The correspondence presented on the WeThePeople web page, including that between Queen Elizabeth and President Clinton, was obtained exclusively by WeThePeople as part of a Freedom of Information Act request.  Although the correspondence is ostensibly routine, primarily consisting of expressions of condolence in the wake of the death of Princess Diana, on close analysis it reveals a wealth of detail about the Queen's and Clinton's state of mind at the time of the car crash, and ultimately we believe the factors that led them to sanction Diana's murder.

A crucial document is the Queen's letter dated September 10, 1997, to First Lady Hillary Clinton.  It is a telling, damning historical document.  Listen carefully to what the Queen says to the First Lady: "I don't believe that anyone could have anticipated the scale of the public out-pouring of grief." The Queen's meaning couldn't be more clear.  It is a tacit admission by the Queen of the sanction against Diana.  It is also the Queen's response to the cries no doubt emanating at that time from the White House of, "I told you so." The Queen is saying, "Nobody could have predicted this kind of response." - i.e., even the best planned assassination, and our best planners, couldn't predict this.

You can also feel the fear and desperation in the Queen's voice.  And remember the date: September 10, four days after Diana had been buried, and still all this public attention!  It wasn't suppose to be like this.  After all, didn't the Americans blow up a jumbo jet (TWA Flight 800) in front of 125 eyewitnesses who saw a missile streaking up and striking the plane (and now we learn from the FBI that 11 naval ships and vessels were in close proximity to the plane on classified maneuvers as it exploded and crashed - which in itself is a remarkable turnaround, considering the government originally claimed NO military vessels or aircraft were in the area; and not only 11 ships and vessels, but the hundreds of sailors and airmen aboard them who were additional witnesses to a missile striking the plane) - didn't the Americans do this, blow up that jet, and get away with it scot free, with the American media and public scarcely raising a whimper?  If the Americans can do this, then surely we can take care of Diana in a darkened tunnel in the middle of Paris, at the dead of night, with only a handful of witnesses at best!  It will seem like child's play by comparison!  If only it had been that easy.

Now, a document equally as important as the Queen's letter is a draft of a speech Clinton made in a radio address on September 6, 1997.  Kindly read it and come back to this page.  It goes hand in hand with the Queen's letter, and most specifically to her shock at the grief over Diana's death.  In the fifth paragraph of the speech, Clinton says, "Some observers have been astounded by the enormous outpouring of grief that has followed in the wake of Diana's death.  I am not."  It is an astonishing sentence, and speaks volumes.  Here Clinton is issuing a direct retort to the Queen in her letter to Hillary [note that he even uses the same language: "outpouring of grief"].  However, whereas the Queen didn't expect it and is dismayed, Clinton is saying he expected it.  He isn't surprised.  Clinton is trying to say, in the most public (though subtle) way possible, that he thought the sanction against Diana was insanity.  He is saying to the Queen:  "Look, I tried to tell you people this was lunacy, and you wouldn't listen.  Now look at what's happened.  I tried to tell you this would happen, and now it has, and we're all sunk."

Another thing:  The Queen's letter to Hillary is dated September 10th.  Clinton's speech is dated September 6th (actually written September 5th).  How could Clinton reference a letter that hadn't even been sent yet?  The answer is obvious.  He didn't.  Clearly Clinton was referencing a letter written directly to him by the Queen that arrived before the draft of his radio address was written (and you can bet there was many a fevered phone call from the Queen too crying about how things were spinning out of control and what the hell are we going to do!).  It's telling that the National Security Council didn't send us the Queen's letter to Clinton, or even acknowledge its existence.  Why not?  They sent us Clinton's letter to the Queen expressing his condolences; protocol certainly required her to send him a letter in return, if nothing else to thank him for his concern.  They sent us the draft of his radio address.  They sent us the Queen's letter to Hillary.  Again, we ask: Why didn't they send us the Queen's letter to Clinton, which we believe may show what caused him to take the extraordinary step of issuing a public, though veiled, rebuke of the Queen for her naiveté over the true consequences the murder of Diana would have?  We would submit that the Queen's letter to Clinton is a very important document.  We want to see it.  We want to know what the Queen said to Clinton that caused him to raise his hand and give a transatlantic finger to the Queen.

Now, examining the weight of what we have discussed thus far, a profoundly disturbing question arises.  Clinton has said, and said publicly, he knew there would be this kind of outpouring.  Long-time readers of this web site know that we have maintained all along, and have provided strong circumstantial proof,  that Clinton signed onto the sanction.  Thus the question arises: Why would Clinton willingly sign onto Diana's murder when he knew it was going to have the kind of outpouring of grief - and by implication, catastrophic consequences for the architects of the murder - as it clearly has?  What force would be strong enough to make him go against his gut instincts that the murder was insanity?  What would cause him to throw America's true national interests to the winds, and place his entire presidency at risk, to please the Windsors and their bloody crew?  We don't have to guess the answer to this.  We know the answer:  TWA Flight 800.

The Queen must have studied the coverup surrounding TWA Flight 800 and shook her head in disbelief.  How could any government blow up a civilian jumbo jet a few short miles from its shores, in full view of dozens upon dozens of eyewitnesses, and get away with it?  And yet the US government did.  The destruction and coverup of TWA Flight 800 raised the yardstick to what a corrupt government could get away with.  We boldly submit, if there had been no coverup of TWA Flight 800, there would be no sanction against Diana.  The destruction of TWA Flight 800 gave the Queen a false sense as to just how far she could go.  And we are strengthened in this by the attitude of both the Queen and Clinton.  They acknowledge as much - Clinton, with his encompassing worldview, knowing that even though he got away with TWA Flight 800, it was a close thing at that, and there was a limit beyond which you couldn't safely go; the Queen, with her myopic worldview, thinking after TWA Flight 800, anything was possible.

Another disturbing question arises.  Even if the coverup of TWA Flight 800 caused the Queen to miscalculate what she could get away with, why didn't Clinton simply say no?  The question contains its own answer: Clinton couldn't say no.  Clinton's part in the coverup assured that he would have no choice but to sign onto the murder (and remember, the plane went down only a few short weeks before the Democratic convention).  Why Clinton ordered the coverup is unclear.  Perhaps he thought revelation the Navy had accidentally shot down a civilian jetliner would ruin his reelection chances in the fall.  It really doesn't matter what his motives were.  The key is it left Clinton in a position where he couldn't turn the Queen down.

There is no thought here that the Queen blackmailed the President.  The United States, as the world's sole remaining superpower, cannot be blackmailed.  However, it is likely the Queen said to Clinton: "Look, I ordered British newspapers to look the other way over that little nastiness of yours.  Remember TWA Flight 800?  I thought you did.  Now surely you can do this kindness for me." - At which time you can bet Clinton told her (just as he said in his veiled public rebuke of the Queen): "If you go through with this, there will be a public outcry the likes of which you have never seen.  Mark my words.  This'll blow up in your faces.  This is insanity!"  But in the end, Clinton of course did go along.  The Queen's "kind turn" done to him over TWA Flight 800 left him in a position where he was honor-bound to say yes.

On another level, Clinton's public rebuke of the Queen can be seen as more than just a rebuke to her.  After all, he could have done that over the phone (and surely did so).  It can also be seen as a rebuke to his NWO masters.  If Clinton knew instinctively beforehand there would be the kind of public response there in fact was, it is unlikely that he would have made such a decision alone.  He may very well have consulted his NWO patrons and sought there approval.  They in turn would have made a careful study of the potential threat Diana would pose to NWO interests.  Since the sanction went forward, we can assume they felt the threat Diana posed to their long-range goals was intolerable.  Thus, Clinton's rebuke may very well have been aimed at them too, for they like the Queen appear to have completely misjudged world reaction to Diana's death.

Reading further into Clinton's rebuke, ultimately, it must be seen as directed against himself. Clinton certainly now curses the day he signed onto the coverup of TWA Flight 800.  Or one would at least hope so.  Perhaps Clinton was able to convince himself that if the facts where made public, he wouldn't stand a chance against Bob Dole in the fall of '96.  Perhaps he was even able to convince himself that even while he was cutting deals with NWO forces to get his agenda passed in Congress, at the same time he was the last remaining bulwark against NWO interests.  There is no telling what Clinton was able to convince himself of and at any rate it doesn't really matter.  The bottom line is that the coverup of TWA Flight 800 left Clinton in a position where he couldn't say no either to the Queen or his NWO patrons.

There is much about these documents that we need to know.  We want to know what the Queen said to Clinton in her letter to him.  Indeed, we would like ALL of the Queen's correspondence with Clinton (at least since Diana's 1995 BBC interview).  We want to see the memorandum dated May 9, 1997 referred to in the NSC's cover letter to us.  We want to know why, in Clinton's letter of condolences to Tony Blair, Earl Spencer, and Prince Charles, he mentions the June 1997 meeting at the White House where Diana met with Hillary, however in his letter of condolence to the Queen, he does not mention the June meeting.  Why?  If memory serves, the June meeting was crucial because after Diana met with Hillary, Hillary convinced  Clinton to sign onto the treaty banning landmines, much to the consternation of the Joint Chiefs.  Ultimately, of course, Clinton changed his mind after Diana's death.  Was landmines also a factor in the decision to get rid of Diana?

What emerges from all this, clear as crystal,  is why it is imperative that our leaders are men and women of integrity and honor.  Clinton and the Queen made a series of fatal errors.  First, Clinton covering up TWA Flight 800.  This gave Clinton's "friends" a crucial wedge from which he was forced to do their bidding.  The Queen, seeing the success of the coverup of TWA Flight 800, thought getting rid of Diana would be a walk in the park by comparison.  And once the crash had taken place, and public interest in the circumstances surrounding the crash exceeded all expectations, Clinton and the Queen didn't have the integrity to resign. Instead they chose to cling to power, even as they are doing incalculable damage to both their country's national interests.

Clinton's NWO patrons too made a fatal error.  Diana and Dodi's murder ensures there will be a significant minority, particularly in the Arab world although not limited to it, who will fight to the death to see that the tyrannical NWO does not succeed.  It's like the sublime moment in the Wizard of Oz when the curtain is pulled away and the wizard is exposed.  Exposure is the first step in taking the NWO forces down.

The architects of Diana's murder haven't gotten away with it.  They are paying a high price indeed.  Clinton's presidency is finished, his reputation in ruins.  Even if he can somehow wiggle his way out of being removed from office, his "place in history" has been irreparably tarnished.  As for the Queen - forget it.  The truth about Diana will come out.  Unless she has the good sense to abdicate, she may very well meet the fate of the fascist dictators, her lifeless body destined to swing, Mussolini-like, from some pole somewhere.  What comes around, goes around.