Replies

I cannot understand why the government and mainstream media refuses to take seriously the fact that McVeigh and Nichols were fall guys for Middle-Eastern terrorists. The only reason I can think of is political correctedness run amok. "John Doe 3" is so obviously the Iraqi Al Husseini (a former Iraqi military officer) as to be an evidential slam dunk. He has been named as a unindicted co-conspirator in at least 1 civil trial and 1 appeal. That Palestinian and other Mid-East natives were directly involved is also an undisputed fact. Terry Nichols was in direct contact with Ramzi Yousef, Al Qaeda's Numero Ono explosives expert and head of that organization's terror ops.
Also note that a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen attended a meeting in Malaysia where the 9-11 attacks were first planned. PanAm flt 800 was brought down on Iraqi Independence Day. Saddam Hussein made a veiled reference to the attack in a speech he gave before Baath Party loyalists the day before the event happened. Iraqi under Saddam was heavily involved in international terror.

I think that there are closely related reasons why the federal government does not want to pursue the matter:

(1) If the full story were known -- incompetence, dereliction, coverup, perjury, and so on -- many would have their reputations and careers ruined. This includes people who have risen in the bureaucracy in the years since the OKC bombing.

(2) CIA and NSA analysts have long suffered from analytical blindness about the links between Islamic terrorists and Saddam. In part, this is because they are often bad at their jobs, but also because of political pressures and loyalties.

(3) Instead of taking on dangerous and messy human intelligence operations in Islamic countries, for decades, the CIA has relied on cooperating intelligence services. These supposed allies serve their interests more than ours and often lie to us. Saddam bought a lot of friends in the Mid East and, after the Gulf War, was defanged but still useful to Sunnis in general and the Saudis in particular. Saddam was a bulwark against Iran and kept his foot on the neck of the Shias, who dominate the Saudi oil territories. Thus Saddam was still in good favor with the people whom we relied on for intelligence about him -- and many of the terrorists were on the Saudi payroll.

(4) Clinton refused to deal with international terrorism, which meant that the bureaucracy ignored and downplayed the problem. Remember, since McGovern in 1972, Democrats do not do wars, which is what fighting terrorism requires. Rather than have the grief of fighting his own party, Clinton chose to do nothing of consequence about terrorism, and so the intelligence was shaped to that end by his many supporters in the CIA and NSA. Contrary to what people usually think, the CIA is run by liberals, and they are especially dominant among the analysts.

(5) The mainstream news media recognizes that stories about coverup and weak investigation of the OKC bombing and TWA 800 would damage Bill Clinton's reputation and Hillary's prospects in 2008.