Time: Sun Dec 14 20:34:18 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: "Coverup and Coercion," Washington Weekly Cc: Bcc: sls References: <snip> > >Wow. This is quite long, but well worth the time. > >The Washington Weekly >December 15, 1997 > >COVERUP AND COERCION--Things The Media Would Rather Not Tell Us > >By Edward Zehr > >Did Lt. Col. Cogswell of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology mention >that embarrassing hole in the head of the late Ron Brown? At the time of >his death, Brown was Clinton's Secretary of Commerce and up to his ears >in criminal investigations that were potentially disastrous to the >administration. And did the colonel even go so far as to suggest that >the hole looked rather like a bullet wound? > >Never mind, the bureaucracy have ways of handling such awkward >situations. Exhume the body? Perform an autopsy and determine what >actually caused the wound? No need for that -- that would be doing it >the hard way. All the bureaucrats really need to do is silence Cogswell, >search his home and seize any evidence he might have that would support >his allegations. That way, if citizens should be so gauche as to ask >inconvenient questions they can be told, without fear of contradiction, >that Cogswell can't prove a thing. > >Did James Sanders obtain samples of fabric from the seats on TWA-800 and >have them analyzed, showing that the residue found on them contained the >ingredients one might expect to find in rocket fuel? No problem -- just >wait until Sanders gives his remaining samples to CBS "News" -- they'll >be off in a shot to hand it all over to the FBI and tattle anything >Sanders may have told them. It's not as though they had the slightest >curiosity about what was in the residue. What do you think they are, >reporters? The government will tell them anything they need to know. And >even if they fail to tell us about it, they will only be misleading us >for our own good. The shills at CBS have the old three-monkey drill down >to perfection, but then they've been practicing it for a very long time >-- remember Camelot? > >Of course, journalists such as Sanders can be quite a nuisance. They >distract the public's attention from the work of mainstream reporters >who adhere to the correct procedure -- sitting up on their haunches, >with their front paws primly folded in a mendicant posture, like >faithful little puppy dogs, and waiting patiently for table scraps to be >thrown them by the bureaucracy. Why -- what do you expect them to do -- >the difficult work of a reporter? These are college grads, I'll have you >know. They cannot be expected to do menial labor. > >There are ways of handling troublemakers such as Sanders. For example, >he can be arrested on trumped-up charges of "stealing" evidence, and, >for good measure, the guy's wife can be arrested as well. The prospect >of a stiff 10- year stretch in the slam ought to soften them up a bit. >The Gestapo found such methods to be quite effective. It goes without >saying that anyone with so much as half a brain will realize that they >are being punished for attempting to learn the truth, but don't worry, >the prevailing public attitude -- so what, who cares? -- will carry the >day. > >Mind you, one must be wary of uppity jurors who have the temerity to use >their minds instead of just blindly obeying the rules. A recalcitrant >jury recently refused to convict Carol Howe, after the feds had gone to >a great deal of trouble trumping up evidence against her for telling >tales out of school about how they had blown (so to speak) the big sting >operation in Oklahoma. And then ABC went and put her on "Prime Time >Live." What's gotten into those guys at ABC? Just the previous week they >did a special on Seymour Hersh's scandalous revelations about JFK. Is >nothing sacred? Where are the Keepers of the Flame now that we need >them? Roone Arledge, call your office. > >THE BUDDY SYSTEM > >As though that were not enough, Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post's >"media critic," weighed in last week with a piece on the "Demise of a >Buddy System." The reference is to what Kurtz described as a "cozy >culture in which writers were not embarrassed to ingratiate themselves >with the president." > >Do tell. What I find noteworthy in this is not the revelation that there >was fraternization between the press and the prez. That was, after all, >just a step beyond the far side of screamingly obvious to anyone who >viewed the political tableau with aught else than the rose colored specs >thoughtfully provided by the mainstream media. No, what has me bemused >is, why a nice media critic like Howie Kurtz is telling us all this a >scant 30 years or so after the fact. Why, the dust has scarcely had time >to settle. > >Perhaps the most telling comment in Kurtz's piece is a quotation from a >book by Michael Beschloss, titled "Taking Charge," of a statement made >by Marshall McNeil, a reporter for Scripps Howard Newspapers, to Lyndon >Johnson, who was at the time the President of the United States: "I >thought you were just cuter than a pig on that television last night.... >I get prouder of you -- damn your ornery hide, Mr. President -- day by >day." > >What's missing from this statement? Is it the respectful distance that >one expects a journalist to maintain when addressing a national leader >who also happens to be the object of the reporter's professional >evaluation, or is it perhaps the cutthroat adversarial relationship that >mainstream journalists have always assured us they maintain with respect >to all government officials? > >"The conversation," Kurtz informs us, "was not atypical of the >pre-Watergate era, when relations between the White House and the Fourth >Estate were far less adversarial." > >I don't mean to be contentious, but what about the female reporter who >is said to have been sleeping with the current occupant of the Oval >Office? That doesn't sound very "adversarial" to me. Wait, don't tell me >-- I am prescient about such things. This is just another of those >unfounded rumors that seem to stick to this president the way crazy glue >sticks to velcro, right? I suspected as much. I won't give it another >thought -- until the next time it turns up on the Net. > >Or consider this encomium, delivered by Joseph Alsop who had advised LBJ >on how to handle his endorsement of a commission to investigate the >death of his predecessor, Kennedy: "You've already made a marvelous >start. You haven't put a damned foot one quarter of an inch wrong, and >I've never seen anything like it." > >Given the atmosphere of adulation exuded by the national press, it is >hardly surprising that they neglected to inform us of a few tacky little >details about LBJ, such as the fact that he had been getting payoffs >from the Carlos Marcello organization, which was at that time the Gulf >coast branch of the Mafia. According to David Scheim ("Contract on >America"), mob payoffs to Johnson have been confirmed by at least two >witnesses. Dallas gangster Jack Halfen gave incriminating information on >Johnson to U.S. Marshal J. Neal Matthews in 1956. Halfen disclosed that >a gambling network controlled by organized crime "had given $500,000 in >cash and campaign contributions to Johnson over a ten year period while >Johnson was in the Senate," according to Scheim. > >What did Johnson have to do for that kind of money? Not much, really. >When anti-racketeering legislation came up in the Senate, he used his >position as Majority Leader to have it killed. And if that could not be >arranged, he saw to it that the bill was watered down. He also diverted >congressional investigations into organized crime. The Kefauver >committee, which investigated the Mob during the '50s, never made it to >Dallas. For that matter, they also bypassed Bill Clinton's home town, >Hot Springs, Arkansas (for which the Mob can thank the late Sen. >McClellan). > >Jack Sullivan, once an administrative assistant to Sen. Daniel Brewster >of Maryland also testified that Johnson had taken payoffs from the Mob. >Brewster was indicted by a Baltimore grand jury in 1969 for corruption, >and convicted. > >Robert Caro, author of "The Years of Lyndon Johnson," a monumental >biography of the former president, two volumes of which have been >published thus far, wrote in the Atlantic Monthly: > >"For years, men came into Lyndon Johnson's office and handed him >envelopes stuffed with cash. They didn't stop coming even when the >office in which he sat was the office of the Vice President of the >United States. Fifty thousand dollars (in hundred-dollar bills in sealed >envelopes) was what one lobbyist -- for one oil company -- testified >that he brought to Johnson's office during his term as Vice President." > >Johnson's position became perilous when his secretary Bobby Baker was >forced to resign after being charged with corruption. Baker stonewalled >it during Senate hearings, taking the Fifth rather than rat out his >former chief, LBJ. The damage Baker might have done to Johnson was >suggested in a book, "The Washington Payoff" by former Washington >lobbyist Robert Winter-Berger, who happened to witness the following >tirade by Johnson while visiting the office of House Speaker John >McCormack. Johnson stormed into McCormack's office and, without seeming >to notice Winter-Berger, bellowed: > >"John, that [obscene reference to Baker deleted] is going to ruin me. If >that [expletive deleted] talks, I'm gonna land in jail... I practically >raised that [expletive deleted], and now he's gonna make me the first >President of the United States to spend the last days of his life behind >bars." > >This little speech was noted by National Review at the time the book was >published and ignored by practically every other media outlet in the >country. Johnson was later to be opposed for reelection by Barry >Goldwater, a man the media loved to hate. It seems the Mafia is not the >only organization that observes the law of omerta (silence). Apparently >the mainstream media would rather be ruled by the Mob than governed by a >conservative. > >There is a little more involved in the media's behavior towards Lyndon >Johnson than the shameless toadying portrayed by Kurtz. They were >helping to cover up the massive corruption of the Johnson administration >-- and they're still at it. Although mainstream media publications such >as The Washington Post were instrumental in exposing the Bobby Baker >scandal, they were careful to keep Johnson insulated from any hint of >corruption. No doubt they would have us believe that they really didn't >know about all that at the time. But that doesn't explain why they still >refuse to talk about it. When the second volume of Caro's book was >published, which hardly reveals more than the tip of the iceberg, it was >savagely attacked by columnists at the Post. Because LBJ's agenda was >politically correct they apparently expect us to overlook the fact that >Johnson took envelopes full of cash from the Mafia. > >Ah, but they've changed -- or so Mr. Kurtz would have us believe. Notice >the implication of his statement: > >"The conversation was not atypical of the pre-Watergate era, when >relations between the White House and the Fourth Estate were far less >adversarial." > >But the press have turned over a new leaf, Kurtz would have us know: > >"Once the Vietnam War began to turn sour, so did Johnson's relations >with many journalists. And White House coverage was never again so >chummy after the Nixon presidency." > >Get it? They were willing to lie and dissemble for the ornery critter so >long as his policies were in line with their own deeply felt prejudice, >but Vietnam changed all that. What reason is there to believe that >people who are so profoundly dishonest and lacking in personal integrity >are capable of changing? These people have no incentive to change -- >their intellectual iniquity has been richly rewarded. The only thing >that might bring about change in their deceitful behavior would be a >reassertion of their own standards of personal integrity, but they have >repeatedly and resoundingly demonstrated that they do not have any such >standards. > >Isn't that why, when Seymour Hersh's book appeared, the mainstream press >immediately took out after Hersh, pointing out that a few of the >documents he had originally used as background information were obvious >forgeries? The part of the story that sort of dropped down through the >cracks is the fact that Hersh himself withdrew the material from his >manuscript when he learned that the documents were false -- all of this >took place before publication. > >Old habits die hard. It is obvious that the kneejerk response of the >mainstream press continues to be a swift kick aimed at anyone who dares >to look askance at one of their icons. The fact remains that our vaunted >"free" press lied brazenly to us about the Kennedy administration and, >even after 34 years have passed, they refuse to make a credible effort >to set the record straight regarding the fantasy of Camelot which they >created, in collusion with the Kennedy machine. The recent documentary >aired by ABC is a laudable exception to the continuing mendacity of the >mainstream media on this issue. > >So, what is all of this leading up to? Howie seems to have set the stage >for the main topic of his piece by implying that whereas the mainstream >press have lied like dogs in the past, we can now trust them implicitly. >It would seem that the object of this all too brief visit to the >confessional was to lighten the burden of past sins as a way of getting >ready for Ruddy. Investigative reporter Christopher Ruddy seems to evoke >deep- seated guilt feelings in the flinty hearts of mainstream >journalists, if only because he continues to do the job they are unable >or afraid to do. Obviously the man has become a nuisance and must be >made to atone for the inconvenience he has caused his professional >inferiors. > >READY FOR RUDDY? > >Under the rubric of "Ruddy Redux," Mr. Kurtz begins by telling us: > >"For those who might be depressed about the fading conspiracy theories >involving the death of Vincent Foster, take heart. Now a conservative >newspaper is raising questions about the death of Ron Brown." > >There is a wealth of innuendo in that opening sentence. First there is >the insinuation that anyone who does not accept the preposterous notions >advanced in the official version of Vincent Foster's death is, at the >very least, neurotic. (Perhaps this is intended to mask the fact that >Kurtz has not been man enough to even discuss the Foster case in public, >preferring to make his points, such as they are, with snide, hit-and-run >insults such as this one). Then there is the assertion that the >controversy over Foster's death is fading. By what criteria? Talk radio >has been inundated recently with interviews of Ruddy and Patrick >Knowlton, whose lawsuit against the government is still pending. The >Internet has been clogged with messages regarding the Foster case and >Ruddy's book appears to be headed for the best seller list. This does >not even take account of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's new book which deals >extensively with the Foster case, or the book that investigative >reporter Dan Moldea is said to be writing about Foster's death. > >But those who work the one-way street of the mainstream media do not >have to worry too much about back-sass. If the relevant facts prove >uncongenial to Kurtz's thesis he is at liberty to ignore them. He >couldn't get away with that on Internet, but print media journalists >have the option of creating their own cozy fantasy world when the real >world proves a bit too harsh to accommodate their limited reasoning >ability. If Kurtz prefers to believe that the folks at the Pittsburgh >Tribune-Review are the only ones interested in the irregularities >surrounding the death of Ron Brown he is free to do so in his >solipsistic fantasy world. Of course this does not square too well with >the fact that both the Associated Press and United Press International >carried the story last week, but since when are print journalists >required to make sense? > >After ringing the obligatory bells and tooting the traditional whistles >regarding "conspiracy theories" and "the media food chain," Kurtz gets >around to telling us that, "Outlandish as it sounds," the story is not >based on anonymous sources, but derives from Ruddy's interview with Lt. >Col. Steve Cogswell, a deputy medical examiner with the Armed Forces >Institute of Pathology. > >Just as a matter of curiosity, why does the story sound so "outlandish" >to Kurtz? I would think that such stories were becoming quite >commonplace inside the Beltway. First Vince Foster turns up in the >shrubbery with a hole in his head, then Admiral Boorda "shoots himself" >because Newsweek didn't like the way he wore his medals, then a Commerce >Department employee, Barbara Wise, is found dead in her office amidst >rumors that she shared a suite of offices (and a shredding machine) with >John Huang, and now it turns out that her boss, Ron Brown, who was >ostensibly killed in an air crash while under investigation for >corruption, also has a hole in his head that some say resembles a bullet >wound. > >The biggest mystery of all is why Mr. Kurtz would find it outlandish >that anyone should find this, well -- outlandish. One would think that >it were a matter of routine for Commerce Department employees to find a >corpse or two in the office when they arrive for work in the morning -- >especially after a long week-end. And, as for admirals, best that you >not stare too fixedly at the medals they are wearing -- you know how >sensitive they are. This particular admiral had cited deep differences >he had with the Clinton administration in a conversation with a >colleague, who admonished him not to resign. It seems that by acceding >too readily to Clinton's politically correct agenda and sacrificing the >careers of key officers for the sake of political expediency, Boorda had >forfeited the respect of his fellow officers. I don't suppose that could >have had anything to do... Naah -- must have been the medals. > >Noting that Col. Cogswell said the "circular hole" in Brown's head >resembled a .45 caliber gunshot wound, Kurtz was quick to identify "one >problem" with the story: "Cogswell never actually examined the body." > >Kurtz goes on to cite Col. William Gormley (he's the one wearing the >white hat), who maintained that Brown died from injuries sustained in >the air crash and dismissed the possibility of a gunshot wound because >he had not noticed an exit wound. Of course Gormley was the officer >responsible for concluding that Brown's death was accidental. I wonder >if Kurtz has any inkling of the "merde-orage" (pardon my French) that >would ensue if Gormley now reversed himself and allowed that, come to >think of it, the hole in Brown's skull probably is a bullet-wound after >all? I have to assume that Kurtz was never in the military, otherwise it >surely would have occurred to him that Gormley is anything but an >objective, disinterested party at this stage of the game. > >And then, as if to settle the matter once and for all, Kurtz produced >the statement of "an Army spokesman" who said with a definitive air of >finality, "this is a closed case." Excuse me, but one other little >problem has cropped up quite recently. I quote from a UPI story dated >December 9." > >"A published report says a second Armed Forces medical examiner says the >corpse of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown seemed to have a bullet hole in >the top of the head." > >Oops -- this could prove downright embarrassing. According to the >report, U.S. Army Lt. Col. David Hause told the Pittsburgh >Tribune-Review that he saw what appeared to be a bullet wound in Brown's >head, "supporting the account of forensic pathologist examiner Air Force >Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell." > >Hause told reporter Chris Ruddy that several of the allegations made by >Cogswell and reported in a previous Tribune-Review article are true. He >also criticized the military for its treatment of Cogswell following >publication of the article. > >While it is true that Cogswell was not present when the wound in Brown's >head was examined, Hause was there -- his examination table was two >tables away from the one where Brown's body lay. According to Hause, >somebody said, "Gee, this looks like a gunshot wound," causing a >"commotion." At that point Hause walked over to the table on which Brown >was laid out and examined the wound. > >Hause said that the wound "looked like a punched-out .45-caliber >entrance hole." He recalls saying to those crowding around the table, >"Sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." Hause told >Ruddy that he did not discuss the wound with Col. Gormley. > >Neither Hause nor Cogswell, who has been involved in over 100 aircraft >accident investigations, could recall seeing such a wound in the head of >a plane crash victim prior to this incident. Hause has five years >experience with AFIP and is considered one of their foremost experts on >gunshot wounds. Both agreed that it was possible for parts of the >aircraft to pierce the skull, but said that such an object would likely >leave a jagged or irregular hole after exiting the wound. > >Gormley maintains that since Brown was a civilian, he had no authority >to order an autopsy, absent the suspicion of foul play. Cogswell >disputes this, saying that the nature of the wound should have triggered >an autopsy in view of the implication that Brown's death may have been a >homicide. As a cabinet officer, Brown is covered by the Presidential >Assassination Statute. > >While agreeing that professional standards dictate that an autopsy be >performed in such circumstances, Hause told Ruddy that he understood >"political and administrative" factors made this difficult. Hause >characterized Gormley as a competent pathologist, but described his >experience as being more in the area of airplane crashes than gunshot >wounds. Hause, on the other hand, has both professional and personal >experience with this type of wound, having received the Purple Heart in >Vietnam. He subsequently became a pathologist and has been involved in >autopsy procedures since 1972. He served for a time as the Army's >regional medical examiner in Germany. > >The crux of the argument seems to hinge upon the severity of the wound. >Gormley asserted that the hole had "no open communication with the >inside of the head," that is, the hole did not penetrate the skull -- >the punched out bone had simply been depressed into the skull, covering >the brain. Had the hole penetrated the skull all the way to the brain, >Gormley told the Tribune- Review, that would have raised suspicion. > >Both Cogswell and Hause contradict Gormley on this point. "What was >immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain. I didn't >remember seeing skull," Hause told the Tribune-Review. Cogswell said >that an X-ray, taken from the side, shows the "bone plug" displaced into >the brain. This was confirmed by another expert consulted by the paper. > >Cogswell also told of seeing an X-ray that showed tiny metallic >fragments imbedded within Brown's head, which he characterized as a >"lead snowstorm" such as might be produced by a disintegrating bullet. >That X-ray is now missing, according to Cogswell, however, he has a >photographic image of the X-ray, and so does the Tribune-Review. > >As a matter of fact, according to Cogswell, all of the X-rays of Brown's >head have disappeared. Hause confirms this, noting that when he and a >colleague were asked to review Brown's file, they went through all of >the X-rays, and found that there were none of Brown's head. Sound >familiar? All the X-rays of Vince Foster were missing as well (as were >most of the crime scene photos). The reason given was that the medical >examiner's X-ray machine was broken, so he did not take any. But >maintenance records do not support this explanation. Furthermore, the >medical examiner had indicated X-rays were taken in the official >document he filled out. > >But why make the originals disappear if photos of the X-rays exist? The >official explanation of the "lead storm" in Brown's head is that it is >an illusion "caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassette," >according to the Air Force. Without the original X-ray negatives, there >is no way to check this contention. It has become, more or less, >standard procedure to explain inconvenient images that show up on >photographs as "scratches" or "defects" in the film. The FBI used the >same "explanation" in the TWA-800 investigation. One can but wonder why >such "defects" keep showing up at strategic locations in the very photos >that the authorities find most awkward to explain. > >Hause does not believe that the AFIP has reacted in an appropriate >manner to the questions raised by Cogswell. "It looks like the AFIP is >starting its usual procedure of, upon receiving bad news, immediately >shooting the messenger," he told Ruddy, referring to the repressive >action the Air Force has taken against Cogswell since the story broke. > >A little more than a week ago, Cogswell was given written orders that >forbad him to discuss Brown's death with the press. He was informed at >the time that he was the subject of a "command investigation" conducted >by the Air Force. Later the same day, military police arrived at >Cogswell's office to escort him to his home, which they methodically >tore apart in their search for additional evidence that might prove >detrimental to the coverup. It goes without saying they did not have a >warrant. > >Cogswell is presently restricted, while on duty, to the floor on which >his office is located. He is not even allowed to leave for lunch without >permission. According to a source within the AFIP, the punitive measures >taken against Cogswell are "unheard of for a ranking military officer." > >In effect, Cogswell has been placed under house arrest for daring to >tell the truth about what must seem to him to be the possible coverup of >a homicide involving a member of Clinton's cabinet. It would seem that >Cogswell has a measure of personal integrity and civil courage that his >immediate superiors clearly lack. That is disturbing. If military >officers are prepared to send men to their deaths in combat, shouldn't >they be equally ready to put their careers on the line rather than >dishonor themselves by participating in an obstruction of justice? > >As for the mainstream press, the concepts of honor and personal >integrity are so foreign to their nature it seems idle to invoke them. >We are talking about an entire "profession" whose spokesmen looked us >squarely in the eye thirty years ago and assured us, with an expression >of utmost sincerity, of their complete objectivity and absolute devotion >to reporting the truth, when all the while they were playing footsie >under the table with a man who was possibly the most corrupt politician >ever to desecrate the Oval Office. > >Pseudo-sophisticates such as Kurtz no doubt find this amusing and >clever, but there is a price to be paid when a society so completely >loses its moral orientation that scoundrels who lie and cheat and >dissemble are rewarded and advanced, while those who display evidence of >personal integrity and civil courage are punished and degraded. I happen >to know this because I lived for almost a decade in Germany, and talked >to people who had to pay the price. > >Published in the Dec. 15, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly >Copyright © 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com). >Reposting permitted with this message intact. > <snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail