Replies

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.

Dear Rock: I agree with your analysis except the following statement: "Remember, since McGovern in 1972, Democrats do not do wars..." However, Democrats do do wars--if they have nothing to do with U.S. interests and only at the behest of the UN and certain EU nations, such as France. Kosovo was all about France and Germany not wanting a million ethnic Albanian refuges swelling their welfare rolls for the next 50 years. Clinton was only to glad to oblige them.