[Senator] Specter asks probe of Iraq links to WTC-Okla. attacks

Philadelphia Daily News ^ | Sat, Oct. 05, 2002 | ROSE DeWOLF

[flamefront]

U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter is calling for a probe into allegations of a possible Iraqi connection between the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City six years earlier.

Specter said he has no plans to pursue the investigation himself, however, but has written to FBI Director Robert Mueller suggesting that the possible connection is worth pursuing.

Earlier this week, Daily News columnist Michael Smerconish wrote a column about the connection theory, which grew out of reports by Jayna Davis, a former television reporter from Oklahoma City who was one of the first on the scene of the Oklahoma bombing.

Davis has investigated early reports about a dark-haired accomplice to convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. The accomplice, identified in a drawing put out by the FBI as "John Doe No. 2," bares a resemblance to an ex-Iraqi soldier who lived in Oklahoma City, Davis learned. And the reporter subsequently came up with evidence indicating that Iraqi nationals were involved in the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building.

"I'm a little surprised that this hasn't gotten more attention, given that there is so much concern about whether Iraq has any connections anywhere," Specter said.

According to Smerconish, Davis has 80 pages of affidavits and 2,000 supporting documents to support her theory.

"Who knows?" said Specter, adding that he felt Davis' information should not be overlooked. His key assistant, Tom Swanton, drafted the letter to the FBI, which states that his staff had earlier contacted both the FBI and the Justice Department requesting a briefing on the issues raised by Davis' allegations, but they were rebuffed.

Specter plans to meet with Davis on Thursday.

[Capt_Hank]

The local talk radio forum in the Philly area has a thread on the subject.... http://www.voy.com/13929/.

[Utopia]

The former appears to be in the business of protecting the latter

Oh please, he's protecting the Presidency. When Bush finally leaves office, he doesn't want to set the president whereby all his pardons will be undone.

[Mr. Mojo]

he [Bush] doesn't want to set the president

You mean precedent?

Well, what's more important, the national security of the U.S. or hurting the "integrity of the Presidency?" I maintain it's the former, and if by exposing the OKC-Iraq connection harm is done to the Presidency by implicating the traitor/rapist/murderer Bill Clinton, then so be it. IMO, it's very unhealthy for Americans to look upon the Presidency as an unassailable institution. The days of King George (of England) are long gone, in case you haven't noticed.

[Reactionary]

I didn't know it at the time, but I remember watching the coverage on television and wondering how they managed to cover up that huge hole in the ground with plywood. I was also bothered by the fact that the "truck bomb" somehow managed to blow debris outward from the building itself.

It took me a while to come around, but once I started reading all of the available material on the Internet, it became clear that others were involved and that Clinton and the FBI covered it up.

I wish Bush would just come out and say it.

Thanks for your reply.

[Reactionary]

"Specter knows. They all know. And it isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. There isn't going to be any war with Iraq without this stuff coming out first. Mark my words."

Yes, they all know. But I can't help but be cynical when I consider that the terrorists involved in Oklahoma City were evidently being protected by the FBI and the DOJ.

There isn't any other explanation that fits, and I have little faith in yet another "investigation."

[Lancey Howard]

I think you overestimate Bush's fear of "political fallout" from a bombing that took place in the middle of the Clinton administartion. I also believe that you overestimate the magnitude of the political fallout. The ignorant chattering class would no more wake up and be surprised by sudden press coverage of the Islamic terror connections to Murrah than they would if one of Kennedy's assassins was found alive and interviewd by Regis.

As for Senate action on Iraq, I sure hope there isn't another terror attack while the Democrats are screwing around.

Regards,
LH

PS. Maybe not all Republicans should be re-elected, but if they should not be, then they must be replaced with better Republicans. Under no circumstances should a Democrat be preferred.

[Lancey Howard]

I maintain it's the former, and if by exposing the OKC-Iraq connection harm is done to the Presidency by implicating the traitor/rapist/murderer Bill Clinton, then so be it.

I agree. The failure of the Republicans to talk about Scumbag's crimes, and even the stuff some of them bothered to review in the Ford Building, makes you wonder what kind of dirt the Clintons are keeping handy.

[honway]

Honway, it is great to hear that Pat (OKCSubmariner) might be on Fox

I apologize if I left the wrong impression. Pat never indicated that he was being considered for an interview(even though he would make a great guest, IMO.)

Pat stated FOX News had called him several times in the past week. My impression was that they were looking for background information for the coming week.

Possible guests on FOX in the coming week to discuss the OKC bombing incude David Schippers, OKC attorney Mike Johnston, and Senator Specter. Hopefully, Schippers will share with the viewers the specifics of the affidavit he has from a government official describing the video of the Ryder truck which recorded two occupants prior to the bombing.

[honway]

But to say OKC should be allowed to stay in the circumstances is like saying the Senate did right by Bill Clinton, because, after all, the rules by which the place is run don't mean anything when one considers the overwhelming balance of things that he did well.

Would you consider the story of the murder of the first OKCPD officer in the Murrah Building tin foil? You are not suggesting Jim Robinson should be banned are you? Do the rules mean anything?

