Osama Conspiracy Theories

Wow, the Flat Earthers really came out of the woodwork to join the debate over the weekend on Osama bin Laden's latest message.

Among the theories floated in the busy comments section of the last post:

· From the Debater who calls himself Impeach Bush (no secrets about political leanings there): Bush and bin Laden "have to be working together, why else hasn't he been caught. The average length it takes to catch a fugitive is 9 months, and that's when you just use available police and FBI resources." Bin Laden is Bush's boogeyman "to scare the American people into doing what he wants."

· Another Debater (whose name I couldn't even attempt to divine) writes, "everytime the Bush administration needs a boost, more votes, wants to push something through, the 6'6" unseeable-diabetic arab manages to stagger out of his bed in Riadyh and tape another message for his boss...."

· Santino Rice makes this bold assumption: "bin Laden mentions Bush ten times and is obviously not a fan of his or of his Washington cabal. In contrast he mentions that the American public does not support their military staying in Iraq. That means bin Laden has no reason to attack the American people -- just the American government. Thus, if the next attack results in the IMF building in New York being bombed, or the Bush family and the Washington politicians being bombed, then we could suspect bin Laden. If the American people are attacked, it is not bin Laden behind the attack."

· After several Debaters, including patriot1957, expressed their disdain for the theories being floated, the unambiguously self-dubbed THE END IS NEAR, challenged the anti-conspirists. "Isn't the biggest conspiracy theory to claim that there are NO government conspiracies? Where the hell is YOUR proof that 'al Qaeda' actually planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11?"

Among the more reasonable concerns expressed was this from Debater Robbin: "it's very suspicious to me the way these these tapes keep surfacing every time it looks likes the Dems might finally be getting through to the American electorate." Robbin's suspicions are understandable, but unconvincing. After all, each time bin Laden resurfaces, it reminds the American public that this administration took its eye off the ball.

Here's my personal favorite, courtesy of Debater sic semper tyrannis, who suspects a sinister 9/11-Abramoff connection, with a bit of drug trafficking thrown in for good measure. "Prior to the events of September 11th, 2001 chief hijacker Mohamed Atta and several of the other 9/11 hijackers were reported to have made multiple visits to the SunCruz casino cruise ship off the Gulf coast in Florida. This has led some to speculate that Mohamed Atta was using the casino to launder money for al Qaeda and that possibly Atta was involved in a scheme with Abramoff and the mob to smuggle heroin."

One can practically see ErrinF's eyes rolling. "Behaving like a bunch of paranoid, hysterical children is not going to defeat al Qaeda or bring Osama bin Laden to justice. It only makes us appear like losers in the War on Terror."

So, how not to be losers?

Take a lesson from the Indonesian island of Bali, where the locals display an inspiring combination of bravery and defiance. In October of 2002 and again three years later, Bali was hit by terrorist attacks that together killed more than 300 people, mostly Australian and Indonesian. The wave of panic that followed the attacks decimated Bali's tourism industry, the backbone of the island's economy. Australians, for whom Bali had been a favorite vacation destination, were (and continue to be) inundated with information -- some real but much exaggerated -- about how dangerous the small, predominantly Hindu island is.

Driving down a busy Bali road one day, we noticed a woman riding a moped and wearing a black hooded sweatshirt. In two giant words on the back, it explained the rider's opinion of those who'd killed her fellow Balinese. The first word was four letters long and, as I recall, has only appeared in the Post once in my time with the paper, and then only because Vice President Dick Cheney blurted it out in a rather public forum. The second word was "TERRORIST."

Turns out this is a popular shirt design, among the locals as well as those few tourists (ahem) still willing to venture onto the island. Yes, I bought two or three of the T-shirts, plus a "Bali Loves Peace" one printed before the second attack.

I only wished I had more money to spend. At one souvenir store I visited, the shopkeeper explained sadly that she hadn't made a sale in two weeks. Sure, she might have been trying to get me to be less aggressive in my bargaining, but judging by how deserted the area was, I'm inclined to think she was telling the truth.

When we let our trepidation convince us to abandon the victims of terrorism -- when we allow the flame of our fear to be fanned by over-hyped government warnings and breathless media reports -- that's when the terrorists win. That is not to say that Bali is the safest place on Earth, but then, neither is London, nor is Madrid, nor is Washington or New York. But we did not abandon London, nor Madrid, nor Washington, nor New York when they were hit by devastating terrorist attacks; and we will not abandon them when they are hit again.

We will grieve. We will get angry. We might even organize some rash response that may or may not address the root cause of the attack. But we will not abandon our friends out of fear. Yet those who once helped Bali thrive have cut and run. The Balinese people are incredibly kind and hospitable, and they have suffered enough from the loss of their countrymen. They do not deserve to suffer indefinitely because potential visitors would rather hand the terrorists a victory than help Bali recover.

It's not just about helping them; it's about helping ourselves, too. The more we as Americans -- and Westerners in general -- are understood to be friendly, well-meaning people just like any others, the less animosity will be directed toward us. For more on this lofty but sensible concept, read what David Ignatius had to say this past Thanksgiving:

Replenishing the near-global "stock of support" that America once enjoyed is "a job that involves traveling, sharing, living our values, encouraging our children to learn foreign languages and work and study abroad. In short, it means giving something back to the world."

We must stop behaving as if we are in a permanent state of war, in which any practice is justified by the exigencies of the moment. That's my biggest problem with Vice President Cheney's anything-goes jeremiads against terrorism. They suggest we will always be at war, and so it doesn't matter what the world thinks of our behavior. That's a dangerously mistaken view. We are in a long war but not an endless one, and we need to begin rebuilding the bridges to normal life.

I implore you to read the entire column, which of all the op-eds I read in 2005, was hands down the most poignant. (And it's my job to read op-eds, so there was plenty of competition.)

Ignatius concludes, "We need to put America's riches back on the table and share them with the world, humbly and gratefully."

What do you say? Eventually, if our democracy works even remotely like it should, the secrets of this administration will come out, for better or for worse. Fighting for transparency in government and other democratic ideals is one way to wage the war on terrorism; increasing cross-cultural interaction is another. Allowing fear to rule our lives is not part of the winning strategy.

By Emily Messner |  January 24, 2006; 12:01 AM ET  | Category:  Misc.
Previous: Eurasia Freezing, Australia Burning | Next: And the Winner Is ... Hamas!

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Emily - "Yet those who once helped Bali thrive have cut and run. The Balinese people are incredibly kind and hospitable, and they have suffered enough from the loss of their countrymen. They do not deserve to suffer indefinitely because potential visitors would rather hand the terrorists a victory than help Bali recover."

Well, Emily, it sucks, no doubt about it, but the Balinese Hindi are a minority and there are lots of Islamoids nearby. I would have loved a trip to Iraq if it was safer. Or a chance to do a motorbike trek through Egypt and the Sudan. Perhaps stay at the hotels where other visiting infidels were blown up in Sharm al Shiekh, Tunisia, Amman, or just shot enmass like at Luxor.

For now, any Muslim country that wants tourism is going to have to acknowledge that your average American, Swede, Japanese does not really want to spend their discretionary dollars in a country where a portion of the population wishes to kill their infidel butts.

Certainly not expose their family or say, "Come on, honey! -the higher odds of meeting a jihadi with a bomb belt means great tourist trinket prices!"

Since tons of vacation options exist, why go to a country where Mullahs preach Osama is a hero and anyone who kills an infidel goes to Paradise? Less Muslim places are plentiful and just as suitable as tourist locales for 90% of Western travellers.

It's like if we had religious fanatics in America preaching to "kill Japs" and only a few hotels full of Japanese tourists were blown up at Yellowstone, Orlando, Denali over the last 8 years and "less than 12 Japanese tourists were killed by driveby terrorists or kidnapped and killed as impure vessels of God in any given year". You could rationalize it to the Japanese Gov't and say that only a minute fraction of Japanese tourists would be butchered on their visit here by groups inspired by the "Jap-hate" in certain churches that the US Gov't tolerated. But no matter what was said, there would be a huge dropoff in Japanese tourists until America took care of it's political problem.

I've been "brave" and done S Africa, Somalia, Pakistan, Qatar, Indonesia, Malaysia for business and pleasure - but I would not take a family to any of those countries these days.

Posted by: Chris Ford | January 24, 2006 12:52 AM

I don't think there is a need to go out of one's way to vacation in countries where there is a possibility of terrorism, but it would be a mistake to not go somewhere you'd like to go just because of the terrorists. Some countries may even be terrorist-free and still dangerous to travel to, so as a general rule people have avoided 'taking the family' to such countries long before our current age of terrorism. For instance, tourism has declined in the tsunami devastated areas irregardless of terrorism. The way I see it, tsunami or suicide bomber, when your ticket's up, your ticket's up, so you might as well go out and enjoy life as the odds are in your favor that 'death by vacation' will not happen to you. The pursuit of happiness is part of what being an American is all about, so don't let the terrorists deter you from doing so.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 04:29 AM

Emily wrote:
===========================================
Wow, the Flat Earthers really came out of the woodwork
===========================================

This is what I find amazing with perceptions. On one hand it's easy to claim, "those folks are really out of the loop", but on the other, self-reflection seems to be lost when comments equally loopy are made...

===========================================
"In two giant words on the back, it explained the rider's opinion of those who'd killed her fellow Balinese. The first word was four letters long and, as I recall, has only appeared in the Post once in my time with the paper, and then only because Vice President Dick Cheney blurted it out in a rather public forum. The second word was "TERRORIST."

Turns out this is a popular shirt design, among the locals as well as those few tourists (ahem) still willing to venture onto the island."
===========================================

What's the sentiment of acknowledging the same loopyness and even wearing it? Especially in a foreign country (where Americans are guests and ambassadors)?

Will Emily wear the same T-shirt to work? And what would be the public's response to "fair and balanced journalism"? Would Emily will just pooh-pooh it as "My First Amendment rights!" or "They're just GOP hawksters!"?

See?

As much as folks like to claim conservatives are just being partisan when they claim the "liberal media is pushing their agenda", it doesn't take much to show -- with facts -- it's very true. They'll distort it and make it 100% of the "other media" is Satan, but they're not wrong if they'll claim 80% (since polls among journalists themselves claim that many are infact over 70% Liberal).

So what is journalism/media today? Is it T-shirts about F off Cheney? Is it some good soul searching about the ramifications/perceptions of the public of balanced reporting (long enough where the writer can put their own biases on the shelf to write a neutral piece)?

And who is guarding the hen house? Yet another entity with "F off Cheney" T-shirt? If yes, then who's doing the harm, let alone propaganding?

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 04:40 AM

As far as Osama bin Laden and terrorism goes, we need to deal with the War On Terror rationally without hysteria and politics. There is also a question of if our leaders are doing a good job prosecuting the War On Terror, or if they are failing to do a good job. When Osama bin Laden is free from justice and free to influence the world with his taped messages, one would have to conclude our leaders are failing. But how can we get them to get the job right?
Here is an excerpt from an article about measures to counter terrorism that have yet to be pursued by our government:

Countering terrorism - for real
ASK THIS | January 18, 2006
A noted political psychologist outlines the elements of an effective counterterrorism program. But the U.S. isn't pursuing any of them and journalists aren't writing -- or even asking -- about them either.
By Dan Froomkin

Professor Jerrold M. Post - now the director of the political psychology program at George Washington University, formerly the CIA's chief profiler - has a talk he's been giving around the country called "When Hatred Is Bred in the Bone; Psycho-cultural Foundations of Contemporary Terrorism".
In it, Post describes the elements of an effective counterterrorism program. Such a program, Post suggests, would:

1) Inhibit potential terrorists from joining the group in the first place.
2) Produce dissension in the group.
3) Facilitate exit from the group.
4) Reduce support for the group and delegitimate its leader.
5) Increase societal resilience and reduce societal vulnerability to terror.

What I found most striking about Post's talk when I heard it the other day in Washington was that there is no sign that the current U.S. counterterrorism strategy includes a single one of those elements.
A fair amount is being written about whether the current strategies - most obviously the war in Iraq - are working. By most accounts, they aren't. In fact, by many accounts, they are backfiring and breeding more terrorists. So what about adopting some of Post's ideas?
Post says he recently met with Department of Defense officials, who told him they were intrigued by his suggestions - but didn't know how to go about putting them into action.
So here are three questions journalists should be asking:

Q. Is the U.S. in fact pursuing any of these strategies?
Q. How could we do so?
Q. Would they do any good?

For more, here's the link to the article:

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00160

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 04:45 AM

Emily described a T-shirt that said 'F*ck Terrorists', not 'F*ck Off Cheney'. What she was referring to was a well known incident where Dick Cheney told a reporter to go 'f*ck themselves', that's all. Your ranting post seems to miss that. There is so much to discuss within this topic beyond that pathetic excuse of a post just now. The issue is Osama bin Laden and terrorism, not Dick Cheney and the media.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 04:53 AM

Chris Ford wrote:
===========================================
"Since tons of vacation options exist, why go to a country where Mullahs preach Osama is a hero and anyone who kills an infidel goes to Paradise? Less Muslim places are plentiful and just as suitable as tourist locales for 90% of Western travellers."
===========================================

Chris makes a very good observation.

Does anyone remember's Margaret Hassan's kidnapping and execution? Didn't matter that she was apolitical, had lived with Iraqi's for 30 years, caring for the most poor and disabled. She was kidnapped and executed because she was a Westerner, pure and simple.

Now we have Emily in a country that's not a very kosher vacation spot sporting a shirt that draws attention to herself (I don't know WP's policy on protection abroad, but the rule of thumb in hot spots is to blend in with the locals, not be a blond haired sore thumb). Does she think it's a way to avoid any possibility of meeting Hassan's fate, by being honey to bees? That may sound harsh, but Bali isn't Orlando, and folks here sure won't want her to be the next journalist pleading for her life in front of some cowardly thugs (and getting a mixed reception at home for being so partisan in a foreign land <-- that's a PR nightmare).

Emily: take care of yourself, blend in and don't attract obvious attention to yourself. Wearing opposition clothes will not shield you from harm, anymore than if you're a Muslim (as Western Muslims have been kidnapped and worse themselves).

Remember Hassan knew the people, she was loved by the population, but with terrorists they don't care if you're the next Iman -- as long as you work for the US, live in the US, and preach to Westerners you're a target.

Come home, Emily. Come home alive and well.

SandyK
Who's getting tired of journalists getting kidnapped because they felt they were safe, and pooh-poohed basic security warnings

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 05:06 AM

To clarify, since there seems to be a bit of controversy over this small detail:

I did not actually wear the T-shirt in Bali; I simply purchased a couple of them from stores where the design was on prominent display, hanging out front alongside the Red Bull tees, singlets advertising Bintang (a local brand beer) and plenty of colorful sarongs.

I should also note I didn't see any tourists wearing the shirt -- there weren't many tourists anyway -- but I did observe locals (like the woman on the moped) sporting the slogan.

Posted by: Emily Messner | January 24, 2006 10:01 AM

I'm actually curious to find out whether attitudes towards the US have changed in Indonesia as a consequence of our response to the Tsunami disaster.

Posted by: D. | January 24, 2006 10:37 AM

Acknowledged, Emily.

It's remarks like this that can be viewed two ways...

===========================================
"Turns out this is a popular shirt design, among the locals as well as those few tourists (ahem) still willing to venture onto the island."
===========================================

With the "ahem" indicating approval of such apparel, let alone wearing it. With the reference to Cheney using the "F" word too, doesn't take much imagination of the slur deferred as well. It would make a conservative "see red" and conclude what I posted above.

In this charged partisan atmosphere, loose commentary (even in blog format, unfortunately as Ms. Howell experienced) from a major media outlet could cause a fire storm, and play into stereotypes, which just adds more logs to the fire.

Clarification helps (well, except with diehards, but they're too far gone to see beyond their own biases).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 10:50 AM

Sure, there are many conflicting views re: OBL. Rumsfeld claimed we knew where he was, the President says he's not that important.

Conspiracy theorists give the BA way too much credit, the real reasons we haven't captured/killed OBL yet: a major, major diversion to Iraq, and good-ol plain incompetence.

Or as current headlines see to imply, we didn't catch him before because we weren't tapping Americans phone lines illegally before - now we are, so it's just a matter of time.

Posted by: gonzo | January 24, 2006 11:13 AM

C'mon you weenies.. go shopping!

Posted by: LiveItUp | January 24, 2006 11:17 AM

Gonzo wrote:
===========================================
"Conspiracy theorists give the BA way too much credit, the real reasons we haven't captured/killed OBL yet: a major, major diversion to Iraq, and good-ol plain incompetence."
===========================================

Actually, a good reason to not capture OBL is to monitor his network. Nabbing him too quick will make al Qaeta submerge that much further, where it'll be more difficult to track.

In classic sting operations the accused is monitored from months to years, before he and his whole gang of helpers are brought into custody.

In spying, that monitoring could last years to decades (as time is their enemy, and they will blow their guard, thus, revealing what was hidden).

Just getting OBL isn't enough, taking down the whole al Qaeta network is the goal (and that includes budding sleeper cells, and their money/trafficking netweek as well).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 11:31 AM

You know Emily, a good stool softener would do wonders!!!

This BLOG Stinks!!!!!!!

Posted by: The Lonemule | January 24, 2006 12:26 PM

So if Bush fails to catch Osama Bin Ladin it's actually because not-catching Osama Bin Ladin is more important than catching him? So you would condemn the President if he catches Osama Bin Ladin too soon?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=accountability

Posted by: Will | January 24, 2006 12:30 PM

Catching OBL too soon is like a flower without honey to attract bees. When it's the hive you're after.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 01:01 PM

Now why do I think KR came up with that..? Sounds like a GOOD excuse.. after all, it's HARD WORK right..?

Posted by: gonzo | January 24, 2006 01:16 PM

Hey Lonemule, are you an expert on releaving constipation?

This is another problem created by the de-institutionalization of the mentally ill. In addition to homelessness, we get more conspiracy theories.

Posted by: JoMama | January 24, 2006 01:22 PM

SandyK-

From White House Briefing:

"Bush in Kansas yesterday, describing the evolution of his thinking after September 11: "The decision I made right off the bat is we will find them, and we will hunt them down, and we will bring them to justice before they hurt America again.""

""Asked whether the Al-Qaeda chief could engineer such a strike, Bush adviser Dan Bartlett told CBS television: 'We have to assume that he can. We have to be very vigilant in what we do to protect our country.' ""

So Bush is just *telling* us he wants to catch Osama but really he doesn't? Dan Bartlett thinks Osama could strike us again from hiding, yet if you are right he also does not want to catch Osama right now.

Something smells fishy.

Posted by: Will | January 24, 2006 01:28 PM

There are some major criticisms I have of the struggle with radical Islam, from America's perspective:

1. Our strategic communications suck.
2. Failure to, fear to involve the general population in this struggle.
3. Ignoring Rising China and America's major competitiveness failure, fiscal recklessness while we focus too much on "evildoers".
4. Failure to engage other nations more persuasively.
5. Failure to have the courage, given the Right to Life Base of the Bushies, various interest groups, and businesses profiting - to speak of the existential danger to the West - of High Birthrate 3rd Worlders moving in.

But all the liberal Democrats do is show their profound unseriousness about the Islamoid threat. In their fantasy world, the pinnacle of success would be getting Bin Laden and having a trial extravaganza - where somehow the Muslim world would be so wowed by our lawyers, judges, and jury of infidels deciding Binnies innocence or guilt that they would abandon radical Islam. Because the majesty of our magnificent judicial system, the liberal Democrat's ultimate arbitrar of all matters, is such that radical Islamists would shake their heads in wonder and abandon the errors of their ways. Especially if Binnie gives interviews saying how sorry he is rather than exercise his sacred 1st Amendment Rights to pen his version of "Mein Kampf" in jail.

Or, Binnie's death would magically collapse the Islamoid theology and the world would return to pre-9/11 happiness the Bush-Hitler ruined!

Just like Lenin's death collapsed global communism and the arrests and trials of some Japanese militarist leaders stopped that movement or Hitler's arrest and trial stopped his movement......

The Leftys still see this as a criminal justice matter, not a war. Hence their fixation on bringing one person involved in the radical Islamist cause "to justice". Hence their fixation on "full civil liberties and criminal rights" for "accused lawbreakers" - not ever thinking of the Islamoids as Enemy Combatants who in know way believe anything they are doing in their ause, their holy war - is criminal.

It's always a good sanity check to ask of the Lefties and liberal Democrats 3 questions:

1. Will the "war" end when the White Whale is killed or captured?
2. Is there really a war going on, or only a misunderstanding the Democrat Teachers Unions can correct by a little more education if only they get a little more teaching salary??
3. If there really is a major ideological conflict going on between radical Islam and the rest of the world - assuming Bugaboo Binnie is dealt with - do we need to do anything else besides defeat the minions of the evil Bush-Hitler? Like maybe have Hollywood make a movie to show the good people of The Religion of Peace how nice we infidels are?

Posted by: Chris Ford | January 24, 2006 01:50 PM

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."
George WMD Bush 11/10/01

Some theories claim that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein conspired in the 9/11 attacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
These claims were most common during the buildup to the Iraq War as they were made, or alluded to, by various members of President George W. Bush's cabinet.

The Secret Service at Booker Elementary:
The Dog That Did Not Bark
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11secretservice.html
Quod Erat Demonstradum, the Bush administration was part of the 9-11 plot.

War Games: The Key to a 9/11 USAF Stand Down
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/usaf_911.html
Five military exercises were held on 9/11, and this resulted in flight controllers, commanders and pilots being unable to distinguish real world events from exercise scenarios.

The Five Dancing Israelis
Arrested On 9/11
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html
We were told that the reason bin Laden attacked the USA was because he hates our "freedom" and "democracy". The Muslims were "medieval" and they wanted to destroy us because they envied our wealth, were still bitter about the Crusades, and were offended by Britney Spears shaking her tits and ass all over the place! But bin Laden strongly denied any role in the 9-11 attacks, and he suggested the attacks were orchestrated by Zionists.

It's been 1,590 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Posted by: UBL - RIP | January 24, 2006 01:51 PM

There is the possibility that Osama is paste and what we saw and heard is an impersonator. Not like the CIA has been wrong about these things before! lol.

If we catch him, bonus. If not, continue rolling up the organization as we've been doing.

Posted by: D. | January 24, 2006 01:55 PM

Let me see if I got this straight: You billed this article as a "Osama Conspiracy Theories" column, gave voice to a bunch of people who commented, left ME out, and then proceeded to punt on the entire issue in favor of an anecdote about Bali's response to their terror attacks?

You don't get off that easy!

What do you think about all the assorted weirdness with Bush, Bath, the convenient timing of every Al Qaeda strike/statement, etc.?

Posted by: Matt | January 24, 2006 01:56 PM

Ford-
To an extent, the fixiation on OBL is something based on a promise of sorts made to us by Bush. You don't promise something you have no intentions of keeping and expect no one to bring it up. While I sincerely hope no-one is deluded enough to think it will end when OBL is captured, there is a school of thought asking why he has not been brought in, if simply because he is the spokesman/mastermind/figurehead behind 9/11. The line of reasoning you seem to be displaying is akin to letting a child molester go uncaptured, if simply because there are other child molesters out there and the arrest of one won't stop them.

And I'm sorry that you think that treating all people as human beings is a detriment. To many, it's what distinguishes 'us' from 'them.'

Posted by: Freedom | January 24, 2006 02:05 PM

But laser sights on one target also creates tunnel vision. Which is an obvious bias to believe in only what you *want* to see.

Worse kin to "tunnel vision" is "linkage blindness", which isn't a problem with kooks who link anything with Bush, since 5 years later they're still on the ABB campaign (and probably still be 12 years after Bush leaves office). =:/

And promises are always broken in politics. Just ask the veterans who got their health benefits yanked from under them after retirement.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 02:32 PM

Suggesting that the US Govt had a hand in 911 is pretty silly. Given the inability of the US Govt to stop even small leaks, the prospects of keeping such collusion secret would be zero.

But it's a fact that the US did once support bin Laden and others who later became Al Qaeda. Obviously that history is going to generate conspiracy theories.

The biggest 911 conspiracy theory of all, as someone pointed out higher up, is the claim that Iraq was behind it. This is still believed by millions of Americans. Are they flat-earthers too?

Bush and Bin Laden are ideological enemies. They aren't working together. It just happens that they share many goals, because both benefit from global instability and insecurity. And both benefit from making Americans feel far more threatened than they really are.

Posted by: OD | January 24, 2006 02:52 PM

Matt wrote:
===========================================
"Let me see if I got this straight: You billed this article as a "Osama Conspiracy Theories" column, gave voice to a bunch of people who commented, left ME out, and then proceeded to punt on the entire issue in favor of an anecdote about Bali's response to their terror attacks?"
===========================================

Emily's torturing all of us landlocked folks suffering in winter, while she's combing the warm sands of the Pacific.

That'll teach us to come up with topics while she's on vacation! lol

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 02:56 PM

Emily--one point that you're completely and unforgivably wrong about:

"Robbin's suspicions are understandable, but unconvincing. After all, each time bin Laden resurfaces, it reminds the American public that this administration took its eye off the ball."

It's inexcusable that a Washington Post blogger would fail to read polls. When terrorism comes up, either because of a new OBL Top 20 countdown video, or because of one of those old Tom Ridge crayola duct-tape warnings, the Preznit's approval goes up. It goes up not only on national security, but on questions such as how much the public trusts him on ECONOMIC management and other unrelated topics. I know you can lie with numbers, but the al-Qaeda incarnation of the "rally-round-the-flag" effect is solid and proven.

As a liberal democrat, I only WISH that new OBL 8-track tapes would remind people that it's taken longer to catch him since 9/11 than it took FDR to defeat Japan, AND we have spy satallites that can read the date on a dime in a Cuban alley; but I digress. The more Americans see of OBL, the more they get scared, and the more they huddle into a corner behind the Preznit.

Posted by: Mischa | January 24, 2006 03:00 PM

Mischa, US spy satellites cannot even tell the difference between a man and a woman.

Posted by: OD | January 24, 2006 03:07 PM

No matter what excuses the Right make, the Bush administration failed to stop Osama bin Laden from perpetuating 9/11, and have failed to bring him to justice ever since. Beyond the justice issue, there is a tactical issue when it comes to capturing Osama and the War On Terror. Bush apologists like Chris Ford and SandyK (their recent posts being full of excuses and apologies for Bush's failings) downplay the issue because it is a losing one for them. Rest assured, if bin Laden was caught by Bush tomorrow, people like those two apologists would be declaring it the most significant event in the War On Terror, praising Bush as the greatest president ever. But, Bush won't catch bin Laden tomorrow (or ever, at this rate), so instead his apologistic supporters will make paltry partisan excuses for him.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 03:08 PM

Word of the day: "Sarcasm"--
or let's try "exaggeration."

OK never mind;
Apparantly the point has been adequately missed.

Posted by: Mischa | January 24, 2006 03:11 PM

i'm going to shamelessly pimp other parts of the paper--Peter Bergen has a live chat re: OBL...another way to kill the work day...

Posted by: Mischa | January 24, 2006 03:16 PM

Condi Rice's fundamnetal restructuring of the State Department and how it is going to redefine our approach to diplomacy, as outlined in her talk last week at GU, is a bigger story than the ramblings of OBL. Unfortunately, the media glossed over that to focus on Binny...

I'm curious as to why old Sandy Berger was stuffing classified information into his shorts. Something's fishy there.

Posted by: D. | January 24, 2006 03:21 PM

Who are these people that think capturing Osama bin Laden doesn't matter in the War On Terror?
History shows that in a war, the capture of THE leader of one of the sides most assuredly leads to victory for the side that captured the leader. Saying bin Laden's capture is insignificant to winning the War On Terror is like saying the capture of Hitler wouldn't have effected World War 2. It is imperative to national security and winning the War On Terror that we capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Those who argue against this compromise our national security with their politics; It is enough that the Republicans have compromised the War On Terror with all this corruption among their ranks; They do not need to further compromise national security with their self-serving spin.
Suppose Al Qaeda somehow pulled off capturing George Bush. Are you to tell me that wouldn't give them a tremendous boost in the War On Terror? That the capture of OUR leader wouldn't deal a massive psychological blow to the American people? And would the legions of Bush apologists excuse Bush's capture as insignificant to the War On Terror? I think not. So they can drop the excuse-making when it comes to George Bush's national security failings in the War On Terror and the capture of Osama bin Laden.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 03:33 PM

No doubt, if Saddam hadn't been captured, they'd also be saying that was irrelevant.

Posted by: OD | January 24, 2006 03:42 PM

D. wrote:
===========================================
"I'm curious as to why old Sandy Berger was stuffing classified information into his shorts. Something's fishy there."
===========================================

And socks. Must've looked like the Penguin when he wobbled out the archives, too. ;)

SandyK
Not related to THAT Sandy. ;)

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 03:47 PM

OD wrote:
===========================================
"No doubt, if Saddam hadn't been captured, they'd also be saying that was irrelevant."
===========================================

It's a pattern with all thug rulers. From WWII (FDR era); to Rwanda (Clinton era); to Bosnia (Clinton era), too.

So it's just not a party thing, ya know?

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 03:51 PM

In this charged partisan atmosphere, loose commentary (even in blog format, unfortunately as Ms. Howell experienced) from a major media outlet could cause a fire storm, and play into stereotypes, which just adds more logs to the fire.
Clarification helps (well, except with diehards, but they're too far gone to see beyond their own biases).
Posted by: SandyK | Jan 24, 2006 10:50:52 AM

I disagree with this political correctness of Sandy's. Emily should be as loose as she wants to be in her commentary. There's no firestorm or charged partisan atmosphere here; Just a partisan charging in to fight a fight over an imagined T-shirt.
Clarification helps, sure. But so does basic reading comprehension on SandyK's part. Sandy already jumped the shark in recent Debate threads; She didn't need to jump the gun in this thread and go after Emily like that.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 03:54 PM

OBL is as much a symbol as an effective administrator. He has a mythical standing in the terroist community because he has organized several attack on the U.S and has NEVER been caught! As long as he is out there, his legend and stature grow.

Were he to be captured, his status would diminish much as Saddam's stature has diminished and Milosovich's stature and indeed any tyrant when finally captured.

So I do believe that the BA is trying very hard to capture him, they are just failing.

The comment made earlier of "we want to catch the hive" is really quite silly. Like any effective terrorist organization, AQ is divided into cells that have no contact with each other directly, only to their immediate supervisor/controller. These cells and the structure of the org is such that it is geared *specifically* to protect the leader. CApturing the leader would be the single most severe blow we could make. Only OBL and possibly a few top AQ leaders know all the cells. Capturing him would enable us to interrogate him and get some names, or at the very least deter AQ from acting as a single entity. Divide and conquer always works best.

Keeping OBL out there would result in --what? we can hear him tlaking to other cells? IF this is so, how come we haven't caught tons of other cells? how come ANY plot has succeeded, if we are listening to everything? sheesh...Maybe we will be so clever as to wait until AQ has wiped us out and THEN we will have them right where we want them!!!! No one, even the BA, would be that dumb.

We're not catching OBL because we don't know where he is or we can't get there. Simple as that.

Posted by: Johnny D. | January 24, 2006 03:59 PM

Oh, and I agree with all the posts taking SAndyk to task for leaoping to the conclucsion that this post was in any way about Cheney.

Reading comprehension is a must, and I do not see how anyone who read that could conclude anything.

A person should not have to use pre-school vocabulary and sentence structure to make his/her point, even if that is the level of some readers.

Posted by: Johnny D. | January 24, 2006 04:03 PM

This BLOG Stinks!!!!!!!
Posted by: The Lonemule | Jan 24, 2006 12:26:33 PM

Jay Sherman, the Critic, pacing back and forth in a straightjacket: "It stinks! It stinks!! It stinks!!!".
Question is, how does he get internet access in his padded cell, and why did he choose the handle 'The Lonemule'?

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 04:12 PM

"We're not catching OBL because we don't know where he is or we can't get there. Simple as that."

I agree, except that I think it's definitely down to lack of knowledge, not lack of access. If they knew where he was, nothing would protect him.

Posted by: OD | January 24, 2006 04:12 PM

Help me!!! I'm rocked up!!!! How 'bout a little Haleys M-O!!!!!!!!!

Emily, you know what I mean!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: The Lonemule | January 24, 2006 04:21 PM

Johnny D. wote:
===========================================
"Keeping OBL out there would result in --what? we can hear him tlaking to other cells?"
===========================================

Yep, Kindergarden vocabulary and grammar.

BTW, are you a college grad, per chance? :D

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 04:26 PM

Help me!!! I'm rocked up!!!!
Posted by: The Lonemule | Jan 24, 2006 4:21:23 PM

Crack kills, Lonemule. Put the crack pipe down. Stop getting rocked up. It makes you too obsessive about Emily and this blog.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 04:41 PM

Is it a "conspiracy theory" to ask whatever happened to the US Military Anthrax sent to the US Congress during the debate on the US Patriot Act?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Philip+Zack&spell=1

The fact that the Anthrax Letters were NOT sent by an Arab Muslim but by a Jewish gentleman with the intent to FRAME an Arab Muslim strongly suggests that the entire sequence of recent events has been one gigantic frame-up, which would explain again why the US Government is itself classifying evidence that links some of the arrested Israeli spies with the events of 9-11.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/anthraxsuspect.html
"By way of deception, thou shalt do war" -- Motto of Israel's Mossad

Posted by: Tar and Feather the Liars | January 24, 2006 04:44 PM

Maybe Bin Laden is dead and the tapes are just really old. My friend has this opinion but I haven't done enough reading to come to my own conclusions.

Posted by: ProgressiveDemocratsUnite | January 24, 2006 04:44 PM

It is clear that Cheney and his fascist corporate crew is behind this 'New World Order' thing. Why else would the corporate world put all its chips behind a ignorate, bungling, failed CEO who ain't got a clue and, between him and he's murdering wife, have much to hide. As far as 9/11, Michael Ruperts book, "Crossing The Rubicon" puts the whole conspiracy thing in a 'in your face' fact filled book, that treats 9/11 like a true murder investigation case with suspects, and a believable 'MO' with Freedom of Information documents to back it up. A Must Read for all who serious about seeking the truth of state of our Union.

Posted by: yankeerasta | January 24, 2006 04:51 PM

Osama Been Dirtnappin'. Personally I think the guys dead. And if not dead, in really, really bad shape.

Of course, according to Tar and feather, OBL is actually a Mossad agent.

Posted by: D. | January 24, 2006 04:53 PM

Emily - You make the shameful assertion that every time OBL pops up it hurts Bush, when, in fact, every poll shows it HELPS him.

Please get your facts straight.

Posted by: sir marglar | January 24, 2006 04:54 PM

If you really want to upset the terrorists, go visit Israel.

Posted by: penguin | January 24, 2006 04:55 PM

Sandyk wrote:

"That'll teach us to come up with topics while she's on vacation! lol"

Ms. Emily is a genius! I did not appreciate that.

Suckers! :)

Oh, OBL is dead. His ghost, which lives in a jar under my bed, told me so.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | January 24, 2006 05:02 PM

Now, now Johnnyg...keeping OBL's ghost in a jar constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

ACLU will be all over your arse.

Posted by: D. | January 24, 2006 05:08 PM

Kudos, Johnny D! SandyKindergarden didn't like your assessment of her reading comprehension skills, apparently. At least she actually read your post accurately and did not get as confused by it as by Emily's. In her own juvenile way, I think she is thanking you for 'clarification' about her need to read better. Reading is fundamental, Sandy. Maybe you should post here less, and get back to reading about those delightful adventures of Dick, Jane, and Spot. And, no, I don't mean Dick Cheney, so don't go all half-cocked again and jump the gun with another confused rant about nothing.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 05:10 PM

The world looks flat but it isn't.

The point I was making about Bush and Osma working together was: its like the young lawyer that moves to town that has no lawyers and he starves because there is no business. Finally, another lawyer moves to town and by golly the two of them make a forture. (This paragraph is serious)

I really don't think Osma is registered Republican, but maybe his relatives are. I would like to see a picture of Osma and Jack Abramoff together at a Hannak Party, that would be neat, but I may have to wait. (This paragraph is comedy.)

The rest of the post is clear as a bell.
Said the Raven nevermore.

Posted by: Impeach Bush | January 24, 2006 05:17 PM

I always find it somewhat remarkable that those that rely on freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and that those who are probably aware that 'absurd' ideas have sometimes proved true, continue to use dismissive and derisive terminology when talking about the opinions of others on disputed information. What I mean is this: -can- you prove that Al Queda bombed the towers? Are you really unaware that when people are afraid they are more likely to hand over their civil liberties in exchange for security than they would otherwise be? Is is -not- coincidental that Osama makes his threats on occasions where Bush' popularity needs a boost?

It seems pretty clear to me that anyone that is sufficiently familiar with mass psychology can put these things together. Even if it seems remote, I'd like to know which is impossible:

1. that there are people and groups that can accurately predict the likely effects of Osama's announcements

or

2. that there are people and groups that are interested in leveraging such knowledge to their own geopolitical advantage

I guess what I want to know is, given that we have example after example throughout history of man's attempts to dominate man, and given that not -all- of those attempts have been blatant and obvious, HOW do you think it benefits us to ignore the possibility that that is happening now?

You can call the conspiracy theories absurd if you want, but laws against conspiracy are on the books. It isn't some theoretical concept that has never intersected with reality. Just because you can't credit that such an endeavour is taking place doesn't mean that others are similarly lacking in their imagination. People that are ambitious enough to become the leaders of the free world are ambitious enough to take it one step further, and if you don't believe that, you are quite categorically in a state of denial. I would prefer that all people in the world were good too, but the only creature on the planet capable of evil is man, and the tendency does not recognize borders.

Posted by: ThePatentlyAbsurd | January 24, 2006 05:17 PM

Emily,

I wouldn't be so quick to call these conspiracy theorists losers. I'm not going to draw up any theory's just go over some facts:

- Bush was notified of the imminent threat and did nothing in the memo "Osama determined to attack the United States"

- The FBI caught one of the terrorists from a tip from their flight school instructor saying "this is the type of guy who would fly a plane into the world trade center"

- After the attack the only plane allowed to fly over U.S. airspace was one carrying Osama's family

- Bush was in Florida, and weirdly entered a classroom after the first plane hit, and sat their for 7 minutes after being notified the second plane hit. Don't think that's a long time? Stare at your watch for 7 minutes and imagine you're the president and the 2nd building was just stricken

- Bush's family has long ties to Osama's family

- Only days after the attack Bush is asking leading questions regarding Iraq's culpability

- There was a story about a plane in the air leaving a debris trail that quickly got hushed up. This was the plane the passengers supposedly took over.

- Bush's approval ratings hit 90% after the attack and it cleared smooth sailing for the GOPs entire legislative agenda

- During the 2004 election terror warnings eerily synced up with bad news that the White House didn't want to come out.

- The White House regularly manipulates the media through propaganda with paid journalists, fake news broadcasts and fake articles in Iraqi papers.

- The White House actively squelches any real investigations of their policies and puts friends a the heads of these investigations. Didn't the committee investigating the faulty intelligence exonerate the white house without investigation?

I could go on but you get my point.

Posted by: People who live in glass houses... | January 24, 2006 05:20 PM

Emily,

I wouldn't be so quick to call these conspiracy theorists losers. I'm not going to draw up any theory's just go over some facts:

- Bush was notified of the imminent threat and did nothing in the memo "Osama determined to attack the United States"

- The FBI caught one of the terrorists from a tip from their flight school instructor saying "this is the type of guy who would fly a plane into the world trade center"

- After the attack the only plane allowed to fly over U.S. airspace was one carrying Osama's family

- Bush was in Florida, and weirdly entered a classroom after the first plane hit, and sat their for 7 minutes after being notified the second plane hit. Don't think that's a long time? Stare at your watch for 7 minutes and imagine you're the president and the 2nd building was just stricken

- Bush's family has long ties to Osama's family

- Only days after the attack Bush is asking leading questions regarding Iraq's culpability

- There was a story about a plane in the air leaving a debris trail that quickly got hushed up. This was the plane the passengers supposedly took over.

- Bush's approval ratings hit 90% after the attack and it cleared smooth sailing for the GOPs entire legislative agenda

- During the 2004 election terror warnings eerily synced up with bad news that the White House didn't want to come out.

- The White House regularly manipulates the media through propaganda with paid journalists, fake news broadcasts and fake articles in Iraqi papers.

- The White House actively squelches any real investigations of their policies and puts friends a the heads of these investigations. Didn't the committee investigating the faulty intelligence exonerate the white house without investigation?

I could go on but you get my point.

Posted by: People who live in glass houses... | January 24, 2006 05:20 PM

Emily - You make the shameful assertion that every time OBL pops up it hurts Bush, when, in fact, every poll shows it HELPS him.
Please get your facts straight.
Posted by: sir marglar | Jan 24, 2006 4:54:47 PM

Can you back this up with recent polls? Or are you referring to OBL 'popping up' in the past, last time being over a year ago? A lot happenned in 2005 to bring Bush's competence as a leader into question. Let the post-9/11 conservatives live in their pre-Katrina world, but Emily is right that Osama bin Laden appearing once again brings the president's competence into question after a year where public perception of his competency has turned negative. The Bushies are living in yesteryear, and national security is no longer perceived as a strength of theirs, let alone governing in general.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 05:23 PM

Yes, and there are 10 hotdogs per package but buns are only sold 8 to a pack. Thats about the only conspiracy that I'll buy into. the rest of that nonsense is cherry picking events out of context and then trying to weave them into some kinda grand conspiracy, and as with most conspiracies, utter nonsense.

Oh, and the hotdog thing? Bush's fault.

Posted by: | January 24, 2006 05:29 PM

Sorry, last comment was mine

Posted by: D. | January 24, 2006 05:30 PM

Johnny D. wrote:
===========================================
"Oh, OBL is dead. His ghost, which lives in a jar under my bed, told me so."
===========================================

That wouldn't be ErrinF, now would it? You know the lady with the beard and sheets, who proclaiming "Bush is Satan! Bush is Satan! We're DOOMED because my DNC platform told me so!!"?

lololol

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 05:44 PM

I don't care for the politics of George Bush and Dick Cheney, and am highly cynical of all politicians in general, but it is simply false that Bush and Cheney would help orchestrate an attack on their fellow American citizens. There is SO MUCH to take the administration to task for... their competency, their secrecy, their sophistry... there is no need for this conspiratorial villification of our president and vice president. Treating them like comic book villains won't accomplish anything, and these conspiracy theories are thoroughly unfair in how they accuse Bush and Cheney of atrociously treasonous behavior. Put the blame where it belongs: Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The Bush administration is accountable for failing to prevent 9/11, but is in no way responsible for the attacks that took place. The president, vice president, and those that lost their lives that day deserve better than this reckless paranoia. Conspiracy theories ARE for losers.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 05:49 PM

Johnny D. wrote:
===========================================
"Oh, OBL is dead. His ghost, which lives in a jar under my bed, told me so."
SandyK
Posted by: SandyK | Jan 24, 2006 5:44:26 PM

No, Sandy, johnnyg wrote that, not Johnny D.
G, not D, Sandy! So that's the reason you have so much trouble with basic reading comprehension... you still haven't quite mastered the alphabet! Here's a free lesson for you: The letter G is not the same as the letter D.
And, no, by D, I don't mean Dick Cheney, Sandy, so don't bug out again and go off on a ranting diatribe about Dick Cheney that has absolute zero relevence to the debate at hand.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 05:55 PM

Worked like a charm. :)

So predictable too. ;)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 06:03 PM

What I mean is this: -can- you prove that Al Queda bombed the towers?
Posted by: ThePatentlyAbsurd | Jan 24, 2006 5:17:23 PM

Ever heard of the USS Cole? How about the bombing of US embassies by Al Qaeda? How about the first terrorist attempt to blow up one of the World Trade Towers? What about the memo from the summer of 2001 about 'Al Qaeda determined to strike on US soil'? Were they all fabricated by the Bush administration as well? GMAFB!
These patently absurd assertions that we can't prove Al Qaeda orchestrated 9/11 completely fall apart under rational examination. Stop wasting our time and insulting our intelligence with your flawed theories. We've got more serious matters at hand, like bringing Osama bin Laden to justice.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 06:12 PM

Worked like a charm. :)
So predictable too. ;)
SandyK
Posted by: SandyK | Jan 24, 2006 6:03:16 PM

Yes, Sandy, your poor performance in this current thread did indeed work like a charm for exposing yourself as a thoroughly confused individual lacking in even the most basic reading comprehension skills.
Sadly, your half-cocked histrionics are indeed 'so predictable' at this point, whether you're using them to jump the gun or jump the shark.
Anyway, I've had my fun laughing at your confused belligerence, and you're starting to get cranky. Have some juice, take your nap, and try again later when you've learned the alphabet a little better.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 06:41 PM

Wonder who Errin's talking too? OBL's ghost?

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 06:45 PM

Freedom - "The line of reasoning you seem to be displaying is akin to letting a child molester go uncaptured, if simply because there are other child molesters out there and the arrest of one won't stop them."

I fear "Freedom" misses the point. If we focused on the "Mother of All Child Molestors" to the total exclusion of all other molesters and other criminals to "hunt the White Whale" - it would be incredibly counterproductive. The law of diminishing returns applies to both law enforcement and the military.....Focus all your resources on one person, and all other needed FBI/military/CIA activities suffer.

And I have yet to hear a single Lefty say that we must start a major war with Pakistan so we can invade and "get the one person in all of radical Islam we care about". Before 9/11 most Islamists busy killing Hindis, blowing up the WTC in 1993, or nail-bombing Israeli buses had never heard of the guy. Those butchering Christians in Egypt, East Timor, Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Lebanon in the name of Allah the Merciful would not have recognized his name.

Which unfortunately brings up Errin's liberal Democrat "White Whale" obesssion.....

"Who are these people that think capturing Osama bin Laden doesn't matter in the War On Terror? History shows that in a war, the capture of THE leader of one of the sides most assuredly leads to victory for the side that captured the leader."

ErrinF, lay off the simplistic James Bond fodder. OBL has never been THE LEADER of radical Islam. Radical Islam is a movement that is in over 100 countries and is under over 80 major Islamoid groups. OBL is the figurehead of one of the 80 groups out to kill infidels - man , woman, and child - so they can gain Paradise, spread the Religion of Peace by the sword, and prove their worthiness as human beings by acts of Jihad. Did hanging Sayyid Qutb stop radical Islam? No, not that I think you have any idea who Qutb was and what he meant to JI, GIA, Northern Front, Hezbolla, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Al Quds Brigades, Jammu al-Kashmir, Egyptian Brotherhood, Peoples Islamic Army of Mindinao, and 69 other assorted flavors of radical Islam (Most which predated Binnie's group, never got a cent from the guy, and take no orders - though they love how his group killed so many Christians. )

Freedom - "And I'm sorry that you think that treating all people as human beings is a detriment. To many, it's what distinguishes 'us' from 'them."

In war, both lawful and unlawful soldiers and the civilians that back the enemy are "Them". They are certainly not "us". You don't treat the enemy as human while they are in the field. If soldiers, you seek to kill them, sometimes capture them. If enemy civilians you try not to kill them, but if it can't be avoided, too bad...but you always seek control over enemy civilians too.

Welcome to the idea of war, Freedom. It is very different from criminal law!

How many Jewish lawyers dispatched from the ACLU do you think were blubbering against the barbed wire outside Nazi POW camps demanding due process and "Nazi rights"? Not a one. Zero. Because by 1941 every ACLU radical and "Progressive Lefty" in America knew the Nazis had committed the worst of crimes, and avenging that that could not be weakened through emphasis on "precious enemy rights". No, not the Jews, though they all knew Jews were being butchered. Not Poland or the deaths inflicted in French and Brits. The real Nazi crime to the ACLU lawyers and the Progessives was that Nazis attacked the heart of human progress, the Soviet Union.

Posted by: Chris Ford | January 24, 2006 06:47 PM

Chris Ford wrote:
===========================================
And I have yet to hear a single Lefty say that we must start a major war with Pakistan so we can invade and "get the one person in all of radical Islam we care about".
===========================================

Ohhhhhh, you nailed that one on the head.

We can see 1001 excuses made to not do so. The easiest line is just get ErrinF in here, yank the cord behind her back, and hear: "Bush is to blame --squawk-- Bush is to blame!!" ;)

Setup and serve...

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 06:54 PM

Now, now, settle down.

Regardless of everything that preceded it, can somebody explain to me why they simultaneously believe two things:
(1) Osama bin Laden is alive;
(2) He can't afford a webcam and a DVD burner.

And, if you can come up some theory that is coherent between those two points, can you also make it fit with a third?
(3) This is someone who we should be afraid of.

I mean, honestly, an audio cassette? At least it wasn't an 8-track, I suppose. But I've said it before: there exists plenty of people and entities with both the motivation (huge) and the resources (boom box, anyone?) to create a fraudulent tape.

And given that the tape wasn't even addressed to the Arab Nation at all (McLaughlin was musing whether this was an attempt by bin Laden to create a Democratic majority to impeach Bush, for godssakes) and timing/plot maniulation that you would roll your eyes at in a made-for-USA Network-movie, you really have to wonder. Remember, in this administration, EVERYTHING is political.

Posted by: Matthew | January 24, 2006 06:55 PM

Sound analysis is much more thorough today to distinguish the difference from a fake tape and a real one. There's plenty of previous material to do sound/syntax matches with to positively identify a person (even on scratchy tape).

Should see what they can do with what's left of blackboxes. One thing's for sure no one would want to hear the Valuejet's disaster CVR tape. That one is what nightmares are made of.

:x

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 07:01 PM

ErrinF, lay off the simplistic James Bond fodder. OBL has never been THE LEADER of radical Islam
Posted by: Chris Ford | Jan 24, 2006 6:47:09 PM

Come off it, Chris Ford. Osama bin Laden is THE major figure in radical Islam these days. He is also the leader of a terrorist organization out to get us. His capture is imperative. Only a fool would argue AGAINST his capture, which is exactly what you are doing. Why in the hell would somebody argue against capturing bin Laden EXCEPT to make partisan excuses? Like I said before, a partisan extremist like Chris Ford would immediately change his tune the second Bush caught Osama, only Ford knows that'll never happen, so he offers forth this thoroughly pathetic sour grapes attempt to downplay bin Laden's significance. Chris Ford could obviously care less if Osama bin Laden gets away with murder; Talk about your terrorist sympathizer... Chris Ford is one of them.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 07:03 PM

Oh, fine.

In addition to a boombox, you also need a soundboard and past speeches to make sure that you are being consistent (although, as someone pointed out earlier, that latter condition isn't filled as this is the first missive from bin Laden without a reference to the Koran. On PBS News Hour, a senior fellow in Middle Eastern politics remarked, "It seems to me that it is written in English first, and then translated into Arabic. It is very western style of tape." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june06/osama_1-19.html)

So I now just need to match the voice tones and inflections in someone's voice. At least as closely as I matched the syntax of previous recordings. BFD.

That was not a rebuttal.

Posted by: Matthew | January 24, 2006 07:11 PM

"Wonder who Errin's talking too? OBL's ghost?"

SandyK

Impossible! I only let him out of the jar when George Bush needs a boost in the polls.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | January 24, 2006 07:13 PM

Errin, not only doesn't know a lick about Science, Logistics, either.

OBL is but one radical among a many head hydra. If he dies tomorrow another head will take his place. al Qaeta has a built in redundancy (like all closed cell groups are fashioned <-- did she know that? No).

In order to kill the whole network, the whole hydra has to go down, not just one head. And to do that the hunters have to find a way to lob off all of the heads at once.

Errin, can just look their way and turn the hydra to stone................

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 07:21 PM

Johnnyg wrote:
===========================================
Impossible! I only let him out of the jar when George Bush needs a boost in the polls.
===========================================

Errin probably already held seances with it. Complete with her 1001 canned-in-the-spam replies, too!

;)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 07:28 PM

Nobody here is saying to ignore the Nazis in order to go after Hitler. You go after both, with Hitler being the main focus.
Al Qaeda is not Al Hydra. It may have many branches, but it's main head is Osama bin Laden.
According to your logic, it wouldn't effect the War On Terror majorly if George Bush were captured by Al Qaeda.
Anyway, like you're going to argue the American public into believing Osama bin Laden being free from justice and free to plot terrorism is a GOOD thing. If Osama bin Laden is still free by the end of Bush's term, it will signify that George Bush didn't have what it took as a leader to bring bin Laden to justice. The Bush apologists seem a little too content to have the president's historical legacy be such.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 07:36 PM

Matthew wrote:
===========================================
"It seems to me that it is written in English first, and then translated into Arabic. It is very western style of tape."
===========================================

OBL's not a spring chicken to English, or Western ways and means (which he'll have to follow in a PR campaign [as it's based on a Western model]).

Nice try at spinning. No dice though.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 07:39 PM

ErrinF -

"No matter what excuses the Right make, the Bush administration failed to stop Osama bin Laden from perpetuating 9/11, and have failed to bring him to justice ever since."

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the one Lefties are pissing in their panties we toooooortuuuuurrrred by uncomfortable interrogation techniques rather than just give cozy digs and a staff of eager Jewish lawyers from the ACLU, was the orchestrator of 9/11, not Binnie. Getting Osama will be nice as long as we kill him and not let him anywhere near Leftie lawyers and book agents. Getting Binnie will be just the satisfaction of wasting one bad guy, hopefully a little painfully - but it has little to do with a global movement of Islam that is not under one Islamoid group's authority and has been around since the 1920s as a movement encompassing terrorism into obtaining objectives. Get away from your Hollywood potboiler notions that a major ideological movement that well predates one advocate of it - is all premised on that one present Day Leader you mystifiably place all import on.

"Suppose Al Qaeda somehow pulled off capturing George Bush. Are you to tell me that wouldn't give them a tremendous boost in the War On Terror? That the capture of OUR leader wouldn't deal a massive psychological blow to the American people?"

Capturing Bush, Hu Jintao, Putin, Blair??It's not in the range of being a plausible hypothetical. Killing a head of state is in that range of plausibility - but only Lefties would suffer a "psychological blow". The rest of the country would be pissed off and strongly supporting President Dick's new Islamoid-Killing initiatives.

As for capturing an enemy leader alive, like Binnie, you expect the same "tremendous boost" we got from capturing Saddam alive and thus ending the Iraqi insurgency? Whoops, no, guess it didn't play out that way in Iraq, did it???

D - "Yes, and there are 10 hotdogs per package but buns are only sold 8 to a pack. Thats about the only conspiracy that I'll buy into. the rest of that nonsense is cherry picking events out of context and then trying to weave them into some kinda grand conspiracy, and as with most conspiracies, utter nonsense. Oh, and the hotdog thing? Bush's fault."

LOL! Don't forget to add the Boxing Day Tsunami, accountability for the disappearance of Laci Peterson and Natalie Holloway, Katrina, Wilma. All things, besides 9/11, that Bush was "Accountable" - to use Errins words, for.

Beats Clinton. He failed to cure cancer, failed to shut his bossy wife up, failed to stop the Rwandan genocide, foolishly dumped elegant mistress Eleanor Mondale for a portly low-class "mouth", failed to stop Princess Di's vehicular fatality. Plus, he failed to stop 9/11 plotters from concluding America was weak and afraid to take casualties so they could go ahead in 1998 and authorize the mass death strike by unlawful combatants Khalid Sheikh Mohammed created and slowly set up on Clinton and Bush's "watch".

Posted by: Chris Ford | January 24, 2006 07:45 PM

"Matthew wrote:
===========================================
"It seems to me that it is written in English first, and then translated into Arabic. It is very western style of tape."
===========================================

OBL's not a spring chicken to English, or Western ways and means (which he'll have to follow in a PR campaign [as it's based on a Western model]).

Nice try at spinning. No dice though."

Actually, that was Matthew *quoting* (hence those things which we call quote marks). If you would like a fuller *quote*, then here it is:

=============================

MAMOUN FANDY: Right, but this particular tape is not terribly inspiring, just looking at the language of it. This is the first tape of bin Laden that has no single verse from the Koran. It does not have the flowery language of Arabic.

It seems to me that it is written in English first, and then translated into Arabic. It is very western style of tape. It is not very characteristic of bin Laden, at least it tells me that the non-Arabic speaking within the al-Qaida network are taking over the organization --

JIM LEHRER: You mean he didn't write this is what you are suggesting?

MAMOUN FANDY: The Arabic speakers in al-Qaida, the parts that are coming from the Arab world, are losing to the non-Arabic speaker, so it's really becoming more of a South Asian organization, rather than an Arab organization.

=============================

Now, if you think you're more intimately familiar with the Arabic language, its translation to English, and Osama bin Laden's use of it in particular, then perhaps you should apply for a position specializing in Middle Eastern affairs.

But, this is still getting away (and maybe that's intentional) from the main point: this tape has no credibility as evidence of anything which Osama bin Laden may or may not currently be thinking.

Posted by: Matthew | January 24, 2006 07:53 PM

Osama bin Laden is alive and well because the CIA and Al Jazeera recently confirmed that it was his voice on an audio tape discussing recent events. Sound recording technology is to the point these days that you can see the exact soundwave of the recording and easily compare it to past recordings. A person's voice has a tone and timbre as distinctive as a thumbprint, so it's pretty much impossible to fake. Technology or no, you are not going to fool an expert on sound with an impersonation. No recording trickery can fool experienced ears.
So all this ghost in a jar talk is nonsense, although johnnyg might indeed think he has OBL's ghost in a jar. I'm sure they have the most fascinating conversations.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 07:58 PM

ErrinF,

"A person's voice has a tone and timbre as distinctive as a thumbprint" ... which is true except for being completely false. Granted, this is three years old, but... "Computer voice analysis lacks the accuracy of fingerprint or DNA identification and can be hamstrung by a skilled impersonator or low-quality recording." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/13/tech/main529273.shtml. This is from after one of the other Osama bin Laden tapes came out, ironically enough.

Posted by: Matthew | January 24, 2006 08:05 PM

The moment you can make something other than a straw man attack is the moment I'll actually respect your opinions, Chris Ford. The Right doesn't have what it takes to bring Osama bin Laden, so they and you are declaring sour grapes.
You ignore the tactical importance of capturing Al Qaeda's leader. You ignore the justice aspect of making bin Laden pay for his crimes. You ignore any accountability for our government at failing to capture bin Laden so far.
If the right wing extremists want to do an ostrich act with this, let them. It is glaringly obvious what their agenda is by downplaying bin Laden's importance: They don't want to face the truth that the Republicans talk tough about national security, but don't deliver. They certainly have yet to deliver on the promise of capturing Osama bin Laden dead or alive, yet to deliver Osama bin Laden to the arms of justice, and yet to deliver a serious blow to Al Qaeda. All we get is partisan bluster and excuses, and very little progress on the War On Terror.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 08:11 PM

So, Chris Ford and SandyK, do we have your promise that, if OBL is killed or captured, you won't come here and present it as a coup in the war on terror?

Instead, you'll come here and say: "Someone else will just take his place. This doesn't advance us one bit..."
Perhaps you'll bash Bush because OBL's capture will be evidence that Bush devoted too much effort to going after this one head of the Hydra.

Yeah riiight.

Posted by: OD | January 24, 2006 08:17 PM

If you read what Fandy is stating you'll see he's giving folks a clue (Yo, Emily be careful out there)...

===========================================
"at least it tells me that the non-Arabic speaking within the al-Qaida network are taking over the organization --"
===========================================

And...

===========================================
MAMOUN FANDY: The Arabic speakers in al-Qaida, the parts that are coming from the Arab world, are losing to the non-Arabic speaker, so it's really becoming more of a South Asian organization, rather than an Arab organization.
===========================================

That's self-explanatory. Considering al Qaeta is a worldwide network with cells in South Asia, it's no wonder he made that remark.

And Fandy didn't infer your suggestion. Nowhere did he claim, "That's not Bin Laden". He just said the manner of his speech is different, which is understandable as he's surrounded now with those who speak a differently than him -- plus, al Qaeta is taking media tips on presentation (which is fact Western based).

Again, no cigar.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 08:18 PM

Whatever.

I said faking the tape wouldn't be hard.
You said, "Uh huh! Uh huh! Sound/syntax matches!"
I responded with evidence that the syntax didn't actually match.
You misunderstood it.
I corrected you.

You saying, "No cigar" doesn't mean your argument isn't any less up in smoke.

All I'm proferring is that, in this day and age, the fact that Osama bin Laden would choose an audio cassette as a means to deliver his message, if it was really him, is highly suspect. My evidence supports this.

If you want to profer that you should be debating kindergarters, then please continue. Your evidence supports that as well.

Posted by: Matthew | January 24, 2006 08:25 PM

ErrinF,
"A person's voice has a tone and timbre as distinctive as a thumbprint" ... which is true except for being completely false.
Posted by: Matthew | Jan 24, 2006 8:05:47 PM

I'm speaking from professional experience, Matthew. This is not a matter up for debate with me, because I know the facts from experience.
A person's tone and timbre is unique. The attack, decay, sustain, and release of a person's speech is distinct as well. With technology today, you can see a visual of the actual soundwave. Even without the digital technology, an experienced recording technician can pretty much gauge a recording inside and out, especially when they have comparative examples of similar recordings. I'm not saying sound forgery is completely out of the realm of possibility, but it is highly farfetched as we are restricted by the fundamentals of sound and speech, technology be damned. Recording isn't rocket science, so there is no realistic way to duplicate a recording of Osama bin Laden talking other than the real deal.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 08:28 PM

As far as bin Laden's message being on a tape, analog is still alive and well, and is probably more dominant in Osama bin Laden's part of the world than digital. Still, all he needs is a laptop to record, which he could easily get, but the thing is you can also get a mini-cassette or regular cassette recorder to accomplish the same purpose, only even easier to use. Besides, if I were in a cave, I'd use a battery charged tape recorder rather than a laptop that needs plugging in.
And I don't see the relevance of what medium the message shows up in, being CD or cassette, analog or digital. It's moot to the issue.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 08:40 PM

Matthew wrote:
==========================================
"I responded with evidence that the syntax didn't actually match."
==========================================

Where did it state that in that interview? Nothing of that sort is listed.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 08:43 PM

Chris Ford,

You wrote:
"For now, any Muslim country that wants tourism is going to have to acknowledge that your average American, Swede, Japanese does not really want to spend their discretionary dollars in a country where a portion of the population wishes to kill their infidel butts.
"

First of all, I would like to know why you included Swedes and Japanese?

Did the Swedes or the Japanese invade the Middle East?

Obviously you quickly forget that all of the West outside of America, ALL OF IT, opposed Bush's illegal war.

If Al-Qaeda regards Sweden and Japan the same way as America, well why didn't they attack them?

Europe is much closer to the Middle East than America.

Did you forget that the hijackers planned for their attack, from GERMANY, A WESTERN COUNTRY?

The amount of denial that is common practice among the right-wing warmongering establishment is beyond any belief.

Your government has killed way many many more people than all of the terrorist attacks by Arab groups combined since the 70s.

In Iraq alone, your government is responsible for the death of 100,000 people based a lie. Not that the lie matters, killing that many foreign people was never a problem for most American policy makers.

Even before the second war, the disgraceful Madeleine Albright, in her own words, found no problem in cause the death of a half million Iraqi children (UN numbers) by maintaining the harsh sanctions.

Collective punishment is part of American right-wing justice.

Leave the swedes and the Japanese alone.

The swedes do have a conscience and the Japs have learned it since WWII.

Posted by: Karim | January 24, 2006 08:51 PM

ErrinF,

I have no professional experience in this matter: I simply know what I gather and read. However, I would raise a few points:

(1) All technology has its limitations. If you know the limitations, you can beat the technology.
(2) The article I quoted from was the only one I could readily find and it said directly that voice recognition was susceptible to fraud.
(3) Where's the sense in it? Really, if this is an authentic, recent recording of Osama bin Laden, then why put it on audio cassette? Why? However you distributed it it's just as easy to leave a CD or DVD.
(4) Who profits? Who gains? Does this tape rally Islam around bin Laden?
(5) What's the lag time from the last recording? 14 months? It's not like you do a rush job.

I understand that at a certain point, you have to accept some things as truths. However, this is not one of these.

Posted by: Matthew | January 24, 2006 08:52 PM

OD wrote:
===========================================
Instead, you'll come here and say: "Someone else will just take his place. This doesn't advance us one bit..."
===========================================

Don't know about Chris Ford's reaction will be (I'm not Errin who proclaims to read minds), but yes I'll say the above. Why? Because this war is going to be a long one, and there will be more warrens to dig up.

Very important to not pigeonhole people into idealogies based on biases. You will be wrong, especially when you assume another is XYZ when they're not.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 08:55 PM

"Matthew wrote:
==========================================
"I responded with evidence that the syntax didn't actually match."
==========================================

Where did it state that in that interview? Nothing of that sort is listed.

SandyK"

Except the part in the middle of course. Here's a clue: syntax isn't the money you pay the government on cigarettes. The quote below is talking, directly, on point, about syntax.

"This is the first tape of bin Laden that has no single verse from the Koran. It does not have the flowery language of Arabic.

It seems to me that it is written in English first, and then translated into Arabic. It is very western style of tape."

Go play rock-paper-scissors with someone and save us the headache.

Posted by: Matthew | January 24, 2006 08:56 PM

Kahim the gajin wrote:
===========================================
"The swedes do have a conscience and the Japs have learned it since WWII."
===========================================

The only "Japs" some racist would know is the ones that'll put the hand down the throat and out the anus of some filthy barbarian.

And being both Japanese and Swedish, I'm very much proud to say that as well.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 09:02 PM

Matthew wrote:
===========================================
"Except the part in the middle of course. Here's a clue: syntax isn't the money you pay the government on cigarettes. The quote below is talking, directly, on point, about syntax."
===========================================

Which again says absolutely nothing about syntax, only the delivery of the speech (as if he was reading from a script -- which is no different from speakers reading off a teleprompter).

Maybe you need to play another game, yourself. Since you're very good at making conclusions on no facts.

No cigar, indeed.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 09:14 PM

What the hell are you stupid ugly Americans afraid of? "Terrorists"? LOL!

Your leaders are War Criminals, US Forces are a Terrorist Organization. On the basis of outrageous lies, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lies.mp3 is waging a murderous and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq, with other countries in their sights.
Your government is openly torturing people, and justifying it.
Your government puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in the dead of night.
Your government is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.
Your government suppresses the science that doesn't fit its religious, political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to pay a terrible price.
Your government is moving to deny women here, and all over the world, the right to birth control and abortion.
Your government enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance.
People look at all this and think of Hitler -- and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance.
Millions and millions are deeply disturbed and outraged by this. They recognize the need for a vehicle to express this outrage, yet they cannot find it; politics as usual cannot meet the enormity of the challenge, and people sense this.
There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing." People who steal elections and believe they're on a "mission from God" will not go without a fight.
There is not going to be some savior from the Democratic Party. This whole idea of putting our hopes and energies into "leaders" who tell us to seek common ground with fascists and religious fanatics is proving every day to be a disaster, and actually serves to demobilize people.
But silence and paralysis are NOT acceptable. That which you will not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn -- or be forced -- to accept. There is no escaping it: the whole disastrous course of this Bush regime must be STOPPED. And we must take the responsibility to do it.
And there is a way. We are talking about something on a scale that can really make a huge change in this country and in the world. We need more than fighting Bush's outrages one at a time, constantly losing ground to the whole onslaught. We must, and can, aim to create a political situation where the Bush regime's program is repudiated, where Bush himself is driven from office, and where the whole direction he has been taking society is reversed. We, in our millions, must and can take responsibility to change the course of history.
Acting in this way, we join with and give support and heart to people all over the globe who so urgently need and want this regime to be stopped.
This will not be easy. If we speak the truth, they will try to silence us. If we act, they will to try to stop us. But we speak for the majority, here and around the world, and as we get this going we are going to reach out to the people who have been so badly fooled by Bush and we are NOT going to stop.
The point is this: history is full of examples where people who had right on their side fought against tremendous odds and were victorious. And it is also full of examples of people passively hoping to wait it out, only to get swallowed up by a horror beyond what they ever imagined. The future is unwritten. WHICH ONE WE GET IS UP TO US. REVOLT!

Posted by: UBL - RIP | January 24, 2006 09:19 PM

Ok Sandy,

One last bit and then I'll stop dancing this dance with you. You can find another partner to frustrate with your refusal or inability to understand anything.

Definition of syntax per dictionary.com:

1) The study of the rules whereby words or other elements of sentence structure are combined to form grammatical sentences.
2) A publication, such as a book, that presents such rules.
3) The pattern of formation of sentences or phrases in a language.
4) Such a pattern in a particular sentence or discourse.

Syntax is about the pattern of language, how sentences and paragraphs are structured. Discussing the lack of flowery language is talking about syntax. Talking about sounding like it was written in English and then translated into Arabic is talking about syntax. Talking about no mention of the Koran is not syntax, really, but as above you split it into syntax and sound, I'll assume that content is part of what you meant, so for the sake of this, it is it.

Now I'll pay you the honor I paid the late and not very great SiliconDoc and just ignore anything you write hereforward.

Posted by: Matthew | January 24, 2006 09:24 PM

Regarding your hypothetical reaction to the hypothetical capture/killing of OBL, SandyK, quite frankly I'll believe it when I see it.

I agree with Errin that you're in spin-mode. But the unimportance of Bin Laden is one bit of spin that you might have trouble selling even to the party faithful.

Posted by: OD | January 24, 2006 09:24 PM

UBL, you should have ended your screed with:

"Vote the Democratic Party"

Ha Ha Ha Ha

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | January 24, 2006 09:24 PM

I can't tell you how maddening your ignorance is on this matter to somebody who actually lives and breathes day in and day out the technology and the science we are discussing, Matthew. If you want to stubbornly stick to your mistaken view of sound and recording, one that you've pieced together through a few articles, by all means do so. You and whatever reporters you have read have not spent the amazingly long amount of hours that one has to spend as a sound technician, working with and listening to the same recordings over and over and over again. I assure you that I am being completely open and honest in my professional opinion of the matter.
In answer to your points:

(1) "All technology has its limitations. If you know the limitations, you can beat the technology."
I keep telling you this goes beyond the technology, that it is more about the expert ears examining the tape. The fundamentals of sound (a constant of nature) are what limit forgeries from duplicating the real thing. You cannot beat the scientific fundamentals of tone, timbre, attack, decay, release, sustain, and a few other elements; It has no limitations that can be trumped by mankind. An expert in sound and recording is not going to be fooled by a sham. Perhaps this is beyond your comprehension as an armchair recording expert.

(2) "The article I quoted from was the only one I could readily find and it said directly that voice recognition was susceptible to fraud."
I didn't even bother to read the article. Unlike you, I do not need to read articles to understand what's at play when it comes to making and assessing recordings.

(3) "Where's the sense in it? Really, if this is an authentic, recent recording of Osama bin Laden, then why put it on audio cassette? Why? However you distributed it it's just as easy to leave a CD or DVD."
Totally and utterly irrelevant. Typical of the spectral evidence that appeals to conspiracy theorists. Bottom line: Tape or CD has no relevancy to an audio recording's authenticity; It's what's on that tape or CD that is used to verify it's authenticity.

(4) "Who profits? Who gains? Does this tape rally Islam around bin Laden?"
Again, no bearing on if an audio recording is a forgery or not.

(5) "What's the lag time from the last recording? 14 months? It's not like you do a rush job."
I'll grant you that given an extraordinary amount of time, one could try a very exacting forgery using all the knowledge of sound and recording and technology they have at their disposal. As you stated before though, the technology has it's limitations, and as I stated, the fundamentals of voice mean that tone and timbre cannot be duplicated to the point that it would fool an experienced professional. It is also highly illogical that you could have such a forgery include timely statements in it. The lag between making this mythically perfect recording and the events discussed on the recording would be obvious.

So I've given my professional two cents worth on the matter. If you want to cling to your conspiracy theory, by all means do so, but recognize that you are clinging to paranoia rather than logic.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 09:25 PM

Just waiting for someone from the fringe Left to yell,"Say it like it is, brother!!".

Worse, it's another driveby who loves to copy and paste (no carriage returns are gimmes).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 09:27 PM

Matthew,

First get a better dictionary, like Merriam-Webster's...

===========================================
Main Entry: syn·tax
Pronunciation: 'sin-"taks
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French syntaxe, from Late Latin syntaxis, from Greek, from syntassein to arrange together, from syn- + tassein to arrange
1 a : the way in which linguistic elements (as words) are put together to form constituents (as phrases or clauses) b : the part of grammar dealing with this
2 : a connected or orderly system : harmonious arrangement of parts or elements
3 : syntactics especially as dealing with the formal properties of languages or calculi
===========================================

Matthew wrote:
===========================================
"Talking about sounding like it was written in English and then translated into Arabic is talking about syntax. Talking about no mention of the Koran is not syntax, really, but as above you split it into syntax and sound, I'll assume that content is part of what you meant, so for the sake of this, it is it."
==========================================

Which, again, can mean he was reading a script written by god knows who else (probably the same outfit who does the filming, who has some idea on media presentation).

You don't prove your point, because there's no evidence claiming -- from an expert -- "It's not Bin Laden's voice". Fandy didn't state that, and mentioned a nugget about South Asian speech (which can mean he's confering with them [or which population he's blending in with]; or who is helping him make his films/tapes).

You need a heck of a lot more evidence to back up your claim (and to start a link to the exact transcript so folks can read it in CONTEXT, not a snippet).

Not even a Clinton cigar.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 09:38 PM

http://www.WORLDCANTWAIT.ORG

An American Hitler and his Gestapo
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8038.shtml
Bush is a traitor to his country. As a traitor, he should be led from the White House in chains and tried as one. Since he insists he is a "wartime President," then let's try the son-of-a-bitch as a wartime traitor, a Benedict Arnold who turned on his country and gave aid and comfort to its enemies. Bush has done far more damage to the freedoms and security of American than Osama bin Laden. In fact, I'm starting to believe the traitorous asshole is in league with bin Laden and others who want this country destroyed.

Professor Skeptical of bin Laden Tape
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=3828678
He thinks bin Laden is dead and has doubts about the tape. Lawrence recently analyzed more than 20 complete speeches and interviews of the al Qaida leader for his book. He says the new message is missing several key elements.

Who is messing with your head?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18925354.000
It is already possible to detect a person's intention or perceptions regardless of whether they are aware of them, and even if they try to cover them up. How will we deal with issues such as privacy and responsibility?

Posted by: Jackoff Abramafia | January 24, 2006 09:41 PM

SandyK must get real paid?

I know I don't!

Posted by: The Office Of Special Plans | January 24, 2006 09:45 PM

The skeptical professor...

===========================================
BRUCE B. LAWRENCE (at Duke since 1971) An Islamicist and a comparativist
===========================================

He writes books, but I see nothing of peer reviewed manuscripts (to show his views among peers in history and religious studies).

A professorship with no peer reviewed articles??

Here's where the Prof makes a serious error, which for a "comparativist" should know better not to do (as he's speculating without evidence)...

===========================================
"Lawrence questions when it was recorded. He says the timing of its release could be to divert attention from last week?s U.S. air strike in Pakistan."
===========================================

He has zero evidence to back up that claim, as he's not privy to any intelligence. He's speculating, which is as worse as hearsay evidence in a court of law.

What are you guys doing, really digging at the bottom of the barrel?

Yeah, "Who is messing with your head?", indeed!

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 24, 2006 10:09 PM

Professors and journalists do not hold a candle to recording professionals on this matter, unless of course they are a professor of sound recording or a recording journalist. It seems to me that the people that have been cited as experts to back up the phony tape theory are speaking outside of their area of expertise.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 24, 2006 10:14 PM

Ok ErrinF,

You didn't follow the link I gave so I'll copy more of the text in since it did quote professors and experts in sound.

And the points which you dismissed are not irrelevant; they go to RealPolitik. Is there sufficient motivation for someone to put in the effort to achieve the at least small-percentage chance of faking a recording? To consider that question is not paranoia: it is reasonable.

If you were to start wondering if someone fixed your son's T-ball game, you're probably one of the people in the aluminum hats. But if you ask yourself if the World Series was fixed when one gambler won hundreds of millions of dollars on the outcome, you're asking probabilistic questions. (It did happen: Chicago "Black" Sox, although not quite at that magnitude, obviously).

Anyways, here's more of the article. Deleted some bits for a little brevity. If you have more recent literature on it, would be happy to see it.

Thanks.

==================================

Intelligence analysts examining the audiotape message that purports to be from Osama bin Laden may be convinced the voice is bin Laden's - but they will never be sure.

Computer voice analysis lacks the accuracy of fingerprint or DNA identification and can be hamstrung by a skilled impersonator or low-quality recording.

"Where there's a combination of strong motivation and relatively weak science, there's an opportunity for deception," said Robert Berkovitz, a speech analyst with Sensimetrics Corp. "You can't put the voice in a slot and have it come out saying, 'This is Joe Smith."'

...

"You can say with some probability, but you can never be sure," said Kenneth Stevens, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology expert in speech analysis and synthesis.

In the case of bin Laden, where convincing the world that he is alive might be important, a skilled impersonator using a low-quality recording could fool some analysts, Berkovitz said.

"If you have someone who can read like bin Laden, they can have him read it," he said. "People can change their voices so easily."

Analysts poring over bin Laden's voiceprint would be looking at computerized "wave forms" that plot a voice's pitch, speed and volume into dark and light shapes resembling a topographical map, said Brian Moncur, technology director at Fonix Corp. of Salt Lake City, which sells speech recognition and synthesis software.

For instance, the wave forms of the word "America" from one or more known bin Laden recordings might be overlaid atop the wave form of "America" from the current audiotape.

Problem is, the wave forms never match each other exactly.

"People hardly ever pronounce the same word the same way twice, even in the same utterance," Berkovitz said.

Posted by: Matthew | January 24, 2006 11:55 PM

Fish or cut bait time, ErrinF:

"The Right doesn't have what it takes to bring Osama bin Laden, so they and you are declaring sour grapes.
You ignore the tactical importance of capturing Al Qaeda's leader. You ignore the justice aspect of making bin Laden pay for his crimes. You ignore any accountability for our government at failing to capture bin Laden so far."

Well, here's your challenge ErrinF! Become a WarChicken (a Lefty that normally only endorses war when it's (1)"Humanitarian; (2)The US gains nothing from it; AND (3) A Democrat is President and party loyalty overcomes partisan pacifism of convenience.

Now, as Binnie is in Pakistan, what sort of war do you advocate against this well-armed, highly professional military, ErrinF, so we can start invading and looking for your White Whale? What is your strategy? Care to stop at a naval war you hope doesn't go nuclear? What if India gets sucked in? Both nations were in the brink of nuke war over Kashmir back in 2002. Worth the risk if we can get your White Whale??

You never answered this observation, either Errin. It was blown by in your Bush must pay! partisanship.

*As for capturing an enemy leader alive, like Binnie, you expect the same "tremendous boost" we got from capturing Saddam alive and thus ending the Iraqi insurgency? Whoops, no, guess it didn't play out that way in Iraq, did it???*

1. Billions have been spent bringing not just Binnie but ALL the Islamoids to death or our ACLU perverted joke of justice...

2. Most have been captured or killed. Frequently to Lefty squeals about how mean we were to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or how whacking Al Qaeda figures by UAV in Pakistan and the Afghan border area should be stopped because "innocent little children in the same house as the Islamoids can be killed or harmed".

3. If justice really burns so much in Lefty hearts instead of Bush-hatred, where is the demand to try the 9/11 Mastermind, conceiver, and implementer (KSM) - load him up with lawyers and book agents?????? For that matter, if justice burns, just burns in the hearts of Lefties to avenge murdered Americans, why not invade Mexico too and get the 200-220 absconded 1st Degree murderers down there? And what's up with all the Lefty "Tookie is innocent" and "Save Mumia, a Victim of White Racist Oppression" people?

Posted by: Chris Ford | January 24, 2006 11:59 PM

Spin as desperately as you like, Chris Ford. You continue to ignore the truth of the matter: The Right can't catch Osama bin Laden. Bush and the Republicans don't deliver when it comes to national security; Conservatives are paper tigers. Maybe they got the third in command in Al Qaeda, but that just goes to show this conservative run government of ours is third rate, and can't get the big boys. Just the other week, the administration failed to successfully get the second in command. Chalk one more failure in the War On Terror up to a government run by the Right.
Speaking of Al Qaeda leadership, it would be nice if Chris Ford wouldn't talk out of both sides of his face when it comes to their importance. If it's Sheikh Mohammed captured, you won't hear enough spin from Chris Ford how important that was. If it's bin Laden not being captured, you won't hear enough spin from Chris Ford about how unimportant that is. One moment he argues capturing Al Qaeda leaders means nothing if the Right has yet to catch them; The next he argues capturing Al Qaeda leaders means everything if the Right has caught one. Make up your mind, Chris Ford, or better yet, stop being such a ridiculous propogandist for the Right wing and it's politicians. It's obvious that the only reason you downplay Osama bin Laden as unimportant is because your side can't catch him. Sour grapes from a bunch of blowhard incompetents.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 25, 2006 01:10 AM

U. S. actions since the events of 2001 have been driven by fear. Fear looks back, not ahead. Fear brings out the worst impulses in humans. The behavior of our country has changed. Our friends have been trying in vain to convey that to us. It is healthy to be cautious; it is dangerous to be fearful.

Posted by: Jazzman | January 25, 2006 01:11 AM

I think Bin laden is in captivity in Pakistan(the black helicopters which helped SOME escape from the fort seige in afganistan). sofar none has given the names of the people who escaped.I think Bin laden was in that black un marked helicopter.He is being used rarely for political needs of the Pakistani regime as well as its chief protector the US government.

Posted by: captain johann | January 25, 2006 01:23 AM

OD - "if OBL is killed or captured, you won't come here and present it as a coup in the war on terror? Instead, you'll come here and say: "Someone else will just take his place. This doesn't advance us one bit..."

No, even if we are in a war against the evil ideology of radical Islam, which in itself is just a reiteration of the worst elements of Islam that come to the fore periodically ever since Mohammed launched it back in the 8th century...it will be nice to kill the guy. Satisfying. Even to capture the guy and spend some quality time with him and not let the ACLU Jews anywhere near the guy...And it does show other Islamoids that we will not forget acts of terrorism. So "getting" ErrinF's White Whale will help a little....But, yes, Binnie is just one of hundreds of Islamoid Leaders out there, following an ancient way of following the Muslim Faith that started it's latest resurgence in Egypt in the 20s with theologians and the Muslim Brotherhood. Plenty of replacements are ready and waiting to take Binnie's place. Even the brains of Al Qaeda's place, Ayman al-Zawahiri...just as they replaced the one we really wanted the most to learn about 9/11 and stop future planned attacks - KSM. (KSM once we broke him was a frigging gold mine of intel even as Lefties blubbered about his "precious enemy rights".

A war of ideology is a war of ideas, not a war against a single person that only had sway in a small part of the Ummah and with only a small fraction of the people doing the infidel butchery...

SandyK - "That wouldn't be ErrinF, now would it? You know the lady with the beard and sheets, who proclaiming "Bush is Satan! Bush is Satan! We're DOOMED because my DNC platform told me so!!"?"

LOL, Sandy. You left out the part of her yelling at the Bush-Hitler-Satan for failing to get the real "Mr. Evil" so we can all go back to harmony with the Religion of Peace...

Karim -


"If Al-Qaeda regards Sweden and Japan the same way as America, well why didn't they attack them?"

They do attack Swedes. 60% of the robberies and 80% of the rapes there are by Muslims, only 5% of the Swedish population. The Japanese have too much common sense to let Muslim immigrants or refugees into their country in any appreciable numbers. And Swedes, Swiss, Japanese, etc. have been fair game for Jihadis.

Few of the butchered unbelievers of the 20th Century were Americans. Over 1 million Armenians killed in Jihad, 700,000 Greeks, 3.5 million Hindis in 1971, 4 million in 1948. 1/3rd of all East Timoran Christians butchered in Jihad, 500,000 ethnic Chinese in a few weeks back in 1965. If the Muslim nations weren't so backwards and were better weaponed and better organized, they would have slaughtered a lot more infidels.

America has no intention of joining the hapless victims of Jihad.

Karim - "In Iraq alone, your government is responsible for the death of 100,000 people based a lie. Not that the lie matters, killing that many foreign people was never a problem for most American policy makers."

I see you like enemy statistics. The Left is uncritical when it comes from an enemy of the West. Must be true, they think.

Tell me again how "we are responsible" for the 10's of thousands the Islamoids and Saddamites have killed. (30-40,000 NOT the 100K that Al Qaeda and Euroweenies bandy about) And we have whacked over 14,000 Islamoids, maimed thousands more - and captured almost 15,000 - plus 15,000 native Saddamites - numbers "we" are very happy about, though the IEDs have made us take more light casualties for longer than anyone expected...

Posted by: Chris Ford | January 25, 2006 01:33 AM

What you posted just confirmed that I was right not to bother taking your link, Matthew.
You don't want to listen to the realities of sound and recording. When a finger touches a surface, it leaves a fingerprint as an imprint. When the vocal chords make a sound, that sound has a tone and timbre as unique as a fingerprint. When it is being recorded, that leaves an imprint.
It is easy to check if a recording from Osama bin Laden is authentic or not. Osama bin Laden's voice, as far as the science of sound goes, is a real constant in the universe, having it's own signature frequencies and harmonics. There will of course be waveform variations between each word he says, but that will just be from volume and inflection. The actual frequencies and harmonics will stay true despite the variations. Since we have authenticated samples of Osama on tape from the past, we have his 'voiceprint'. While digital technology is extremely helpful for providing a visual for the recorded waveforms of Osama's speech, no man-made invention can match the discerning ear of an expert in sound, voice, and recording.
Anyway, not that you're going to let silly nonsense like the natural laws of sound and speech get in the way of this conspiracy theory of yours. I have no articles to offer you, but I can say that I've tried to give you an objective opinion straight from the horse's mouth when it comes to professional knowledge of sound recording. My diagnosis remains the same: What you purport is within the realm of possibility, but is highly improbable due to the scientific realities of sound.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 25, 2006 01:35 AM

SandyK - "That wouldn't be ErrinF, now would it? You know the lady with the beard and sheets, who proclaiming "Bush is Satan! Bush is Satan! We're DOOMED because my DNC platform told me so!!"?"
LOL, Sandy. You left out the part of her yelling at the Bush-Hitler-Satan for failing to get the real "Mr. Evil" so we can all go back to harmony with the Religion of Peace.
Posted by: Chris Ford | Jan 25, 2006 1:33:18 AM

I don't care for the politics of George Bush and Dick Cheney, and am highly cynical of all politicians in general, but it is simply false that Bush and Cheney would help orchestrate an attack on their fellow American citizens. There is SO MUCH to take the administration to task for... their competency, their secrecy, their sophistry... there is no need for this conspiratorial villification of our president and vice president. Treating them like comic book villains won't accomplish anything, and these conspiracy theories are thoroughly unfair in how they accuse Bush and Cheney of atrociously treasonous behavior. Put the blame where it belongs: Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The Bush administration is accountable for failing to prevent 9/11, but is in no way responsible for the attacks that took place. The president, vice president, and those that lost their lives that day deserve better than this reckless paranoia. Conspiracy theories ARE for losers.
Posted by: ErrinF | Jan 24, 2006 5:49:02 PM

Why do conservative extremists like SandyK and Chris Ford overblow anybody who opposes them as thinking of Bush as a cartoon-like villain? One can clearly read the post I provided to see that I am critical of Bush but do not demonize him. SandyK and Chris Ford will just lie about anybody whose views differs from their lockstep Bush apologism. I for one would rather hold politicians accountable instead of excuse them from accountability, unlike those two reactionary wackos. George Bush and the Right can't deliver the goods when it comes to capturing Osama bin Laden. Notice all the bluster and attempts to muddy the water when it comes to the truth about these pathetic paper tiger conservatives.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 25, 2006 01:49 AM

Emily, Replant the American Dream

After reading actual conspiracy theories, the analysis of the conspiracy theories, the analysis of the analysis of the conspiracy theories, the analysis of the analysis of the analysis, ..... Nah, I just don't want to go there.

But I did read Mr. Ignatius column with which you were so enthralled, which I admit passed by unread last November (by me anyway). I am surprised my favorite wolf has passed up such a juicy lamb. There is still time I suppose.

I can understand how a weepy lefty liberal like you might gush over this column. :o) I was not so impressed with it; although he has written others I liked much better.

My problem with this one is that it is superficial and just takes on easy things, not hard ones. Anyone can hit on Abu Graib. It's indefensible, unless you are a wolf. But why not take on the case of that Marine in Falluja who plainly just executed that unarmed half dead Iraqi lying helpless on the floor, on camera no less? What about the soldier who just got convicted for negligent assault (I forget exactly what this lighter charge was but it carried a 3 yr max sentence) for smothering an Iraqi general to death because he was sure the guy knew something and wouldn't give it up? What if this guy "thought", had some second hand reason to think, this general knew the location of an anthrax bomb set to go off in the middle of Baghdad in 90 minutes? These are far more reflective of "reality" than Abu Ghraib and a whole lot harder to come to grips with ourselves much less explain to foreigners.

David complains of the questions put to him, "How do you deny the reality of Abu Ghraib, they ask, when the vice-president of the United States is actively lobbying against rules that would ban torture." Is this so hard to answer? Not in the least. The answer is, "I don't deny this reality and the vice-president is lobbying because we want to be able to continue torturing and being hypocrites about it and not risk going to jail for it." One might add, "We have polls showing the public is fully with us on this, since they do show that they don't want torture but they do want us to do anything necessary to make sure they feel like their butts are safe".

He is correct. "The Bush Administration didn't begin this wasting of American Ideals, ...", and yes we must begin "living our values", and "to put Americas riches back on the table". Nowhere does he get into what specific "Ideals" he has in mind, what specific values he has in mind, what specific "riches" he has in mind. This must sound good to all of us, right-center-left, conservative-libertarian-liberal, Republican-Independent-Democrat, Catholic-Protestant-Jew. Each of us are free to fill these empty vessels with whatever feels best to us and thus feel equally good about ourselves, our country. It is not just politicians who understand good marketing techniques.

Like Mr. Ignatius, I grew up on another continent, Latin America actually. My friends and associates of the time (1950-60s) had fewer illusions about American Ideals and values than David seems to have experienced; except for the very brief period when Kennedy, and especially Jackie, seduced them all; a feat not even accomplished by Clinton. But there was ample experience and awareness of the heavy foot of the giant crushing anything or anyone who was not properly accommodative of its needs and wishes. Still we were respected, if not so well liked. What impressed them most, particularly those we would put on the political left (poor), was the idea that the people created the government and the government served the people, something with which most had or still have little real experience. What fascinated these was the regularity with which the government was changed which by itself was clear evidence that the people were indeed in charge of the government. What fascinated the right (rich) was the rule of law, because that seemed to protect the rich from both the government (especially the cost of buying its protection) and the poor. So we were admired by different groups for very different ideals, different values. This is the easy pick and choose what you like part.

Our problem is not what the world thinks of us. Our problem is that we do not live our values and are not willing even to define them clearly, much less resolve competition between them. An external example. How do we reconcile our Chief World Cop and imposer of Democracy role with our founding ideal of government by the people, of the people, for the people? Where in our "Ideals" do we derive this authority? A domestic example. Why does Congress leave it to the Supreme Court to legislate through case law the boundaries of two absolutely key individual rights, personal privacy and personal autonomy? And then have the gall to complain about "activist judges legislating from the bench"? Amazing. These cover both Roe v. Wade and that disgusting affair down in Florida, not to mention thousands of others. Might it be because these are indeed hard?

Until we are willing to seriously confront our own values and discover what they really are I don't know how we can be expected to live them or expect the world to admire them. This mushy feel good piece (well it was Thanksgiving after all) doesn't push the ball one whit down the road.

Posted by: Cayambe | January 25, 2006 02:40 AM

Not a single answer to my pointed questions on what ErrinF would do to "get" her White Whale that the Bushies aren't already doing.

Just more of her boilerplate Deanaic SPAM in her 1:10:53AM post. Full spin mode, repeating her same-O same-O stuff about "Right Wing" failures since 9/11.

After 9/11 - reports, including Sheuers, said the CIA thought KSM was the most valuable get because he knew everyone involved in 9/11, (Osama and Ayman did not), and was the Head Planner for the followup attacks - Singapore, West Coast of USA, and Heathrow UK - all thwarted.

Sheuer says he'd rather us get the brains of Al Qaeda next, Dr. Zawahiri, who the CIA want as much if not more than Binnie - but Zarqawi due to active war considerations - is now the one most wanted of all.

bin Laden now 3rd on many intel pros lists as the one they want, though politicians in America place him #1 as the figurehead of his movement. He is the symbolic figure in deep hiding, comforted by loyal figures and occasionally emerging to make a speech. His biggest fear is Bush will somehow make him a bitch. Same position as Teddy Kennedy occupies in the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Chris Ford | January 25, 2006 03:18 AM

Matthew wrote:
===========================================
Problem is, the wave forms never match each other exactly.
===========================================

Do you know chromosones don't match the same, either?

Do you know fingerprints don't match the same, either?

Does that mean DNA "fingerprints" as well as fingerprints are to be disregarded too?

No.

And no Islamist, without forensic voiceprint training, would know if the current tape is Bin Laden or not. It's beyond his expertise -- which again says he should've deferred comment to the experts instead of trying to selling more books, or be an apologist with obvious bias.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 25, 2006 05:08 AM

Jazzman wrote:
===========================================
"The behavior of our country has changed. Our friends have been trying in vain to convey that to us. It is healthy to be cautious; it is dangerous to be fearful."
===========================================

Our "friends" are playing political footsie. Our "friends" are trying to flex some EU muscle (which is quite weak and fragmented). Our "friends" were knee deep in scandal in the Oil-for-Food program, milking off monies while protending to be ethnical.

Now our "friends" are in a pickle, because Iran has made even them a target, and they're too stupid to get themselves out.

So how are they going to resolve a mad regime in Iran? With sermons and a "don't do that" warnings? Or are these "Indian givers" expecting the US, again, to save backstabbers?

With "friends" like that the USA sure doesn't need enemies.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 25, 2006 05:22 AM

Come on Emily it's almost 6am, we're waiting on your next article.

This thread is ready for Roswell now! lol

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 25, 2006 05:49 AM

Emily said: "Robbin's suspicions are understandable, but unconvincing. After all, each time bin Laden resurfaces, it reminds the American public that this administration took its eye off the ball."

Well, that may be true Emily, but it's better than the normal attention which gets paid by the American public (Katrina, Medicare, torture, Congressional ethics) where the public is reminded of the administration's other large shortcomings but without the upside of the drum beat of war. Bush's overall approval rating does spike after these missives, after all.

Besides, if all else fails, the right just blames Clinton for Bush's security breach. See past threads ad nauseum.

Posted by: Matthew | January 25, 2006 09:56 AM

Kicking this up.

This is why reporters really, really, really need to be careful while abroad. The new face of a periodical after one of their own is kidnapped...

http://www.csmonitor.com/

Which is totally different from history...

http://web.archive.org/web/20040326044841/http://csmonitor.com/
http://web.archive.org/web/20040614145516/http://www.csmonitor.com/
http://web.archive.org/web/20030422011826/http://www.csmonitor.com/

etc., etc., etc..

How many more publications will be held hostage to win back one of their own? Folks want Jill back, but when is the price to change the media to do so too high?

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 25, 2006 10:18 AM

It's been 1,591 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Bin Laden's tapes are authentic
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2093.htm
The push for IRAQ WAR, for example, won support when a BIN LADEN audiotape helped to cement U.S. claims of links between AL-QAEDA and SADDAM HUSSEIN. This tape was released by Colin Powell? in February 2003, while the U.S. lobbied heavily for a second UN resolution on IRAQ, and just a month before the war began

The 23rd Sigh

Let up pray: Bush is my shepherd; I dwell in want. He maketh logs to be cut down in national forests. He leadeth trucks into the still wilderness. He restoreth my fears. He leadeth me in the paths of international disgrace for his ego's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of pollution and war, I will find no exit, for thou art in office. Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy media control, they discomfort me. Thou preparest an agenda of deception in the presence of thy religion. Thou anointest my head with foreign oil. My health insurance runneth out. Surely megalomania and false patriotism shall follow me all the days of thy term, And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever. Amen

Posted by: UBL = RIP | January 25, 2006 10:54 AM

YAABB (yet another anything but Bush) post.

When the country asks: what is my country doing? They just have to look at the new National Lampoon of fingerpointers who don't have any solutions to the very things they complain about.

JFK must be rolling in his grave today (or might be resurrecting himself to join the commentary at 1pm, too!).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 25, 2006 11:15 AM

To UBL=RIP,

Your prayer has been printed and posted at my desk. How true! This morning I caught the tag end of a commentary by Cal Thomas on WTOP-Radio that, as far as I can tell, opined that civil liberties are of no use if you're dead. Patrick Henry, Nathan Hale, and a whole line of what we thought were American heros are revealed to be fools instead.

I am bemused by this mind-set that can sabre-rattle and still give off the stench of cowardice at the same time.

Posted by: Average American | January 25, 2006 11:33 AM

Apparently, UBL=RIP's "prayer" is as close to religion the libs get to these days. Sigh.

I blame Bush. And the Patriot Act.

Posted by: D. | January 25, 2006 11:38 AM

What I don't see anyone talking about is a theory of "disinformation" - widely used in previous wars. OSB and the terrorist organizations are experts. They tell us what they are planning - and the government ups the Alert Color - spends hundreds of millions of dollars countering the "threat" - and OSB sits backs and laughs. Make no mistake - there WILL be another attack on American soil - sometime, somewhere - as they choose. There will be no stopping it. This will only serve to put us on notice once again that we are vunerable. But, then, there isn't a safe place against a terrorist attack anywhere in the entire world. Even Israel, with its security systems in place - with most of the citizenry armed - cannot stop a suicide bomber bent on carrying out his - or her - mission.
We are a large nation - there is nothing we can do as a nation to stop a determined attack against us. But, like the Balinese people, we will go on - and WE will have t-shirts saying "F__K TERRORISM".
The ONE thing we can be sure of - and that is that there will NEVER be an occupying army (other than our own) in our streets. Like it or not - we ARE an armed nation of free citizens.
Bush, Homeland Security, Cheney - it's all smoke and mirrors. The ONLY thing I have seen come out of this entire mess is the curtailing of our civil liberties and rights.
Now, before a lot of you get your panties in twist - I am not left nor right - like most Americans, I am in the middle. I look at all sides of an issue before I choose which side to whom I cast my lot. It's plain ol' common horse sense.
We are in a street fight, people - no rules - anything goes.

Posted by: PapaGus | January 25, 2006 12:30 PM

"As far as Osama bin Laden and terrorism goes, we need to deal with the War On Terror rationally without hysteria and politics."

The above comment by one of the respondents says it all.

Most conspiracy theories develop from irrational ignorance.

Posted by: Orikinla Osinachi | January 25, 2006 12:50 PM

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Another nuke exercise -- your next 9/11?
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Jan 23, 2006, 22:05

Email this article
Printer friendly page

Catch this! Some fresh-brewed Homeland Insecurity published today on WorldNetDaily. The Department of Defense (DOD) has scheduled its second major, three-day exercise to combat nuclear terrorism, this time in the Charleston, South Caroline area. I don't know about you, but I didn't know Charleston had a nuclear terror problem, shades of Sept. 11, 2001, the day on which some six drills were going, enough to distract anybody from doing anything when the drills went real.

But Charlestown is not a strategic town. It's a vacation spot, nice beaches, good fishing, boat rides, excellent restaurants, southern cooking, and nice people, you say. So, kick back your heels and watch the thermal bomb go off like a Charleston sunset. No, no, no! But then why is the DOD goal coping with the catastrophic results of a terrorist nuclear attack here? Ah, you say, Charleston is a major US port city. And therefore the roast pig, bad term, test sight for nuclear holocaust by the sea.

But the exercise and the military's Joint Task Force-Civil Support will be hosted (excuse me again) . . . headquartered at Fort Monroe, Virginia. And the three-day drill (which could go real, n'est-ce pas?) is for commanders and representatives of other federal agencies that would be involved in (catch this) the consequences of a 10-megaton nuclear blast, enough to decimate an American city. Let me fill you in on some of the particulars of such a blast, and remind you that what hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 20-meg blasts.

The 10 will crisp wood frame houses, common in this area, for a distance of more than a mile from ground zero and produce medium rare damage for a mile and a half. The damage radius increases with the power of the bomb, about in proportion to its cube root. When imploded at the ideal height, a 10-megaton bomb, 1,000 times as powerful as a 10-kiloton weapon, increases the distanced by 10, that is, out 11 miles for severe damage and 15 miles for moderate damage of a frame house.

Are you grokking this, strangers in a strange land? We've passed the science fiction stage. And now, folks are playing reality games with the concept in a military fort near a major American seaport city. Let me also tell you, the fireball for a 10-megaton explosion will have a diameter of about 4.8 miles across. A flash of thermal radiation is given off from the fireballs and spreads out over a large area, and with steady intensity.

The amount of surging thermal energy, penetrating radiation, climactic effects, and clean H-bombs effects, well, just click here to download details. They ain't pretty. But then, neither were 9/11's, remaining ugly as hell nearly five years later.

In fact, the real danger here is that an administration in danger of extinction itself for its wars, its financial bungling, its corruption, its catastrophic Katrina, its trillions in tax cuts for the rich and subsequent debt, its utterly inhumane cuts to social services, in short, its horrible five years . . . the real threat is that this administration will use this go-real nuclear holocaust to blame on Al Qaeda, and get itself off the hook and hanging platform, and elevate national terror into a national state of emergency, eliminating all democracy, with a call for martial law, under Der Bush & Company.

Think I'm kidding. Officials from the Department of Homeland Security, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, remember them from New Orleans?) and senior Coast Guard brass will be on hand. The WorldNetDaily article claims that no part of the exercise will take place there, though the target of attack is Charleston. Maj. Gen. Bruce Davis, the task force's commander, will oversee the exercise from Fort Monroe. What a blast (I hope not).

The Joint Task Force-Civil Support -- part of US Northern Command, which oversees the Defense Department's domestic military activity -- is a standing joint task force composed of active, reserve and National Guard members from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, as well as civilian personnel. Well, party on down. Just don't you dare blow up Charleston.

Last summer, the article also tells us, a similar exercise, "Sudden Respond '05" was led by Virginia's Fort Monroe-based Joint Task Force-Civil Support. It too, duh, was designed to simulate a nuclear terrorist attack that the highest US officials, including President Bush (one of the lowest), have said is the No. 1 threat facing the nation, and they if anyone, will make happen.

The drill, we're told, is strikingly similar to a scenario detailed by Graham Allison, former Pentagon assistant secretary for plans and policy and current Harvard professor, in his book, "Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe." It's only preventable 'til it turns real, just like 9/11, bunky. And you don't need to be a Harvard professor to know that, dumb ass idiot.

Nevertheless, Allison wrote, "A month after the Sept.11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Central Intelligence Agency presented Bush with a report that al-Qaida had smuggled a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb into New York City."

The president, according to the book, dispatched Nuclear Emergency Support Teams of scientists and engineers to New York to search for the weapon, which was never found. Never found, imagine that. And imagine that I live in New York and never heard a frigging word about that. And maybe some "terrorist" from al-Qaida, shorthand for CIA, took it and put it under the White House, because it has done an amazing job of decimating the agency, and laying blame for 9/11 at its feet.

Allison, sport that he is, described the devastation that a 10-kilaton nuclear bomb would bring to Manhattan if it were detonated in the middle of "historic Times Square." Some 1 million people would die almost immediately. Is everybody staining their trousers? I hope so. But ho, there's more from Allison. Catch these hot chestnuts.

"The resulting fireball and blast wave would destroy instantaneously the theater district (and all those homos in it), the New York Times building (and all those gray stories), Grand Central Terminal (and all those gray commuters), and every other structure within a third of a mile to the point of detonation." And that's not all he wrote. "The ensuing firestorm would engulf Rockefeller Center (melt the ice ring in a couple of seconds), Carnegie Hall, Empire State Building, and Madison Square Garden, leaving the Knicks and Rangers homeless (sorry), not to mention a landscape echoing the World Trade Center, the sons of bitches . . .

"From the United Nations headquarters on the East River and the Lincoln Tunnel under the Hudson River, to the Metropolitan Museum in the eighties and the Flatiron Building in the twenties, structures would remind one of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Office Building following the Oklahoma City Bombing," another black ops by our government friends, with a bomb placed on the east, a bomb in the center (which went off and rocked the building down) and a bomb placed on the west side of the building -- the east/west bombs for early and second responders, which were taken away and decommissioned. You don't think it was that dumb-ass ammonium nitrate and fuel oil bomb in the Ryder truck that did anything but break the glass windows, do you? A team of men were working in the garage the week before the explosion, rewiring things, men in uniforms that read Government Agency Operations.

The monsters would like to strike again, folks, so take this very, very seriously. And take this WND article and substitute George Bush for Osama bin Laden and CIA for al-Qaida, who have planned to use nuclear weapons in a terrorist attack on the US. The plan is dubbed "American Hiroshima." In fact, as first reported in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, captured al Qaeda (CIA) operatives and documents suggest the weapons have already been smuggled in the country.

For continuing and complete coverage of "American Hiroshima" plans, subscribe to Joseph Farah's G2 Bullet, the premium, online, intelligence newsletter published (not) by the founder of WND.

Citizens of Charleston and America, get your butts out there from Jan. 31 to Feb. 3, to protest, intercept, act up, criticize, analyze, neutralize that Fort Monroe, Virginia, drill. Your lives and the lives of thousands, hundreds of thousands of others depend upon it. Do it now. And thank the tip slipped to me about this draconian drill. Wherever you are, you know who you are and I salute you.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer, resident of New York who does not ever want to see 911 or anything like it happen again. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.

Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal

Posted by: che | January 25, 2006 01:00 PM

Let me start by saying that I am NOT a conspiracy theorist. I don't think Russia were involved in the JFK assassination, or that Area 51 is home to aliens. I am a rational person, who I like to believe, thinks logically.

So lets look at recent events in a logical way.

On November 20th 2003, London was gearing up for a huge protest against the visit of President Bush. The media had been hyping up the protests, as the largest protests 'ever seen against a head of State'. More people were expected to attend than had ever protested against Saddam, or Mugabe.

However, Bush seemed unnerved. He would smile when asked about the protests and he said it didn't affect him at all. I couldn't understand this. This man was being told he was the most hated man on the planet, and yet he didn't seem to mind. Almost as if he 'knew' something no-one else did.

The news of Michael Jacksons sex scandals were given 2nd rate coverage in light of the protests, which would culminate in a ceremonious 'toppling' of Bush's effigy, to replicate the staged toppling of Saddams in Baghdad.

I was thinking all the while, unless the world should end, there is no way Bush can divert the worlds media attention from this. If anything, there was nothing he could do, to avoid the British public from seeing that his war against terror was a phoney war. I was hoping the worlds media would broadcast the protests and images of the toppling effigy would be beamed throughout the world. Bush's calmness unnerved me.

It just wasn't logical.

On 20th November, I woke up expecting the news to be full of the protests. But it wasn't.

Someone had bombed the British consulate and HQ of the HSBC bank in Istanbul.

At 09:10 GMT the first blast had gone off outside the HSBC HQ, and 2 minutes later, the second bomb went off. At 09:18 GMT, news channels in Britain were stating 'Al-Qaeda has bombed the British consulate'.

I didn't understand. I watched the tv, to see how they had already figured out within 6 minutes that Al-Qaeda had done this. I searched frantically and all I could find were statements being released 'the bombings had all the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda'. I wonder even now, what these 'hallmarks' are.

I was at work, and I joked to a friend, that soon an e-mail would arrive at some Arab newspaper, where Al-Qaeda would accept responsibility. By lunchtime, a Turkish newspaper had received that e-mail. To this day, Al-Qaeda hasn't accepted responsibility for 9-11, 'their crowning achievement'. The faked CIA tape of a fake Bin Ladin, gloating about 9-11, has funnily stopped being shown on tv, since it was ripped to shreds by all who saw it. Al-Qaeda hasn't owned up to any of the terrorist acts that it is blamed of. Not until the perpetrators are in custody, do any admissions come out.

The Bali bombings, the first WTC, the Karachi hotel bombings, the Kandahar hijacking, 9-11.nothing. Al-Qaeda just don't do that. They don't admit they have done anything. Well not until recently, well..not until the US bombed Afghanistan and 'destroyed Al-Qaeda's communications capability'. Not until, Al-Qaeda's network has been dismantled, and the cells under close watch, and all communications between Bin Ladin and his followers, is now being made via messenger boys on donkeys. When Khalid Sheikh was arrested, he even said that Al Qaeda was no longer using e-mails or telephones to keep in touch, as it was too risky, and the CIA had tapped everything.

So I don't understand how these messenger boys send the e-mails on their donkeys.

It just isn't logical.

As the crowds gathered for the beginning of the protests, Bush and Blair gave a televised address to the world. They re-affirmed the war on terror, and cited the Istanbul bombings as an example of the kind of terror they were trying to fight.

Bush seemed to have almost memorised what to say, through days of practice. He condemned the acts and in his now familiar stage voice told the invasion on Iraq, was part of the fight against terrorism. I didn't know Saddam was part of Al-Qaeda until recently. Actually, I don't think Saddam knew he was part of Al Qaeda until recently.

The news networks all over the world were showing the picturing of bloodied faces, and the carnage in Istanbul. There was a small side mention of the 150,000 protestors who had marched through London, and toppled the effigy of Bush. But nothing more.

I sat there and watched Bush's interview again. The smile, the confidence. It was just perfect.

If ever there was a time that the US and UK needed an attack to occur against BRITISH interests, it was well.at about 09:10 GMT on 20 November 2003.

Many commentators have said that the 9-11 attacks happened at the right time for the US. And I think it is even more clear today that the Istanbul attacks have happened at just the right time for Bush and Blair.

Either Al-Qaeda doesn't know what it is doing, or this wasn't Al Qaeda. Al-Qaeda want the world to see the evil that Bush and Blair are doing. And the protests would have done that. There was no need to bomb Istanbul. The only, and reiterate ONLY people to benefit from the bombings are Bush and Blair. It diverted attention from the protests, to the 'terrorists'.

I wish I had terrorists like that on my side. The kind that bomb the UN in Baghdad, the day after the UN say that US forces should leave Iraq. The kind that bomb a Bali nightclub, the week 250,000 Australians took to the streets to protest the war. The kind that bomb a Riyadh compound full of Arabs, when Saudi Arabian citizens are beginning to become increasingly vociferous in their condemnation of the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Since 9-11, and some say including 9-11, Al Qaeda has practically done everything the US govt would ask its CIA to do. They have killed muslims. They have killed their European supporters. They have timed each bombing to maximise the amount of criticism they will receive and minimise the support for their actions. Is that the actions of the 'biggest threat to mankind, freedom and democracy' ? Logic tells me, that it isn't Al-Qaeda at all.

Now tell me, what does logic tell you ?

Posted by: Rizvan Anwar | January 25, 2006 01:44 PM

Rizvan Anwar wrote a treatise of this:
===========================================
The news of Michael Jacksons sex scandals were given 2nd rate coverage in light of the protests, which would culminate in a ceremonious 'toppling' of Bush's effigy, to replicate the staged toppling of Saddams in Baghdad.
===========================================

And...

===========================================
Now tell me, what does logic tell you ?
===========================================

Do you want fruit with that cereal? Like a fuzzy peach to go with the Coco for Coo-Coo puffs?

:blink: :blink:

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 25, 2006 02:08 PM

Rizvan Anwar wrote a treatise of this:
===========================================
The news of Michael Jacksons sex scandals were given 2nd rate coverage in light of the protests, which would culminate in a ceremonious 'toppling' of Bush's effigy, to replicate the staged toppling of Saddams in Baghdad.
===========================================
....cause we all know you the protest ain't serious unless there's giant paper mache heads involved!

Posted by: D. | January 25, 2006 03:05 PM

Whether OBL is dead or alive, could
very well be a moot point. Somehow he got tagged with being the leader of AlQuada, but
is he really? Maybe financially at one time, but not now, he is pretty much sidelined with nothing much to offer.
With this airial attack in Pakistan a couple
of weeks ago, it almost sounds like a Mob rubout
of four suiters vying for the number one spot
in AQ. This fellow invites his competition to
dinner, developes a ailment and sends his regrets that he cannot attend, then leaves enough evidence so that a armed unmanned drone would pick up the activity, and vaporize the dinner party, and thus eliminating all those who were looking to
be numero uno, all thanks to the U.S. military, which leaves no smoking gun finger prints that could lead back to wazz
his face,(i can't keep up with all the names). The deaths of innocent civilians
only adds to the hatred of Americans, thus
making sure that no one will turn on those
AQ leaders in that region. Pure Mob, but
the AQ must not have warring factions
amoungst themselves, and what better way
to eliminate the competition. Wam, Bam, thank you US Military.
And as for the so called son in law, big
deal, bing badda boom.
So this other guy becomes number one in AQ, and if OBL is alive, he sorta serves
on the Board of Directors while leaving
all the planning and operational duties, to this other fellow.
That audio tape doesn't prove whether OSL
is still alive. When we see a audio visual
tape of him, then that will dispell the
rumours of his death.

Posted by: Z | January 25, 2006 03:14 PM


I have a question for Chris Ford, are you an anti-semite? You continue in your partisan rants with negative sounding slams on, as in your words, "...and a staff of eager Jewish lawyers from the ACLU..." While, I know this was taken out of context. I did it to point out the tone in these lines, as used on more than one occassion. Do you hate lawyers? Or do you hate jews? or do you hate jewish lawyers?
So when you need to write your will, or divorce your wife, or have a business problem, and the list is countless...I guess you will not hire an attorney. Or at least not a jewish lawyer.
While, I will agree the left blames Bush for alot, but the thing I have noticed about many on the right side of the aisle, they love Bush (with his radical ideals) and blame or hate anyone unlike them them.
The worse thing is a narrow mind.

Posted by: imgaine | January 25, 2006 03:38 PM

and this is it.


there is no conspiracy, it's an operation.


we've been training the Saudi's since the inception of their government....

kuwait is next door to the Saudi's, next door to them are the Iraqi's....

Bush Sr. has been a career politician....he has a few connections....

he wa s CIA head before becoming president and vice president before that.....


madeline albright visited saddam hussein prior to his invasion of kuwait....she implied that it would be alright with the united states if he did that...

he did that....


we invaded Iraq and established military presence while becoming more intimately involved in oil productionin in kuwait and Saudi.....

somehow, 7 saudis managed to commandere some 747 and flew them into buildings after having been trained inthe united states.....


we invade a country which has not been connected to the 9/11 disaster/operation and say we are at war...


you r president who pushed for the invaision with "inadequate" information then gets war powers and starts changing things around so that what his people want to happen happens....


and you say, "is this all right?"


if you only had a brain, courage and a heart....


follow the yellow brick road....


follow the yellow brick road.....


there he is the wizard of homo, guns, gawd and youranus.......


children simply give me what I want and I won't call you terrorists.....


if you don't do that I'll call you terrorists an d take your rights away....

oh, I already did that witht he PaTRIoot ACTj.....

oh my, I guess I'll just raise your taxes, reduce your benefits, and send your jobs over seas while shutting down ford and chrysler......


ha ha ha what a bunch of sill y little children....


and sandy' s still trying to work his way up your but.

Posted by: there is a point at which you begin to tell the truth.... | January 25, 2006 04:07 PM

George W. Bush is clearly in cahoots with Bin Laden and bears lone responsibility for the 9-11 attacks.

He is also responsible for the Holocaust, the Aids epidemic, Michael Jackson's pedophilia, Ted Kennedy's drinking problem, and the comeback of Mariah Carey.

He should definately be impeached.(Especially for the last one.)

"We are so constituted that we believe the most incredible things; and, once they are engraved upon the memory, woe to him who would endeavor to erase them." -Goethe

Posted by: Jon M | January 25, 2006 04:38 PM

The Bin Laden tape is too conveniently a part of it to have been a mere GOP coincidence. The GOP rolled out the plan amid conflicting poll results. Zogby indicated Bush losing support among supporters; another poll showed Bush improving somewhat but indicating that "terrorism", as an issue, had become Bush's last redoubt.

Karl Rove has apparently acted upon that data at a time when the "war on terrorism" had become back page stuff. Even party moderates had said that the Bush specter of jihadists attacking inside U.S. borders was losing its sense of reality. Karl Rove, meanwhile, could be depended upon to act upon what he saw as weakness: Democrats "spooked"by suggestions that they are soft on terrorism.

The time had come to spook the Democrats again. What was needed, given the ambiguous nature of the raw data, was a new tape, a new threat from Bin Laden coupled with some "cheese" for Democratic "rats". Would they take the bait?

The "plan" is right out of the pages of a GOP "campaign manual":

1. The GOP gets a poll indicating good and bad news. The bad news is that the GOP gets whipped on every issue but terrorism. The "good" news for the GOP is, in fact, bad news for normal people; that is, bin Laden was allowed to get away at Tora Bora.

2. Bin Laden releases his latest production in which he both reviews and plugs a book, sounding more like an American blogger than an extreme, militant Islamic radical. But that's was the transparent trap set for the naive and the politically unwary. It's also better evidence that the tape was written by an American than it is evidence for Democratic "softness" on the issue of terrorism.

3. Rove's attack was most certainly planned in advance and its launch was timed.

On cue, armed with the latest poll, Karl Rove goes on the offensive:

o to distract Americans from the widespread corruption and rot that is literally shot through the GOP;

o to paint Democrats as "soft" on Bin Laden, when, in fact, it was Bush who let Bin Laden off the hook;

o to provide a "justification" for the unconstitutional expansion of totalitarian police powers by Bush!

Rove's offensive is evidence of the increasingly apparent fact: the GOP is whipped on every other issue but terrorism. It has become Bush's last redoubt

Significantly, Rove issues the unsolicited denial that his intention is to impugn the patriotism of Democrats! But "by protesting so strenuously, isn't that what he's done? Isn't it his intention to "associate" the Democratic party with bin Laden's statement? If not, then what was his purpose and what did he gain?

4. Roll out the pundits who will compare statements attributed to Bin Laden to the New York Times and "liberal" Democrats like John Kerry and Howard Dean. What the GOP strategists hadn't counted on was the fact that, despite their hopes, the so-called "librul" Democrats never embraced the contents of the tape. No one was suckered by the offers of a "truce". In fact, mention of the truce is most often to be found among the conservative pundits so eager to pin it on the Democrats that they did so before the Democrats could have possibly done so. Shades of Kenneth Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton's alleged lie which began before Clinton could possibly have told it.

Overlooked over the last few days is the fact that the much touted "truce offer" is mentioned most often ,not by Democrats who were expected to take the bait but by the GOP who must be terribly disappointed. On CBS "Face the Nation", Sen. Pat Roberts led with what became the GOP talking point du jour: ".there is a "lot of talk about this truce". Is that true? The only talk I've heard is from right wing pundits and politicians like Roberts, Rove, and Tucker Carlson. Someone forgot to tell the GOP that if you bait a trap, you must not pounce until the trap is sprung. The GOP was too eager and gave themselves ,and the game, away.

The plan, however, has achieved at least one Bush goal. It has deflected attention from the fact that Bush has no military option with regard to Iran. President Ahmadinejad's rhetoric sounds like early Bush ,all black and white, no shadow! It was most certainly Bush's absolutism that aided and abetted the rise of Ahmadinejad in Iran ,now seen by his own people as a strong man willing to stand up to Bush and the Western Imperialists. It was not so long ago that Iranian students demonstrated in American streets: "The Shah is a U.S. puppet; down with the Shah! The Ayatollah who replaced a fallen Shah was seen to be a bulwark against the "Great Satan".

Ahmadinejad is Bush's shadow, the beneficiary of Bush's reckless and inflammatory rhetoric. He has become a monster from Bush's ID. He is the living evidence that during Bush's regime and despite Bush's morally bankrupt policies the Middle East has grown more radical. Terrorism, specifically, has increased; the region as a whole is radicalized, inflamed, and destabilized.

Posted by: Len Hart | January 25, 2006 05:04 PM

George WMD Bush is The President of the United States in America and the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. He took an oath to God to Protect and Defend the US Constitution from Enemies Foreign AND Domestic, so yeah he bears some responsibility for AIPAC/PNAC's Operation 9-11, The Territorial Pissings In Iraq, The Looting of the US Treasury, Katrina, The 2006 Attacks, etc...

BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE (POOF!) USA! USA!

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Posted by: Tar and Feathers | January 25, 2006 05:18 PM

I think this blog should initiate a new debate in which people come up with the most outrageous, but somewhat convincing explanations of George Bush's intimate connections with Osama. Weave away! There are already some good condtenders listed here, so they better be good. The winner can be awarded a "Mark Twain fish story peoples choice golden globe blog statue."

Posted by: johhnyg in NE DC | January 25, 2006 05:24 PM

I always find the mainstream press' dismisal of "conspiracy theories" interesting. The technique is to decry anything that is has not been approved by the commissars as something we ought to "roll our eyes" over. I'm interested in proof and I've seen very little proof of anything substantial about Bin Laden by the officials of the press or the government that makes any sense. I frankly have no idea who Bin Laden is or how he gets away from his pursuers or if he even is alive or vacationing in the Carribean. You at the Post ought to examine evidence--and statements by officials (which is the chief reporting technique of the Post) is not evidence.

Posted by: Chris Stahnke | January 25, 2006 05:40 PM

Chimpy AbuMcHitlerBurton is actually a cyborg developed in a lab on the planet Ryelon, in the Draco constellation. He was sent by the Supreme Reptilian Council to enslave the planet, ban abortion and elevate Sam Alito to SCOTUS in preparation for the Ryelon invasion ("I for one, welcome our new reptilian overlords..."). Also, if he found the time, legalize pot.

Osama is actually a freedom fighter. An alien himself, he was sent by the Ryelons arch-enemies, the Nylons, to thwart evil George KatrinaGitmoBu$$h nefarious plans.

Little is known about Osama, except that he is rumored to have Jedi-like powers. When confronted by US Marines in the mountains of Tora Bora, he was alleged to have waved his hand and with one look from his dark, piercing, almost dreamy eyes, declared:

"These are not the terrorists you are looking for." And wandered off unmolested.

Well, thats my theory anyway.

Posted by: D. | January 25, 2006 06:04 PM

D.
Pffft. We're talking about conspiracy theories. Not proven fact. Duh.

Posted by: Freedom | January 25, 2006 06:21 PM

Let's not beat around the Bush on this.

You all believe these coincidences are.. coincidences? Entirely and completely? Why do you think that?

Didn't the second official act of President Bush in 2000 involve an executive order "evicerating" the FOIA..?

Posted by: TrustIsATwoWayStreet | January 25, 2006 06:22 PM

Len (and others)
It's so much simpler than you can imagine. The cleverly faked tape was produced by the publisher of the book OBL recommended. The "truce" was a ploy to protect the identity of the faker, who knew it would focus conspiricy theorists on political targets, and this would keep the mainstream media flogging the tape which contained within it the real message i.e. buy the book. Nothing unusual there. All journalists are happy to flog books, haven't you noticed? Its one interest they definitely have in common. Bush and the Democrats haven't figured it out either and are flopping around worrying that the other side might really be smarter than they are. Not to worry.

Posted by: Cayambe | January 25, 2006 06:47 PM

Please, someone come up with a Planet of the Apes analogy here! Make sure to include Dr. Zeus as GWB, bright eyes a Osama, and the forbidden zone!

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | January 25, 2006 07:04 PM

Imgaine -

To understand the agenda of any change-seeking organization, you have to understand who controls the power in that organization.

The ACLU is an organization whose preponderance of leadership, available legal muscle, and financing largely comes from secular Jews whose descendents come from the radical-communist tradition. It's agenda is to then pursue the objectives of that minority using the courts and bypassing democratic institutions where that minority cannot gain the power to influence outcomes they want.

Some of those agenda items, like attacking manifestations of Christianity in our society, bashing the boy scouts, promoting NAMLA, advancing the gay agenda, unchecked immigration, additional criminal rights, attempting to remove the individual right to keep and bear arms, and extend Constitutional protections and rights to foreign terrorists are opposed by many Americans.

This does not make such observation of secular, Leftist Jews driving towards goals the majority of Americans oppose - "anti-Semetic" through it's observation or criticism of agenda - anymore than noting the Family Values Association is financed and led by the evangelical Christian minority, pursuing a Fundie agenda - something the MSM never fails to point out. Nor is it "racist" to note that the African Export Treaty backers are African Nations, certain American black political action groups, and certain NGOs who are oppposed by certain predominantly white US agricultural interests.

There isn't a real "Victim card" to say that Jews cannot be criticized for cases of their of activism affecting the lives of other Americans - anymore than a "race card" shields black communities, groups, and individuals from legitimate criticism.

As for lawyers, Jewish or Gentile, they have a place in American society. But I take the position they have no place as activists in regularly seeking to bypass democratically elected entities and trump the will of the people through use of activist courts and judges to advance agenda items American society rejects..

Posted by: Chris Ford | January 25, 2006 07:39 PM

I defend the indefensible because by daddy hurt my bootom.....


atzaway cf....keep on pumpin them out maybe someone won't notice yougots some deficiencies.....mormons wouldn't take you....

kicke you out for being too swingy...passon pbrobate you need ot get some thknkng d....


get it?

do that?

Posted by: jeez wha t a moron.....please someone unpulg this howdy dooody..... | January 25, 2006 09:09 PM

Let this be a lesson. Say no to drugs!

Posted by: | January 25, 2006 09:17 PM

Chris Ford wrote, "As for lawyers, Jewish or Gentile, they have a place in American society. But I take the position they have no place as activists in regularly seeking to bypass democratically elected entities and trump the will of the people through use of activist courts and judges to advance agenda items American society rejects"
So what is your take on the "Family VAlues Groups, packed with extremist, "so-called christians" that offend mainstream Christians.. DO you believe that the THEY belong in activist roles pushing their radical agenda, that goes against Mainstream America?

you wrote, "This does not make such observation of secular, Leftist Jews driving towards goals the majority of Americans oppose - "anti-Semetic" through it's observation or criticism of agenda - anymore than noting the Family Values Association is financed and led by the evangelical Christian minority, pursuing a Fundie agenda - something the MSM never fails to point out.

I was just pointing out that your TONE was sounding anti-semetic, and racists, not your knowledge, (or right-wing spin take) of the ACLU.

And Thanks for the explanation of the ACLU, as a card carrying member, and NOT a jewish lawyer, I am well aware of when it started, by whom, and what they do. But you are also mistaken about what the ACLU actually does....So stop believing all the right wing spin masters orchestrated by Rove and Crew.

How well do you know the Constitution of the US? Much of what your groups are doing is going against the constitution, but I guess that is OK, for "christianity"? How well do you know your bible? It does not say anywhere to give more to the rich and take it from the poor....It was more like (paraphrased) everytime you do for the least you do for me!!! A true moral value.

Posted by: imagine | January 25, 2006 10:50 PM

As for lawyers, Jewish or Gentile, they have a place in American society.
Posted by: Chris Ford | Jan 25, 2006 7:39:40 PM

The point is that it doesn't matter if a lawyer is Jewish or Gentile, but for some reason that is of utmost importance to Chris Ford. 'Jewish ACLU lawyer' is a common term used by him in his posts, yet it is a pointless term, as there is no connection between Judaism and the ACLU. He should just drop it, or else start to share the wealth by criticizing Protestant ACLU lawyers, or maybe Buddhist ACLU lawyers, or even the dreaded atheist ACLU lawyer. After all, Chris, according to your extremist reactionary view, ACLU lawyers are the most horrible people on the planet... why should it matter to you what their religion is?

Posted by: ErrinF | January 26, 2006 03:21 AM

atzaway cf....keep on pumpin them out maybe someone won't notice yougots some deficiencies.....mormons wouldn't take you....
Posted by: jeez wha t a moron.....please someone unpulg this howdy dooody..... | Jan 25, 2006 9:09:37 PM

Think we could make posts here without denigrating Jews or Mormons or any religion, for that fact? Go after the moronic Chris Ford if you like, but don't act like a moron yourself by making unfair attacks on those of Mormon faith.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 26, 2006 03:32 AM

I don't believe the tape was faked but do acknowledge its' tone and semantics are different from previous recordings. I think its' because Bin Laden ses America as in a weakened position as we're bogged down in Iraq and Aghanistan. At the same time, HE'S in a weaker position as well. While the sprouting of new terrorist cells reflects the power of Bin Laden's impact it also illustates his increasing irrelevance as other bad actors take center state. Putting all that aside, the tape does deliver one inescapable point: George W. Bush is a MISERABLE FAILURE on national security.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal | January 26, 2006 07:11 AM

Unfortunately, Osama is more than a symbol. He's a strategist. Where his strategy has the U.S. now, is overspent financially and emotionally, paranoid from within and without, and sacrificing core principles of domestic liberty in ways from which we may never recover.

To his adherents, Osama holds forth a form of puritanical idealism that is effective in generating intolerant justifications for heartless violence against anyone different, and especially non-muslin foreigners. Guiltless hate paves the way for any variety of crazed response.

Until America persuasively is no longer the bad guy in ME eyes, we won't have a working strategy. The courage, compassion, and dedication of our forces in the field are supremely high offerings, but the other parts of our approach fall incompetently short. Plus, it has taken too much time already, and that has an overwhelming corrosive effect on public thinking.

Posted by: On the plantation | January 26, 2006 07:29 AM

Errin wrote:
===========================================
"Think we could make posts here without denigrating Jews or Mormons or any religion, for that fact?"
===========================================

Meanwhile, forgetting about racial slurs, too. :rolleyes:

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 26, 2006 07:30 AM

Johnnyg wrote:
===========================================
"I think this blog should initiate a new debate in which people come up with the most outrageous, but somewhat convincing explanations of George Bush's intimate connections with Osama. Weave away!"
===========================================

After reading the WP chat over the Howell vs. Invaders squabble, and it's fiasco (why on Earth have on the panel a person who orchestrated the same type of invasion? She was more interested on extracting dirt than being a panel member), here's my submission about this swarm that's invaded this blog...

======
Roach:
======
Alright give up the mic, baby
The roaches are in place,
I'm getting ready to rock

============
Bobby Jimmy:
============
We're not going to have no house roaches on this record
Take over my house, just get away...

My house is fine, I ain't got time
For roaches over here
Came home from a hard days work
And found they drank all my beer

My house is fine, I ain't got time
For roaches over here
Came home from a hard days work
And found they drank all my beer

======
Roach:
======
Wait a minute, man
Wait a minute, man
I'm the BADDEST roach around here

============
Bobby Jimmy:
============
Wait a minute, I don't want no roach...

======
Roach:
======
You told me I can rock

============
Bobby Jimmy:
============
Ah, ah...I don't want...

======
Roach:
======
Gimme the mic, gimme the mic...

============
Bobby Jimmy:
============

Rock man, Go, man yeah...

======
ROACH:
======

Well I be chillin' in the bathtub
Swimmin' in the pool
Eatin' leftovers
Is the golden rule
Well I'm the hip hop roach
And I'm raisin' hell
When I'm in NY
I'm down with LL

Rats don't like me
But I don't care
'cause I'm down by law
And this I swear
When I'm in L.A.
I'm down with Bobby Jimmy
I like bad drugs
And he's got plenty

The roach
The roach
The roach is on the wall

============
BOBBY JIMMY:
============

...Someone is at the door for you...

======
Roach:
======
What is this man?
What is this man?

========
Bug man:
========

This, this, this...is...RAID
Rah, rah, RAID...

======
Roach:
======
Wait, wait, wait, wait...

[RAID]
Gotta go man, gotta go!

[RAID]
GOODBYE!!

============
Bobby James:
============
YEAH!!!!!

Stop roaches from runnin' around
Stop roaches from runnin'
Stop roaches from runnin' around
Stop roaches from runnin'
Stop roaches from runnin' around
Stop roaches from runnin'
Stop roaches from runnin' around
Stop roaches from runnin'
Stop roaches from runnin' around
Stop roaches from runnin'
Stop roaches from runnin' around
Stop roaches from runnin'
Stop roaches from runnin' around
Stop roaches from runnin'

Stop!!

["Roaches" by Bobby Jimmy and The Critters]

lololol

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 26, 2006 08:15 AM

It's been 1,592 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Take bin Laden 'seriously,' Bush says
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11018747/
"Officials here learn information about plotters and planners and people who would do us harm," Bush said, reading from note cards. "Now, I understand there's some in America who say, 'Well, this can't be true there are still people willing to attack.' All I would ask them to do is listen to the words of Osama bin Laden and take him seriously."

Posted by: UBL - RIP | January 26, 2006 09:44 AM

OBL I love that link. How can our local spin doctors spin this. Check out SandyK the truth has made her completely unstable. Then we have Chris Ford who is another story. The lies in Bush's own words, good work.

Posted by: SpeakoutforDemocracy | January 26, 2006 09:59 AM

"As for lawyers, Jewish or Gentile, they have a place in American society. But I take the position they have no place as activists in regularly seeking to bypass democratically elected entities and trump the will of the people through use of activist courts and judges to advance agenda items American society rejects.."

Chris Ford, I've said it before: I'm very sorry that we have a Constitution. I can tell how much it irks you.

Posted by: Matthew | January 26, 2006 10:26 AM

The President should demand an Impeachment trial.
The one sure way to silence the critics and prove your point is to be vindicated in an Impeachment trial.

Posted by: Rob | January 26, 2006 12:01 PM

Errin wrote: =======================================
"Think we could make posts here without denigrating Jews or Mormons or any religion, for that fact?"
=======================================
Meanwhile, forgetting about racial slurs, too. :rolleyes:
SandyK
Posted by: SandyK | Jan 26, 2006 7:30:22 AM

Sure, Sandy. And yet you leave out any mention of religious slurs when you write posts denouncing racial slurs. How come it is imperative of me to discuss the topic of race when the subject of my post was religion, and yet it isn't imperative of you to discuss the topic of religion when the subject of your posts have been race? Is your reading comprehension to the level yet where you can grasp that you are setting a double standard when it comes to having to condemn racial and religious slurs in tandem?
But, besides the fact that your post was merely your usual feud-lovin' snarkiness, I'll gladly address the subject, Sandy. I completely concur with you that racial slurs should be kept out of the Debate, or any valid debate for that matter. I also agree with you completely on what you seem to take issue with most when it comes to race denigration: The use of the word 'Jap' to describe/denigrate Japanese people or those of Japanese descent. Some people seem to think they can use that word merely as World War 2 terminology, but that was a deliberately offensive word back then, and it is still an offensive word now. Enough with using the 'J' word these days when the term 'Japanese' is more accurate and appropriate.
Now I'll just have to see if SnarkyK appreciates this post, or merely looks for any little fault within it, made up or otherwise, to snipe about.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 26, 2006 01:09 PM

Whoever said that Bush doesn't want to catch Osama is crazy or stupid or both. Why would he not want to catch the man that masterminded what would have been an attack on the place he presently calls home had it not been for the heros that died in that Pennsylvania field? Why do people always seem to forget those brave souls and what they died for? I don't and I never will. I'm proud those people lived and died for what they stood for, which is much more than I can say for most Americans, with the exception of our military.
As for the other person that said it only takes about 9 months to catch a fugitive with only the FBI and police looking apparently doesn't realize that the FBI and police only work in the US. When it comes to finding someone overseas their hands are tied and in many cases so are ours. We can't find him because he's on his home turf, not ours. If he was here we'd already have him--there's no doubt about that, but he's not and we can't find someone who is being protected and hidden by hundreds of his followers and sympathizers. If we could it would probably mean he didn't really have their loyalty and without that 9-11 wouldn't have happened, nor the attack on the USS Cole before that, nor any of the other attacks. And, like the other person said, with the satelite feed you can't tell if it's a man or a woman let alone who the person might be. And, if you haven't noticed, they all tend to dress alike over there. It's not like finding Britney Spears in a crowd of people with their clothes on. It's like finding an ant in an anthill.

Posted by: Melissa | January 26, 2006 02:06 PM

Melissa wrote:
===========================================
"Why would he not want to catch the man that masterminded what would have been an attack on the place he presently calls home had it not been for the heros that died in that Pennsylvania field?"
===========================================

Think drug stings. Officials wouldn't send a team of ATF agents into a warehouse that a drug network uses to store/distribute drugs. They'll wait weeks/months/years for the little fish to give up the big one (and also expose the network, from the money laundiers, to the runners).

In case folks haven't noticed, the officials are trying to knock out the top heads *at once*, not one by one. There's a reason behind that stragedy as well.

So all the rah rah proclaiming, "Bush is failing" may be totally false, because there might even be a bigger fish than OBL that'll be knocked out, too.

Moral: never judge a book by it's cover.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 26, 2006 05:34 PM

Errin sneered:
==========================================
"How come it is imperative of me to discuss the topic of race when the subject of my post was religion, and yet it isn't imperative of you to discuss the topic of religion when the subject of your posts have been race?"
==========================================

Because you'll allow it.

What's the difference between these slurs:

"Nigger" and "Japs"?

When you truly against discrimination you'd know neither is acceptable language to use.

Any other excuse is hypocrisy.

Sidenote: partisans are like racists too. They demonize the other party; make their foe "inferior" (hook/crook/legislation); judge them by biases; and even try to get them killed because of their beliefs.

And before the gripes of Bush (Republicans) inprisoning folks in Gitmo and all matches Area 51's legend, think about FDR (Democrats) inprisoning in concentration camps, and revoking the Constitutional rights of Japanese-Americans.

Yeah, there's a lot of hypocrisy to go around.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 26, 2006 05:45 PM

SandyK,
I agree with the statement, never judge a book by its cover. But the problem with this idea is that it can only be applied in this scenario as an afterthought, after the fact. If/When we catch OBL&Co, people will be able to look with hindsight and make judgements based on the knowledge of what has been going on behind the scenes. Until then, people must make decisions based off of the info that is available to them.

In your moral, the only part anyone can see is the 'cover.' To work with an administration, as informed citizens voting in elections, one must make judgements based on whatever information is available to them. The administration might have a plan in place that will make dissenters eat their words. Or no plan might be in place and it will come to light in later years that Bush simply failed at coming through with his promise of catching OBL and making this country safer. No one knows, and until information is released stating otherwise, people must make decisions based off of what IS known. For many, with the information that is known about Bush and past dealings, the benefit of the doubt cannot be given in the hopes that something will emerge later that exonerates current visible problems.

Posted by: Freedom | January 26, 2006 05:57 PM

SandyK,
When you right about hypocrisy, you compare a current case to something that happened 50 years ago. While I agree that they are both horrible, there is a flaw in your argument. You assume that the current people speaking out against Gitmo would not speak out against Japanese concentration camps. To think that the minds of political parties cannot change over so long a time is an argument based in mere suppostion, with little fact or strength behind it. I personally find both situations abhorrent. All this arguement seems to prove in my mind is that in the last 50 years, one political party has learned from its mistakes while another has not.

As a sidenote, your attack on ErrinF seems to be a restatement of the very point that ErrinF was getting at. You denounce one thing, ErrinF denounces another. ErrinF was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of your criticism.

/Yes kids, the word of the day IS hypocrisy

Posted by: Freedom | January 26, 2006 06:04 PM

Right=write in the first sentence. My mistake!

Posted by: Freedom | January 26, 2006 06:07 PM

It's been 1,593 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

General Says Troops in Iraq 'Stretched'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Meanwhile, the U.S. command announced that two more American soldiers died Wednesday -- one in a bombing south of Baghdad and a second of wounds suffered in a rocket attack in Ramadi. At least 2,238 members of the U.S. military have died since the Territorial Pissings in Iraq began.

Is Democracy Empowering Islamists?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0127/p01s01-usfp.html
Is Theocracy Empowering Islamists?

Why should one more American die for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq?

Posted by: UBL - RIP | January 27, 2006 08:14 AM

"had it not been for the heros that died in that Pennsylvania field? Why do people always seem to forget those brave souls and what they died for?"

Flight 93 was shot down by Bush/Cheney!

They died for AIPAC, PNAC, and Bush/Cheney 04!

Bush ignored pre-9/11 warnings, Lied to the US Congress, illegally spied on Critics in the US and UN, is commanding an illegal war in Iraq, Operating Death squads and Secret Prisons, Ordering Torture, Tar and Feathers are too good for the US Government, Republicans and Democrats! Wake the hell up stupid ugly Americans.

USA! USA! USA!

Posted by: Americans R Cowards | January 27, 2006 08:19 AM

After letting Bin Laden slip away at Tora Bora, and after hearing Bush say, "I don't think about [Bin laden] anymore" the logical conclusion to be reached is that the Bin Laden family has made clear to the Bush family that killing one of its members, (whatever is said publicly) would be unacceptable to the entire clan and make them enemies of the Bush family, and the U.S. What's the structure of Saudi society based on? It's tribal. What does a tribe do when one of its own is murdered? Connect the dot, people.

Posted by: michaelsi@uawlsp.com | January 27, 2006 09:14 AM

shit stinks whenever it happens...


just make sure you're not enabling it....get me?

Posted by: he y perp.... | January 27, 2006 12:40 PM

shit stinks whenever it happens...


just make sure you're not enabling it....get me?

Posted by: he y perp.... | January 27, 2006 12:40 PM

Michaelsi wrote:
===========================================
"Bin Laden family has made clear to the Bush family that killing one of its members, (whatever is said publicly) would be unacceptable to the entire clan and make them enemies of the Bush family..."
===========================================

That's a false statement, as his relations have excommunicated him. Just like that Jordanian thug's family did. For their loyalty to their king is higher than to a wayward son (and the king's punishment can be quite swift to the entire family for high treason).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 28, 2006 08:22 AM

It's been 1,594 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

U.S. posts wrong photo of al-Qaida operative
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11042211/
How many people have been tortured to death because of a "wrong photo"?

Documents Show US Army Seized Wives As Tactic
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_leveraging_wives
It's called kidnapping and holding for ransom, and in civilized countries it is illegal.

A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm
Like this one you are using right now?

Posted by: UBL - RIP | January 28, 2006 08:33 AM

that's good one. that's why he's in a hospital bed in Riyadh every monday a t 6:30 PM....

but you would know that wouldn't you

Posted by: his relations have excommunicated him.... | January 28, 2006 01:07 PM

4.5 million illegal aliens.....taking your jobs at walmart...


while your boss pays you to post and make sure no one finds out....


you're the trojan horse spewing out "don't look there..."


may the lord bless you with courage.

Posted by: who's gaurding the hen house.... | January 28, 2006 01:15 PM

twit.

Posted by: connect the dot to an actual idea | January 28, 2006 01:17 PM

1) The Northern Alliance Leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud , is buried - paving the way for installation of an oil company company executive , Hamid Karzai. The likey perps : British intelligence and Pakistan's ISI 2) The head of Pakistani intelligence arrives in Washington on this day , after wiring 100k to Mohamed Atta. An asset of British intelligence , Omar Saeed Sheikh, facilitates the transaction. 3) Sir David Manning ,Tony Blair's top foreign policy advisor, meets with Deputy Sec. of State , Rich Armitage in Washington - the latter a recipient of Pakistan's highest civilian honour. 4) Tom Kenney arrives in NYC late in the evening of 9/10/11. He tells Dan Rather on live TV that his FEMA crew were in the city for an emergency disaster preparedness drill to be conducted the following morning. FEMA denies this claiming that Kenney is mistaken . FEMA insists that the crew arrived in resonse to the events of 9/11. Mayor Rudoph Guliani , testifying before the 9/11 Commission, sided with Kenney's version of events 5 ) Investment banking giant Goldman Sachs issues a terror alert to it's employees and clients on this day . Clients and executives worldwide are admonished to avoid close proximity to tall buildings. 6) NSC advisor Condoleezza Rice decides that she will call former SF Mayor Willie Brown to urge him to cancel his flight to NYC scheduled for the following morning. 7) Attorney General John Ashcroft continues his practice of flying on private chartered jets ,citing unspecified "security concerns" 8) Top Pentagon civilian leaders suddenly cancel their flights scheduled for the mornong of 9/11/01. 9) Detailed plans for the invasion of Afghanistan arrives on the desk of US President George W. Bush on 9/10/01. 10 ) Executives working at the Twin Towers Complex begin to arrive in Omaha , Nebraska . The following morning they will attend a charity breakfast and participate in a golf tournament sponsored by billionaire investor Warren Buffet. The location for this event is Offut Air Force Base . The president of the United states would arrive at Offut AFB hours later. 11) Operatives of Mossad receive word that tommorrow is "D-Day". The following morning they will video the World Trade Centre as planes crash into the two gigantic buildings - much to their glee. 12 ) Open interest in put option soar for stocks in reinsurance companies and large air carriers. Many of these trades are handled through the private investment banking division of Alex Brown/ Deutschbank in Germany. The head of that division resigns days later. 13 ) The former head of the counterintelligence division of the FBI, John O'Neill , is preparing for his first day of work at his new job , head of security for the World Trade Centre complex. His first day on the job would tragically be his last day on earth. 14 ) One of the largest war games in history is assembling within shouting distance of Afghanistan. The deployment of 22,000 British troops is that nation's largest deployment since World War 2. 15) The final preparations for another emergency disaster preparedness drill are taking place at the Defence Dept. Some crazy idea about an airplane striking the Pentagon . As the drill commences ,a real plane strikes the Pentagon, leaving drill participants in total quandry - not knowing whether they are reacting to a simulated "disaster" or the real deal. The Navy Captain (Res. ) who helped prepare these disaster drills is the lead pilot of the plane that actually crashed into the Pentagon. That part of the Pentagon where these drills are planned is the location where the plane exact it's fatal toll on passengers and employees of the Defence Dept.

Posted by: 9/10/01 : ON THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION | January 28, 2006 04:18 PM

On leave from destruction spewed:
===========================================
"employees of the Defence Dept."
===========================================

Isn't your Commie newspapers feeding you UKers too much caviar? You know the vodka pickled variety??

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | January 28, 2006 06:42 PM

blat burp...beep...oink...


cheezus christ....


climb out of the gene pool now....with your hands up....


put them over your head....


frickin twins of abrogation.

Posted by: jeez what a *ussy... | January 28, 2006 08:17 PM

It's been 1,595 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

US Military Deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan - 2,354 US dead to date (and rising)
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2110.htm
There is excellent reason to believe that the Department of Defense is deliberately not reporting a significant number of the dead in Iraq.

OCCUPIED BAGHDAD, The New Iraq - The U.S. military announced the death of Two American soldiers in roadside blasts in Baghdad.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2006/jan/29/012906299.html
"At least" 2,242 U.S. military personnel have died since the Iraq war began in March 2003, 16,420 U.S. military personnel have been wounded.

About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7170.htm
The risk of a violent death is now 58 times higher than it was before the invasion.

The number of Afghan civilians killed by US bombs has surpassed the death toll of the 11 September attacks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1740538.stm
"I think that a much more realistic figure would be around 5,000. You know for Afghanistan, 3,700 to 5,000 is a really substantial number."

The official count records 2,986 deaths in the attacks, including the nineteen hijackers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
Critics across the political spectrum dismiss much of this speculation about 9/11 as Conspiracy theories that range from the dubious to the fantastic.

A Zogby International Poll published August 30, 2004 reported that half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall believe that some U.S. leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act!

Posted by: UBL - RIP | January 29, 2006 08:34 AM

Let's see now: Prez dropping in the polls; impeachment talk over illegal wiretaps gaining traction; majority of Americans now supporting withdrawal from Iraq; Abramoff scandal reaching into the White House; big push starting for war with Iran; the Bush gang reduced to defending their crime, deception and despotism with their last, threadbare card, the "terrorist threat".....

Why, yes, I think it's about time for a guest shot from Osama!

And so the deadly symbiosis between that dynamic, death-peddling duo, Bush and bin Laden, goes on. And as usual, the timing -- even the wording -- of the terrorist's bloviation falls, with eerie perfection, into lock-step with Bush's political needs. As noted above, the only way Bush can justify his now-open establishment of a de facto dictatorship -- arbitrary rule by "the unitary executive" -- is by the constant, hysterical invocation of a terrorist threat. To meet this threat, to preserve "our way of life," says Bush, we must shred all of our inherent liberties, our inalienable rights, our constitutional freedoms, our centuries-old system of checks and balances; we must give all power to the Leader, who will protect the only thing that matters: our skin. This is of course a cynical and absurd argument; no terrorist attack, no matter how massive, could destroy the American republic. This can only be done from the inside -- and only by the deliberate choice of those in power. At every turn, the Bush gang has sought to instil a blind, quaking, automatic fear in the American people, so that when they hear the word "terror," they jump to the Boss's tune, they run for cover and burn the Constitution to keep them warm in their hidey-hole. It's been a remarkable exercise, really: the attempt to create a polity of cowards.

And if there is another terrorist attack in the United States -- as there certainly will be, given the fact that the Bushists deliberately allowed bin Laden to escape capture at Tora Bora in 2001 (more on this topic here next week), and have swelled the terrorist ranks with their murderous war in Iraq -- the last vestiges, the last pretenses of American civil rights and individual liberty will be stripped away. The people have long been inculcated with this idea, from top Bushists such as General Tommy Franks: if there is another terrorist attack in the "Homeland," then "the Constitution might be suspended." This is now the "conventional wisdom," a widely accepted notion -- despite there being no reason for such an action whatsoever. Yet the militarist-corporatist faction now represented by the Bushists -- which has long dreamed of suspending the civic order and ruling by decree and martial law, and has in fact been planning for this eventuality for decades -- will doubtless seize the day when the next attack comes. As Bush himself said just days after the September 11 attacks, when the bodies of the dead were still compacted with the smoking ruins of the Twin Towers: "Through my tears, I see opportunity."

So here we are. The dictatorship is now in the open, as the Justice Department's tortured "defense" of Bush's high crime of arbitrary spying this week proves once again. Like the "signing statement" that eviscerated the much ballyhooed "anti-torture bill," the latest load of cringing mendacity from that most servile minister, Attorney General Al Gonzales, again confirms the Bushist principle that the president is simply above the law: there is nothing he cannot do, no crime he cannot order in the exercise of his "plenary powers." But despite this naked display of apish chest-thumping -- "Me top monkey! You do me homage! You pick my fleas, bring me best fruit!" -- there are disturbed rumblings amongst the rabble. Recent polls show a majority of Americans support impeachment if it is proved that Bush ordered wiretaps without a court order. (The proof is copious, of course; and indeed, the criminal act is openly admitted by Bush.) A majority of Americans believe the Iraq war is a mistake and want the troops withdrawn. The new Medicare fiasco -- which has seen multitudes of the sick and old suffering needlessly -- will further embitter large swathes of the people against their cruel and rapacious masters.

What then can save the Leader? What can preserve, enhance and extend the power of his faction to carry on God's work (which naturally overrides any puny restrictions of human law)? What can keep the machine grinding forward, and keep the money rolling in? Only fear. Only cowardice. Only terror -- terror from without to justify the terror from within.

So terror is what we are going to get. I've written of this symbiosis many times, and a conclusion once drawn years ago is even more true today: Dazed by the lure of loot and glory, hamstrung by their own wilful ignorance of the complexities of history and human nature, the third-rate thugs of the Bush Regime have entered into a collaboration with the equally dazed, equally ignorant bin Laden mafia. Each gang draws meaning and justification from the other, each cloaks its own criminality and murder in the guise of a crusade against the other's evil. And both draw their power and profit from the same unrenewable natural resource:

The blood of innocent people.

Posted by: Chris Floyd | January 29, 2006 09:30 AM

Hey You over the top idiot liberals. You want to know the truth about bin laden that your lying liberal media hides from you. It is your beloved impeached purjurer Bill Clinton who had 3 opportunities to take bin laden yet passed on him because he was too busy pulling his zipper up and down. This is why 911 occured and why we are in this war! You do nothing terrorist appeasers look the other way!

Read the truth that your beloved liberal media hides from you terrorist appeasing cut & run losers!

Richard Miniter's new book, "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," tells the sad, infuriating history of the number of opportunities President Clinton had to capture and imprison or kill the terrorist Osama bin Laden. Instead, we are still hunting. Bin Laden is still at large and alive enough to sponsor and concoct the details of the worst attack on America in our history -- the destruction of the World Trade Center and the bombing of the Pentagon. What other horrors he is planning we do not know, simply because he is still uncaptured.
That reality is the sickening part of this remarkably well-researched and -sourced new book. Mr. Miniter -- part of the reporting team that broke the "The Road to Ground Zero" story in the Jan. 6, 2002 London Sunday Times -- has told how many real, actual and missed opportunities the Clinton administration had to capture and defang bin Laden. Why in the world would any U.S. administration not accept any and all offers to help dispose of one of the most vicious and well-financed terrorist leaders?
For several reasons, as the author points out.
The Clinton foreign policy was to get re-elected. Therefore, anything that might be controversial had to be avoided. So, from the beginning to the end of the administration, the Clintons "demanded absolute proof before acting against terrorists." This high bar guaranteed inaction. At the beginning of his term, after the attack of Feb. 26, 1993, Mr. Clinton refused to admit that the World Trade Center had been bombed. Later, he referred to it only as "regrettable" and "treated the disaster. . . like a twister in Arkansas." Earlier, he had "urged the public not to 'overreact' to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing."
That attitude was typical of the Clintonites. The president did not want to hear about bad news -- such as our terrible losses in October 1993, when Black Hawk helicopters were shot down in Mogadishu, Somalia, or the even more terrifying losses in New York. That would require a strong response which might upset some of the strange group of advisors and officials Mr. Clinton had collected. So it was with all the other missed opportunities to get bin Laden. CIA Director James Woolsey rarely had any meetings with Mr. Clinton. The president never supported Mr. Woolsey's urgent request for Arabic-language translators for the CIA in 1994. A separate feud between Mr. WoolseyandSen.Dennis DeConcini, Arizona Democrat, was allowed to run its course without direction by the Clinton White House, which further set back the CIA director's appeal for Arabic translators. So, as the author concludes, "a bureaucratic feud and President Clinton's indifference kept America blind and deaf as bin Laden plotted."
The Sudanese would offer to let the U.S. see their intelligence files and all the data they had gathered about bin Laden and the associates who had visited him in Sudan, "and would be repeatedly rebuffed through both formal and informal channels. This was one of the greatest intelligence failures of the Clinton years as the result of orders that came from the Clinton White House." Had the Clinton administration accepted and examined these files, countless terrorists could have been tracked. Sudan's offer to arrest bin Laden and deliver him to U.S. officials was likewise refused.
The Clinton Administration did try to get Saudi Arabia to accept bin Laden from Sudan, but the Saudi government apparently had as difficult a time as Mr. Clinton in making up its mind. The issue finally resolved itself thus: "The Clinton Administration refused to work with the government of Sudan," and so all the Sudanese efforts to help us by cooperating in the capture and delivery of bin Laden failed. Nothing more happens -- even after Mr. Clinton won re-election in November 1996.
This is the long sad story of the Clinton Administration's blind refusal to accept offer after offer to deliver one of the world's terrorist leaders before and after his minions killed thousands in various terrorist attacks. The book is climaxed by a documented recital of the links between bin Laden's al Qaeda units and Iraq that should convince all but the most extreme Bush-haters that these links exist and continue. In all of this, we should try to remember and be grateful for the brilliant military achievements of our forces in overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
There have always been disputes within administrations. What is important is to contrast the methods President Reagan used to resolve these differences with Mr. Clinton's indecisiveness. If Mr. Reagan had so feared taking any kind of position that might become controversial or might injure his chances for re-election, as Mr. Clinton did every day, we would never have won the Cold War. "Losing bin Laden" is a valuable history that should serve as a training manual in how not to run a foreign policy.

Posted by: John | January 29, 2006 01:59 PM

I'm not a liberal or a neo conservative, I'm an American. The US Media isn't liberal or conservative, it is corporate, and they should be "brought to justice" for their war crimes along with the Republicans AND Democrats in the US Government. You neo con chickenhawk terrorist appeasing cut & run losers have cut and ran from Afghanistan, ran from Bin Laden, are preparing to cut and run from Iraq, etc! The Wargames on Operation 911 occured because AIPAC and PNAC needed a "New Pearl Harbor"! The US Government war warned about 911 and did nothing? You do nothing terrorist appeasers look the other way! The Bush foreign policy was to get re?elected. Do I believe everything anyone says? No. Should I? No. Everyone should be skeptical, but everyone should also avail themselves of the utmost accurate information, and it is by considering opposing views that we find what may be at the heart of a matter, and not just what we look for because of what's in our hearts. Wake the hell up!

Posted by: John = Stupid Ugly American | January 29, 2006 03:36 PM

Right John, and I'll add this:

How is it that we, the US, seem to be the only ones catching flack for this. Why? Because we seem to be alone at the front including few others in the globe, who are actually working towards that goal.

Terrorist appeasers is an apt description of those who are quick to critizize, but whose acts would amount to nothing, NOTHING, appreciable towards capturing and killing these guys.

Those in the Clinton administration were too busy diversifying and "reinventing" agencies like the CIA, putting inexperienced personnel (many women and those of diverse ethnic background) in leadership positions. I am not against women being in charge or in any position, but the way it was carried out was silly and destructive. It takes years to absorb the intitutional knowledge needed to make sound judgements and recommendations in these specialized areas.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | January 29, 2006 03:37 PM

The 9/11 Commission Report endorses the official conspiracy theory, according to which the attacks of 9/11 were carried out solely by al-Qaeda, under the direction of Osama bin Laden. I am looking at this report from the perspective of the alternative conspiracy theory, according to which officials of the US government were involved. Although the Commission did not mention this alternative hypothesis, it was clearly seeking to undermine its plausibility. One way to do this would be to show that, contrary to those who hold this hypothesis, the Bush administration did not have any interests or plans that could have provided a sufficient motive for arranging or at least allowing such murderous attacks on its own citizens. The Commission did not do this directly, by explicitly addressing the motives alleged by those who endorse the alternative hypothesis. But it did not do it indirectly, by portraying the Bush administration, and the US government more generally, as devoid of motives in question.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20051202&articleId=1391
If we move beyond the 9/11 Commission's simplistic and noncontextual account of the Bush administration's reasons for attacking Iraq, we can see that the stakes were immense, involving not only trillions of dollars but also global geopolitical control.

i.e.

Beating Around the Bush By the Bourse
http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=589&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Only bimbos believed Bush when he said it was WMD's that made him attack, invade, occupy and massacre Iraq. Most of us thought it was to steal Iraq's oil, but we were only partly right. What totally terrorized the tyrannical Texan tycoon was when Saddam played the oil bourse card in November, 2000. When Saddam started selling Iraqi oil in euro's, he jeopardized greenback hegemony as the world's supreme foreign exchange transaction currency. If this brilliant idea catches on, it will trigger the total collapse of the USA economy. The oil grab is a sideshow. The main feature is the oil bourse.

U.S. IN TECHNICAL DEFAULT
http://financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2006/0127b.html
The US Government debt has breached the Congressionally mandated debt ceiling. The US is headed into a hyperinflationary spiral and is looking to blame "the enemy" for it when the oversupply of notes starts to become apparent to everyone.

This is a Government terrified of its own people!

Spies, Lies and Wiretaps
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/opinion/29sun1.html?_r=3
A bit over a week ago, President Bush and his men promised to provide the legal, constitutional and moral justifications for the sort of warrantless spying on Americans that has been illegal for nearly 30 years. Instead, we got the familiar mix of political spin, clumsy historical misinformation, contemptuous dismissals of civil liberties concerns, cynical attempts to paint dissents as anti-American and pro-terrorist, and a couple of big, dangerous lies.

Posted by: Johnny Tremain in the Homeland | January 29, 2006 03:49 PM

Hey John Tremain:

Here is why you liberals continue to lose on ideas and why you will never be in power again. You have a lying liberal media such as the Washington Post who fails to report two sides of the story. Why? because they know people who have any intellectual honesty can form an opinion on two views. They continue to keep you liberals in the dark because they know you're complete morons. Read what the Clinton administration did regarding the NSA and answer this question, did you ever read about this in your liberal media and if the answer is no, why? You people need to wake up the liberal media is the same as Al Jazeera they hate this country! Ask your lying liberal friends in the media at the Al Jazeera Post & DNC Times for the truth about Clinton administration and the NSA. If your smart you can come to your own conclusion, I did!!!

Thursday, Jan. 12, 2006 11:34 a.m. EST

NY Times: 'Illegal' Spying OK Under Clinton

Last month, when the New York Times revealed to the world that the Bush administration had a top secret National Security Agency program that monitored communications between al Qaeda terrorists and their U.S.-based agents, it strongly condemned the operation as a dangerous and possibly illegal invasion of privacy.

However, the Old Gray Lady wasn't nearly as upset over a much broader surveillance program under the Clinton administration, which routinely monitored millions of phone calls between U.S. citizens without a court ordered warrant.

In fact, the paper called the blanket invasion of privacy a "necessity" - even though it was carried out without the justification provided by the 9/11 attacks.

The American Thinker web site has unearthed Times quotes from 1999, when the paper was reacting to reports on the NSA's Echelon project under Bill Clinton, which randomly trolled U.S. telecommunications looking for trouble.

"Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists," the Times explained helpfully.

The same report quoted an NSA official assuring Times readers "that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards."

These days, however, the Old Gray Lady doesn't like to talk about Echelon. In the dozens of stories on the Bush NSA operation since reporter James Risen "broke" the story on December 16, the Times has mentioned the older NSA program only once.

In a December 22 report by Timesman Scott Shane, the paper dismissed "reports on an agency program called Echelon [asserting] that the agency and its counterparts in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia somehow intercepted all world communications," calling such claims "exaggerated."

Posted by: John | January 29, 2006 09:17 PM

Friday, Jan. 20, 2006 9:36 a.m. EST

Bin Laden Echoes Dem War Critics


Print Friendly Version

Forward this Page

E-mail NewsMax

RSS Feed


Reprint Information

Bin Laden Tape Warns of Attacks on U.S.

Bono's Politics Changing the World

Clinton Library to Open Records

Bolivia's Evo Morales Sparks Fashion Craze

Minority Leader Reid Apologizes to GOP

Here it is our enemies the liberal media and all our democrat friends spewing the same hate america rhetoric! And you moron liberals wonder why you can't win elections!!!


Osama bin Laden is nothing if not a quick study - as his audiotaped message, replete with echoes of complaints from Iraq war critics on Capitol Hill, amply shows.

In fact, the terror mastermind invoked one Democratic Party talking point after another in his bid to convince America that George Bush was leading to U.S. down the path to ultimate destruction.

When Ted Kennedy, for instance, complained last year that Saddam Hussein's torture prisons had been reopened "under U.S. management," Osama was clearly listening.

Warming to Kennedy's theme, the al Qaeda chief griped:

Story Continues Below

"Jihad (holy war) is ongoing, thank God, despite all the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S. Army and its agents (which is) to a point where there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality . . . . As for torturing men, they have used burning chemical acids and drills on their joints. And when they give up on (interrogating) them, they sometimes use the drills on their heads until they die. Read, if you will, the reports of the horrors in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons."

Bin Laden also borrowed a page from top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi, who announced after last July's train bombings in London that President Bush's "fight them there, not here" strategy plainly wasn't working.

"The mujahideen (holy warriors), with God's grace, have managed repeatedly to penetrate all security measures adopted by the unjust allied countries," Osama proclaimed. "The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the European nations who are in this aggressive coalition."

And it appears that bin Laden agrees with Sen. John Kerry's condemnations of President Bush's premature "Mission Accomplished" declaration, with the terror kingpin decrying the episode as the "fake, ridiculous show aboard the aircraft carrier."

Bin Laden also paid homage to Delaware Democrat Joe Biden, who regularly turns up on TV to complain that security in Iraq is no better than when the U.S. invaded three years ago, and that troops privately confide in him that their predicament is perilous.


New Stock Market Report - Limited Time Offer!

Senate Dems Obstruct Vote On Judge Alito

Vanguard's Nasty Secret-Free Independent Rpt.

U.S. Comptroller: Financial Collapse Looming

"[The] war in Iraq is raging with no let-up and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favor," Bin Laden confirmed. "And Pentagon figures show the number of your dead and wounded is increasing not to mention the massive material losses, the destruction of the soldiers' morale there and the rise in cases of suicide among them."

There was even a passing reference to New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who never fails to qualify her "support" for the Iraq war by complaining about how badly Bush has mismanaged it.

"I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed," Osama announced, early on in his message.

And what Bin Laden speech would be complete without an allusion to the wisdom of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who last month predicted that the U.S. would lose the war.

"Declaring this defeat is just a matter of time," the terror mastermind confirmed. "The sensible people realize that Bush does not have a plan to make his alleged victory in Iraq come true."

Posted by: John | January 29, 2006 09:43 PM

Abramoff & Harry Reid:

Have you moron liberals seen anything about this in your lying Washington Post or DNC Times? Open your eyes liberals the liberal media is playing you people as complete moron's!!!!


Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) chastized Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Wednesday for Reid's hypocritical sermonizing on congressional ethics.

"The idea that Senator Reid would attack other senators for taking Abramoff-related donations is laughable," DeMint said, noting Reid is "among the top recipients of these funds in Congress, and still refuses to return or donate the money."

"And now," DeMint continued, "he is using his taxpayer funded office to put out what amounts to campaign attacks. Senator Reid should clean up his own act before lecturing the rest of Congress on ethics."

On January 11, the Washington Times reported federal investigators were focusing on Reid and four other lawmakers in their probe of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The other lawmakers alleged to be "first tier" targets are Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.); Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.); Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.); and Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio).

Reid has consistently denied ties to the Abramoff scandal. In December, he told Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace, "Don't try to say I received money from Abramoff. I've never met the man, don't know anything."

But a November Associated Press article revealed that Reid had accepted money from the Coushatta Indian tribe, an Abramoff client, just one day after interceding with Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton over a casino dispute with another tribe.

Reid reportedly sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002. "The next day," according to the AP, "the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff sent an additional $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004."

DeMint's criticism did not stop with Reid. He also questioned what he alleged to be a non-existent Democratic agenda.

"Democrats look like a bunch of rodeo clowns creating distractions," he said. "They are hoping that Americans don't notice their lack of ideas or solutions for today's challenges. It's been months since they promised to unveil a real legislative agenda, yet we still have heard nothing."

DeMint was referring to reports since October that Democrats were preparing to unveil a positive agenda for 2006. As DeMint's criticism suggests, they have yet to release their vision.

Posted by: John | January 29, 2006 09:49 PM

Hey democrats ask yourself a question. Why does your liberal media friends at the Al Jazeera Washington Post & DNC Times only give you people one side of a story whatever it is? I respect that republicans are involved with Abramoff and they should be punished for wrongdoing however; I would expect the same from you people and your democrats congressman who are involved. The only problem is your liberal media reports this as a republican only scandal and keeps this from you because they think your morons!!! Rise up against these idiots!!! Look at the DNC Times & how much money they lost over the past year. People republicans & democrats have had enough!!!!

NEW YORK - The New York Times Co. said Tuesday its fourth-quarter earnings fell 41 percent from the same period a year ago, weighed down by charges for staff reductions and an accounting change.


The Times, which also publishes The Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune, earned $64.8 million or 45 cents per share in the three months ending in December, compared to $110.2 million or 75 cents per share a year ago.

The earnings included a charge of 19 cents per share for staff reductions and an accounting charge of 4 cents per share. The earnings came in above guidance the Times gave in December, which the company attributed to stronger-than-expected growth of 8 percent in advertising at its flagship newspaper for the quarter.

However, advertising revenues fell 3.8 percent at the Globe and other New England products in the quarter, which the company attributed to sluggish demand for auto, home furnishing and other ad categories as well as consolidation of key advertisers.

Overall revenues rose 3 percent to $931 million in the quarter, or 1.1 percent if the acquisition of the online company About.com is excluded from results.

The Times also said it would raise home delivery rates by 4 percent effective Feb. 6, resulting in new revenues of up to $8 million this year. In the fourth quarter of 2005, revenues from circulation fell 2.3 percent.

Posted by: John | January 29, 2006 10:16 PM

It's been 1,596 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

U.S. IN TECHNICAL DEFAULT
http://financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2006/0127b.html
I suppose we could write this off as merely an unsurprising development from a government that no longer bothers to even appear to be adhering to rules, laws and procedures, let alone actually doing so.

Is Jack Abramoff an agent for Israel?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israel_9-11_index.html
Is his ability to blow open the spy scandal and its links to 9-11 the reason so many people in government AND THE CORPORATE MEDIA are trying to protect him?"

Posted by: UBL - RIP | January 30, 2006 07:40 AM

John, ONE MORE TIME, I'm not a liberal or a neo con, I'm an American. Jackoff Abramafia did not give any drug laundered mafia money to Democrats, just Republicans and the 911 terrorists. Are you a traitor, or what? The Media isn't Liberal or Conservative, but corporate, $$$. Wake up!

Conservative Palace Revolt
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11079547/site/newsweek
They were loyal conservatives, and Bush appointees. They fought a quiet battle to rein in the president's power in the war on terror. And they paid a price for it.

US Army 'forces' 50,000 volunteer soldiers into extended duty
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-01-29T144559Z_01_N196487_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-USA-STOPLOSS.xml
"When a service has to repeatedly resort to compelling the retention of people who want to leave, you're edging away from the whole notion of volunteerism."

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. - Abraham Lincoln

Posted by: USA! USA! USA! | January 30, 2006 07:51 AM

Is Jack Abramoff an agent for Israel?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jack+abramoff+mohammed+atta&btnG=Google+Search
Some commentators have theorized that there are links between Abramoff and Islamic terrorism: several 9-11 hijackers, including Mohamed Atta, were reported to have made multiple visits to the SunCruz casino cruise ship, leading to speculation of ties between Abramoff and the hijackers.

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html -- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

Posted by: UBL - RIP | January 30, 2006 07:56 AM


Another sad fact for you losing liberals Hillary's duplicity and involvement with terrorists such as Hamas. Why is it you don't see articles like this in the Al Jazeera Washington Post or DNC Times?

Steve Emerson: Hillary Clinton and Hamas


2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wasted no time last Thursday denouncing Hamas after the terror group's big win in the Palestinian parliamentary elections.

But as noted terrorism expert Steven Emerson pointed out when Mrs. Clinton first ran for the Senate, relations between the top Democrat and supporters of the notorious anti-Israeli organization haven't always been so chilly.

In fact, in a November 2000 report on OpinionJournal.com headlined "Hillary and Hamas," Emerson noted that Mrs. Clinton "has met repeatedly" over the years with "groups that had openly supported Hamas, Hezbollah and other foreign terrorist organizations."

Hillary launched her outreach program to U.S. Muslim leaders beginning in 1996. But as terror expert Emerson observed: "Curiously, nearly all of the leaders with whom Mrs. Clinton elected to meet came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations."


Story Continues Below


Among the most troubling terror-friendly groups cultivated by the former first lady was the American Muslim Council, an organization that had "clearly established a record in support of radical Islam," he said.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, for instance, the AMC vigorously defended Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman - whose followers carried out the attack - as a "theologian" who advocated "democratization of the Egyptian political system."

The blind sheik is now serving a life sentence in connection with that attack and other plots to blow up New York City landmarks.

Another group that benefited from Mrs. Clinton's Muslim outreach program was the Islamic Relief Association, which Emerson noted, "clearly has a militant agenda."

Less than three weeks before a top official with the group met with Mrs. Clinton, the association held a fund-raiser in Brooklyn, N.Y., where the main speaker was Sheik Abdulmunem Abu Zant.



Retire Overseas - Get Your Free Report Here.
Are You Sure Cancer Hasn't Hit You?
Vanguard's Nasty Secret-Free Independent Rpt.
Can Pheromones Fix Your Relationship?

At the time, noted Emerson, "Mr. Abu Zant was a deputy in the Jordanian parliament and the self-proclaimed leader of the most radical wing of the Islamic Action Front. He is an ardent supporter of Hamas and has repeatedly called for holy war against Israel and the U.S."
Another organization embraced by Mrs. Clinton was the Muslim Women's League and its parent group, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which Hillary lauded in a May 1996 speech for fighting against "hatred."

Three months before, however, MPAC had defended a bus bombing in Jerusalem and called the Israeli response a "terrorist act."

Three years earlier, apparently before the group launched its supposed anti-hate campaign, MPAC issued a statement decrying Israel for its "unjust and illegal usurpation of Muslim and Christian lands and rights."

Concluded Emerson: "A review of the statements, publications and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy."

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 08:01 AM

Hey Stupid nutcase liberal democrat voters do the normal american's a favor and ask your do nothing cut & run no idea,terrorist appeasing democrat congressman when, I ask when are they going to come up with ANY new ideas to move this country forward? You people should be embarassed by this lack of representation that consistently is a recipe for defeat for your incompetent!!


The Conscience of a Senate Liberal
It's much like their Constitution.

By George Neumayr

The historic purpose of the Senate was to serve as an aristocratic counterweight to the sometimes mindless and destructive passions of the House of Representatives. The Senate would safeguard "the cool and deliberate sense of the community," according to the Federalist Papers. The framers wanted aged men to serve in the Senate, age providing the advantages of "greater extent of information and stability of character." The framers didn't get a chance to meet Pat Leahy and Ted Kennedy. Under these old frauds the Senate has become perhaps the least deliberative body of our government, a club of posturing hacks incapable of reasoning beyond the most immature categories.


Leahy, thundering defensively and emotionally on the Senate floor Wednesday, justified mistreating a blameless and manifestly qualified nominee on the grounds that the Senate is the "conscience" of America. Because he represents "300 million people," his reasoning must have gone, he is entitled to put the most sinister construction possible on Samuel Alito's judicial record. Leahy is still teething on a 1960s conception of conscience that gives liberals permission to suspend it whenever "good ends" are at stake. Flat-out lying about Alito's impeccable record is okay, because, well, he could threaten our rights and liberties -- as defined by the Democrats who regularly violate them.

This moral stance is one of laughable presumption: We stand for all good things, is essentially what they were saying to him, and you don't. Pat Leahy would never let a "ten-year-old girl" be subject to a strip search. It pains him just to contemplate the horror of it. But Judge Alito? He just doesn't care about ten-year-old girls the way Democrats do.

The Democrats either cannot, or willingly refuse to, grasp the idea that a judge is not the guarantor of all good things; and that the people have a constitutional right to pass, through their representatives, inadequately crafted laws -- laws which judges are not authorized to strike down out of a sense of moral or intellectual superiority. Even if the Democrats were reliable judges of all that is good -- which they obviously are not -- their expectations of judges would still be astonishingly infantile. Not all bad laws are unconstitutional. To try and pressure a judge into promising to declare them unconstitutional is an outrageous litmus test; it is a gross lie to say that a judge like Alito, when he recognizes the constitutionality of an ill-conceived law, endorses or bears responsibility for the outcome.

Ted Kennedy said that the Constitution is summed up in the four words engraved on the Supreme Court, "Equal Justice Under Law." So he expects judges to throw out any law that doesn't comport with that proper sentiment. Dick Durbin didn't even bother in his Wednesday floor speech to conceal the Democrats' bald view of a Supreme Court justice as a supreme legislator. Durbin made it clear that he wouldn't vote for Alito simply because he is unlikely to vote the same way as Sandra Day O'Connor. The Democrats' entrance exam for the Supreme Court is not attachment to the Constitution but knowledge of and allegiance to your predecessor's voting record -- provided it is sufficiently liberal.

Because Alito refused to agree to their spur-of-the-moment restrictive description of the constitutional powers of the executive branch, the Democrats implied that he will be a tool of an abusive president, itching to spy on Americans. Never mind that these self-appointed privacy advocates are usually the first to violate the privacy of others, if doing so means scoring a few petty political points. Pat Leahy, who once shared classified documents with reporters, occasionally has no qualms about violating the privacy of others. It was with privacy violations that he earned his nickname "Leaky Leahy."

Indeed, the Left will violate the privacy of others on the thinnest and most juvenile of pretexts. As long as the subject of the invasion of privacy is an odious conservative, pretty much anything goes. Can we get some grainy footage of Antonin Scalia slapping a tennis ball around at a resort in Colorado during John Roberts's swearing in? Sure, let's go for it. And we'll build a little smear around it to see if we can do the guy some damage.

ABC's clownish report on Scalia's "apparent snub" of Roberts (as its reporter hedged, even though, by the end of the segment, he seemed to be saying that the grave moral offense wasn't the timing of the "junket," but that Scalia went on it at all) is one of innumerable examples of the Left's willingness to invade the privacy of others for no reason save trivial spite. The conscience of the Left is no more fixed than its "living Constitution."

Posted by: John | January 30, 2006 08:13 AM

What the hell do Samuel Alito or Hillary Clinton have to do with Usama Bin Laden.
Again, I'm not left or right, I'm an American, a very pissed off American who expects the Republicans AND Democrats in the US Government to live up to the oath they took to protect and defend the US Constitution! Hamas was funded by the Zionists as a counterweight to the PLO, just like the US Government funded and supported Saddam Hussein, Al Queda, and the Shah. John is pro terrorist, pro Bush!

Posted by: UBL - RIP | January 30, 2006 01:26 PM

why do you start pumpin them out when sandyK the "woman" leaves....transwhattight?

oh and:

Kerry basically walked away from making people aware of what a fool George W. was....I mean how hard is that?

I mean face it, if he wanted to call him an ex-alcoholic, cokehead, daddy's boy, draft dodger, he could have. Why didn't he? I mean how did a nobody with no real skill level get to be president unless, they just needed to tag someone that would do exactly as his dad wanted him to? He represents a group of people including the so called democrats.....he's controlling the world for his people....and _you_ are not _his_ people, you are peasants, you are expendable......gaybashing, hate-mongering, churchifying....it's a tool.

Why didn't Kerry complain about all of the media coverage of the "war?" everytime that he appeared, I checked out the front page of numerous publications during that time period...it was always about "i-rack"....

The same reason that the democrats and republicans meet to manage the vote on contreversial issues in case any one is looking....
to make you think that there's a difference, because sheep can't think.....

left wing, right wing
what a bunch a bunch of immature but fast typing morons you are....

if the farmer sends in the sheep dog to bark at the sheep does that mean that he cares about the sheep or that he's manuevering them? if the farmer feeds the sheep does that mean that he cares about them or that he's fattening them up.....think of democrats and republicans as managing their sheep when you see them posing as caring leaders.....you'll be a lot closer to the truth than believeing in party rhetoric.....

NEXT THING YOU'LL BE TELLING ME YOU BELIEVE WRESTLING IS REAL
GROW UP NUT JOBS.

Posted by: hey pee pee head.... | January 30, 2006 11:22 PM

~=PPHEAD

!=bright

Posted by: JOHN.... | January 30, 2006 11:49 PM

It's been 1,597 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

"Bush, you are a loser and a liar, but, with God's help and might, a failure. You are a curse on your own nation and you have brought and will bring them only catastrophes and tragedies!"

Um, yeah, can't argue with that!

"If you're not with me, then you're my enemy!" Darth Vader

Posted by: UBL - RIP | January 31, 2006 09:02 AM

It's been 1,598 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 1, 2006 02:51 PM

Bush Says,"Don't Expect Oil Price Breaks" of course not while G.W.B., RUMMY,
C.R. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST D.C.ARE
IN OFFICE LINING THEIR POCKETS WITH OUR
DOLLARS.
COME ON AMERICA - IMPEACH THE LISTED FOUR!

Posted by: Concerned American | February 1, 2006 09:04 PM

...the Cindy Sheehan incident at the (joke of a ) State (fake) of the Union Address last night.....

everywhere,... even on sites that support Cindy,...

everyone keeps referring to her tee shirt as a

"protest" shirt or that she was "demonstrating" in the Capitol,....

but in my understanding,...

displaying,....

2242 dead.
How many more?

is merely a stated fact, (of Government origin, at that, 2242 dead. period,) and a question.

period.

everyone should STOP playing into the brainwashing of even repeating the misnomer of "protesting" or "demonstrating"'...

...because what is scarier and more disturbing is that obviously, by last night's events,...

it's become illegal and criminal to EVEN QUESTION or state a FACT (even if that fact has been previously stated by the very same Government that now arrests it's citizens for stating the fact that said Government has acknowledged and published in the first place.)

Posted by: IMPEACH INDICT IMPRISON | February 1, 2006 09:59 PM

This is no conspiracy theory. When Osama attacked US, Bush said he was going to get Osama "Dead or Alive". That threat and 3 bucks will get you a cup of coffee. It isn't what Democrats say or what Republicans say about the war or Osama. It is what the President says he is going to do that counts. Obviously what he says means nothing. It took the USA less time to defeat Japan after their sneak attack at Pearl Harbor during WW2. Dnd during the war this country of 135 million armed and put 16 million Americans into uniform to do it. Perhaps the job would be done by now if this slacker of a man had spent less time taking vacations, riding his bike, taking naps, going to bed early and rehearsing for SOTU addresses. The problem for Bush is we have heard his other SOTU addresses before and they were as meaningless and full of lies as the one last night. Seeing Osama on tape brings home just what a miserable failure Bush is.

Posted by: Red Ruffian | February 1, 2006 11:34 PM

It's been 1,599 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 2, 2006 08:39 AM

THINK ABOUT THIS;
The Bush administration said Thursday it will ask Congress for $120 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $18 billion more this year for hurricane relief.
GWB wants to Waste another $120 Billion on
on someting he can't even find!
Impeachment for GWB "The Playboy".

Posted by: Concerned American | February 2, 2006 07:54 PM

It's been 1,600 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 3, 2006 01:04 PM

It's been 1,601 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

9/11 ATTACKS
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/13760721.htm
Avoiding the hard questions

How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?
• Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? Fire alone had never before caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.

• Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition?

• Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft?

• Why has there been no investigation of BBC reports that five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were alive and accounted for after the event?

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 4, 2006 09:31 AM

It's been 1,602 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

"Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder--and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder?"
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20060203/washingtons_iraq_blindness.php
While Bush reinforces his Zarqawi myth and Dems call lamely for more armor, the battle lines for civil war in Iraq are being drawn.
The Iraq that exists in President Bush's imagination and the real Iraq, the one in which 160,000 U.S. troops occupy a nation sliding into civil war, have never seemed further apart. Bush's Iraq is a fantastical one in which American forces are battling the enemy that struck us on 9/11. Yet on the ground, in the real Iraq, more than six weeks have passed since Iraq's election, and battle lines for civil war are being drawn up. There are multiple parties to that civil war: militant Iraqi fundamentalist Shiites tied to Iran, well-armed Kurdish warlords planning to grab Kirkuk and its oil, powerful Sunni tribal and religious forces bitterly opposed to the Shiite-Kurdish bloc and a Baathist-military resistance movement that has strong support among the Sunnis.
None of those forces, however, want anything to do with Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. By all accounts, Zarqawi's forces in Iraq are fast becoming nearly invisible on the canvas of Iraq's battle map. And certainly neither bin Laden nor Zarqawi have a prayer of seizing control of Iraq whether U.S. forces stay in Iraq or not.

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html
-- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 5, 2006 12:43 PM

It's been 1,603 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Can the President Order Assassinations of US Citizens!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11180519/site/newsweek
Bush claims he has the power to order anyone inside the US killed, without a court, without a judge, without a jury of the accused's peers, without evidence of wrongdoing, without a public record, without appeal... BANG, you are dead.
By any possible definition of the word, Bush is a dictator.

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 6, 2006 11:18 AM

It's been 1,604 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 7, 2006 09:28 AM

It's been 1,605 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 8, 2006 03:49 PM

It's been 1,606 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Suicide car bomb kills 5 in western Iraq
A suicide car bomb blew up at acheckpoint near the Syrian border, killing five Iraqis and wounding three others, including a U.S. marine, the U.S. military said on Thursday.
02/09/06 TMC: Local Marine killed: Lance Cpl. Steven Phillips dies when Humvee flips
Marine Lance Cpl. Steven Phillips, 27, of Spraggs, Pa., died Tuesday in a Humvee accident while serving in Iraq, his mother said Wednesday.
02/09/06 NYTimes: Iraq Utilities Are Falling Short of Prewar Performance
Virtually every measure of the performance of Iraq's oil, electricity, water and sewerage sectors has fallen below preinvasion values even though $16 billion of American taxpayer money has already been disbursed in the Iraq reconstruction program...
02/09/06 AP: Iraq Coalition Shrinking
The Ukrainians are long gone. So are the Norwegians. The Italians and South Koreans are getting ready to leave, and the Britons and Japanese could begin packing their bags later this year.
02/09/06 AP: U.S. Officials Meet Insurgent Groups
U.S. officials have met figures from some Sunni Arab insurgent groups but have so far not received any commitment for them to lay down their arms, Western diplomats in Baghdad and neighboring Jordan said Wednesday.
02/09/06 NorwichBulletin: Norwich Guard unit set to go to Iraq in spring
Two Connecticut National Guard units, including a military police unit from Norwich, will be deployed to Iraq this spring, Maj. Gen. Thaddeus J. Martin announced Wednesday.
02/09/06 AP: General - Corruption Hobbling Iraq Police
Gen. George Casey Jr., said the command has declared 2006 as the "year of the police," a tacit acknowledgment that the more than 80,000-strong Iraqi force has been hobbled by incompetence, corruption, sectarianism and low morale.
02/09/06 NYTimes: Report Says Number of Attacks by Insurgents in Iraq Increases
Sweeping statistics on insurgent violence in Iraq that were declassified for a Senate hearing on Wednesday appear to portray a rebellion whose ability to mount attacks has steadily grown in the nearly three years since the invasion
02/08/06 corpwatch: Gasoline Crisis in Iraq
Contract mismanagement and possible corruption in the Iraqi government are fueling a crisis over international gasoline delivery into Iraq. Citing a mountain of unpaid bills, the governments of Turkey and Saudi Arabia have shut off gasoline exports...
02/08/06 DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Spc. Patrick W. Herried, 29, of Sioux Falls, S.D., died in Rawah, Iraq, on Feb. 6, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his Stryker military vehicle during patrol operations.
02/08/06 Suburban News: North graduate reported killed in Iraq Monday
School district officials said they have been informed Jake Spann, a Marine private who graduated from North in 2003, was killed while on routine patrol Monday, when the Humvee he was riding in ran over a land mine.
02/08/06 MNF: Soldier dies from IED attack in al Anbar
A Soldier assigned to the 4th Squadron, 14th Cavalry Regiment' died as a result of wounds received when the vehicle he was riding in was attacked by an IED while conducting combat operations in al Anbar province, Feb. 5.
02/08/06 CENTCOM: MARINE DIES FROM IED ATTACK NEAR BAGHDAD
A Marine assigned to 2nd Marine Logistics Group, II Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward), died when the vehicle he was riding in was attacked by an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations near Baghdadi, Feb. 6.
02/08/06 CENTCOM: MARINE DIES IN NON-HOSTILE VEHICLE ACCIDENT
A Marine assigned to 2d Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward), died in a non-hostile vehicle accident while conducting combat operations near al Qaim, Feb. 7.
02/08/06 DoD Identifies Marine Casualties
Cpl. Orville Gerena, 21, of Virginia Beach, Va. and Lance Cpl. David S. Parr, 22, of Benson, N.C. died Feb. 6 from an IED while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Hit, Iraq.
02/08/06 Gannett: Marksville Marine, injured in Iraq, returns home
"I was in my tank in the gunner position when we were hit by a large IED that killed my driver," Lance Cpl. Matt Hackler said. "I remember being jerked around and the pain in my legs." Hackler's ankles had been shattered by the explosion.
02/08/06 RFE/RL: Iraq's Oil Sector Faces Tough Times
A new scandal foregrounds the problem of corruption in the Iraqi industry -- but corruption is but one of the industry's many problems....
02/08/06 NBC30: Soldiers Face Debilitating Diseases
for some soldiers, their service has meant a long and debilitating death sentence with mysterious diseases. "I have good days, I have bad days," said M. Sterry, of New Haven. "There were eight of us that served together. Six of my friends are dead."
02/08/06 DOD: Guard and Reserve Mobilized as of February 8, 2006
This week, the Navy announced an increase in the number of reservists on active duty, while the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps had a decrease. The net collective result is 692 fewer reservists mobilized than last week.
02/08/06 KUNA: Huwaija local justice council member killed
Unknown militants assassinated on Wednesday member of Huwaija local justice council Ahmad Abdul-Wahab in Kirkuk, northern Iraq.
02/08/06 Reuters: Gunmen fire on Iraq Shi'ites during ceremony
Gunmen opened fire on Wednesday on a group of Shi'ites performing rituals in Baghdad to mark the major religious event of Ashore, wounding six people, police said.
02/08/06 MSNBC: US warns its soldiers about Turkish movie
An articles in the US army's "Stars and Stripes" magazine said that American soldiers serving in Europe to stay away from cinemas screening the film Kurtlar Vadisi: Irak (Valley of the Wolves: Iraq).
02/08/06 AP: Three bodies found in Baghdad
Police also found the bodies of three men who had been blindfolded, bound and shot repeatedly in eastern Baghdad's Sadr City, police said. Their identities were not immediately known.
02/08/06 AP: Iraqi killed in roadside bomb attack
a roadside bomb in eastern Baghdad missed a U.S. convoy but killed an Iraqi passer-by and wounded another, while a second blast injured two Iraqi policemen in northern Baghdad, police said.
02/08/06 Gannett: S.D. soldier wounded in December dies
Spc. Allen Kokesh Jr., 21, died at the Brooke Army Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio. Kokesh was recovering from a leg amputation, an injury to his left elbow, burns and injuries to his eyes...
02/08/06 CNN: Navy to increase numbers inside Iraq
The U.S. Navy will try to lift some of the burden off U.S. Army troops in Iraq this year by increasing the number of sailors inside that country and taking on duties soldiers have been doing, according to the Navy's top sailor.
02/08/06 AP: 11 Iraq Veterans Running For Congress
After 20 years in the Air Force and Bronze Star service during the 1991 Gulf War, Democrat Jay Fawcett decided to come home and run for Congress, largely out of disgust with the way American troops were being used in Iraq.
02/08/06 Xinhua: Iraqi minister survives assassination in central Baghdad
Iraqi Minister of Higher Education Sami al-Mudhafar survived an assassination when a car bomb blew up near his convoy in central Baghdad on Wednesday, which killed a policeman and wounded three people, an Interior Ministry source said.
02/08/06 KUNA: Pilotless plane falls
A pilotless aircraft of the Multi-National Force fell in the eastern suburb of the Iraqi capital, the force said in a statement released on Wednesday.

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 9, 2006 10:13 AM

It's been 1,607 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 10, 2006 12:17 PM

It's been 1,608 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

LA "terra" plot foiled! USA! USA! USA!

Don't you watch 24? LA terror plots have been foiled at least 4 times now!

Photos Of George WMD Bush And Jackoff (Super Zionist) Abramafia
http://www.rense.com/general69/phots.htm
"Say Jack, you got any Arabs hanging out on your casino ship we could use as a patsy for a fake terror attack?"

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 11, 2006 09:45 AM

It's been 1,609 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 12, 2006 11:13 AM

It's been 1,610 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

"If revealing classified information is illegal, then it's a crime, right?
"And George W. Bush promised that 'If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration,' right?
"Now it comes out that 'Scooter' Libby has testified that his 'superiors' authorized him to reveal classified information in an attempt to discredit Joseph Wilson's account of his trip to Africa and thus to defend the idea that the Administration had a basis for claiming that Saddam Hussein had been trying to buy uranium in Niger.
"Libby's boss was Dick Cheney; Libby was Cheney's chief of staff. His only other 'superior' would have been . . . George W. Bush.
"So either Cheney or Bush (or both) ordered the release of classified information, which according to Bush is a crime. And anyone who commits a crime has to leave the administration.
"So which is it? Is Bush going to ask for Cheney's resignation, or offer his own?"

Bush spent nearly two billion on PR

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 13, 2006 06:35 PM

It's been 1,611 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 14, 2006 09:12 AM

It's been 1,612 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 15, 2006 03:02 PM

It's been 1,613 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 16, 2006 07:54 AM

It's been 1,615 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

OCCUPIED BAGHDAD, New Iraq- The U.S. military said a U.S. soldier was killed in a roadside bomb attack in eastern Baghdad on Saturday. The latest death brought the toll of U.S. military personnel in Iraq to more than 2,270 since the territorial pissings began in March 2003.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lies.mp3

Missing From ABC's WMD 'Scoop'
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2825
Star defector Hussein Kamel said weapons were destroyed

DON'T THE US NEWS? WHORE$$$ HAVE GOOGLE?

There are about 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Many have been held for nearly four years.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/17/national/w103517S73.DTL
///Most were captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan in late 2001 after U.S. forces invaded in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.///

Only 8% at Gitmo 'Qaeda fighters'
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013976.html
Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces.

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 18, 2006 10:02 AM

It's been 1,617 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Bin Laden Vows Never to Be Captured Alive
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/19/D8FSISC01.html
Shouldn't be hard since he is dead!

"The jihad is continuing with strength, for Allah be all the credit, despite all the barbarity, the repressive steps taken by the American Army and its agents, to the extent that there is no longer any mentionable difference between this criminality and the criminality of Saddam."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lies.mp3
With the implied criticism of Saddam, bin Laden appeared to be denying assertions by the Bush administration that the former Iraqi leader had ties to al-Qaida _ ties that were given as one rationale for invading Iraq.

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 20, 2006 08:40 AM

It's been 1,620 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

AP: 168 mosques attacked, 10 Inmans killed in Wensdays sectarian violence
The hardline Sunni clerical Association of Muslim Scholars said 168 Sunni mosques were attacked, 10 imams killed and 15 abducted. The figures could not be independently confirmed.
02/23/06 AFP: Eight Iraqi soldiers, four civilians killed in Baqubah
In other violence, at least 12 people were killed in a powerful roadside bomb attack in Baquba, 60 kilometres north-east of Baghdad, of which eight were Iraqi army soldiers and four other civilians, police said, adding 20 others were wounded.
02/23/06 AP: 46 Bodies Found in Wave of Iraqi Violence
At least 46 bodies were found scattered across Iraq late Wednesday and early Thursday, many of them shot execution-style and dumped in Shiite-dominated parts of the capital, Baghdad.
02/23/06 Scotsman: 3 journalists killed as Iraq violence erupts
THREE Iraqi journalists have been killed near Samarra, a day after a bomb attack damaged a Shia shrine in the city.
02/23/06 AP: Gunmen kill 47 factory workers at checkpoint north of Baghdad
Gunmen pulled factory workers off buses northeast of Baghdad and killed 47 of them, a provincial council member said. The victims were traveling in three buses when they were stopped at a checkpoint...The buses were burned and their passengers killed
02/23/06 dailytelegraph: Italy denies Abu Ghraib actions
A FORMER detainee at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq claimed today that Italian-speaking men had interrogated inmates, prompting a quick denial from the office of President Silvio Berlusconi.
02/23/06 Reuters: Iraq Sunni clerics blame Shi'ite clerics for violence
Iraq's leading Sunni Muslim religious organization blamed top Shi'ite clerics on Thursday for fuelling sectarian tension that has killed dozens of Sunnis over the past 24 hours.
02/23/06 TheHerald: Readjusting to home
Danny and Caron Blanton sit with Ceasar near their new outdoor fireplace at their Madison home. Caron Blanton surprised her husband with the brick addition after he arrived home from a yearlong tour in Iraq with the 155th Brigade Combat Team.
02/22/06 CBC: Superbug hits Canadian soldiers injured in suicide bombing
The recovery of three Canadians wounded last month in Afghanistan has been slowed by battlefield bacteria infecting American troops in Iraq ... Acinetobacter baumannii has become one of the most common sources of infections among American troops ...
02/22/06 TheTimes: Iraq's insurgents plumb new depths in their quest for civil war
A period of comparative peace in Iraq has ended in recent days with two car bombings aimed at Shia civilians and the destruction of the dome of the Golden Mosque at Samarra, one of the holiest sites for the Shia branch of Islam.
02/22/06 Knight Ridder: U.S. Air Force in Iraq busier on ground than in air
Pilots are only the most visible tip of the 122nd Fighter Wing, which landed in Iraq in January for a 45-day deployment that ended this week. Medical, maintenance and other personnel make up the bulk of the U.S. wing's largest deployment ...
02/22/06 Reuters: Gunmen kill 10 Egyptian, Saudi prisoners in Iraq--TV
Gunmen attacked a prison in the southern Iraqi city of Basra on Wednesday, killing 10 inmates from among a group from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Al Arabiya television reported.
02/22/06 Reuters: Policeman killed in Diwaniya
A Shi'ite police officer guarding a Sunni mosque in Diwaniya, 180 km (110 miles) south of Baghdad, was shot down when gunmen opened fire, police said.
02/22/06 AFP: Islamic Party offices raided in Nassariyah, one wounded
A mob wounded a guard in an attack on the Islamic Party offices in Nassariyah, police said.
02/22/06 AFP: Islamic Party offices raided in Basra, Two killed fourteen
In the Shiite south, a crowd stormed the Basra offices of the Sunni-based political Islamic Party, killing two people and wounding 14 others, police said, giving no further details.
02/22/06 AP: Nine Sunni Moslims found dead in Basra
Police found nine bodies of Sunni Muslims, most of them shot in the head, in two neighborhoods of Basra, according to a police official who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of militia reprisals.
02/22/06 DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
Staff Sgt. Jay T. Collado, 31, of Columbia, S.C., died Feb. 20 from an IED near Baghdad, Iraq. Assigned to Marine Light/Attack Helicopter Squadron-267, Marine Aircraft Group-39, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I MEF.
02/22/06 Reuters: at least 75 Sunni mosques attacked in Iraq
Hussein al-Falluji, a leading Sunni politician, reported attacks on at least 75 Sunni mosques around the country with most in eastern Baghdad
02/22/06 Reuters: Three clerics, three bodyguards killed in sectarian violence
Police said one mosque was completely burnt while others were attacked by gunfire and rocket propelled grenades. Three clerics and three bodyguards were killed, and another cleric was kidnapped, according to interior ministry sources.
02/22/06 AP: Over sixty mosques attacked by Shiites
The Iraqi Islamic Party said at least 60 mosques were attacked, burned or taken over by Shiites. A leading Sunni politician, Tariq al-Hashimi, urged clerics and politicians to calm the situation "before it spins out of control."
02/22/06 Reuters: Storage depots burned in Basra
Storage depots belonging to the main Sunni religious body in Basra, 550 km (340 miles) south of Baghdad, were reported by local police to be on fire after three grenades were thrown from moving cars while residents were at prayers.
02/22/06 KUNA: Iraqi kidnapped in Kirkuk
unanimous gunmen aboard a car abducted an Iraqi citizen in in Kirkuk's Cornish street.
02/22/06 KUNA: Bomb wounds U.S. Marine in Kirkuk
An explosive device went off on Wednesday while multi-national forces patrol was passing in Kirkuk's Cornish street, causing the injury of a US Marines serviceman who was rushed to hospital for treatment, an Iraqi police source said.
02/22/06 National Guard And Reserve Mobilized as of February 22, 2006
This week, the Navy announced an increase in the number of reservists on active duty, while the Marine Corps had a decrease. The Army, Air Force and Marine Corps numbers decreased. The result is 635 fewer reservists mobilized than last week.
02/22/06 Toronto Star: 29 Sunni mosques attacked nationwide
A leading Sunni politician, Tariq al-Hashimi, said 29 Sunni mosques had been attacked nationwide. He urged clerics and politicians to calm the situation "before it spins out of control."
02/22/06 BBC: In pictures: Iraq shrine bombing
Pictures of The Askari shrine in Samarra after the dome was destroyed by bombs.
02/22/06 Zaman: Danish Soldiers Under Attack in Iraq
The Danish soldiers clashed with an unidentified armed group near the Danish base in Basra, Iraq. The Danish soldiers who were on patrol in the north of Basra were fired upon by four masked gunmen last Tuesday afternoon.
02/22/06 AP: Shiite leader cites U.S. in shrine blast
Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, cited Khalilzad's statement at a press conference Monday that America would not continue to support institutions run by sectarian groups with links to armed militias.
02/22/06 Reuters: Sunni cleric killed north of Baghdad
Gunmen killed a Sunni cleric of the al-Rashidi mosque in Boob al-Sham area, north of Baghdad, a police source said.
02/22/06 Reuters: One killed in sectarian fighting in Dinwaniya
Clashes erupted in Diwaniya after militiamen loyal to Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr attacked the houses of Arab Sunnis in Diwaniya, 180 km (110 miles) south of Baghdad. One of Sadr's men was killed, said a member of the Diwaniya provincial council.

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 23, 2006 09:42 AM

George WMD Bush said Wednesday he remains confident Osama bin Laden "will be brought to justice" despite a so-far futile five-year hunt.
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=060301&cat=news&st=newsd8g2oee01&src=ap
I hope Bush is "brought to justice"!

It's been 1,626 days since GWB said he'd catch ubl 'Dead or Alive!'

AP: 23 Killed in Three Explosions in Baghdad
Another car bomb exploded in the eastern suburb of Kamaliyah after residents had alerted police to a suspect vehicle and officers were clearing the area. There were no reports of casualties, said Maj. Falah al-Mohammedawi, an Interior Ministry official.
03/01/06 AP: 3 civilians killed by motar fire in Mahmoudiya
Also Wednesday, mortar shells fell on three houses in the mixed Sunni-Shiite town of Mahmoudiya, 20 miles south of Baghdad, killing three civilians, said police Capt. Rashid al-Samaraie.
03/01/06 AP: 3 civilians killed 15 injured by car bomb
About an hour earlier, a bomb hidden under a car detonated as a police patrol was passing near downtown Tahrir Square, said Interior Ministry Maj. Falah al-Mohammedawi. Police were unharmed but three civilians died and 15 were injured.
03/01/06 AP: Car bomb kills uo to 23 in Baghdad Shiite neighborhood
Wednesday's most dramatic attack - a car bomb near a traffic police office in a primarily Shiite neighborhood in southeast Baghdad - killed at least 23 people and wounded 58, according to police Lt. Thaer Mahmoud.
03/01/06 AFP: One third US troops back from Iraq need mental help: study
One third of US troops returning from Iraq have needed at least one mental health consultation and one in five have been diagnosed with combat-induced psychological problems, a US study reported.
03/01/06 Reuters: Iraq Sunni clerics blame Shi'ites, US for violence
Iraq's main Sunni Muslim religious organization, accusing the Shi'ite-led government and U.S. forces of involvement in attacks by Shi'ite militiamen, called on Wednesday on the community to protect its mosques.
03/01/06 AP: 101st Airborne soldier died in Iraq, mom says
On Saturday, Army Pfc. Joshua Francis Powers, based at Fort Campbell, Ky., died in southern Baghdad after having been in the country about 2 1/2 weeks, said his mother, Patricia Powers.
03/01/06 AP: Iraq war vet dies of viral infection
A 42-year-old Jersey City police officer who had returned from Iraq last November...was found dead inside his apartment last night...his illness appeared to be a viral infection, a hazardous materials unit was sent in for further investigation
02/28/06 DoD Identifies Army Casualties
Staff Sgt. Curtis T. Howard II, 32, of Ann Arbor, Mich., Sgt. Gordon F. Misner II, 23, of Sparks, Nev. and Spc. Thomas J. Wilwerth, 21, of Mastic, N.Y. died near Balad when an IED detonated near their Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
02/28/06 DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
Lance Cpl. Adam J. Vanalstine, 21, of Superior, Wis., died Feb. 25, from an improvised explosive device in Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I [MEF], Twentynine Palms, Calif.
02/28/06 DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Sgt. Jessie Davila, 29, of Greensburg, Kan., died in Baghdad, Iraq, on Feb. 20, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. Davila was assigned to the Army National Guard's 2nd Battalion, 137th Infantry, Lawrence, Kan.
02/28/06 Reuters: Blast kills 23 near Shi'ite mosque in Baghdad (update)
At least 23 people were killed and 45 injured in a car bomb near a Shi'ite mosque and market north of Baghdad on Tuesday, police said. The blast occurred directly after evening prayers, police added
02/28/06 CNN: Other developments
Gunmen killed two policemen and wounded two civilians in separate attacks Tuesday in Baquba, authorities said.
02/28/06 AP: Mortar fire kills one in Baghdad
Mortar fire at the Imam Kadhim shrine in the Kazimiyah neighborhood on the opposite side of the Tigris River killed one and wounded 10.
02/28/06 AP: 14 people killed at Shiite mosque (update)
In the latest attacks, police officials said either a car bomb or a mortar hit the Abdel Hadi Chalabi mosque in the Hurriyah neighborhood, killing 14 people and wounding 62.
02/28/06 Reuters: Blast kills 16 near Shi'ite mosque in Baghdad
At least 16 people were killed and 40 wounded in a blast near a Shi'ite mosque and market north of Baghdad police said. It was not clear whether the blast, which occurred right after the evening prayers, was a car bomb or a mortar attack.
02/28/06 Reuters: Four police killed in Khalis
Four policeman were killed when their patrol was ambushed by gunmen near Khalis, 60 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad.
02/28/06 Reuters: Two Iraqis wounded in attack on U.S. convoy in Hawija
A woman and her two-year-old child were injured on Tuesday when two insurgents opened fire on a U.S. military convoy in the city of Hawija 70 km (40 miles) southwest of Kirkuk on the main oil pipeline route, the U.S. military said.
02/28/06 DPA: assassination attempt wounds five civilians in Kirkuk
In Kirkuk, a high-ranking police officer survived an assassination attempt in which five civilians were injured. A car bomb detonated by remote control as the convoy of Colonel Abdullah Azad, director of operations for the Kirkuk police
02/28/06 DPA: roadside bomb kills four Iraqis east of Baghdad
Earlier Tuesday, a roadside bomb in Nieriya and Gayara, east of Baghdad killed four Iraqis and injured 18.
02/28/06 DPA: Four British soldiers killed in Iraq (not confirmed)
Four British soldiers have been killed and another injured by a roadside bomb on the outskirts of Amara, in southern Iraq, Iraqi security sources said Tuesday. The Ministry of Defence in London, however, confirmed the death of only two.
02/28/06 AP: Roadside bomb kills five Iraqi soldiers in Baghdad
A roadside bomb targeting the convoy of a defense ministry adviser killed five soldiers and injured seven others, ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said. The adviser, Lt. Gen. Daham Radhi al-Assal, escaped without harm, he said.
02/28/06 AP: Two Oklahoma Soldiers Killed In Iraq
The sister of Joshua Pearce of Guymon says Pearce died Sunday when the Army vehicle he was in hit an explosive device near Baghdad. And the mother of Army Private Joshua Powers of Skiatook says Powers was killed Saturday in southern Baghdad.
02/28/06 Reuters: Two wounded by motar round in Baghdad
BAGHDAD - A mortar round fell near the TV station run by the Iraqi Islamic Party wounding two senior employees, police sources said.
02/28/06 Reuters: Two bodies found near Fallujah
Two bodies of civilians with multiple gunshot wounds were found north of Falluja, 50 km (32 miles) west of Baghdad, police said.
02/28/06 Reuters: Car bomb wounds three civilians in Kirkuk
A car bomb exploded as a police patrol passed in Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, wounding three civilians, police said.
02/28/06 Reuters: Sunni mosque bombed in baghdad
BAGHDAD - Interior Ministry sources said a Sunni Arab mosque was damaged by a bomb early Tuesday morning.
02/28/06 WDBJ: Two Roanoke police officers recover from injuries in Iraq
Two Roanoke police officers who were injured in Iraq are now on the road to recovery. Kevin Assenat and Chris Dillon were wounded in the same incident late last year, when a suicide bomber attacked their convoy.
02/28/06 AGI: NONE INJURED AFTER ITALIAN PATROL ATTACKED
At approximately 0745 hours CET an Italian patrol was attacked in Nassiriya. The attack is thought to have been carried out using a roadside explosive device, which failed to damage either personnel or vehicles
02/28/06 Reuters: Militias and armed gangs rule streets of Iraq
Look in the pockets of Iraqis whose jobs take them around Baghdad every day and you are likely to find a clutch of passes and identity cards, one for every police, military or militia checkpoint they may run into.
02/28/06 AP: fourth blast believed to have been a mortar round (update)
The fourth blast, believed to have been a mortar round, landed in an open area not far from the National Theatre in downtown Baghdad, Mohammedawi said. There were no immediate reports of casualties.
02/28/06 KRT: GF Marine seriously wounded
A Grand Forks man is in serious condition after the Humvee he manned drove over a roadside bomb in Ramadi over the weekend, according to his father. Lance Cpl. Ben Lunak, 21, took shrapnel to his stomach and back and may lose part of his leg.
02/28/06 AP: Oklahoman killed when explosive device hits his Army vehicle
An Army vehicle rolled over an explosive device in Iraq, killing a 21-year-old Oklahoma soldier. Heidi Barncastle confirms that Joshua Pearce died Sunday near Baghdad. Two other American soldiers also were killed.
02/28/06 AP: Four police and a doctor killed in seperate attacks in Mosul
Gunmen in Mosul killed four police and a doctor, Dr. Bahaa al-Bakri of the city general hospital said. Three gunmen broke into the clinic of Dr.Yousif Ibrahim, 55, and shot him to death. The motive was not known.
02/28/06 AP: Gunmen kill guard of sunni mosque in Baghdad
In Baghdad, gunmen in two speeding cars opened fire on the Sunni al-Salam mosque in the western Mansour district, killing the guard, said police Lt. Maitham Abdul-Razaq

Posted by: UBL - RIP | March 1, 2006 07:41 AM

It's been 1,631 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Posted by: UBL - RIP | March 6, 2006 10:23 AM

It's been 1,641 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Posted by: UBL - RIP | March 16, 2006 11:13 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.