Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Exploring Iraq link to pre-Sept. 11 acts
The Indianapolis Star ^ | 9-7-02 | Editorial Board

Posted on 09/07/2002 4:46:24 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

Edited on 05/07/2004 6:26:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Our position is: Congress should hold hearings on evidence of previous Iraqi connections to terror.

Astatement by former CIA Director James Woolsey has given new credibility to suspicions of Iraqi involvement in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 -- enough to merit congressional hearings.


(Excerpt) Read more at indystar.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Indiana; US: New York; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: 911; cia; iraq; okcbombing; oklahomacity; timothymcveigh; woolsey

1 posted on 09/07/2002 4:46:24 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
The likes of Arlen Specter doesn't give me any great hope...
2 posted on 09/07/2002 5:03:00 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DB
Arlan doesn't instill much confidence in me either. If Iraqi involvement comes out after all this time we are going to need more than "explanations" from the investigators. It had to be covered up by some pretty high officials in our FBI/CIA, ect, we're going to need treason trials.
3 posted on 09/07/2002 5:17:46 AM PDT by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylroie were pushed aside, their stories labeled frivolous along with a whole cadre of other witnesses who were equally squelched, their remarks reaching only the back pages of local newspapers and obscure ones. Had Dan Burton been courageous enough, none of this would have been swept under the carpet at the time. McVeigh took the easy way out but Terry Nichols is still with us; he needs to be made to talk and I hope that man is under heavy guard from within and without. That two men could have done all that damage is preposterous. This is more of the same 'sweeping' Vince Foster got – from the Clintons once again.
4 posted on 09/07/2002 5:20:00 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve50
I wish I could remember what show and what cable channel I was watching, but a couple of months back, I was watching a documentary type show. During this show they showed some papers (documents), darkened the screen so they could draw a circle around a highlighted paragraph.

In this document was a section about ME involvement in OKC. And if I remember correctly, this was just above or just below the highlighted area.

Unfortunately, they didn't stay on this screen long enough to read much of what was said about the ME involvement, but what I did read seemed to imply that there HAD been ME involvement. I can't even remember who narrated the show.

Since they often rerun these shows, I'll have to try to watch for anything that might have been it, but I found that paper mentioning ME involvement VERY interesting!

5 posted on 09/07/2002 5:31:12 AM PDT by ET(end tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OKCSubmariner
ping.
6 posted on 09/07/2002 6:19:44 AM PDT by Ranger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ranger
Arlen worked on the Warren Commission Nuff said
7 posted on 09/07/2002 6:33:54 AM PDT by scooby321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: scooby321
Due to cover-up and incompetence, the trials of these two events should have given us ample warning of future terrorist actions. By sweeping the connections with Iraq under the rug, we now have a reluctance by our officials to bring up these important connections with Iraq.

We have a meeting in Prague by Mohammad Atta as connecting Iraq to terrorism by the simple explanation of guilt by association. We pass up a far more damaging and direct linkage to Iraq in the form of these attacks because we cannot admit that there is a subversion of justice in the United States. What a tangled web we weave, when we seek to deceive!

8 posted on 09/07/2002 7:22:44 AM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer; Ranger; DB; steve50; meenie; scooby321; yoe
America Should Act in Self Defense Against Iraq For 9/11,OKC,1993 WTC Attacks

Personal Reserach, interviews and Opinions by Author ^ | September 5, 2002 | Patrick B. Briley

Posted on 09/05/2002 3:06 PM Pacific by OKCSubmariner

Saddam Hussein of Iraq hired mercenaries from Baluchistan for his war on terror against the US even before the 1991 Gulf War.

Saddam’s Baluchi mercenaries have been very successful in attacking American targets and killing innocent American citizens in the 9/11, OKC and 1993 WTC Attacks.

Khalid Mohammed and his nephew Ramzi Yousef were Saddam’s Baluchi mercenaries who attacked America for Saddam and Iraq.

