Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I call for an Investigation of OKC Bombing cover up!
The Third Terrorist ^ | April 2004 | Jayna Davis

Posted on 04/02/2004 9:33:39 AM PST by OPS4

by Jayna Davis

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were not the lone conspirators in the Oklahoma City bombing -- the attack that killed nearly 170 people in a few short seconds. They were part of a greater scheme, one that involved Islamic terrorists and at least one provable link to Iraq.

That's the conclusion -- backed up by stunning evidence Written by the relentless reporter who first broke the story of the Mideast connection, is filled with new revelations about the case and explains in full detail the complete, and so far untold, story behind the failed investigation: why the FBI closed the door, what further evidence exists to prove the Iraqi connection, why it has been ignored, and what makes it more relevant now than ever.

Told with a gripping narrative style and rock-solid investigative journalism, and vetted by men such as former CIA director James Woolsey, Davis’s piercing account is the first book to set the record straight about what really happened April 19, 1995

(Excerpt) Read more at apfn.net ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Miscellaneous; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: christianidentity; conspiracytheory; coverup; jaynadavis; murrah; okc; okcbombing; tinfoilalert; whitesupremacist
I want a hearing on this sad day in American History. While under Clinton's watch the FBI covered this up.

Let's have a congressional hearing right after 9-11 to see what was known then.

Ops4 God BLess America!

1 posted on 04/02/2004 9:33:40 AM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All


Click here to support FR

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Please visit the Fundraiser thread.
It's on the Breaking News Sidebar

2 posted on 04/02/2004 9:35:18 AM PST by Support Free Republic (If Woody had gone straight to the police, this would never have happened!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
This is a theory that is gaining credibility

1) Al Qaeda or Saddam or some combination there of assisted in the OKC bombing.

2) Clinton and Janet Reno got the proof but was squashed. The implication was to great to be made public. If it was made public Clinton would have had no choice but for a true war against terrorism as we are doing today.

3) Ramzi Yousef took refuge in Iraq.

4) Would Terry Nichols or Timothy McVeigh acknowledge the truth? Probably not. In their own sick way they believed they were fighters for their country. They most likely believe that its better to die a martyr for their ilk than to die as a patsy traitor.

4) The bush administration had the truth, but could they make it public? No. If they (the Bush Admin) made it public that the Clinton administration had covered up foreign involvement in an attack on our country, the ramifications could be devastating on the way the executive branch can and could function in the future.
3 posted on 04/02/2004 9:45:00 AM PST by PatriotCJC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
You certainly wouldnt be the first to call for it.

Interestingly enough. As the jurors in the Martha Stewart and TYCO trials are making big news, some rather earthshaking juror related news has gone unnoticed in the Nichols trial. About two weeks ago the judge in the Nichols tral said he would "dismiss with predjudice" if there were anymore juror problems. This happened after 3 of the jurors were found to be cousins of the prosecutor. As things stand now the jury pool is down to only 3 alternets left.
4 posted on 04/02/2004 9:49:55 AM PST by cripplecreek (you tell em i'm commin.... and hells commin with me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatriotCJC
The Bush administration (read Ashcroft) did seem to be in a particular hurry to execute McVeigh. Doesn't absolutely prove what you say, but it does lend some support to it.
5 posted on 04/02/2004 9:51:56 AM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
This was done under Clinton's watch, Bush had enough problems occurring in the middle east. This calls for a congressional hearing of the actual coverup under the 4 remaining years of the Clinton Administration, first and foremost!

Ops4 God Bless America!
6 posted on 04/02/2004 9:57:27 AM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
Absolutely! Start with Bubba & Hitlery, al bore, do include Richard Clarke & George Tenet and work on down.
7 posted on 04/02/2004 9:59:18 AM PST by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
It was very wierd how quickly McVeigh was executed. Look at other high-profile cases such as Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, Kobe Bryant etc which are positively insignificant next to the OKC bombing, and they can't even set a trial date for years. My grandchildren may watch these trials after I'm gone.

But yet, in what was at the time the most devastating attack on the US since Pearl Harbor, we just wrapped the case up, concluded it was a couple of militia rednecks and closed the books. Never even accepted the evidence on McVeigh's Iraqi phone numbers in his wallet or the sightings of him with Middle Eastern men. Really strange.

Somebody sure didn't want to look behind McVeigh.

