Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Remember when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was blown up?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:16 PM
Original message
Remember when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was blown up?
Edited on Sun Sep-14-03 09:31 PM by NNN0LHI
It happened on On April 19, 1995 at 9:02 am, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I was home at the time the first reports came over the cable news channels that morning. I also remember the reports of anyone looking even remotely like they were of Arab descent attempting to board flights to leave the US were being picked up at all of the airports that day. Keep in mind that this was only a few years after the Persian Gulf War. I remember being as sure as I am sitting here right now that Arab terrorists had done this crime that morning.


If Democratic Underground was up and running that fateful day, I suspect the consensus here would have also been that Arab terrorists had carried out that dastardly crime that morning. Does anyone disagree with me so far?

Now if I had suggested that no, I don't think it was Arab terrorists at all that had done this. But rather had suggested that the perp was more likely a young man with a Catholic upbringing, a registered Republican, a decorated Persian Gulf War veteran, from a good family, who was born and raised in Pendleton, New York. What would have been the reaction to my suggestion here at DU do you think?

Do the words conspiracy theorist or conspiracy nut come to mind? What do you think?

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
maha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. Do you have a point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. That what sounded like a conspiracy theory
turned out to be true. So don't dismiss what sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. It wasn't a conspiracy theory
For the first few hours lots of people speculated that the perps were Arab terrorists, but that died out rather quickly. It didn't come up to the level of a "conspiracy theory."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Osama (Arab) din't do 9/11
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. Why is it important to you
... to believe that bin Laden was not behind 9/11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. How do you get
that it is important for me to believe bin Laden was not behind 9/11, out of "Osama (Arab) din't do 9/11"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Let's try again.
You say that Osama bin Laden didn't "do" 9/11. I asked why it is important to you to believe that Osama bin Laden didn't "do" 9/11.

I ask again: Why is it important to you to believe that Osama bin Laden was not behind 9/11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Who the fuck
said it was important for me to believe that bin Laden was not behind 9/11?

A clue: It wasn't me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Then what do you mean by
"Osama didn't do 9/11"? You aren't making sense. Do you or do you not believe that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. Don made a statement
about the 1st "official" story of the Oklahoma bombing (Arabs) vs a "conspiracy theory" that a young man with a Catholic upbringing, a registered Republican, a decorated Persian Gulf War veteran, from a good family, who was born and raised in Pendleton, New York was the bomber.

As we have learned, the "conspiracy theory" about the homegrown bomber was correct.

In the case of 9/11, we have been told (no evidence) that it was Arab terrorists that attacked the U.S. The "conspiracy theorists" believe if it was Arabs, they did not act alone. (They got shit loads of help from someone that will not allow a real investigation.)

OR, I totally got what Don meant wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #32
39. Willfull denial
"In the case of 9/11, we have been told (no evidence) that it was Arab terrorists that attacked the U.S."

There is solid and copious evidence that tells us exactly who the 19 terrorists were. There is no doubt whatsoever. All were Muslims with long-standing connections to al Qaeda. Most were Arabs. None were Iraqis. What do you mean by "no evidence"? What planet do you live on?

It's true there is no direct evidence revealing that Osama bin Laden was in on the planning of the 9/11 attacks, but to say there is "no evidence" who the hijackers were is just plain delusional.

"The "conspiracy theorists" believe if it was Arabs, they did not act alone. (They got shit loads of help from someone that will not allow a real investigation.)"

Yes, they got shit loads of help from the Bush Administration, before and after. And, we know that the business connectons between the Bushes and bin Ladens go way back. An older brother of Osama was one of Shrub's first benefactors when he was in the oil business in Texas. The Bushes and the Saudi Royals are thick as thieves, and we know the Saudi Royals provided financial support to Al Qaeda. Just recently, the White House made sure the story of Saudi involvement got redacted from the congressional 9/11 report.

"OR, I totally got what Don meant wrong."

Oh, you got what he meant right; I'm telling you that you both are missing the big picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretzel4gore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. to protect bush...
bush was the 'raison d'etre' for 911....911 overshadowed everything else and made geebush 'the invincible'. Had 911 not happened, the NORC results would have been published Sept early October/01, and even a mild focus on the NORC results would have clued millions of Americans in that the legal US government had been usurped. I believe that is why 911 happened the way it did (way the the media played it) bin laden was/is a useful fool, letting bush inc get away with murder.....
One other thing. The mass media committed outright fraud and various other deeds, some illegal, in the years leading up to selection of geebush as the chimp-in-charge (see brock's 'blinded by the right' or michael lind's 'up from conservativism' or conason's 'hunting of the president' hatfield's 'fortunate son' etc)....911 sorta burned the bridges on the russerts, brocawcaws, cnn's, fox news, rush limbo's, ny times, nbc's etc....made them without choice regards their helping a known murder organization...the bush government. Nothing else explains the madness.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. bush was the 'raison d'etre' for 911
Sure, but that doesn't mean Osama bin Laden wasn't in on it.

The Bush family and the bin Laden family have had business connections for years.

Greg Palast reported that the White House prevented the CIA from monitoring bin Laden and the Saudis BEFORE 9/11.

We know that the Saudi royal family paid al Qaeda to stay out of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royals and the bin Ladens have ties that go back decades.

Earlier this year the congressional report on 9/11 was released, but not until the White House arranged to have 38 pages about the Saudis redacted from public view.

My suspicions are that Bush knew bin Laden was about to do something big, but that he didn't know details. Otherwise chimpy wouldn't have flitted around the country like a frightened pigeon for several hours after the attacks.

But the circumstantial evidence that bin Laden's crew were the perps is pretty overwhelming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretzel4gore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. agree...
arab terrorists are a 'tool' of the PNAC/BFEE etc.....my point is we shouldn't get too preoccupied looking at tools such as OBL or Saddam or the Taliban or Lee Oswald/jack ruby etc.....the reg working of law/international law can take care of criminals but bushinc appears to have transcended even self interested criminality....they seem to want to destroy truth and faith in government/innocence itself, so they should always be first on list when tactics or strategy are debated.
The story that bush 'ran around in terror' during 911, while it plays well here, is damaging cuz it fortifies a big lie (bush inc is innocent) in terms of what they knew/ didn't know. Hopefully, someday geebush will be questioned in a 'watergate' style set of hearing so some idea of what was really going on can be accessed, but until then be skeptical of everything they want you to believe; for example, geebush never used cocaine and it was bush inc itself responsible for the popular idea that he did (see Albion Monitor, follow links....the coke story helped bushinc enormously in '00 election)
bush inc are the worst criminals in US history, bar none!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #36
41. It is what it is
"arab terrorists are a 'tool' of the PNAC/BFEE etc.....my point is we shouldn't get too preoccupied looking at tools such as OBL or Saddam or the Taliban or Lee Oswald/jack ruby etc....."

They're the connection, however. It is no help at all to pretend that Arab terrorists didn't commit the crime, because they did. That's one reason it drives me crazy when conspiracy nuts cook up theories that the planes didn't really take down the World Trade Center towers. They did; I was there.

I'm saying we should be looking at how the Arab terrorists are connected to Bush. And the connections are there and documented. A lot of it has even dribbled into mainstream U.S. media, although the whores pretend it isn't there.

"the reg working of law/international law can take care of criminals"

I don't agree, but that's another rant. Sending troops to Iraq is no help, but terrorism isn't the real reason Shrubbie sent troops to Iraq.

"but bushinc appears to have transcended even self interested criminality....they seem to want to destroy truth and faith in government/innocence itself, so they should always be first on list when tactics or strategy are debated."

Don't ignore facts. Don't pretend Arab terrorists didn't commit the crime. You just discredit yourself.

"The story that bush 'ran around in terror' during 911, while it plays well here, is damaging cuz it fortifies a big lie (bush inc is innocent) in terms of what they knew/ didn't know."

Well, I'm sorry, but it's a fact. The boy looked like a craven coward those first couple of days, and the White House had to spin itself silly to put out a story to make him look better. If you're being honest about your theories, you must not ignore facts that don't fit. If the facts don't fit your theories, you need to adjust your theories.

It's most logical given all the facts (not all of which I've brought up here, but I've got more stuff here) to assume that the Bushies knew Osama bin Laden and his crew were about to do something involving hijacked airplanes and willfully let it happen.

However, it is probable they didn't know the magnitude of the plan or the exact details. In an operation like this you don't let the man at the top know the details. You got to give him "plausible deniability" so that the plans can't be traced back to The Man. So the details would have been worked out elsewhere, not in the Oval Office.

"Hopefully, someday geebush will be questioned in a 'watergate' style set of hearing so some idea of what was really going on can be accessed, but until then be skeptical of everything they want you to believe;"

It's just as important to be skeptical of everything YOU want to believe. Don't dismiss facts because they don't fit what you want to believe.

"for example, geebush never used cocaine and it was bush inc itself responsible for the popular idea that he did (see Albion Monitor, follow links....the coke story helped bushinc enormously in '00 election)
bush inc are the worst criminals in US history, bar none!"

There's a lot more to the concaine story that I got from Mark Crispin Miller (The Bush Dyslexicon) but it's a long story and I don't have time to go into it now. In a nutshell, there's evidence he DID use cocaine, but Karl Rove planted misinformation about it to discredit the evidence.

It's complicated; it's diabolical; it's Karl Rove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. It died out quickly because McVeighs licence plate got blown off of...
Edited on Sun Sep-14-03 10:08 PM by NNN0LHI
...his getaway vehicle from the explosion and was found at the scene of the crime. His car was missing the rear plate. That is why he was pulled over. He was still almost let go before someone put two and two together and realized the plate found at the scene matched the car he was hightailing it away from the scene of the crime in. That is when they realized they had their perp already in custody.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
morningglory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
31. Good biography of T. McVeigh revealed that he was a superior
tank commander in the gulf war I, and when he returned to the USA, there were no ads in the paper for tank commanders. He was hanging out with nuts and was just a little nuts and had nothing to do but get in trouble. He was angry about being RIFed. Think about this Iraq war we are in now: Ramped up military and then downsizing, 10's of thousands of unemployed young men. When WWII ended, the government decided to have a GI Bill to send the guys to college, to give them something to do. What would monkey * boy do? We need a president who can think ahead. Help!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Yeah, he was attempting to imply that
everyone probably would have suggested he was a conspiracy nut. He's probably right. It's a good observation, and he threw it out for commentary.

Get off it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. Obviously
Of course he was trying to make a connection to conspiracy theories. That was obvious. But it was a stupid connection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. Stupid Connection?
Please do tell us what you know about 9/11. Since we haven't had anything close to a full public airing of the facts, I am not in position to know what happened on that day. But I do know that this administration is doing everything in it's power to make sure the facts never see the light of day.

If it was OBL, why'd Bush decide 6 months later that he was no longer a priority? Why's did they allow Al-Qaeda to leave Tora Bora before the real bombing commenced in Afghanistan?

As Bush as shown in his invasion of Iraq, he is perfectly willing to distort the facts, even lie to get his way. I, for one, won't take his version of the "facts" about what happened that terrible day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Bush and bin Laden --- perfect together
"If it was OBL, why'd Bush decide 6 months later that he was no longer a priority?"

Most likely because it WAS OBL, and the Bush family and bin Laden family have connections going way back.

"Why's did they allow Al-Qaeda to leave Tora Bora before the real bombing commenced in Afghanistan?"

Most likely plain incompetence, but again it's in Shrubbie's interest to divert attention from bin Laden, because if people knew the truth about the Bush-bin Laden-Saudi connections, they'd lynch the sob.

Why else were 38 pages on the Saudi connection redacted from the Senate report? The Saudis were funding al Qaeda, and the Saudis and Bushies are covering each others' butts.

"As Bush as shown in his invasion of Iraq, he is perfectly willing to distort the facts, even lie to get his way. I, for one, won't take his version of the "facts" about what happened that terrible day."

Nor do I. But it makes no sense to exonerate bin Laden because you want to blame Bush. bin Laden and the Saudis connect Bush to 9/11.

Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. perspective, thanks! :-)
too many in this country need it right now

here's hoping that the truth comes as swift and as generally accepted as your example!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
American Renaissance Donating Member (330 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. I knew it at the time,
I was also home that day, I was sick and I was sitting in the kitchen reading the newspaper, I had the TV on some syndicated gameshow.

In the newspaper on the same page there were two articles, one about the pending execution of a militia racial killer in Arkansas, and one was just a stock story about Waco.

As I was walking up to turn off the TV, the station cut to CNN coverage of the bombing in OKC and some talking head was mid-sentance rambling about arab terrorists and the first thought it my mind was this was a militia attack.

Why would islamic terrorists strike there, I doubt many islmaic terrorists even know where OKC is!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
10. This site will help you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
11. Jose Padilla the Dirty bomber next to the OKC bomber #2
you decide.



Link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greatauntoftriplets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. They sure do look alike.
So, how much of the "war on terra" is homegrown?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. We will never know about Jose Padilla though...
...because he is being held incommunicado somewhere without benefit of a trial or even being allowed to speak to an attorney by Ashcroft. And Ashcoroft was also the one that wanted McVeigh killed as fast as possible even though new evidence had turned up about the crime just days before he was executed. We will never know what that evidence was now either.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JasonBerry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
33. Uncanny! N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Yes isn't it...
and now Jose is locked away nice and neat. How convenient!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
14. Actually the first thing I thought of was...
...that the type of people who join militias, distrust the federal government, probably did it. It seemed that kind of thing was on the rise a bit around that time, especially in Michigan, where I lived.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ivory_Tower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
15. Well, actually....
That was one of only three things I remember getting right in recent years.

After it happened, I was going to lunch with co-workers, and everyone was talking about how the authorities were looking for Arabs, and I mentioned that I wouldn't be surprised if it was a right-winger American that did it. It wasn't a conspiracy theory, it just seemed to be the logical extension of the impact of hate radio and government-bashing that was all the rage.

The other two things I got right were predicting a Dole-Kemp ticket (ten months before the 1996 convention), and predicting Clinton's impeachment (in 1994, after the Republican takeover). Everything else I've pretty much gotten wrong. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #15
40. Me too. I first thought 'militia wacko'...
...and I was even more sure once I found out it was the Waco anniversary.

And for prespective, immediately after the 1993 WTC bombing, some "terrorism experts" who can usually be counted on to point at Arabs were speculating about some "faction of the former Yugoslavia".

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BushHasGotToGo Donating Member (146 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
19. No reasonable man would think Arabs gave a rats ass about Oklahoma
That's just the fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. How about all the Iraqis
IN Oklahoma?

There were supposed to be a bunch brought over after the Gulf war. Anti Saddam refugees

And it makes as much sense as hitting the WTC

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
30. If someone was looking for a reason to invade Iraq I would say...
Edited on Sun Sep-14-03 11:36 PM by NNN0LHI
...Oklahoma would be a perfect place to set up something and let some Iraqi refugees to take the fall for the bombing. Could easily be pinned on Saddam Hussein then which would lead to an invasion of Iraq. And as an extra added bonus they could even blame Clinton for allowing all of them damn Iraqi terrorists into our country. He would never get re-elected after that for sure. But that damn license plate blew off and messed up everything for someone. After the McVeigh fiasco someone might even think it best to go to their real ace in the hole for the next attempt. Like maybe someones good friends and business partners from Saudi Arabia? The Saudis could even provide some real Arab Islamists for the next try. Afterall. They got a million of them. And then we end up with 911. Couldn't have pulled it off on Clintons watch though. He would never have ordered our fighter planes to stand down that day while it all went down. So someone needed to steal an election so that they could rely on having a president who would keep reading books to kids in Jebs state while it was going down for a half an hour or so and act stupid. Junior would even allow their Saudi friends to leave the country without even being questioned by the FBI. And he surely wouldn't allow a real independent investigation to delve into what really happened that day either. Got the plan. They just needed the right man in the White House as president to pull it all off. Enter Junior. Their go to man.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toby109 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. Ooh, that is eerily close to my theory
Why were the right-wingers so overtly aggresive about winning the White House in 2000? Orders from the top. Why did they HAVE to win? 9/11 had to occur close enough to Clinton to be able to blame him for it and to set up Iraq. More dollars for the defense industry, oil companies, fucking etc., etc..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
22. That was also the day Lugar announced his ill-fated run for the WH.
I was working in the City-County bldg. at that time and you wanna talk "playing with tight assholes"? Man, it was pucker-cityy down in the basement where I worked...Some people said "AY-RABS!!" and I'm thinking "Dunno....Why OKC?"

Anyway, Lugar decided to go ahead with his announcement rally outside at the City Market across the street. Guess they had planned to have pyro and streamer guns and confetti, and it never occured to them to scrub the pyro.

They set the flashpots off, and everyone screamed and ran for cover. I ducked behind a corner of the building.

Not Bright.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orangeone Donating Member (395 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
37. It was a big shock

I remember some so-called Middle East experts theorized at first that it was the work of Arab terrorists. I also recall that one Jordanian man was detained, and that his pregnant wife got so upset that she had a miscarriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jafap Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
38. seems to me that Vidal offered a conspiracy theory on that
In "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace" Gore Vidal suggests that McVeigh was working for the ATF or some such agency and that the purpose of the attack was to strengthen the ATF and expand their powers.
What I remember from the time is wondering how they knew it was McVeigh. I did not get the details on how they happened to capture the person they did. At the time I did not have TV so I did not get to see if the media tried to make it into "the day that changed America". Clinton did use it to attack "hate radio" and used some of the people in SOTU 1996. Was that part of the reason that he cruised to re-election after he/we got shelled in 1994?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 02:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC