Posted on 09/05/2002 4:11:09 AM PDT by Elle Bee
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:47 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Was Saddam involved in Oklahoma City and the first WTC bombing?
OKLAHOMA CITY -- With the Sept. 11 anniversary upon us and President Bush talking about a "regime change" in Iraq, it's an apt time to look at two investigators who connect Baghdad to two notorious incidents of domestic terrorism. Jayna Davis, a former television reporter in Oklahoma City, believes an Iraqi cell was involved in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building here. Middle East expert Laurie Mylroie links Iraq to the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and has published a book on the subject.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
TXnMA (No Longer!!!)
If McVeigh or Nichols knew that everyone they love would be placed at high risk if they talked, their silence is understandable.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey, for example, recently told the Journal that "when the full stories of these two incidents are finally told, those who permitted the investigations to stop short will owe big explanations to these two brave women. And the nation will owe them a debt of gratitude."
As I say, I would be open to genuine evidence on this as opposed to speculation. But his dad said nothing about this; nor did Nichols. Only this one letter.
I don't know why this one time soldier AGAINST Iraq would pen the following, but he did:
“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. claims 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?”
Moreover, it means that he lied when he wrote about the hatred of "big government" as his reason for OK City.
I don't think he needed to lie when he said he hated "big government". I don't think his hatred and that of Iraq's hatred were mutually exclusive. In fact, it makes sense that he would ally himself with fellow anti-U.S. terrorists.
I guess this means that the Bush administration is somehow going to use this when he lays out his "reasoning" for an invasion of Iraq next week. Notice how no adminstration officials are quoted.Do we really believe nobody was questioned?
At any rate, kids, this is a major editorial in a major paper. I hope others follow suit.
Agreed, it is a bit puzzling. But no more puzzling than the one essay that McVeigh was allowed to pen from his jail cell. Whatever is the explanation for McVeigh's impassioned defense of Iraq in "Hypocrisy", as published in Media Bypass?. I know, I know...Media Bypass is not a credible publication. But these are known to be McVeigh's words...whether published in Media Bypass, Atlantic Monthly or the Congressional Record.
********************************
Hypocrisy, by Timothy J. Veigh
Media Bypass / Alternative Media, Inc. Editor's note: Timothy McVeigh, sentenced to death for his role in the April 19, 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City, penned the following essay, dated "March 1998," from his cell in the administrative maximum section of the federal prison in Florence, Colo. In a preface, McVeigh wrote "I have chosen Media Bypass as a possible forum for this piece because, frankly, I realize that it is quite provocative -- and I rather doubt that any mainstream media would touch it. [Note that although the enclosed is very provocative, it was written to provoke thought -- and was not written with malevolent intent.]"
McVeigh apologized for the essay being handwritten, but noted his "current (unique) environment does not provide access to a typewriter, a word processor or a copier. (hell, I'm lucky they let me have a pen!), so I hope you understand why this is being submitted handwritten -- and I hope you can overcome this shortcoming."
McVeigh, whose interview with Media Bypass [February 1996] was picked up and dissected by the New York Times and major media outlets across the nation, also expressed concerns that reporting subsequent to this essay might be "printed out of context... but at least the original can be accurate."
A decorated U.S. Army veteran of the Persian Gulf War, McVeigh hereby offers his contribution to the debate over U.S. policy toward Iraq, a policy that McVeigh says is marked by a "deep hypocrisy."
*************************************************
HYPOCRISY
by Timothy J. 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.Sl is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterent purposes during the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterence) -- 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 pictures 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 and trials against him and his nation, why 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 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." 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 tartgets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivilent 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 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 for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."
Sincerely
Timothy J. McVeigh
Copyright (c) 1998, Media Bypass / Alternative Media, Inc.
******************************
Odd, huh? What do you make of it?
The New York Post was one of the recipients of an anthrax letter. Due to their personal interest in the case, they re-printed David Tell's excellent piece from The American Spectator which a.) convincingly questioned the assumption that the anthrax was distributed by "a domestic terrorist" and b.) offered the theory that it might have an Iraqi origin.
But that's about it.
For all intents and purposes, the Wall Street Journal earns the award for:
First To Correctly Calculate 2 + 2
Mainstream Media Division
Arguing the negative? I'm not buying it.
Perhaps their families have been threatened. Perhaps monies promised to their heirs was contingent upon silence. Perhaps, as was ALSO mentioned on this thread, they truly identify with the anti-American cause.
The article stands intact. Steven Jones claims there are "others unknown" as do the official court documents. That's a lot more powerful than anything you've raised.
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.