Back to OKC

The Trentadue case is in court this week.  For those not following, a judge has allowed the brother (and attorney) of a man who mysteriously died in jail to grill FBI witnesses about whether they might have a video showing two men exit the Ryder truck on that fateful day.  Jesse Trentadue is trying to clear the name of his brother Kenney, who he believes was mistaken for John Doe Number 2 and beaten to death in a jail cell some months later.  The Feds claim he committed suicide.

They also claim they can't find anymore videos; should a video exist showing two men exiting the truck it would prove that "John Doe Number 2" was real, despite the FBI more or less erasing him some months after the attack.  By the way, this is not the only mystery video some associate with the FBI. 

Lots of theories on this, both right and left.  From a lefty perspective this one is about as good as any--basically the FBI wanted to cover up a far right wing conspiracy so if John Doe 2 exists he was probably someone from the militia movement.

But really, would that be Earth-shattering?  Most people probably got the sense that McVeigh and Nichols were right wing extremists and likely hung around with like-minded persons.  A few more or even some small cells hosteled in the mountains wouldn't be a big shock to most people. 


The far right also suspects the FBI, but some of them believe the FBI pulled off the attack.  Very much like 9/11 truthers, they reason that the government blew up their own building as part of the plot to take away our freedom and liberty through reactions like the Patriot Act.

This would indeed be Earth-shattering, but it's about as likely as Elvis being found alive and working at a Burger King.  Conspiracies become less and less likely as the circle of knowledge increases--some wold talk.  Besides, attributing evil to every person in the government, or at least career bureaucrats, is delusional.

Other right-leaning conspiracies involve a foreign aspect, specially a Muslim connection.   Some have speculated that AQ terrorists were perhaps assisting Terry Nichols make his massive truck bomb, since they had the expertise and had already attacked America.  Nichols was in the Philippines when AQ bomb expert Ramzi Yousef was there and wrote out a will before he left, as if he was expecting some danger.  This view has been mentioned by such noted figures as McVeigh's attorney Stephen Jones and former Clinton administration counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke in his book "Against all Enemies".

There was also an Iraqi connection theory pushed by reporter Jayna Davis, which has been shared by Bob McCarty.  Such a revelation certainly would change the view of the Iraq War but Davis' book isn't entirely convincing since the loose ends cannot be tied up.  Her main suspect seems more like a drifter loser than terrorist.  And McCarty's links are mostly dead now.  So not sure where that's going anymore.    

The AQ contact theory sounds more plausible and would be a little more Earth-shattering to the average Joe since it would suggest a widespread coverup of Islamic terror against America in the 90s, which would not look very good with 9/11 in the background.   It might make some question why those captured in the 90s weren't questioned more.       

There has been speculation the administration didn't want a foreign connection, attributed to former CIA official Vincent Canistraro. Considering who was running Justice and the WH at the time it certainly makes sense to believe they wanted domestic lone wolves, not a large network, assuming they were craven enough to try to steer the truth instead of letting it come out.  It's not hard to see Dick Morris advising on this.

As to what actually happened to Kenneth Trentadue, the facts may never come out.  Maybe he was beaten up and killed in his cell by overzealous guards or interrogators who mistook him for John Doe Number 2, then they tried to cover it up, but that's as far as it goes.  Or maybe he got tired of the rough treatment and killed himself as they said, and they were trying to cover up the previous beatings.  Maybe they told the truth in their report, as far-fetched as it might seem.  But finding out whether there were two suspects in the truck doesn't really solve it one way or the other unless the video conclusively shows Trentadue.  

And if the FBI was trying to cover up a foreign connection it doesn't necessarily say anything conclusive about Trentadue unless he was involved in the plot but wasn't John Doe Number 2.   As in the Nichols-AQ theory, it's not out of the question to speculate that far right wing domestic terrorists/neo Nazis might work with Jew/black-hating Islamic terrorists.  Trentadue could have also been in the wrong place at the wrong time, with no connections to anything, and there could still be a John Doe 2 cover-up. 

