CONSPIRACY: The Okla. City-Sept. 11 Connection

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.

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.

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

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.