Posted on 10/05/2002 10:38:53 AM PDT by 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.
It is anti-American to ask for the truth about OKC? If the affidavits are true about the video tapes showing an accomplice then BOTH Bush and klintoon are concealing the truth. I don't care who is President; is it really asking too much to be told the truth for a change? We don't have a right to know if we were attacked by ME terrorists?
And don't forget how the "right wing" was villified in the incident, including talk radio. How is it "leftist" to have their reputation cleared?
I think you need a bigger perspective, my dear.
Was that an opus?
I've never seen one up close.
I dug up his final posts. I don't see what you are referring to.
I just figure the authors of the revisionism won't take kindly to people pointing out the editing.
Is doubleplusgood, no?
For ten years I've been simmering, thinking "I know those damn muslims were involved somewhere," and keeping quiet to avoid the racism charges. But now, ha! I'm back in fine fettle because, for once, for ONCE.... I knew it all along.
Yes, I am quite pleased with myself. (-:
Clinton really did commit the perfect crime in covering up the Iraqi role in OKC and blaming it on right wing extremists. The media lapped it up because they hate conservatives as much as the Clintons do. 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."
Grrrrrr......
Well, Bush certainly doesn't believe we should do nothing. That would have been Gore's solution, but Bush is not Gore. So we have to move to get Saddam out. On the other hand, IMO, Saddam has the initiative here, and, in war, the advantage is with the aggressor. Why? Because the victim is taken off guard, and because the aggressor has already figured out a counter to his victim's obvious response. This is why a jumped-up Lance Corporal, failed water-colorist and former street person named Adolph Hitler was able to take over the entire European continent in 12 months, BTW.
Anyway, over a year has passed since 9/11. Team Bush is still playing peek-a-boo with the evidence that Saddam was "connected" with the attacks, never mind the anthrax charade. For example, according to leaks fed to Newsweak, the proof that Mohammed Atta, operational commander for the in-country side of the 9/11 operation, met repeatedly with known Iraqi agent in Prague, incidentally the erstwhile domicile of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, rests with photographs in possession of Czech exiles, whom the FBI doesn't want to talk to because they believe VP Cheney has fantasized the whole Iraq connection. (And, if you believe that story, you'll believe anything.)
Bush has still not announced any plans for an attack on Iraq, which seems to be still many months off, if it ever occurs. It has been reliably reported that the administration is pushing Saddam to take a quiet retirement to some luxurious exile in Algiers, to head off a war. If we do go to war next year against Iraq, there are plenty of ways to do that without forcing Saddam's hand immediately: for example, we could easily do a slow-burn war on the Afghan model, grabbing the North and South No-Fly zones first over the course of a year or two, without forcing a show-down in Baghdad until the run-up to the next presidential election.
Bush is emphasizing his patience ("Saddam Hussein should remember that I'm a very patient man."). What do you think that implies? Remember, by late 2003/early 2004, we will have enough anthrax vaccine on hand to treat 8 million people. We may also have the infrastructure to deliver it in a timely fashion, although that remains to be seen.
Basically, Bush is doing what he can, and what I would expect a reasonable person (not a a Clinton or a Gore) to do in the circumstances. There is no magic bullet to deal with this problem. We have to keep the pressure on, but we can't afford to let things go non-linear before we are good and ready. Everything is a balancing act based upon those two constraints. I believe that, if you look at things in that light, you will have a realistic picture of what is going on here. It won't be "Wham Bam Thank You Saddam!" Forget about the New Moon. This is a very delicate situation, and will be handled accordingly, both from a miltary standpoint and a public perception standpoint.
I will challenge anyone to provide one example of inaccurate OKCSubmariner reporting. I have looked for years and not once found a single significant discrepancy in his reporting.
In the last few months, my opinion on that has gone from, "Gee, that sounds pretty far out," to, "Yeah, probably." I'm not familiar with Jayna Davis' reporting, but I have a great respect for Mr. Woolsey's judgment. McVeigh's "Essay on Hypocrisy" was always a bit suspicious, the Philippines connection was also very interesting, and the recent revelations about the advance warnings re attacks on government buildings by ME terrorists are pretty hard to explain away. But, I admit I haven't followed the story that closely. What I would like to see is a credible narrative that explains how McVeigh got involved with ME types and why he stayed loyal to them. But I have no problem believing an individual such as McVeigh could in principle have the motivation to be sucked into such a plot. His essay is absolute proof that he was pro-Iraq. Scott Ritter is another existence-proof of this type of switcheroo. Indeed, disillusioned, turncoat soldiers are two-a-penny in history. But, like I say, I'd like to see the pieces put together into a credible story before I get fully on board.
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.