Why is the Norman, Oklahoma suicide bombing being ignored by the mainstream press? Here is the email that I recieved.

It seems the only news outlet investigating the Norman Ok. suicide bombing is Ok. City channel 9 tv, The Oklahoman, and the OU Daily. NewsOK 9's latest report is at http://newsok.com/video/1634836/ You have to sit through a brief commercial before the news report appears in the viewer. I have found no transcrips for the broadcast. If you check the panel just to the right of the video screen, you will find other report videos on this.

What we know so far:

* Hinrichs converted to Islam, grew beard, and spent time in the same Norman mosque as Moussaui.

* Hinrichs had Pakistani roommate.

* Ticket to Algeria was found in Hinrichs' apartment linking back to his Pakistani roommate.

* 5 other islamic looking persons possibly involved are being investigated, were seen carrying materials in boxes into apartment.

* Hinrichs attempted to purchase large quantities of amonium nitrate from a local hardware store but was refused because of acting suspecious. Attempt was reported to police who investigated but found nothing wrong.

* Hinrichs made 3 attempts to enter stadium and may have had a ticket to the game. Was refused entry when he refused to allow an inspection of his backpack, ran away from gate.

* Reports of bus tampering outside the stadium where Hinrichs detonated bomb.

With all this evidence slowly coming out, it's hard to believe that this was a simple suicide by a mentally distrubed individule. It is being suggested that the coverup may be due to authorities trying to round up an Oklahoma terrorist cell without alerting them and sending them scattering. How much more do we need to know?

Why is OKC 9 covering this when no one else will?

Channel 9, The Oklahoman, and OU Daily are in a partnership. The Oklahoman is run by the daughter of Edward Gaylord who was a major donor to The University. The Gaylord College of Journalism is named for him and the stadium is named for the Gaylord Family after the millions and millions of dollars they have donated. His daughter, Christi Gaylord Everett is a member of the OK Board of Regents.

Edward Gaylord wanted a Journalism College that leaned right and turned out honest and ethical journalist -- OU Daily has done a great job on this story and in asking tough questions along with The Oklahoman and Channel 9. Edward Gaylord would be very proud of the legacy he left in more ways than one.

Check with OKC News 9 daily for the latest updates. If anything comes my way from other sources I'll let you know.

Why aren't liberals and conservatives talking about this? Well, for liberals, this deflates any more anti-Bush rallies. Here is a guy who converted to Islam, more than likely opposed the war in Iraq, and would be proud to stand side by side with Palestinians. This, in fact, could rally more people to join the military and fight terrorism. Why not go fight if just sitting around the United States could possibly get you killed.

As for conservatives, this goes against their argument that there hasn't been a terrorist attack inside the United States since 9-11. This actually shows that the Patriot Act doesn't go far enough to end a possible terrorist attack.

Which is my problem with the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act, no matter what is in there could never end terrorism. John Kerry's solution of big government checking everything in our ports, camera's on the street and subways, and more government solutions will never end the potential for terrorism if we don't close the borders to illegal immigration. I am for Mexicans coming to America, I'm for Canadiens, people from all countries having access to the United States. However, if their very first act in the United States is a crime, how can we expect them to honor our laws? More importantly, if we will not stop them there, why wouldn't terrorist just waltz in to our country through porous borders?

I don't get it, why punish the United States citizenry with more rules and regulations, yet not stop the potential for terrorist to drag bombs up the Mexico and into the United States?

But it is of the utmost importance that we remain level headed through this time. The government is going to panic and suggest even more laws, both liberals and conservative, yet even those laws will not end terrorism in the United States. Israel still hasn't been able to end terrorism in their country and they've been fighting it a lot longer than we have. What makes us think new laws is the solution?

The only way to defeat terrorism is to rally around the war in Iraq and forgotten war in Afghanistan. We can whine and complain about our troops dying needlessly, yet we can't rally around the war in Afghanistan? Isn't that war worth fighting? When they say 'Bring the troops home now!', do they mean all of them or just the ones in Iraq? Quite frankly, I don't like our troops being in Iraq, I don't like them being in Afghanistan, it's not a decision that I would like to have to make.

But the fact of the matter is, we need to be there, and most people understand that. We need to stay, we need to finish the job. What do liberals propose? That we leave the country now, and leave it in shambles? That if we were to leave that the problems Iraqis have will end? Do liberals believe that if we leave Iraq, the unsurgent terrorist will just pack their bags and say, 'good the war is over'? We are battling terrorist and killing them, so what if we attracted them here. Obviously they are attracted to our military, why would we bring them home? So they can bomb military people here in the States?

Liberals are so keen on keeping a body count going on the causalties of Iraq, but if they care so much and lives being needlessly lost and they think that does so much good, then where were they when it when Saddam was slaughtering his own people. Where was their idiotic body count then? Where was their protest when Clinton bombed Iraq? No, they were to busy being wrapped around Clinton's penis to dress up in silly costumes and go chant ridiculous things. Actually I take that back, they were chanting ridiculous things back then too.

To march around the streets in silly costumes without a clear message is to encourage actions against the United States. To say that the United States is an evil country, or that it's leader is a dictator in a country where free speech is considered a Right, justifies those that wish to do harm against this country. Actions against a dictator is, in itself, justifiable. Simply put, it's self-defense. If Bush is such a dictator, then precisely how is he threatening the citizens of the United States? Is he throwing people in jail for protesting them? Not in the least. Is he slaughtering, or putting his political prisoners in jail like Ronnie Earle attempts to do? If you think Bush is such a dictator, try living in Venezuela under the Hugo Chavez regime.

It's hypocritical to complain about the United States war in Iraq, yet turn the other way while the United States invades Bosnia and removes it's dictator. It's even more hypocritical say nothing or to discourage the United States involvement to stop a war while innocent people are being slaughtered as was the case with Rwanda. We ended a dictatorship, there's nothing wrong with that.