Skip to comments.
Oklahoma City Bombing and the Middle East
The Glenn Beck Program ^
| 08/07/02
| Various / Glenn Beck
Posted on 08/08/2002 2:05:52 PM PDT by JDGreen123
On August 7th Glenn Beck spoke with Oklahoma City reporter Jayna Davis. This broadcast went in-depth about the connections between the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing and the Middle East. The broadcast ran 2 1/2 hours and can be listened to now (or next Thursday on Glenn's show).
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: atta; bombing; fredthompson; iraq; mcveigh; okcbombing; oklahoma
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-35 last
To: JDGreen123
Thanks so much for the link. We get the show from 10 to noon here, but it is bad reception as the station is out of the area. I will make sure I listen as I was looking forward to it.
To: JDGreen123
This fits in with what Steve Emerson noted in his book about OKC being a hotbed for radical movements.
22
posted on
08/08/2002 10:02:29 PM PDT
by
zeaal
To: zeaal
Yes. Mr. Emerson has done some excellent work. His book and his video are must read/see for all Americans.
To: JDGreen123
This is getting legs now. Certainly not as a result of US federal government information. Why don't they want us to know?
24
posted on
08/09/2002 12:04:37 AM PDT
by
SamBees
To: AntiGuv
Why would Iraqi or any other Middle Eastern terrorists have blown up a Federal Building in Oklahoma City??? One possible motive was suggested in an article I recently read, posted here on FR. It had to do with the Federal Marshalls involvement in the prosecution of terrorists for the WTC '93 bombing. There was a Federal Marshalls office in the Murrah building I believe. (Don't hold me to the letter on that. It has been a week or two since I read it.)
At any rate I can certainly see why ME terrorists would choose a 'heartland' target. Terrorism is all about the psychology of terrorizing. What could shake us up more than to feel that even midwest 'mainstreet' America isn't safe? They aren't looking to beat us through attrition or destruction of infra-structure. They can't accomplish that. They just want us to fear destruction and give in.
Welcome to Free Republic. FReegards, TigersEye
To: SamBees
I know why Chicken Clinton did not want us to know! I am hoping that Bush will see differently and open the files.
To: eastforker
Just for record: I've been here awhile, I've seen everything cited in the original posting, and I'm not convinced that the Feds were not involved either.
A deaf, dumb, and blind arab terrorist should expect to find just a few (!) more federal employees in a federal building when he lit the fuze.
Oh, and I note from another source (Drudge again)that the current investigation into the anthrax letters includes at least one "right wing GI Joe type" who bragged about service in Rhodesia....some things don't seem to change much.
27
posted on
08/09/2002 6:56:04 AM PDT
by
norton
To: JDGreen123
I guess some cities get Somalians, some get Albanians, and some get Iraquis. Lincoln,NE and OKC received thousands of Iraqi refugees, many former Iraqi soldiers.
Jacksonville, FL reveived between 4,000 and 6,000 Bosnian Muslims. Now Wolfowitz has identified Jacksonville as an Al Qaeda terrorist cell node.
These resettlement programs are one of the many wise uses of your tax dollars.How many people know they are actually taxed to pay for the resettlement of terrorists and then provide housing and subsistence?
28
posted on
08/09/2002 7:08:30 AM PDT
by
honway
To: SamBees
Why don't they want us to know? I recently read that the federal prosecutors are going to drop their attempt to tie Moussaoui directly to 9-11 because of lack of evidence.
Meanwhile the prosecutors refuse to use the eyewitness testimony of the motel manager that places Moussaoui with Mohamed Atta in OKC on or about August 1, 2001.
The Bush Justice Department would rather risk having Moussaoui aquitted than connect the 9-11 attack to the OKC bombing.
29
posted on
08/09/2002 7:15:19 AM PDT
by
honway
To: norton
The two explanations are not mutually exclusive. Al Qaeda (or whatever the outfit was called in 1995) could have been doing Clinton a favor by going after the Murrah Building. Would help to explain why Clinton helped bin Laden out in '98.
To: honway; BlueDogDemo; Fred Mertz; MizSterious; Lion's Cub
Meanwhile the prosecutors refuse to use the eyewitness testimony of the motel manager that places Moussaoui with Mohamed Atta in OKC on or about August 1, 2001.truly an outrage!
31
posted on
08/09/2002 8:29:45 AM PDT
by
thinden
To: honway; Fred Mertz; BlueDogDemo
<< "Meanwhile the prosecutors refuse to use the eyewitness testimony of the motel manager that places Moussaoui with Mohamed Atta in OKC on or about August 1, 2001. The Bush Justice Department would rather risk having Moussaoui aquitted than connect the 9-11 attack to the OKC bombing." >>
I don't know about YOU guys, but I really, really, REALLY have a problem with that.
And the WORST part is the fact that I can't do a thing about it except sit out the next election. If they're dead set on keeping it covered, only a mass uprising of the brain-dead sheeple will change it.
To: Nita Nupress
"Meanwhile the prosecutors refuse to use the eyewitness testimony .."
Well that's about par for the course. Why do you think "lady justice" is wearing a blindfold ? As an older and slightly more cynical peer of mine once said, "lady justice is a blind whore weighing dope".
33
posted on
08/09/2002 1:17:59 PM PDT
by
lawdog
To: aristeides
My thought runs more to encouraging the (islamic) terrorists via plants and maybe even by McVeigh (as an agent who was himself tricked), being sure that the federal employee losses were very short on agents and the news coverage long on wounded kiddies and mamas; then doing the whole blame the far right (militia) thing.
Not a clean quid-pro-quo, even WJC would have worried about something like that coming out. As it is, the vast majority of the public is now willing to call any such theory mere lunacy.
PS: I also think that this possibility and the mechanics it takes are valid and that they put quits to the theory that no one in any US agency could have had an inkling of what was to come.
34
posted on
08/09/2002 4:47:07 PM PDT
by
norton
To: dawn53
SO SORRY
9AM to NOON is Correct.......
Rush must have been on my mind
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-35 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson