Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were not the lone conspirators in the Oklahoma City bombing—the attack that killed nearly 170 people in a few short seconds. They were part of a greater scheme, one which involved Islamic terrorists and at least one provable link to Iraq. This book, written by the relentless reporter who first broke the story of the Mideast connection, is filled with new revelations about the case and explains in full detail the complete, and so far untold, story behind the failed investigation—why the FBI closed the door, what further evidence exists to prove the Iraqi connection, why it has been ignored, and what makes it more relevant now than ever. Told with a gripping narrative style and rock-solid investigative journalism and vetted by men such as former CIA director James Woolsey, Davis’s piercing account is the first book to set the record straight about what really happened April 19, 1995.
Other books of interest:
The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge
Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror
Why America Slept : The Failure to Prevent 9/11
1000 Years for Revenge: International Terrorism and the FBI–the Untold Story
Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America’s Long-Term National Security
I saw her interviewed on FOX in sept 01, she is very good!!
Thanks for the great book info – - seems I have some new reading to do.
Todd – typically when an author writes a book, it’s from their own perspective based on their own experiences and ideas. I would venture to guess that the evidence isn’t as ‘rock solid’ as the book purports . . . but probably an interesting read, nonetheless.
Besides, we have this book to keep us busy while we wait for yours to be published, right?
Lisa,
One thing I’d like to point out- while there was no proven link between iraq and 9/11, there has been proven links between Iraq and al Queda.
For some reason, people seem to skirt that,
Ted
Good point, Ted. There has been documented evidence reported – and yet it’s so easy for some to over look.
I guess if you pick and choose your facts as they fit your own agenda – then it’s easier to remain ignorant, eh?
Thanks Ted
And this woman was stonewalled at every level of her own investigation. From the FBI to the Justice Dept., no one would listen to her. They had their people, no need to look further. Now, Nichols is on trial again, I would suggest that the government start asking questions.
Lisa,
You’re welcome. The best place that these links have been documented was in an article from the Weekly Standard (a well respected Washington Based political magazine, not just some guy with some webspace), although similar articles have appeared elsewhere (One of the alphabet stations had it). This article best lays out the base with numerous instances, many corroborating another.
“According to the memo–which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points–Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis. ”
link here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?ZoomFont=YES
Ted
Ted – thank you for reminding me of that link at the Weekly Standard. It is information that was, and is, much ignored by the left.
todd- part of the problem is the chain of command at the various agencies, and the unwillingness of the agencies to work together. (CIA FBI)
What would you consider credible evedince? Would anything we showed you suffice, or is your already made up and we are just wasting our time?
peejz,
Even though Dick Cheney himself said that these were accurate accounts, todd would not be able to ascertain what credible evidence is. He posts links to pages people who are not and can not be held accountable for what they post, and then when you post a link to a credible site that is held accountable for what they put up (a.k.a. “hard evidence”)it “can’t be true” with no other explanation given as to why.
Todd is a troll- he doesn’t care what you post. WMD;s can be held up on high for the world to see and he would link to some site “demonstrating” that it wasn’t true and some conspiracy theory.
So, it matter littles what you would post for him, no matter how credible. He is a parroting troll that has no interest in the truth.
Why waste your time?
Ted
Can anyone please point out in this post for me (or Todd, for that matter) Where I ever said that this book was true, factual or otherwise dependable please?
No? You can’t? I didn’t think so!
In all liklihood, this book is just another conspiracy theory AFAIC.
But the fact of the matter is (in an easy to follow, step-by-step manner):
1) Iraq and al-Queda were connected as pointed out in the link.
2) Iraq support terrorists, the least of all that was proven to be al-Queda, but is still proven. Thwere is much more proof that Iraq supported other terrorists.
3) Terrorists are a threat to the United States
4) Regiems that support terrorists are a threat to the United States
5) Given these, Iraq was a theat to the United States becasue they were proven to support terrorists.
6) The war in Iraq was justified.
How hard can this be to comprehend?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the book and has nothing to do with Iraq being a direct cause of 9/11.
Why must the obvious be pointed out to this parot/troll here?
Hey- a new word- Pa-troll (parrot-troll). Aren’t I clever? “Pa-trol” and “toddlinks”
Ted
no Todd, I don’t know what you consider hard evidence, hence I asked the question. Ted is right. You can be given the proof, we can hand you the WMD, but your mind is closed to anything new or relevant.
And Ted
you are clever!
peejz,
The thing that gets me is I presented the evidence he asks for from a reliable, creditable source and he still doesn’t concede let alone acknowledge the existance of said evidence.
I pointed out in this post a contridiction to what he said- I never even commented on the book that this post originates from, and I even generally hold the same opinion as he does regarding the book: even though I haven’t read it it is probably drivel. However, he assumed that I was for some reaon supporting the book and attacked at that point.
I also pointed out from the beginning that WMD’s was not the only reason we attacked Iraq. it is that plain and simple. I even illustrated a “flowchart” above for the thinking behind one reaon why we did attack Iraq, and yet, no acknowldegement.
It is posts like this why I requested of Todd not to respondw to my posts. The reason why is I have come to one of two conclusions regarding him:
1) he does not know how to debate, make meaningful posts or has no sense of how to logically lay out a point.
Or…
2) He is just a troll who’s only interest is upsetting people on this site. When he accused many here of not caring about the victims of 9/11 and used it in a cheap political driven manner.That did it for me. He proved he earned the monikor of “troll” or as it just evolved to “pa-trol”. He has no interest in truth and cares for no one- not the posters here or the victims of 9/11 that he accused some of you of not caring about.
Ted
Todd — you always fall back on that Rumsfeld quote, which was referring to operational matters, not justifications for war. Rumsfeld heads the Defense Department, not the White House or the State Department. I have already poitned you to Bush’s address to the UN, in which he laid out a multiple of justifications for removing Saddam. Did you read them?
As for ‘what if Kerry was doing those things’ … when Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 for failure to disclose WMD programs and allow for inspections I supported the effort, but believed that we should be forcing regime change, not a surgical bombing.
John,
No- Todd did not read them. He doesn’t care. He has no interest in truth, otherwise he would actually be attempting to countering the points as they are laid before him.
I may have been wrong about my conclusions regarding him being a troll though, admitedly. There is a third possiblilty here. It seem he could be strictly a parrot.
Many times, people are fed information and taught how to respond to certain things, however they put no thought into what the response means or if that response is challanged. A classic example of this is some religions. This may well be why he said we did not care about the victims of 9/11. he was probably conditioned to think that anyone who supports the Iraq War can not conceivablly care about the victims of 9/11 or the soldiers we send there.
So, he is conditioned to say these things, becasue it is what he wants to beleive, but once those beleifs are challanged in a free thinking open forum of ideas he has no idea how to respond, becasue it is impossible to be conditioned to respond to all the possibilities. So, he flitters about posts, links to the most unbeleivable websites, makes accusations of people of not caring and most of all can not possiblly respond directly to questions and points presented to him.
That quote from Rumsfeild was during the opening days of the war, IIRC. He was asked what the immediate objectives of the military were, and that was indeed what he said. However, those operational objectives and NOT reason why we invade Iraq. It is a classic example of taking a quote out of context. But Todd doesn’t understand that, becasue he was conditioned to parrot that qoute as a reason why we went to war with Iraq. He has no way of countering your point, so he will avoid it most likely as he has thus far.
So, perhaps I have been hard on Todd, perhaps he is not a troll, but a parrot.
Ted
Humanitarian, self-defense, international law … come on the ‘left’ is usually all over these things.
Saddam’s regime blatantly violated treaties that it signed. These were treaties that ended the Gulf War, a war in which Saddam annexed the tiny country of Kuwait, seized its oil fields, and brutally treated its people.
As a condition for not removing the regime in 1991, Iraq agreed to a number of terms, including the voluntary destruction of all weapons of mass destruction, documented and presented to international monitors. As of 1998, those weapons were confirmed to have existed. As of 2003, no documentation was presented to show that they had been destroyed. The documentation given in December of 2002 was rejected by all members of the international community as grossly insufficient.
Yes the US bombed Iraq from 1991 – 2002. Mostly to protect Shi’ites and Kurds in the North and South, but also punatively for breach of UN agreements, defensively as US and British planes were targetted by Iraqi air defenses, and also in response to terrorist plots, such as the attempted assasination of former President Bush in 1993.
Links between Saddam and al Qaeda simply provided a sense of urgency to end a menace that had plagued the region and the world for years. The choices were appeasement, containment, and regime change. Containment failed, and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands through crippling sanctions and widespread cheating on the oil-for-food program by our so-called allies.
So we were left with appeasement and regime change. Given the extensive lessons of the past the choice to most rational-minded individuals was obvious…
Now Todd I ask you … drop the simplistic view and do not spout out US assistance to Iraq during the Cold War. For one it is irrelevant, for two it is in the distant past… a different era with different priorities. The sun shines brightly into Northern Canada, so we got at least half of it right.
Tell me this, what choice would you have made in dealing with Saddam? Given his record, given his past, given his links to al Qaeda, and given, at the minimum, that he had refused to disclose information on the destruction of his WMDs, what would you have done? Would you have appeased Saddam?
good job john, and one thing I am glad of, Todd is not going to be participating in our vote this year…
Saddam did not live for peace, he lived for terror, he lived for himself and what made himself and his family look and feel good… He was never for the people of Iraq, nor for the middle east… just like Al Quaeda, now…
If we gave Al Quaeda everything they wanted they would still find a reason to attack us… they live for the violence, not for a cause they pretend to work towards, nor for peace, but for brutality, to dominate. nothing more… and if Todd can find something right about that, then he is so wrong and has the moral equivelance of Hitler! Todd?
