Replies

Thanks for the link...It will take me a while to sort this out but it seems significant to see this in US News. What's your take on it? Why would the Iraqi link have been hushed up?

It is interesting to see it in US News, though they don't really say much. These rumors have been around for awhile, it will be very interesting if the media start to follow them up.

Why? I think comitatus covers most of it when he notes, "According to Dick Morris, who was there, within hours after the bombing, Clinton and his spin doctors decided to use the OKC bombing as a means of attacking Newt and other conservatives by blaming them for the "culture of hate". He was clearly a political animal, and Iraq was not on his radar screen. Witness our constant easing of overflights, inspections, and refusal to aid the insurgents in 95(?). More important, once McVeigh was identified, it was a series of pleasant photo ops, with no additional national cost to the nation.

Setting his politics aside, and assuming he was acting in the nation's best interests at all times (huge assumptions-I don't believe either one), I always felt that our most "intelligent" president, a photographic memory, a man who could juggle multiple tasks at a time, had an attention span just longer that my dogs. He may have changed directions solely on political whims, but his many turnarounds can also be seen an an inability to focus on long term, multi year goals, particularly when there were no short term payoffs. He surrounded himself with advisors of a similar mindset. Look at the Oslo process, multiple stumbles, always described as great victories and gloated over by the press from 93 to 2000. At the end of the process, he still couldn't get the PA to honor a commitment as simple as acknowledging Isreal's right to exist. Bosnia, out in a year, one year at a time. Kosovo. His domestic programs were characterized by the same lack of long term vision and commitment, and an unwillingness to pay any short term political price. What did he accomplish for even his most rabid supporter? In this enviornment, I doubt that anyone would want to collect to dots (if there are dots there). There was no political upside to fighting Iraq, and probably short term pain.

There is a great irony that, in his desire to build a legacy one small event at a time, he overlooked his responsibility to protect the nation, our governments primary function. The first trade center attack, Khobar barracks, the embassies, the USS Cole, all on his watch. It would have cost him some political capital (mainly on the left) to start the war on terrorism when it should have been started, but he might have saved 6,000 lives at least improved the way history viewed him.

--it is my opinion that clinton has been, and still is, an operative of a foreign power, said foreign power to be a cartel of many internationalists, and he is a combination of true believer and efficiently blackmailed and bribed as well for many years. What he did, or didn't do, and looked the other way on, was all done on purpose, for the eventual goal of eliminating the united states as a global military superpower. In short, he's a Quisling, as are other high level public and private people.

I am also of the opinion that "some"-not all by any means, but "some"- of the actions still currently going on are also for that goal, and that at some time the US will absorb a nuclear first strike, among other actions against it, due to the actions of these people in great part.