9.26.99 Fla. GOP Opponent Thompson Says Reno Compromised by DUI Arrests, Use of Prostitutes, Ties to Porno & Organized Crime; Enabling Use As "Expendable" "Firewall" Re: Administration Illegalities, Atrocities Claims GOP Fully Aware of Reno's Past, Administration Manipulations During Reno Confirmation Hearings Says Danforth Probe WILL NOT Touch Info - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >Subject: Re: WACO: BLUEPRINT FOR DISASTER - DANFORTH WACO PROBE >http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb77532&MyNum=93828895 5&P=Yes&TL=938272096 POSTED APFN MESSAGE BOARD: http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb77532 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 07:25:08 EDT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > My name is Jack Thompson. I am the last Republican to run against Janet Reno, as I was her opponent in 1988 for the office of Dade County (Florida) State Attorney. One of the reasons I ran against Reno was the fact that she was blackmailed by a criminal pornography enterprise. I gave the proof in my campaign. I also provided to Bill Clinton, before he even nominated her to be Attorney General (I heard from a friend in the Justice Department that she was on the "short list" of nominees), not only the proof of her blackmail but also the evidence of her five drunk driving incidents, her use of call girls, and her disturbing ties to organized crime. I gave this information to Clinton through my best friend at Vanderbilt Law School, Class of 1976, an attorney by the name of M. Samuel Jones, who by then was a partner to Bruce Lindsey in the Little Rock firm of Wright, Lindsey & Jennings. Confirmation that Clinton got all the information that disqualified Reno from practicing law, let alone being the AG, came in a phone call from someone at the White House before her confirmation hearings who wanted to know all that I knew. His name? Lanny Davis. Davis clearly wanted to know what I knew not to disqualify her but to discredit me should it all hit the fan in public. This was the beginning of my education about the ways of Washington and of the political elite of both parties who protect themselves rather than the interests of the American people. I say that because now I am writing letters to Senator Danforth to ask him to subpoena me to testify in his "investigation" of what happened at Waco and its aftermath in order that his team might consider the fact that Reno had a powerful disincentive to get to the bottom of Waco. The disincentive is, of course, the blackmail information that the President has on Reno. It is how he has kept her on line on Chinagate and every other "gate" for which she has proven so useful. > The reason Danforth won't want to get into that is the complicity of the Senate Republicans in assuring that Reno became A.G. Orrin Hatch, for example, knew of the five police officers who pulled her over for drunk driving while she was State Attorney down here. How do I know? Because his Judiciary Committee staffer, John Bliss, told me that Hatch had the police officers but did not want to go public with them because "The Senate Republicans don't want to mess with the Anita Hill crowd again." > So, folks, there you have it: Danforth won't get to the bottom of Waco, which means getting to the bottom of the cover-up, because to do so exposes the Republicans as complicit in the Waco disaster. They knew Reno was a drunk and a compromised one at that, who could be controlled with this and other information by the extortionate White House, and yet they sat on their hands at the moment that she could have been denied the post. > Orrin Hatch has the blood of 24 kids on his hands. I have told all this to Danforth, and he won't even have his people talk to me. I said this on Fox News Channel on Labor Day while being interviewed about Waco, and the interviewer freaked and pulled the plug on the interview. > Fox News, if you're wanting to do something, should be inundated with calls asking me to be interviewed in depth about this. And Danforth should be pressured to talk to me. > I leave it in your hands. I have tried everything to get this word out. I can testify to all of this under oath, and I have witnesses to corroborate it all. > But America will not know the truth about Waco until it knows that Reno was picked by Clinton to be his firewall between all his criminality and accountability for it. > Jack Thompson, 305-666-4366 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >------------------------------------------------------------ > >Should The Senate Be Sued? >http://www.esotericworldnews.com/sued.htm > > Sue The United States Senate??? YES!! > Contact: John B. Thompson, Attorney > 1172 South Dixie Highway, Suite 111 > Coral Gables, Florida 33146-2750 > Phone & Fax: 305-666-4366 > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John B. Thompson) >http://www.esotericworldnews.com/sued.htm > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >------------------------------------- > >Janet Reno Uses Call Girls >http://www.esotericworldnews.com/janet.htm > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-------------------------------------- Washington Weekly on Waco - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WAITING IN WACO by Edward Zehr Published in the Sep. 27, 1999 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1999 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Edward Zehr can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reposting permitted with this message intact Meanwhile, the wrongful death lawsuit filed against the government and Lon Horiuchi on behalf of survivors of the Waco holocaust has been postponed for an unspecified period, probably until after the first of the year. Details for the premiere of the impatiently awaited film by Mike McNulty, "Waco: A New Revelation" have not yet been announced, although it is believed that it will open in Washington. It is said that the film makers plan to invite to the first showing Attorney General Janet Reno and former Sen. John Danforth, recently appointed by Reno to run an "independent" investigation of the Waco holocaust. Should these two worthies choose to attend the premiere of McNulty's film they will no doubt get an eyeful. Among the new revelations contained in the footage obtained under the Freedom of Information Act is infrared film from a surveillance aircraft showing figures crouching behind Bradley fighting vehicles, out of sight of the press. A series of bright flashes is seen, which analyst Edward Allard, formerly an Army expert on Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR), identifies as gunfire, some of which is aimed at the door of a concrete storage room where women and children had taken refuge. (This room is often referred to as a "bunker" by mainstream media propagandists who support the government's contention that the flimsy fire-trap at Mount Carmel was a formidable fortress). The figures are believed to be members of Delta Force, firing at the Davidians from concealed positions behind the armored vehicles. The FBI dispute that the flashes of light were caused by gunfire, but then they have also maintained that government personnel had remained inside the vehicles during this part of the operation. The FBI's contention that the flashes of light were caused by sunlight reflecting off debris such as broken glass on the ground are disputed in the film by Allard and Maurice Cox, a retired mathematician-imagery analyst with a background in intelligence analysis. According to Karen Brooks, writing in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Cox demonstrates in the film, using geometry, "That the FLIR plane would have had to circle the compound at a speed of Mach 1.8 to capture reflections in the manner in which the flashes appear on the tape." Brooks also writes that the film alleges the FBI "used at least six Defense Technologies flash-bang devices -- which spew flames, smoke and heat -- inside the compound in the seconds before the fire broke out." Thus far, the FBI has admitted to firing two pyrotechnic tear gas grenades at a concrete "bunker" which agency spokesmen insist bounced harmlessly off the top of it. However, records found by McNulty in the Rangers' evidence locker indicate that at least three of the expended flash-bangs "were found at or near the places that officials said the fires started." But the film makers say that they are withholding some of the best details until the film has been seen by the public. "We don't want to give any of them a chance to form their public positions before everyone sees it at the same time," said Aric Johnson, who is also the film's technical director. Janet Reno would seem to have formed an opinion already -- she denounced the conclusions drawn by the film makers a short time before appointing former Sen. Danforth to run the "independent" investigation. Gregg Easterbrook, writing in the Sept. 10 New Republic, reveals that The General Accounting Office has reported that "the FBI obtained from the Army 250 high-explosive 40 mm rounds of the type fired from infantry grenade launchers." Noting that firing even one of these munitions could have killed innocent bystanders, such as Davidian children within the compound, Easterbrook wonders "what valid law enforcement purpose the FBI, supposedly managing a hostage situation (the children), could have had in mind for 250 high-explosive projectiles designed to cause general destruction." The only purpose that comes readily to mind is mentioned by the New Republic writer: "to deal the Davidians some revenge for the four agents' deaths." Could that possibly be the reason why the federal government assembled an army of 400 or more at Ruby Ridge for a life-or-death struggle with a small family whom they had terrorized into resistance by the outrageously illegal, unconstitutional, murderous violence they inflicted upon them? Is that why the FBI commander at the scene, Richard Rogers, authorized his agents, including paid assassin Lon Horiuchi, to "shoot on sight," in clear violation of a ruling by the Supreme Court? One other possible motive comes to mind upon reflection -- the destruction of incriminating evidence. John Culbertson, writing for "Frontline", finds the video of the helicopters, taken during the initial BATF assault on the compound, troubling as well. Although the press were told that the BATF agents in the helicopters were there as "air controllers" and "observers", Culbertson notes that they were armed with AR-15's, in addition to the sidearms they usually wore. It seems that government officials later attempted to deny that long guns were taken on the helicopters even though they are clearly visible in the BATF video. Culbertson also notes that in the segment taken while the helicopters were overflying the compound "there is a suspicious pop, pop, pop in the sound track that sound suspiciously like gun fire." One of the points hotly disputed by the feds is the allegation that they fired on the Davidian compound from helicopters during the initial assault by the BATF. David Koresh can be heard remonstrating with a negotiator on one of the audio tapes that they had been fired on from the air. Lawyers who were later allowed to briefly visit the Davidian compound told of seeing bullet holes in the roof. What better way to efface such evidence than to burn the place down and bulldoze the wreckage ("losing" one of the front doors in the process)? Why is this point so important? After all, there is no question that the BATF agents directed heavy fire into the Davidian compound. One agent was observed crouched behind a vehicle, firing blindly into the building (that was full of women and children) -- a technique known in the trade as "pray and spray." The basic issue involved here is who started the shooting. As Culbertson notes, there was no shooting by either side as the BATF agents initially approached the building. It was only after three Texas Air National Guard helicopters appeared over the scene that the shooting started. High-ranking officials of the BATF have testified before Congress that their agents were "ambushed" by Davidians who fired through the two front doors of the Davidian compound as the agents approached. Thus when BATF agents "returned fire" they were only defending themselves. They told Congressman Charles Schumer that the fusillade had been so intense that the doors had actually "bowed outward". In fact, the BATF officers maintained, they had videotapes that showed the first shots being fired through the doors from inside the building. Since TV news footage had shown both doors being moved by a bulldozer, it should have been a straightforward matter to demonstrate the truth of the agency's claims. But nothing in the government's case ever seems to be straightforward. The BATF told Congressman Schumer's committee that the videotapes were "missing" (surprise, surprise) and that one of the front doors could not be found either. What's more, the single door that was recovered showed conclusively that bullets had penetrated it only from the outside. There was no evidence that the Davidians had returned fire through the door. Ah, well it must have been the OTHER door that was bowed outward then, you know -- the one that's "missing." See, this was a highly segregated gun battle; the Davidians fired only through one door and the BATF "returned fire" only through the other one. The things one is required to believe these days in order not to be dissed as a "conspiracy theorist" boggle the mind. Not to worry. With an ostentatious show of disdain, Chuckie Schumer dismissed the "missing" door as "irrelevant." Let's see now, the one door that was recovered indicates that the BATF agents fired into the building and the other door, the one that is said to be "bowed outward" due to the intense barrage of gunfire let loose by the Davidians, is "missing." Conclusion: the Davidians fired first, and the evidence of this is "irrelevant." Right, got it. Next case. Michael Levine, who hosts the "Expert Witness" radio show commented in an OpEd piece in which he recounted the above details concerning the doors: "I have spent 35 years in Federal and State courts testifying as an expert witness in many matters relating to Law Enforcement including The Rules of Engagement and will offer my testimony here: the questions of the missing door and videotape, the identification of individuals responsible for their disappearance and Congressman Schumer's logic and motivation in calling this key evidence "irrelevant" must be answered fully for there ever to be a true healing of the festering wound on America's soul called Waco." As Levine points out, if the government agents fired first they violated the Rules of Engagement, and every subsequent act of theirs involving deadly force "was clearly both a Federal and Texas State felony." And that, gentle reader, is why the Danforth investigation must be yet another coverup. The government simply will not countenance having its law enforcement officers portrayed as lawless marauders, no matter how accurate such a portrayal may be. As the French general said in "explaining" why Capt. Dreyfus was "guilty" (in the movie version, anyway), "If Dreyfus is innocent, the Army is guilty. If the Army is guilty, France is defenseless." Court adjourned. The FBI had described the siege as a "hostage situation." They seem to have resigned themselves to settling down for the long haul. Shining searchlights into the windows of the compound, playing tapes of animals being slaughtered, shutting off the power so that the Davidians were forced to use kerosine lamps for light in their tinder-dry fire-trap, and similar neat touches that raise serious questions as to which side of the fence the "loonies" were supposed to be on. Then, 51 days after the siege had begun, it ended abruptly in the final assault and holocaust that killed more than 80 people. Why? Janet Reno said afterwards that she had received reports that "child abuse" was going on within the compound. Whenever the cry of "child abuse" is raised you can be certain that the PC witch- burners are about to make an appearance. Sure enough, they were right on cue this time. I wonder if Reno has seen photos of those children taken after the fire? I have. She accuses the Davidians of child abuse? It's difficult to imagine any abuse worse than being burned alive. The Justice Department later admitted that there were no reports of child abuse. No explanation of the contradiction has ever been forthcoming. It's just as well. Who could believe anything those people say at this point? Have they ever gotten ANYTHING right? Oh yes, Reno had another explanation as well: the agents were getting tired. So they just moved in with their tanks one morning and started pumping the place full of CS gas. Gregg Easterbrook wrote: "Tear gas doesn't just produce tears; it causes choking and convulsions. It is far more dangerous to children, whose lungs are sensitive, than to adults; the children, it causes agony. And there was the FBI's armored vehicle, pumping tear gas for six hours into a compound full of children." No doubt the federal agents who did this are all decent people who have families and maybe even go to church on Sunday. Is that so surprising? As much could just as likely be said of the security staff at Auschwitz. Throughout history "decent" people have done some truly awful things. OKLAHOMA CITY TO THE END OF THE LINE After watching films of preparations for the BATF raid on Mount Carmel and footage from the helicopter used by the agency in that failed operation, wrote Culbertson, the former sheriff shouted in anger and disbelief, "If it wasn't for Waco, there wouldn't have been an Oklahoma City." Law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the law, protect the innocent and keep the peace, but here they were about to break the peace, playing soldier against a make-believe enemy in pursuit of "appropriations and glory." And the worst of it is, their "enemy" included a great many elderly and children, the very people they are supposed to protect. "The BATF," Culbertson observed, "had lost sight of the true law enforcement mission and had lost it's moral compass." And so, Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh, outraged at the excesses of the federal government and nursing their "conspiracy theories" set out to avenge the victims of Waco. "At one time conspiracy theorists may have been viewed as eccentrics far out on the fringe," warned Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, "but then Timothy McVeigh drove a truck full of explosives to Oklahoma City and we all discovered just how dangerous it can be when people stop trusting the government." There you have it in a nutshell -- it's "dangerous" not to trust the government. First thing you know some nut goes out and buys a truckload of fertilizer and then, Ka-BLOOEY! Could it really be that simple? Not really. As Christine Gorman noted in an article that appeared in Time magazine on May 1, 1995, a home-made ANFO bomb presents certain difficulties for the beginner. She quotes Jeffrey Dean, executive director of the International Society of Explosives Engineers in Cleveland, as saying that "ANFO is easy to make if you know how to do it, but it takes years of experience to work with it safely." It isn't just that a couple of tyros such as Nichols and McVeigh would have been more likely to blow themselves up than produce a workable 4800 pound ANFO bomb, though. The article notes that, "it is almost impossible for amateurs to mix thoroughly the ammonium nitrate with the fuel oil. (Commercial manufacturers use industrial-size blenders for the job.)" Ammonium nitrate is mixed with fuel oil to make an ANFO bomb. (The FO in ANFO is the fuel oil). If the AN and the FO are not properly mixed the resulting batter will be lumpy with the consequence that clumps of ammonium nitrate will fail to detonate, being scattered instead about the site of the explosion. A case that occurred in California in 1990 is cited as an example of amateur bomb-making. It involved a "disgruntled engineer" who detonated a ton of his very best home made ANFO in a truck parked in front of the local IRS branch office. The article notes that "only a fraction of the compounds in the vehicle exploded, and no one was killed." McVeigh and Nichols were even less successful when they tested a small ammonium nitrate bomb they had built in 1994. When they tried to set off the bomb in the desert near Kingman, Arizona, only the detonator went off strewing ammonium nitrate all over the place, according to Michael Fortier's testimony at the McVeigh trial. Nevertheless, the prosecution said, six months later they were able to build a two-ton bomb of the same type in less than a day. It is significant in this context that only microscopic traces of ammonium nitrate were found at the site of the Oklahoma City bombing, indicating that the manufacture of the bomb had been done in a very professional manner. While Ms. Gorman mentions in her article that fertilizer would have to be treated in order to make it into an explosive, she tells her readers that "such information is available in books published by fringe presses and on the Internet." Just so, but one should not infer from her statement that it is easy to do. As she stated in her very first paragraph, "The act of terror that demolished the Murrah building and destroyed scores of human lives required a basic understanding of chemistry, skill at bombmaking and some technical know-how to jury-rig a few key component that are not easy to get." The Department of the Army and Air Force Technical Manual No. 9-1910, titled "Military Explosives," tells us that ANFO requires a greater than 99% purity of ammonium nitrate, as well as a specific dryness, before it can be mixed with diesel fuel to create an explosive substance. According to the FBI, the OKC bomb was made from 50 bags of fertilizer. At 100 pounds per bag that would work out about right -- except for one detail, fertilizer has nowhere near the 99% purity of ammonium nitrate required for explosives. And although the literature to which Ms. Gorman referred does indeed give the information required to produce an explosive from fertilizer, without the proper equipment -- to which neither Nichols nor McVeigh had access -- the conversion would be a long and arduous process. But Nichols and McVeigh had only hours in which to complete the procedure which most experts agree would take days. Furthermore, detonating 25 containers of ANFO simultaneously, as McVeigh is alleged to have done, would require an expert's knowledge of explosives. Neither Nichols nor McVeigh had the expertise required to make such a bomb work. But if neither Nichols nor McVeigh built the bomb, who did? Two witnesses, James Sargeant and Georgia Rucker, told of seeing a Ryder truck parked near the lake at Geary State Park, Kansas for three days from April 10, 1995, through April 12, just a week before the bombing of the Murrah Building. They also reported seeing several unidentified men climbing in and out of the cargo area of the truck. Is it possible that the bomb was constructed at the lake in Kansas? The prosecution had maintained all along that the bomb which destroyed the Murrah Building was built in this location. The reason the prosecution did not call these witnesses was given by Ryan Ross, a free lance reporter: "McVeigh was checked into a motel in Kingman, Arizona at the time. Prosecutors won't want to raise the possibility that someone other than McVeigh built the bomb." The prosecution did not call any witnesses who could have placed McVeigh at the location where they maintain the bomb was built. Had they done so these witnesses would have told of seeing a Ryder truck at that location almost a week before McVeigh is supposed to have rented it. And why did the prosecution not call any of the almost two dozen witnesses who could place McVeigh at the scene of the crime on the morning of April 19, 1995? An FBI spokesman told one of the network talking heads that these witnesses had proven "undependable." Two dozen witnesses place a defendant at the crime scene and the prosecution finds all of them "undependable"? Are we really supposed to believe that? Or is the more likely reason that they all saw McVeigh at the scene of the bombing accompanied by somebody else -- a man who resembles the elusive suspect identified only as John Doe #2? Some witnesses told of seeing him with McVeigh in a store, at a bar, and at the truck rental shop prior to the bombing. Others said that they saw him fleeing from the scene of the crime. In an effort to find John Doe #2, the FBI conducted the largest manhunt in the agency's history. But in August of 1995, the FBI suddenly decided that John Doe #2 did not really exist. It had been a case of "mistaken identity" -- or something. This suspect was said by the defense to tie the conspiracy to an extremist group located at Elohim City in Oklahoma and thereby to a failed government sting operation. Another witness who was not permitted to testify at the McVeigh trial is former BATF informant Carol Howe. Judge Richard Matsch who presided at the trial ruled that her testimony "could confuse or mislead the jury." After permitting the endless barrage of sleazy, emotional, grossly irrelevant twaddle presented by the prosecution that was obviously designed to work upon the feelings of the jurors it would certainly be a shame to confuse them with facts. Howe's attorney, Clark Brewster, said that Howe's testimony would have shown that "others had motive and opportunity to bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building," according to Kevin Flynn of the Rocky Mountain News. Howe's testimony "would have allowed this jury to consider at least how some other people had not only the intent to bomb buildings but also the means to carry it out," he said. Flynn described Howe as "a former debutante and daughter of wealthy Tulsa parents," who, in 1994, infiltrated a "white separatist compound" located at Elohim City in Eastern Oklahoma. Howe's reports to her BATF handler indicated that "several people there were becoming more militant in their talk about taking action against the government," according to Flynn. Furthermore, the government's own evidence, introduced at the trial indicates that McVeigh "placed a call to Elohim City immediately after calling a Ryder truck rental agency in Arizona on April 5, 1995, two weeks before the bombing," Flynn reported. Oklahoma State Rep. Charles Key, who took an intense interest in the case from its inception, said at the time of the trial that Howe's testimony is relevant, adding, "The government is shutting this case down fast, and it raises questions in a lot of people's minds. Let's not kid ourselves; they're covering up something very significant here." What could the government have wanted to cover up so badly? Did it have to do with the militants at Elohim City and their intent to take action against the government? Shortly before the McVeigh trial was to begin, Brewster deposed Angela (Finley) Graham -- who had "run" Howe as an undercover agent for the BATF -- regarding the intelligence project Howe had undertaken involving Andreas Strassmeir, Dennis Mahon and Elohim City. Strassmeir is a German national and the son of a prominent German political figure. A former Bundeswehr officer, he is believed to have been connected with the German anti-terrorist group, GSG-9. It appears that Strassmeir infiltrated the militants at Elohim City, where he acted as "chief of security," for a time. Dennis Mahon was a white separatist bigwig at Elohim City. Regarding Strassmeir, Brewster asked Graham about "the kind of threats he made about wanting to blow up federal buildings, saying, "You were interested in that, weren't you?" After attempting to evade the question, Graham was forced to concede, "In general, yes." She also admitted that this had preceded the Oklahoma City bombing. The Tulsa World reported on July 30: "In a July 16 hearing in the Howe case, Brewster claimed that -- before the Oklahoma City bombing -- Howe had warned the ATF that residents of the far eastern Oklahoma religious compound known as Elohim City were talking of a "cataclysm" in the spring of 1995 and that federal buildings in Oklahoma City or Texas were being targeted." Reporter J.D. Cash wrote in the McCurtain Gazette, "evidence is contained in government documents outlining plans in February, 1995, for Strassmeir's imminent arrest by agents of the Tulsa office of the ATF." But the arrest did not take place. Cash wrote, "For reasons yet to be explained, that arrest -- planned for two months before the Oklahoma City bombing -- was postponed, and in the wake of the bombing, apparently scrubbed." Strassmeir had been living in this country illegally. But every time he seemed about to get into trouble, a government official would show up and his problem would just sort of go away. Cash wrote further: "The Gazette has also located evidence that Strassmeir was immediately fingered as a suspect in the Oklahoma City bombing, but was inexplicably allowed to live in this country for nine months following the tragedy, without being interviewed by the FBI." The London Telegraph's Washington bureau chief, Ivo Dawnay wrote: "What is most worrying for prosecuting attorneys is that Howe claims little knowledge of Tim McVeigh. Instead she identified from descriptions several other Elohim figures, including Mahon, Strassmeir and a bank robber, Michael Brescia, as likely bombers. But to date, although the FBI is said to have spoken to more than 20,000 individuals in America's most extensive criminal inquiry, Mahon has yet to be interviewed. Strassmeir, another suspect named by Howe, has been only cursorily interviewed in Germany by telephone." That is the sort of thing that gives the Oklahoma City bombing case such a bad odor. Since the government and the press refuse to tell us what is going on it is inevitable that people are going to guess. Did Strassmeir act on his own? If so, why was he shown such deference by our government? Was he perhaps an agent provocateur? Was the Oklahoma City bombing a failed sting operation? This might seem far fetched, but why did so many witnesses such as Norma Smith, who worked at the Journal Record building across from the Murrah building, report that they had seen the police bomb squad milling around in the vicinity at about 7:30 on the morning the bombing took place? The bomb squad subsequently departed long before the blast occurred. When queried later about their appearance at the scene that morning they denied having been there prior to the bombing. If the feds had set up and then bungled a sting operation that morning it wouldn't have been the first time. In the World Trade Center bombing that took place in New York, the FBI taught the terrorist group led by Omar Adbel Rahman how to make the bomb, provided them the materials required to build it (rejecting a suggestion by an undercover agent that he substitute a harmless material for the explosive), taught them how to drive the Ryder truck used to transport the bomb, and then in a spectacular display of incompetence, failed to prevent the bombing that killed 6 and injured more than a thousand. (At least one hopes it was incompetence). Incompetence (or worse) is the common thread that connects all of these incidents. Ruby Ridge resulted from a failed attempt to coerce an innocent man into becoming an informant for the BATF. Waco was a publicity stunt gone awry. Oklahoma City may have been a failed sting operation, or something much worse. In light of its subsequent use by the Clinton administration and the mainstream press to smear and demonize anyone holding views deemed politically incorrect by the power elite it resembles nothing so much as an attempted rerun of the Reichstag fire scenario. Some went so far as to suggest that Rush Limbaugh was somehow responsible for what had happened in Oklahoma. It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to visualize the Oklahoma City bombing being used as a political ploy by a corrupt administration to recoup the losses sustained in the congressional elections of 1994, given the behavior of federal authorities described above. The "liberal" welfare state is the benign persona which our degenerate ruling class show the public. The incidents recounted here give us a glimpse of the grim reality behind the mask. Why would anyone suppose that a government which is prepared to torture children with noxious gas for six hours would hesitate to use force against the rest of us? The mainstream media have betrayed us by helping those responsible cover up the crimes they have committed. This could very well be the end of the line for individual liberty. Edward Zehr can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Published in the Sep. 27, 1999 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1999 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact
