I was serving in Japan when I heard Admiral Boorda killed himself and it still hurts. He was respected and admired by the enlisted community because he came from our ranks. It was said he wrote two letters before he suposedly put a pistol to his chest.
Having met Boorda twice in my life, one when he was Chief of Personnel and a group of us got to have dinner with him and discuss issues affecting the Navy's future, I never believed that such a good man as he would just kill himself over a stupid dispute of his vietnam service medals.
I think there was other dirt involved or that he was murdered. Shooting yourself in the chest is such a b.s. excuse. In fact, this officer who knew him had the best answer in my mind..
I am a former officer who personally worked with Admiral Boorda in the Navy's personnel headquarters. He was a very well-rounded, cheerful individual, who respected everyone with whom he came in contact. I believe he was personally responsible for improving the Navy's overall treatment of individuals (especially women and people from minority groups).
Both at the time of his death, and now, I find it very hard to believe he killed himself. There is no way I believe this action occurred due to the investigation of the V's on Boorda's combat medals. Since Boorda had quit wearing the V's over a year prior to the story, he had virtually already publicly admitted that mistake.
It may have been related to the senior officers who criticized Boorda's behavior with regard to orders from President Clinton. I beleive that criticism was born of jealousy and elitism.
Admiral Boorda's death was a huge loss to his personal family, his Navy "family," and the world.
I believe Boorda was murdered by "ringers" officers who were graduates of the Naval Acadamy who threatened him with something bad enough to drive him to suicide or someone shot him but he didn't die from some insignificant award discrepancy.
(Below is a letter responding to some questions from David Hoffman. He is in prison for giving portions of his book concerning the Oklahoma bombing to the grand jury. He is writing a new book, Murdergate, it which he details evidence pointing to Admiral Boorda's death as murder.)
Got back from Cape a few days ago. I did not find the Cape Cod Times article on Admiral Boorda that I wanted. I was on the microfiche two different days until I almost went blind. I started May 17th and went forward. The second day I went to June 15th. It is there, but most likely a latter date, could even be July or later. It is microfiched, but not indexed. But, I assure you, it is there.
I am most definitely referring to subjects that few are aware of. The highest communications are in the news, cleverly hidden in steganography. Very few journalists are aware of this. The Falmouth Enterprise printed my Martha's Vineyard newspaper, the Vineyard MAP for a number of years. I became friendly with Bill Hough (nephew of Pulitzer winner, Henry Beetle Hough). Newspaper publishing has been in his family for generations. They had owned the New Bedford paper for generations. Bill had for years noticed strange headlines in newspapers that did not make sense. When I explained this to him, he was floored. My Father spent years teaching this to me. Please consider that there are areas of the news that few comprehend.
You made reference to a cryptic communication wherein the Chinese navy was mentioned in regard to Admiral Boorda. Without explaining the stenanography or 'billboarding' itself, let me explain the perspective discussed. China has a kick ass navy. Many years ago we made the decision to create aircraft carrier based battle groups. As technology developed, two things happened. First, submarines became harder and harder to find. In the words of former Naval Secretary, John Lehman, the "....seas are becoming more opaque....". Secondly, the type of ordnance being carried by subs were becoming far more deadly against surface ships. We miss built our navy. Over fifty percent of the Chinese navy are submarines. They are diesel, though they cannot stay down as long a nuclear, they are far quieter. The first hint of this came about when the Sheffeld was sunk by a French missile in the Falkland War. A few years later (mid March 1984), it became far more clear with the 'surprise Soviet naval maneuvers'. After this occurred a signal hit all the major papers. Again and again you will see the expression 'sea change' (in quotes) in all the major papers. Most often it would be in headlines. It would never be explained in the body copy. I would at times play a game for demonstration. I would have an educated person read the article and ask them if they understood it. Always they would say 'yes'. I would then ask if the headline would make any sense if the term 'sea change' was not understood. They would not have a clue, but started to sense the next question. I would then ask what "...'sea change'.." meant. They had not a clue. 'Sea change' is a basic power shift at sea. Layte Gulf, Trafalgar and Manilla Bay were 'sea changes'.
Shortly after this messages appeared in major publications world wide (deliberately above the head of even most all journalists), Ronald Reagan made a speech. He stated flatly that the United States Navy could no longer control all the 'sixteen choke points'. Major media deliberately made nothing of this, and it went right by the public. The point now, as it was then, is this.....: were there to be a major conflict between the Chinese and American navies, our losses would be unacceptable. Period. From that period, some sixteen years ago, we have held up a false image of our power, and relied more on deals, deals, deals, deals, and more deals.
In the early 1950s secret non use of nuke deals were brokered by my Father's boss, Henry Luce. The first to be brought in was Joe Stalin. He stated that he loved the deal, but that he could not go for it because as we could trust him (we knew who was in charge), he could not trust us because for any four year period there would be a new 'Commander and Chief'. Luce and Hedley Donovan understood those concerns. To demonstrate to Uncle Joe that the U.S. President (then Ike) could not get his hands on a nuclear device, (that it would remain in 'private' hands, the major media being the watch), a phony 'censorship flap' was concocted. Fortune Magazine was used because it had far more of an upscale readership. Very publicly "...the President decided..." was changed to "...it was decided...." with much fanfare. This was now acceptable to Joe Stalin. The best reference for this is Elsner's History of Time Inc. Vol. II, but you must read through the lines and think. Later Luce brought in Communist China. He met with them in Iran. As Luce was flying home to Manhattan, the Chinese troops now crossed the Yalu, assured that they would not be nuked. Every decent historian of the Korean conflict is completely perplexed as to why the Chinese navy did not deploy. It was part of the deal.
It is for no small reason that the likes of columnist William Safire refers to this type of thinking as the 'geopolitical stratosphere'. It is simply very difficult for untrained people, even 'trained journalists' to think in these terms. At the same time there is much senseless opposing propaganda.
There are two aspects to military intelligence, capability and intent. Capability in the nuke game is not a factor. The bomb could come in far more easily under the Brooklyn Bridge than in a missile over it. Though great effort has been made to fool the public in this regard. "...Why would we build all these missile defense systems if they make no sense...?" Etc.
Capability is simply not a factor. Intent is. And it is all important to the deal. For that reason it was agreed that all 'serious talk' from any quarter concerning the possible use of a nuke be instantly shared. There was 'serious talk' concerning using a nuke to help the French in Indochina in 1954. This followed a 'window of opportunity' following the death of Stalin. But, the Soviets were informed. I know. My Parents helped. I was a child of ten. Apparently, the Chinese were not informed. This I learned, in horror, as flight 800 came down. Commander Donaldson and former Chief of Staff, Admiral Moore, are correct. Flight 800 was a hostile attack. It was a payback for a doublecross in this most serious of deals. All talk was to be shared. The present issue was not so much the events of 1954 as much as the present treatment of witness. If witness cannot talk, how can the deal be kept? For the flight 800 board I eventually put it in cruder terms to make the point.... 'Two hundred and thirty souls flying along. (It was a flight to France, perfect statement, a military target being inappropriate. It was after all 'media' fault.) Then.... Pop. Zoom. Swish. Bang! Kaboom! Swish, swish, swish, swish Splatter, splat, sprinkle sprinkle sprinkle. "There, you dirty American double crossers !" And this is why it is being covered up at every level.
We 'stood down' and accepted just punishment. It came in steps. Many many witnesses not only saw the missile hit the plane, but also saw (just hours later), a viewing of the missile hitting the plane on CNN. Many other people also watched during that viewing period and saw no such video. Both are telling the truth. It was an agreed upon limited viewing (by cable area) which makes perfect sense in this sort of affair. It was there for sting. There has been no explanation from Time Inc. owed CNN regarding this. Of course.
It was in this arena that Admiral Michael Boorda stood as CNO. He knew. He had too. Prior to the shootdown, as negotiations were in there early stages, his pilots escorted airliners. Young naval pilots were ready to offer their lives, take the hit upon themselves, if a missile approached a plane. (There are many references to this in the news as 'airline buzzings') Then the CNN limited viewing was agreed upon, and we took our just punishment. The CNN limited viewing destroys the massive media/government disinformation that it was 'US Naval error', (i.e. our missile in some sort of test gone wrong).
David, you listed much evidence supported that Admiral Boorda was murdered. I judged that he was murdered looking at only the reaction of the media. When the headline appeared in the Dow Jones owned Cape Code Times, "Highly Inappropriate For High Ranking Naval Officer Ever To Speak At Maritime Academy", I knew the issue. Just days after his death he was due to speak there. It would not have mattered what he said. That in and of itself would have sent enough of a message, "These deals are no longer going to be held (secret non use of nuke deals) strictly within the top of international media. The militaries (internationally) will now become more involved."
David, you stated that my letter to Admiral Gehman did not state much. I did not need to. I knew he knew. And I knew that he could reason that I knew the 'who' and 'why' of Admiral Boorda's murder. I would expect his family does as well.
David, I seem to be spread out saying the same things to many different people. I am going to spend more time finishing JOHN (Lehman, Head of Secret Government, Leader of the New World Order) & 'SCARLET'. I have decided to put this on the web chapter by chapter.