Who Supports the War(s)

[hermit22]

But you already have a vote in the house - and you've had it for a while.

And listen, the Democrats may have controlled the agenda in the last Senate session, but that doesn't mean the agenda was full of left-wing bills. What got passed? Tax cuts? Patriot act? Homeland Security may have stalled, but that's Bush's fault (co-opted Lieberman's idea, twisted it, and sent it back as something no Dem that wants to be elected can vote for). Right wing judges have been stopped, but at nothing like the rate of left and center-left judges from Clinton that never got a chance. So lots of things that are remotely right-wing have hit the floor, and gotten a vote. Resolution on Iraq anyone?

It's nice to see someone from the right admit that Bush became President through a technicality. I'm not one of the people who are constantly up in arms about the whole situation, but I do think it's funny to hear you admit to it. However, Jeffords was driven out by Bush as much as he was welcomed by Daschle and Dodd.

Finally, those articles you sent were about Iraq - but not about Iraq and OKC. And Stephen Hayes's credentials - he's a smart guy, but he has an agenda. The Weekly Standard is one of the largest conservative weeklies, and he is one of the editors. I'm not discounting the work - I just think you have to remember the writer's bias. Same thing whether it's from the Nation or the National Review, etc.

[slang]

Hermit 22

-The DLC, which was the political movement inside the Democratic party (note the capital; if you're going to refer to a popular name, at least try to use some respect - but more on that later) that placed the current leadership in power, is decidedly centrist.

<B>Daschle backed tax cuts for the wealthy</B>
Yes, he did back the tax cuts, but only after holding it up for some time, apparently hoping to have some leverage in getting a deal for "displaced workers". By the time he signed it had support from all but the MOST leftwing Senators, a short list he would not have wanted to be on. So, I wouldnt be upset with him if I were you. He held up the vote as long as public opinion would allow, then cut a deal for the left.

http://www.c-span.org/capitolspotlig...1001/index.asp

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/rva/1072/107244.htm


The only other comment I have is that the wealthy PAY most of the taxes and I believe they should get some of it back. I know we disagree here but I think it's worh saying. I dont want to go into this today, but here are some numbers and references for a possible debate at another time.

Only The Rich Pay Taxes

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html


http://www.ctj.org/html/senstim.htm

<B>and, eventually, the war on Iraq. </B>

I think this was just another game he was playing, trying to make W look bad (which he doesnt NEED help). If you remember that little rant on TV with Daschle saying something like "how dare you politicize the war Mr presedent" you will see that he was doing the same thing trying to obstruct support for the war. I'm not saying he was wrong, thats his job to vote his convictions. But as we look back we see that he was just "politicizing the war" which was exactly what he was bashing Bush for. He did all he could to stop the vote from happening and having the majority PASS the res, because there was an <B>election</B> coming up and he had to keep the people from endorsing Bush via going after Saddam. After all the BS stopped and the resolution came to a vote, it passed overwhelmingly in the House and the Senate. A large number of Dems even voted for it.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

<B>As a denizen of the American Left, I can say it was furious about the first and split on the second (leaning against it)</B>

<B>I will say in total honestly that your opinion has forced me to look very carefully at the decision to go after Iraq. I am still leaning for going , but with much less resolve.</B>

There are still many unanswered questions.

The last comment was answering Sycamore's question.

I am VERY slow at the keyboard, and often can find supprting links etc. I have many things to say about the possibilty of OKC/Iraq connection. I'm not going to charge right into the forum and say there is a smoking gun, but there are some very basic questions that need to be answered. I havent forgotten, I'm answering your other comments first.

[slang]

<B>this is in response to Hermit22's comment

- Gun control != anti-gun

These may more accurately address anti-gun bias but I'm trying to move it along and get some responses out.</B>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11/15/02

<B>Gun Company Must Pay Teacher's Widow</B>

http://www.click10.com/mia/news/stor...14-161135.html

Grunow's lawyer asked for $76 million. But the jury found gun distributor Valor Corporation 5 percent liable for Grunow's death. The owner of the gun and the school board held the most of the liability, the jury found.

