Posted on 06/28/2002 5:26:09 AM PDT by McGruff
I apologize to anyone who may have read this before.
After examining the known facts, the most likely explanation that is consistent with what we know to be true is that the OKC bombing was an attempt by U.S. intelligence assets to infiltrate the Middle Eastern terrorist network that was and is at war with the U.S.
Numerous "domestic" terrorist" groups had been heavily infiltrated by federal operatives for years. Federal operatives inside these domestic organizations may have orchestrated an alliance with the Middle Eastern terrorist cells operating in the U.S. to gain intelligence information on Middle Eastern terrorists.
An intelligence asset attempting to infiltrate a terrorist organization would not gain the confidence of the leaders of the organization without killing people. In my opinion, a decision was made at the highest level to sacrifice the victims in Oklahoma in order for one or more intelligence operatives to move up in the terrorist network. In addition, by focusing blame on the people disturbed by Waco, Clinton could achieve a domestic political "victory" with the cover of a "legitimate" intelligence operation and invoke National Security to insure Congress and the Courts went along (as well as a Governor).
For folks in Washington, losing the Murrah Building may have been necessary to gain intelligence to prevent a potential attack on the political infrastructure. Please consider a "dirty" bomb exploding outside the Capitol Building during a State of the Union address and the effect on our elected leaders. This is the nightmare scenario our intelligence community is expected to defend against. I reject the sacrifice of innocent civilians for whatever the purpose and believe the operation should be exposed for what it was and those responsible should be held accountable. The failures that began in OKC resulted in the attack on 9-11.
I have great respect for your judgement and you have hit the nail on the head with this comment. Not only does it underscore the difference between you and Pat on this matter, it is the essence of the diffrence between Jayna and Pat.
In the interview with Shippers he states that there was a "massive and colossal cover up" by the FBI. Now in my words, 168 people died. The FBI cover up permitted the guilty to go free and possibly kill again. That is my definition of evil.
Jayna, like you does not believe the FBI is inherently evil. She states in the interview she gave her materials to the FBI in 1997. The irony to that is the FBI already had in their possession the video surveillance tapes recording John Doe 2 at the scene. The only place she could have taken the whole story and made a difference was the Grand Jury and if she had not opposed the subponea(unsuccessfully) and made the same case to the Grand Jury that she makes on this interview, I believe some jurors may have voted differently.
You be the judge. Listen to the interview, and then decide. Had you heard this testimony as a Grand Juror, how would you have voted.
"U.S. Postal Employee Testifies for Grand Jury - TV Reporter Disavows Conspiracy"
Judy Kuhlman, Diana Baldwin
09/20/1997
Through her attorney, Tim McCoy, former KFOR reporter Davis disavowed some of the bombing conspiracy theories that have been reported.
"She also wants to make it perfectly clear that after her two-year exhaustive investigation, she has turned up no credible evidence that supports the theory that the federal government had sufficient prior warnings to prevent the bombing," McCoy said.
KFOR-TV aired several reports by Davis suggesting an Iraqi busboy then living in Oklahoma City was involved in the Murrah Building bombing. Al Hussaini-Hussain sued Davis and KFOR, accusing the television station of fingering him as John Doe 2, but he dropped the lawsuit earlier this year.
Hussain's attorneys claimed the FBI never considered him a suspect. A FBI agent, speaking at a newspaper publishers conference in 1995, said the KFOR report was untrue. The FBI never officially commented on the broadcasts.
On Sept. 9, Nakanashi told the grand jury about seeing McVeigh and John Doe 2 on Monday before the bombing.
She said she picked McVeigh out of a line-up and later spent eight hours with an FBI sketch artist who drew a picture of the man she saw with McVeigh.
Federal prosecutors said the FBI sketch of the dark-haired, muscular suspect actually depicted an innocent Army private and was drawn from information provided by Tom Kessinger, a mechanic at Eldon's Body Shop in Junction City, Kan., where the truck was rented.
_________________________________________________________
If I am reading this right, either Ms. Nakanashi is lying when she says she assisted in the composite of John Doe 2 or the fedearal prosecutors are lying since Ms.Nakanashi was not in Elliot's Body shop, she was in the OKC Post Office. I think they have surveillance cameras in all U.S. Post offices.
I believe Ms.Nakanashi
If the FBI assigns a sketch artist to the case, wouldn't they also review the video surveillance tapes from the Post Office?
Very good advise.
But I also think there is more involved here. There are two distinct view points competing.
On the one side you have those who believe there were Middle Eastern terrorists involved in the OKC bombing, but the FBI and the DOJ were simply too incompetent to figure it out, even though they had all the video surveillance tapes and "missing 302's". In other words, the FBI are good guys, they are just stupid.
On the other side you have those that believe there were Middle Eastern terrorists involved in the OKC bombing and the FBI and the DOJ intentionally covered it up(i.e.government conspiracy). In other words, the FBI are bad guys, but they are very smart.(since they got away with it.)
It is great to have a difference of opinion. The problem comes in when one side becomes so aligned with their position that they will discredit the "FBI covered up the bombing" side by discrediting investigators with witnesses.
For example, "Through her attorney, Tim McCoy, former KFOR reporter Davis disavowed some of the bombing conspiracy theories that have been reported."
You have read it before on this sight. Complaints like you must be anti-government if you believe the FBI covered up the Middle Eastern connection, etc.
My response is, if you believe thereis a Middle Eastern connection to the OKC bombing and you also believe the FBI knew nothing about it, then you must be anti-common sense.
It took great courage for Pat to bring forward these two competing views and the effect of the differing view points at arriving at the truth. He knew in advance there would be claims he was being petty. But he did it anyway because it was the right thing to do.
On the other side you have those that believe there were Middle Eastern terrorists involved in the OKC bombing and the FBI and the DOJ intentionally covered it up(i.e.government conspiracy). In other words, the FBI are bad guys, but they are very smart.(since they got away with it.)
There is a third possibility. The FBI and others knew ME terrorists were involved in the OKC bombing, but covered it up because they had been persuaded that (for whatever reason) this was the right thing to do. In my opinion, the truth is probably a mixture of the second and third possibilities.
There is a third possibility. The FBI and others knew ME terrorists were involved in the OKC bombing, but covered it up because they had been persuaded that (for whatever reason) this was the right thing to do. In my opinion, the truth is probably a mixture of the second and third possibilities.
If I take out the words "bad guys" Option two and three are the same.
So I guess the only disageement then would be can covering up the murder of 168 people ever be the right thing.
I am happy with removing the words "bad guys" and sticking with two groups who believe there was a Middle Eastern connection, group one believes the FBI knows nothing about Middle Eastern involvement and group two believes the FBI covered up Middle Eastern involvement.
Another possible difference is whether the FBI, rightly or wrongly, thought it was the right thing.
But also, I will admit I can conceive of circumstances under which such a coverup in 1995 and thereafter might have been justifiable. I cannot really conceive of circumstances under which it would be justifiable after 9/11.
To put things in perspective, it would be helpful if Jayna Davis would answer one question:
Does she believe that members of the FBI and DOJ conspired to intentionally cover up Middle Eastern involvement in the OKC bombing?
I can't see how she can not believe this to be the case.
Thanks for your inputs honway, and for your theory. It makes logical sense that it might be the correct one. As you know, on FR, it is advisable to repeat important items often, so that more people will see them, and for slow people like me it sometimes takes two and three times to sink in.
Thanks for the super thread. I salute Jayna Davis' massive efforts at evidence gathering in the OKC bombing investigation, I just wish she could answer the few controversial items brought up with the factual answers.
After logging on, though, I think it's important to offer some clarification, in an effort to explain some of the realizations I've made in the last day or so regarding OKCsubmariner and Jayna Davis.
Nita, Pat and I have had a number of "private" discussions along the lines of your posts on this thread, a la, "Why can't we all just get along?" I did not understand until Friday.
Now I think I understand why, and to me, it has nothing to do with her testimony before the grand jury. After all, the grand jury did indict "others unknown."
And Jayna's testimony to the grand jury and her attorney's statement beforehand have been well-publicized for years.
But there is a BIG difference between a secret grand jury proceeding and a public trial in federal court.
As Pat has indicated, there were likely a number of people involved. The grand jury knew this, as well. Not to be flippant, but the indictment was for "others unknown," not "other unknown."
It was not the job of the grand jury to hunt down the other suspects. We all know who was supposed to do that job, which, at least to our knowledge, still hasn't been accomplished.
The lightbulb went on in my head with this statement: (let me post it again)
"Davis specifically told me from 1996 until 2001 that she deliberately kept the specific details of the prior warnings of the House Task Force and Bodansky on the OKC bombing from Attorney Stephen Jones even when she said she knew Jones wanted it and hoped to subpoena her during the McVeigh trial to get it made known in court."
Also, consider this statement.
"She also wants to make it perfectly clear that after her two-year exhaustive investigation, she has turned up no credible evidence that supports the theory that the federal government had sufficient prior warnings to prevent the bombing," McCoy said.
With the key word, of course, being "credible." The first question I will ask you, is why was that word inserted?
We know now, thanks to AP, that indeed there WAS a warning.
So what does credible mean? Does it mean written proof? Or does it mean the word of an FBI agent, who might or might not admit to making such a statement?
Now let me ask a series of additional questions.
Has anyone considered what might have happened at Timothy McVeigh's trial if she had been subpoenaed, and testified to the effect that there was a prior warning issued by the government, a warning that might have convinced some government agents and judges to stay home that day, and/or keep their offspring out of the daycare center?
Has anyone considered how Judge Richard Matsch would have ruled if Stephen Jones had presented him with a deposition to that effect, before or during the trial?
Has anyone considered whether such a deposition might have convinced Judge Matsch to have allowed the videtaped evidence from Edwin Angeles alleging he had met with Terry Nichols in the Phillipines prior to the OKC Bombing into the trial?
Has anyone considered how the jury might have reacted? Or how some of the witnesses might have testified, especially Michael Fortier and Jennifer McVeigh?
Has anyone considered whether that jury would have levied the death penalty? And whether that might make a difference today, in figuring out the truth in this whole mess?
Has anyone considered the possibility that OKCSubmariner is NOT telling all he knows, in an effort to protect the professional reputations and safety of some of the people most closely associated with this case?
Does anyone here really think that OKCsubmariner would make up the quote I've included in this post, or even say it without some sort of outside, additional confirmation? Does anybody here REALLY believe Pat is the kind of guy to be caught up in petty rivalries?
I didn't, and that's why I had so much trouble understanding this whole thing until Friday.
Part of the whole problem here is that Pat is unable to be perfectly clear about what he knows, because he might risk harming others. So let me be perfectly clear about what I know, limited though it may be, about Pat and about this case.
We all know what he has written and the story of his experience, so I'm not going to review that. I do know that he's always told me the truth, although he hasn't answered all my questions. I know he is a committed Christian. I know he really cares about the people who've been hurt by this, and that he really cares about this country. And I know he isn't looking to profit personally, at least in terms of becoming famous or making lots of money.
More important, I know he's been vindicated, not only by the AP about the prior warnings, but also by the Inspector General of the United States, in terms of all those additional thousands of missing 302s the FBI did not admit to having in May, 2001.
With all the time he has put into this project, he deserves to write a book, so don't trash him on this basis. Some of the rest of us feel like we could write a book, too, given the amount of time and research we've done, and there would be nothing wrong with that.
But his only goal, like most of the rest of us, I think, is seeing that the truth comes out.
And yes, Nita, there are two sides to every story. So let me try to be fair to Jayna.
As I stated privately to someone else on this thread, when you are a young, attractive female TV reporter covering law enforcement agents, cops often tell you things they're not supposed to tell. Half the time you don't know whether they're telling the truth or not, but you check it out, just in case.
It's very possible somebody somewhere did tell Jayna about the warning, and she could find no evidence of it afterward. That would make her attorney's statement prior to the grand jury proceeding essentially true.
It is also understandle why, in 1997, while she was pregnant, according to this thread, she would not want to have gotten mixed up in the insanity surrounding the McVeigh trial.
But, I do not believe she was still working at the TV station at the time. If that is the case, the decision was her own.
I don't know Jayna Davis. I don't know if she was contacted by Stephen Jones. I don't know if she was threatened by somebody in the FBI. I don't know what she thinks or thought, whether she was afraid, or whether she believed she was a better arbiter of "credible evidence" than a judge or jury might have been. I don't know if she believes she's in danger, and David Schippers found a way to offer her protection. I don't know. I just know that I have no reason to distrust OKCsubmariner.
And there is one more post on this thread I MUST take issue with,aristeides:
"So I guess the only disageement then would be can covering up the murder of 168 people ever be the right thing.
"Another possible difference is whether the FBI, rightly or wrongly, thought it was the right thing."
"But also, I will admit I can conceive of circumstances under which such a coverup in 1995 and thereafter might have been justifiable. I cannot really conceive of circumstances under which it would be justifiable after 9/11."
A coverup is NEVER justifiable, at least and especially when it involves someone's death.
One hundred and sixty-eight people died on April 19, 1995, along with three unborn babies. There is, and was no justification that I can see for a coverup,then or now. Many people, including and especially OKCsubmariner, knew that the entire truth about that day was NOT being told, prior to 9/11.
And all of those people had more than six years to go public with what they knew.
Had it not been for 9/11, OKCsubmariner, Stephen Jones, and the others clamoring about "others unknown" would have continued to have been dismissed as "tinfoilers."
There is no way to tell whether 9/11 might have been prevented, at least at this point, if the truth about OKC had become public beforehand. And we may never know. But somebody out there probably does.
Also, it was never your job, or my job, or Jayna Davis' job, or the FBI's job, to determine whether Timothy McVeigh was guilty or should have been put to death.
It was the job of the jury who heard his trial, a jury that had the right to hear and see all the evidence relevant to the case.
And I wonder sometimes whether the members of that jury ever peruse these threads, and what they think of them.
We now know there was a government warning, and we know that the jury never heard about it. And we know of course, about the thousands of missing "302's", many of which were destroyed before they ever reached the hands of the court.
We will never know what would have happened if the jury had heard about that warning, or seen those 302's. With Clinton in office, it's pretty difficult to imagine any real reform occurring at the FBI. It may not even happen now, after 9/11.
Whatever the truth is, Jayna Davis is going to have to live with the situation as it is now, as do the rest of us.
Somebody, somewhere, does know the truth, or a least a larger chunk of it than what we've heard so far.
Perhaps we'll hear more, perhaps not.
But not if the "coverup" continues.
Let me steal from the Alamo-Girl homepage (and my own) to finish, courtesy of Patrick Henry:
"It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts."
"Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?"
"Are we disposed to be the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?"
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. "
From me: Whatever the truth, and whatever happens, God will get us through. But the people who DO know the truth have a duty to those who died, not only in OKC and on 9/11, but to all of those who died in the struggle to keep this country whole. They have a duty to make sure those responsible are held accountable. They have a duty to do all the can to ensure future terrorist attacks in the U.S. are prevented. And WE have the duty to do all we can to hold THEM accountable.
Jayna and David also made it clear that it is Iran which is the prime sponsor of terrorism against the US.
They said that in a one-hour radio interview they could barely touch the tip of the iceberg on all the shenanigans of the terror groups and the coverup scandals of the FBI. When asked why the FBI would not come clean now, David said that it is because the FBI has had so many black eyes over the past few years and they don't want to admit just how pathetic they are.
"If you get convicted of arson, robbery, and murder, you don't stand up and say 'oh, by the way I raped somebody, too'", Schippers said, to explain why the FBI is in turtle mode.
David Schippers sure made that point on the interview I heard. See post #55.
"She also wants to make it perfectly clear that after her two-year exhaustive investigation, she has turned up no credible evidence that supports the theory that the federal government had sufficient prior warnings to prevent the bombing," McCoy said.
From the interview, Jayna Davis:
"I had in my possession prior warning documents that I was given six years ago by the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare which validated all the witness testimony in Oklahoma City..."
"March Third, 1995 the Director of the Congressional Task Force, Mr. Yosseff Bodansky, issued an updated warning stating that the terrorists now plan to strike at, and I am quoting, "the heart of the U.S." Did that mean Oklahoma City? Yes it did. Twelve cities were on the target list because of the radical Islamic groups and terrorist networks operating in those cities. Oklahoma City was definately on the list."
"I am going to quote directly from an intelligence report issued by Yossef Bodansky.'This meant Oklahoma City would have been on the short list of objectives because of the known prominence of local Islamic networks operating within Oklahoma City'."
"Now, when Bodansky issued this prior warning, he didn't do this because he had a little bit of information over a few weeks. He did this after 18 months of intelligence gathering from numerous sources in numerous Middle Eastern countries and they were all coming back with the same information and there was corroborating information coming from terrorist conferences that took place in the Fall of '94 and the Spring of '95 in which Tehran, the captital of Iran, indicated an overriding desire to strike inside the borders of the great Satan..."
Another explanation would be that Jayna Davis genuinely believes it is best for the nation if the citizens never find out that the FBI knew of the Middle Eastern connection from the very beginning of the investigation.
The difficult part is you can not have it both ways, you can not expose the Middle Eastern connection without also exposing the criminal conspiracy by the FBI and DOJ to cover up the Middle Eastern connection to the OKC bombing.
I do not believe she has reconciled the dilemma involved in exposing the Middle Eastern connection without exposing the FBI/DOJ conspiracy to cover up the connection.
I have no problem with her position. However to speak through her attorney and denigrate individuals unwilling to accept the impossible postion that there was a Middle Eastern connection and the FBI had no knowledge of the connection in inexcusable.
David Schippers is wise enough to know you can't have it both ways, after 9-11.
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.