I detect some hatred in your reply. Have you considered following your own motto?
Posted on 10/03/2002 8:14:28 AM PDT by aculeus
I'M NOT A conspiracy guy. I think Oswald killed Kennedy, and that he acted alone. And, like all Americans, I figured that the tragic bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was the work of two sick ex-Army guys, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.
Now I'm not so sure.
Last night, my radio station, the Big Talker 1210, brought three speakers to town for a remarkable presentation: Jayna Davis, a reporter from Oklahoma City; Larry Johnson, ex-deputy director of the State Department's office of counterterrorism, and Patrick Lang, Mideast expert formerly of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
In a spellbinding presentation, they made the case for a connection between Mideast terrorism, the Murrah bombing - and the attacks on the Twin Towers.
Now I know why former CIA Director James Woolsey has been quoted as saying that when the full truth is known about these acts of terrorism, the nation will owe Davis "a debt of gratitude."
Why her name is not already a household word is the greatest mystery of all. Just this week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that U.S. intelligence has "bulletproof" evidence of links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld didn't offer specifics. But here is what we know from the work of Davis.
When the Murrah bombing occurred at 9:02 a.m. on April 19, 1995, Davis was a reporter for the NBC affiliate in Oklahoma City. She was among the first journalists to broadcast that an enormous truck bomb had rocked the heartland, killing 168 and injuring hundreds.
In the immediate aftermath of the explosion, the FBI launched an international pursuit of several Middle Eastern-looking men seen fleeing the Murrah Building in a brown Chevy pickup right before the blast. Without explanation, that all-points bulletin was later canceled. Two days later, Timothy McVeigh was a household name. So was Terry Nichols.
And that's where most of us left the tale. Stunned, but convinced that two Army buddies, homegrown terrorists, acted alone.
Thankfully, Davis didn't close this book as quickly as most of us did. She pursued the APB and set off to track reports of multiple sightings of McVeigh with an elusive dark-haired accomplice. The infamous sketch of John Doe No. 2 was always tucked firmly in her grip.
Davis soon uncovered that several employees at an Oklahoma City property- management company said they had seen a brown Chevy truck like the getaway vehicle aggressively pursued by law enforcement parked outside their office in the days before the bombing. The company's owner was a Palestinian with a rap sheet and suspected ties to the PLO.
Davis learned that, six months before the bombing, the Palestinian hired a handful of ex-Iraqi soldiers to do maintenance at his rental houses. Eyewitnesses told Davis that they celebrated the bombing.
She was also made aware that these same men were absent from work on April 17, 1995, the day McVeigh rented the Ryder truck that carried the bomb.
While pursuing the story of these Middle Eastern men, Davis also became aware of another ex-Iraqi soldier in Oklahoma City named Hussain Hashem Al-Hussaini. She was taken aback to see that Al-Hussaini's picture, when overlaid with the government sketch of John Doe No. 2, was arguably a perfect match. He even sported a tattoo on his upper left arm indicating that he likely had served in Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard.
Davis then set about looking for a connection to McVeigh, Nichols, Al-Hussaini and other Iraqis. It came when a colleague located two eyewitnesses who claimed to have independently seen Al-Hussaini drinking beer with McVeigh in an Oklahoma City nightclub just four days before the bombing.
This convinced her station to run with the Iraqi-connection story. It was met with some controversy.
The Justice Department responded that the identification of John Doe No. 2 was merely a case of mistaken identity. Al-Hussaini contacted local reporters, claiming to be falsely accused. Davis did not back off because she believed she could repudiate Al-Hussaini's alibi.
AND SHE LOCATED two dozen witnesses who identified eight specific Middle Eastern men, the majority of whom were ex-Iraqi soldiers, who were seen with McVeigh and Nichols. Two witnesses named Al-Hussaini as the dark-haired, olive-skinned man they observed one block from the Murrah Building just before daybreak on the day of the blast.
She also uncovered evidence that implicated several of Al-Hussaini's co-workers. One of these men was identified as sitting in the driver's seat of a Chevy pickup at an Oklahoma City apartment complex hours before the truck was abandoned on the lot and towed to the FBI command post. According to police records, the truck had been stripped of its vehicle identification numbers and identifying body molding.
The story gathered steam. Here, it would appear, was the deserted pickup that was the same vehicle that was seen speeding away from the vicinity of the Murrah building with two Arab-looking occupants.
And there was more. Five witnesses independently fingered several of Al-Hussaini's associates as frequent visitors to an Oklahoma City motel in the months, days, and hours leading up to 9:02 a.m. on April 19. On numerous occasions, the subjects were seen in the company of McVeigh, and during a few instances, associating with Nichols - at the same motel!
Davis spoke to the motel owner and a maintenance worker who said the men came within feet of a large Ryder truck parked on the west side of the parking lot at 7:40 a.m. on April 19. An unexplained odor of diesel fuel emanated from the rear carriage. Minutes later, McVeigh entered the motel office and returned the room key. The motel owner then saw McVeigh drive off the lot with a man identified as Al-Hussaini.
To this day, the Justice Department has refused to return the original registration logs for the motel.
Davis has 80 pages of affidavits and 2,000 supporting documents, and they suggest not only an Iraqi connection to the Murrah bombing, but also to the attacks against the Twin Towers.
For example, Nichols was a man of modest means. Yet he traveled frequently to the Philippines. Davis discovered that Nichols was there, in Cebu City in December 1994, at the same time as the convicted mastermind of the first World Trade Center attack, Ramzi Yousef.
She has also found evidence that Islamic terrorists boasted of having recruited two "lily whites" for terrorism.
Al-Hussaini had a very American response to Davis' investigation. He sued for defamation. In a ruling on Nov. 17, 1999, federal Judge Timothy Leonard dismissed the case.
In 1995, the federal grand jury proclaimed in the official indictment that McVeigh and Nichols acted with "others unknown." And several members of the Denver juries who convicted the two said publicly that they thought they had help.
Since 1997, Davis has repeatedly tried to interest the FBI in her investigation. She has been rebuffed.
As for Al-Hussaini, after leaving Oklahoma City, he went on to work at Boston's Logan International Airport, the point of origin for several for the 9/11 hijackers, including Mohammad Atta.
One more thing. That motel where McVeigh, Nichols and Al-Hussaini were seen together was later visited (pre-9/11) by Atta, Zacharias Moussaouy and Marwan Al-Shehi.
Michael Smerconish's column appears Thursdays. E-mail mas@mastalk.com.
© 2001 philly and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
No, but if in or shortly after 1992 Clinton had thought he might again face Bush I in 4 years, having specific knowledge of Bush-Hussein dealings prior to or during the Gulf War similar to those that Bush had previously maintained as CIA Director with Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega could have been at least as potentially useful to the Clintons as those 400+ FBI files Clinton had on other political adversaries- and allies.
-archy-/-
Uh, well I couldn't think of a worse choice of words to write off any further opinion offered in the article.
Premise: I am a knucklehead.
Text: Nothing else I say will have any credence.
Anyways i am not here to start a flame fight over a thread that (as i said) i am neutral about. There are threads i will engage in silly rhetoric over but not this one. There are too many unknowns still and discussing about 'newbies' and such types of logical progression is a waste of time for me.
However as to your answers (the ones that had nothing with newbies and other 'tricks' Freepers who have been on FR for years use) i think you have some rather good points. The three points you gave were quite enlightening. I just wish you went straight to them instead of flexing feeble muscle about your veteran status on FR during the 'Clinton impeachment era.' That was weak.
And just because i am several months old on FR (and several more as a lurker) does not mean Freepers like yourself should equate that with what you refer to as 'politically frozen attitudes' (your words). If i did have 'politically frozen attitudes' i would nto have inquired in the first place ......but rushed ahead and spouted forth how sure i am on the matter (and maybe given unrequested 'info' on Freepers, like lets say i was a 'veteran of the Clinton impeachment era')
However again thanks for your answers ....but you could have still given them to me without telling me of your impeachment battlescars and how i must have 'politically frozen attitudes.' I needed the answers not the lecture!
As for the links on your profile (you told me i could get good info on this topic) thanks a bunch. Another Freeper had actually used private Freepmail to link me to more such sources, and i have to admit there is stuff that shows what happened in OKC is very fishy and there is a coverup. Thus thanks for the links.
However you also said the following when telling me to go look at the links: If you are serious about being interested dig up some of the articles on my profile. Unfortunately the owner of this forum agrees with your views and may be intending to remove this info. Let me say this FlameFront, i have no views on this subject apart from the fact i think there is a coverup that happened. However i do not know what the coverup is on. And that is why i posted the questions. I do not know what Jim Robinson's views are, and chances are i would not even care to know (no harm intended). Thus saying my views correlate with his is a non-starter, and it would be prudent to target your vitriol towards someone who deserves it! I was merely asking a question, and yet you somehow feel led to chastise me for asking! And what is funny this is a topic that concerns me as much as you do (that there is a coverup involving the lives of Americans). Use your bullets well Flamefront ...against those deserving of them.
To. Triple: When i said there were 'several holes to this theory' i was not saying it was a silly! All i said is there were some parts that did not make comprehensive sense to me ...and that is why i went ahead and asked for answers (thankfully some Freepers Freepmailed them to me ...but others decided that they would also give me a 'lecture' on their old war wounds on FR ...not you by the way). Anyways i am still debating on this topic. I think there is a coverup, but i am trying to define (to the best of my ability plus the links various freepers have either posted or freepmailed to me) what that coverup is about.
"I thinkt hat there is some basis to this theiry, but the reason it has not been emphasised is due to the fcat there are no facts and the linkages to Iraq are at best nebulous" - Spetznaz
Why do you think there is basis to this theory, if you think there are no facts or strong links to Iraq?
If you don't answer, I won't know where to begin. (and It will confirm that you are disingenuous)
Regards for now,
Ugh...I dont have the juice to pull threads. Jim Robinson pulled your thread stupid.
Next time you'll provide a link to the stroy wont you? Putz.
"and you show up here asking "If this is true""
I asked no such question. You must be a criminal without comprehension skills.
Grow up and stop being a tin foil cry baby....if you cant follow the rules. Log off and go play in traffic.
I detect some hatred in your reply. Have you considered following your own motto?
Wow, where simple questions lead!
Anyways let me explain to you why i think there is a basis to this yet i do not see any strong linkages to Iraq on the OKC bombing. It is as follows.
I see a basis in this 'conspiracy' because a lot of things do not make sense. The reports coming aftre the bombing are totally different from those a few days later. There are also people who are saying (and are in positions that allow them to know) that there was some sort of coverup, that the suspects were changed, and that what should have been a pretty straight forward investigation has become mired in controversy and thoroughly nebulous.
Hence my saying there seems to be a basis for a conspiracy since the ground is well seeded for it. And that is also why i said i believe there is something here the public does not know.
However that is where i go to the second part of my premise where i said that although i think there is a basis for a conspiracy theory (after all there are very many question marks), even though there are questionmarks there is no direct solid proof. Up to now what we have is hearsay and speculation (there are people who have solid credentiasl who are saying there is something nefarious afoot, however officially they are marginalized). This is not to say there is no conspiracy ...it just means no concrete linkages have been established (or maybe a better statement is that no concrete linkages have been released to the public domain).
Hence my assertion that although i think there is a basis for this theory yet i do not see any strong links or facts. I hope that answers your question.
at this point let me re-emphasise that i do not know why you are being so acerbic! I was just asking some darn question yet you are acting like i threw stones at your holy cow!
and then you make statements as follows: If you don't answer, I won't know where to begin. (and It will confirm that you are disingenuous)
Please tell me how i am being 'disingenous' in asking a question. And also how come only you two are feeling disturbed by my questions (i have had 4 Freepmail messages from Freepers and they have answered my questions comprehensively without trying to tell me how long they have been on FR or calling me 'disingenous!'
However you and FlameFront seem to be acting like i commited anathema or something! FlameFront accused me of having a 'politically frozen attitude' while you have said my not answering your question will 'confirm that i am disingenous!' Actually this is hilarious. FlameFront had made a point that i am a 'newbie' because i registered months ago instead of years ago ....and both of you are people who have been on FR for years. However your statements nullify and completely negate any point that states being on FR for years makes someone 'better.' After all all the people who freepmailed me have been on FR for much less time than either of you two, however none of those people tried to 'confirm i am disingenous' or called me 'politically frozen.' None of them ...they just answered the questions and then gave me their personal opinions. However you two fellas seem to try to dig up things that are not there!
And if that makes me 'disingenous' Triple all i can say is i am glad you are the only one who thinks so.
And if my saying so is 'disingenous' then ....hmmmmm.....i guess i must be!
However i can assure you that no matter how 'disingenous' you might think me to be when i asked the questions i was simply asking questions and looking for answers. However i guess when Freepers stay on FR for years they acquire clairvoyant abilities to detect 'disingenous newbies!'
Now i need to rush off and do something Triple, so if you ask another question with the following tag (If you don't answer, I won't know where to begin. (and It will confirm that you are disingenuous) and i take too long to answer then that is because i am away from my computer. Hence my 'disingenuity' will be due to my being away not from hiding due to my 'political freeze' and unabated disingenuity.'
LOL
Awe...
I see the admin jacked another one of your posts huh? Man you have a pretty lame average. Good boy finally giving a link what...three or four days later? Haha...
Michael asked if he could sit in this conference and broadcast it .. I think Spector said something like I'll have to let you know ..
Getting Arlen Specter involved would be great for the blowing the lid of this conspiracy. He certainly didn't take the Warren Commission lying down. </sarcasm off>
Comment #90 Removed by Moderator
______________________________________
Awe....HAHAHA...."L".
Huh ... sounds like a possible Klintoon connection. All I want to know is what did he know, and when did he know 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.