Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: livius
One thing that I continue to wonder about is the role of the FBI in all of this. McVeigh was caught so quickly and tied to the Ryder truck, which made law enforcement look great. The other evidence strongly suggesting ME involvement was still not as clear-cut as the evidence implicating McVeigh in the actual bombing. Clinton latched on to McVeigh and took off immediately on the hate radio/militia thing, and got the political momentum for new laws allowing the FBI to do more surveillance on the militia types. So, it's entirely plausible that Clinton never even knew about the evidence of ME involvement - the FBI covered it all up to make themselves look good and get the new laws they wanted passed. Then, the FBI went on to cover up TWA 800, to keep their @sses covered from OKC. When Ashcroft, Mueller, and company came in, suddenly all this new FBI evidence came out that was never made available to McVeigh's lawyers.

Things that make you go hmmmmmm......

27 posted on 07/21/2002 10:19:21 AM PDT by Dems_R_Losers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: Dems_R_Losers
There's enough to make anybody wonder about this one! I'm not a conspiracy theorist (I think most things in this world are, like it or not, exactly what they seem), but this one does make me think twice.

If the FBI had something to do with this, I really don't think the it acted on its own, even if it had something to cover up (intelligence failure, perhaps?). Remember, Janet Reno was in charge of the whole show at that time. Nothing that happened under her watch was either (a) non-political (everything she did, she did to protect Bill) or (b) honest and open.

I hope a lot of serious questions are being asked in Washington about this right now. Actually, they probably don't have questions in Washington, except how much they should release at a given time and when they should do it.

Bush has been very reluctant to do anything that would make Bill look bad, mostly, I think, because he feels that this might undermine respect for the office of the Presidency. So I think we might see this stuff starting to come out in indirect ways, through the regional press, for example, until enough critical mass develops for the story to make it to the big leagues. Will this story help mobilize opinion against Iraq (or any other Arab terrorists we decide to attack)? Of course. Does that make it untrue? Not at all.

36 posted on 07/21/2002 11:44:29 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson