Wolfowitz Bombshell: Saddam Behind 9/11 Attacks and OKC Bombing

[Free ThinkerNY]

Wolfowitz Bombshell: Saddam Behind 9/11 Attacks and OKC Bombing

Sunday, June 1, 2003

Newsmax.com

Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, said by some to be the architect of America's war on Iraq, reportedly suspects that Saddam Hussein played a significant role in the three worst terrorist attacks ever on the U.S. - the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Discussing his soon-to-be-released Vanity Fair interview with the top Pentagon official, Sam Tanenhaus told WABC Radio's Monica Crowley on Saturday: "Wolfowitz states that there's a very strong connection, he's convinced, between Saddam and the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. This is a very controversial idea and yet Wolfowitz embraces it and has for quite some time."

The Vanity Fair writer added, "Also I was told by a source very close to him that Wolfowitz entertains the possibility that Saddam was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995."

While a media firestorm has erupted over Wolfowitz's comments suggesting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction played a smaller role in the decision to go to war than previously thought, Tanenhaus said the press has missed the real news in his report.

"[There are] allegations he made or that others close to him have made that, to me, are much more startling," the author told WABC's Crowley. "That's what I thought was going to be the news [coming out of this interview]."

In a transcript on the interview released by the Pentagon, Wolfowitz also indicates that he suspects Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Asked why Iraq was at the top of the U.S.'s list when it came to taking action in the war on terror, Wolfowitz told Tanenhaus that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction played a role, but then added:

"Plus the fact, which seems to go unremarked in most places, that Saddam Hussein was the only international figure other than Osama bin Laden who praised the attacks of September 11."

Discussing the secretary's comments on MSNBC on Friday, Tanenhaus said that the reason Saddam's role in 9/11 never became the centerpiece of the Bush administration's rationale for war was because there was no consensus on the issue.

"The secretary himself has said both in his interview with me and at other times, particularly in the interview with me, that there were sharp disagreement[s] about, for instance, Saddam's involvement in other acts of terrorism," Tanenhaus explained. He cited the "World Trade Center in '93 and in 2001, September 11, and other connections with al Qaeda."

President Bush's supporters have been mystified over why the administration never spotlighted the claims of two Iraqi defectors, who, two months after the 9/11 attacks, detailed to U.S. intelligence evidence linking Saddam to training in 9/11-style airline hijacking operations.

Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer awarded the families of two World Trade Center victims $104 million based on evidence linking the 9/11 attacks to Salman Pak, a terrorist training camp located 25 miles south of Baghdad.

[PhilDragoo]

Re the Smoocher of Suha the blood libeler:

Her foremost critic was flown into the Pentagon.

The radar plot shows a single fast boat speeding away from the crash scene.

A hundred witnesses saw the missile--the CIA cartoon to the contrary notwithstanding.

As for OKC, Laurie Mylroie indicates Ramzi Yousef of WTC I and his supposed uncle Khalid Sheik Mohammed of WTC II/911 were Pakistani Baluch with Kuwaiti passports--indicating they were sheepdipped by Saddam's intel post Kuwait invasion.

Saddam's intel met with Osama and envoys as far back as 1997 and met with Mohammed Atta in Prague no matter what the worthless Deutch appointee Tenet says.

Saddam has been bankrolling other terrorists as well, viz the Palestinian bombers.

To take down Iraq is a blow against the anti-American, anti-Israeli terrorist cartel--witness the rabid fulminating of the anti-Semitic, anti-U.S. crowd worldwide.

Senator Butch touts renewing the assault weapons ban, yet the only mass importation of AK-47s attempted was by her and traitorrapist42's donor Wang Jun.

We have met the terrorists and they have the same last name.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, said by some to be the architect of America's war on Iraq, reportedly suspects that Saddam Hussein played a significant role in the three worst terrorist attacks ever on the U.S. - the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Duh.

Walt

[eno_]

Duh.

Well, if Wolfowitz says WMDs was one of several justifictaions for war weighed against each other, there must have been others.

It was frustrating that 9/11, WTC '93, TWA 800, etc. were not the original reasons used, but I suppose it is simpler for that to come out afterward, when there is no question of war vs. trial.

[John Valentine]

My question is more basic. Does in fact Andreas Strassmeir in fact fit in anywhere? Sure, he was at Elohim City, and is strongly linked to Tim McVeigh. But was he anything more than a German double agent? Did he play an acvtive role in the planning for OKC?

What is the connection between Strassmeir and Terry Nichols, if any?

I'm more interested in the time Terry Nichols spent in the south of the Philippines, who he met there, and if there is any chance that he is "The Farmer".

