Posted on 07/21/2002 8:36:02 AM PDT by Jean S
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:02:31 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Shortly after the explosion at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, an "all points bulletin" went out over the Oklahoma City police radio band alerting law enforcement officers to be on the lookout for a "late model, almost new, Chevrolet, full-size pickup, brown in color with tinted windows and a smoke-colored bug deflector on the front."
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
But there must be some reason why the Feds shut up the investigation into the ME connection and the identity of the John Does.
Read the OKC Bombing archives on FR - you might learn something.
The other topic is the loose ends and mysteries surrounding McVeigh, Nichols, "John Doe #2," and the OKC bombing. These questions are still alive and important. They are a major reason why many came to Free Republic in the first place, some years ago.
As with the 1968 MLK assassination, there's just too much in the way of money and travel and other loose ends to assume that there wasn't something else involved than just the one or two men convicted in each case.
Maybe to protect his father and sister. Maybe, because he was a true believer and really hated the USA and it's government, knew that other attacks were in the works and didn't want to do anything to jeapordize them. Who knows? But anyone who believes that McVeigh and Nichols did this on their own is delusional. I believe that Clinton knew this at the time...but he had excellent political instincts and saw how he could use it to turn the public against the GOP...and given the choice between advancing HIS political career or serving the nation which do you suppose Bill Clinton would opt for?
Things that make you go hmmmmmm......
In both instances the ivestigation immediately focused on one(OKC two)people and ALL other evidence that might point to the contrary was ignored. Statements from individuals that did not support the party line were either not taken or not followed up on. In both instances VERY incriminating evidence was found on the suspect, evidence that would have been jettisoned immediately after the crime. In both cases, anyone that comes forward and refutes or even questions the party line is branded a kook, or with the famous "How can you do this to the fanily/suriviors?" My guess is that L. Freeh was involved/knew more than he will ever tell.
An Essay on Hypocrisy
By Timothy McVeighReprinted with permission from Media Bypass. Parthenocarpy is interested in any existing or future rebuttals of this essay.
Please contact us here to contribute.
Media Bypass / Alternative Media, Inc. Editor's note: Timothy McVeigh, sentenced to death for his role in the April 19, 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City, penned the following essay, dated "March 1998," from his cell in the administrative maximum section of the federal prison in Florence, Colo. In a preface, McVeigh wrote "I have chosen Media Bypass as a possible forum for this piece because, frankly, I realize that it is quite provocative -- and I rather doubt that any mainstream media would touch it. [Note that although the enclosed is very provocative, it was written to provoke thought -- and was not written with malevolent intent.]"
McVeigh appologized for the essay being handwritten, but noted his "current (unique) environment does not provide access to a typewriter, a word processor or a copier. (hell, I'm lucky they let me have a pen!), so I hope you understand why this is being submitted handwritten -- and I hope you can overcome this shortcoming."
McVeigh, whose interview with Media Bypass [February 1996] was picked up and dissected by the New York Times and major media outlets across the nation, also expressed concerns that reporting subsequent to this essay might be "printed out of context... but at least the original can be accurate."
A decorated U.S. Army veteran of the Persian Gulf War, McVeigh hereby offers his contribution to the debate over U.S. policy toward Iraq, a policy that McVeigh says is marked by a "deep hypocrisy."
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.Sl 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 deterent purposes during the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterence) -- 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 pictures 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 and trials against him and his nation, why 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 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 in Oklahoma 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."
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 tartgets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivilent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is that this nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine.
It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act 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 use of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a means to an 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, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."
Sincerely
Timothy J. McVeigh
Copyright (c) 1998, Media Bypass / Alternative Media, Inc.
Put on your tinfoil hat--here goes! What if they told him they would fix him up with a new identity if he kept his mouth shut. That the execution would be a sham?
Carolyn
Instead of telling the truth and uniting Americans on "common ground" against a foreign enemy, he chose to divide the country in order to remain in office for four more years.
What else should we have expected from this puked up hairball?
When it comes to Bill Clinton I'm even more cynical than you are. I doubt that he spent even thirty seconds pondering who actually did it. I think his first last and only thought was "How can I use this to help myself?".
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.