As to the question of a foreign connection, here's part of the final conclusion of the Rohrabacher investigation into the matter from 2006:

We have found no conclusive evidence of a foreign connection, but there remain questions that need to be answered before this final chapter can justifiably be closed. This investigation determined that many pieces of so-called evidence backing various theories of a foreign involvement were not based in fact. In some instances, our own research is inconclusive. Specifically, Hussaini and Strassmeir, as well as the Yousef phone calls, needed more investigatory attention. The Subcommittee investigators are dismayed that there remains a lack of willingness by the Department of Justice and others to examine certain legitimate issues. The overall assessment is inconclusive on the varied theories.

But there are a few people who could clear most of this up if we could dump some magic truth dust on them--Ramzi Yousef and Terry Nichols.  They reside together at the SUPERMAX prison in Colorado and neither seems to have been vigorously interrogated, at least such info is not in the public domain.  They both know whether they met each other in Cebu, Philippines in 1994.  Peter Lance has some theories on all of this but don't expect to see them on the big screen anytime soon, or at least not until a certain political faction has finally exited stage left.

COMPELLING   7/30/14

This story popped up some months ago then disappeared, now it's back:

Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) is one of a number of lawmakers urging the government to declassify 28 redacted pages of a report investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001. Massie said at a press conference earlier this month that when he read the redacted pages of the report, titled “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001,” he had to stop “every couple pages” to try to rearrange his “understanding of history.” “It challenges you to rethink everything,” he said

The speculation last time was that Saudi Arabia was involved somehow, but the congressman simply said it was 'embarrassing'. Since the description was both 'before and after' the 9/11 attacks, one has to wonder if some of this stuff has already come out in various blogs, books and websites over the years but has been ignored by the graniteheads in Washington--so it's news to them.  Or... maybe it's really something new that would change the way everyone thinks.

The bigger question is why these politicians keep teasing this story, as if the 28 pages may actually be declassified sometime soon. They say 'embarrassing', well, if it was embarrassing to Bush it would have come out long ago.  Think of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" movie being backed up by an official report from DC--nice fodder to leak before the 2004 election.  But nothing happened.

So it must be embarrassing to both Clinton and Bush, or perhaps mainly to Clinton, to some other protected entity.  Why would it come out now with Hillary teetering on announcing her campaign--unless that's part of the embarrassment.  Also, the Senate is close to releasing their tome on CIA torture, so perhaps this is the GOP somehow trying to push back.  Whatever it is, they've got a lot of people's curiosity up. 

Unleash the Lone Wolves

Yep, that's what they are starting to say about the Texas prosecutor murders.

Law enforcement officials have been exploring the possibility that the three killings — of Mr. McLelland, 63, and his wife, Cynthia, 65, as well as the assistant district attorney, Mark E. Hasse, 57 — were the work of a local person seeking to avenge some case or investigation and to make a dramatic statement by attacking those at the center of the Kaufman County criminal justice system.

Investigators have been cooling to the notion that the shootings were the work of a prison gang, the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas, or of Mexican drug cartels, and focusing more on what officials described as “lone wolf” figures — defendants and those even closer to the victims, including current or former county employees who work or used to work within the local courts.

Since a lone wolf is always possible--especially some nut who might feel these law enforcement officers were out to get him/her, it must always be considered.  But in this case the precedent seems fairly small as to high level officers of the court being murdered in such a short period of time, especially when the Colorado case is considered.

Add to the above a mysterious package addressed to Sheriff Joe Arpaio found by an alert postal employee.  First reports said it was definitely an explosive device that could have killed whoever opened it; later reports are not only downplaying the threat (just one of many, ho hum) but questioning whether it was even an explosive.  Arpaio's office claimed it received a threat from a specific drug cartel just days ago.

If these are really a cover stories they certainly meet the kind of time frame used in the past to morph what initially seem like conspiracies into nothing to see, move alongs.  Consider the Oklahoma City bombing; for weeks after the attack the FBI was looking for John Doe Number Two, then suddenly he was disappeared. The two suspects eventually tried were unique in that both were called lone wolves, which sort of defies common sense.  In this case one has to wonder if the Mexican connection was either too scary or perhaps too politically inconvenient with a huge immigration bill looming. 

Others Still Unknown

In 2002 Obama said the following about Iraq:

“the world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without [Saddam Hussein],” he also argued that “Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military [is] a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.”

Rather ironic considering his strange foray into Libya, which is presumably not a dumb war even though he's about to give 25 million worth of war stuff to a group of unknown rebels--some of whom are undoubtedly tied to al Qaeda affiliates. Then again, AQ did basically endorse him (by endorsing McCain, so we they could win):

Al-Qaeda is watching the U.S. stock market's downward slide with something akin to jubilation, with its leaders hailing the financial crisis as a vindication of its strategy of crippling America's economy through endless, costly foreign wars against Islamist insurgents.

And at least some of its supporters think Sen. John McCain is the presidential candidate best suited to continue that trend.

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush.

So, as Obama wages a congressionally unsanctioned kinetic action to protect Libyans from Libya, he still seems to believe Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake ever, even if it becomes a great foreign policy success some day. Saddam was heading for the dustbin had we only given him time....Gaddafi needs to go, now despite Bush defanging his WMD program. Sometimes liberals are so smart their reasoning is almost unintelligible.

But we're talking about politicians as well. Iraq has been berry berry good to the One, getting him elected president over that rube who voted for the war back when it was cool, which got her relegated to a secretarial position. Even now he continues to use it as a hammer.

But will it ever come back to bite him? Strap into the wayback machine and return to that ugly time shortly after the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. Reporter Jayna Davis made a case for Iraqi involvement in the plot by insinuating that one Hussein al-Hussaini, an Iraqi expat living in Ok City at the time (and reportedly seen by some with McVeigh), was John Doe Number Two. Her evidence was circumstantial, and she largely stayed away from domestic connections. On the other hand, McVeigh attorney Stephen Jones did not, writing about them in his book, "Others Unknown" (an FBI description).

While Jones also believed, like Davis, that other conspirators were involved he didn't limit them to Arab Islamists. Thanks to a generous taxpayer-funded defense budget he was able to hire private investigators to look into the various connections, including one in the Philippines involving Terry Nichols and al Qaeda operatives and another between McVeigh/Nichols and far right anti-government neo-nazi types at a compound in Arkansas called Elohim City.

In the process Jones broke a fairly interesting revelation--or insinuation at least--that didn't make much news at the time. Or after 9/11. Or even after Bush invaded Iraq. From a writ of Mandamus submitted in 1997:

The Iraqi government has given Dennis Mahon thousands of dollars over the past six years. Mahon has admitted to receiving money from Iraq approximately once a month and stated that "it's coming from the same zip code where the Iraqi Embassy is, but they don't say it's from the Iraqi Embassy." The money started arriving in 1991 after Mahon started holding rallies protesting the Persian Gulf War. Mahon is a close friend of Andreas Strassmeir, the ex-head of security at Elohim City and Mahon has lived at Elohim City.

Here's an excerpt from the opening statement, explaining the premise:

The McVeigh defense, based upon the material provided to it, suggests the following hypothesis: A foreign power, probably Iraq, but not excluding the possibility of another foreign state, planned a terrorist attack(s) in the United States and that one of those targets was the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. The Murrah Building was chosen either because of lack of security (i.e. it was a "soft target"), or because of available resources such as Iraqi POW's who had been admitted into the United States were located in Oklahoma City, or possibly because the location of the building was important to American neo-Nazis such as those individuals who supported Richard Snell who was executed in Arkansas on April 19, 1995.

The plan was arranged for a Middle Eastern bombing engineer to engineer the bomb in such a way that it could be carefully transported and successfully detonated. There is no reported incident of neo-Nazis or extreme right-wing militants in this country exploding any bomb of any significant size let alone one to bring down a nine (9) story federal building and kill 168 persons. In fact, not even members of the left-wing militant groups such as the Weatherman were ever able to accomplish anything of this magnitude.

This terrorist attack was "contracted out" to persons whose organization and ideology was friendly to policies of the foreign power and included dislike and hatred of the United States government itself, and possibly included was a desire for revenge against the United States, with possible anti-black and anti-semitic overtones. Because Iraq had tried a similar approach in 1990, but had been thwarted by Syrian intelligence information given to the United States, this time the information was passed through an Iraqi intelligence base in the Philippines.

Very interesting, yet there was Bubba out blaming Rush Limbaugh for inciting those nuts in an effort to score reelection points. Even today liberals use Oklahoma City to apologize for Islamic nuts and Ground Zero mosques when they're not trashing the right over Iraq.

But is there any truth to it? Jones et al were clearly searching for any low hanging branch to save McVeigh from death and make themselves legal legends. Nobody has done an in-depth investigation. There was no public commission. But imagine for a second that it is true--think of the affect on 1) the Democrats, 2) the national media, and 3) the Clinton machine. Many former Clintonites now work for Obama, including the Attorney General and head of CIA. The FBI director will soon be replaced and a few former Clinton-era names have been mentioned. Some are still trying to figure out exactly why Sandy Berger took the incredibly risky chance of pilfering documents from the National Archives, so we're not likely to get a clear answer anytime soon.

But Bush certainly knows. His attitude about Iraq pertaining to matters of legacy has always been strategic--"history will be the judge". Maybe there's more to the story to support such clever subterfuge, or maybe it's just a defeated politician trying to deflect short term scorn by deflecting to long term image. The Clintons know, and Obama also surely knows. The FBI has known for awhile. Terry Nichols knows. The media doesn't want to know anymore, and Wiki Leaks is only for leaking information damaging to the right. So who knows.

Journo-Treason?

Interesting story today about an ABC journalist who in the mid 90s became a confidential informant for the FBI after the Oklahoma City bombing:

The journalist “advised that a source within the Saudi Arabian Intelligence Service advised that the Oklahoma City bombing was sponsored by the Iraqi Special Services who contracted seven (7) former Afghani Freedom Fighters out of Pakistan,” an April 17, 1996 FBI memo states, recounting the then-ABC journalist’s interview with FBI agents a year earlier on the evening of the April 19, 1995 bombing. (The Iraqi connection, of course, never materialized.)

I'm still a little fuzzy on the whole 'never materialized' thing, perhaps because the public investigation of the Murrah attack was so darned private. The FBI once talked of "others unknown" but once they fried McVeigh and sent Nichols to the Supermax it was case closed.

Anyway, having just read Jayna Davis' book "The Third Terrorist" this was an interesting development. She discusses the Saudi connection and Cannistraro beginning on page 37 by mentioning an ABC News report on April 19 by John McWethy saying the FBI had been watching several Islamic groups in Oklahoma before the attack. While not mentioning the Saudi source, she relates an interesting encounter between Cannistraro and McVeigh defense attorney Stephen Jones (who was convinced there was a middle eastern component to the attack) two pages later:

"The government is not interested in a foreign plot. It has its perpetrators and they don't want anyone or anything complicating it".

Cannistraro's name would come up a few years later in an interview by ABC News reporter Sheila MacVicar regarding the possibility of bin Laden and Saddam joining forces. That aired in 1999 but oddly, after Bush actually invaded Iraq, Cannistraro became more of a dove. MacVicar is now the London correspondent for CBS and sadly, McWethy was killed in a skiing accident in 2008, not to say either of them were in any way involved.

The question is why the FBI would sign up a journalist at ABC while Cannistraro was also there as an expert, able to provide them with the same info since he was giving it to the reporter. The answer might be 'to check up on him'. The 'how' of such a thing is unknown--he was ex-CIA counter-terror and we've read umpteen stories about how the two don't get along. But there was also supposedly a "wall" between FBI and CIA at the time, so maybe people were trying to pass notes around it using former players. The story says:

FBI officials declined to identify the reporter, but confirmed to the Center for Public Integrity that the bureau did in fact treat the reporter as a potential confidential source for a limited period of time as it tried to ascertain the validity of the information suggesting Iraqi involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Which seems to suggest they didn't trust Cannistraro. Iraq was getting blamed for a lot back then, even by the president, but an act of war was something that couldn't be spun politically. They also had to worry about being played by the Saudis. Obviously they didn't trust Davis' investigation, rebuffing her many times then finally taking her dossier only to lose it.

Then again, Davis' data is heavy on the circumstantial and light on the evidence. She failed to convince me that Hussein al-Hussaini, a Shia Muslim Iraqi immigrant whose artist father was targeted by Saddam, was in any way involved in the event. The man was recently busted for drunk and disorderly in Massachusetts--why would be still be in America? The Iraqi connection to Oklahoma City seems to be missing quite a few dots.

However, she did help advance the Terry "the farmer" Nichols goes to Cebu City to get bomb-making tips from Ramzi Yousef story, which if ever proven true would leave some bigtime splainin' for the Clinton bunch since they let everyone believe it was only far right radicals (which is why it will never happen in our lifetimes, Wiki Leaks or not).

Questions for the Questioners

Valerie and Joe Plame are back out on the media circuit pimping their movie "Fair Game" (starring a star-struck Naomi Watts and Sean Penn), which conveniently opens right before the mid-terms. For those who've purposely forgotten--never mind.

Their interview today with Wolf Blitzer today was incendiary--Joe called both Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby "traitors" but the questions were fairly puffballish. So, since they are intent on bringing this tired story back to the forefront again here's a few suggestions for future interviewers as to questions as yet answered...

• For Joe-- why were you less than truthful to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence?
• Joe again--don't you think your finding that Iraq sent a delegation to Niger in 1999 was somewhat a confirmation of Cheney and the Brit government's concerns about uranium?
• For Val-- why did you tell Henry Waxman's committee one thing and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence another about who recommended Joe for Africa? Who actually recommended Joe for Africa?
  
• For Val and Joe--what do you think Andrea Mitchell meant when she told Don Imus that 'everybody knew' that Valerie was CIA, at least those who covered Washington?
• For Val--how involved were you in the meeting between Joe and New York Times columnist Nic Kristoff in the month before all this started?
• For Joe--when did you first become involved with the Kerry campaign?
• For Joe--since you went to Niger in March 2002 and was a TV consultant leading up to the Iraq invasion, why did you wait until WMD stockpiles were not found to go public with your charges?
• For Val and Joe--why did you appear in Vanity Fair magazine after the initial leak if you were worried about contacts and sources?
  

-----------------------------------------------------
As to Rachel Maddow's retraction (after saying a GOP congressmen got advanced warning of an attack on the Murrah Federal Bldg).. well, at least she retracted it, albeit without much of an apology.

But after seeing the commercial on how diligent she digs into stories perhaps she can now lean forward into the question why Nichols went to the Philippines and who he might have met there. Or why the media basically blacked out the story about mobster Joe Scarpa Jr tipping off the FBI to a secret cache of explosives hidden in Nichols Kansas home and what was found on them, and whether that led credibility to the other stuff Scarpa told them about Ramzi Yousef's intentions.


Nothing but the truth will do.

Are the Dems Using Okla City?

...as a way to paint modern Tea Partiers as dangerous radicals who might one day blow up buildings just like al Qaeda? Surely they wouldn't stoop so low, but some early rumblings are pointing in that direction.

Rachel Maddow will be hosting a special two hour show about the Oklahoma City bombing Monday night. Her stand on 'teabaggers' is well known. The preview of the show suggests a connection. How is that not vile?

BTW, wonder if Maddow will venture down this road? Wonder if she'll explore the puzzle of why Terry Nichols' went to Cebu City, Philippines at the same time Yousef and KSM were there, only to return and have his bomb work as well as the first WTC bomb? Wonder if she'll ponder what might have happened had Clinton interrogated Yousef when he was captured two months before the bombing? Nah, she probably condemns the targeting of Muslims in such a manner.

Meanwhile the NYT, never one to be one-upped, features Bill Clinton's take on the event today. He will deliver a keynote address tonight at a memorial event held by his former associates at the far left Center for American Progress. This same man once insinuated that Rush Limbaugh was responsible for the bombing and his wife claimed there was a vast right wing conspiracy out to get them. Wonder if they'll explore those lessons?