John;
I directly asked Todd the same question several weeks ago. He didn’t directly answer the question, but from his response I’m pretty sure of what he would have done…. Nothing. He would have left sanctions in place until the end of time. Status Quo.
Madbarr,
I am not denying anyting you say, but in all frankness we didn’t go to war to liberate the Iraqi people or capture their oilwells. Both are non-realistic extremists viewpoints AFAIC.
9/11 taught us that is is no longer acceptable to be reactive to terrorists. We must be proactive againsts them, and yes- even pre-emptive. We identified an threat to the United States in a regeigm the supported terrorists activities and whose leadership had an extreme hatred for our country.
We took care of that threat. When you get to the heart of the matter it is really that simple.
John,
Your posting style is exquisite- it is very much appreciated!
Ted
Nothing in the documents disclosed by Iraq made any reference to the destruction of WMDs after November of 1998, the last date that stockpiles of weapons were confirmed to be in existence in Iraq. The burden was on Saddam to show that they were destroyed, and he did not. The Kay report, which I assume you are relying on when you refer to the threat as “phantom” actually called Saddam more dangerous than we thought. As for the WMD, it merely reports that they are not where we thought they would be, not that they never existed. It is a criticism of an intelligence failure, not a policy failure.
I assume that you are not a proponent on continued sanctions on Saddam’s regime. I have heard you criticize Albright’s containment policy in the past. Thus, the only option other than regime change was to give Saddam a pass on full disclosure of his WMD programs. Should we have lifted the sanctions, allowed billions in French, German, and Russian oil money to flood into Iraq, and then hope that Saddam would not feel emboldened enough to leak weapons through al Qaeda, let alone threaten his neighbors again?
Or would you trust Saddam?
One point here john-
The 10,000 page document that was submitted by Iraq was submitted to the United Nations, not to America. Although we got copies of the document, the UN was who made the determination that the document submitted was insuffucient proof that Sadaam had disposed of his WMD program.
Ted
More lies… Kay never said the President should apologize for not telling the truth. Where do you get this stuff from?
Kay did say “I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought”
The Kay report never ruled out the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It only detailed findings, including biological strains that could quickly be made into weaponized biological weapons, missiles that could be delivered over 1000 km, in excess of the 93 km limit, nuclear research facilities, and ongoing chemical weapons programs.
The stockpiles were missing. Never destroyed, never documented, just missing. If the Kay report says one thing, it says that there was an intelligence failure, and that we waited too long.
Todd,
I am still waiting on an “answer” to my questions a few days ago. You never seem to answer any questions, just post your toddlinks.
To refresh your memory, you stated that Sadaam “did not” pay suicide bombers for their services. I say yes he did. You stated he gave it to the families, not the bomber to give to the family. When I accused you of being a Sadaam sympathizer, you said no way.
WELL..
Again, “WHY WAS SADAAM PAYING THE FAMILIES OF SUICIDE BOMBERS, SINCE YOU SAY IT WASN’T FOR SYMPATHY?”
Hi John!
I watched B Clinton on Letterman in October 2002, and he stated at that time that he knew he had made a dent in Saddams weapons, but he did not trust the man and did not believe that the weapons were just gone and Saddam was going to play nice. I did believed Bubba then, and I still do. I do not hear him calling Bush a liar either….He also skirted the Osama questions in that interview, but I guess I can’t have everything…
Now, you piqued my curiosity with the containment scenario…
Todd- Contain Saddam how? How would todd feel that punished Saddam? The only people punished were the citizens…Saddam was attacking Kuwait, destabalizing the region, and threatening the oil supply to this country as well as many others, that is in addition to the humanitarian aspect…What is it that you would have done differently?
It was not out of sympathy, Saddam paid suicide bombers’ families to encourage more to take that route. Obviously paying the suicide bombers would do little good.
Saddam financed terrorism. Plain and simple. He financed an act of war against Israel, an ally of the United States and a member of the United Nations. The US had the right to respond under the UN charter, allowing for force to be used for the collective self-defense of a member of the United Nations.
Yet another “legal” justification for the war… not that it is needed, but just to get rid of the misconception that we launched an illegal war.
John,
Thank you! Precisely my point, but Todd won’t give “his” answer, which is not surprising. He avoids direct questions from everyone and I want his answer, since he doesn’t believe that there was a connection. If he will look back into the 1993 first bombing of WTC, he will see that there was a direct connection then.
so the Al Quiada are hanging out with rednecks? cool. must make for for some interesting board meettings. This must mean that Jesus votes Republican.
Just browsing through your posts dick and I was wondering if you are here to actually make a point?
I agree with some of what you post, but how you post leaves much to be desired.