Clinton-Obama Rift Begins

Clinton-Obama Rift Begins

A little bit of daylight has begun to emerge between the Clintons and President Obama. As the president’s ratings drop — recently, particularly among liberals — the first signs are beginning to show of distance between the former rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination.
 
As always with the Clintons, the signs are made evident by a carefully choreographed two-step in which they fill their separate roles, one as an outsider and the other as a loyal insider to the Obama administration. But never doubt that everything these two do is coordinated and orchestrated.
 
On Bill’s end, there emerge faint signs of disagreement with the president. Commenting on the Gulf oil spill, the former president warned against ratcheting up the rhetoric against BP noting that it is that firm’s expertise upon which the administration must rely to end the spill and terminate the slide in his ratings that it has triggered.
 
More confrontationally, Bill has endorsed Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff for the Democratic Senate nomination in Colorado even as the Obama White House is strongly backing Michael Bennet, the Democratic senator appointed to fill the seat vacated by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
 
For Bill Clinton to challenge Obama so overtly to a proxy battle in the Colorado Senate primary is, indeed, remarkable considering his wife’s role in the administration.
 
Hillary, as befits her position — but not necessarily her personality — is more demure. While she takes no shots at her boss and does not cross him in any way, she is gradually expanding her purview beyond the foreign affairs mandate of her job.
 
It was Secretary of State Clinton who first released to the media the fact that Obama’s Justice Department would be suing the state of Arizona over their new anti-illegal immigration law. And it was also the secretary of state who noted that she felt that rich people were not paying their “fair share” of taxes in the U.S., while carefully explaining that she was only expressing her personal views.

Read The Full Article

The Tea Party, Timothy McVeigh, and Tainted History

The Tea Party, Timothy McVeigh, and Tainted History

By Jayna Davis

Anyone waving a placard or voicing dissent against the Obama administration dare not protest too loudly. President Bill Clinton has reignited the incendiary rhetoric of April 19, 1995. He effectively sealed his second White House bid in 1996 by blaming conservative talk radio for inciting the heartland bomber Timothy McVeigh. Now, fifteen years later, the Democratic playbook promises to claim far more victims. Only this time, hardworking Americans stand in the crosshairs.

In a recent CNN interview, the former commander-in-chief sounded a battle cry to the political left, press and pundits alike: Vilify the Tea Party, deeming its membership capable of the violent rampage of the Oklahoma City bomber. This stigma imperils the most influential grassroots movement in modern history. Nothing threatens to muzzle free speech more than being stereotyped a “Tim McVeigh wanna-be.”
For me, this political correctness run amok triggers déjà vu. The smear campaign represents an instant replay of the backlash that I endured as a TV news reporter on the trail of the infamous John Doe 2. I was branded a “racist” for pursuing leads that illustrated how Iraqi intelligence agents, soldiers who served in Saddam Hussein’s army during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, infiltrated the United States in order to recruit and assist Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in executing the worst act of terror in 20th-century America.
What I discovered shatters the Tim McVeigh mold as an “angry white male” who vented his hostility through published letters to newspaper editors — and soon thereafter, crossed the threshold from peaceful discontent to wholesale mass murder. Instead, copiously researched evidence, as outlined in my book The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, exposes McVeigh as the ultimate traitor, acting in collusion with al-Qaeda terrorists and hostile foreign governments such as Iran and Iraq.  
The decorated Bradley gunner openly expressed to an Army buddy during Operation Desert Storm that he “wanted to become a mercenary for the Middle East because they paid the most.” Upon returning from the Persian Gulf War, he failed the cut for the elite Special Forces. The combat hero suffered a blow to the ego from which he would never recover. 
The lanky, awkward teenager from upstate New York had joined the military to shake the childhood stigmas of ordinariness and anonymity. Beneath his clean-cut persona, he harbored a warped sense of empathy for Osama bin Laden, the first World Trade Center mastermind Ramzi Yousef, and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. During his incarceration, McVeigh penned personal essays unveiling his deep-seated sympathies for Middle Eastern terrorists that fueled his anti-government zealotry. He unabashedly expressed regret for the killing two Iraqi enemy combatants, for which he earned the Bronze Star. 
Jailhouse interviews recently broadcasted by MSNBC confirm McVeigh’s obsessive need for notoriety. Shortly before his 2001 execution, he granted unlimited access to two authors of his biography in order to dictate how history would portray his role as the Oklahoma City “super bomber.” McVeigh lauded himself as an emotionless executioner, an ingenious mastermind, and the author of his own fate.     
Demented pride impelled the American terrorist to fire off letters to the press following my appearances on cable news programs. His ire inflamed as I announced to a nationwide audience that Osama bin Laden, Iraq, and Iran sponsored the Oklahoma City operation. My investigation demeaned the Army sergeant’s status and relegated his role to that of a mule, or rather, a button-pusher. In the lexicon of the intelligence community, Timothy McVeigh was nothing more than a “lily-white” delivery boy — someone who had no ostensible ties to a Middle Eastern terrorist organizations, and thereby could operate below the law enforcement radar screen. He was a handpicked dupe, set up to take the fall in order to save his Islamic collaborators from prosecution. Bill Clinton’s FBI ensured just that.  
The Bureau failed miserably in its prodigious quest to find McVeigh’s legendary accomplice, John Doe 2. It soon became evident that federal agents conducted a myopic manhunt bent on collaring a “homegrown” third terrorist of Caucasian, not foreign, descent. In early 1996, the Bureau conducted an unprecedented investigation in a herculean effort to connect a religious compound of white separatists and a band of Aryan Republican Army bank robbers to the Oklahoma City bombers.  After all, they were cut from the same cloth as Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. These right-wing extremists indubitably fit the profile of the angry white men who would avenge their hatred of the establishment by destroying a federal complex. 
After conducting twenty-five thousand witness interviews, the FBI could not find one witness who tied the neo-Nazi suspects to downtown Oklahoma City, Timothy McVeigh, the Ryder truck, getaway vehicles, or the bombsite. All had irrefutable alibis. In short, the FBI failed to produce one eyewitness account, fingerprint, motel registration log, or phone record linking these alleged conspirators to the commission of the crime. The judge who presided over Terry Nichols’ 2004 state murder trial ruled the Bureau’s pursuit of additional domestic terrorists amounted to nothing more than “hyperbole and a dry hole.”   
The FBI compliantly accepted the court’s rebuke rather than take receipt of my voluminous dossier indicting Iraqi soldiers in the crime. In 1997, when I attempted to surrender the witness statements and corroborative evidence, the FBI flatly refused to take it. But I persisted, and in 1999, FBI Agent Dan Vogel accepted the witness affidavits and investigative file. From there, the documents simply vanished. 
To this day, the FBI has failed to investigate the multiple sightings of Iraqi Republican Guardsman Hussain Al-Hussaini in the presence of Timothy McVeigh prior to the bombing, exiting the bomb-laden Ryder truck the morning of April 19, and escaping the ill-fated Murrah Building in a getaway vehicle pursued by the FBI in an all-points-bulletin issued for Middle Eastern terrorists. More significantly, two federal court rulings establish that this Iraqi soldier has no provable alibi for the morning of the bombing. 
The FBI never questioned Hussain Al-Hussaini and has refused repeated requests from Congress and the press to clear him officially of complicity in the Murrah Building bombing. Why? It is my firm belief that Bill Clinton and Janet Reno should be called upon to answer that question. Meanwhile, the Democrats will continue to spin the fictional portrait of McVeigh to the party’s advantage. 
Undoubtedly, Tim McVeigh espoused hate. He advocated civil disobedience. He called for armed resistance to punish a republic he no longer trusted to protect the liberty of its citizenry. But by no means does his crime symbolize anything other than the maniacal act of an unstable individual living on the fringe of society. For Bill Clinton to draw a comparison between a bloodthirsty terrorist and Tea Party conservatives, many of whom are senior citizens on walkers, is nothing short of a national outrage.
However, those threatened by the mounting ranks of dissatisfied voters will continue to stoke the flames of demagoguery. McVeigh was a soldier of fortune — a far cry from the peaceful citizens of the Tea Party. Yet until the evidence embodied in The Third Terrorist is prosecuted and validated in a courtroom setting, Americans who hold their elected leaders to account will continue to bear the onus of “Tim McVeigh wanna-bes.” The historical record, as written by the Clinton Department of Justice, leaves the door open to malign protestors as latent terrorists just awaiting the impetus to act. This insidious distortion of truth demands redress. 
The time has arrived to exorcise the ghosts of Oklahoma City and bring to account the Arab terrorists who butchered innocent Americans and the officials who suppressed the evidence of their guilt. 

Clinton alludes to 1995 bombing, says words matter He is still clueless

Clinton alludes to 1995 bombing, says words matter

 



Apr 16, 7:04 PM (ET)


WASHINGTON (AP) – Former President Bill Clinton warned of a slippery slope from angry anti-government rhetoric to violence like the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, saying “the words we use really do matter.”

The two-term Democratic president insisted he wasn’t trying to restrict free speech, but in remarks Friday he said incendiary language can be taken the wrong way by some Americans. He drew parallels to words demonizing the government before Oklahoma City.

On April 19, 1995, an anti-government conspiracy led by Army veteran Timothy McVeigh exploded a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people.

“What we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or that we should reduce our passion for the positions we hold – but that the words we use really do matter, because there’s this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike,” he said.

“One of the things that the conservatives have always brought to the table in America is a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility. And the more power you have and the more influence you have, the more responsibility you have.”

Clinton made the remarks at events sponsored by the Center for American Progress Action Fund on the upcoming anniversary of the bombing.

He mentioned the rancorous fight over President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. Passage of the law elicited threats against some lawmakers.

“I’m glad they’re fighting over health care and everything else. Let them have at it. But I think that all you have to do is read the paper every day to see how many people there are who are deeply, deeply troubled,” he said.

He also alluded to the anti-government tea party movement, which held protests in several states Thursday. At the Washington rally, Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota railed against “gangster government.”

Clinton argued that the Boston Tea Party was in response to taxation without representation. The current protesters, he said, are challenging taxation by elected officials, and the demonstrators have the power to vote them out of office.

“By all means keep fighting, by all means, keep arguing,” he said. “But remember, words have consequences as much as actions do, and what we advocate, commensurate with our position and responsibility, we have to take responsibility for. We owe that to Oklahoma City.”