Middle East expert Lorie Mylroie has given eloquent proofs over the years of Saddam’s involvement in the 1993 WTC attack.

The FBI and DOJ publicly say Khalid Mohammed was a mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and the 1993 WTC bombing.

Ramzi Yousef is in Federal prison for his bombing of the WTC in 1993.

The FBI and DOJ and Bush White House have not yet told you that Khalid Mohammed was a mastermind of the OKC bombing and behind the meetings of Terry Nichols in the Philippines to plan the OKC bombing. They have not yet told you that the Abu Sayeff cell in the Philippines run by Khalid Mohammed and Ramzi yousef was filled with Iraqi agents besides just Khalid Mohammed and Yousef. In December 1995 the Philippine police arrested nine members of the Abu Sayeff terror group. Six of the nine members arrested were identified by the Philippine authorities to the US government as Iraqi agents. So counting Khalid Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef, there were at least eight Iraqi agents involved in the Abu Sayef cell in the Philippines that helped Nichols plan and carry out the OKC bombing.

There is now a public debate about whether or not to go to war against Iraq and Saddam. The debate so far has been framed and deliberately limited by the White House and in Congress as to whether or not Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and if he will in the future use them sooner rather than later against the US.

It is possible that Congress and the American people and the world will not be adequately persuaded of the need to remove Saddam now based solely on the weapons of mass destruction arguments that may not yet be compelling and verifiable enough to enough people.

The case should be made by the White House to Congress and to the American people and to the world (UN, Europe,etc.) that the US has the right of self defense for the acts of war committed by Saddam and Iraq against Americans in the 9/11 attacks, the OKC bombing and the 1993 WTC attack. In fact these acts of war against the US are vastly more compelling and provable than weapons of mass destruction that Saddam has hidden but cannot be completely verified.

The FBI and CIA and previous administrations have many skeletons in their closet for their connivance, for their not stopping, and for their not telling the American people about the role of Iraq in the 9/11, OKC and 1993 WTC attacks against America. Please see my article “FBI and DOJ Connivance Permeates, Interconnects Terror Attacks” on the FreeRepublic.com dated August 15, 2002.

The White House should immediately and urgently make the strongest case possible against Saddam and Iraq, namely Saddam’s use of Iraqi agents in the attacks on Americans. If the White House fails to do so out of trying to protect FBI and administration failures in the past, then the White House would be performing a great disservice to America and could be held responsible for future Iraq attacks on Americans if the result should be that action is not taken against Iraq and Saddam soon enough.

The White House should first worry about saving Americans from Iraq and Saddam before the White House worries about saving political careers and failed FBI and DOJ officials. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 posted on 09/07/2002 7:38:28 AM PDT by OKCSubmariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ranger
Thanks for the ping.
10 posted on 09/07/2002 7:39:33 AM PDT by OKCSubmariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: honway; glorygirl; lawdog; archy; Uncle Bill; backhoe; thinden; Plummz; aristeides; AtticusX; ...
BUMP
11 posted on 09/07/2002 7:41:04 AM PDT by OKCSubmariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JudyB1938
BUMP
12 posted on 09/07/2002 7:49:25 AM PDT by OKCSubmariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve50
Spector is just trying to see what he's gonna need to cover his butt if the truth ever comes out, he'll have his lies and tons of documents to feed to the press. Everything is okay here, just move along.
13 posted on 09/07/2002 7:51:04 AM PDT by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OKCSubmariner
Al-Jazeera has announced that they will be playing a tape interview with Khalid Mohammed next week in which he explains some of the operational planning behind the September 11 attacks.
14 posted on 09/07/2002 7:54:17 AM PDT by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Astatement by former CIA Director James Woolsey has given new credibility to suspicions of Iraqi involvement in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 -- enough to merit congressional hearings.

In a Sept. 5 article on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Woolsey was quoted saying 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 two women. He was referring specifically to former Oklahoma City TV reporter Jayna Davis and Middle East expert Laurie Mylroie, who have independently unearthed evidence of a Baghdad connection to domestic terrorism prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

From a PBS interview with James Woolsey aired last October:

There have been press reports that you've been to the United Kingdom recently.

I've been to the United Kingdom twice this year.

Where did you stay?

Various places.

Did you go for pleasure or did you go for business?

I went for my own reasons.

It's reported that this is related to your passion about the idea that there might be state involvement, particularly Iraqi involvement, in what's been happening.

You'll have to find out about that from somebody other than me.

But the press reports are true? Untrue?

I'm not going to comment on them one way or the other.

OK. Is that because there's a secrecy rule about talking about this stuff?

Because if I do anything to help me advise the U.S. government, I'm not going to talk about it. ...


15 posted on 09/07/2002 8:06:58 AM PDT by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Indexing
16 posted on 09/07/2002 8:50:54 AM PDT by Robe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meenie
What purpose is served by continuing the lies when the fact that they are lies has become so widely known?
17 posted on 09/07/2002 8:55:21 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
In a Sept. 5 article on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Woolsey was quoted saying that "when the full stories of these two incidents are finally told, those who permitted the investigations to stop short will owe big explanations"

Inasmuch as Woolsey was CIA Director at the time of the first WTC bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing, he must have detailed knowledge of both of these events.

From his willingness to make such a public assertion that "the investigations were stopped short", I infer that his information is incredibly damaging -- even nuclear.

Why, I wonder, is there no apparent interest in Mr. Woolsey's information -- on the part of the Congress or the media.

In intelligence matters, information is shared on the basis of "need to know". I believe it can now be said that the American people "need to know".

Moreover, I suppose, we can probably guess who it is we "need to know" about. Along with what it is we "need to know" about them...

18 posted on 09/07/2002 9:07:57 AM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: okie01
I take it from Woolsey's remarks that he did not come up empty-handed on his mission to the UK last year. Please note also the administration's sotto voce promise to "talk more" about the Atta-al-Ani meeting, a few weeks ago. And, I would also keep a weather eye on the FBI's strangely-timed return to Delray Beach, FL, to search for the anthrax letter which killed Bob Stevens.

The administration is playing this very close to the chest, but something is in the works.

19 posted on 09/07/2002 9:15:02 AM PDT by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
"The administration is playing this very close to the chest, but something is in the works."

I quite agree; we're in the run-up to revelations.

But I wonder just how much is going to be revealed. All of it? Most of it? Or just enough to persuade most of the doubters? And, thus, not enough to implicate the guilty...

20 posted on 09/07/2002 9:21:14 AM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: okie01
I'm wondering that, too. The suspense is killing me. But, it's probably not doing Saddam's hypertension much good, either.
21 posted on 09/07/2002 9:27:56 AM PDT by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OKCSubmariner
Thanks for the ping and the post. Do I see a bit of a crack in the wall of concealment? Thanks for all you do. ^5
22 posted on 09/07/2002 10:06:20 AM PDT by amom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DB; Oldeconomybuyer
Don't kid yourselves too much about Arlen Specter.

Despite his image popularized by Oliver Stone in "JFK," and the "Scottish Law" comment, he is a very powerful member of the Senate. He could never have remained there all these years if that wasn't the case.

23 posted on 09/07/2002 11:27:20 AM PDT by glorygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: *OKCbombing; Alamo-Girl; Gary Aldrich; amom; archy; aristeides; AtticusX; backhoe; Betty Jo; ...
ping
24 posted on 09/07/2002 10:14:57 PM PDT by glorygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glorygirl
Thanks for the heads up!
25 posted on 09/07/2002 10:17:33 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Your welcome for all the thanks!! (Makes me feel guilty for not thanking all the people who ping me!!)
26 posted on 09/07/2002 10:21:53 PM PDT by glorygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: glorygirl
I usually post a "Thanks for the heads up!" but it probably should be a "Thanks, and here's a bump!" LOL!
27 posted on 09/07/2002 10:27:49 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: glorygirl
Our concern is WHY he is a powerful voice in the Senate. Has THAT power decided it is time to stop forking around and let the sheeple hear the truth?
28 posted on 09/07/2002 10:29:01 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: glorygirl
"Despite [Specter's] image popularized by Oliver Stone in "JFK," and the "Scottish Law" comment, he is a very powerful member of the Senate. He could never have remained there all these years if that wasn't the case."

That he might be "a very powerful member of the Senate" is more of a statement about the Senate than about McSpecter, methinks.

29 posted on 09/07/2002 10:42:38 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
You know, I've never really fully understood the "bump" thing. Is bump supposed to mean, "Yes, I agree?"

I know people often post BTTT, which I always thought meant back to the top, like a ping, but people also seem to use that in the "Yes, I agree" context, often followed by lots of exclamation points!!!!!

Maybe you can clarify. I'd appreciate it.
30 posted on 09/07/2002 11:01:49 PM PDT by glorygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: glorygirl
People "bump" or "bttt" a thread in order to recommend it to anyone browsing through the "most recent" posts. The recommendation does not necessarily mean they agree (though that would be most common IMHO) - they could be bringing attention to an outrageous piece of journalism.
31 posted on 09/07/2002 11:07:04 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: okie01; justshutupandtakeit
"That he might be "a very powerful member of the Senate" is more of a statement about the Senate than about McSpecter, methinks."

"Has THAT power decided it is time to stop forking around and let the sheeple hear the truth?"

If either of you two can ever figure out Arlen Specter,(especially in advance of him taking any particular action) please let me know.

He is probably the most enigmatic member of the Senate, and has been for a long time.

But we do know this: Bush is desperate to win Pennsylvania in '04, and has been taking many trips there.

If Specter is asking for information about the case, and a reporter managed to find out about it, there's probably a reason. Beyond that I'm not willing to speculate.

32 posted on 09/07/2002 11:08:41 PM PDT by glorygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Thanks, Alamo-Girl. I never really understood and now I do!
Grateful to have learned something.
33 posted on 09/07/2002 11:11:01 PM PDT by glorygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: glorygirl
You're quite welcome (this is another form of "stealth bumping" LOL!)
34 posted on 09/07/2002 11:16:43 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Absolutely bump!!!(lol)
35 posted on 09/07/2002 11:26:53 PM PDT by glorygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: glorygirl
Another stealth bump for glorygirl.
36 posted on 09/08/2002 12:41:44 AM PDT by Misterioso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Yesterday I watched a program on A&E called "Investigative Reports" (2 pm central) that connected some of the dots between the first WTC bombing and 9/11. They did not mention OKC, though. But Woolsey was interviewed, and I had the distinct impression that he had already resigned by April 19, 1995. I think he said February of that year? Woolsey, in diplomatically veiled comments, seemed not particularly enamored of Bill Clinton.

BTW, A&E typically reruns these things a lot--if you get a chance, watch this one. I recorded it for future reference (but not on videotape). It's typical liberal feel-good stuff by and large, yet small bits of truth manage to shine through. What I found most startling was the Gary Hart interview, when he was asked: what will it take to wake up the country to this threat? And he replied, the next attack, and, he added, there will be one.

37 posted on 09/08/2002 7:17:53 AM PDT by MizSterious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: glorygirl
He is probably the most enigmatic member of the Senate, and has been for a long time.

Heh! For my money he's an enema wrapped in an enigma. ; )

stealth bump

38 posted on 09/09/2002 7:53:06 AM PDT by TigersEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Terry Nichols contacted Iraqi intelligence in the Philippines to acquire bomb-making expertise.

A lot of eInk has been devoted to talking about whether the truck bomb could have brought down the Murrah building. Not much has been devoted to how the bombers selected a building with a specific structural weakness, susceptible to this kind of bomb.

Sounds to me like someone had access to construction experts.

39 posted on 09/09/2002 7:58:13 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson