[spetznaz]

Ok, i have seen several links on this sensitive subject matter (that Iraq had something ...or maybe everything ....to do with the Oklahoma City building). I am not agreeing with the theory, but I will also not ridicule something that might very well be true! Hence i am as neutral to this as one can possibly be.

However i have a couple of questions i would like answered. Here they are:

1) If this is the case why did the Clinton Administration let it pass? I know it is easy for the answer to be 'Klingtoon was a traitor' but even if that is the case why? As in a real answer that makes sense instead of rhetoric! Clinton had major issues (and he still has), and if you consider the Chinese liasons he allowed stuff during his administration that are very un-American and even threatening to US national security! However did he(together with the upper echelons of his administration) invite Iraqi agents to wreak havoc on Americans? He may be a bad guy however i would like to know the logic to why he would allow such a thing. It seems a little too far off even for him.

2) Secondly (and possibly by far more important) when GW came into office, and this informationw as true, why did he not immediately do something about it? If there was verifiable proof that Iraq took part in the OKC bombing i think there would not even be talk of war ....it would be war instantaneous! And if GW had this information his call for taking care of Iraq would not have calls for 'international unity' or a strive to develop cohesion in the UN before an attack. He would strike Iraq. Furthermore his push for war would be made extremely easy if this info was to be given.

3) Thirdly why has it not made it to congress in the way befitting such info? Currently the most this stuff has done is become 'Urban Legend' talk in Washington, nothing more. I think Republicans would have amazing ire if this stuff was true and happened in Clinton's watch with his cooperation and also this information would probably ensure that the number of Democrats elected outside California are less than 5!!!! However this topic is basically not hot in Washington when if it was true it would be the powder keg of powder kegs and would probably shift American politics in a way unseen since the anti-Mason party! This would be huge!

Anyways i am not here to agree nor refute this information. However there are many places that make little sense, and others that just do not add up. However let me say if this was to turn out to be true it would be the biggest conspiracy since forever and a potent blow for the Democrats.

This issue needs to be clarified or it will become like the Kennedy assasination conspiracy with some swearing they saw an extra shooter behind a grassy knoll and documentaries on the History Channel on 'The Real Truth behind the OKC bombing.' In essence it would become mere bar talk. Hence they should make sure this information is released.... if it truly exists and is not just vestigial info some reporters will not let go off! After all to this day there are some who swear Kennedy was killed by the mob, or the govt, or the soviets (depending on who has the spookiest aspect that month); and that Roswell really happened. If nothing is released to prove Iraq had something to do with this then eventualiy this will become just another conspiracy theory. Hence the need to verify if it is true or not.

However there are several holes in this (the OKC connection) trhat make me feel a lot of stuff behind this theory is largely speculation and circumstancial stuff that could be applied to any rogue state. I thinkt hat there is some basis to this theiry, but the reason it has not been emphasised is due to the fcat there are no facts and the linkages to Iraq are at best nebulous! Ths the silence. Because if this was hard evidence the stance on Iraq would be totally different and the Democratic party would be in a lot of pain.

However what should be known is that as long as this info remains in the shadows it will always be nothing more than a conspiracy! That is how conspiracies are created ...basically people (including some with soldi credentials) who say something that is against orthodox belief and without hard evidence but merely personal accounts from eyewitnesses and investigation work. Again let me bring up the Kennedy thing: I have seen people with some credentials say it was a conspiracy, i have seen some 'expert' show 'evidence' from the Zippruder (sp?) that at least one shot had to come from a different angle, and there are dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the 'other shooters!' However this is considered to be nothing more than a conspiracy believed by crackpots and those who rage against the machine. Essentially this OKC-Iraqi thing will become like the Kennedy thing if it is not rectified. Or like another neo-conspiracy that has been making rounds, and that is the Downing of Flight 800! there are still reports it was a Stinger missile, and just like any good conspiracy there is all sorts of 'evidence' including apparent photos of a streaking missile and 'sworn testimony' that the FBI tampered the evidence to cover up stuff. However due to the lack of cohesive action and official investigation that says otherwise the Flight 800 has become just another crankpot conpsiracy.

