by Kevin Alfred Strom
ON THE one hand, we have the conspiracy theorists who say that Timothy McVeigh was a patsy. On the other hand, we have hours of tapes in which McVeigh admits he committed the act.
But these are not mutually exclusive propositions. One does not preclude the other.
McVeigh may have been followed, encouraged, guided, and then taken advantage of — with extra explosives as “insurance,” as the efficacy of a truck bomb some considerable distance from the building was naturally doubted by the experts involved.
I was listening to the radio in the minutes and hours immediately after the event, and there were definitely reports of additional bombs inside the building — which stands to reason, considering the massive damage.
It was also extremely suspicious that McVeigh, shortly before the attack, placed a number of apparently pointless telephone calls.
He (if indeed it was he and not a helpful “associate”) did this using a phone card sold by Liberty Lobby, a right-wing populist group. He called a long list of right-wing and pro-White racial organizations a few days before the bombing, typically leaving messages and asking — almost begging — to be contacted. The tally of organizations he tried to contact is very similar to those on the SPLC’s alleged “hate group” list.
It would be as if Lee Harvey Oswald had sat down during the first weeks of November, 1963, and made dozens of telephone calls attempting to set up meetings with every left-wing group on the House Un-American Activities Committee list — and did so from the lobby phone at Americans for Democratic Action.
McVeigh’s association with Nichols was probably not part of his handlers’ plans, since it vitiated their claim that the bombing was the work of “racists.” (Nichols was in an interracial marriage.) So McVeigh clearly had a considerable degree of freedom of action, and was not operating under direct orders.
But a patsy nonetheless? I say that is very likely.
Cui bono? Those who wanted increased government power to monitor, infiltrate, and stifle dissenters. (Legislation that presaged the Patriot Act — itself triggered by a later, possibly false flag, event — was pushed through after OKC.) Those who wanted to demonize anyone who questions the Empire. Those who wanted — and still want — to demonize groups that demand self-determination.
As I wrote shortly after the attack in April 1995, a so-called “anti-terrorism” bill, hundreds of pages in length and giving the police state agencies huge new powers to take away our privacy and liberty, was ready to be passed by Congress within days. I wrote:
‘According to wire service reports, President Clinton has called for: money to hire 1,000 new agents, a wider range of electronic surveillance, stiffer penalties, relaxed standards for allowing infiltration and informers, increased ability to trace phone calls and check credit card and other records and use of the military in domestic cases. Use of the military against American citizens — that has got to be the final straw. In Waco they insisted that U.S. Army insignia be removed from the equipment before it was to be used, but perhaps in future that will no longer be necessary. As in the Soviet Union, the people may become inured to the use of the Army against citizens….’
‘They are pushing for their so-called “Anti-Terrorism Bill.” They want more black-helmeted goons working for nameless agencies most of us haven’t even heard about, armed with automatic weapons which we are not allowed to have, with the legally-sanctioned power to attack and possibly kill Americans… They want the power to unilaterally declare, without trial, that certain groups are “terrorist” and criminalize Americans who donate to them. They want to subject patriotic, loyal Americans to the most advanced spying, wiretapping, and surveillance apparatus that has ever been known. They want carte blanche to infiltrate agents provocateurs into groups they merely suspect of lawbreaking.’
McVeigh’s act caused great harm to the populists and patriots who are critical of the regime in Washington, setting them back decades — and it greatly benefited that same regime, giving it massive new powers. We should all apply the principle of cui bono? when we think about Oklahoma City.