Still at Large

[knightroar]

from MSNBC News:


“Pakistani and American officials said Tuesday the hunt for top al-Qaida and Taliban leaders would continue, but acknowledged the trail was cold.”


“No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that ‘casting our objectives too narrowly’ risked ‘a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured’. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that ‘the goal has never been to get Bin Laden’.” ~ Michael Meacher, M.P., 6th September, 2003


http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2005/03/still-at-large.html

[Motley]

"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - GWB- March 2002

:rolleyes:

[lotimer]

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/ebm/Zi/bin%20laden%201.jpg

There he is, that Saudi.

"Oh... that guy. Forgot about him!"

[Motley]

http://www.freewayblogger.com/images/911.jpg
:mad_02:

[lotimer]

http://www.freewayblogger.com/images/911.jpg
:mad_02:


So true. Osama bin Forgotten.

[involved]

He went to Iraq to further is cause...

[knightroar]

I really shouldn't be surprised by this, but I admit that I am. Pakistan negotiated extradition and agreed to try Bin Laden and our government stopped it from happening.

UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE

[lotimer]

I really shouldn't be surprised by this, but I admit that I am. Pakistan negotiated extradition and agreed to try Bin Laden and our government stopped it from happening.

UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE


Yeah no shit. I can just imagine how that went down.

"Um sir, Pakistan.. Bin Laden..."

"Bush: I don't care. I need some dirt on Saddam NOW."

"What about all those people who died sir, Saddam wasn't respons--"

"Bush: I DO NOT CARE! Saddam Saddam Saddam!" *bangs desk like a child*

"Ok sir, I'll tell Pakistan you're not interested. As for Saddam--"

*Bush gets giddy look on face* "Bush: YES YES YES?"

[Motley]

Yeah no shit. I can just imagine how that went down.

"Um sir, Pakistan.. Bin Laden..."

"Bush: I don't care. I need some dirt on Saddam NOW."

"What about all those people who died sir, Saddam wasn't respons--"

"Bush: I DO NOT CARE! Saddam Saddam Saddam!" *bangs desk like a child*

"Ok sir, I'll tell Pakistan you're not interested. As for Saddam--"

*Bush gets giddy look on face* "Bush: YES YES YES?"

http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/GoYou.gif

[knightroar]

and they have the fucking guts to call liberals traitors?????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????

[Motley]

http://www.freewayblogger.com/images/ifwe'd2.jpg

:add09:

[involved]

He serves a higher purpose.

[lotimer]

This is definitely one thread that needs to stay bumped. And I'm going to help ensure that it stays near the top.

[knightroar]

I want all these fucking assholes like USAPathetic, Bag Sniffer, and Strikeout to chew on this shit, eat it and spit it back out and repeat. they call us traitors while they suck the cock of that idiot chimp squatting in the white house letting Bin Laden run free.

[knightroar]

from MSNBC News:


“Pakistani and American officials said Tuesday the hunt for top al-Qaida and Taliban leaders would continue, but acknowledged the trail was cold.”


“No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that ‘casting our objectives too narrowly’ risked ‘a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured’. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that ‘the goal has never been to get Bin Laden’.” ~ Michael Meacher, M.P., 6th September, 2003


http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2005/03/still-at-large.html
:mad_08:

[lotimer]

I want all these fucking assholes like USAPathetic, Bag Sniffer, and Strikeout to chew on this shit, eat it and spit it back out and repeat. they call us traitors while they suck the cock of that idiot chimp squatting in the white house letting Bin Laden run free.


Yes, we'll see how truly patriotic they are. If they are as patriotic as they portray themselves to be they'll be outraged at this. If they dismiss it/ignore it then that'll show the true depth of their patriotism. Everyone should be outraged at this. This is about the man that killed thousands of our people. And our government fucked up. We'll see which wins: party lines or true patriotism.

[lotimer]

Welp. It's been over 30 minutes. Still no outrage from the right. Who are the traitors again?

[knightroar]

Welp. It's been over 30 minutes. Still no outrage from the right. Who are the traitors again?


good question

[PIGFUCKBINLADEN]

All the leftwing IH dirtbags, all buttfucking each other in public drooliing all over themselves... Get a fucking room for fucks sake.



http://img39.exs.cx/img39/9688/flag3.gifhttp://img84.exs.cx/img84/2231/ani_aflag.gifhttp://img39.exs.cx/img39/672/flag2.gif

[knightroar]

from MSNBC News:


“Pakistani and American officials said Tuesday the hunt for top al-Qaida and Taliban leaders would continue, but acknowledged the trail was cold.”


“No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that ‘casting our objectives too narrowly’ risked ‘a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured’. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that ‘the goal has never been to get Bin Laden’.” ~ Michael Meacher, M.P., 6th September, 2003


http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2005/03/still-at-large.html


no comments pigfuck? I guess you approve of them letting Bin Laden go. why am I not surprised?

[Motley]

All the leftwing IH dirtbags, all buttfucking each other in public drooliing all over themselves... Get a fucking room for fucks sake.



http://img39.exs.cx/img39/9688/flag3.gifhttp://img84.exs.cx/img84/2231/ani_aflag.gifhttp://img39.exs.cx/img39/672/flag2.gif

Interesting comment from somebody who calls themselfs "PigFuckBinLaden", yet doesn't give a shit about him so long as this incompetent administration tells them that "It's not that important. It's not our priority"

You are one fucking hypocrytical fool who uses crayons to much.

[involved]

Osama Bin Laden: How the U.S. Helped Midwife a Terrorist
http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=293
Thirdly, Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI initiative to recruit radical Muslims from around the world to come to Pakistan and fight with the Afghan Mujaheddin. The ISI had encouraged this since 1982, and by now all the other players had their reasons for supporting the idea. Bin Laden denies being behind attacks
Associated Press
Last Updated: Sept. 16, 2001.
4085The Enemy
Interactive: Wanted: Osama bin Laden
Click here to view multimedia profile
Related Coverage
Following is a selection of related coverage on Osama bin Laden. For complete coverage of the attacks on America, go to our SPECIAL SECTION or view the Associated Press' running list of LATEST HEADLINES.

Osama bin Laden: Who is he? (9/15/01)
Timeline: Bin Laden's violent history
Profile: The hijackers in the attacks (9/14/01)
Afghanistan: Possible targets of U.S. retaliation (9/14/01)
Finding him: Tracking bin Laden won't be easy (9/15/01)
Denial: Bin Laden says he's not behind attacks (9/16/01)
Saudi Arabia: Behind the scenes help will be key (9/19/01)
Taliban: What kind of regime? (9/19/01)
Finances: U.S. probes bin Laden's money (9/21/01)

Osama Bin Laden, the exiled Saudi dissident, is seen on this layout for an FBI poster after he was placed on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list in June 1999, in connection with the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. CLICK to read.

Dubai, United Arab Emirates - Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect, issued a statement Sunday denying that he was behind last week's terror attacks on the United States.

"I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation," said the statement, broadcast by Qatar's Al-Jazeera satellite channel. http://www.passia.org/index_search.htm

[PIGFUCKBINLADEN]

no comments pigfuck? I guess you approve of them letting Bin Laden go. why am I not surprised?

That is totally untrue!! I voted for Kerry because Bush dropped the ball at Tora Bora. No other reason. He had him, he lost him. i just don't keep on pissing and moaning because you fucking people still cannot get over the fact THAT BUSH WON OFFICE AND THERE IS NOT A FUCKING THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!!!!

Do you guy even know what "UNITED WE STAND" ACTUALLY MEANS??? GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://img39.exs.cx/img39/9688/flag3.gifhttp://img84.exs.cx/img84/2231/ani_aflag.gifhttp://img39.exs.cx/img39/672/flag2.gif

[Motley]

That is totally untrue!! I voted for Kerry because Bush dropped the ball at Tora Bora. No other reason. He had him, he lost him. i just don't keep on pissing and moaning because you fucking people still cannot get over the fact THAT BUSH WON OFFICE AND THERE IS NOT A FUCKING THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!!!!

Do you guy even know what "UNITED WE STAND" ACTUALLY MEANS??? GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://img39.exs.cx/img39/9688/flag3.gifhttp://img84.exs.cx/img84/2231/ani_aflag.gifhttp://img39.exs.cx/img39/672/flag2.gif


You are full of shit, no matter how many flags you display in a transparent attempt to show your own false patriotism.

[knightroar]

That is totally untrue!! I voted for Kerry because Bush dropped the ball at Tora Bora. No other reason. He had him, he lost him. i just don't keep on pissing and moaning because you fucking people still cannot get over the fact THAT BUSH WON OFFICE AND THERE IS NOT A FUCKING THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!!!!

Do you guy even know what "UNITED WE STAND" ACTUALLY MEANS??? GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://img39.exs.cx/img39/9688/flag3.gifhttp://img84.exs.cx/img84/2231/ani_aflag.gifhttp://img39.exs.cx/img39/672/flag2.gif


I know exactly what United we stand means. But I failed to see it when we were at war in Kosevo while the GOP was obsessing over where the Clinton cock was. seems united we stand doesn't go both ways for conservatives.

[Motley]

“Dissent is the highest form of Ptriotism" - Thomas Jefferson

:add09:

[lotimer]

:add09:


And the status-quo would have us all believe the exact opposite. It's sad really.

[Bman]

from MSNBC News:


“Pakistani and American officials said Tuesday the hunt for top al-Qaida and Taliban leaders would continue, but acknowledged the trail was cold.”


“No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that ‘casting our objectives too narrowly’ risked ‘a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured’. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that ‘the goal has never been to get Bin Laden’.” ~ Michael Meacher, M.P., 6th September, 2003


http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2005/03/still-at-large.html

Where did the blogger get this information??

If this is proven to be the case, it pretty much confirms what many of us have suspected.

Bman

[knightroar]

Where did the blogger get this information??

If this is proven to be the case, it pretty much confirms what many of us have suspected.

Bman


I'm not sure where he got the quote, but the quote is by a member of the British Parliament.

[lotimer]

Where did the blogger get this information??

If this is proven to be the case, it pretty much confirms what many of us have suspected.

Bman


It appears to have come from http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

[knightroar]

It appears to have come from http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html


good work lotimer

[pambo]

yikes!! page 4 already and not one pro-death culter responded.
not even to try and discredit the source.... ???


very odd.

[knightroar]

yikes!! page 4 already and not one pro-death culter responded.
not even to try and discredit the source.... ???


very odd.


isn't it though?

[Bman]

That story makes sense of THIS STORY

Now we see government and ex-government officials introducing the idea that its BETTER if we don't catch Bin Laden:


January 09, 2005

Let Bin Laden stay free, says CIA man
Tony Allen-Mills





THE world may be better off if Osama Bin Laden remains at large, according to the Central Intelligence Agency’s recently departed executive director.

If the world’s most wanted terrorist is captured or killed, a power struggle among his Al-Qaeda subordinates may trigger a wave of terror attacks, said AB “Buzzy” Krongard, who stepped down six weeks ago as the CIA’s third most senior executive.

“You can make the argument that we’re better off with him (at large),” Krongard said. “Because if something happens to Bin Laden, you might find a lot of people vying for his position and demonstrating how macho they are by unleashing a stream of terror.”

Krongard, a former investment banker who joined the CIA in 1998, said Bin Laden’s role among Islamic militants was changing.

“He’s turning into more of a charismatic leader than a terrorist mastermind,” he said. “Some of his lieutenants are the ones to worry about.”

Krongard, 68, said he viewed Bin Laden “not as a chief executive but more like a venture capitalist”.

He added: “Let’s say you and I want to blow up Trafalgar Square. So we go to Bin Laden. And he’ll say, ‘Well, here’s some money and some passports and if you need weapons, see this guy’.

“I don’t see him keeping his fingers on everything because the lines of communications are just too difficult.”

Several US officials have privately admitted that it may be better to keep Bin Laden pinned down on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than make him a martyr or put him on trial. But Krongard is the most senior figure to acknowledge publicly that his capture might prove counter-productive.

Krongard also acknowledged that the CIA was still having trouble planting spies in Islamic militant ranks. “There are hundreds and hundreds of (Al-Qaeda) cells — it’s like a living, moving bit of protoplasm,” he said.

“In order to penetrate you not only have to be language-proficient, you also have to commit acts that exceed criminality. It’s very hard.”

His comments came as it emerged that new laws to combat the Al-Qaeda threat in Britain and keep the Belmarsh terror suspects in jail will be unveiled next month.

The draft terrorism bill will propose that “acts preparatory to terrorism” become a criminal offence to catch those who provide accommodation, finance, identity papers and other support. The bill will prove controversial because it could be applied restrospectively against many of the 11 foreign terror suspects being detained in Belmarsh, south London, and Broadmoor secure hospital.

Charles Clarke, the home secretary, is also planning to announce a civil punishment for those suspected of “associating” with terrorist suspects, but where there is insufficient proof to press charges.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1431539,00.html

[knightroar]

another good find Bman

[Bman]

Anyone remember THIS GUY??

Now you know why he hasn't gone on trial.. He might reveal that he already told us where Bin Laden's exact location is (speculation on my part)

In any event, what intelligence could this guy be providing at this point? He's been out of the loop for HOW LONG, now? Over 2 years, by my math.

Why hasn't this man been tried for the murder of 2800 Americans??

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/03/pakistan.arrests/story.ksmohammed.ap.jpg

Officials: Alleged al Qaeda paymaster in custody
U.S. hunts al Qaeda operatives in U.S.
March 4, 2003

WASHINGTON (CNN) --U.S. officials confirmed on Tuesday that another significant al Qaeda figure was captured in the weekend raid in Pakistan that nabbed suspected September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Mustapha Ahmed al-Hawsawi, a man who officials say sent cash to lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta through bank accounts in Dubai and the United Arab Emirates, was captured along with a Pakistani man said to be of little importance during the raid that netted Mohammed , al Qaeda's operations chief.

An official told CNN that Al-Hawsawi is "not a huge fish, but he is not insignificant and he may know things." The identity of the new U.S. prisoner was first reported by The New York Times.

Al-Hawsawi, also known as Mustafa Ahmed, has been named as a co-conspirator in the indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui, who is accused of engaging in the "same preparation for murder" as the 19 hijackers who commandeered four U.S. jets and crashed them into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and Pennsylvania.

Al-Hawsawi's phone number was also found on a Federal Express package sent by Atta in early September 2001 from Florida to the U.A.E. The number was also used as a point of contact for a wire transfer to Ramzi Binalshibh, who was arrested in Pakistan in September 2002, and has admitted a role in planning the attacks.

Meanwhile, FBI agents are trying to track down possible al Qaeda operatives in the U.S., including some believed to be in Washington and other U.S. cities, after names were found among a "treasure trove" of material recovered during Mohammed's capture, sources said.

Government sources would not say in how many cities the suspected operatives might be living. The FBI effort includes keeping people with possible links to al Qaeda under surveillance, the sources said.

FBI and CIA agents are also poring over information found during the raid, including computers, computer disks, documents and cell phones, a U.S. government official said.

Some counterterrorism officials expressed frustration that the Pakistani government had so quickly disclosed information about Mohammed's arrest. One source said it put U.S. authorities "behind the eight ball" in trying to locate potential terrorist cells and that it would have been helpful if U.S. agents had been given a 24-hour head start.

New look at old al Qaeda plots
U.S. officials said another al Qaeda detainee told them in recent weeks that about the time of the September 11 attacks, Mohammed and other al Qaeda leaders looked at the idea of targeting bridges, gas stations and power plants, including some in New York City.

"Newsweek" reported this week on an intelligence report that suggested Mohammed ordered such attacks, but a U.S. official said there was no evidence that "he has recently told people to do that."

U.S. officials said they have evidence that Mohammed had been in touch with Osama bin Laden since September 11, 2001, but they declined to say whether they believe he has had recent contact with the al Qaeda leader.

Mohammed also has been linked to the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000; Richard Reid's foiled attempt to blow up an airliner with a shoe bomb in 2001; last April's bombings at the El Ghriba synagogue in Djerba, Tunisia; and the Bali bombings in October. (Life of terror)








Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/03/pakistan.arrests

[EbolaMonkey]

Where did the blogger get this information??

If this is proven to be the case, it pretty much confirms what many of us have suspected.

Bman

I read a quote from Pervez Musharraf himself in the National Post yesterday, stating that Bin Laden's "trail has gone cold". I'll try and dig that up for y'all.

[knightroar]

yea, I remember him. pieces of the ugly puzzle are starting to come together

[latent aaaack]

God damn thats an ugly bastard. If only his alternate career path as a model had worked out maybe he wouldn't have lost it and turned to fanaticism.

[knightroar]

God damn thats an ugly bastard. If only his alternate career path as a model had worked out maybe he wouldn't have lost it and turned to fanaticism.


:add09:

[Bman]

Mustapha Ahmed al-Hawsawi, a man who officials say sent cash to lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta through bank accounts in Dubai and the United Arab Emirates, was captured along with a Pakistani man said to be of little importance during the raid that netted Mohammed , al Qaeda's operations chief.




By the way.. this al-Hawsawi guy is probably more interesting that Khalid Sheihk Mohammed..

this shit gets complicated, but suffice it to say the Pakistani ISI was up to their necks in the whole thing


http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/110303Kupferberg/110303kupferberg.html

[knightroar]

By the way.. this al-Hawsawi guy is probably more interesting that Khalid Sheihk Mohammed..

this shit gets complicated, but suffice it to say the Pakistani ISI was up to their necks in the whole thing


http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/110303Kupferberg/110303kupferberg.html


not surprising and what you've suspected all along

[Bman]

not surprising and what you've suspected all along



Right.. specifically (from the link I provided previously)


The very next day, on October 1, Judith Miller of The New York Times reported that hijacker Atta received money from someone using the alias "Mustafa Ahmad." Five days later, on October 6, Maria Ressa of CNN, quoting terrorism expert Magnus Ranstorp, officially unveiled Omar Saeed as the pseudonymous 9/11 money man: "He [Omar Saeed] is . . . linked to the financial network feeding bin Laden's assets, so therefore he's quite an important person . . . because he transfers money between various operatives, and he's a node between al Qaeda and foot soldiers on the ground." Ressa went on to report: "Because investigators have now determined that [Omar Saeed] and Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad [the pseudonym] are the same person, it provides another key link to bin Laden as the mastermind of the overall [9/11] plot."

Two days later, on October 8, Ressa revisited the story, this time connecting Omar Saeed to an October 1 attack on the provincial legislature in Kashmir—an incident that led Pakistan and India closer to the brink. October 8, incidentally, was also one of the very last times that CNN touched upon Omar Saeed—at least until he bobbed up a few months later, on February 6, as the FBI's main suspect in the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl. Yet by then, CNN—and Maria Ressa—was stricken by a curious case of amnesia, neglecting to mention that Saeed was previously outed by them as the 9/11 bagman. Why this sudden silence? And, more to the point, why did Omar Saeed virtually drop off CNN's radar after October 8?


Perhaps the answer lies in an October 9 bombshell, courtesy of the Times of India:

"While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI [Pakistani intelligence] director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday, the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday that the general lost his job because of the 'evidence' India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Center. The U.S. authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by [Omar Saeed] at the instance of General Mahmud [Ahmad]."

In short, the Times of India revealed that Omar Saeed was acting under the direct orders of the head of Pakistani intelligence and not Osama bin Laden. That in itself could perhaps have been explained away, as it was widely acknowledged that Islamic elements in the ISI were sympathetic to the Taliban and their al-Qaida guests. Yet tracing the "smoking gun" money trail to General Ahmad created an entirely new smoking gun that led straight back to Washington, D.C.—for General Ahmad had already been reported as having breakfast in the nation's capital with Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss on the morning of September 11 (both Graham and Goss would go on to co-chair the joint Senate-House 9/11 inquiry). In fact, as early as September 9—two days before 9/11, for those who didn't notice—Karachi News had weighed in with the following observation:

"ISI Chief Lt-Gen [Mahmud Ahmad's] week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council . . . What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, [General Ahmad's] predecessor, was here during Nawaz Sharif's government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days. That this is not the first visit by [General Ahmad] in the last three months shows the urgency of the ongoing parleys."

If ever there was a paper trail leading to the 9/11conspirators, these articles provided the print-smeared paving. Taken together, they would conjure up the following plausible scenario: Omar Saeed, acting under the direction of General Ahmad and the ISI, had provided money and "training" (as reported in the Telegraph) to the hijackers while "false-flagging" himself to the hijackers as an operative of al-Qaida. The General, on the other hand, may have represented himself to Omar Saeed as acting exclusively under ISI authority, when in fact he was acting under the direction of his American-Anglo handlers. With Omar Saeed seeding the "legend" of a bona fide money trail leading back to bin Laden, the stage would then be set for Omar Saeed to take the fall as the main patsy providing the smoking gun of al-Qaida complicity for 9/11. Yet at some point, this carefully enacted "legend" began to unravel once Indian intelligence was able to establish (or just mischievously leaked) Saeed's link with General Ahmad, forcing a reluctant FBI—or, alternatively, a cooperative element in the FBI outside of the hermetically compartmentalized loop—to go along and confirm the findings.

Naturally, in the light of the Times of India's Oct. 9 bombshell, somebody would have to organize a prophylactic strategy of damage control. Yet where the original money trail "legend" was carefully, even artfully, crafted, the efforts to perform a partial-birth abortion on it were piecemeal, ill-considered, and—most damaging of all—worked to highlight the participation of individual accessories in the cover-up campaign.

[Bman]

Mother fuckers..

This shit is all coming together now.. .


Bman

[knightroar]

Mother fuckers..

This shit is all coming together now.. .


Bman


and the Bushies are turning a blind eye to it. not surprising

[Bman]

and the Bushies are turning a blind eye to it. not surprising

Oh, they'll be here

They'll call it all lies without providing any explanation to any of the information

Bman

[knightroar]

well that explains why Goss got his little promotion

[lotimer]

If the source is not Rush Pillbaugh, Faux News, or NewsMax they won't even consider it valid for even a nanosecond. :rolleyes:

[lotimer]

well that explains why Goss got his little promotion

Most probably yeah.

[lotimer]

Still mostly silence from the right. Figures. Keep on ignoring the truth that Bush had a chance to get Bin Laden and turned it down. Hurts doesn't it?

Guess Bin Laden doesn't matter anymore to the right. Now that we have Saddam and disarmed him of those nonexistant weapons of mass destruction who cares about the man that killed over 3,000 people? Where's the outrage?

[Desert Dog]

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." -- Thomas Jefferson

Pointedly, Islam: "I find it clear that some cultures are better structured than others for success in the post-modern world. I'm most pessimistic about the Arab heartlands of Islam. I think the Indonesians have a fighting chance.... The average Iranian desparately wants to re-embrace the West and America in particular...I do believe the last couple of centuries demonstrate that cultures that oppress women, that don't have freedom of information, that don't value secular education, that have one dominant religion that infects the state and has power over the state, and whose basic unit of social organization is a clan, tribe, or extended family are just not going to compete with the West and especially with the United States. So I'm extremely pessimistic about the old Islamic heartland" , Fredric Smoler.

in addition he goes on to say, and I agree; "I personally feel that we've made a grotesque mistake aligning ourselves with the most oppressive of the Arabs, with the ARab world's Beverly Hillbillies. Other Arabs built Damascus, Cordoba, Baghdad, Cairo. The Saudis never built anything. The fact that they came into their oil wealth was a disaster, not for us but for the Arab world, because it gave these malevolent hicks raw economic power over the populations poor Islamic states, such as Egypt. The line about Al Qaeda that's absolutely true is that Saudis supplied the money and Egyptians supplied the brains. So Saudi money, spent to support their grotesquely repressive version of one of the world's great religions, has been a disaster for the Arab world...."

[Boom!]

Oh, they'll be here

They'll call it all lies without providing any explanation to any of the information

Bman

You forgot to add they will blame this on Clinton somehow.

[Bman]

Still mostly silence from the right. Figures. Keep on ignoring the truth that Bush had a chance to get Bin Laden and turned it down. Hurts doesn't it?

Guess Bin Laden doesn't matter anymore to the right. Now that we have Saddam and disarmed him of those nonexistant weapons of mass destruction who cares about the man that killed over 3,000 people? Where's the outrage?


The longer Bin Laden goes uncaught, the more likely it is that he's being protected by either/or Pakistan and the US government

Bman

[Bman]

well that explains why Goss got his little promotion


Bingo!

There are too many coincidences.. I have studied this material for over a year now reading every source I can find and the bottom line is this:

Throughout the entire work of material there is a constant web of connection between all the players.. from the Bush family to the CIA... Bush to the Saudis.. Bush to the Bin Ladens, the CIA and the ISI... Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the CIA and Congressional "investigators".. Everything is intertwined... Too many connections for this to all be coincidence.

Bman

[Bman]

well that explains why Goss got his little promotion



Can you fathom that Porter Goss, who was one of the CHAIRMEN of the Committee charged with INVESTIGATING 9/11, HAD BREAKFAST on September 11, 2001 with a man that was removed from his job in Pakistan because he ordered that $100,000 be sent to Mohammad Atta.. just a few months before 9/11???

How can that not be a conflict of interest?"

Bman

[Bman]

Two other names to look into


Sami al-Arian

and

Abdurahman al-Amoudi


See what you find, bloggers

Bman

[knightroar]

The longer Bin Laden goes uncaught, the more likely it is that he's being protected by either/or Pakistan and the US government

Bman


I hate to admit this, but it seems like you are absolutely correct

[knightroar]

from MSNBC News:


“Pakistani and American officials said Tuesday the hunt for top al-Qaida and Taliban leaders would continue, but acknowledged the trail was cold.”


“No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that ‘casting our objectives too narrowly’ risked ‘a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured’. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that ‘the goal has never been to get Bin Laden’.” ~ Michael Meacher, M.P., 6th September, 2003


http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2005/03/still-at-large.html


bumped for Bag Sniffer and USAPathetic

[Alli]

Originally Posted by Bman
The longer Bin Laden goes uncaught, the more likely it is that he's being protected by either/or Pakistan and the US government



Pakistan I see, but based on what evidence is the US gov't protecting Osama?

[Bman]

CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July

French report claims terrorist leader stayed in Dubai hospital

Anthony Sampson
Thursday November 1, 2001
The Guardian

Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.

The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.

Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and the CIA.

The CIA chief was seen in the lift, on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. He was recalled to Washington soon afterwards.

Intelligence sources say that another CIA agent was also present; and that Bin Laden was also visited by Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence, who had long had links with the Taliban, and Bin Laden. Soon afterwards Turki resigned, and more recently he has publicly attacked him in an open letter: "You are a rotten seed, like the son of Noah".

The American hospital in Dubai emphatically denied that Bin Laden was a patient there.

Washington last night also denied the story.

Private planes owned by rich princes in the Gulf fly frequently between Quetta and the Emirates, often on luxurious "hunting trips" in territories sympathetic to Bin Laden. Other sources confirm that these hunting trips have provided opportunities for Saudi contacts with the Taliban and terrorists, since they first began in 1994.

Bin Laden has often been reported to be in poor health. Some accounts claim that he is suffering from Hepatitis C, and can expect to live for only two more years.

According to Le Figaro, last year he ordered a mobile dialysis machine to be delivered to his base at Kandahar in Afghanistan.

Whether the allegations about the Dubai meeting are confirmed or not, the wider leaks from the French secret service throw a worrying light on the rivalries and lack of coordination between intelligence agencies, both within the US and between western allies.

A familiar complaint of French intelligence is that collaboration with the Americans has been essentially one-way, with them happy to receive information while giving little in return



http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html

[Alli]

LOL, based on that you call this evidence the US Gov't is protecting OBL? :add09:

[Bman]

Originally Posted by Bman
The longer Bin Laden goes uncaught, the more likely it is that he's being protected by either/or Pakistan and the US government



Pakistan I see, but based on what evidence is the US gov't protecting Osama?



Its not so much "protecting".. maybe just not looking for him

Bman

[Bman]

LOL, based on that you call this evidence the US Gov't is protecting OBL? :add09:


No, I wasn't responding directly to you.. just adding more material to the thread

Bman

[Bman]

LOL, based on that you call this evidence the US Gov't is protecting OBL? :add09:


whether we're "protecting him" or just not looking for him, the "evidence" is that he's not been caught.

From my point of view, its a "theory" .. not evidence.. I'm not claiming any PROOF

Bman

[T3D]

Good thread....Hope this will open some people eyes :happy_01:

[Bman]

More links... Some of this stuff is really long, but its very good

http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm

[Bman]

Mad Cow Morning news is a good website.. the author moved to Venice, Florida (where the hijackers were living) to investigate the story.. What he has found blows holes in the idea that Mohammad Atta and his crew were devout muslims... Atta was dating a stripper, had ties to drug runners, and was reknown as a flamboyant party man.. and that's just for starters..

Here's the site

http://www.madcowprod.com/



Terrorist ringleader introduced girls to two "German friends"

by Daniel Hopsicker
September 27— Venice FL

Mohamed Atta footed the bill for himself and two young American girls on what an associate of the two girls later described as a non-stop 3-day drug-and booze-filled romp in Key West in February of 2001, the MadCowMorningNews has learned.

The story emerged with the news that Atta’s American girlfriend Amanda Keller, in addition to accompanying him to Key West, had also during that same month rented a safe house for him for a short time in nearby North Port FL.

"He didn't even care if the house had a bed, all he wanted was a desk," landlord Tony Laconia told local reporters.

On the day after the Sept 11 attack, FBI agents began combing the town of North Port just south of Venice looking for local residents Tony and Vonnie Laconca, who had rented a home to Mohamed Atta and Amanda Keller, they had discovered, in February of 2001.

Landlord Anthony Laconca told the FBI that Keller had dishwater-blond hair, was big-boned and freckled, and seemed to be very "enamored of Mohamed," according to a report in the local Sun-Herald newspaper containing never-before publicized details illuminating the terrorist conspiracy's stay in Florida.

After renting to the pair, the Laconcas later learned that a young female friend of Amanda's, a then-employee of Vonnie Laconca's cleaning firm, went with Atta and Amanda to Key West for a wild drug-and-booze-fueled party.

"They were gone for three days," Tony Laconca told local reporters. "They didn't sleep. It was a continuous party."


"'The boss' writes all the checks."

Laconca said Mohamed footed the entire bill, including alcohol, drugs, hotel, and buying new clothes for Keller and the unnamed female cleaning company employee.

Then Tony Laconca made an even-more amazing disclosure...

"While in Key West Atta introduced the girls to two men from Germany that they said were Mohamed's friends," he stated. "I thought it was strange at the time, because Mohamed didn't appear to be German."

Even more incredibly, Tony Laconca's then-wife Vonnie told authorities that she had learned that her former cleaning company employee got a phone call from Atta during the week before the Sept.11 attack.

Where are Amanda Keller and her unnamed friend today? Why haven't they come forward with their story to either inform the American public of what they know, or simply to cash in?

Who were the two German men with Mohamed Atta in Key West?

It strains credulity that Atta would have "accidentally" bumped into German friends in tiny and remote Key West.


"Anything we have to say we say on CNN."

The Sun-Herald reporter probably then asked some of the questions we would like to ask.

But the FBI in Tampa would neither confirm nor deny that agents were even interviewing people in North Port.

In an incredible statement by an FBI spokesperson identified only as "Pam," which exemplifies the total blackout on critical information which has prevailed from that day to this, Sun-Herald reporter Elaine Allen-Emrich was told, "We recommend that you check in with CNN for current information. Any press statements can be found on televised stations like CNN."

The discovery that Amanda Keller had a year-long ("enamored of Mohamed") relationship with the terrorist ringleader makes the willowy 22-year old lingerie model a potentially important witness in the upcoming independent investigation into the terrorist conspiracy which led to the Sept 11 attack.

Too bad she's missing.




"The Boss' writes all the checks: Pt 2."

It is clear that Keller, who settled into her new Venice apartment just two weeks before Atta moved in with her, for what neighbors said was a very stormy six-week stay, had a back-stage pass to the activities of the terrorist conspiracy, and a behind-the-scenes view of the terrorist ringleader known to the other cadre principals as "the boss" from the time he first hit the ground in Venice, in March of 2000, three months before the FBI’s chronology has him entering the U.S., to, at least, February 2001, almost a year later.

When Amanda rented their property in North Port, the Laconcas told authorities, she said she would translate for Mohamed, who spoke limited English.

Keller also told them she would be responsible for the rental, but it was Atta who wrote the check, and when Atta returned alone several weeks later to pick up his security deposit the couple was surprised to discover that his English was excellent.

Keller was arrested on a minor bad check charge a few weeks later, and Atta returned the favor by bailing her out of Sarasota’s South County Jail.

Interestingly, the Laconcas told authorities that Amanda Keller told them Atta was French-Canadian. This echoes what we have already heard, from Keller's next-door neighbor at the Sandpiper apartments, who stated she listened in amazement as Keller introduced Atta to her as being "from France."




Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

The discovery of Amanda Keller’s arrest and mug shot also quickly led us to conclude that we had earlier been in error in reporting that Atta’s girlfriend Amanda Keller was the same Amanda Keller who was also known to be a member in Clearwater, FL of the ‘Sea Org’ of the Church of Scientology.

A comparison of the Amanda Keller in the Florida mug shot with the picture available on the Internet of the Amanda Keller who belonged to the "Sea Org," shows clearly that they are not the same person.

The Amanda Keller we are looking for—Atta's squeeze—is another Amanda Keller.

Put another way, the Amanda Keller who consorted with Mohamed Atta in Florida—the girl in the mug shot taken at the Sarasota County Jail—is definitely not the Amanda Keller who belongs to Scientology's Sea Org.

We sincerely regret the mistaken identification and apologize to Ms. Keller as well as to the Church of Scientology’s Sea Org. (see Correction and Apology)


"Tell us more about your two German friends in Key West," we would love to be able to ask Mohamed Atta today, while simultaneously shining a bright light into his eyes.

Failing that, we would like to ask the same question of FBI Director Robert Mueller, while if at all possible shining a bright light into his eyes as well.

Sadly, however, we have all already heard the only answer our Government has so far been willing to give:

"Nothing to see here. Move along."

http://www.madcowprod.com/mc302004.html

[Alli]

whether we're "protecting him" or just not looking for him, the "evidence" is that he's not been caught.

From my point of view, its a "theory" .. not evidence.. I'm not claiming any PROOF

Bman
You said: The longer Bin Laden goes uncaught, the more likely it is that he's being protected by either/or Pakistan and the US government

Does this mean the governors and mayors, and law enforcement agencies of kansas protected the BTK killer for all of those years?

[Bman]

You said: The longer Bin Laden goes uncaught, the more likely it is that he's being protected by either/or Pakistan and the US government

Does this mean the governors and mayors, and law enforcement agencies of kansas protected the BTK killer for all of those years?


No..I'm not making that claim.

Bman

[Bman]

More food for thought.. then I'm done for a while... There's plenty here to digest


http://www.madcowprod.com/mc052004.html


Did Terrorist Pilots Train at U.S. Military Schools?


"The only real news you get after something big is in the first couple of days."
In addition to having been inducted into the U.S. flight training program by two Dutch-owned flight schools in Venice, Florida, as many as six of the terrorists, including ringleader Mohammed Atta, also received training at U.S. military facilities, according to a flurry of stories between Sept 15 and 17 in the Washington Post, Newsweek, and Knight Ridder newspapers.

The story had an extremely short life.

Newsweek reported that "U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes used in Tuesday's terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s."

Knight Ridder’s news account was more specific. It said Mohamed Atta had attended International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Ala. In addition, Abdulaziz Alomari had attended Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force base in Texas, they reported, and Saeed Alghamdi had been to the Defense Language Institute in Monterrey, California.

If true, these reports would have dealt a blow to the consensus portrait then emerging of the terrorist cadre as puritanical Islamic fundamentalists.

Indeed, if foreign nationals who would eventually become terrorist pilots were training at the Pensacola Naval Air Station, or going through the U.S. Air Forces’ International Officer’s School at Maxwell Air Force Base, they would most likely have had connections to Arab governments considered friendly to the United States.

Official denial was swift, but strangely worded. The italics are ours:

"Officials stressed that the name matches may not necessarily mean the students were the hijackers because of discrepancies in ages in other personal data."

"Some of the FBI suspects had names similar to those used by foreign alumni of U.S. military courses," said the Air Force in a statement. "However, discrepancies in their biographical data, such as birth dates 20 years off, indicate we are probably not talking about the same people."

"Probably not talking about the same people" does not quite strike the right note of decisive certitude that we would expect when discussing the identities of the people who have just been responsible for the deaths of 6000 more-or-less vaporized Americans.

But Air Force spokesmen are apparently more persuasive in person than when reading a press release over the telephone, because Newsweek, the Washington Post and Knight Ridder all dropped the story.

Nothing has been reported about this since. Nada. Niente.

Could a cover-up be underway? Could the original information that "leaked out" in early press reports have been true...and then suppressed in America's free press?

Or is this just six separate-but-innocent cases of mistaken identity?

Did (terrorist pilot) Mohamed Atta attend International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Ala? Did (terrorist) Abdulaziz Alomari study at Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force base in Texas? Was (terrorist) Saeed Alghamdi at the Defense Language Institute in Monterrey, California?

It seemed easy enough to find out. Deploy MadCow Team Coverage. Find out.

Here's the answer: "Nobody knows."

News reports Sept. 16 had asserted, "Officials would not release ages, country of origin or any other specific details of the three individuals."

Over three weeks later, nothing has changed.

When Newsweek's Internet site reported that three of the hijackers received training at the Pensacola Naval Station in Florida, Senator Nelson had faxed an indignant note to Attorney General Ashcroft demanding to know if it were true.

A former Navy pilot had told Newsweek that during his years on the base, "we always, always, always trained other countries' pilots. When I was there two decades ago, it was Iranians. The shah was in power. Whoever the country du jour is, that's whose pilots we train."

We called the office of Florida Democratic Senator Bob Nelson. We were hoping to hear more about the country du jour.

The Senator has not yet received a reply.

"In the wake of those reports we asked about the Pensacola Naval Air Station but we never got a definitive answer from the Justice Department," said a spokesman for Sen. Nelson. "So we asked the FBI for an answer ‘if and when’ they could provide us one. Their response to date has been that they are trying to sort through something complicated and difficult."

"If and when."

"Speaking for Senator Nelson," concluded the spokesman, "we still do not know if three of the terrorists trained at one time in Pensacola or not."

"Complicated and difficult."

We reached a Major in the Air Force's Public Affairs Office who was familiar with the question, she said, because she had read the initial Air Force denial to the media.

"Biographically, they're not the same people," she explained to us patiently. "Some of the ages are twenty year off."

'Some' of the ages? We told her we were only interested in Atta. Was she saying that the age of the Mohamed Atta who attended the Air Force's International Officer's School at Maxwell Air Force Base was different than the terrorist Atta's age as reported?

Um, er, no, the Major admitted. Stiil, she persisted. "Mohamed is a very common name."

We asked if the Registrar of the International Officer's School might provide us with the name and address of this second Mohamed Atta, so that we might call him and confirm that there were really two Mohamed Atta's of about the same age pursuing flight training in the U.S. at about the same time.

"I don't think you're going to get that information," the Major replied.


Yesterday, FBI Agents were ordered to curtail their investigation of the Sept. 11 attack, in an order describing the investigation of the terrorist hijackings as "the most exhaustive in its history."

"The investigative staff has to be made to understand that we're not trying to solve a crime now," said one law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity

The order was said to have met with resistance from FBI agents who believed that continued surveillance of suspects might have turned up critical evidence to prove who orchestrated the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Officials said Mr. Mueller, who was sworn in last month, believed that his agents had a broad understanding of the events of Sept. 11.

It was now time to Move On.

Did some of the hijackers receive training in U.S. military exchange programs for foreign officers? Was terrorist "ringleader' Mohamed Atta a puritanical Islamic fundamentalist? Or an Arab double agent?

This week's best headline comes from the plucky and hopefully spore-free folks over at the National Enquirer:

I Dated a Terrorist!
Horrified Girlfriend Tell All

"He didn't seem to me to have any evil qualities," Kristen says now. "That's the scary thing--that you never know. You never know

[Rightwingnut]

First of all, allow me to point out that you Motley, Knightroar and others are making assholes of yourselves b accusing people of being traitors. Its no different than when they call YOU traitor. Everyone is a patriot for the most part...we just express it in different ways.

Second. There is something here. But I think your skewing the reality of the situation. I know you all dearly love to cast Bush in the fascist light and the idea that he is using Bin Laden as his way to keep control of power fits right in with that agenda. In fact it fits right in with the idea that 9/11 was his Reichstag. Its political claptrap.

The situation, in my opinion, is much simpler and less sinister than you would like it to be. And thats that we are not as adept at intel or action as we think we are. It is difficult to locate one man, who does not want to be found and has the support of a large portion of the people in the area he is hiding out in. If that man is smart, knows the terrain and who he can trust, when to and when not to poke his head out of the hole he can hide for years. Christ, look at the BTK.

We were close to him. Why didnt we go? Politics and you know it. The dicotomy of this war. We will drop bombs in a neighborhood to get Saddam, but we fear martyring Bin laden and those around him.

And instead of addressing the actual problem the Administration has decided to try and marginalize his importance. Its a way to mask thier ineptitude on this, not to protect Bin Laden.

Bush is a fool. I have come to accept that I was wrong about him in many aspects. But I STILL refuse to put a nazi tag on him...especially over this. He should be more honest about it. In the end he will have to face it. And when people like myself start wanting an accounting he is in trouble.

[knightroar]

well Rightwingnut, no one in this thread made the fascist comment except you. And the label of traitors was simply a knee jerk reaction to let the assholes know how that charge feels when most of us love our country and want the best for it. So although the charge of "traitor" was not warranted, it was a "back at you" slam.

As to the things we are digging up and presenting in this thread, I have not come to a final conclusion yet on where it all leads to or the why, but I will continue reading and learning and searching to find out.

Incompetence alone could very well be charged to George Bush, but unfortunately, that label does not stick to those around him pulling the strings. They are very good at what they do. The question remains, what are they actually attempting to do. We will keep searching to reach a conclusion.

[Bag Sniper]

I'm not sure where he got the quote, but the quote is by a member of the British Parliament.

Oh this is rich .... a blogger ... unknown at that .. the guardian .... a member of the British parliament ...

Oh fuckin' shit .... spare me your bullshit ..... not one other media outlet anywhere is running this "story" but nightfist pulls it out of his ass and suddenly it's worth a tizzy .....

And of course it starts an immediate circle jerk with nightfist, lotashit, moldy and the other IH the Mosque scum floating to the surface taking turns at pivotman .....

bin Laden will be caught eventually if he's not already dead .... but only you leftist traitors would focus on one man and ignore the organization ... remember children ... it was your heroe Al Gore who said if elected president he'd put bin Laden in a lockbox .... pppffffhhttttttt ....

And don't forget the supposed bin Laden tape that surfaced just before the polls opened ..... fuck ... that goat fucker was reading right from the democratic party election playbook .... right down the fuckin line ......

Don't forget ... Clinton was given bin Laden *twice* and he refused to take him ....

So eat shit .... your faux indignation is transparent ....

[Rightwingnut]

well Rightwingnut, no one in this thread made the fascist comment except you. And the label of traitors was simply a knee jerk reaction to let the assholes know how that charge feels when most of us love our country and want the best for it. So although the charge of "traitor" was not warranted, it was a "back at you" slam.


C'mon KR...I know I am not the smartest person on this board but gimme SOME credit. No one may have said the F word, but the idea that he is protecting someone like Bin Laden only has one logical conclusion. If it were true, and he was doing such a thing, what would it mean? Simple, that he using him as a way to maintain power and control over the dumbass Americans via fear and terror. That is an accusation of fascism.

I know what the Traitor thing was and I understand. But its still annoying :D


As to the things we are digging up and presenting in this thread, I have not come to a final conclusion yet on where it all leads to or the why, but I will continue reading and learning and searching to find out.

It would have to be pretty damning to convince me he is anything but foolish.



Incompetence alone could very well be charged to George Bush, but unfortunately, that label does not stick to those around him pulling the strings. They are very good at what they do. The question remains, what are they actually attempting to do. We will keep searching to reach a conclusion


Let me put it this way and maybe you will understand where I stand a bit better. If Bush, or those behind him ARE trying to create a fascist state they are off to a bad start. In fact, as fascists the Bush administration is a massive failure.

[knightroar]

Oh this is rich .... a blogger ... unknown at that .. the guardian .... a member of the British parliament ...

Oh fuckin' shit .... spare me your bullshit ..... not one other media outlet anywhere is running this "story" but nightfist pulls it out of his ass and suddenly it's worth a tizzy .....

And of course it starts an immediate circle jerk with nightfist, lotashit, moldy and the other IH the Mosque scum floating to the surface taking turns at pivotman .....

bin Laden will be caught eventually if he's not already dead .... but only you leftist traitors would focus on one man and ignore the organization ... remember children ... it was your heroe Al Gore who said if elected president he'd put bin Laden in a lockbox .... pppffffhhttttttt ....

And don't forget the supposed bin Laden tape that surfaced just before the polls opened ..... fuck ... that goat fucker was reading right from the democratic party election playbook .... right down the fuckin line ......

Don't forget ... Clinton was given bin Laden *twice* and he refused to take him ....

So eat shit .... your faux indignation is transparent ....


Conservatives love to rattle on about how Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden in 1996 (and possibly in 2000), but let him go. Quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of this old overcooked falsehood repeated again and again. The idea is that Clinton was given a viable chance to get bin Laden and somehow decided, "nah, we could take him and put him in prison but let's intentionally let him go free." This is unadulterated Drudge-style garbage.

The oft-repeated right-wing version of the story originates from one Mansoor Ijaz, an investment banker now based in New York, a former "lobbyist for Pakistan" who is now a regular Clinton hit-man on conservative FOX News and the National Review. The story seems to have many variations, that Osama was offered up once, twice, even three times. However, Ijaz has no evidence that he was integral, and the Clinton White House denied he ever was. They saw him as self-serving, having business ties with Sudan, which was then under embargo for their terrorist ties, wanting the embargo lifted so he could position himself profitably when Sudan opened its oil fields for export as planned in 1997. Clinton's people had worked with Ijaz before in dealing with Pakistan, but this time disregarded him because of the conflicts inherent in his Sudan business connections, not to mention Ijaz's later tendencies to present himself inaccurately to several foreign nations as "agent" of the U.S. government. The Clinton administration underwent negotiations with Sudan without Ijaz, but Ijaz's self-important story gets repeated ad nauseam--by Ijaz himself--with right-wing platforms eager to give him air time and column space. Ijaz later made even more fantastic claims that he could get Osama extradited in 2000, again unsupported. Apparently, Ijaz would have us believe that he had Osama in a bottle and pleaded with Clinton to take him, but Clinton maliciously unleashed him to wreak havoc upon the world.

Here is the story as it happened:


The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.

Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture. ...

Resigned to Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan, some officials raised the possibility of shooting down his chartered aircraft, but the idea was never seriously pursued because Mr. bin Laden had not been linked to a dead American, and it was inconceivable that Mr. Clinton would sign the "lethal finding" necessary under the circumstances.


In short, Sudan claimed that it would arrest Osama and extradite him to another country, though the veracity of that offer has never been confirmed, and was doubted by many. But the Clinton administration tried to achieve this. However, the U.S. itself could not take him because at that time (and this is what the right-wing hatchet stories usually leave out), bin Laden had not been connected with any U.S. deaths, and the U.S. did not have any jurisdiction to try him. So they tried to convince the Saudis to take him, but the Saudis refused. To suggest that Clinton had the ability to nab bin Laden but decided not to goes contrary to Clinton's 10-week effort to get bin Laden put in a Saudi jail and possibly executed there. The deal was simply unworkable, pure and simple.

[Bag Sniper]

Typical of you putz's .... while you like to cast the "ineptitude" word around Dubya's neck and the lack of decent intel you just can't bring yourselves to follow the trail to it's real end .....

And that would lead you directly to the Clinton administration and that pesky woman Gorelick who gutted the intel agency's to the spine ....

When you have 8 years of incompetant leftist rule what the fuck did you expect the next administration to get handed .... a bucket of runny shit with the handle on the inside ...... and that's exactly what was left to work with ....

What a bunch of whiney bitches ...... you're a laugh a minute ....

[Alli]

I think one of the reasons is because of the loyalty and devotion of his following. Doesn't monetary gain or relocation usually lend support to finding and capturing people. It's well documented his followers sneer at the prospect of wealth and relocating to america to form a new life, hence no motiviation to support intel on assisting the search.

[Rightwingnut]

The bottom line..THE BOTTOM line is that the mess in the ME is NOT a Bush creation. It existed and was aggrivated by presidents for DECADES before he took office. He was simply the first to take decisive action with the attack on the Taliban.

To bad he couldnt maintain that line though.



Typical of you putz's .... while you like to cast the "ineptitude" word around Dubya's neck and the lack of decent intel you just can't bring yourselves to follow the trail to it's real end .....

And that would lead you directly to the Clinton administration and that pesky woman Gorelick who gutted the intel agency's to the spine ....

When you have 8 years of incompetant leftist rule what the fuck did you expect the next administration to get handed .... a bucket of runny shit with the handle on the inside ...... and that's exactly what was left to work with ....

What a bunch of whiney bitches ...... you're a laugh a minute ....

[T3D]

When you have 8 years of incompetant leftist rule what the fuck did you expect the next administration to get handed
Close to peace in the ME, a booming economy, and a government that is making money?

[Rightwingnut]

Close to peace in the ME, a booming economy, and a government that is making money?

"Close to peace" in the ME?

I dont always agree with you T3...but I never took you for a revisionist.

[Bman]

Where did the blogger get this information??

If this is proven to be the case, it pretty much confirms what many of us have suspected.

Bman


Originally, it appears to have come from here (Nov. 16th, 2001)


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11427607&method=full


Excerpt:

The guilty secret is that the attack on Afghanistan was unnecessary. The "smoking gun" of this entire episode is evidence of the British Government's lies about the basis for the war. According to Tony Blair, it was impossible to secure Osama bin Laden's extradition from Afghanistan by means other than bombing.

Yet in late September and early October, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamic parties negotiated bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for the September 11 attacks. The deal was that he would be held under house arrest in Peshawar. According to reports in Pakistan (and the Daily Telegraph), this had both bin Laden's approval and that of Mullah Omah, the Taliban leader.

The offer was that he would face an international tribunal, which would decide whether to try him or hand him over to America. Either way, he would have been out of Afghanistan, and a tentative justice would be seen to be in progress. It was vetoed by Pakistan's president Musharraf who said he "could not guarantee bin Laden's safety".
But who really killed the deal?

The US Ambassador to Pakistan was notified in advance of the proposal and the mission to put it to the Taliban. Later, a US official said that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some luck chance Mr bin Laden was captured".

And yet the US and British governments insisted there was no alternative to bombing Afghanistan because the Taliban had "refused" to hand over Osama bin Laden. What the Afghani people got instead was "American justice" - imposed by a president who, as well as denouncing international agreements on nuclear weapons, biological weapons, torture and global warming, has refused to sign up for an international court to try war criminals: the one place where bin Laden might be put on trial.

When Tony Blair said this war was not an attack on Islam as such, he was correct.

Its aim, in the short term, was to satisfy a domestic audience then to accelerate American influence in a vital region where there has been a power vacuum since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of China, whose oil needs are expected eventually to surpass even those of the US. That is why control of Central Asia and the Caspian basin oilfields is important as exploration gets under way.

There was, until the cluster bombing of innocents, a broad-based recognition that there had to be international action to combat the kind of terrorism that took thousands of lives in New York.

But these humane responses to September 11 were appropriated by an American administration, whose subsequent actions ought to have left all but the complicit and the politically blind in no doubt that it intended to reinforce its post-cold war assertion of global supremacy - an assertion that has a long, documented history.

The "war on terrorism" gave Bush the pretext to pressure Congress into pushing through laws that erode much of the basis of American justice and democracy. Blair has followed behind with anti-terrorism laws of the very kind that failed to catch a single terrorist during the Irish war.

In this atmosphere of draconian controls and fear, in the US and Britain, mere explanation of the root causes of the attacks on America invites ludicrous accusations of "treachery."

Above all, what this false victory has demonstrated is that, to those in power in Washington and London and those who speak for them, certain human lives have greater worth than others and that the killing of only one set of civilians is a crime. If we accept that, we beckon the repetition of atrocities on all sides, again and again.

www.johnpilger.com

[T3D]

"Close to peace" in the ME?

I dont always agree with you T3...but I never took you for a revisionist.
They had arafat and sharon at cap david...so at least there was negotiations...

[Bag Sniper]

Conservatives love to rattle on about how Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden in 1996 (and possibly in 2000), but let him go. Quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of this old overcooked falsehood repeated again and again.

The deal was simply unworkable, pure and simple.

It's not an overcooked falsehood .... it is an absolute *fact* has you so aptly proved ....

And so you just blow it off with "it was simply unworkable" .... horse fucking shit it was unworkable ..... but here you stand declaring the act of *catching* bin Laden since he's run aground is immensely easier .....

You're a cheesedick nightfist ..... you're one motherfucking dolt .....

Go back to spewing your bullshit at IH the Mosque where you can pull your crap over the eyes of your fellow cackling hens ......

[Rightwingnut]

They had arafat and sharon at cap david...so at least there was negotiations...

Thats not what you said my friend. There was an uneasy truce being forced, not peace. Things were stagnant and the window dressing of camp David only lent to an illusion. There has been more movement towards a resolution since we invaded Afghanastan then there ever was during the Clinton administration...even IF that movement was coming despite it.

Despite the fact that he was a good president, Clinton's foriegn policy was a failure.

[Bag Sniper]

Close to peace in the ME, a booming economy, and a government that is making money?

Close ? You're a fuckin joke ..... a booming economy ... ya mean like the Enron's and the .com facade etc ...... and since when is a government supposed to make money .... government is supposed to be a zero sum game ......

[Bag Sniper]

Clinton's foriegn policy was a failure.

It wasn't just an abject failure ... it was nonexistant to the point of suicide ... I'm sure nightfist, moldy, devolved et al could just ream off the list of terrorist attacks against this country during Clinton's misadminstration ... along with the short list of aggressive responses to each of those attacks ....

And while these apologists like to fantasize that Clinton's hands were tied in the Lewinsky perjury's they'll be just as fast to forget the names of Jones, Broederick, Flowers and a host of others .... Clinton's hands weren't tied .... he was froze to inaction because he got his foreskin stuck in his zipper ....

[knightroar]

well Bag Sniffer, what part of "Saudi Arabia refused to take Bin Laden" do you not understand? what part of "there was no proof of Bin Laden causing one American death" do you not understand. Our court system would have, at the time turned him loose. And Bush's bed mates in Saudi Arabia wanted nothing to do with arresting him.

[Mr. Drags]

Close to peace in the ME, a booming economy, and a government that is making money?
close to peace? that whole arafat and sharon debacle was a dog andd pony show. there's been fighting in the middle east since the dawn of time and there will always be fighting in the middle east.

the booming economy was on its way out as the tech bubble burst and the cooked books companies, like Enron and World Com came to light -- looks like those bastards are getting it right up the hind end too.

And a government should never make money. it should zero out at the end of each fiscal year. Zero-based budgeting is the way to go!!

As far as this thread, there's some scary info out there, but nothing definitive. I think this administration has certainly proven inept in finding bin laden and we should never have dropped the ball and outsourced the hunt to the Pakis, hell they're in league with binny.

I think it was a complete mistake to shift our focus from the hunt two years ago.

[Bag Sniper]

well Bag Sniffer, what part of "Saudi Arabia refused to take Bin Laden" do you not understand? what part of "there was no proof of Bin Laden causing one American death" do you not understand. Our court system would have, at the time turned him loose. And Bush's bed mates in Saudi Arabia wanted nothing to do with arresting him.

I see ... so if Saudi Arabia wouldn't take him then Clinton just washed his hands of it ..... you just keep coming up with one lame excuse after another .... so according to you Dubya is sooooo powerful he can put a bunch of bad guys in Gitmo but Clinton can't get his hands on bin Laden ....

And what makes you think our court system would've let him go ? You're no lawyer and you have no inside information concerning anything related to the terror attacks, evidence, wiretaps, grand jury testimony .... nothing .... so stop the bullshit nightfist ... you're stretching this crap so thin you can see through it .....

Bottom line fact asshole ..... Clinton could've nailed bin Laden if he wanted to ... ... he didn't .... we got hit because of it and now we have about 3,000 dead people shitting in your cereal bowl pal .....

So fuckin spoon up dickface ..... if you want to lay blame then fuckin do it where it really belongs but don't come on here with your antiBush fantasy bullshit because it don't fuckin wash .......

[Bman]

Bottom line fact asshole ..... Clinton could've nailed bin Laden if he wanted to ... ... he didn't .... we got hit because of it and now we have about 3,000 dead people shitting in your cereal bowl pal .....

..


So why hasn't Bush nailed him... Doesn't he WANT to??

Now you're sounding like me.. I knew you'd come around

Bman

[Bag Sniper]

I think it was a complete mistake to shift our focus from the hunt two years ago.


I'm surprised at you Drags ... while I would more than expect a statement like that to come from nightfist and his little band of trogladytes I'm taken aback reading this from you.

Just because the media isn't reporting dailey activities in Afgahnistan and the Paki border people suddenly think every American and coalition soldier just packed up and left the entire region .... this is a deadly assumption ....

There is actually several thousand special forces dudes known as Force 201 or soemthing like that who's only mission is to continue to hunt down bin Laden and crew along the Paki border ... they've been there since the Afghan war was beginning to wind down and are still there today .... that has been reported many times but hasn't gotten any press lately because of Iraq and other stuff like Oil for Bribes ....

Anyone who thinks this administration has simply given up looking for bin Laden isn't thinking clearly because either they don't want to or they simply can't .....

[Bman]

The offer was that he would face an international tribunal, which would decide whether to try him or hand him over to America. Either way, he would have been out of Afghanistan, and a tentative justice would be seen to be in progress. It was vetoed by Pakistan's president Musharraf who said he "could not guarantee bin Laden's safety".
But who really killed the deal?

The US Ambassador to Pakistan was notified in advance of the proposal and the mission to put it to the Taliban. Later, a US official said that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some luck chance Mr bin Laden was captured".





Uh oh!! Seems the infallable FOX NEWS ran some stories that corroborate the story as its being told here


Source: Bin Laden Extradition Possible, With Conditions Attached


Tuesday, September 18, 2001


The Taliban regime that controls most of Afghanistan are willing to discuss extraditing wanted terrorist Usama bin Laden — as long as he goes to a country other than the United States, said a Pakistani government source Tuesday, hours after the Taliban urged Afghans to be prepared for a holy war. ..............................




http://404pagenotfound.cjb.net/~jon/wtcattack/091801/foxnews_top.html

[Bag Sniper]

So why hasn't Bush nailed him... Doesn't he WANT to??

Now you're sounding like me.. I knew you'd come around

Bman

Like I said earleir Bboy .... it's one thing to take the bastard out when he's standing out in the open .... it's a different thing completely when he's run aground and hiding ...

As RWN mentioned ..... it took how many years to get BTK ? And he was hiding right out in plain sight ..... and how about the Zodiak .... it's been what 40 some years and he still not been found .....

But if you think you've got the answer then jump right in there ... if you don't then just shut the fuck up ......

[Alli]

So why hasn't Bush nailed him... Doesn't he WANT to??


Bman
Again, I revert back to the BTK killer and the law enforcement officials of Kansas. Because one hasn't been found, in your opinion, equates to noone wants to find them?

[Rightwingnut]

Like I said earleir Bboy .... it's one thing to take the bastard out when he's standing out in the open .... it's a different thing completely when he's run aground and hiding ...

As RWN mentioned ..... it took how many years to get BTK ? And he was hiding right out in plain sight ..... and how about the Zodiak .... it's been what 40 some years and he still not been found .....

But if you think you've got the answer then jump right in there ... if you don't then just shut the fuck up ......


I also question the Talibans ability to actually give Bin laden up.

[Bman]

There is actually several thousand special forces dudes known as Force 201 or soemthing like that who's only mission is to continue to hunt down bin Laden and crew along the Paki border ... they've been there since the Afghan war was beginning to wind down and are still there today .... that has been reported many times but hasn't gotten any press lately because of Iraq and other stuff like Oil for Bribes ....

.....



OOooohhh!!!! FORCE 201 (from Space, not doubt) .. Sounds impressive!! Are these the same half wits that executed Pat Tillman?? If I'm Bin Laden, I'd be quaking in my boots...


Its funny.. when the Russians want a terrorist leader dead, they go and kill.. In the US, we're to believe we're TRYING.. but we just can't seem to find him.. .He's like a phantom.. a shadow.... a ghost... He might be under your bed!


Russia paid reward to find Chechen leaderWednesday, March 16, 2005 Page

Moscow -- Russia's security service announced yesterday it paid an unprecedented $10-million (U.S.) to informers who helped track down Chechen rebel leader Aslan Maskhadov, who was subsequently killed. The disclosure was an effort to give credibility to its offer of an identical prize for warlord Shamil Basayev.

Authorities did not say who received the reward, and there was no way to confirm the payment. But $10-million would be Moscow's largest ever reward for a fugitive.

"The promise to pay a large sum of money has been realized, and the population knows that this is no myth. People will turn up who will independently trace Basayev and his underlings and report to the proper authorities," Interfax news agency quoted Chechnya's Moscow-backed President, Alu Alkhanov, as saying. AP


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050316/WORLD16-2/TPInternational/Europe

[Mr. Drags]

I'm surprised at you Drags ... while I would more than expect a statement like that to come from nightfist and his little band of trogladytes I'm taken aback reading this from you.

Just because the media isn't reporting daily activities in Afgahnistan and the Paki border people suddenly think every American and coalition soldier just packed up and left the entire region .... this is a deadly assumption .... Actually the media does report it, it just doesn't necessarily get used, but I do keep seeing pieces on the AP wire about afghanistan.
I know that we still have troops there, I just think it was a mistake to shift the focus so abruptly. I'm not a two front kind of person, I'd rather have seen more of a stabalization of that area prior to any further actions. I also don't think that Musharaff can be trusted at all. I think the Pakis are in league with Al Quaeda and aren't helping like they claim they are. I seriously believe they allowed bin Laden to slip out of their fingers at Tora Bora. I don't like the fact that we're in bed with the Pakis or the Saudis. Neither government can be trusted at all

And while Saddam was a known supporter of terrorists, Abu Nidal ring a bell with anyone, I think action could have been delayed.

[Alli]

As RWN mentioned ..... it took how many years to get BTK ? And he was hiding right out in plain sight .....

Um, actually I mentioned that too. :o

[Alli]

I think one of the reasons is because of the loyalty and devotion of his following. Doesn't monetary gain or relocation usually lend support to finding and capturing people. It's well documented his followers sneer at the prospect of wealth and relocating to america to form a new life, hence no motiviation to support intel on assisting the search.
Hello, does this theory not mean anything to any of you? Unless our armed forces have some sort of lead for the 'man', what are they to do? Call a psychic hotline to pin down his location??

[Bman]

Again, I revert back to the BTK killer and the law enforcement officials of Kansas. Because one hasn't been found, in your opinion, equates to noone wants to find them?



The BTK killer??? you've got to be joking...

That's not even worth addressing..


Did the President of the United States, with the full backing of the US Congress and an INFINITE amount of money and resources declare war on the BTK killer??

Did the Kansas police set up detainment facilities all over the world to torture people for information??

Did the Kansas police have spy satellites and predator UAV's and cell phone intercepts and human intelligence on the ground??


Was catching the BTK killer a matter of national secuity?? Were we told that the BTK killer was the most dangerous threat we had ever faced?

This is an embarassing comparison


I'm done addressing that one

Bman

[Rightwingnut]

Um, actually I mentioned that too. :o

Yes you did :D

[Bman]

I also question the Talibans ability to actually give Bin laden up.

That's an interesting take


You're saying the Taliban may NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND BIN LADEN, yet... we attacked them because they wouldn't give us Bin Laden

Interesting.. Kinda like asking a bum on the street to give you a million dollars then killing him, if he can't come up with it

Bman

[Fictious Actor]

"Conservatives love to rattle on about how Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden in 1996 (and possibly in 2000), but let him go. Quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of this old overcooked falsehood repeated again and again. The idea is that Clinton was given a viable chance to get bin Laden and somehow decided, "nah, we could take him and put him in prison but let's intentionally let him go free." This is unadulterated Drudge-style garbage."

KR - I think your anger might also hide a bit of frustration in the fact that this scenario was indeed correct........ it is proven... it is fact..... BC and Co. didn't want innocent blood on their hands..... they didn't want to kill up to 15-20 family members traveling with OBL..... they made a call........... but in saving those few lives....... we have turned the world on its head....... I think subconsciously you feel this and that provides you the fuel to now attack GWB with such venom........

I have to ask again........ would you like to see OBL caught? I think the answer is yes...... now in so doing you have provided some views...... but what about actions that you propose.......... how much do you want OBL caught? Enough to throw a new set of sanctions on P-stan? Enough to temporarily occupy another sovereign nation until the job is done........

I now give you the reins to the manhunt for OBL.... what course of action would you take.... and let's say all options are on the table........

Good luck

[Rightwingnut]

That's an interesting take


You're saying the Taliban may NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND BIN LADEN, yet... we attacked them because they wouldn't give us Bin Laden

Interesting.. Kinda like asking a bum on the street to give you a million dollars then killing him, if he can't come up with it

Bman

Nope. I think they knew right where he was.

I'm saying that the Taliban was a paper tiger. Beating women with sticks and forcing men to grow beards is much different than facing down a well trained, well armed groups of zealots.

[Bman]

Nope. I think they knew right where he was.

I'm saying that the Taliban was a paper tiger. Beating women with sticks and forcing men to grow beards is much different than facing down a well trained, well armed groups of zealots.


so your theory is that the Taliban was powerless against Al Qaeda...

yet we attacked them for not turning him over..

Now isn't that like imprisoning a beaten wife for not kicking her husbands ass??

I don't buy it

Bman

[T3D]

Thats not what you said my friend. There was an uneasy truce being forced, not peace. Things were stagnant and the window dressing of camp David only lent to an illusion. There has been more movement towards a resolution since we invaded Afghanastan then there ever was during the Clinton administration...even IF that movement was coming despite it.

Despite the fact that he was a good president, Clinton's foriegn policy was a failure.
Point taken. Thanks you much.

[Bag Sniper]

The BTK killer??? you've got to be joking...

That's not even worth addressing..


Did the President of the United States, with the full backing of the US Congress and an INFINITE amount of money and resources declare war on the BTK killer??

Did the Kansas police set up detainment facilities all over the world to torture people for information??

Did the Kansas police have spy satellites and predator UAV's and cell phone intercepts and human intelligence on the ground??


Was catching the BTK killer a matter of national secuity?? Were we told that the BTK killer was the most dangerous threat we had ever faced?

This is an embarassing comparison


I'm done addressing that one

Bman

No need to prove you're dumbass Bboy ... it's a well known fact to all here on IH .....

[Rightwingnut]

so you're theory is that the Taliban was powerless against Al Qaeda...

yet we attacked them for not turning him over..

Now isn't that like imprisoning a beaten wife for not kicking her husbands ass??

I don't buy it

Bman

Whether you buy it or not does not matter. Its my opinion that the Taliban was a weakling that simply got caught in the middle of things. They decided to use the situation to grow thier stature within the fundy community and to be seen not flinching in the face of the Evil Americans. I dont believe for a second that they had any semblence of control over Bin Laden. Instead of saying so and allowing the US to go in they decided to play the game. They chose thier path and they paid for it.

I dont miss them, they deserved what they got, but thier importance is overstated.

[Motley]

First of all, allow me to point out that you Motley, Knightroar and others are making assholes of yourselves b accusing people of being traitors.

If you can find me an example in this thread where I called anyone a traitor, please do so. Otherwise, I'll be expecting an appology forthcoming.

[Bman]

Another piece to the puzzle...



U.S. Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil
Bush Rep Met With Taliban 5 Weeks Before 9-11



11-16-2001, PARIS, Nov 15 (IPS) - Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the government of George W. Bush initially blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.

In the book ''Bin Laden, la verite interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''), that appeared in Paris on Wednesday, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.

Brisard claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''.

The two claim the U.S. government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.

They affirm that until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime ''as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia'', from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.

Until now, says the book, ''the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that''.

But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, ''this rationale of energy security changed into a military one'', the authors claim.

''At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs','' Brisard said in an interview in Paris.

According to the book, the government of Bush began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.

To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a U.S. expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of U.S. secret services, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The last meeting between U.S. and Taliban representatives took place in August, five weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington, the analysts maintain.

On that occasion, Christina Rocca, in charge of Central Asian affairs for the U.S. government, met the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan in Islamabad.

Brisard and Dasquie have long experience in intelligence analysis. Brisard was until the late 1990s director of economic analysis and strategy for Vivendi, a French company. He also worked for French secret services, and wrote for them in 1997 a report on the now famous Al Qaeda network, headed by bin Laden.

Dasquie is an investigative journalist and publisher of Intelligence Online, a respected newsletter on diplomacy, economic analysis and strategy, available through the Internet.

Brisard and Dasquie draw a portrait of closest aides to President Bush, linking them to oil business.

Bush's family has a strong oil background. So are some of his top aides. From the U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, through the director of the National Security Council Condoleeza Rice, to the Ministers of Commerce and Energy, Donald Evans and Stanley Abraham, all have for long worked for U.S. oil companies.

Cheney was until the end of last year president of Halliburton, a company that provides services for oil industry; Rice was between 1991 and 2000 manager for Chevron; Evans and Abraham worked for Tom Brown, another oil giant.

Besides the secret negotiations held between Washington and Kabul and the importance of the oil industry, the book takes issue with the role played by Saudi Arabia in fostering Islamic fundamentalism, in the personality of bin Laden, and with the networks that the Saudi dissident built to finance his activities.

Brisard and Dasquie contend the U.S. government's claim that it had been prosecuting bin Laden since 1998. ''Actually,'' Dasquie says, ''the first state to officially prosecute bin Laden was Libya, on the charges of terrorism.''

''Bin Laden wanted settle in Libya in the early 1990s, but was hindered by the government of Muammar Qaddafi,'' Dasquie claims. ''Enraged by Libya's refusal, bin Laden organised attacks inside Libya, including assassination attempts against Qaddafi.''

Dasquie singles out one group, the Islamic Fighting Group (IFG), reputedly the most powerful Libyan dissident organisation, based in London, and directly linked with bin Laden.

''Qaddafi even demanded Western police institutions, such as Interpol, to pursue the IFG and bin Laden, but never obtained co- operation,'' Dasquie says. ''Until today, members of IFG openly live in London.''

The book confirms earlier reports that the U.S. government worked closely with the United Nations during the negotiations with the Taliban.

''Several meetings took place this year, under the arbitration of Francesc Vendrell, personal representative of UN secretary general Kofi Annan, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan,'' says the book.

''Representatives of the U.S. government and Russia, and the six countries that border with Afghanistan were present at these meetings,'' it says. ''Sometimes, representatives of the Taliban also sat around the table.''

These meetings, also called ''6+2'' because of the number of states (six neighbours plus U.S. and Russia) involved, have been confirmed by Naif Naik, former Pakistani Minister for Foreign Affairs.

In a French television news programme two weeks ago, Naik said during a ''6+2'' meeting in Berlin in July, the discussions turned around ''the formation of a government of national unity. If the Taliban had accepted this coalition, they would have immediately received international economic aid.''

''And the pipe lines from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would have come,'' he added.

Naik also claimed that Tom Simons, the U.S. representative at these meetings, openly threatened the Taliban and Pakistan.

''Simons said, 'either the Taliban behave as they ought to, or Pakistan convinces them to do so, or we will use another option'. The words Simons used were 'a military operation','' Naik claimed.


http://www.angelfire.com/rant/sstewert/News/bushreport2.html

[Bag Sniper]

"Conservatives love to rattle on about how Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden in 1996 (and possibly in 2000), but let him go. Quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of this old overcooked falsehood repeated again and again. The idea is that Clinton was given a viable chance to get bin Laden and somehow decided, "nah, we could take him and put him in prison but let's intentionally let him go free." This is unadulterated Drudge-style garbage."

KR - I think your anger might also hide a bit of frustration in the fact that this scenario was indeed correct........ it is proven... it is fact..... BC and Co. didn't want innocent blood on their hands..... they didn't want to kill up to 15-20 family members traveling with OBL..... they made a call........... but in saving those few lives....... we have turned the world on its head....... I think subconsciously you feel this and that provides you the fuel to now attack GWB with such venom........

I have to ask again........ would you like to see OBL caught? I think the answer is yes...... now in so doing you have provided some views...... but what about actions that you propose.......... how much do you want OBL caught? Enough to throw a new set of sanctions on P-stan? Enough to temporarily occupy another sovereign nation until the job is done........

I now give you the reins to the manhunt for OBL.... what course of action would you take.... and let's say all options are on the table........

Good luck

You'll not get any rational reponse or plan from nightfist, Bboy, devolved or any of the others .... they're professional parrots who only get thier opinions when it's fed to them from the feeding tube of moveon.org, the democraticunderground.com and other such sources of leftist drivel ....

I'm out for the day .... good luck ......

[Rightwingnut]

If you can find me an example in this thread where I called anyone a traitor, please do so. Otherwise, I'll be expecting an appology forthcoming.

Sorry. I should not have listed names and just made the point...which is valid.

You did not call anyone a traitor in this thread.

[knightroar]

"Conservatives love to rattle on about how Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden in 1996 (and possibly in 2000), but let him go. Quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of this old overcooked falsehood repeated again and again. The idea is that Clinton was given a viable chance to get bin Laden and somehow decided, "nah, we could take him and put him in prison but let's intentionally let him go free." This is unadulterated Drudge-style garbage."

KR - I think your anger might also hide a bit of frustration in the fact that this scenario was indeed correct........ it is proven... it is fact..... BC and Co. didn't want innocent blood on their hands..... they didn't want to kill up to 15-20 family members traveling with OBL..... they made a call........... but in saving those few lives....... we have turned the world on its head....... I think subconsciously you feel this and that provides you the fuel to now attack GWB with such venom........

I have to ask again........ would you like to see OBL caught? I think the answer is yes...... now in so doing you have provided some views...... but what about actions that you propose.......... how much do you want OBL caught? Enough to throw a new set of sanctions on P-stan? Enough to temporarily occupy another sovereign nation until the job is done........

I now give you the reins to the manhunt for OBL.... what course of action would you take.... and let's say all options are on the table........

Good luck


first of all, your nick fits you well. no it was not a proven fact.

Yes sanctions on Packistan would be a good start. They created the Taliban and also had a hand in creating Al Queada. Hold their Balls to the fire until they turn over all Al Queada operatives. The only trouble with that option is, unfortunately, Packistan's leadership is not going to fall on the sword and turn themselves over. They are having too much fun playing both sides of the fence and they are too far in the bed with Bin Laden to give him or themselves up to the US government. simple as that.

[Motley]

first of all, your nick fits you well. no it was not a proven fact.

Yes sanctions on Packistan would be a good start. They created the Taliban and also had a hand in creating Al Queada. Hold their Balls to the fire until they turn over all Al Queada operatives. The only trouble with that option is, unfortunately, Packistan's leadership is not going to fall on the sword and turn themselves over. They are having too much fun playing both sides of the fence and they are too far in the bed with Bin Laden to give him or themselves up to the US government. simple as that.

And common sense rears it's wonderfull head once again. :happy_01:

[Fictious Actor]

first of all, your nick fits you well. no it was not a proven fact.

Yes sanctions on Packistan would be a good start. They created the Taliban and also had a hand in creating Al Queada. Hold their Balls to the fire until they turn over all Al Queada operatives. The only trouble with that option is, unfortunately, Packistan's leadership is not going to fall on the sword and turn themselves over. They are having too much fun playing both sides of the fence and they are too far in the bed with Bin Laden to give him or themselves up to the US government. simple as that.

My nick was from the great words of Berkelygrad (also mispelled) upon her revelation that she was ...... ummmm. ...... well....... a scientist!

KR......... I'll ask the question again as you didn't answer it with your own thoughts........ sanctions.....hmmmmm what else..... ?

[Fictious Actor]

I gotta run too........ will read ya later!

[Bman]

My nick was from the great words of Berkelygrad (also mispelled) upon her revelation that she was ...... ummmm. ...... well....... a scientist!

KR......... I'll ask the question again as you didn't answer it with your own thoughts........ sanctions.....hmmmmm what else..... ?


Sanctions on Pakistan, covert operations.. Perhaps use a UAV to kill him like they did with that terrorist in Yemen.... Hire private bounty hunters, giving them letter of marque and reprisal (under the Constitution)..

In the mean time, resort to a full military blockade and limited airstrikes on Pakistan until they turn over both Bin Laden and AQ Khan... Freeze their international assets and call in any loans that their government has been given

In the mean time, demand that the saudis stop funding terrorism (name names.. we have the names) or face the same fate

Bman

[Rightwingnut]

Sanctions on Pakistan, covert operations.. Perhaps use a UAV to kill him like they did with that terrorist in Yemen.... Hire private bounty hunters, giving them letter of marque and reprisal (under the Constitution)..

In the mean time, resort to a full military blockade and limited airstrikes on Pakistan until they turn over both Bin Laden and AQ Khan... Freeze their international assets and call in any loans that their government has been given

In the mean time, demand that the saudis stop funding terrorism (name names.. we have the names) or face the same fate

Bman


I agree with this. Our reasoning may be different, but believe it or not I am on the same page with you here.

But then, I think we should do the same to North Korea. I also think we need to stick a boot in Chinas face.

So I am evil.

[knightroar]

My nick was from the great words of Berkelygrad (also mispelled) upon her revelation that she was ...... ummmm. ...... well....... a scientist!

KR......... I'll ask the question again as you didn't answer it with your own thoughts........ sanctions.....hmmmmm what else..... ?


They should have been invaded right after the Taliban fell. But instead we went into Iraq. The paki's hate us more than any other Islamic state. That is a simple fact. If little Israel had the ability a decade ago to hit and destroy Iraq's nuclear facilities, do you not believe that the USA has the capability a decade later to do the same with Pakistan? Once we eliminate them from the nuclear club, we go in and eliminate Al Queada in that country. India would love nothing more than this scenario to take place.
And after we finish with the paki's we move on to Saudi Arabia. I am sick and tired of our government playing footsie with those two countries that finance and support terror more than any other country in the world, with the possible exception of Iran.

[knightroar]

Sanctions on Pakistan, covert operations.. Perhaps use a UAV to kill him like they did with that terrorist in Yemen.... Hire private bounty hunters, giving them letter of marque and reprisal (under the Constitution)..

In the mean time, resort to a full military blockade and limited airstrikes on Pakistan until they turn over both Bin Laden and AQ Khan... Freeze their international assets and call in any loans that their government has been given

In the mean time, demand that the saudis stop funding terrorism (name names.. we have the names) or face the same fate

Bman


well reading this is a more practical approach than what I advocated. I agree that this is a great start

[Bman]

I agree with this. Our reasoning may be different, but believe it or not I am on the same page with you here.

But then, I think we should do the same to North Korea. I also think we need to stick a boot in Chinas face.

So I am evil.


You're only "evil" in that you support an "evil" man.. but.. you may not know any better (no offense.. thats my opinion)

Af far as China.. .they are our greatest threat and we should be getting our finances in order and building our military around facing off with China in a new Cold War for the coming century..

Instead, everything the Clinton and Bush Administrations have done have weakened our leverage against China.. if they attacked Taiwan tomorrow we'd be in a seriously weakened position to confront them.. Financially we're on the verge of ruin and China holds our debts.. China's industrial production is on the rise while ours in on the decline... 1000s of our high paying technology jobs are moving FROM HERE to China... that means Chinese scientists can earn a good living doing research, making new discoveries and developing new products while America's best and brightest will have to cease what they're doing and sell houses... or some job like that...

Its not looking good, but our government fiddles while the embers burn

Bman

[knightroar]

You're only "evil" in that you support an "evil" man.. but.. you may not know any better (no offense.. thats my opinion)

Af far as China.. .they are our greatest threat and we should be getting our finances in order and building our military around facing off with China in a new Cold War for the coming century..

Instead, everything the Clinton and Bush Administrations have done have weakened our leverage against China.. if they attacked Taiwan tomorrow we'd be in a seriously weakened position to confront them.. Financially we're on the verge of ruin and China holds our debts.. China's industrial production is on the rise while ours in on the decline... 1000s of our high paying technology jobs are moving FROM HERE to China... that means Chinese scientists can earn a good living doing research, making new discoveries and developing new products while America's best and brightest will have to cease what they're doing and sell houses... or some job like that...

Its not looking good, but our government fiddles while the embers burn

Bman


I agree, China is our biggest threat. And we can lay blame all the way back from Nixon/Kissenger all the way up to Bush. All the administrations played footsie with China Democrat and Republican alike. And now they have us by the balls and the results are not going to be pretty unless we prepare ourselves for the coming storm.

[Alli]

I agree, China is our biggest threat. And we can lay blame all the way back from Nixon/Kissenger all the way up to Bush. All the administrations played footsie with China Democrat and Republican alike. And now they have us by the balls and the results are not going to be pretty unless we prepare ourselves for the coming storm.
Is this because of our financial independence on china :confused:

Your post is quite ominous, also I remember someone on one of the prime time cable shows predicted it as well.

[knightroar]

Is this because of our financial independence on china :confused:

Your post is quite ominous, also I remember someone on one of the prime time cable shows predicted it as well.


at the present time China pretty much owns us along with Japan. They are buying up our debt. If they ever call in the loan, we sink. simple as that.

They can dictate policy because of that. scary shit, when you think about the ramifications.

[Bman]

Is this because of our financial independence on china :confused:

Your post is quite ominous, also I remember someone on one of the prime time cable shows predicted it as well.



Alli,

Its because our government for a long time has CEASED TO SERVE the interests of the US citizen and instead serves its most poweful constituents, the CORPORATIONS. Corporations in the US have been given rights equal to an individual, even though they are not individuals... Their are big difference..

An important book has been written on this topic.. I haven't read it.. but I heard an interview with the author and now I am going to read it

http://www.thomhartmann.com/unequalprotection.shtml


The China policy is a clear example of this...

Bman

[Bman]

at the present time China pretty much owns us along with Japan. They are buying up our debt. If they ever call in the loan, we sink. simple as that.

They can dictate policy because of that. scary shit, when you think about the ramifications.



Also, its important to point out, we wouldn't be in this position if the government ran a balanced budget, only spending what they collect in revenue.

When the government needs more money than it takes in they borrow that money by selling US TREASURY bonds.. Anyone can buy these bonds and many of them are held by US citizens...

Because the Bush Administration has borrowed SO MUCH MONEY, its gotten to the point where the sums we're talkign about are dangerous, due to their massive size. About 35% of Treasuy bonds in recent years have been bought by foreigners.. Good thing, too, because if they didn't buy them the government would have some serious problems funding itself.. The problem, however, is that when you owe hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars to foreign entities you are somewhat at their mercy.. because they have such large positions that they can severely disrupt your financial markets creating massive shocks that would in all likelihood lead to a chain reaction of finacial breakdowns that could collapse the entire US economy, most likely throwing the world into a Depression.. Life savings would be wiped out... .Unemployment, hunger and starvation would probably be widespread.

Bman

[knightroar]

Alli,

Its because our government for a long time has CEASED TO SERVE the interests of the US citizen and instead serves its most poweful constituents, the CORPORATIONS. Corporations in the US have been given rights equal to an individual, even though they are not individuals... Their are big difference..

An important book has been written on this topic.. I haven't read it.. but I heard an interview with the author and now I am going to read it

http://www.thomhartmann.com/unequalprotection.shtml


The China policy is a clear example of this...

Bman


Thom Hartmann is a great guy. I listen to him often when he guest hosts on some radio shows. He used to have his own radio show on the old UAW network before it went under last year. He's a moderate that makes a lot of sense.

[knightroar]

from MSNBC News:


“Pakistani and American officials said Tuesday the hunt for top al-Qaida and Taliban leaders would continue, but acknowledged the trail was cold.”


“No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that ‘casting our objectives too narrowly’ risked ‘a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured’. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that ‘the goal has never been to get Bin Laden’.” ~ Michael Meacher, M.P., 6th September, 2003


http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2005/03/still-at-large.html

bump

[lotimer]

Good to see some righties actually step in. I figured they'd just ignore it and hope the thread would die.

[knightroar]

Good to see some righties actually step in. I figured they'd just ignore it and hope the thread would die.


that was what I expected too. however, you can never shut bag of shit up when his dildo bush is being slammed.

[lotimer]

that was what I expected too. however, you can never shut bag of shit up when his dildo bush is being slammed.


:add09: Yeah he never fails to chime in when his hero is being attacked. Good ol baggy.

[Bman]

Good to see some righties actually step in. I figured they'd just ignore it and hope the thread would die.


Hey.. I used to be what you would have called a "rightie".. I don't think I've changed... for the most part..

I think there are alot of so-called "Bushies" that would not support him if they had (and believed) the information I have read.

Many do not believe that these stories are true.. yet, the scenarios laid out in this thread MAKE PERFECT SENSE... They explain so much and they fit together like the pieces of a puzzle.

I think if most folks KNEW FOR FACT that the US passed on Bin Laden because the government wanted to keep the anxiety alive in order to launch more wars in the Middle East, most people would rise up and impeach Bush...

at least I hope they would.. The question becomes, how can this be PROVEN??

I don't think it can be.. Even when you have a former career terrorism fighter like Richard Clarke come forward, he is discredited and attacks as if he's some sort of traitor to his nation!! Same thing they did to Scott Ritter.. here's a guy that served his country admirably for years.. a Marine Intelligence officer and suddenly he's a piece of shit???

Bman

[knightroar]

well Bman, when they can claim that 35 million grampas and grannies are pro gay marriage and anti-troops, don't be shocked at anything they come up with. These people have no conscience, no scruples what so ever.

[Alli]

I think if most folks KNEW FOR FACT that the US passed on Bin Laden because the government wanted to keep the anxiety alive in order to launch more wars in the Middle East, most people would rise up and impeach Bush...

at least I hope they would.. The question becomes, how can this be PROVEN??


If most people KNEW FOR A FACT that Santa Claus actually existed, we would all save a lot of money on Christmas gifts.

How can this be PROVEN??

My apologies to the ACLU crowd for posting the word 'CHRISTMAS' on the internet.

[Bman]

well Bman, when they can claim that 35 million grampas and grannies are pro gay marriage and anti-troops, don't be shocked at anything they come up with. These people have no conscience, no scruples what so ever.


you got that right

but that's the MACHINE... I'm talking about the POPULATION.. Eventually I think the people will rise up and reject this terrible administration, if they just get the facts...

But.. maybe not.. at which point, what can you do? We're like a wife that is beaten by her husband and no matter how bad the beating we're always making excuses for him... "Well, he's really a good guy.. but he just gets angry.. .or.. it was the alcohol.. he's SICK.. he needs help..."

Eventually, you have to decide for yourself that you've had enough and take the appropriate action... if you don't, there's nobody else that can help you

Bman

[Bman]

I think if most folks KNEW FOR FACT that the US passed on Bin Laden because the government wanted to keep the anxiety alive in order to launch more wars in the Middle East, most people would rise up and impeach Bush...

at least I hope they would.. The question becomes, how can this be PROVEN??


If most people KNEW FOR A FACT that Santa Claus actually existed, we would all save a lot of money on Christmas gifts.

How can this be PROVEN??

My apologies to the ACLU crowd for posting the word 'CHRISTMAS' on the internet.


Its sad how naive you are.

Bman

[Rightwingnut]

well Bman, when they can claim that 35 million grampas and grannies are pro gay marriage and anti-troops, don't be shocked at anything they come up with. These people have no conscience, no scruples what so ever.

I dont get the allusion.

[Bman]

I dont get the allusion.


He's referring to the Republican ad recently that suggested the AARP is anti-military and pro-homosexual

The AARP, of all things!

Bman

[Alli]

Its sad how naive you are.

Bman
Ditto!

[knightroar]

I dont get the allusion.


they are using the swift boat vets for truth group renamed to USA Next to produce and run anti-AARP ads claiming that the 35 million members of AARP support gay marriage and are against our troops. all to try to push through the Social Security Privatization policy.

[Bman]

Ditto!


why don't you post something to DEBUNK what is being posted here.

Anyone can sit there and say, "that's not true! That's not true"... yet there it is... multiple sources all reporting the same story.

What other conclusion can be drawn but the following?


The Bush Administration was not and is not interested in capturing the man they blame for the 9/11 murder of 2800 people because his capture might reduce public support for their conquest and nation building missions which are more related to securing oil and new markets for global corporations than they are to fighting terrorism

What part of this do you disagree with, and why?

Bman

[Alli]

why don't you post something to DEBUNK what is being posted here.

Anyone can sit there and say, "that's not true! That's not true"... yet there it is... multiple sources all reporting the same story.
[/B]

What part of this do you disagree with, and why?

BmanAnd anyone can post 'CONSPIRACY THEORY!! CONSPIRACY THEORY!" as well.

You keep insinuating that the Bush admin has OBL shacked up in a penthouse overlooking central park, but provide not proof.
I merely question the validity of your claim, which IS ADMITTEDLY A CLAIM?

[el_diablo]

i will say that, yes, i am still large.

[Bman]

And anyone can post 'CONSPIRACY THEORY!! CONSPIRACY THEORY!" as well.

You keep insinuating that the Bush admin has OBL shacked up in a penthouse overlooking central park, but provide not proof.
I merely question the validity of your claim, which IS ADMITTEDLY A CLAIM?



Well ok.. what about this report that the Paki tribes offered Bin Laden to Pakistan, on the condition that he would be tried at an international court, but the US said NO , because they were worried that their plans would be derailed if Bin Laden was captured too soon?

And why , in your opinion, has he NOT been captured? he's got 50 million or whatever on his head.. but the US only has what?? 10,000 troops at the most looking for him?? WHY????

Now we see reports FROM THE MILITARY , out of Afghanistan that finding Bin Laden is not their top priority any longer, but instead the troops are there to "increase the reach" of the Afghani central government??

What kind of gobbleygook horseshit is that?? WE SENT THEM THERE TO KILL BIN LADEN.. .we didn't send them there to register voters, and run PR drives for Hamad Karzai for Christ's sake...Or run bake sales or to teach people to farm herion or any of that shit.. WE SENT THEM THERE TO KILL BIN LADEN.

so why is this going on?? What do you think is the reason?

Bman

[Alli]

And why , in your opinion, has he NOT been captured? he's got 50 million or whatever on his head.. but the US only has what?? 10,000 troops at the most looking for him?? WHY????



Actually I posted this twice already on this thread, on one of the leading factors on why he hasn't been caught yet.

[Bman]

And why , in your opinion, has he NOT been captured? he's got 50 million or whatever on his head.. but the US only has what?? 10,000 troops at the most looking for him?? WHY????



Actually I posted this twice already on this thread, on one of the leading factors on why he hasn't been caught yet.



Because he's so much like the BTK killer??????


Bman

[Alli]

Because he's so much like the BTK killer??????


Bman
:rolleyes: No...here is what I posted previously:
Originally Posted by Alli
I think one of the reasons is because of the loyalty and devotion of his following. Doesn't monetary gain or relocation usually lend support to finding and capturing people. It's well documented his followers sneer at the prospect of wealth and relocating to america to form a new life, hence no motiviation to support intel on assisting the search.

[Bman]

I think one of the reasons is because of the loyalty and devotion of his following. Doesn't monetary gain or relocation usually lend support to finding and capturing people. It's well documented his followers sneer at the prospect of wealth and relocating to america to form a new life, hence no motiviation to support intel on assisting the search.


Ok.. that may be one factor.. But could it be that his LOYAL FOLLOWING also happens to be in powerful positions in the Pakistani government??

Bman

[Alli]

Ok.. that may be one factor.. But could it be that his LOYAL FOLLOWING also happens to be in powerful positions in the Pakistani government??

Bman
That never occurred to me, but yes, I guess it is a possibility.

[Bman]

That never occurred to me, but yes, I guess it is a possibility.


It never occurred to you, because you dismiss everything I post as garbage..

I've posted the following at least 10 times on this site over the past few years.


From the TIMES OF INDIA (note, not typically considered a Conspiracy or Lefty website)


India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links


MANOJ JOSHI

TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ TUESDAY, OCTOBER 09, 2001 11:08:55 PM ]

EW DELHI: While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday, the truth is more shocking.

Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday, that the general lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mahumd.

Senior government sources have confirmed that India contributed significantly to establishing the link between the money transfer and the role played by the dismissed ISI chief. While they did not provide details, they said that Indian inputs, including Sheikh’s mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link.

A direct link between the ISI and the WTC attack could have enormous repercussions. The US cannot but suspect whether or not there were other senior Pakistani Army commanders who were in the know of things. Evidence of a larger conspiracy could shake US confidence in Pakistan’s ability to participate in the anti-terrorism coalition.

Indian officials say they are vitally interested in the unravelling of the case since it could link the ISI directly to the hijacking of the Indian Airlines Kathmandu-Delhi flight to Kandahar last December. Ahmad Umar Sayeed Sheikh is a British national and a London School of Economics graduate who was arrested by the police in Delhi following a bungled 1994 kidnapping of four westerners, including an American citizen.


http://www.propagandamatrix.com/india_helped_fbi_trace_isi_terrorist_links.htm

[Bman]

So, if that article is true... Why is there no follow up?? Why wasn't this brought up at the 9/11 hearings?


COULD IT BE BECAUSE 9/11 HEARINGS CHAIRMAN PORTER GOSS WAS MEETING WITH THAT SAME GENERAL AHMAD ON THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2001???


nah.. i bet that's not it

Bman

[Alli]

"A direct link between the ISI and the WTC attack could have enormous repercussions. The US cannot but suspect whether or not there were other senior Pakistani Army commanders who were in the know of things. Evidence of a larger conspiracy could shake US confidence in Pakistan’s ability to participate in the anti-terrorism coalition. "
_________

Interesting, indeed!
Any followup on this case since '01?

[Bman]

"A direct link between the ISI and the WTC attack could have enormous repercussions. The US cannot but suspect whether or not there were other senior Pakistani Army commanders who were in the know of things. Evidence of a larger conspiracy could shake US confidence in Pakistan’s ability to participate in the anti-terrorism coalition. "
_________

Interesting, indeed!
Any followup on this case since '01?


I'm glad you asked....

From the ASIA TIMES (again, I'm not sure if that is an excepted rightie news source or not)

Last time I posted this, "Ponder" discredited the story by saying the author was a "liberal", athough I don't think she addressed any of the items in the story itself.

Bman



9-11 AND THE SMOKING GUN
Part 2: A real smoking gun
April 12, 2004
By Pepe Escobar

Part 1: 'Independent' commission

If the 9-11 Commission is really looking for a smoking gun, it should look no further than at Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, the director of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) at the time.

In early October 2001, Indian intelligence learned that Mahmoud had ordered flamboyant Saeed Sheikh - the convicted mastermind of the kidnapping and killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl - to wire US$100,000 from Dubai to one of hijacker Mohamed Atta's two bank accounts in Florida.

A juicy direct connection was also established between Mahmoud and Republican Congressman Porter Gross and Democratic Senator Bob Graham. They were all in Washington together discussing Osama bin Laden over breakfast when the attacks of September 11, 2001, happened.

Mahmoud's involvement in September 11 might be dismissed as only Indian propaganda. But Indian intelligence swears by it, and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has confirmed the whole story: Indian intelligence even supplied Saeed's cellular-phone numbers. Nobody has bothered to check what really happened. The 9-11 Commission should pose very specific questions about it to FBI director Robert Mueller when he testifies this month.

In December 2002, Graham said he was "surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the [September 11] terrorists in the United States ... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now." He could not but be referring to Pakistan and Mahmoud. If Mahmoud was really involved in September 11, this means the Pakistani ISI -"the state within the state" - knew all about it. And if the intelligence elite in Pakistan knew it, an intelligence elite in Saudi Arabia knew it, as well as an intelligence elite in the US.

Get Osama bin Laden
On August 22, 2001, Asia Times Online reported Get Osama! Now! Or else ...

On September 9, the legendary "Lion of the Panjshir", Ahmed Shah Masoud, the key Northern Alliance commander, was assassinated by two suicide bombers posing as journalists in his base in northern Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance tells Washington that the ISI may be involved. Masoud himself had told this correspondent, two weeks before he was killed, of the incestuous link between bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the ISI. A 2002 Asia Times Online investigation would later establish that Masoud was killed as a gift from al-Qaeda to the Taliban, with heavy involvement by Abdul Sayyaf, an Afghan mujahideen commander very close to the ISI and the Saudis. From Washington's perspective, this was also a gift. Masoud was the crucial Afghan nationalist leader, supported by Russia and Iran; after the Taliban being smashed he would never have accepted a feeble, US-sponsored, Hamid Karzai-style government.

On September 10, the Pakistani daily The News reported that the Mahmoud visit to the United States "triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council". If he'd been to the National Security Council, he had certainly met Rice. Mahmoud did meet with his counterpart, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director George Tenet. Tenet and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had been in Islamabad in May, when Tenet had "unusually long" meetings with Musharraf. Armitage for his part has countless friends in the Pakistani military and the ISI. Mahmoud also met a number of high officials at the White House and the Pentagon and had a crucial meeting with Marc Grossman, the under secretary of state for political affairs. Rice maintains she did not meet Mahmoud then.

On the morning of September 11, Mahmoud was having a breakfast meeting at the Capitol with Graham and Goss. Goss spent as many as 10 years working on numerous CIA clandestine operations. He is very close to Vice President Dick Cheney. It's interesting to note that two weeks ago Goss suggested to the Justice Department to bring perjury charges against the new Cheney nemesis, Clarke. As it is widely known, Graham and Goss were co-heads of the joint House-Senate investigation that proclaimed there was "no smoking gun" as far as President George W Bush having any advance knowledge of September 11.

According to the Washington Post, and also to sources in Islamabad, the Mahmoud-Graham-Goss meeting lasted until the second plane hit Tower 2 of the World Trade Center. Graham later said they were talking about terrorism coming from Afghanistan, which means they were talking about bin Laden.

Pakistani intelligence sources told Asia Times Online that on the afternoon of September 11 itself, as well as on September 12 and 13, Armitage met with Mahmoud with a stark choice: either Pakistan would help the US against al-Qaeda, or it would be bombed back to the Stone Age. Secretary of State Colin Powell presented an ultimatum in the form of seven US demands. Pakistan accepted all of them. One of the demands was for Musharraf to send Mahmoud to Kandahar again and force the Taliban to extradite bin Laden. Mahmoud knew in advance Mullah Omar would refuse. But when he went to Kandahar the Taliban leader said he would accept, as long as the Americans proved bin Laden was responsible for September 11. There was no proof, and Afghanistan was bombed anyway, a policy already decided well in advance.

It's important to remember than on September 13 Islamabad airport was shut down - allegedly because of threats against Pakistan's strategic assets. On September 14, Islamabad declared total support for the US: the airport was immediately reopened. Mahmoud remained in Washington until September 16 - when the war on Afghanistan was more than programmed, and Pakistan was firmly in the "with us" and not the "against us" column.

Million-dollar questions remain. Did Mahmoud know when and how the attacks of September 11 would happen? Did Musharraf know? Could the Bush administration have prevented September 11? It's hard to believe high echelons of the CIA and FBI were not aware of the direct link between the ISI and alleged chief hijacker Mohammed Atta.

On October 7, Mahmoud was demoted from the ISI. By that time, Washington obviously knew of the connection between Mahmoud, Saeed Sheikh and Mohamed Atta: the FBI knew it. The official version is that Mahmoud was sacrificed because he was too close to the Taliban - which, it is never enough to remind, are a cherished creature of the ISI. Two other ISI big shots, Lieutenant-General Mohammed Aziz Khan and Chief of General Staff Mohammed Yousouf, are also demoted along with Mahmoud. Saeed Sheikh was under orders to Khan.

The fact remains that even with this Musharraf-conducted purge of the ISI elite, the bulk of ISI officers remained, and still are, pro-Taliban. Other former ISI directors living in Pakistan, such as the colorful, outspoken Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul, did not "disappear" and always renew their support for the Taliban. But as Asia Times Online has reported, Mahmoud did disappear. He lives in near seclusion in Rawalpindi. And he is definitely not talking. Graham and Goss may not be interested in talking to him either. Because he may be the ultimate September 11 smoking gun.

Conclusion
The Karl Rove-designed campaign to re-elect Bush is in essence anchored on September 11. The Republican convention in New York will happen in the first week of September. Bush's speech will be on September 2 - to force the connection with the three-year commemoration of September 11.

This whole affair is not about whether Clarke committed "perjury"; whether Rice was really up to her job; or whether George W Bush knew something and then "forgot" about it. The families of September 11 victims, US public opinion, the demonized Islamic world, the whole world for that matter, all everybody wants to know is what really happened on September 11. The only party that does not seem interested in getting to the bottom of it is the Bush administration. The official fable of 19 kamikaze Arabs turning Boeings into missiles with military precision, armed only with box cutters and a few flight lessons and directed from an Afghan cave by a satellite phone-shy bin Laden simply does not hold. The commission is not asking the really hard questions. Here are just a few - and they are far from being the most embarrassing.

1) The "stand down" order: Why, despite more than an hour's warning that an attack was happening, were no F-16s protecting US airspace? Documents easily available online reveal why the Pentagon could not act: because of bureaucracy. Why did the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) claim it took 25 minutes after the transponder was shut down to learn that Flight 11 - which hit World Trade Center Tower 1 - was hijacked? Why did fighters not take off from Andrews Air Force base just outside Washington to protect the Pentagon?

2) The pre-September 11 suspicious stock option trades in American Airlines and United Airlines were never fully investigated. Who profited?

3) What happened to the FBI investigation into flight schools - when it was proved that at least five of the 19 hijackers were trained in US military schools?

4) Why did Bush keep reading a pet-goat story for more than half an hour after the first WTC hit, and 15 minutes after Chief of Staff Andrew Card told him there had been an attack?

5) What really happened to Flight 93? An Associated Press story last August quoting a congressional report said the FBI suspected the plane was crashed on purpose. The FBI has a flight-simulation video of what happened: the video - as well as the black box - remain top secret. And as far as four "indestructible" black boxes are concerned, how come none were found, unlike Mohammed Atta's intact passport lying in the WTC rubble?

6) Why have no scientific experts examined the physical and mathematical evidence that a Boeing 757 could not have possibly "disappeared" without a trace after hitting the Pentagon? For the most exhaustive and practically incontrovertible analysis available on the net, see this report.

7) What remains of the very tight 1980s bin Laden-ISI-CIA connection? How much did the CIA know about what the ISI was up to? And how much did the ISI know about what al-Qaeda was up to?

8) What does Rice really know about the very close relations between Mahmoud and the top echelons of the Bush administration?

The genie - the crucial information - is still in the bottle.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

[Bman]

If the righties had that kind of Information regarding the Clinton Administration they would have gone absolutely APE SHIT ... ABSOLUTELY APE SHIT WILD

But when its GW.. and we're talking about the DEATH OF 2800 Americans, all you get from them is.. "gee.. that's interesting.. there must be an explanation"

Bman

[TrustButVerify]

CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July

French report claims terrorist leader stayed in Dubai hospital

Anthony Sampson
Thursday November 1, 2001
The Guardian

Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.

The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.

Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and the CIA.

The CIA chief was seen in the lift, on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. He was recalled to Washington soon afterwards.

Intelligence sources say that another CIA agent was also present; and that Bin Laden was also visited by Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence, who had long had links with the Taliban, and Bin Laden. Soon afterwards Turki resigned, and more recently he has publicly attacked him in an open letter: "You are a rotten seed, like the son of Noah".

The American hospital in Dubai emphatically denied that Bin Laden was a patient there.

Washington last night also denied the story.

Private planes owned by rich princes in the Gulf fly frequently between Quetta and the Emirates, often on luxurious "hunting trips" in territories sympathetic to Bin Laden. Other sources confirm that these hunting trips have provided opportunities for Saudi contacts with the Taliban and terrorists, since they first began in 1994.

Bin Laden has often been reported to be in poor health. Some accounts claim that he is suffering from Hepatitis C, and can expect to live for only two more years.

According to Le Figaro, last year he ordered a mobile dialysis machine to be delivered to his base at Kandahar in Afghanistan.

Whether the allegations about the Dubai meeting are confirmed or not, the wider leaks from the French secret service throw a worrying light on the rivalries and lack of coordination between intelligence agencies, both within the US and between western allies.

A familiar complaint of French intelligence is that collaboration with the Americans has been essentially one-way, with them happy to receive information while giving little in return



http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html
OK that one pisses me off. Lets remember this is AFTER the cole bombing when Bin Laden was becoming a big name associated with terrorism. The CIA just casually meets him while he is getting treatment at an american hospital as if to say "Hi there binny boy, long time no see". What a fuckin' joke. We've ben sold out by so many filthy politicians it makes me sick.

[Bman]

OK that one pisses me off. Lets remember this is AFTER the cole bombing when Bin Laden was becoming a big name associated with terrorism. The CIA just casually meets him while he is getting treatment at an american hospital as if to say "Hi there binny boy, long time no see". What a fuckin' joke. We've ben sold out by so many filthy politicians it makes me sick.



Well of everything I've posted in this thread, that article strikes me as the one most likely to be untrue

Bman

[knightroar]

OK that one pisses me off. Lets remember this is AFTER the cole bombing when Bin Laden was becoming a big name associated with terrorism. The CIA just casually meets him while he is getting treatment at an american hospital as if to say "Hi there binny boy, long time no see". What a fuckin' joke. We've ben sold out by so many filthy politicians it makes me sick.


yes it is sickening, isn't it. But it will be dismissed and forgotten about while they all go to the Holy Church of Bush to worship

[TrustButVerify]

just FYI in case nobody has figured this out yet

Bag Sniper & Fictious Actor are the same person.

[Rightwingnut]

If the righties had that kind of Information regarding the Clinton Administration they would have gone absolutely APE SHIT ... ABSOLUTELY APE SHIT WILD

But when its GW.. and we're talking about the DEATH OF 2800 Americans, all you get from them is.. "gee.. that's interesting.. there must be an explanation"

Bman

Careful with the Pidgeonholing. I would view this stuff with the same eye if presented about Clinton.

[Rightwingnut]

just FYI in case nobody has figured this out yet

Bag Sniper & Fictious Actor are the same person.

Unlikely. Say what you wish about the Sniper, but love him or hate him he is who he is, and he dont give one fuck if you approve or not.

[Spectre]

Unlikely. Say what you wish about the Sniper, but love him or hate him he is who he is, and he dont give one fuck if you approve or not.

He is who he is and that's an asshole. But that's just my opinion and I've shared it with him on numerous occasions.

[Ponder]

Last time I posted this, "Ponder" discredited the story by saying the author was a "liberal", athough I don't think she addressed any of the items in the story itself.


Probably because it was written by Senor Pepe. :add23:

I wouldn't waste time trying to refute anything written by that man. I would look for another source. If there's not one, it's probably hogwash. Pepe hates the U.S., and he loves conspiracies. I can see why some of you love him so! :)

[Texwasabi]

I want all these fucking assholes like USAPathetic, Bag Sniffer, and Strikeout to chew on this shit, eat it and spit it back out and repeat. they call us traitors while they suck the cock of that idiot chimp squatting in the white house letting Bin Laden run free.

All in do time you stupid liberal pipe smokers......All in do time, if we acknowledged RIGHT NOW, that bin dickface is caught or dead...Then you pansy ass mother fuckers would be all over us saying get out of Iraq, get out of Afghanistan,,,Sheesh, are you really that fookin stupid? This war needs to continue, we will clean up that islamic shithole called the middle east and Afghanistan......... like it or not..Its gonna happen... :happy_08:

[Ponder]

I find the whole idea of letting Pakistan try Bin Laden amusing. Let's say the story is true, which is entirely plausible. How long do any of you think Musharraf would have stayed in power? I'd be willing to bet that Bin Laden has more supporters than Musharraf in Pakistan. A coup in nuclear Pakistan is a little bit scarier to me, than having Bin Laden in hiding. Bin Laden would have been acquitted because of a "lack of evidence". Of that, I have absolutely no doubt.

But, even if by some miracle they were to have tried Bin Laden, and found him guilty, what then? What about everybody else involved? You would have absolutely no recourse to go after any one of them.

[knightroar]

All in do time you stupid liberal pipe smokers......All in do time, if we acknowledged RIGHT NOW, that bin dickface is caught or dead...Then you pansy ass mother fuckers would be all over us saying get out of Iraq, get out of Afghanistan,,,Sheesh, are you really that fookin stupid? This war needs to continue, we will clean up that islamic shithole called the middle east and Afghanistan......... like it or not..Its gonna happen... :happy_08:


just curious, is everyone this insane in texas? seems so

[Veltliner]

HAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHA

ok, now that ive pissed myself laughing, i will add my 2 cents..

FACTS

bush's first company was funded by the bin ladens

bin laden was trained and funded by the CIA in afghanistan

bin laden was nursed back to health in an american hospital AFTER the cole bombing

bin laden's entire family was allowed to leave after 9/11. in fact, hundreds of saudis were given quick exits from america.

bin laden can only be "hiding" putting out audio tapes because the worse thing that could happen to the government right would be to know that he is out of commission. there is no way to keep this fight going around the world if bin laden is dead or caught.

i find it hard to believe that there are people still out there that think bin laden is not the lee harvey oswald of this whole thing. he's a patsy people. you put on a huge pyrotechnic display in front of the world, blame it on one person, and then spend decades hunting that person down... in the meantime, the national treasury of the united states is being robbed, gold has been stolen from underneath the WTC the night before 9/11, rights are being taken away from average citizens, and hundreds of thousands are going to be dead before they FIND or CAPTURE bin laden..

my real opinion is bin laden died a long time ago but that wouldn't be helpful to the war on terror would it..

[Rightwingnut]

Het Velt...you ever use Bayer products?




HAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHA

ok, now that ive pissed myself laughing, i will add my 2 cents..

FACTS

bush's first company was funded by the bin ladens

bin laden was trained and funded by the CIA in afghanistan

bin laden was nursed back to health in an american hospital AFTER the cole bombing

bin laden's entire family was allowed to leave after 9/11. in fact, hundreds of saudis were given quick exits from america.

bin laden can only be "hiding" putting out audio tapes because the worse thing that could happen to the government right would be to know that he is out of commission. there is no way to keep this fight going around the world if bin laden is dead or caught.

i find it hard to believe that there are people still out there that think bin laden is not the lee harvey oswald of this whole thing. he's a patsy people. you put on a huge pyrotechnic display in front of the world, blame it on one person, and then spend decades hunting that person down... in the meantime, the national treasury of the united states is being robbed, gold has been stolen from underneath the WTC the night before 9/11, rights are being taken away from average citizens, and hundreds of thousands are going to be dead before they FIND or CAPTURE bin laden..

my real opinion is bin laden died a long time ago but that wouldn't be helpful to the war on terror would it..

[Veltliner]

lol.. i like you so don't get all mean on me.. just connect the dots in your own time.

[Rightwingnut]

lol.. i like you so don't get all mean on me.. just connect the dots in your own time.

I'm not getting mean, I am just trying to make a point :D

[undertaker]

So it's true, after all!
The airliners had no windows and the Pentagon was not hit by a plane.
Wow! That would by why the Israelis were laughing when the towers fell.
Oh, and the supposed hijackers are alive and well!
Goddam! Sure had me fooled!

Orson

[Rightwingnut]

Het Velt...you ever use Bayer products?


How come no one ever has the courage to answer this question when I ask it? :D

[lotimer]

How come no one ever has the courage to answer this question when I ask it? :D


I don't get it. What does Bayer have to do with anything?

[undertaker]

I don't get it. What does Bayer have to do with anything?

But you will shortly, I'll bet!

Orson :rolleyes:

[Rightwingnut]

But you will shortly, I'll bet!

Orson :rolleyes:

Now I'm not talkin smartass.

:D

[Rightwingnut]

I don't get it. What does Bayer have to do with anything?

In the end nothing. The question revolves around the Dems and Anti-Bush contigents demand that we find certain people guilty by association. They did it with Bush grandfather, and they are doing it with Bush W. If doing business with tha family or friends of someone that went on to committ crimes makes you guilty, then anyone who ever purchased a Bayer product or bought something with an ingredient made by BASF is guilty of attempted genocide and war crimes.

[knightroar]

from MSNBC News:


“Pakistani and American officials said Tuesday the hunt for top al-Qaida and Taliban leaders would continue, but acknowledged the trail was cold.”


“No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that ‘casting our objectives too narrowly’ risked ‘a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured’. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that ‘the goal has never been to get Bin Laden’.” ~ Michael Meacher, M.P., 6th September, 2003


http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2005/03/still-at-large.html

bump bump bump

[Motley]

http://www.freewayblogger.com/ffsd_images/notinIraq_tn.JPG


:add09:

[Bman]

HAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHA

ok, now that ive pissed myself laughing, i will add my 2 cents..

FACTS

bush's first company was funded by the bin ladens

bin laden was trained and funded by the CIA in afghanistan

bin laden was nursed back to health in an american hospital AFTER the cole bombing

bin laden's entire family was allowed to leave after 9/11. in fact, hundreds of saudis were given quick exits from america.

bin laden can only be "hiding" putting out audio tapes because the worse thing that could happen to the government right would be to know that he is out of commission. there is no way to keep this fight going around the world if bin laden is dead or caught.

i find it hard to believe that there are people still out there that think bin laden is not the lee harvey oswald of this whole thing. he's a patsy people. you put on a huge pyrotechnic display in front of the world, blame it on one person, and then spend decades hunting that person down... in the meantime, the national treasury of the united states is being robbed, gold has been stolen from underneath the WTC the night before 9/11, rights are being taken away from average citizens, and hundreds of thousands are going to be dead before they FIND or CAPTURE bin laden..

my real opinion is bin laden died a long time ago but that wouldn't be helpful to the war on terror would it..




Not only that.. .On the very morning of 9/11 you've got papa Bush camped out with Bin Laden's brother.. at the same time, Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham are hanging out with Pakistan's head of its intelligence service, who.. it turns out.. was funding Mohammad Atta...

All of this is coincidence, though... of course..

Just a few months before, Atta is throwing wild drug and booze parties and dating strippers... Obviously the type of behavior one would expect from a religious man on a suicide mission to meet Allah

Shit doesn't add up, man... You can't expect people to just buy into this shit when it doesn't add up

Now, had we caught Bin Laden by now.. or had we started to crack down on Pakistan.. .then you might say.. well, ok.... BUT WE HAVEN'T

If Bush hadn't gone into Iraq on false pretense, then we could dismiss the who PNAC theory... BUT HE DID...

So far there are no holes in the entire THEORY.. and much of it isn't a theory at all (such as the PNAC documents)

Bman

[knightroar]

http://www.freewayblogger.com/ffsd_images/notinIraq_tn.JPG


:add09:



:add09: :happy_01:

[knightroar]

Not only that.. .On the very morning of 9/11 you've got papa Bush camped out with Bin Laden's brother.. at the same time, Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham are hanging out with Pakistan's head of its intelligence service, who.. it turns out.. was funding Mohammad Atta...

All of this is coincidence, though... of course..

Just a few months before, Atta is throwing wild drug and booze parties and dating strippers... Obviously the type of behavior one would expect from a religious man on a suicide mission to meet Allah

Shit doesn't add up, man... You can't expect people to just buy into this shit when it doesn't add up

Now, had we caught Bin Laden by now.. or had we started to crack down on Pakistan.. .then you might say.. well, ok.... BUT WE HAVEN'T

If Bush hadn't gone into Iraq on false pretense, then we could dismiss the who PNAC theory... BUT HE DID...

So far there are no holes in the entire THEORY.. and much of it isn't a theory at all (such as the PNAC documents)

Bman

and the people of this country are being played as fools, and by their indifference to logic and facts, I would say that the play was right on the money. people don't want to believe anything bad about their government and they won't until it bites them in the ass big time. By that time, it could be too late.

[Fictious Actor]

just FYI in case nobody has figured this out yet

Bag Sniper & Fictious Actor are the same person.


TBV............ you obviously didn't verify ............ I am not BS...... I may talk BS but I am not the good person......... I have far more in common with him than I do the majority of the posters within in this thread.........

I do read with great interest what kr,bman,motley, et all post as I must try to understand what seperates us............... we all afterall want the same things in life..... it is the means...... which seperate us.....

bman's list of actions is quite interesting........ diplomatically it is way too forceful and never once did he mention forming a coalition (other than in terms of sanctions)........ and I find that ironic..... I think that once a boogeyman is caught there is less fear..... and perhaps it is to our advantage to have a boogeyman such as OBL out there........ but I honestly believe.... in my bones that we as a government and a system do not deal this way..... we are not so evil and cunning as many have described.... call me naive....

I think by reclaiming the UN and making it live up to its charter is a way to garner support for actions against P-stan and other nations that just don't want to be civilized.....

I am also all for using economic carrots as incentive to P-stan to allow us to station a large contingency of troops to help expidite our goal of capturing OBL............. it must be framed that way...... this group of foreign soldiers is here for and only for the singular purpose of finding OBL and others and when they are captured/destroyed the forces will be removed immediately.....

The world is moving at a far greater speed now...... I'd like more nations to become better drivers....... for all of our benefits.....

[knightroar]

:add30:

[Veltliner]

for the record, no, i don't take medicine... unless bayer makes a product that isn't a medicine, then my immediate guess is no.

[Bag Sniper]

that was what I expected too. however, you can never shut bag of shit up when his dildo bush is being slammed.

Obviously you didn't read my post from this morning that declared to the literate world that I was going to be out for the day .....

So now the thread has mutated to China .. interesting .. once Clinton's role in the bin Laden fiasco was reintroduced it was a natural to sublime the discussion to something else ..... China ... erp .... China ... a big threat .... oh gosh ... do we really have to revisit Clinton's role in the pesky high tech flim flam he tossed off for Communist Chinese campaign $$$$$ .....

Do you *really* want to dig all that up again .... hmmmmm .... do you ?

You guys are hillaryous ... honest ... you really are ....

[Bag Sniper]

TBV............ you obviously didn't verify ............ I am not BS...... I may talk BS but I am not the good person......... I have far more in common with him than I do the majority of the posters within in this thread.........

I do read with great interest what kr,bman,motley, et all post as I must try to understand what seperates us............... we all afterall want the same things in life..... it is the means...... which seperate us.....

bman's list of actions is quite interesting........ diplomatically it is way too forceful and never once did he mention forming a coalition (other than in terms of sanctions)........ and I find that ironic..... I think that once a boogeyman is caught there is less fear..... and perhaps it is to our advantage to have a boogeyman such as OBL out there........ but I honestly believe.... in my bones that we as a government and a system do not deal this way..... we are not so evil and cunning as many have described.... call me naive....

I think by reclaiming the UN and making it live up to its charter is a way to garner support for actions against P-stan and other nations that just don't want to be civilized.....

I am also all for using economic carrots as incentive to P-stan to allow us to station a large contingency of troops to help expidite our goal of capturing OBL............. it must be framed that way...... this group of foreign soldiers is here for and only for the singular purpose of finding OBL and others and when they are captured/destroyed the forces will be removed immediately.....

The world is moving at a far greater speed now...... I'd like more nations to become better drivers....... for all of our benefits.....

Obviously TBV is confused by the "........" in your post and not by your writting style when compared to mine .... when I write and use "periods" it's typically no more than 3 or 4 at a time ... to emphasis a pause ... anything more is boring ....

Also my writting style is completely different from your's ... it's unique upon myself yet consistant with my personality, world experiences and opinions ... IHer's may experience games from the look-alike site denizens ... but for over 4 years I haven't deviated my style an inch ... what you see is what you will always get .... some times in spades with a flamethrower or napalm ... but I'm me and no one else ....

[Fictious Actor]

Obviously TBV is confused by the "........" in your post and not by your writting style when compared to mine .... when I write and use "periods" it's typically no more than 3 or 4 at a time ... to emphasis a pause ... anything more is boring ....

Also my writting style is completely different from your's ... it's unique upon myself yet consistant with my personality, world experiences and opinions ... IHer's may experience games from the look-alike site denizens ... but for over 4 years I haven't deviated my style an inch ... what you see is what you will always get .... some times in spades with a flamethrower or napalm ... but I'm me and no one else ....

Those are your shoes to fill...... not mine.......! How could I ever fit a size 19!!!! I'm just glad that we are on the same team......

[Bman]

Pearl was probing spy agencies' role
Lahore |By Abdullah Iqbal | 25-03-2002
Print friendly format | Email to Friend

While U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl had in general told people, who came into contact with him in the days prior to his abduction and murder, that he was completing a story on shoe-bomb terrorist Richard Reid, there is now increased evidence that he was also looking at far more sensitive matters.

Some of those who had spoken to Pearl during his stay in Karachi believe that his main interest was in looking into the links between certain agencies in Pakistan with religious militancy. The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the most powerful agency in the country, had also received Pearl's attention during this investigation.

In fact, at least one journalist who met Pearl in Islamabad had advised him to be "very careful" while pursuing his particular line of inquiry. Two other journalists, approached to act as local resource persons for Pearl, had apparently turned down the offer because "what Pearl wanted to get at was difficult to obtain and touched in several very sensitive areas."

There are also sources who insist that General Pervez Musharraf was also aware, though it is not certain at which stage, of the line of inquiry being followed by Pearl.

While some sources say Musharraf knew of this only after the abduction, others say "intelligence reports" about the kind of questions Pearl was asking had reached him before the sudden disappearance of the newsman.

It is also rumoured that Pearl was in fact especially interested in any role played by the U.S. in training the ISI or backing it in any way, especially during the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

"Details of any U.S.-ISI cooperation would of course not be appreciated even in Washington, especially regarding U.S. cooperation in promoting any kind of Islamic militancy," stated a source close to the Pakistan foreign office.

It may be noted that Pearl was known in New York, where the newspaper he worked for, The Wall Street Journal‚ is based, as a reporter willing to expose U.S. involvement in matters of some embarrassment for the government in Washington.

One of his last major stories for instance had focussed on the fact that some of the atrocities allegedly committed in Kosovo may have been "fabricated" with Western forces aware of this, even as the international media was informed about the war crimes carried out.

Other stories had also been in many cases equally radical. "Pearl was clearly a determined kind of guy. He had some very interesting facts in his knowledge, possibly provided by Indian intelligence and he was not willing to take hints‚ suggesting that he proceed with caution," said one officer who works with a premier intelligence agency.

It is now believed that such hints had been delivered to Pearl through local journalists, who are usually well-aware of the need to steer clear of dangerous territory. Indeed, it is also thought that Pearl rented a house in Karachi rather than putting up at a hotel, because he wanted "complete privacy" while meeting certain people.

The question of precisely what story Pearl was looking into have drawn more attention after the events that followed.

It is also rumoured that Pearl's wife provided some details to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), but was not aware of the whole picture. Whether this entire picture will ever emerge is a question that remains open, with the investigation into Pearl's death having apparently reached what seems like a near total dead-end‚ and work on the matter "slowing down" according to police officials involved in the case


http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=45233

[Bman]

Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration?



The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) in the September 11 Attacks

by Michel Chossudovsky
Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa



Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal
Posted at globalresearch.ca 2 November 2001


Pakistan's chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad "was in the US when the attacks occurred." He arrived in the US on the 4th of September, a full week before the attacks. He had meetings at the State Department "after" the attacks on the WTC. But he also had "a regular visit of consultations" with his US counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon during the week prior to September 11.

What was the nature of these routine "pre-September 11 consultations"? Were they in any way related to the subsequent "post-September 11 consultations" pertaining to Pakistan's decision to cooperate with Washington. Was the planning of war being discussed between Pakistani and US officials?

On the 9th of September while General Ahmad was in the US, the leader of the Northern Alliance Commander Ahmad Shah Masood was assassinated. The Northern Alliance had informed the Bush Administration that the ISI was allegedly implicated in the assassination.

The Bush Administration consciously took the decision in "the post September 11 consultations" with Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad to directly "cooperate" with Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) despite its links to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and its alleged role in the assassination of Commander Masood, which coincidentally occurred two days before the terrorist attacks.

Meanwhile, senior Pentagon and State Department officials had been rushed to Islamabad to put the finishing touches on America's war plans. And on the Sunday prior to the onslaught of the bombing of major cities in Afghanistan (October 7th), Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was sacked from his position as head of the ISI in what was described as a routine "reshuffling."

In the days following General Ahmad's dismissal, a report published in the Times of India, revealed the links between Pakistan's Chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad and the presumed "ring leader" of the WTC attacks Mohamed Atta. The Times of India article was based on an official intelligence report of the Delhi government that had been transmitted through official channels to Washington. Quoting an Indian government source Agence France Press (AFP) confirms in this regard that: "The evidence we [the Government of India] have supplied to the US is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism."

The revelation of the Times of India article has several implications. The Indian intelligence report not only points to the links between ISI Chief General Ahmad and terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta, it also indicates that other ISI officials might have had contacts with the terrorists. Moreover, it suggests that the September 11 attacks were not an act of "individual terrorism" organised by a separate Al Qaeda cell, but rather they were part of coordinated military-intelligence operation, emanating from Pakistan's ISI.

The Times of India report also sheds light on the nature of General Ahmad's "business activities" in the US during the week prior to September 11, raising the distinct possibility of ISI contacts with Mohamed Atta in the US "prior" to the attacks on the WTC, precisely at the time when General Mahmoud and his delegation were on a so-called "regular visit of consultations" with US officials.

In assessing the alleged links between the terrorists and the ISI, it should be understood that Lt. General Ahmad as head of the ISI was a "US approved appointee". As head of the ISI since 1999, he was in liaison with his US counterparts in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Pentagon. Also bear in mind that Pakistan's ISI remained throughout the entire post Cold War era until the present, the launch-pad for CIA covert operations in the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Balkans

The existence of an "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" was a matter of public record. The links between the ISI and agencies of the US government including the CIA are also a matter of public record. The Bush Administration was fully cognizant of Lt. General Ahmad's role. In other words, rather than waging a campaign against international terrorism, the evidence would suggest that it is indirectly abetting international terrorism, using the Pakistani ISI as a "go-between".

The Bush Administration's links with Pakistan's ISI --including its "consultations" with General Ahmad in the week prior to September 11-- raise the issue of "complicity". While Ahmad was talking to US officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, ISI officials were allegedly also in contact with the September 11 terrorists.

In other words, according to the Indian government intelligence report, the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks had links to Pakistan's ISI, which in turn has links to agencies of the US government. What this suggests is that key individuals within the US military-intelligence establishment might have known about the ISI contacts with the September 11 terrorist "ring-leader" Mohamed Atta and failed to act.

Whether this amounts to the complicity of the Bush Administration remains to be firmly established. The least one can expect at this stage is an inquiry. What is crystal clear, however, is that this war is not a "campaign against international terrorism". It is a war of conquest with devastating consequences for the future of humanity. And the American people have been consciously and deliberately misled by their government. Whether this amounts to the complicity of the Bush Administration remains to be firmly established.

And the American people have been consciously and deliberately misled by their government.

Ultimately the truth must prevail. The falsehoods behind America's war against the people of Afghanistan must be unveiled.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html

[Fictious Actor]

Rumored..... unnamed sources.... rumored.......

I mean come on this isn't even news..... it is sheer speculation.....!

But...... P-stan is an angry nest of trouble indeed.....

[Bman]

Rumored..... unnamed sources.... rumored.......

I mean come on this isn't even news..... it is sheer speculation.....!

But...... P-stan is an angry nest of trouble indeed.....


The FACTS of the case are stated in the article

the "speculation" is the part that connects the facts... but if the speculation is removed, then we still need an explanation for the facts

What's your explanation?

Bman

[Bag Sniper]

Those are your shoes to fill...... not mine.......! How could I ever fit a size 19!!!! I'm just glad that we are on the same team......

Hoo-fuckin-raaaaaa

[Bag Sniper]

The FACTS of the case are stated in the article

the "speculation" is the part that connects the facts... but if the speculation is removed, then we still need an explanation for the facts

What's your explanation?

Bman

Bboy ... do you have Marvel Comics delivered ... or do you have to go and pick up your latest issue ...

[Motley]

Bboy ... do you have Marvel Comics delivered ... or do you have to go and pick up your latest issue ...

http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/tryingtobefunny.jpg

[Bag Sniper]

http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/tryingtobefunny.jpg

How originally ... er ... clever ... uhhh .. NOT ..... fuck stick .. ya been slammed again .....

[lotimer]

How originally ... er ... clever ... uhhh .. NOT ..... fuck stick .. ya been slammed again .....


Are you trying to communicate a hidden message through morse code? Seems all those dots in between each word represent something. :add09:

[Motley]

How originally ... er ... clever ... uhhh .. NOT ..... fuck stick .. ya been slammed again .....

Slammed by what? Your limp noodle & miniaturized brain that must of been shrunken by some african tribe?

This is just for you. You deserve it:
http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/YOUROCK!.jpg

[Catch]

a web blog??? that is suppose to be credible? ahahahaha



http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_12_6.gif

[Fictious Actor]

Slammed by what? Your limp noodle & miniaturized brain that must of been shrunken by some african tribe?

This is just for you. You deserve it:
http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/YOUROCK!.jpg


Now that's NOT funny........ pick on yourself before you make fun of the handicaped

[Motley]

http://www.freewayblogger.com/ffsd_images/osama_tn.jpg


:mad:

[knightroar]

This war on terrorism is bogus

The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination

Michael Meacher
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".

The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".

Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.

First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".

Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).

Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).

All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.

Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."

Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.

The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).

In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).

Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).

Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.

The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.

This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.

A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.

Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).

The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.

· Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003

meacherm@parliament.uk

[knightroar]

from MSNBC News:


“Pakistani and American officials said Tuesday the hunt for top al-Qaida and Taliban leaders would continue, but acknowledged the trail was cold.”


“No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that ‘casting our objectives too narrowly’ risked ‘a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured’. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that ‘the goal has never been to get Bin Laden’.” ~ Michael Meacher, M.P., 6th September, 2003


http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2005/03/still-at-large.html


bump bump bump

[knightroar]

from MSNBC News:


“Pakistani and American officials said Tuesday the hunt for top al-Qaida and Taliban leaders would continue, but acknowledged the trail was cold.”


“No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that ‘casting our objectives too narrowly’ risked ‘a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured’. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that ‘the goal has never been to get Bin Laden’.” ~ Michael Meacher, M.P., 6th September, 2003


http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2005/03/still-at-large.html

worth noting again

[lotimer]

from MSNBC News:


“Pakistani and American officials said Tuesday the hunt for top al-Qaida and Taliban leaders would continue, but acknowledged the trail was cold.”


“No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that ‘casting our objectives too narrowly’ risked ‘a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured’. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that ‘the goal has never been to get Bin Laden’.” ~ Michael Meacher, M.P., 6th September, 2003


http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2005/03/still-at-large.html

bump

[knightroar]

bump

and bump

[involved]

Whatever Happened to Bin Laden? While US Storms Baghdad, Saudi Ties to Al Qaeda Are Unprobed
The Progressive Populist
Saturday, March 8, 2003
E-Mail Article
Printer Friendly Version


On my BBC television show, Newsnight, an American journalist confessed that, since the 9/11 attacks, US reporters are simply too afraid to ask the uncomfortable questions that could kill careers: "It's an obscene comparison, but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck," Dan Rather said. Without his makeup, Rather looked drawn, old and defeated in confessing that he too had given in. "It's that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions and to continue to bore in on the tough questions so often."

Investigators were ordered to "back off" from any inquiries into Saudi Arabian financing of terror networks.

The reports I did based on this information won the Sonoma State University School of Journalism's Project Censored Award in 2002. It's not the kind of prize you want to win -- it's given to crucial stories that were effectively banned from US airwaves and papers. I don't want any misunderstanding here, so I must emphasize what we did not find: We uncovered no information, none whatsoever, that George W. Bush had any advance knowledge of the plan to attack the World Trade Center on 9/11, nor, heaven forbid, any involvement in the attack.

FBI Document 199I

What we did discover was serious enough. To begin with, from less-than-happy FBI agents we obtained an interesting document, some 30 pages long, marked "SECRET." I've reproduced a couple of pages in The Best Democracy Money Can Buy [recently reissued in a paperback US edition by Plume]. Note the designation "199I" -- that's FBI-speak for "national security matter." According to insiders, FBI agents had wanted to check into two members of the bin Laden family, Abdullah and Omar, but were told to stay away by superiors -- until September 13, 2001. By then, Abdullah and Omar were long gone from the United States.

Why no investigation of the brothers bin Laden? The Bush administration's line is the Binladdins (a more common spelling of the Arabic name) are good folk. Osama's the Black Sheep, supposedly cut off from his Saudi kin. But the official line notwithstanding, some FBI agents believed the family had some gray sheep worth questioning -- especially these two working with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), which the file labels "a suspected terrorist organization." ....

No matter how vile WAMY's indoctrination chats, they are none of the FBI's business. Recruitment for terror, however, is. Before 9/11, the governments of India and the Philippines tied WAMY to groups staging murderous attacks on civilians. Following our broadcast on BBC, the Dutch secret service stated that WAMY, "support(ed) violent activity." In 2002, The Wall Street Journal's Glenn Simpson made public a report by Bosnia's government that a charity with Abdullah bin Laden on its board had channeled money to Chechen guerrillas. Two of the 9/11 hijackers used an address on the same street as WAMY's office in Falls Church, Virginia.

"Back-Off" Directive and Islamic Bomb

Despite these tantalizing facts, Abdullah and his operations were A-OK with the FBI chiefs, if not their working agents. Just a dumb SNAFU? Not according to a top-level CIA operative who spoke with us on condition of strictest anonymity. After Bush took office, he said, "there was a major policy shift" at the National Security Agency. Investigators were ordered to "back off" from any inquiries into Saudi Arabian financing of terror networks, especially if they touched on Saudi royals and their retainers. That put the bin Ladens, a family worth a reported $12 billion and a virtual arm of the Saudi royal household, off-limits for investigation. Osama was the exception; he remained a wanted man, but agents could not look too closely at how he filled his piggy bank. The key rule of any investigation, "follow the money," was now violated, and investigations -- at least before 9/11 -- began to die.

And there was a lot to investigate -- or in the case of the CIA and FBI under Bush -- a lot to ignore. Through well-known international arms dealers (I'm sorry, but in this business, sinners are better sources than saints) our team was tipped off to a meeting of Saudi billionaires at the Hotel Royale Monceau in Paris in May 1996 with the financial representative of Osama bin Laden's network. The Saudis, including a key Saudi prince joined by Muslim and non-Muslim gun traffickers, met to determine who would pay how much to Osama. This was not so much an act of support but of protection -- a payoff to keep the mad bomber away from Saudi Arabia....

Clinton Closed an Eye...continued..@ http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=220&row=4

[Bag Sniper]

BBC ... guardian .... ottowa .... somalian dailey reporter .... brazil gazette ... serbian weekly post ....

You guys are getting funnier by the day ...... ppfffttttttt ....

[Bman]

The reports I did based on this information won the Sonoma State University School of Journalism's Project Censored Award in 2002. It's not the kind of prize you want to win -- it's given to crucial stories that were effectively banned from US airwaves and papers. I don't want any misunderstanding here, so I must emphasize what we did not find: We uncovered no information, none whatsoever, that George W. Bush had any advance knowledge of the plan to attack the World Trade Center on 9/11, nor, heaven forbid, any involvement in the attack.

FBI Document 199I

What we did discover was serious enough. To begin with, from less-than-happy FBI agents we obtained an interesting document, some 30 pages long, marked "SECRET." I've reproduced a couple of pages in The Best Democracy Money Can Buy [recently reissued in a paperback US edition by Plume]. Note the designation "199I" -- that's FBI-speak for "national security matter." According to insiders, FBI agents had wanted to check into two members of the bin Laden family, Abdullah and Omar, but were told to stay away by superiors -- until September 13, 2001. By then, Abdullah and Omar were long gone from the United States.




I have read this same assertion in a half dozen newspaper reports as well.. There were lots of FBI guys putting up red flags in the spring and summer of 2001, but they were ordered not to look at the Bin Laden's or the Saudis

Bman

[lotimer]

from MSNBC News:


“Pakistani and American officials said Tuesday the hunt for top al-Qaida and Taliban leaders would continue, but acknowledged the trail was cold.”


“No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that ‘casting our objectives too narrowly’ risked ‘a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured’. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that ‘the goal has never been to get Bin Laden’.” ~ Michael Meacher, M.P., 6th September, 2003


http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2005/03/still-at-large.html


Bump

[lotimer]

BBC ... guardian .... ottowa .... somalian dailey reporter .... brazil gazette ... serbian weekly post ....

You guys are getting funnier by the day ...... ppfffttttttt ....


BBC has been around long before CNN, MSNBC, or Faux News. That speaks for itself.

[Bag Sniper]

BBC has been around long before CNN, MSNBC, or Faux News. That speaks for itself.

Not really lotashit .... you're thinking of the BBC of "used to be" .... remember they got hauled into court in the past year for continuely publishing the "Bush knew 9-11 was going to happen and did nothing to stop it" bullshit .... remember that ? Remember they got nailed because the BBC *knew* their story was nothing but lies and bullshit yet they continued to press the story ?

Remember those top guys at the BBC were forced to resign because of it ?

*That's* the BBC of today ....

It has nothing to do with longtivity ... it has everything to do with truth ... and the BBC of today is no longer capable of that ....

[Bman]

Why wasn't this ever brought up in the major Media?

New Homeland Security Chief Chertoff represented a man with ties to Osama Bin Laden

I've researched this a bit and it appears to be confirmed by other media articles from the late 1999s.



http://tvnewslies.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=2397&

: ADuncan282@aol.com [Add to Address Book] Flag Message | Mark Unread
[This is spam]
To: ADuncan282@aol.com

Subject: Barbara Honegger's Letter to Chertoff Confirmation Commitee
Date: Feb 5, 2005 10:55 AM

Barbara Honegger contacted me yesterday and told me that she had faxed my latest Chertoff/Elamir article to every member of the Chertoff confirmation commitee two days before the hearings. Despite having this info not one question was asked about Chertoff's relationship with Dr. Elamir.

After the hearings Barbara faxed the letter below to Senator Susan Collins who chairs the commitee and asked that it be placed in the official record. She also faxed the letter to all of the commitee members.

Barbara works for the government and invoked the Whistleblower's Protection Act. The only thing I edited was her contact info to protect her privacy. You never know where these emails can end up.

Allan



By FAX to (202) 224-9603

Page 1 of 3



To: Senator Susan Collins

Chair, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

(hereinafter “Committee”)



Thru: Joanna Hardy, Committee Counsel



For: All Committee members



Re: Proof Judge Chertoff perjured himself under oath

at the Feb. 2, 2005 nomination hearing for

Director of Homeland Security



From: Barbara Honegger

Former Justice Dept. official, 1982-83

Former White House Policy Analyst, 1981-82

Candidate for Congress, Calif. 17th CD, 1993


Per my telephone conversation with your office this morning,
please make this communication part of the official record of the
nomination proceedings of Judge Michael Chertoff for Director of
Homeland Security. I hereby invoke all protective provisions of
the Whistleblower’s Protection Act, and of all other federal and
state statutes guaranteeing protection from retaliation for this
communication and any follow up.


Judge Chertoff perjured himself under oath during his confirmation hearing in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Feb. 2, when he said ‘No’ to whether he knew of any conflicts of interest that might interfere with his ability to protect the nation as Director of Homeland Security.


Judge Chertoff is well aware that, as an attorney in private practice, he represented Egyptian American Dr. Magdy Elamir (El Amir), named in a foreign intelligence report provided to Rep. Gilman as having links to Osama bin Laden, in a fraud case in which Elamir was charged with skimming $15+ million from an HMO and laundering the money in offshore accounts.


Judge Chertoff knows full well that, while he was so representing Dr. Magdy Elamir, the doctor’s brother, Egyptian American Mohammed Elamir (El Amir), was a prime target of FBI-ATF Operation Diamondback in which Mohammed Elamir was taped trying to arrange a multi-million-dollar arms shipment to bin Laden-linked terrorists -- arms worth, in all probability, the $15 million still missing from his brother’s HMO; and that Mohammed Elamir and all other Diamondback targets have remained free from prosecution, including while Mr. Chertoff was head of the Criminal Division of the Dept. of Justice.


Before and on Sept. 11, 2001 Judge Chertoff was Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Dept. of Justice, and the highest ranking Justice Dept. official at FBI headquarters that day. That morning, 19 terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden murdered over 3,000 Americans, led by lead hijacker Mohammed Atta. Judge Chertoff knows full well that Mohammed Atta's real (Egyptian) name is Mohammed Elamir (El Amir) -- identical to the name of his former client's brother Mohammed Elamir. What else does Judge Chertoff know about the relationship -- by blood or marriage -- between his former client and his client's brother, both reportedly linked to bin Laden, and the No. 1 Sept. 11 hijacker?

On Sept. 11, Mr. Chertoff immediately ordered FBI agents and prosecutors to "peel back the onion" -- that is, to work backward from anything known or discovered about the hijackers to anyone else associated with them. Thus, all information pointing to possible links between himself, the Elamirs, and Mohammed Elamir (Atta) went to him. And what better way to divert attention from his own Elamir associations than to order the round up of hundreds of innocent immigrants, not one of whom was ever found to be linked to the 9/11 attacks, or to terrorism.

Mr. Chertoff was quickly put in charge of the Administration’s internal investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks. On Oct. 25, 2001, he was made head Operation Green Quest, the federal effort to identify the sources and stop the flow of terrorist financing. Strange, after all that effort, that the Kean Commission would report that the source of funding for the Sept. 11 attacks is "still unknown." In other words, Mr. Chertoff told the Commission, directly or indirectly, that he had failed to locate Mohammed El Amir’s (Atta’s) funding source. Given Mr. Chertoff's close association with the Elamirs, and that Mohammed Atta was himself an Elamir, it is highly doubtful Mr. Chertoff knows nothing about the source of financing for the attacks. The fact that Mr. Kean's commission, also, claimed the source of funding for the attacks is a continuing mystery has nothing, of course, to do with the fact that Mr. Kean and Mr. Chertoff's father are close friends (Washington Post, Jan. 31, 2005, "Amid Praise, Doubts about Nominee's Post-9/11 Role").

But it is not only his post-9/11 role that should concern the Committee, and the whole Senate. Mr. Chertoff, in his Feb. 2 under oath testimony, also stated that, in his position as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Dept. of Justice Criminal Division, he routinely received and reviewed intelligence from many government agencies. It is important to ask Mr. Chertoff, under oath, how many of the 11 foreign intelligence reports and numerous other pieces of intelligence giving advance warning of the attacks detailed in the Kean Commission report and Joint House/Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the Sept. 11 attacks he received and reviewed prior to Sept. 11; what, if anything, he did with the warnings; whether he made or had any input to the fateful decision, at the top levels of the Justice Dept., to end an ongoing surveillance of "up to 20" (could this be the 19?) Al Qaeda-linked terrorists before 9/11 (Newsweek); and whether he made or had any input to, as the highest ranking Justice Dept. official at FBI head-quarters on 9/11 and head of the Administration's internal 9/11 investigation, to the FBI's order to Ames Laboratory, the source of the anthrax strain contained in the letters sent to Congress, to destroy all evidence of that strain -- the very evidence that would have definitively identified the perpetrator(s).

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee should delay voting on Judge Chertoff's nomination to be Director of Homeland Security until he provides full, detailed, and under oath responses to the above critical conflicts of interest, any one of which should be fatal to the nomination.

For it is a fatal conflict of interest for any nominee to the top anti-terrorism office in the federal government to have direct links to anyone alleged to be associated with bin Laden, perhaps even -- until affirmatively ruled out by the Committee -- to the lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed “Atta” Elamir/El Amir himself.

Regardless, the clear and present appearance of such a gross conflict of interest should, alone, be more than sufficient to decline this nomination for Director of Homeland Security.

Judge Chertoff also swore under oath Feb. 2 to cooperate with the Committee's investigations. The Committee should open an investigation of Judge Chertoff, his direct and indirect links to terrorists, to the Elamirs (El Amirs) including Mohammad Atta, and to the cover-up of the truth about Sept. 11.

------------

Please confirm your receipt of this three-page fax; that it has been entered into the official record of the Committee’s nomination proceedings for Judge Chertoff for the position of Director of Homeland Security; and that copies have been distributed to every member of the Committee. I will separately fax to the other members of the Committee as well,

and to others.



Thank you for taking this matter seriously.





Barbara Honegger, M.S.
_________________

[Bman]

This Chertoff terrorism story is a complex one and for the handful of you researching this topic, here are two good links

I would urge everyone to read this

Why do so many people appointed by Bush to key security roles have LINKS to people implicated or alleged to be involved in 9/11?? Porter Goss comes to mind... Michael Chertoff comes to mind... Others?


http://www.opednews.com/duncan_013005_chertoff_questions.htm

http://www.madcowprod.com/01122004.html

[knightroar]

This Chertoff terrorism story is a complex one and for the handful of you researching this topic, here are two good links

I would urge everyone to read this

Why do so many people appointed by Bush to key security roles have LINKS to people implicated or alleged to be involved in 9/11?? Porter Goss comes to mind... Michael Chertoff comes to mind... Others?


http://www.opednews.com/duncan_013005_chertoff_questions.htm

http://www.madcowprod.com/01122004.html


good links Bman. thanks

[knightroar]

time for the Bushies to put the blindfolds back on. I don't like where this is all leading, but I shouldn't really be shocked.

[Bman]

Riggs Banks... Senior Executive: Jonathan Bush, Uncle of GW, brother of GHW Bush



From American Banker, Sep 14, 2004. Vol. 169, Iss. 177; pg. 20

Riggs Bank is being sued on behalf of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and their families for allegedly allowing Saudi officials to use accounts at the bank to funnel money to at least two of the terrorists involved.

The unit of the $6.7 billion-asset Riggs National Corp. in Washington is under scrutiny for a variety of matters, including the adequacy of its anti-money-laundering compliance. Motley Rice LLC, a law firm in Mount Pleasant, S.C., filed the suit -- which was first reported in The Wall Street Journal -- late last week in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. PNC Financial Services Group Inc. of Pittsburgh agreed in July to acquire Riggs for $780 million in cash and stock. Copyright 2004 Thomson Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.thomsonmedia.com http://www.americanbanker.com @



UPDATE



New York Times Company Mar 4, 2005

The Riggs National Corporation, which is being acquired by the PNC Financial Services Group, will settle lawsuits contending that its directors mismanaged the bank by allowing it to become a haven for terrorism financing. Riggs, based in Washington, agreed to pay $2.7 million to shareholders and as much as $1.1 million in legal fees to resolve suits filed by investors in Delaware Chancery Court, according to a memorandum filed with the court. PNC, based in Pittsburgh, is buying Riggs in a deal valued at about $652 million. PNC is paying the settlement, Riggs said. The banks agreed to settle investors' suits ''to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation,'' Riggs officials said in a statement.

Credit: Bloomberg News

[Bman]

The more you learn about Riggs Bank, where GW's Uncle is a Senior Executive, the more you find out that its basically a bank for the CIA... Interesting that the bank recently settled a lawsuit by Sept. 11 victims accusing the bank of allowing the Saudi's to funnel money to terrorism , through Riggs

Of course the 9/11 folks weren't the only victims of Riggs/CIA activities

excerpt from The Washington Post Company Feb 26, 2005

Riggs Bank and two members of the bank's controlling Allbritton family yesterday agreed to pay $9 million to victims of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for the bank's role in concealing and spiriting Pinochet's money out of Britain in 1999.

In return for the payment to a foundation established for victims of Pinochet's repressive 17-year rule and their survivors, a Spanish court agreed to dismiss criminal charges against current and former directors and officers of the bank, including the Allbrittons. Riggs will pay $8 million.

Joe L. Allbritton, who was chief executive of the bank until 2001, and his son Robert, who is chief executive of its holding company, will pay $1 million as part of the settlement with Spanish officials. The agreement marks the first time the Allbrittons have been held personally accountable for Riggs's long-standing money- laundering compliance problems, which have resulted in the bank pleading guilty to a felony last month, paying more than $41 million in civil and criminal fines and agreeing to be acquired by PNC Financial Services Group Inc. of Pittsburgh.

It also was the first time any institution or person other than the Chilean government has been forced to pay recompense to Pinochet's victims, according to lawyers involved in the case.

"The court's order speaks for itself," said Riggs spokesman Mark N. Hendrix. "We note the $8 million settlement payment to be paid by Riggs under the order is covered by a previously established litigation reserve. This puts the matter behind the institution."

[Bman]

Why was RIGGS in such a hurry to settle those lawsuits?

Its probably best for those involved not to go digging too deep.. Better to pay up and end it...

Interesting the article doesn't mention the Bush family connection.....


Riggs Bank Had Longstanding Link to the CIA; Ties May Pose Challenges For Prosecutors Investigating Money Laundering at Bank

Glenn R. Simpson. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Dec 31, 2004. pg. A.4

WASHINGTON -- Riggs Bank, which is under investigation by the Justice Department for money laundering, has had a longstanding relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency, according to people familiar with Riggs operations and U.S. government officials.

That relationship, which included top current and former Riggs executives receiving U.S. government security clearances, could complicate any prosecution of the bank's officials, according to private lawyers and former prosecutors.

Riggs, a storied Washington institution that used to refer to itself as the "bank of presidents," has come under intense scrutiny following revelations that it overlooked tens of millions of dollars in suspicious transactions by Saudi diplomats and dictators from Africa and South America.

Regulators have fined Riggs, a unit of Riggs National Corp., $25 million, and the breakdown in internal controls at Riggs has prompted a nationwide crackdown to force the nation's biggest banks to strengthen their efforts to thwart potential money laundering.

In Washington, though, the focus is shifting to the continuing criminal probe, which needs to be resolved for Riggs to complete its sale to Pittsburgh-based PNC Financial Corp.

The transaction's closing already has been delayed until April. A person close to the PNC-Riggs discussions says executives are optimistic the Justice Department probe will be largely wrapped up by then.

"We are proceeding with our integration plans while Riggs is working to meet the closing requirements," PNC spokesman Pat McMahon said.

Prosecutors are exploring whether the money-laundering violations are of a criminal nature, in addition to investigating possible embezzlement and kickbacks by a former employee.

Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney in Washington, declined to comment.

"It is Riggs policy neither to confirm nor comment on client relationships," a Riggs spokesman said.

The relationship with the CIA could prove problematic because it could cast a different light on the bank's dealings with two U.S. foreign-policy allies, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi ambassador to Washington.

Given the intelligence connections to Riggs, prosecutors could be faced with proving that the bank's failure to disclose financial activity by the foreign officials wasn't implicitly authorized by parts of the U.S. government.

"Any time you throw the CIA or the intelligence community into the mix, it adds a complication," said Washington defense lawyer E. Lawrence Barcella, a former federal prosecutor who investigated various intelligence-community figures in the 1970s.

Potential defendants could try to claim they were working for the government, he says, and in a criminal trial, "jurors who often pass their time away reading Robert Ludlum or John Grisham novels might be inclined to believe it, whether it's accurate or inaccurate," he added.

Prince Bandar's connections to the CIA have long been a significant, albeit little-discussed, aspect of the Riggs affair. During the initial phase of the controversy over Saudi accounts at Riggs in early 2003, Prince Bandar detailed his work for the CIA in a meeting with Treasury Secretary John Snow, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials who interpreted the disclosure as an explanation for the prince's large unexplained cash transactions at Riggs.

The meeting took place at the Treasury Department's headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue, which is across the street from Riggs headquarters. A spokesman for Prince Bandar declined to comment on the specifics of the discussions with Mr. Snow, as did the Treasury Department. During the 1980s, Prince Bandar helped fund the anticommunist Nicaraguan Contra rebels at the request of the White House and CIA, and later helped support Afghan rebels fighting the Soviet Union. More recently, he helped broker a diplomatic rapprochement between the U.S. and Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

The CIA has a longstanding but indirect relationship with Mr. Pinochet, a longtime Cold War ally of the U.S., through his former chief of secret police, Manuel Contreras, according to scholar John Dinges, author of a book on the Chilean dictatorship.

Mr. Contreras banked at Riggs, according to a 1979 State Department cable obtained by the nonprofit National Security Archive. From the 1990s through 2003, Riggs officials allegedly hid some of Mr. Pinochet's dealings with the bank from regulators, one key focus of the criminal inquiry by the United States attorney for the District of Columbia. Pablo Rodriguez, a lawyer for Mr. Pinochet, wasn't available to comment, according to an assistant reached by phone at his office in Santiago, Chile.

The Riggs relationship to the Chilean government was far more extensive than known, previously undisclosed internal Riggs documents show.

A summary of former Chairman Joe L. Allbritton's "international business development activities" states that the Chilean military's international mission offices had more than $50 million deposited at Riggs in 1996, including $30 million from the Chilean Air Force solicited by Mr. Allbritton personally on a trip to Chile.

The bank generated income from letters of credit to the Chilean military for procurements, the document states, and helped arrange funding for purchases of F-16 aircraft.

As of February 2002, Chilean government deposits at Riggs exceeded $100 million.

"Mr. Allbritton met Pincohet twice in his life and didn't speak his language and didn't have any communication with him directly," a spokesman for Mr. Allbritton, Paul Clark, said.

[Bman]

And finally...


BANKING
The Bush-Riggs Connection

The decision last week by federal regulators to fine Riggs Bank $25 million for a "willful, systemic" violation of anti-money-laundering laws is raising new questions about whether the Bush administration's ties to powerful moneyed interests is unduly influencing U.S. foreign and national security policy. Riggs Bank is headed by longtime Bush family friend Joe Allbritton, employs President Bush's uncle Jonathan as a top executive, and other executives have been financial donors to the Bush campaign. The bank is at the center of a controversy, according to the Wall Street Journal, for failing to monitor "tens of millions of dollars in cash withdrawals from accounts related to the Saudi Arabian and Equatorial Guinean embassy," including "suspicious incidents involving dozens of sequentially numbered cashier's checks and international drafts written by Saudi officials, including Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan." Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) "said members of the bank's board of directors should be held to account for failing to exercise their watchdog role over Riggs's operations" and said refusal to follow money laundering laws "allows terrorists to funnel their blood money through the system."

CONNECTION – JONATHAN BUSH AND RIGGS: Jonathan Bush, President Bush's uncle, was appointed CEO of Riggs Bank's investment arm in May of 2000, just months after his nephew secured the nomination for the presidency. At the time of the appointment, Jonathan Bush had already become a major financial backer of his nephew, rising to "Bush Pioneer" status by raising more than $100,000 for his nephew in 2000. The move solidified the relationship between Jonathan Bush and Riggs, which was originally initiated in 1997 when, according to American Banker newsletter, Riggs paid Bush $5.5 million for his smaller investment firm. That transaction, according to the NYT, "deepened [Riggs's] links to the Bushes." While Riggs denies any connection between Bush and the accounts being investigated in the money laundering probe, Riggs President Timothy Lex told the Washington Times in 1997 that "there's a blurring of distinctions between banks, mutual-fund families, broker dealers and everything else across the board."

CONNECTION - ALLBRITTON-BUSH LINK: Allbritton, who said during the federal probe that he was stepping down from Riggs's board, also was close to the Bush family. As the NYT reported, he (along with Riggs client Saudi Prince Bandar) was a financial backer of the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, with National Journal noting he contributed between $100,000 - $250,000 to the project. And there also appears to be a personal bond with the current President Bush: As the 2/15/01 WP noted, "When President Bush climbed out of his limousine on Inauguration Day at the corner of 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, he spotted Allbritton, waved and said, 'Hey Joe, how are you doing?'" That might have something to do with the fact that, according to the 11/7/2000 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Allbritton-owned TV station KATV in Little Rock broke 39 years of precedent and publicly endorsed Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The station, which is the biggest in the state, proceeded to air its endorsement 10 times throughout Arkansas, and refused to give equal time to Democrats "who asked for the time to present an alternative to the station's endorsement."

ACTION – LOOSENING BANKING REGS THAT COULD AFFECT RIGGS: According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon's "Age of Sacred Terror," upon taking office the Bush administration tried to halt efforts to tighten international banking laws – some of which may have affected Riggs. As he notes, the new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush administration opposed Clinton administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center."

ACTION - HIDING INFORMATION THAT COULD BE DAMAGING TO RIGGS: Newsweek reported that checks to "two Saudi students in the United States who provided assistance to two of the September 11 hijackers" may have come "from an account at Washington's Riggs Bank in the name of Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, the wife of Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan." This, and other details, were reportedly part of the bipartisan House-Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the Saudi money flow after 9/11. Yet, instead of allowing the committee's final report to be published in full, "Bush administration officials, led by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller, have adamantly refused to declassify the evidence" surrounding the transactions.

ACTION – RESUMING RELATIONS WITH SORDID RIGGS CLIENT: Riggs's fines were also in relation to its business with Equatorial Guinea – the oil-rich West African country headed by brutal dictator Gen. Teodoro Obiang. As the LA Times notes, though the country's offshore oil fields "generate hundreds of millions of dollars, there are few signs of the petroleum boom" there, and the Guinean ambassador admits "the country's oil funds are held in an account at Riggs Bank" controlled by the dictator. But while the IMF and other international institutions have refused to do business with the regime until it accounts for its country's financial resources, the Bush administration "initiated a political thaw with the Obiang regime" in late 2001, "authorizing the reopening of the U.S. Embassy in Equatorial Guinea, which had been closed six years earlier, in large part due to the country's horrific human rights record." The move came even though "there's been little, if any, improvement" on human rights.


http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=78928

[knightroar]

And finally...


BANKING
The Bush-Riggs Connection

The decision last week by federal regulators to fine Riggs Bank $25 million for a "willful, systemic" violation of anti-money-laundering laws is raising new questions about whether the Bush administration's ties to powerful moneyed interests is unduly influencing U.S. foreign and national security policy. Riggs Bank is headed by longtime Bush family friend Joe Allbritton, employs President Bush's uncle Jonathan as a top executive, and other executives have been financial donors to the Bush campaign. The bank is at the center of a controversy, according to the Wall Street Journal, for failing to monitor "tens of millions of dollars in cash withdrawals from accounts related to the Saudi Arabian and Equatorial Guinean embassy," including "suspicious incidents involving dozens of sequentially numbered cashier's checks and international drafts written by Saudi officials, including Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan." Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) "said members of the bank's board of directors should be held to account for failing to exercise their watchdog role over Riggs's operations" and said refusal to follow money laundering laws "allows terrorists to funnel their blood money through the system."

CONNECTION – JONATHAN BUSH AND RIGGS: Jonathan Bush, President Bush's uncle, was appointed CEO of Riggs Bank's investment arm in May of 2000, just months after his nephew secured the nomination for the presidency. At the time of the appointment, Jonathan Bush had already become a major financial backer of his nephew, rising to "Bush Pioneer" status by raising more than $100,000 for his nephew in 2000. The move solidified the relationship between Jonathan Bush and Riggs, which was originally initiated in 1997 when, according to American Banker newsletter, Riggs paid Bush $5.5 million for his smaller investment firm. That transaction, according to the NYT, "deepened [Riggs's] links to the Bushes." While Riggs denies any connection between Bush and the accounts being investigated in the money laundering probe, Riggs President Timothy Lex told the Washington Times in 1997 that "there's a blurring of distinctions between banks, mutual-fund families, broker dealers and everything else across the board."

CONNECTION - ALLBRITTON-BUSH LINK: Allbritton, who said during the federal probe that he was stepping down from Riggs's board, also was close to the Bush family. As the NYT reported, he (along with Riggs client Saudi Prince Bandar) was a financial backer of the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, with National Journal noting he contributed between $100,000 - $250,000 to the project. And there also appears to be a personal bond with the current President Bush: As the 2/15/01 WP noted, "When President Bush climbed out of his limousine on Inauguration Day at the corner of 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, he spotted Allbritton, waved and said, 'Hey Joe, how are you doing?'" That might have something to do with the fact that, according to the 11/7/2000 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Allbritton-owned TV station KATV in Little Rock broke 39 years of precedent and publicly endorsed Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The station, which is the biggest in the state, proceeded to air its endorsement 10 times throughout Arkansas, and refused to give equal time to Democrats "who asked for the time to present an alternative to the station's endorsement."

ACTION – LOOSENING BANKING REGS THAT COULD AFFECT RIGGS: According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon's "Age of Sacred Terror," upon taking office the Bush administration tried to halt efforts to tighten international banking laws – some of which may have affected Riggs. As he notes, the new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush administration opposed Clinton administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center."

ACTION - HIDING INFORMATION THAT COULD BE DAMAGING TO RIGGS: Newsweek reported that checks to "two Saudi students in the United States who provided assistance to two of the September 11 hijackers" may have come "from an account at Washington's Riggs Bank in the name of Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, the wife of Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan." This, and other details, were reportedly part of the bipartisan House-Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the Saudi money flow after 9/11. Yet, instead of allowing the committee's final report to be published in full, "Bush administration officials, led by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller, have adamantly refused to declassify the evidence" surrounding the transactions.

ACTION – RESUMING RELATIONS WITH SORDID RIGGS CLIENT: Riggs's fines were also in relation to its business with Equatorial Guinea – the oil-rich West African country headed by brutal dictator Gen. Teodoro Obiang. As the LA Times notes, though the country's offshore oil fields "generate hundreds of millions of dollars, there are few signs of the petroleum boom" there, and the Guinean ambassador admits "the country's oil funds are held in an account at Riggs Bank" controlled by the dictator. But while the IMF and other international institutions have refused to do business with the regime until it accounts for its country's financial resources, the Bush administration "initiated a political thaw with the Obiang regime" in late 2001, "authorizing the reopening of the U.S. Embassy in Equatorial Guinea, which had been closed six years earlier, in large part due to the country's horrific human rights record." The move came even though "there's been little, if any, improvement" on human rights.


http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=78928
:food_10:

[Bman]

:food_10:


unbelievable, isn't it? And they say Saddam was supporting terrorism?? Where is the evidence?? All the evidence I see show the Saudi's, