The Iraq Connection - Was Saddam involved in OK City and the 1st WTC bombing? ~ Micah Morrison

Well, surely you know that Saddam is not, nor ever has been, a "Islamic fundamentalist." He is a secular dictator, which is one of the reasons that he doesn't have the support of his people.

Saddam does visit Mosques and does pray for the cameras at least. Just because he may not actually believe in the Islamic religon personnally, is not in itself proof that he is not colluding with Islamic Fundamentalists or that he is not allied with many of their causes. He has been at war with the US since he invaded Kuwait. Why not use and align himself with others who are also at war with the 'Great Satan'.

The "chip in the brain" thing is kookie, to be sure. But still, the concensus was that when McVeigh went to his death, he was in control, seemed to know exactly what was happening and especially had no regrets. But, if you have access to the published psych reports, put 'em up.

As I said way back then, anyone who welcomes death is not in control. It is a sign that they have given up.

Careful. I remember a fellow named JC who "welcomed death," for His own reasons.

Ooops, Sorry about that.

Does anyne else? Anyone have a link to news stories?? W was that done??

Please see replies 97 and 98.

One of the primary reasons given for the coming war is because Saddam has developed biological weapons, and I believe he has. He did not develope the weapons to keep them on the shelf. The anthrax mailings last year was simply a warning shot, a shot across the bow.

I believe many of the Iraqis resettled in the U.S. at the conclusion of Gulf War I are still loyal to Saddam and thousands are in a position to carry out his orders to participate in a major biological weapon attack from within the U.S in the event that the Saddam Hussein regime is threatened.

As a result of the anthrax mailings, I am convinced that Iraq has prepositioned biological weapons on U.S. soil and the U.S. government prepositioned the personnel that will participate in a future biological weapon attack on the American people .

Can you tell me why someone who would murder hundreds of people would be tempted to betray his co-conspirators? The only reasonable motive for the bombing would be to split Americans along factional lines. Having accomplished that, why would you blow the deal by admitting there was a foreign motive.

I have no firm beliefs about Oklahoma, but I suspect there was outside technical help.

One of the primary reasons given for the coming war is because Saddam has developed biological weapons, and I believe he has.

what's the big surpise? U.S. gave um to him in the 1st place during Iran/Iraq war.

I believe many of the Iraqis resettled in the U.S. at the conclusion of Gulf War I are still loyal to Saddam and thousands are in a position to carry out his orders...

agreed.

thanks for the ping...
I heard this article mentioned on The Hugh Hewitt Show but hadn't time to
go buy an issue.
I'll be back to digest on the tale on the weekend.

U.S. gave um to him in the 1st place during Iran/Iraq war.

Very true. I am still at a loss to understand the reasons for the transfer of biological/chemical weapons technology and materials as well as $2 billion in taxpayers dollars directly to Saddam after he "used chemical weapons on his own people."

Ironically, his history of using chemical weapons on the Kurds is used as a reason for the coming war.

"Thank you glorygirl very much for the heads up for Micah's appearance on CNBC tonight. More to come!"

I certainly hope the "more to come" includes a more forceful presentation that what I saw tonight. It almost seemed as though he was apologizing for writing the story!

Note to Micah Morrison: Read this.

Oh, well. You know us "tinfoilers," who know nothing about documenting our sources, even when it comes from the federal government itself.

I thought it was funny when he was asked "Why is this story coming out now?" and he had no answer.

Guess I shouldn't hit on them too hard. At least they wrote this thing. It's amost unbelievable, watching them talk about in on TV, on Fox too, after all this time. It's just that the liberal views in the media are so entrenched, it's horrible.

FYI and please see reply #110 also.

I don't think you'll see anytime soon this story presented by the administration, and certainly it hasn't been shown as proof in any intelligence briefings with Congress or other countries. The reason is that to do so would likely doom the Dem. party in the short term, though causing a bipartisan bloodbath. So if the Dems got a whiff that this was about to be revealed, you would here them scream about how the administration is reaching, remember Hearst and the Maine, and that Bush is trying to blame everything short of the Patriots Superbowl win on Iraq as an excuse to invade. Its their own only chance, to once again go to the muddy the water well. And I don't think the admin. could hold this secret and then suddenly reveal it on nat'l TV. Too many holdovers.

But we haven't heard that. My guess is that if this ever is officially confirmed, it will only be after Homeland Security has been up and running. I can see Bush using HS as a way to draw out of the intelligence agencies the most loyal and crucial employees, to keep some form of intelligence continuity as the FBI and CIA are purged. Make no mistake, with the gov't admitting that Iraqi involvement in OKC was squelched, an ugly, bloody purge of intelligence would be unavoidable. Which makes me suspect Bush will tread cautiously for awhile longer, unwilling to shoot more holes in an already leaky ship until a lifeboat can be assembled to be on standby. Might also explain why Tenet hasn't yet been handed his hand, given all that we now know from Gertz's book.

I don't have a strong gut feeling one way or another, but guess that when HS is on its feet, we'll get some direly needed reforms in other areas. Call me an optimist. But until the Dems are howling, I doubt the OKC connection is close to being officially recognized.

here=hear

None of this is "hard evidence," let alone "conclusive evidence," that Saddam Hussein was complicit in Sept. 11 or any of the other domestic terrorist attacks.

All too true. What would Saddam's motivation for supporting these attacks have been? Vengeance? Pure Evil?

I can certainly believe that Iraq gave sanctuary and funds to Arab or Muslim radicals, but it's less clear that they were the masterminds or even knew what was in the works. In any case, if Hussein did give money to someone who hated America and would do anything to hurt us, that would qualify as justification for war, and a warning to others to be more careful with terrorists. But Morison doesn't prove that he's at the center of it all.

BTW, the Epstein site is fascinating.

"What would Saddam's motivation for supporting these attacks have been? Vengeance? Pure Evil?"

What was Mohammed Atta's motive? What are the motives of the Arab terrorists who kill themselves in Israel at the age of 16?

Sadaam has a lot more to revenge than any of them,(their current and future counterparts, I mean), and a lot more to lose if the U.S. starts bombing.

I had a conversation with someone about this article yesterday. The person said "if all of this is true, I don't want to know about it. I don't want to believe it, because that would mean the entire nation, our entire system is corrupt. "

That's the root of the problem, really. Everyone (especially the liberals) has been so busy covering their own backside, or lying to themselves about the state of the world, that we ended up with September 11.

If every person who read this thread wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal, urging the editors to pursue this story, they just might decide to keep pressing this story, on the front page instead of the editorial page. Then it would be impossible to ignore.

This is one address that will work.

Because the New York Times and the Washington Post haven't immediately picked it up, the WSJ is already beginning to back away.

to Diddle E. Squat: "So if the Dems got a whiff that this was about to be revealed, you would here them scream about how the administration is reaching, remember Hearst and the Maine, and that Bush is trying to blame everything short of the Patriots Superbowl win on Iraq as an excuse to invade."

All I can say is that if Bush is planning to make any big revelations, he better do it next week. Can you imagine how it will look if he makes the speech to the U.N. and it doesn't fly, here or abroad? Then what is he going to do? "Oh, gee, we were gonna tell you, but we didn't want to rile the democrats up too much, so we thought we'd save it until we really need it, until Tommy was ready to take it on?"

I think not. At least I hope not.

I also hope Bush got fired up enough by Clinton's comments last weekend about why we shouldn't invade Iraq to show the American people why we should.

Read the front page of the Washington Post, today, If you want to see the reason. The woman pictured was on Nightline tonight. She was nearly burned to death at the Pentagon last year. It was horrible.

I believe, and again I hope I am right, that Bush is so sure he is going to make a strong enough case for the invasion of Iraq that he can dare to take it before the Congress, and the world. And that Tony Blair believes that,too. Both he and Bush are certainly putting their political futures at risk if that's not true. It may have nothing whatsoever to do with the OKC/bombing or the first WTC bombing.

But, like the WSJ, I hope he does address those issues.

BTW, the purge of intelligence is already well underway at the FBI. All the officials who supervised the OKC bombing investigation are gone.

Bush plays everything very close to the vest. Maureen Dowd and her ilk don't have any comprehension of why and how Bush operates.

Neither do we, perhaps. But I still believe he is a good man. Time will tell as to whether he has what it takes to clean up the mess this country has become, and fight a war in the process.

If you ask me, we have to clean up our own backyard before we start messing with Iraq. The American people know it, and I think(hope again) that Bush does, too.

see this.

"Cute, Lord of what?"

Lord of Heaping Pile of Steaming......

"At any rate, kids, this is a major editorial in a major paper. I hope others follow suit."

They won't. Go to the other thread on "connection" and read the last three posts!

"Anyway, my guess is Fox will do more on this tonight, so you might want to stay tuned."

Fox completely ignored it on Friday night...Gibson choosing to WASTE 40 minutes of his show on that silly murder case.......and Brit Hume not touching it. More of the same!!!!! Great!! Goodbye story!! Goodbye truth!!

Nope. Just been very busy, and have had to narrow my focus somewhat!