Slick points to Michelle Bachmann; the Times writer mentions the crosshairs on Palin's political target map in the effort to demonize those opposed to the present track we're on. Yet somehow it wasn't incendiary when anti-war protesters were in the streets openly advocating for Bush's demise while the DLC produced a political target map in 2004 with bullseyes.

They mention Waco, but looking back the Ruby Ridge incident occurred when Bush 41 was president. Many militia members thought he was on the leading edge of a one-world government when he called for a 'new world order' in a speech condemning Saddam Hussein--delivered on September 11th, 1990. Surely that was a memorable date in Saddam's mind.

But despite reality a lecture is always appropriate:

“Have at it,” he said. “You can attack the politics. Criticize their policies. Don’t demonize them, and don’t say things that will encourage violent opposition.”

Nice to see he's publicly discouraging the use of Alinsky tactics while engaging in them, while almost everyone in his party--even to include the president of the United States--have demonized the protesters from day one. Of course, such is becoming old hat with the latter.
Meanwhile another Clinton-era rejoinder, "it's the economy, stupid", lies dormant.

SPEAKING OF.. 4/16/10

..dangerous radicals, this swell character was just sentenced to 10 years in an Arkansas federal court for threatening the president and black people in general. Ten years seems rather lenient.

Then again, someone who actually killed a soldier while committing jihad against America, and who has recently "lashed out" at the president, sits in an Arkansas jail awaiting a state capital murder charge with no federal component whatsoever. What would happen if the case were thrown out on a technicality?

Fleischer's Verbal Faux Pas

Crooks and Liars (perhaps the most appropriate nutroot blog name on the interweb) and friends are making a minor issue out of Ari Fleischer's recent interview with Chris Matthews last week, famous for this, but where he also said this:

FLEISCHER: ... and I believe this still today. And of course, you and I disagree with it. But after September 11, having been hit once, how could we take a chance that Saddam might not strike again? And that‘s the threat that has been removed, and I think we‘re all safer with that threat being removed.

Again, eh? Was this a verbal 'slip up' similar to Katie Couric's on 9/11? Frank Gaffney was asked to appear on the show the following day to explain the comment and proceeded to suggest Saddam or AQ might have been involved in the Oklahoma City bombing and the liberal slurs began to fly. Those wascally neocons!

But is it so outrageous and conspiratorial to believe that Islamists at war with America in the 90s could have found a friend in an enemy of their enemy, Terry Nichols? It was none other than Richard "Boogie to Baghdad" Clarke, hero of the left during the 9/11 Commission hearings, who said:

Like Oswald, McVeigh and his partner, Terry Nichols, almost assuredly had foreign encouragement. In Against All Enemies, the much-celebrated Richard Clarke had this to say about the simultaneous visits of Nichols and Islamic terrorist Ramzi Yousef to the same city in the same country at the same time.

“We do know that Nichols’ bombs did not work before his Philippine stay,” writes Clarke, “and were deadly when he returned.”

And Clarke is no neocon. It's also a fact that Terry Nichols made out a will before his last trip to the Philippines for some reason, concerned that he might not return. Scared of flying, perhaps, or scared of something (or somebody) else? It's not like he wasn't plotting to blow up a Federal building at the time and didn't need bomb-making help.

It continues to be curiously amusing to watch the kneejerk reaction this kind of suggestion produces on the left, as if the mere thought of Saddam Hussein being linked to anything except a Dorito habit is akin to heresy and a cracking of the anointed conventional wisdom continuum that says George W. Bushitler invaded Iraq only to get revenge for daddy (as if the assassination attempt of 41 alone was somehow NOT a hostile act).

If perchance anything ever becomes established as to the exact role Saddam played in international terrorism aimed at America it might help to explain a lot of the actions Bush took and things he said (or didn't).

Who knows, it might also help explain why terrorism is now considered by some as simply one of many "man-caused" tragedies that could befall us, like a blown failed levee or fallen bridge and so forth. But probably not.

FOR THE ROAD..

Amidst all the recent outrage, about damn near everything, the Obama administration has quietly appointed former CIA Director John Deutch to a board reviewing spy satellites, which brings back some misty memories (notice the 2000 reference to Saddam btw, right there in Salon).

Whatever happened to the WMD expert at Homeland Security who brought the white powder and dead fish to work? The story seems to have disappeared.

Speaking of bombings..

One of the commenters at JustOneMinute reminded readers that Larry Johnson, pictured at left and mentioned in the preceding post, was apparently once a supporter of Jayna Davis's "John Doe Number Two" theory. To wit:

"Looking at the Jayna Davis material, 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."

Does that make him an automatic kook? Does it suggest he performed a "Ritter backflip" by transfiguring from the Saddam-is-bad camp to the Saddam-ain't-so-bad camp as the political winds shifted? Or did Davis just drop his name out of context?

Not sure, and truthfully, don't care. What intrigues me is Oklahoma City. Call me a kook but the premise of state intelligence service involvement through proxy terrorists doesn't really sound that kookish. As serendipitous as this might sound, the CIA tried to illicit a coup and an old-fashioned assassination of Saddam in the same year, 1995. How many remember those agents being investigated by the FBI?

For the sake of contrast let's take a gander at the three failed car-bombs in the UK in the past 24 hours. Based on just televised coverage it's safe to assume the bombs were not of the same class used in the Murrah building, Khobar Towers, or first World Trade Center bombings. They also bear little resemblance to the daily car/truck bombs used in Iraq. Help from intelligence professionals familiar with ballistics surely might have enhanced the British devices, something we appear to be seeing in Iraq thanks to Iran's alleged meddling.

Running aside the well-known pitfalls of conspiracy theories as to motive, depth and breadth of conspiracy, wealth and fame potential, and personal vendettas, one still has to admit that some interesting dots exist. For example, just like 9/11 we were told not to worry, that the Murrah perps were lone wolves (probably disaffected right wingers fueled by talk radio) and therefore no foreign involvement was possibly possible. Yet they were rather adept lone wolves, weren't they? Pretty good for a first try, I'd say.

Ironically James Woolsey's name is listed on Davis's site as a supporter, which is interesting since he has some background with the man Davis believes taught Terry Nichols how to make quality bombs when both were in the Philippines, Ramzi Yousef. Or was it Abdul Basit Karim? Quite possibly Mr. Woolsey knows the answer to that question since he was dispatched to England twice in 2001 by the US Government to investigate:

Several officials said Woolsey's mission angered officials at the State Department and the CIA and left British authorities puzzled about whether he was representing the U.S. government.

Oddly enough he didn't come home and later write an Op-Ed for the New York Times on his trip, say for example, "What I found in England". Apparently some state secrets are more important than others.

Woolsey DID say this in a 2001 interview regarding the concept of lone wolves (remember, this man once led the CIA):

But the key thing is that a very fundamental misunderstanding takes place in exactly this statement, which is to assume that if someone is a terrorist he’s a sole-source contractor, that he works either with al-Qaida or with Iraq. That is, if I may say so, a particularly stupid and false assumption. There is absolutely nothing to keep these terrorists from working with al-Qaida and to have Iraqi government support for one or more aspects of the operation.

An inconvenient truth for some, so back to Hoyle. Alrighty then...do we call this misinformation, disinformation, or just a misunderstanding?

She remembers Nichols as “Terry” or “The Farmer” and doesn’t remember the name of the other American. She says, “They talked about bombings. They mentioned bombing government buildings in San Francisco, St. Louis, and in Oklahoma. The Americans wanted instructions on how to make and to explode bombs.

Must have been a coincidence that a ragtag bunch of disaffected zealots with very little bomb-making expertise created a blast similar to ones made famous by Islamic terrorist groups during the 90s. And what of the strange unanswered questions involving the mob informant dude? Dare we even go there?

Ah, perhaps nothing but good fiction after all. But as Glenn Beck points out on Davis's site, why wasn't there a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Oklahoma City bombing? What officially became of John Doe numero dos? Guess we'll just have to wait for the 9/11 Truthers to clear everything up for us. They are investigating this, right?