Most political observers agree that the Oklahoma City bombing resurrected Bill Clinton's political career, or at least initiated the process. The Democrats had just lost the Congress in the 1994 elections, due to the health-care debacle, gun control, and a number of other overreaches. There were stories in Time and Newsweek about the "incredible shrinking President" and whether or not he was "relevant."

OKC changed all that almost overnight. It not only allowed the Big He to go out on one of his "feel your pain" trips, but he and his minions used it to blast militias, talk radio, and evil Right-Wing Republicans, blaming them and their "hate speech" for the bombing.

All of this slander was contingent, of course, on the fact that the job was done, and done solely, by a member of such a "right-wing group." So Tim McVeigh was the perfect fall guy, from the Administration's point of view. Once they had the goods on him and Nichols, they basically quit looking for anyone else. Remember "John Doe #2"? Few others do, either, because all evidence that could implicate anyone but McVeigh and Nichols was excluded from their trial, and it became quickly forgotten.

While it could be argued that such evidence was irrelevant to the case against them, and thus properly excluded, it was also convenient to those who wanted to demonize the "right," since it allowed the finger of blame to be pointed only at the evil right wingers. That full justice was never served wasn't as important as making clear how evil McVeigh and like-thinking people were.

Well, now that we're digging into terrorism, and terrorist connections, in light of the past few months, some old skeletons may be starting to clatter out of the closet, as described in this article at Insight. In the process of seeking additional justifications to go after Saddam, yet another old Clinton coverup may finally see the light of day.

Note the last, and key, paragraph:

But one thing is clear: Bill Clinton and Janet Reno exulted when they found a domestic conspiracy behind the Oklahoma City bombing, say administration insiders, and immediately ordered the FBI to call off its investigation of any international connection. Details of that connection finally are beginning to emerge.

Good one. As I mention on my own blog (hud.blogspot.com), Clinton supposedly complained after 9/11 he should have had such a "defining moment" in his presidency. Well, he had one, but he used it for selfish political gain. And then wondered why conservatives hated him so much.

What bullshit. If you posted this stuff about Bush after 9/11 you'd brand _yourself_ as a traitor. Gosh, you think Presidents use tragedy as political opportunism? There's an original insight! The world's going to hell. Let's blame Clinton. I like the previous writer's use of the word "supposedly," which probably means he heard it from the wife of a friend of his, who swears it's true. Good luck proving the Iraq/McVeigh continuum. Can't wait til all the facts come out.

"Can't wait til all the facts come out."

Nor can I (certainly Clinton defenders have been doing everything they can to prevent that from happening for over a decade).

I suspect that if and when that happens, your hero Mr. Bill won't be looking so great.

Mr. Warren:

Is this the same Bill Clinton who was getting a blowjob the same instant he was discussing troop deployments to Bosnia with the theatre commander?

David Shippers is also working with FBI agents to uncover the Middle East connection to OKC, including the Abu Sayyef (sp?), the islamic terrorist group in the Phillipines. He should be holding a press conference on it any day, and I can hardly wait.
As for Mr Warrens post above, If McVeigh didn't have anything to do with the Iraqis, why did he have Iraqi phone numbers in his wallet when he was captured?

"Is this the same Bill Clinton who was getting a blowjob the same instant he was discussing troop deployments to Bosnia with the theatre commander?"

Actually, I think that the conversation was with a Congressman, not that it's any better.

Can somebody kindly provide the reference to the US News & World Report article that alleges the
Iraqi phone number thing? I can't seem to find it anywhere. And I can't find any additional information on this except in right-wing rags I wouldn't line my birdcage with (Insight on the News and the New American. Now there are
two reputable sources.) And, Mr. Simberg, as for "Mr. Bill" being my "hero," I'd like you to
repeat one word of my post above that says anything positive about him.

O.K., I will try to explain this to you, Eric. You talk about journalistic standards. If Hudnall had said "unnamed sources" or "according to one high level source" he could write for the NY Times. But since he says 'supposedly', he lacks the gravitas to discuss this? I am pretty sure I heard this on the big news outlets around the time it 'supposedly' occurred. The word supposedly is used because it was a quote from one person, with no one else coming forward to confirm or deny it. That whole double sourceing thing, ya know. Bloggers are generally pretty open about where they got there information, much more so than the conventional press. If bloggers can link to it, they do. It is all pretty transparent.
As far as using tragedy for personal gain, I remember Bush being at the ceremony welcoming home the crew members of the plane from China, playing up his alcoholism for gain and going to New York as soon as possible after 9/11 to boost his ratings. Oh, wait a minute, that didn't happen? Huh, must have been inhabiting the world that you call home for a minute.
And MAYBE you were mistaken for a Clintonista because you sound just like one.

Thanks for the enlightenment, Joe. I guess I'll believe everything I read now, because. . .well, just because. I don't really give a crap about journalistic standards. Just give me some substance. I've read a blog or two myself, and I usually follow the links if I'm interested. In this case, there weren't any links. Nor was there any attribution, nor any source given, never mind somebody confirming or denying the "supposed" incident. There wasn't even a "quote," at least as I understand the word ("To repeat or copy the words of another, usu. with acknowledgement of the source." The American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition, 1993.) I'm not questioning Mr. Hudnall's "Gravitas." (Is that another word for "cojones?") Just curious if his sources are fictional, or whether he just made them up.
BTW, I'm sure I do sound like a Clintonista to someone who's reading list begins and ends with "See, I Told You So." And I'm still looking for that McVeigh thing. Any leads, anybody?

Anyone interested in truly investigating?? Check with the US Army CID unit @ Fort Riley, Kansas. I was there same time frame as McVeigh and was privy to a floppy disk that was found in the bottom of a mail bag that came to our unit. When it was read, there was a whole collection of Islamic threats and statements including names, addresses, and other info not available to the general public about many government officials and addresses. I don't remember many specifics but when we contacted CID, they came in, interviewed us to see what we had seen, wiped out hard drives clean, and "explained" that we had seen nothing so there was no need to mention it to anyone. If you are successful in finding leads thru the CID, you will be able to find what unit I was in. This would have been in 1991 or 1992, I believe but no later than 1993.

Well, Caspar, as long as you bring it up, and I'm following my own electronic paper trail on the blogging circuit. . .
Why doesn't somebody follow this up? Can I just call the Army CID at Fort Riley and ask them if there's a stray floppy hanging around? What's the number?
I still would like to see one shred of evidence that McVeigh was involved with Irag and Al Qaeda and the Tooth Fairy. Prove it. Or admit it's just part of the propaganda machine that Bush doesn't even care about anymore, because he's got that proof somewhere that Saddam has those WMDs, and dammit, he's in bed with Osama. . .

Eric and co.-

Why are you such bitter individuals?! And why do you infer that anyone who thinks that McVeigh had links to Iraq is a nutty conspiracy theorist. Take a look in the mirror! ("just part of the propaganda machine") You distrust EVERYTHING you read! Oh, no? Read this and then come back and comment:

"Salman Pak: Iraq's Smoking Gun Link to 9/11?" (http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/8/13/95502)

Off subject? Yes- but Eric?s comments about WMDs led me here... I think I already know your arguments. And I bet you can't even trust Iraqis who were there!

As far as the McVeigh-Iraq connection, David Shippers may or may not have a political agenda, but how do you dismiss REPORTER Jayna Davis? She's the one who really started looking into the connection. SHE had no political ties. She was just a reporter who saw some strange things and started investigating. After seven years of investigating she compiled a sh!t-load of compelling information.

At one point she copied EVERYTHING and took it to the FBI. They handed the files back to her saying that they weren't interested in reading it. Hmm, these are the same people that took EVERY bit of info they were given about the DC sniper, no mater how silly it was. (So, NO the information will most likely NEVER come to light).

By the way, in '95 Timothy McVeigh was identified drinking beer with a former Iraqi soldier in an Oklahoma City tavern. It?s true- the guy, al-Husseini tried to sue her over it and in doing so admitted in court depositions filed with his lawsuit that he did serve in the Iraqi army. (She has said she believes al-Husseini could be the mysterious John Doe No. 2 seen speeding away from the Building).

HERE is a link to Jayna's page:
http://www.jaynadavis.com/
You'll find that there are alot of people who believe the connection was there who ARE actual journalists (Just like SHE IS).

Do a search yourself and read with an open mind! There are people who don't want there to be a connection, so there will ALWAYS be criticism agianst her. That being said, WHY would she keep pushing the issue if she wasn't sure it was true? Fame? Notoriety? Um, what kind 'fame' is people like you calling her a cook and dealing with threats?

I didn't believe the story either until I started looking into it myself. Believe what you want, but don't criticize others when they disagree with you.

Dear TommyB:

A link to a Newsmax story?

ha ha.

Eric