With that said there is always the chance Kennedy was assasinated by men not a man, and that a stinger was used against an American flight! I do not believe in any of these conspiracies, but i am open to the fact that something might have happened that is not know (i.e that is a politically correct way for me to say they might be true). However i do not believe in them.

The OKC-Iraqi conspiracy will go the way of the Kennedy assasination, the Roswell incident, the Philadelphia experiment, Flight 800, and Sasquatch frolicking in the woods! Essentially disappear into the realm of anarchists and the like!

And this will happen whether Iraq was involved or not! As long as nothing is done about this it will become one of many conspiracies. Hence if there is anything to this it needs to be brought to the open as soon as possible. And if it is true then Saddam needs to be taken out with the full fury of the US military! And i am talking something 'sweet' not just a JDAM dropped on him. What do i think would be 'sweet?' If it was logistically possible (i seriously doubt though it would) imagine if Team Force Delta 'napped Saddam and brought him to the US? That would be a major accomplishment. however such an act is next to impossible since Saddam is a very efficient rat when it comes to hiding and using doubles. However a guy can wish ......

[Poohbah]

On point #2, I can offer you this much: the reason the Bush administration isn't making a public show of this is that (a) they don't leak unless the boss wants it to leak and (b) Bush isn't the sort to make a public show of going after someone until they've actually made some arrests.

As for why we're not making arrests: the trail has had 7 years to go cold.

A thought occurs to me on why Clinton didn't harp on Iraq: it wouldn't give him any political advantage to do so, because he wasn't running against Saddam Hussein. It was much better for his re-election campaign to link McVeigh to Rush Limbaugh, Bob Dole, and Newt Gingrich than to link him to Saddam Hussein.

[flamefront]

OK, I will bite and overlook the fact that you are such a newbie around here to have not been through much of the discussion during the Clinton impeachment era. What I am about to respond should not be viewed as complete answers, only sufficient ones, to explain the present state of this conspiracy -- a term which to your open mind appears to imply meaning something that is implicitly doubtful (since you conclude "the OKC-Iraqi conspiracy will go the way of ..."). Nevertheless, the amount of tin-foil being worn by those non-newbies of politically frozen attitudes who should know better here prompts a slight comment. Regarding your points:

1. The best and obvious guess I have is domestic political value of this to Clinton is that it allowed the continuance of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" (Hillary and Morris Dees) propaganda thesis promulgated early in the Clinton regime. Remember politics is item number one to the Clintons. Whether or not the imported Iraqis were actually intended for harm here is hard to tell but unnecessary to the political goals. And that VRWC thesis is what has continued to this day to be pushed in the media -- leaving many doubtful about "extremism" of the right.
2. George, you will recall, chose to "move on" as part of his political 'strategery.' Perhaps he at least understood the rope-a-dope legalist morass he could get into if he stepped into fighting Clinton directly. Also keep in mind that a major part of the unionized government employ still to this day are Clinton holdovers -- George really has little control or support from most of the inflated beast. Further, the FBI appears to have been embarrassed by failing to keep a grip on their attempted sting operation and would rather not make that visible, especially because of international linkages (Strassmeir), it is a domestic agency after all.
3. Congress never removed Clinton for the same reasons. Perhaps Hillary's FBI dossiers on members of Congress mean something and have a purpose? The forces involved are pretty constraining and those Congresscritters don't want to lose their jobs by being embarrassed. Republicans are mostly RINO's without backbone and are afraid of Hillary. Seen Terry Lenzner recently? Who runs the Dem. Party, anyway?

None of this may likely do anything to convince you of what are ongoing issues, but someone needs to say the obvious while facing into the wind of media-constucted misunderstandings you have fallen into.

If you are serious about being interested dig up some of the articles on my profile. Unfortunately the owner of this forum agrees with your views and may be intending to remove this info.

Now, was that any help?

[Triple]

"However there are several holes in this (the OKC connection) trhat make me feel a lot of stuff behind this theory is largely speculation and circumstancial stuff that could be applied to any rogue state. I thinkt hat there is some basis to this theiry, but the reason it has not been emphasised is due to the fcat there are no facts and the linkages to Iraq are at best nebulous! Ths the silence. Because if this was hard evidence the stance on Iraq would be totally different and the Democratic party would be in a lot of pain." - Spetznaz

Interesting statement from someone who claims to be as neutral as possible.

Sometimes the truth takes time to emerge, ever hear how the Viet Nam war started?

[swarthyguy]

WHy would Clinton cover up the Iraqi connection. Revelation would force him to do something about the threat. And Iraqis in the US are not farfetched; here in Boston, last October, we had 2 iraqis arrested for some mischief with a suitcase at Logan. Never made the national news.

But here's how they were let in after Desert Storm; they were deserters or claimed to be political refugees and got asylum in the US. They lived here for close to 10 years, getting married, jobs, etc until they were nabbed at Logan. We were never told why or what was in their suitcase. Made the local papers but not the Globe or Herald.

Clinton's and the Democratic Party's reluctance to confront any threats to the US came from his reluctance to take suitable action against the Iraqis no matter what the evidence; Read Laura Mylroie's book - the Clinton admin considered her a fruitcake.

And McVeigh's motivation? He was horrified by what he say during Desert Storm and became influenced by islamists; his buddy made numerous trips to the Phillipines; numerous terrorist connections and plots there, so it'd be easy to hook up with those types.

And the first APB's after OKC referred to a pickup with 2 ME looking men. By noon that day, the APB was revoked with no explanation. Dallas media reported it. I was there and heard it.

[fightu4it]

Reply to your post 83:

#1. Clinton would have had to assume a lot of the blame for letting Saddam kick the weapons inspectors out and not keeping the level of survielance on Iraq he should have. Clinton's treatment of the CIA and FBI had the effect of lowering moral to all-time lows. It is just possible our Intel. community didn't know what was comming. Couple those things with the poor state of our military at the time, thanks to Clinton's priorities, to mount an offensive against Iraq and......well I guess you get the picture.

#2. One answer that comes to mind was the poor state of the Intel. Agencies Bush inherited from Clinton. However, since Ms. Davis has gone "semi public" with her research President Bush has certainly fixed his interest on Iraq. A coincidence? I don't think so.

#3. The Democrats certainly wouldn't put this at the top of their agenda. If it is true, then who gets/wants to go back and tell the families of the victims of Oklahoma City and Flight 800 that they were lied to? Would you?

[PsyOp]

"2) Secondly (and possibly by far more important) when GW came into office, and this informationw as true, why did he not immediately do something about it? If there was verifiable proof that Iraq took part in the OKC bombing i think there would not even be talk of war ....it would be war instantaneous! And if GW had this information his call for taking care of Iraq would not have calls for 'international unity' or a strive to develop cohesion in the UN before an attack. He would strike Iraq. Furthermore his push for war would be made extremely easy if this info was to be given."

First of all, suppression of evidence linking McVeigh to Iraqi or other middle-east terrorists would have been handled by only a few individuals, probably on direct orders of Reno from the pres. Later, they would have a vested interest in denying any such involvement and keeping others from making the connection.

When and if the Bush administration found out about such a cover-up the question then becomes what to do about it. The FBI's reputation was already on the ropes for numerous Clinton scandals and Reno's well -known interference with the justice department on her boss' behalf. To have exposed this publicly would have obliterated any public confidence remaining in the FBI and the Justice department at a time when the Bush administration was trying to rehab that institution. I light of what happened on 9/11, a discredtied FBI then becomes a liability rather than an asset in the war on terrorism.

Therefore, from a political and practical standpoint, it is better to deal with these matters internally, as quietly as possible, in order to make sure they don't happen again - rather than publically air the dirty Clinton laundry and compromise the FBI's ability to do its job.

Especially when the wrong-doing was probably limited to a handfull of investigators loyal to Reno and Clinton and not representative of the Agency as a whole.