8 posted on 04/02/2004 9:59:53 AM PST by Sender (Support Free Republic...become a monthly donor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatriotCJC
Don't forget about Laurie Myroie's book linking Saddam and Iraqi intelligence to the first attack on the WTC in '93 (an event whose significance was so vastly underappreciated).
The question remains, why didn't the Bush administration cite these two incidents in its arguments leading up to the invasion of Iraq? Undermining confidence in the executive branch is no good reason, especially if that confidence is keeping us blind to real threats (which it most obviously did, if anything was learned from the WTC bombing in '93).
Patriot CJC, will you be so concerned about damaging the executive's ability to function when we end up with another president like Clinton, perhaps one willing to hand over U.S. sovereignty to the likes of the UN?
9 posted on 04/02/2004 10:00:47 AM PST by liberty03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
Cross Reference Post Bump

Richard Clarke's Suspicions of Al Qaeda Involvement in OKC Bombing (Book Excerpt)

10 posted on 04/02/2004 10:02:30 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OPS4

11 posted on 04/02/2004 10:04:43 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatriotCJC
The Bush administration had the truth, but could they make it public? No. If they (the Bush Admin) made it public that the Clinton administration had covered up foreign involvement in an attack on our country, the ramifications could be devastating on the way the executive branch can and could function in the future.

I think your assessment here is wrong. The Bush administration has an even bigger incentive to cover up any foreign connection to these terrorist attacks in the 1990s than the Clinton administration does.

12 posted on 04/02/2004 10:05:05 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
Yousef and Nichols crossed paths in the Phillipines. Mohammed was Yousef's uncle. It is interesting to note that Yousef entered the United States on an Iraqi passport and had been known among the New York fundamentalists as "Rashid, the Iraqi". Another name that could be thrown into the mix is Abdul Rahman Yasin, a U.S. citizen who moved to Iraq in the 1960's and returned to the U.S. in 1992. After the 1993 WTC bombing, Yasin fled to Iraq and was given money and housing by Saddam Hussein's regime.

Other links

13 posted on 04/02/2004 10:05:55 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"The administration does not want the victims of Sept. 11 interfering with its foreign policy," says Peter M. Leitner, director of the Washington Center for Peace and Justice (WCPJ). Leitner says the Bush administration may be concerned that if other victims of the Sept. 11 attacks also filed lawsuits and won civil-damage awards it would reduce Iraqi resources that the administration wants to use to rebuild the country. Leitner and others say this explains Bush's reticence at this time to report the convincing evidence linking Saddam and al-Qaeda that has been collected by U.S. investigators and private organizations seeking damages. "The [Bush] administration is intentionally changing the topic," claims Leitner, and sidestepping the issue that "Iraq has been in a proxy war against the U.S. for years and has used al-Qaeda in that war against the United States."

Source

14 posted on 04/02/2004 10:09:11 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
Thanks for this info.
Ops4 God BLess America!
15 posted on 04/02/2004 10:09:34 AM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
Everyone knows that the OKC bombing was the fault of Newt, Rush, and the Republican Congress. That's what Bill Clinton said, and he never lies.
16 posted on 04/02/2004 10:12:40 AM PST by Maceman (Too nuanced for a bumper sticker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
Leitner says the Bush administration may be concerned that if other victims of the Sept. 11 attacks also filed lawsuits and won civil-damage awards it would reduce Iraqi resources that the administration wants to use to rebuild the country.

Leitner's speculation about a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda may be correct, but his rationale for the Bush administration's actions is not. The U.S. government could render every lawsuit and civil-damages award irrelevant simply by formally declaring the 9/11 attacks to be an act of war.

17 posted on 04/02/2004 10:14:01 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Simply put, Bush has decided to annihilate the enemy on his home ground. He has taken the war to them, and I for one back his play 100%.

Anyone who does not should realize the enemy acted without a flag or country. To declare war, one needs to have a well defined target.

We now have begun to intialize the task, and a declaration of war, may be coming, stay tuned.

Ops4 God BLess America
18 posted on 04/02/2004 10:18:15 AM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
Another thread from this AM.

