Investigative Report: What They Knew; When They Knew It

Insight Magazine ^ | May 27, 2002 | Kenneth R. Timmerman

[codebreaker]

The problem is once this FBI forensics stuff goes public at Dan Burtons hearings in Congress, (regarding the OKC connection that he has 5 investigators on right now) the Iraq situation will probably go red hot.

Because you can't go to the Al Qaeda link with Nichols in the Phillipines without mentioning that McVeigh had a 'black book' with Iraqi telephone numbers in it when he was arrested, and the second car caught on tape by the trooper waiting for McVeigh on the traffic stop when he lost his license plate.

Then you start bringing up questions that no one wants answered, except possibly Dan Burton.

[Mia T]

Clinton's Failure to Confront Iraq

Allan J. Favish

 

 

Iraqi Complicity in the World Trade Center Bombing and

Beyond by Laurie Mylroie, which was published in June of this year and discusses the 1993 bombing of the WTC.

 

She explains how Bill Clinton intentionally failed to confront Iraq over its complicity in the bombing and other attacks.

 

She supported Clinton in 1992 having been an advisor on Iraq policy to the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign, as you can see at

http://admissions.geneseo.edu/cgi-bin/nrap?Roemer98.html

 

Her September 13, 2001 article in the Wall Street Journal on the recent attack is at

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001120

 

In a live interview on Los Angeles radio station KPFK, broadcast around noon today, PST, she stated that Clinton lied about more than sex; he lied about national security.

 

I wish somebody would ask her about whether she thinks the Clinton administration covered up Iraqi involvement in the murder of those aboard TWA 800 and ordered the military not to pursue the attackers.

 

 

 

Bill Clinton may not be the worst president America has had, but surely he is the worst person to be president.*

---GEORGE WILL, Sleaze, the sequel

 

^{Q ERTY6}

Had George Will written Sleaze, the sequel (the "sequel" is, of course, hillary) after 9-11-01, I suspect that he would have had to forgo the above conceit, as the doubt expressed in the setup phrase was, from that day forward, no longer operational. 

clinton-was-an- utter-failure

REALITY-CHECK bump!

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

 

 

Bill Clinton may not be the worst president America has had, but surely he is the worst person to be president.*

---GEORGE WILL, Sleaze, the sequel

 

Had George Will written Sleaze, the sequel (the "sequel" is, of course, hillary) after 9-11-01, I suspect that he would have had to forgo the above conceit, as the doubt expressed in the setup phrase was, from that day forward, no longer operational.

Indeed, assessing the clinton presidency an abject failure is not inconsistent with commentary coming from the left, most recently the LA Times: "Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize."

When the clintons left office, I predicted that the country would eventually learn--sadly, the hard way--that this depraved, self-absorbed and inept pair had placed America (and the world) in mortal danger. But I was thinking years, not months.

It is very significant that hillary clinton didn't deny clinton culpability for the terrorism. (Meet the Press, 12-09-01), notwithstanding tired tactics (if you can't pass the buck, spread the blame) and chronic "KnowNothing Victim Clinton" self-exclusion.

If leftist pandering keeps the disenfranchized down in perpetuity, clinton pandering,("it's the economy, stupid"), kept the middle and upper classes wilfully ignorant for eight years.

And ironically, both results (leftist social policy and the clinton economy) are equally illusory, fraudulent. It is becoming increasingly clear that clinton assiduously avoided essential actions that would have negatively impacted the economy--the ultimate source of his continued power--actions like, say, going after the terrorists.

It is critically important that hillary clinton fail in her grasp for power; read Peggy Noonan's little book, 'The Case Against Hillary Clinton' and Barbara Olson's two books; it is critical that the West de-clintonize, but that will be automatic once it is understood that the clintons risked civilization itself in order to gain and retain power.

It shouldn't take books, however, to see that a leader is a dangerous, self-absorbed sicko. People should be able to figure that out for themselves. The electorate must be taught to think, to reason. It must be able to spot spin, especially in this age of the electronic demagogue.

I am not hopeful. As Bertrand Russell noted, "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. "

Mia T, hillary clinton blames hubby for terrorism

(SHE knew nuttin')

Meet the Press, 12-09-01

 

 

*George Will continues: There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that. ... Furthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism

Q ERTY3 co-rapist  bump!

[codebreaker]

I think you nailed it, the theory is now that OKC was payback for the Gulf War (after McVeigh was found with the Iraqi phone numbers) and Al Qaeda and Saddam did a double team and found 2 'patsies' Nichols and McVeigh with anti- government leanings to do the job.

Couple that with the tape of the 2nd car pulled over at the scene as McVeigh was arrested that came up missing. (John Doe #2 who according to reports went east to get a job at Boston's Airport and set up meetings with the 9/11 conspirators in the same OKC motel room as before)

The same could go for the WTC Towers collapse with the Prague meetings by Atta with the Iraq source,

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

With Dashole well in front of the other two, the low camera angle puts the top of his head higher in the image than the top of the heads of the other two.

Yep, it's a common technique. That's why so many people think that Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone are 6'6".

[The Great Satan]

I don't believe Mylroie has ever endorsed the notion of an Iraqi link to OKC. She has argued since the mid nineties that Saddam was behind the original, 1993 attempt to topple the WTC. I'm not ruling out a link to OKC, but I'm going to wait for somebody more credible than Newsmax to make the case.

[reagan_fanatic]

"Remember the Ashcroft "cover up the statue's bare breasts" story that turned out to be completely false,
a planted lie by the treasurer of the DNC? Press photographers routinely laid on the floor and contorted
themselves in order to get shots of Ashcroft speaking with the breasts perfectly positioned behind his head.
They also did this during the Ed Meese days.

But good luck finding a single example of such a photo from the Janet Reno era.

No, you would have seen Reno with her back to the cameras slobbering all over the statue...

[glorygirl]

Fyi, btt, and can we get this thread indexed? Thanks.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[glorygirl]

Thanks again.

[BlackVeil]

'Remember the Ashcroft "cover up the statue's bare breasts" story that turned out to be completely false, a planted lie'. I did not know that story had been shown to be a lie, but I am not surprised. It had a contrived note to it. Such a lot of the stuff which is pushed at us is pure invention.

[dalebert]

A congressional source who has seen the memo? Leaker?

[goody2shooz]

The Democrats make up their scripts as they go along. Since they're liars it doesn't much matter what they say.

The press, with its liberal bias, will get sucked in and spin accusations that are so blistering the Bush administration will be too busy dealing with all the lies flung at it to run the country.

[CyberAnt]

And ... what about all the Marines that were killed, and the USS Cole. I think the Clintons have a lot to answer for.

[CyberAnt]

And ... I agree with the President's assessment that it would be a circus.

But ... people must understand - most of this is just a get even scheme from the dems. They have never gotten over impeachment. Even though they know we were right, they are still holding a grudge.

Winning big for the repubs in November is crucial!!

[glorygirl]

Judge for yourself.

Here is a link to an AP story that includes quotes from a DOJ spokesman. He says Ashcroft had no role in the "decision" to purchase the drapes, but does not deny Ashcroft was bothered by them.

[Mitchell]

Thanks for the ping.

what do you think of this?

I think that the Democrats' motivation (for their recent criticism of Pres. Bush) is shamelessly political, and that Pres. Bush did everything that could have been done prior to 9/11. But this line of attack is unwittingly opening up things that go back farther, apparently to the FBI under the Clinton administration. (Is it possible that the FBI has been infiltrated?)

[Mitchell]

Here's something I've mentioned before, but it is especially appropriate here, in relation to the possible link between Iraq and the Oklahoma City bombing.

When Timothy McVeigh was given the chance to write an essay from prison, he chose to write about the unfairness of U.S. policy toward Iraq. I'll include the text of McVeigh's essay below. Look how he starts the whole thing. Why is this what he wrote about? He didn't expound on Waco, or the income tax, or 2nd amendment rights, or any of the sorts of things one would expect a "right-wing militia-type" to write about. He wrote instead about Iraq, biological weapons, etc. Why?

Here is McVeigh's essay, written in March, 1998, and published in Media Bypass magazine, in June, 1998. I'd really like to know why this is the one thing he felt compelled to write about from his prison cell.

ESSAY BY TIMOTHY MCVEIGH

The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") - mainly because they have used them in the past. Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S . has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claim s that this was done for deterrent purposes during its "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then, is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) - with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the continued threat of , its neighbor Iran?

The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We've all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen these photos juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki? I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other "regional conflicts" that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of "weapons of mass destruction." Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones - Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants - mostly women and children - in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks, or months to die.)

If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges against him and his nation, whey do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" - like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above? The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction. Hypocrisy when it comes to the death of children?

In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes "a shield." Think about that. (Actually, there is a difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb - saying that they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing.)

When considering morality and "mens rea" (criminal intent) in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians? Yet another example of this nation's blatant hypocrisy is revealed by the polls which suggest that this nation is greatly in favor of bombing Iraq. In this instance, the people of the nation approve of bombing government employees because they are "guilty by association" - they are Iraqi government employees. In regard to the bombing in Oklahoma City, however, such logic is condemned. What motivates these seemingly contradictory positions? Do people think that government workers in Iraq are any less human than those in Oklahoma City? Do they think that Iraqis don't have families who will grieve and mourn the loss of their loved ones? In this context, do people come to believe that the killing of foreigners is somehow different than the killing of Americans?

I recently read of an arrest in New York City where possession of a mere pipe bomb was charged as possession of a "weapon of mass destruction." If a two-pound pipe bomb is a "weapon of mass destruction," then what do people think that a 2,000-pound steel-encased bomb is? I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the aircraft that could be used to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed "The Spirit of Oklahoma." This leads me to a final, and unspoken, moral hypocrisy regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction. When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake. Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane, or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself. These are weapons of mass destruction - and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is that this nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine. It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act as viciously condemned in Oklahoma City is now a "justified" response to a problem in a foreign land. Then again, the history of United States policy over the last century, when examined fully, tends to exemplify hypocrisy.

When considering the use of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a means to an end, it would be wise to reflect on the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. His words are as true in the context of Olmstead as they are when they stand alone: "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."

Sincerely, Timothy J. McVeigh

[philman_36]

...it has now been shown that the Islamic terrorists have access to other blue eyed recruits. Johhny Walker comes to mind.
Another line of BS from you!
It has been known, not now been shown, that the Islamic terrorists have access to other blue eyed recruits.
You still don't know what you're talking about and you prove it even further with stupid statements like the one you just made!
Do you wish a link to an article showing just how "full of it" you are? I'll gladly provide one.

There were tens of thousands of pilgrims, from all over the world. They were of all colors, from blue eyed blonds to black skin Africans. But we were all participating in the same rituals, displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood that my experiences in America had lead me to believe never could exist between the white and non-white.
Note the time, place, receiver and sender!
"The following letter was sent from Malcolm to his assistants, new Muslim Mosque, press and his wife, during the conclusion of his pilgrimage to Mecca. The content is reproduced from The Autobiography of Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley".

You're stinking up the place!

[The Great Satan]

That is indeed suspicious, and one reason why I'm certainly not discounting a link, although I still find it a stretch.