[Nita Nupress]

Thanks. I'd like to hear more from Wolfowitz on this.

[randita]

Clues:

-Salman Pak with 737 airplane fuselage.
-The other terrorist training camp on the Iran border.
-Bounty paid by Iraq to families of suicide bombers.
-Iraq official seen in Europe meeting with Atta.
-Al Qaeda honchos found in Baghdad.

[hchutch]

Perfectly innocent explanations for all of them might exist.

Now, the chance of those innocent explanations existing is slightly worse than my chances of going out with Jennifer Love Hewitt next weekend, but there is a chance.

[tet68]

Or does the fact he can't be found mean that he never existed either?

I'm slipping into existential malaise here,
does this mean that the democrats are right when they say,
"What didn't he know and when didn't he know it?"???

[Fight 1 World Government]

I wish I had remembered the airplane training camps a few days ago. got in a discussion with someone who I thought was a Bush supporter and is no longer. Said if we didn't find WMD then we were wrong to go to war. No evidence of Saddam being part of 9/11.

Course he had no compassion for the Iraqi people now free either.

I'm sure when we do find them, he will say they were planted.

[BlueOneGolf]

I've known of the Salman Pak terror training camp containing the airliner fuselage in Iraq since last year from Rush limbaugh's show. He had all the links to the articles about this (mostly from British newspapers) and even satellite photos of the camp on his website before the Battle for Iraq started. In vain I tried to convince the Louisville peaceniks of this but they huffed that I was lying even when I gave them all the same links. The Left will refuse to admit they were wrong but we must continue to counter them anyway.

[JoeSixPack1]

..........how do I find my way to the Oklahoma message page?

Click on anyones name and hope they have a state flag flying. Click the flag and it will take to that state's home page. Click "other locations" and find the state you want.

There are other ways but this will get you there.

[cardinal4]

I have long held that those two boobs, Mcviegh and Nichols, acted with Iraqi help. The rapid call off of John Doe number 2, convinced me there was more to the story. I hate the Clintons, so Im probably blinded by my hatred for him, but OKC was tailormade for Clinton. He was able to denounce terrorism and the Right Wing as a result. I believe he was handed evidence of Iraqi complicity and covered it up for the above mentioned reason, AND to avoid having to do anything that would upset his liberal and socialist agenda. Going to war, you see, would require patriotism and love for your countrys citizens, things that Clinton just doesnt have.

[aristeides]

Bundesnachrichtendienst is like our intelligence agencies. Permanent bureaucrats. Doesn't change much from one administration to the next.

[aristeides]

I suspect OKC was the Islamofascists doing Clinton a favor. Homegrown militia types were useful idiots on for the ride. Why not a German spook? He would also be doing the American administration a favor.

[NeoCaveman]

I have long held that those two boobs, Mcviegh and Nichols, acted with Iraqi help. The rapid call off of John Doe number 2, convinced me there was more to the story.

Janya Davis, then of the NBC affiliate, named John Doe number two as a former member of the Iraqi National Guard living in OKC at the time.

[SierraWasp]

Bookmarked!!!

Thank you for this... I've suspected that not only Wolfowitz, but Cheney has some good knowledge on this as well. He just won't let it slip out yet, like Wolfowitz evidently has.

I think there is a gigantic hair ball of information embarrassing to the United States of American from the failed Clinton, Clinton & Gore administration that a whole lot of people are frantically trying to keep under wraps!!!

[Peach]

It's not a big stretch and in fact poll after poll on FNC has shown the majority of Americans believe Iraq is behind 9/11. No one asks in polls about OKC, but I've been quite suspicious for some time Iraq was behind that as well.

[u-89]

This is the reason why I supported the Iraq War. This is reason enough for War with Iraq. The WMDs, UN resolutions, and humanitarian concerns are irrelevant.

If the administration came out and said there was a connection to specific terrorist attacks on the US by Iraq such as 9/11 or OkCity the world would not have baulked at us taking action against them so I wonder why they did not do so int he first place. After the fact at a time like this makes it look as if they are searching for a justification since the WMD claims are not around as we claimed them to be.

Even though I do not support the US roll of global policeman and our interventionist policies I would have supported a strike on Iraq if they took out our embassies or the trade center, etc. Personnally I do not think we had to be at odds with Iraq all these years or back in 1990 either but even so a country can not allow a strike like we took without taking substantial counter action (not Clintonian tokanism). I supported our action against Afghanistan but not Iraq because as you said the justification given were "irrelevant" for the latter but substantial for the former.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!