece of business for for the past 230 years.

pass a bill.

this is probably very inconvenient to the propaganda you are trying to push.

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   21:17:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#128. To: Morgana le Fay, Destro, ALL (#125)

you said there were photos of the bullet hole. which were lost of course.

No, I said there are photos of the wound that pathologists said looks like a bullet wound published on the internet.

And there are.

And I noted that the original photos from which those images came have disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP.

And they have. The government admits this. And then ignores it.

you also said he was shot right before the plane went in

No, I did not.

I said he MIGHT have been shot before the plane went down.

I also said he MIGHT have been shot after the crash.

I said the only way to know for sure IF he was shot at all would be to exhume the body and do an autopsy.

Why do you fear the Ron Brown case so much that you consistently mischaracterize my statements and views?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   21:25:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#129. To: Morgana le Fay, Destro, ALL (#127)

i assume you can't say that congress would declare war the same way it conducts every other piece of business. and has conducted every other piece of business for for the past 230 years.

pass a bill.

How about one titled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502). It was passed by the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16.

The resolution cited many factors to justify action in Iraq:

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors

* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"

* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"

* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"

* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War

* Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq"

* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations

* Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States

* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them

* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism

* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement

The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Seems to me the war in Iraq is legal by your definition.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   21:36:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#130. To: BeAChooser (#129)

you are spinning again, but that is to be expected.

there was no un security council resolution. bush utterly humiliated himself trying to get one, but couldn't he lacked three votes. bush also cut the inspections short. 114 authorized enforcement of security councel resolutions or defence of national security. as the bush government has told us, there was no threat, the wmd's only existed in the stories the bush admin fed to guys like you. look at the silly articles you are forced to quote to keep your kooky propaganda here alive.

here is the resoluton:

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   22:03:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#131. To: BeAChooser (#129)

i notice that you couldn't post the full resolution as it contradicted what you claimed above. you could only cherry pick from the recitals. and you didn't quote them correctly.

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   22:04:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#132. To: BeAChooser (#128)

also recall that bush was expected to go back to congress and get a second war authorization before going into iraq. bush didn't do this because he feared he would be TURNED DOWN as he was in the UN. instead, he used fox news to fool guys like you into thinking the resolution above was sufficient.

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   22:07:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#133. To: BeAChooser (#129)

this sort of blatent dishonesty is the reason you are a laughing stock both here and on LP. it is also the reason that the republicans lost the last election and now stand in ruins with a 29% approval rate. it is why fox news is losing viewers and why 50% of the country identifies with the democrats and only 35% identify with the republicans. people are sick of the type of sleaze you, your party and your country push.

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   22:10:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#134. To: BeAChooser (#129)

Except for the fact that Congress's own investigation showed that Iraq was no threat to the USA and that Saddam was not in league with AQ and that GWB used false intel to suggest the case was otherwise.

If GWB and Cheney had any sense of decency, they would have resigned their positions. If they worked in private industry, their resignations for such grievous errors would have been demanded by the Board of Directors on the spot.

You might not be so pumped up about GWB's right to abuse Congressional permission to wage war if it were Israel rather than Iraq that was the unlucky victim of erroneous ( can you say manufactured?) WMD intel.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-03   22:13:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#135. To: BeAChooser (#113)

We have documents showing that the Iraqi regime was playing catch and release with al-Qaeda terrorists. al-Zarqawi even felt confident enough to meet IN BAGHDAD the terrorists who Jordan eventually caught with the materials they planned to use to kill tens of thousands.

No, NewsMax told you you and other gullible goobers that it had seen these sorts of things, and that "unnamed sources" reported such things, and it it all crap. That is why the Duelfer report and all respectable media outlets call this sort of shit "debunked".

If a shred of the NewsMax crap you spew were true, Bush would be on TV tonight repeating it and saving his Presidency. Instead, he slides down the tubes because of Iraq.

And if a shred of this crap were true, why does it only come out in the Republican goob fooler press targeted at easly led morons like yourself?

Surely there are some dark conspiracies at work here. Do you suppose Ron Brown is at the bottom of it all?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-03   22:23:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#136. To: BeAChooser (#120)

The stuff you are spewing above is only published in third tier goob fooler rags targeted to conspiracy kooks such as yourself.

If you sit around reading this nutter stuff all day, you start spewing nut ball conspiracies like you just did here.

Do you have a shred of evidence for the SHIT that you just spewed above that comes out of a respectable publication? Or is it all NewsMax spew?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-03   22:26:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#137. To: BeAChooser (#121)

And please don't quote the National Enquirer or the UFO magazines at me.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-03   22:27:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#138. To: BeAChooser (#129)

Don't you find it odd that there are absolutely no respectable sources for the shit you spew? And the that only people who seem to support you on it are kooks over on FR?

And don't you find it odd that you must constantly invent new and ever more looney conspiracy theories to explain this?

Either everyone in the world is a kook except you, or it is the other way around. Occums razor should tell you something here.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-03   22:30:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#139. To: BeAChooser, SkyDrifter, Diana (#95)

BAC!!! you have not yet defended yourself from the 'treasonous queer' charge. This apparently means that you accept the charges. You are a TREASONOUS QUEER. You pay Jeff Gannon for a date just like George Bush does. and you are a traitor too.

It is very hard on your fans that you do not defend yourself from these charges.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-03   23:45:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#140. To: BeAChooser (#121)

Let me know when you find the section in the Constitution where it defines how Congress is to declare war.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   23:46:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#141. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser (#125) (Edited)

An interim report on the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   23:47:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#142. To: BeAChooser (#121)

Let me know when you find the section in the Constitution where it defines how Congress is to declare war.

"How" Congress is to declare war?

ROTFLOL!!

This is the most lame spin you've come out with yet.

You know you can't honestly quote 114 as it doesn't support your argument. You know that Bush was supposed to return for a war resolution but didn't bother after the UN slapped him down. You know that Bush had to then stretch and misinterpret 114 to find the authority to go in.

To avoid these inconvenient fact, you are now claiming that there are many, many ways for Congress to authorize war. Holding up two fingers when Bush walks past, crossing their legs in the chamber, coughing three times, etc.

You are a real piece of work.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-03   23:53:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#143. To: BeAChooser, Morgana le Fay (#129)

The resolution cited many factors to justify action in Iraq:

All of them Bullshit.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   23:56:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#144. To: BeAChooser (#128) (Edited)

I said he MIGHT have been shot before the plane went down.

I also said he MIGHT have been shot after the crash.

I say the more plausible because it is less complicated explanation is that the method of murder was the crash of the airplane.

By the way I refreshed my memory on the subject. I provided a link which I like because it does not mention any nonsense as a head shot. If I see mention of a head shot I think disinfo attempt.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   0:02:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#145. To: ..., BeAChooser (#142)

How" Congress is to declare war?

Yea, it's not like Congress ever declared war before.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   0:04:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#146. To: BeAChooser, Morgana le Fay (#129)

It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Iraq posed no threat.

The UN did not authorize force to enforce its resolutions.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   0:08:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#147. To: All, BeAChooser (#113)

To All: Watch Choose shuck and Jive and refuse to answer the question.

If a shred of chooser's WMD spew were true, Bush could get up on National TV tonight and save his Presidency with it. Instead, Bush circles the hole in the toilet and waits for the last big slurp.

If a shred of chooser's Al Qaeda in Iraq spew were true, Bush could get up on National TV tonight and save his Presidency with it. Instead, Bush circles the hole in the toilet and waits for the last big slurp.

If a shred of choosers Ron Brown kookery was true, Bush could get up on National TV tonight and save his Presidency with it. Instead, Bush circles the hole in the toilet and waits for the last big slurp. In addition, Star, who was somewhat hard up for a charge, could have put Clinton in jail with it.

Chooser simply has no answer to these questions that he can give us. He does have an answer, but the answer is a completely nutty and and utterly silly conspiracy theory and chooser knows that he would be held up to ridicule for years to come if he told it to us.

Hence, chooser ignores questions like the ones above.

Chooser, if your spew has any merit at all, why doesn't Bush get up on national TV and save himself with it? Why is it only pushed by NewsMax and internet kooks such as yourself?

Tell us your nutty conspiracy theory for why Bush does not use your spew to save himself.

(I know you will ignore this, but I enjoy poking you with this subject.)

.

...  posted on  2007-04-04   0:11:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (148 - 394) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]