Very Awkward Facts [Clinton/Clarke turn blind eye to Saddam's terrorism connection]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1109922/posts
19 posted on 04/02/2004 10:20:12 AM PST by Broadside Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OKCSubmariner; honway
Are you two still around????
20 posted on 04/02/2004 10:25:34 AM PST by jdontom (BacktheBadge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Broadside Joe
Thanks for the info.
Ops4 God Bless America!
21 posted on 04/02/2004 10:31:12 AM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
No problem. I pinged the other thread
22 posted on 04/02/2004 10:36:46 AM PST by Broadside Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
If, you need further proof to this accusation, visit Drudge. The Bush administration has been withholding 75% of Clinton' files related to terrorism. Clinton's aides and the congressional committee, want to know why.
23 posted on 04/02/2004 10:51:01 AM PST by auggy (http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-DownhomeKY /// Check out My USA Photo album & Fat Files)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
TWA 800 also. Clinton used OKC as his Riechstag fire.
24 posted on 04/02/2004 10:53:17 AM PST by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"The Bush administration has an even bigger incentive to cover up any foreign connection to these terrorist attacks in the 1990s than the Clinton administration does."

Why do you say that? What incentive?

25 posted on 04/02/2004 10:53:40 AM PST by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball
Riechstag=Reichstag, too much coffee this morning.
26 posted on 04/02/2004 10:53:54 AM PST by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
mark for later attention
27 posted on 04/02/2004 11:03:00 AM PST by Swordmaker (This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: auggy
"The Bush administration has been withholding 75% of Clinton' files related to terrorism. Clinton's aides and the congressional committee, want to know why."

I'm hoping it's a trap for the Dems. By holding on to the files, I think the Bush admin is trying to generate a lot of noise to have these files released. My hope is that the information is particularly damaging for the Clinton administration. To release in an election year, even if it's the Commission calling for it, it might still look like a partisan attack on Clinton and the Dems.

By trying to hold on to them until they cave under political and public pressure, they remove the appearance of partisanship that tainted the Monica "it's only sex" case and various rape charges/investigations that the Republicans presided over.

28 posted on 04/02/2004 11:03:30 AM PST by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sender
Agreed, McVeigh probably took a lot of info to the grave. The clinton years started with Waco and Foster, went through OKC, and ended with TWA 800 and Elian Gonzalez. No doubt there are some unconnected dots through all of these threads.
29 posted on 04/02/2004 11:28:46 AM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
And also the defense of Kosovo muslim drug lords?
Why?
Ops4 God Bless america!
30 posted on 04/02/2004 12:12:28 PM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
I don't claim to have the answer to your question, but it did have the same "odor" associated with it that all the other clinton fiascos seemed to have - the "Dayton accords" were negotiated by presenting the Serbs a list of impossible demands and there was never a good reason given for us getting involved. I clearly remember clinton (and others) making a big deal out of saying "Kosovah" instead of "Kosovo". Apparently this is the difference between the Serb and the Albanian pronunciation.

http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=1002483

Clinton doing this was as transparently phony as everything else that pathological liar ever did.
31 posted on 04/02/2004 12:36:19 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GBA
"I'm hoping it's a trap for the Dems. By holding on to the files"

Good thinking!

I never gave that a thought. That would also be good thinking on Bush's part. I hope that is the case. It is hard to believe that Clinton had done a better job of fighting terrorism, than W. Bush, and that would be the reason for not releasing them.

It's also hard to believe Bush would be protecting Clinton, after what the Dems have done to him.

32 posted on 04/02/2004 12:47:45 PM PST by auggy (http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-DownhomeKY /// Check out My USA Photo album & Fat Files)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GBA
Why do you say that? What incentive?

Because if it turns out that Iraq was behind all of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. from 1993-2001, then it basically cost the United States 4,000+ civilian lives to restore a royal family to the throne in Kuwait in 1991. If that were the case, then George H. W. Bush would go down in history as the worst president this country has ever elected.

33 posted on 04/02/2004 1:33:58 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
DA assumption that w/o GulfWarI the attacks would not have happened....so smack a mole policy vs.Islamisissies & Sadamn will work?
34 posted on 04/02/2004 3:19:38 PM PST by iopscusa (El Vaquero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
So these "Peace and Justice" people want to do in the Iraqis after they have been screwed by Saddam all these years?

And this will serve what purpose other than feeding the greed and vengeance of these families?
35 posted on 04/02/2004 3:26:43 PM PST by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
Bump, till after supper, sorry wife is yelling at me.
36 posted on 04/02/2004 4:25:21 PM PST by tall_tex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson