Dead Bin Laden Of No Use To War Profiteers

Tweet

According to a Senate Report released last week, Osama bin Laden was within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when Bush Administration officials made the crucial decision not to pursue the terrorist leader.

Yahoo Excerpt:
The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man.

Also, around the same time...

Cheney's Halliburton Makes A Killing Excerpt:
In December 2001, Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, secured a 10-year deal known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), from the Pentagon. The contract is a "cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity service" which basically means that the federal government has an open-ended mandate and budget to send Brown and Root anywhere in the world to run military operations for a profit.

Barring a catastrophe, it's a safe bet the wars will be winding down by the end of 2011, regardless of who's president. Even Nostradamus didn't have this easy.

But whether Bin Laden was dead or alive, George W. Bush made sure Americans continued to feel the phantom terror throughout his presidency. I never thought Bush intentionally let Bin Laden get away like some folks insisted Bill Clinton did, but back in 2006 after Bush referred to Bin Laden in the past tense during a speech, I certainly felt there was enough evidence to think that he deliberately kept Bin Laden's legacy alive to keep the war fires burning.

In this youtube video, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY-D) intuitively connects the dots and claims the Bush Administration deliberately let Bin Laden go to justify the war in Iraq. Few can deny the premise back then, that if Bin Laden were captured or killed at that crucial time immediately following 9/11, Bush would have had a very difficult time convincing the American public of the need to invade Iraq. It can also be said that the "uranium out of Africa" threat was a Plan B standby fabricated in case Bin Laden was "accidentally" terminated. One way or another, Bush was invading Iraq.



Instead of peeling back the layers of doubt or offering evidence to the contrary, political hacks posing as weak-minded journalists like David Shuster or Bill O'Reilly prefer to just call Rep. Hinchey a "Pin Head" or crazy. Did O'Reilly wonder how Bush Administration officials would react to Hinchey's assertions or ask why they failed to get Bin Laden when he was most vulnerable? When a member from the Council on Foreign Relations made the same assertion (failure to get Bin Laden) against Bill Clinton in 2001, O'Reilly had nothing but questions for the Clintonoids.

In hindsight, the Senate Report is just another small piece of evidence to consider why Bin Laden got away during Bush's presidency. Few people are asking the right questions because there is too much money still to be made.

If Bin Laden Lived In America

Tweet

After surfing some right-wingnut blogs for the past few days, I couldn’t help shake my head in amazement and chuckle out loud on the common thread about how Usama bin Laden is a democrat and, those on left won’t face up to this truth after viewing his latest video.

But these folks typically ignore the facts and prefer to buy into the propaganda and judge a terrorists motives and intentions only by their shallow likes and dislikes. Their logic would place us in a war of personal preferences and not against an ideological enemy. They throw in bin Laden’s flattering quotes about Noam Chomsky as proof but completely ignore his religious references to Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary’s ties to Islam. If Chomsky makes UBL a lefty, then Jesus makes UBL a Christian.

In this latest video, the right prefers to ignore UBL’s rigid Islamic ideological policies, but swear up and down this is a religious war. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

"There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling only 2.5%." -- Usama bin Laden, September 2007

This statement clarifies UBL's policy and completely disqualifies Republicans and their lackeys attempts to associate Usama with democrats. There is just no way, just no way any tax and spend democrat would survive in Usama’s right-wing religio-world. But this sounds like Utopia for Conservatives, Republican types and IRS abolitionists.

This is all propaganda and war supporters have bought into it hook, line and sinker.

Professional? Gasbag:
It's irrefutable: If bin Laden lived in America, he'd be most inclined to vote Democrat.

Fair enough. Whether you’re the Pope, Vladimir Putin, George W. Bush or Usama bin Laden, if you want to end this dirty war in Iraq – Vote Democratic. But who really cares whether bin Laden would vote democratic or rails against capitalism, or thinks George W. Bush is a failure, or maybe enjoys eating pizza or his likes or dislikes? He’s a terrorist!!

What is more indicative of UBL, if I may throw in an equal supposition is: If bin Laden lived in America with the same religious convictions, sexist ideas, tax policy, political philosophy and general views of world domination he has today but only marginalized by an American upbringing, guess which party he would be in? And more importantly, who would vote for him?

The same people who voted for George W. Bush – that’s who!

Bin Laden – Bush's Number One Salesman

Tweet

I really thought this murderous nutball was quietly evaporated by an airstrike a year ago but that Bush kept his legacy alive to bolster support for his war.

If the video is authentic, Usama is living proof of George W. Bush's failures during the past six years and ironically, his best salesman. Bin Laden is far right, an heir to a billion dollar fortune, wants to escalate the war and hates democracy, but he's also savvy enough to tell Americans what they want to hear about greed and capitalism - looks like the GOP found themselves a new presidential candidate.

More Proof Bin Laden Dead

Tweet

In a recent AP article reporting on a speech made by President Bush, he continues to trump up the threat from Bin Laden and old plans from 2005 to join with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq through communications with known al-Qaida operatives Hamza Rabia and Abu Fajah al-Libi.

Back on September 23rd of last year, I surmised from a collection of various international reports that Bin Laden was dead and Bush was knowingly using Bin Laden threats out of context with time and language. Now Bush has a new warning, unfortunately it sounds like the old warning.

Boston News Excerpt:
Frances Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, said the information was declassified because the intelligence community has tracked all leads from the information, and that the players were either dead or in U.S. custody.

Do we just assume Bin laden is included as one of the players? The President and his staff know enough about bin Laden, his operatives and his plans to use the possibility that he is alive as proof not of failure for his war on terror, but as a warning that bin Laden plans more terror strikes in the U.S. as the main reason to occupy Iraq. Knowing he is DEAD.

May 30th al-Qaeda warning........not bin Laden.

Bush Keeps Bin Laden Legacy Alive

Tweet

French President Jacques Chirac said Saturday that information contained in a leaked intelligence document raised the possibility that Osama bin Laden may have died.

"According to a usually reliable source, Saudi security services are now convinced that Osama bin Laden is dead," said the intelligence report.

There have been periodic reports of bin Laden's illness or death in recent years but none has been proven accurate.
According to this report, Saudi security services were pursuing further details, notably the place of his burial.

"The chief of al-Qaeda was a victim of a severe typhoid crisis while in Pakistan on August 23, 2006," the document says. His geographic isolation meant that medical assistance was impossible, the French report said, adding that his lower limbs were allegedly paralyzed.

The report further said Saudi security services had their first information on bin Laden's alleged death on Sept. 4.
"Today, bin Laden is certainly not in Afghanistan," Bentegeat said. "No one is completely certain that he is even alive."
Read Bin Laden Dead Article Here
Its no secret that President Bush has very close ties with the Saudi royals and no doubt was informed of Bin Ladens possible demise before Sept. 4th.

President Bush has rarely spoken about Bin Laden. Yet on the 5th, Bush came out with a detailed and rambling speech warning Americans about Al Qaeda and quoting Bin Laden repeatedly almost in the past tense, reminding us of the terror leaders goals, AS IF HE WERE DEAD. Assuming for a moment that IF Bush knew he was dead, why does he want to keep the bin Laden legacy alive?

Bush speech excerpts:
Will we pay attention to what these evil men say? America and our coalition partners have made our choice. We're taking the words of the enemy seriously. We're on the offensive, and we will not rest, we will not retreat, and we will not withdraw from the fight, until this threat to civilization has been removed.

Despite these strategic setbacks, the enemy will continue to fight freedom's advance in Iraq, because they understand the stakes in this war. Again, hear the words of bin Laden, in a message to the American people earlier this year. He says: "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."

Here is what al Qaeda says they will do if they succeed in driving us out of Iraq: The terrorist Zawahiri has said that al Qaeda will proceed with "several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of Caliphate… The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. And the fourth stage: …the clash with Israel."

The Pathology of Propaganda

Tweet

The movie “The Path to 9/11” is getting plenty of attention from the left and members of the Clinton Administration. Some are calling on ABC/ Disney to cancel showing it because of the misinformation, lies and deception incorporated depicting the governments involvement or lack thereof.

I disagree. Freedom of speech must prevail, and those who speak untruths will be exposed, unfortunately it takes time. The type of people who put this movie together have been with us for thousands of years. They have rewritten history dating back to Biblical times, up and through the early days of American history and are now busy at work attempting to repoint the blame for failures that cause people to kill themselves and others flying airplanes into buildings. They are the same people who have made Africans “slaves” and called the American Natives “dumb savages, ” they also produced the Colin Powell presentation at the UN on Feb.5, 2003.

These people are everywhere, they are part of our society and they always have an agenda. They think with the other side of the brain, the side that ignores truth and fact, the side that embraces “belief” and “gut” through the repetition of falsehoods at the expense of others. Timing is key, they are not dumb.

The movie is said to focus most of its attention on the Clinton administration and their activity to destroy Al-Quada or kill bin Laden. Without seeing the movie and relying on historical fact one can safely speculate that the Bush Administration has only a bit part because, President Bush was completely oblivious to the middle-east pre-911 and was not engaged in any activity whatsoever to confront bin laden or his movement. Bush’s absence of activity here, to carry on where Clinton left off is the real story. But how do you film absence?

Kathleen Parker:
The 9/11 Commission determined that Clinton’s 1998 missile attack was not, after all, a wag-the-dog attempt to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandal. But the commissioners also said that the intense partisanship of the time, “likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against bin Laden.”

It’s real easy to say that now about Clinton’s missile attack. What is more important was how we felt then. I clearly remember discussing the missile attack at my family dinner table and I too thought Clinton was really stretching here, that he was willing to do anything to divert attention, and I am a Democrat. The Republicans and some Democrats wondered aloud why the president is chasing some unknown raghead by the name of bin Laden. While politicians, newspapers and the television media blitzed the public about Clinton’s affair, they belittled his decision to bomb some two-bit outfit called the Taliban. The worst information I heard about the Taliban at the time was their destruction of Buddist monuments in the mountains of Afghanistan.

In the late 90’s, Americans viewed this entire episode to strike at bin Laden as non-sense, because the press declared it was. Protecting their own, now the commissioners can say this partisanship had an effect on future (Bush) decisions to use force? But during 1998 in real time, the partisanship to impeachment was to be ignored by Clinton? The 9/11 commission report amounts to an opinion report if not a travesty as the movie will probably show, but that doesn’t stop those from rewriting history because after five years, few know the truth and for their own reason, keep it to themselves.

The movie "The Path to 9/11" chose the 1993 WTC bombing as a starting point for the "path". Since the 1993 bombing failed to accomplish what the airplanes did in 2001, it was the 9/11 terror plot of its day. How can the years before the 1993 bombing largely be ignored?