While Hillary Clinton recovers regally from her presumed concussion and its complications, rumors continue to swirl that she was injured not in a fall, but in a plane crash.
On Monday the European Union Times captured the gist of that narrative:
“A new Foreign Military Intelligence (GRU) report circulating in the Kremlin today is saying that United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was injured and a top U.S. Navy Seal commander killed when their C-12 Huron military passenger and transport aircraft crash landed nearly three weeks ago in the Iranian city of Ahvaz near the Iraqi border.”
To be sure, the State Department was swift to deny the rumors, and media pundits scolded anyone who dared to question Hillary’s press releases.
Whether the rumors are true, I cannot say, but those of us who have followed Hillary’s career know that she lies as a matter of routine.
“Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our first lady … is a congenital liar,” wrote William Safire memorably – and accurately – in “Blizzard of Lies,” a 1996 essay that is worth re-reading.
Of particular note, Hillary has been known to lie about her foreign travels. Although Hillary has been able to lie with impunity since she first emerged as a viable presidential candidate in the late 1990s, she left herself vulnerable during the 2008 primaries.
On March 17, 2008, during an introduction to a foreign-policy speech on Iraq, she boasted of her adventures in dangerous places.
“I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia,” she said of a 1996 visit. “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”
Much to Hillary’s shock, the media pounced. CBS took the lead with a devastating video exposé that put a lie to Hillary’s claim and a major dent in her candidacy. The other major media followed.
As far as political lies went this was a minor one, but by 2008 the major media had fully abandoned their role as truth tellers and had become instead a Praetorian Guard for the ascendant Democratic presidential candidate. In March 2008, that was Barack Obama. Hillary, for the moment, was mere roadblock.
Of course, had the media bothered to investigate why Hillary had flown in to Tuzla, Bosnia, on March 25,1996, they might have ended her career right there.
Visiting Bosnia in 1996 was, in fact, risky business. As testament to how risky, just nine days later, another U.S. Air Force plane carrying American officials took off from that same Tuzla airport and crashed “inexplicably” near the Croatian-Bosnian border.
The crash killed all 35 people on board. NATO command center would warn helicopter pilots searching for the downed aircraft to steer clear of active SA-6 surface-to-air missile sites within the Bosnian borders.
Hillary understood the risk. In her memoir, “Living History,” she told how she and daughter Chelsea had to wear flak jackets and sit in a reinforced cockpit in case of snipers or ground-to-air missiles, and there was no reason to doubt her.
The question the media should have asked in 2008 is why Hillary took Chelsea, then just 16, on such a trip in the first place.
According to Hillary’s schedule, she spent no more than nine hours in country, did little of consequence while there, and yet exposed Chelsea to considerable risk both coming and going.
At the time, Hillary told the press that she wanted “to visit our troops and to say ‘Thank you.’” The White House even made a point of noting that “no first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt has made a trip into such a hostile military environment.”
In “Living History,” Hillary offered a more nuanced reason for her visit: “The administration wanted to send a strong signal that the peace accords were to be honored and would be enforced.”
My research has led me to suspect that there was something more involved, and it likely involves the fate of the lead official killed on that doomed flight out of Tuzla on April 3, nine days later.
That official, of course, was the Clintons’ beleaguered and increasingly desperate secretary of commerce, Ron Brown, the classic “man who knew too much.”
The Clintons had sent Brown to Croatia to broker a sweetheart deal between the neo-fascist Croatian president, Franjo Tudjman, and an American corporation much-favored during Hillary’s White House years, Enron.
Best evidence suggests that Croatian intelligence agents lured the plane into a mountainside through the use of a rogue beacon and then diverted NATO search-and-rescue operations over the Adriatic for at least four hours.
In the interim, these agents found the wreckage and administered a final coup de grace to Brown’s otherwise intact body – the very real hole in the top of his head, likely a bullet hole.
As I related last month in WND, our media chose not to investigate Brown’s death or the Enron connection, for that matter. Remember, they had a president to re-elect in 1996, and that president was Bill Clinton.
The Croats owed the Clintons big time. In August 1995, they gave Croatian forces the green light to ethnically cleanse more than 200,000 Serbs from their homes in the Krajina region, and the Croats killed some 14,000 Serbian civilians in the process.
“Tudjman can do only what the Americans allow him to do,” said Stipe Mesic, a prominent Croatian politician of the era. “Krajina is the reward for having accepted, under Washington’s pressure, the federation between Croats and Muslims in Bosnia.”
Still, as rough as the Croats could be, they had no motive for killing Ron Brown. Tudjman, as the man said, could do only what the Americans allowed him to do. By traveling to Tuzla, Hillary may have given “the strong signal” of White House seriousness that Tudjman needed to proceed.
I know; 16 years after the fact this all sounds like conspiracy blather. Right, just as 16 years from now, all talk of Benghazi mischief will sound much the same.
Remember, the media have a president to elect in 2016, and they are prepared to rewrite history to do it.