THE DEATH OF OKLAHOMA CITY POLICE OFFICER TERRANCE YEAKEY(posted by Jim Robinson)

[glorygirl]

"I think you overestimate Bush's fear of "political fallout" from a bombing that took place in the middle of the Clinton administartion. I also believe that you overestimate the magnitude of the political fallout."

Are you kidding?(and that's a polite way of putting it) If Bush went on TV Tuesday night and said "this is what your former leader hath wrought," the news media would be falling all over itself, and the political fallout will be enormous, here in the U.S. and abroad.

Bush would face a tremendous amount of criticism in regard to ignoring the warnings for 9/11, as well as for McVeigh's execution.

But it would be much worse for Clinton, and his hordes of supporters. He would probably come up with some off-the-wall explanation about national security and how he was "protecting the nation's interests," or, more likely, simply deny any knowledge of what occurred. And all those hordes of supporters would suddenly be silent. For a while, anyway.

But I just can't see it happening. Which is why I am highly suspect about whether Arlen Specter's motives in all of this are pure.

P.S. -- I never said anything about voting for democrats. I was referring to a comment I made on that long public thread a couple of weeks ago from Jim on how everyone should vote for republicans in November. I'm not disupting that, and Arlen Specter isn't up for re-election yet. But I do believe honesty, integrity, and morality are what we should consider while voting for political candidates, rather than always voting a straight party line. Unfortunately, there's not much of those qualities left in political circles these days.

[glorygirl]

"As for Senate action on Iraq, I sure hope there isn't another terror attack while the Democrats are screwing around."

I agree with you whole-heartedly here.

[norton]

Not having been in on the story of the Davis/Submariner dispute...
Seems to me that an open discussion would be most beneficial?

[the crow]

Rules are Rules bump.

[norton]

Governments lie.

There are a whole lot of historical 'conspiracy theories' out there and at least some of them are more than likely true.

Once an administration covers up (lies) it is in the best interests of all concerned (the politicians at least) that the lie remain covered up.
Otherwise (again, from the politician's point of view) the public trust has a large hole in it.

However, since GWB has so far shown himself to be a better sort of public figure than we've seen recently; I'm hoping that, without lifting the carpet himself, enough of the evidence will see daylight and enough noise will result, so that the lid will pop off 'by itself'.

Guess I have some idealism left afterall.

[aristeides]

If the Bush administration discovered all the files and tried to release them, the response from the media would be "how conveeeeenient, nobody ever talked about an Iraqi connection to OK until Bush decided he heeded a reason to attack Iraq."

But if we let the left discover it and publicize it, that would then be a lot harder to say.

[honway]

Seems to me that an open discussion would be most beneficial?

I am not sure any minds would be changed.

People who believe that there was Middle Eastern involvement in the OKC bombing fall into two groups, in my opinion.

Group One:
Since the order to cover up the Middle Eastern involvement had to come from the President, everyone below the President was simply following orders,and therefore have no culpability in the criminal cover up and should be held harmless. Since our political institutions would never permit Clinton to be held accountable, to punish those who were following orders would not serve the cause of justice or the institutions that are in place to protect the public. In an imperfect world, the best we can do is prosecute all the individuals that participated in the OKC bombing and ignore the fact that the Clinton DOJ covered up the Middle Eastern connection and hold no one accountable for the cover up.

Group Two:

Not only should all the participants in the OKC bombing be brought to justice, but all those responsible for the criminal cover up should be held accountable. Everyone from the Special Agent in the field that falsified a 302 to President Clinton should answer for covering up for known participants in the OKC bombing.In other words, the Nuremberg defense is not adequate in light of 9-11.

[Capt_Hank]

Standing at attention in Group Two!

[DAnconia55]

Tinfoil = anything that is not politically correct or ideologically correct.

[Utopia]

The days of King George (of England) are long gone, in case you haven't noticed.

You've never been on the 8th floor of the State Department -- the little people never get to go there. We do have an elected monarchy. And the pomp and circumstance gets more and more pronounced with each succeeding President. The first generation of Presidents were true to the spirit of the Republic. The days of George Washington are long over. Harry Truman just had his army pension to survive on when he retired. Not so, now.

[Mr. Mojo]

I have no argument with you there, and I share your digust for the current state of gov't. But my point was that Bush's relunctance to connect OKC with Iraq because he doesn't want to hurt the Presidency (by imlicating Clinton) is a position that's very detrimental to our national security (if that's in fact what he's doing). And considering that Clinton seems completely unconcerned about even the possibility of Bush letting the cat out of the bag, it leads one to wonder, as the Freeper Lancey Howard suggested above, what sort of dirt on Dubya the former scumbag-in-thief has in his own possession. Well, what's more important, the national security of the U.S. or hurting the "integrity of the Presidency?" I maintain it's the former, and if by exposing the OKC-Iraq connection harm is done to the Presidency by implicating the traitor/rapist/murderer Bill Clinton, then so be it. IMO, it's very unhealthy for Americans to look upon the Presidency as an unassailable institution. The days of King George (of England) are long gone, in case you haven't noticed.