Posted on 06/20/2002 12:04:19 AM PDT by grimalkin
Please ping me when you post it. I caught bits and pieces -- it seemed to be bombshell type material.
ask judge alley how serious he took the warnings.
p.s. I posted a reply to your post here on another similar thread. sorry.
this kinda gets back to the question you asked me on the other thread, pat.
it seems to me that soloman's piece could be the 1st brick paving the way to gummit disclosing the proof they have that ME were indeed involved in OKC.
smells like somebody is measuring public reaction to such news or feathering the nest for a soft landing....or both.
what I have yet to figure out is what is so damn valuable to "US interests" that they are willing to admit gummit duplicity in covering up the truth about what happened at murrah?
imo, dubya will never be able to mount enough public sentiment to oust, kill, displace, or go to war against sadaam without directly connecting him to OKC or 911.
it's not the oil fields of Iraq. there are alternative sources, and gas is still less than $1.50/gal.
the closest I can get is this: proving direct involvement of ME assest in OKC and the subsequent cover up by the Klintonista regime could be the one thing that would prevent Hildabeast from mounting a formidable challenge to dubya's second term.
please pass the reynolds wrap?
No problemo. You can find Gibson's full commentary on this THREAD.
The risk they take at linking ME types to OKC is that we, the sheeple, might get outraged at the gummint for the cover up. It's a small risk, so they might be testing the waters.
Also, I think you saw that they might be trying to link OBL to OKC, which is a stretch, but a possible ploy. Just MHOpinion.
McVeigh felt sufficient sympathy with Iraq to make its case the subject of the one essay he was allowed to produce for publication.
Mitchell, I believe this thread would benefit from a posting of McVeigh's essay, if you don't mind...
OK, here's a repost, for anyone who hasn't seen it:
When Timothy McVeigh was given the chance to write an essay from prison, he chose to write about the unfairness of U.S. policy toward Iraq. I've included the text of McVeigh's essay below. Look how he starts the whole thing. Why is this what he wrote about? He didn't expound on Waco, or the income tax, or 2nd amendment rights, or any of the sorts of things one would expect a "right-wing militia-type" to write about. He wrote instead about Iraq, biological weapons, etc. Why?
Here is McVeigh's essay, written in March, 1998, and published in Media Bypass magazine, in June, 1998. I'd really like to know why this is the one thing he felt compelled to write about from his prison cell.
ESSAY BY TIMOTHY MCVEIGH
The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") - mainly because they have used them in the past. Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterrent purposes during its "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then, is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) - with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?
The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We've all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen these photos juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki? I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other "regional conflicts" that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of "weapons of mass destruction." Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones - Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants - mostly women and children - in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks, or months to die.)
If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges against him and his nation, whey do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" - like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above? The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction. Hypocrisy when it comes to the death of children?
In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes "a shield." Think about that. (Actually, there is a difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb - saying that they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing.)
When considering morality and "mens rea" (criminal intent) in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians? Yet another example of this nation's blatant hypocrisy is revealed by the polls which suggest that this nation is greatly in favor of bombing Iraq. In this instance, the people of the nation approve of bombing government employees because they are "guilty by association" - they are Iraqi government employees. In regard to the bombing inOklahoma City, however, such logic is condemned. What motivates these seemingly contradictory positions? Do people think that government workers in Iraq are any less human than those in Oklahoma City? Do they think that Iraqis don't have families who will grieve and mourn the loss of their loved ones? In this context, do people come to believe that the killing of foreigners is somehow different than the killing of Americans?
I recently read of an arrest in New York City where possession of a mere pipe bomb was charged as possession of a "weapon of mass destruction." If a two-pound pipe bomb is a "weapon of mass destruction," then what do people think that a 2,000-pound steel-encased bomb is? I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the aircraft that could be used to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed "The Spirit of Oklahoma." This leads me to a final, and unspoken, moral hypocrisy regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction. When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake. Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane, or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself. These are weapons of mass destruction - and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.
Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is thatthis nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine. It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act as viciously condemned in Oklahoma City is now a "justified" response to a problem in a foreign land. Then again, the history of United States policy over the last century, when examined fully, tends to exemplify hypocrisy.
When considering the used of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a means to and end, it would be wise to reflect on the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. His words are as true in the context of Olmstead as they are when they stand alone: "Our government is the potent, theomnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."
Sincerely, Timothy J. McVeigh
Were you familiar with the gist of this particular article?
Sounds as if there was every reason to assume a ME connection from the moment the bomb went off. Which explains exactly why the initial LEO reaction pointed in that direction.
Odd that this is only coming out now...
We are all in this together to save lives and our country. This country and her freedoms belong to us as our birthright paid for by the blood of our forefathers.
Our country belongs to private citizens, not just politicians and bureacrats who care more about protecting their perks and pensions than protecting us.
But we can help each other. We will be vigilant and save our country no matter what our weak COngress may fail to do.
Guess you have already seen Alex Jones' video: "9-11, Road to Tyranny."
Whether there was a warning of Islamic terrorism before the Oklahoma City bombing? I was going to say no, that it was new to me, but I might have a vague recollection of having seen something like it before. Had you seen it before?
Sounds as if there was every reason to assume a ME connection from the moment the bomb went off. Which explains exactly why the initial LEO reaction pointed in that direction.
I'm sure that was the initial thought of most people in any case -- except that Oklahoma City seemed at the time to be an unlikely location for Middle Eastern terrorists to pick.
In fact, that's an interesting question. Assuming that the 1995 bombing was orchestrated by Muslims, why did they pick Oklahoma City, and why did they pick the Murrah Building? Just to be able to get someone like McVeigh to do it?
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.