The jury didn't find any liability for Brazill, who pulled the trigger. Brazill stole the unloaded gun and bullets from a cookie tin stashed away in a dresser drawer of family friend Elmore McCray.
<B>The jury said Grunow's family should get $24 million from the three parties. The school board was told to pay her $10.8 million, the family friend was told to pay $12 million and Valor $1.2 million.</B>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The media in this country is beyond gun control , as we see in this one small example in wording of this article.They want the manufacture and use of them to fade away. Gun control is what exactly? Keeping guns out of the hands of people that would use them illegally. I would agree with that, but thats not what they are after. If they truly wanted to premote handgun safety and reduce gun violence the headline might look like this

<B>Irresponsible Gun Owner Must Pay Teacher's Widow</B> or

<B>School Board Must Pay Teacher's Widow</B>

It could be said that the "gun owner" headline would be senseless because he doesnt have the money to pay the judgement, the second headline with the school board would be able to though. The school board headline wouldnt be a consideration because the agenda is placing <B>the gun</B> responsible, regardless of the facts and for that matter, even the jury's verdict.


If you look at who the jury found most responsible for the shooting, you will see that the the actual shooter isn't even listed. The owner of the pistol was most liable, the school slightly less liable, and the gun distributor was <B>dramatically </B> less liable. According to the jury , Valor was 5% responsible. Even at being 5% responsible , the writer put that in the headline. It was in one respect a noteable win. The precedence has been set (although this must pass through the appeals process) that a criminal can use a product<B> illegally</B> to hurt someone and those responsible for the manufacture or sale may be held liable. I'm not a lawyer, but that seems to be the case, although I dont have any supporting opinions or references.

The owner in any case needs to take the responsibility for leaving a firearm accessable to a minor. Even I think that's pretty fucking stupid and he needs a good thrashing.

I'm sure you disagree with my position here, but my goal for reading and posting here is to learn and explain.

<B>Thats not the only example of gun control advocates placing the blame on the gun and not the criminal though. There was another telling statement I heard on the radio recently that jumped out as being downright anti-gun, lets take a look</B>


Can we agree that Chief Moose of Montgomery county Md. is in favor of gun-control? I can present the background, though it would take some time. Let's say for the sake of argument, he is. He's for "sensible gun control". He seems to be anti-gun though and this is what leads me to that conclusion.

This article doesnt focus only on the anti-gun bias but has a quote supporting what I heard on the radio, that I cannot document as a reference.


Nov. 8, 2002 World Net Daily

<B>Chief Moose cost lives</B>

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=29590

by Paul Sperry

<B>When Muhammad and Malvo were arrested, Moose said the task force got the "gun" off the street, not the sniper. </B>

And, in an unsettling plea to the public at one press conference, he said, "You need to ask yourself: Who do you know that owns guns, and why?"

Since Bushmaster sells 50,000 AR-15 rifles a year and there arent 50,000 sniper shooting a year, wouldnt it be better said that the <B>criminals</B> were off the street, or maybe the <B>shooters</B> were off the street? He makes the gun sound like it's the problem, it's not. Chief Moose is a sharp guy and holds a doctorate, but he was exposing the anti-gun bias he has. More than likely he supports "sensible gun control" but the agenda is clear to me anyway.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<B>Another thing that I've just recently noticed was the absence of much information in the mainstream media regarding the resignation of Professor Michael Bellesiles. He wrote a book that took a slam at "the gun culture" (which I am one of) and totally misrepresented the facts. The Brady center backed him and he even recieved an award. I'd like to see this asshead flamed becuase he got a lot of attention from ant-gunners. I'm not asking for much, maybe CNN running a story on how he scammed the public. If my searched missed it......................never mind</B>

<B>"As for Michael Bellesiles ... this guy is turning out to be the Milli Vanilli of the academic community."</B>
Russell Baker of Atlanta, GA in a great e-mail now quoted in the Washington Times 1/01/02


Oct. 28 , 2002

<B>Professor quits in probe of gun book</B>

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021028-78905499.htm

By Robert Stacy McCain

Michael Bellesiles, the history professor who wrote that firearms were rare in early America, has resigned from Atlanta's Emory University after an investigation found he<B> "willingly misrepresented the evidence"</B> in his award-winning book.
[url]Published two years ago, Mr. Bellesiles' book, "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture," garnered praise from gun-control advocates, won the prestigious Bancroft Award and was fiercely criticized by scholars who accused Mr. Bellesiles of misrepresenting or even fabricating evidence.

October 25, 2002 Emory University - Office of University Media Relations

<B>Oct. 25: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty</B>
http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Re...035563546.html

Although we would not normally release any of the materials connected with a case involving the investigation of faculty misconduct in research, in light of the intense scholarly interest in the matter I have decided, with the assent of Professor Bellesiles as well as of the members of the Investigative Committee, to make public the report of the Investigative Committee appointed by me to evaluate the allegations made against Professor Bellesiles (none of the supporting documents, however, are being made public). The text of the report is now available online at www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/.

http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Re...nal_Report.pdf


<B>I know this needs work but I'm letting it fly for time reasons.</B>

[slang]

I think I just heard someone on the radio that is more radical than me. It was Lee Rodges on KSFO in San Fran

he said something like "We need to blow Iraq clean off the godam map and then ask who's bleeping next?"

I think that's a bit much. Does that make me a centrist?

[Chefranden]

Originally posted by slang
...If you look at who the jury found most responsible for the shooting, you will see that the the actual shooter isn't even listed. The owner of the pistol was most liable, the school slightly less liable, and the gun distributor was dramatically less liable. According to the jury , Valor was 5% responsible. Even at being 5% responsible , the writer put that in the headline. It was in one respect a noteable win. The precedence has been set (although this must pass through the appeals process) that a criminal can use a product illegally to hurt someone and those responsible for the manufacture or sale may be held liable. I'm not a lawyer, but that seems to be the case, although I dont have any supporting opinions or references...

This is very curious. I wonder if this kid had beaten the teacher to death with a Louisville Slugger if Hillerich & Bradsby would have had to pay 5%? I guess that would depend in part on the widow's lawyer's skill in convincing a jury that H & B had designed the bat for killing in the first place. That might be a bit of a stretch for a bat, but people get the purpose of a gun no matter how it may be described.

What is more curious is the media's seemingly broad based bias against gun ownership. Bleeding heart, leftie, pinko that I am; I agree that the bias is there. What I don't get is why. Most of the media is owned by a small group of powerful corporate giants that in large measure depend on the Right to keep us pinko's from taking them apart and giving newsprint and bandwidth back to "the people" to whom it belongs. I certainly don't find these companies to be on "our" side, the left one that is. What are they up to?- I keep thinking. That said, I am for gun ownership: Not for protection from the criminal element, I remain unconvinced that it provides more protection than it causes danger; Not for sporting purposes though eating venison is slightly more honest than buying chicken at the store; The reason for gun ownership is to provide the means for revolution should that become necessary as at least Jefferson intended.
.

[elSicomoro]

Two questions for you, slang:

1) When you say "we," who are you referring to?

2) Are you saying that the UN is ineffective overall, or just in dealing with Iraq?

[slang]

OKC BOMBING - MIDDLE EASTERN CONNECTION

What compelling evidence is there that Iraq was involved in the OK City bombing? That would be very interesting to see.

I agree, that would be very interesting. There are truly no smoking guns that link Iraq to terroism. If there were, the numbers supporting this war would be radically different, at least in american public opinion. Depending on what your source is, the numbers vary widely. I would like to see some progress on one question that's been nagging me, as well as millions of others.

There has been a consistent story, running here, running there, about this <I> crazy</I> woman from Oklahoma City, Jayna Davis. Her story has almost become an urban legend. It hasn't been until fairly recently that she's been taken seriously in the main stream. Well, lets say that she's recieved attention from the mainstream. Have her claims been investigated and proven or disproven? If she was indeed a crackpot, you would certainly see and hear something public and messy eliminating her argument, point by point. Maybe that wouldnt even be nessessary, she may be labeled a kook by some heavy hitter, someone respectable and having some influence. That hasn't been the case.

There have been more than a few credible people to give this case some airtime. Bill O'Rielly, Arlen Specter, The Wall Street Journal, as well as some smaller metro newspapers . Each has asked some good questions, checked out the story by calling gov't agencies and following up. Each attempt to verify basic info has been flatly rebuffed by the FBI. So, thats the end of the story, the FBI shut the door on it, it's a non-issue, she's nuts. If the FBI's "no comment" as well as an absense of any major media attempts to force the feds to release some basic documents is good enough for you, then I concede the point. I'm nuts, you're right, there isnt any fire here, it's all smoke at best. This is only a flimsy attempt to gain momentum for the war and a BAD one at that.

If you have some questions though, I think there are lot to be asked.

I searched the net and JD isnt selling anything, no books, no tapes. This doesnt clear her by any means but it takes away the money motivation angle. Is there another angle? If there was, wouldnt it be promoted by some columnists or reporter? There isnt, it's fishy.

The whole OKC investigation was done with suspicious haste, they dont want to dig it back up. Many people are not buying the FBI's conclusions. Disproving Davis point by point would take the steam out of 90% of the OKC bombing conspiracy theories. In a time when they are trying to look competent in light of their 9/11 screwups, why not issue a statement or have Davis make the same presentation to them? They could show what a nut she is by disproving her claims point by point, on tape, the whole thing would evaporate in seconds.

One of the things she claims is that there were 12,000 Iraqi soldiers allowed into the US after the 91 war. If this were true, we could certainly check on this, <B>using her own documentation or the INS's.</B>If this hasnt already been done, why can't we have it done. If they cant or wont do it, <B>why do we have these worthless boobs keeping records? </B>

What is the political opposition saying about the notion that a senior Republican senator is giving this issue the floor? Nothing. Why, wouldnt this be a great opportunity to slam the republicans? I can hear it now on some political show, "the Republicans are now so desparate for support for pappy's war, Spectre's suggesting that Jayna Davis( moderator chuckling) should get time to present her "conspiracy theory" to Congress (laughing outloud)!"

After reviewing hundreds of documents and websites, articles and commentaries on Jayna Davis, I am no longer asking myself if there is a connection, but WHY there has not been some official inquiry long before now.

I dont know this woman and I dont really care if she is proven to be a loon. It's time we put this whole circus to the test though. Maybe now we can.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By MARK RILEY

NEW YORK CORRESPONDENT
NEW YORK

Friday 23 March 2001 The age

http://www.theage.com.au/news/2001/0...X4JWSBLKC.html

<B>Suddenly a crackpot theory gains credence</B>

Nicols plans to use the bin Laden link as part of his defence when his case is heard in Denver later this year. His lawyers hope it will help him avoid the death penalty.<B> Ms Davis will be called as a witness.</B>

It will not be the first time Ms Davis has been to court. Last year, she filed a defamation suit against the Oklahoma Gazette over reports labelling her theory a product of "fakery and embellishment". The two stories in question were headlined "Out on a limb" and "Liar, liar".

She said the stories damaged her reputation as a journalist. That reputation appears to have been considerably enhanced this week as hordes of journalists flock to her to capture their own piece of the latest conspiracy theory to captivate America.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 15, 2001 Fox News

<B>O'Reilly Transcript: Has the FBI Ignored Information?</B>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,24825,00.html

This partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, May 14, 2001 was provided by the Federal Document Clearing House. Click here to order the complete transcript.

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight, investigative reporter Jayna Davis told us a few weeks ago that she tried to deliver information to the FBI about others involved in the Oklahoma City bombing but was rebuffed. Ms. Davis joins us now for an update from Oklahoma City.
Well, we finally got the FBI to tell us why they didn't take your stuff, Jayna, and they said they didn't want to have it on file so that they would have to turn it over to McVeigh and Nichols' attorneys in discovery because they couldn't check out what you said, and that seemed to make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?

JAYNA DAVIS, FORMER KFOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Absolutely not. This was turned over initially in June of 1995 and I made several attempts in the following months, in the spring and summer of '95, to share this information with the FBI and they were very interested initially and I was talking to an FBI agent regularly in May and June of 1995. So I don't understand why it's...

O'REILLY: Yeah, but they came to the conclusion if we take information from this woman and we haven't checked it out and McVeigh and Nichols' attorneys want it, we have to turn it over to them and that's going to hurt our prosecution.

DAVIS: Yes, but they lost interest, Bill. In September and -- I'm sorry, in the spring and summer of '95. I went back to them in September of '97 to turn it over.<B> But they had plenty of time between the spring and summer of '95 and September of '97 when I returned. </B>

O'REILLY: To check your story out.

DAVIS: Yes, they did.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 20, 2002 Fox News

<B>Tim McVeigh and a Possible Iraqi Connection</B>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55844,00.html

John Gibson

<B>I think we're all convinced by now that George W. Bush has the cross hairs on Saddam Hussein.</B>

And it's clear from the latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll that the American public supports action against Saddam by a huge, huge margin: 75 percent for — 14 percent against. In electoral politics that's a landslide.

But what do you think those numbers would be if it turns out reporter Jayna Davis is right? If the Iraqis were behind the Oklahoma City bombing, and Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were in fact so called 'lilly whites' recruited to act as fronts for Muslim or Iraqi, or maybe even Iranian, terror against the U.S. heartland.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 5, 2002 WSJ.com

<B>The Iraq Connection</B>

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002217

BY MICAH MORRISON

<B>Was Saddam involved in Oklahoma City and the first WTC bombing?</B>

The prosecutors in both episodes believe they got their men, and of course conspiracy theories have shadowed many prominent cases. Still, the long investigative work by Ms. Davis and Ms. Mylroie, coming to parallel conclusions though working largely independently of each other, has gained some prominent supporters.<B> Former CIA Director James Woolsey, for example, recently told the Journal that "when the full stories of these two incidents are finally told, those who permitted the investigations to stop short will owe big explanations to these two brave women. And the nation will owe them a debt of gratitude." </B>

Larry Johnson, a former deputy director of the State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism, also has examined Ms. Davis's voluminous research. "Looking at the Jayna Davis material,<B> Mr. Johnson says, "what's clear is that more than Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were involved. Without a doubt, there's a Middle Eastern tie to the Oklahoma City bombing."</B>

None of this is "hard evidence," let alone "conclusive evidence," that Saddam Hussein was complicit in Sept. 11 or any of the other domestic terrorist attacks. But there is quite a bit of smoke curling up from various routes to Baghdad, and it's not clear that anyone except Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylroie has looked very hard for fire. We do know that Saddam Hussein plotted to assassinate former President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait in April 1993. Could he have been waging a terror offensive against the U.S. ever since the end of the Gulf War?<B> This remains a speculative possibility, but a possibility that needs to be put on the table in a serious way. </B>

[slang]

September 26, 2002 Fox News

<B>Poll: U.S. Split On Pre-Emptive Attack</B>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64174,00.html

Twice as many Americans view Iraq as an indirect threat than as a direct threat. Over half of the public (55 percent) is more concerned that Iraq will supply weapons to terrorists, while about one-quarter (23 percent) are more concerned that Iraq will attack the United States,<B> and 15 percent think both possibilities are of equal concern.</B>

Oct 2002 ChicagoMag.com - True Believer

http://www.chicagomag.com/stories/1002true.htm#more

By Steve Rhodes

As he descends into the fuzzy world of dot-connecting on the fringes, I wonder, How did this come to be? Has he always been like this—or did the impeachment send him off the rails? After all, until then, he was known as a<B> brilliant lawyer and staunchly loyal Democrat</B>—his first cousins, with whom he grew up and remains close, include Joe Lyons, a Chicago Democrat in the state House, and Tom Lyons, chairman of the Cook County Democratic Central Committee. When he was named to the impeachment inquiry,<B> Schippers was almost universally described as possessing “the utmost integrity.”</B>

“Well, you know, when I was out there in Washington for the impeachment, I heard this conspiracy stuff about Oklahoma City,” Schippers says. So when he got the Oklahoma woman’s letter, he says,<B> “I thought, Here’s another nut. The same ones who will tell you that Bush had the towers pushed down.</B> But she had some specifics in there. I called her. I said, ‘Do you have any evidence?’ And she said, ‘Yes, I’ve got affidavits.’ I’ve got this, I’ve got that.

<B>“Now I’m starting to think, Either she’s nuts, and I’m gonna get a whole load of affidavits in crayon, or the woman’s got something.”</B>

Good—he thought it was nutty, too.

“She was an investigative reporter, so I gave her a little credit. Then she mentions she had been working with the<B> Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare.</B>

“I said, ‘Why don’t you send me what you’ve got.’ She said, ‘I can’t send it. I’m afraid to put it in the mail.’ And I thought, OK, well, why don’t I turn on my radio and you just beam it up here?

“She says, ‘I’ll come up there and bring it to you.’ Now, remember, I was getting calls like this all the time—‘I’ve got information and it’s coming through my fillings,’ and all that. She and her husband turned up about two weeks later.”

Dramatic pause.

<B>“This woman is the best investigator I have ever seen,” he declares. He opens a bureau behind his desk and points to three fat black three-ring binders. “See these three volumes down here? This is what she brought.” The one he pulls out and hands to me says on the cover, “Oklahoma City Bombing, Investigative Evidence, Middle East Complicity, Volume One.”</B>

That, of course, is where Schippers’s office is. But despite all the craziness that has walked though his doors, he isn’t nuts. He just has faith in the evidence of things unseen—and in the kind that comes in big black binders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on Thu, Oct. 03, 2002 Michael Smerconish Philli.com

<B>CONSPIRACY: The Okla. City-Sept. 11 Connection</B>
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/...on/4201780.htm

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<B> U.S. intelligence has "bulletproof" evidence of links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.</B> Rumsfeld didn't offer specifics. But here is what we know from the work of Davis.

<B>Davis has 80 pages of affidavits and 2,000 supporting documents</B>, and they suggest not only an Iraqi connection to the Murrah bombing, but also to the attacks against the Twin Towers.

Oct 5, 2002 Phillinews

<B>Specter asks probe of Iraq links to WTC-Okla. attacks</B>

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/...al/4217752.htm

Rose DeWolf

U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter is calling for a probe into allegations of a possible Iraqi connection between the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City six years earlier.

<B>Specter said he has no plans to pursue the investigation himself, however, but has written to FBI Director Robert Mueller suggesting that the possible connection is worth pursuing.</B>

"I'm a little surprised that this hasn't gotten more attention, given that there is so much concern about whether Iraq has any connections anywhere," Specter said.

Oct. 10, 2002 Michael Smerconish/Philli.com

<B>SPECTER & THE JOHN DOE NO. 2 CONNECTION</B>

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/...on/4251116.htm

What is it that the government doesn't want made public? Is she a crackpot, some kind of conspiracy nut? Does her work under scrutiny resemble Swiss cheese?

Or is it that she ruffles feathers when reminding us that the first APB after the Murrah bombing was for two Mideastern-looking men?<B> Perhaps somebody doesn't like her uncovering the presence of an Iraqi cell in America's heartland?</B>

21 October 2002 Thisislondon

<B> Iraqis linked to Oklahoma atrocity</B>

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/1678779

James Langton

Since then, Davis has<B> gathered hundreds of court records and the sworn testimony of two dozen witnesses.</B> Several claimed to have seen a man fitting Al Hussaini's description drinking with McVeigh in a motel bar four days before the bombing.

<B>But she has evidence that up to 12,000 Iraqis were allowed into America after the Gulf war.</B> Some of these, she suspects, are using their status as refugees for cover. "They are here," she said. "And they are highly trained and motivated."

Nov. 2, 2002 WorldNetDaily

<B>Reporter stands by allegations</B>

Jayna Davis rebuts critic, says evidence shows Iraq involved in attack

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=29513

By Jon Dougherty

"It is my understanding that my staff has contacted both the FBI and Justice Department requesting a briefing on the issues raised by these allegations, and these requests have been rebuffed," wrote Specter. "It is also my understanding that such a briefing was offered to former CIA Director Robert J. Woolsey Jr., but that he declined the FBI's offer."

"I would appreciate your comments on whether these allegations warrant further investigation," he said.

As of last week, Specter's office had yet to receive a response. Calls to his office yesterday were not returned.


I've also been trying to track down an alleged US House committee investigating this and havent been able to find it , although there are several smaller websites that have claimed it is just beggining.

I also found it interesting that the oringinal investigation to the wtc attack is being reopened (unconfirmed report heard on ABC News).

The background research for the whole "who supports the war" question took me many places. The US Intell agencies are apparently having quite a conflict between the CIA and the FBI.


The creation of the Homeland Security Agency may play a part in why these two are in such a struggle, I cant say for sure without sticking my foot in my mouth for a lack of supporting info.

I think it can be safely said that both agencies have lost credibility with the american people on some basics, and we're fucking tired of hearing we cant know due to "national security"

Maybe we'll get some answers.

[elSicomoro]

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, and while I don't think it impossible for Iraq to be involved in the OKC bombing, I'm still skeptical. After all, this would be the perfect time to implicate Saddam in that...a lot of people are still wary of our boys heading back to Iraq for Desert Storm 2: The Motherlode of All Battles. And yet, I'm still mainly hearing the cries of conspiracy. Not to mention, the FBI looks like complete dogshit right now anyway...wouldn't they want to blow open something like this to repair their reputation? Truth be told, this sort of thing should be front page news right now.

Specter's not a bad guy. Although, he was the one saying the Electoral College should be looked at after the 2000 Election...I never heard any follow up on that. Smerconish has his moments, but I think he likes to hear himself babble more than anything.

[slang]

1) <B> When you say "we," who are you referring to?</B>

The extreme right wing. We want our gun rights back, less gov't in general, to rip the tax code out by the roots/prosecute the tax people, and to keep our sovereignty as a nation.

I dont agree with the religious right though. THEY, are fucking crazy bastards


2) Are you saying that the UN is ineffective overall, or just in dealing with Iraq?

This gets complicated, read through these first and then I can explain more

This is an official document from Louis Freeh, former head of the FBI

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress99/freehct2.htm

THE UNITED NATIONS - is perceived as an organization bent on taking over the world and destroying American democracy and establishing "the New World Order." The New World Order theory holds that, one day, the United Nations will lead a military coup against the nations of the world to form a one-world government. United Nations troops, consisting of foreign armies, will commence a military takeover of America. The United Nations will mainly use foreign troops on American soil because foreigners will have fewer reservations about killing American citizens. Captured United States military bases will be used to help conquer the rest of the world.

[elSicomoro]

So...you like referring to yourself as "extreme?"

The way you listed that "United Nations" blurb is incredibly misleading. You make it look as if that is Louis Freeh taking that position, when he is actually referring to militias.

[jaguar]

for crying out loud slang do what everyone else does and post links, no links and the article, i can click them all by myself, it makes the thread bloody unreadable.

[slang]

Originally posted by sycamore
So...you like referring to yourself as "extreme?"

The way you listed that "United Nations" blurb is incredibly misleading. You make it look as if that is Louis Freeh taking that position, when he is actually referring to militias.

I understand that I am in the minority in this forum. The Cellar
has been described to me as having a majority of left leaning participants on the upper end of the intelligence scale. That is why I am here, to learn and explain. I am on the opposite end of this spectrum and have a very hard time understanding the thinking of many people in this country. This is an exercise to help balance me, or at the least understand in depth the opposition's opinion

In this forum I am the extreme right, in my everyday life, I am just right leaning.

The quote from the letter was not intended to say Freeh believes this, I should have been more specific. It was to say that there are a substancial number of people that at least partially believe this. The quote sets the stage for an explaination and some examples. I believe that I can learn from the people in this forum, and at the same time at least explain the position of the right wing extremists.

[slang]

Originally posted by jaguar
for crying out loud slang do what everyone else does and post links, no links and the article, i can click them all by myself, it makes the thread bloody unreadable.

I'm sorry, I was attempting to make reading them easier. The entire articles are not posted, just a part, where the rest of the article can be accessed for additional information.

I dont plan on posting that much again because it is extremely difficult to paste in and modify to look correct.

The format also bombed out on me twice while loading it, I'm not here to kill the server.

[elSicomoro]

This might give you a rough (and I do mean rough) idea of where the main posters stand. You might even want to try the Political Compass yourself.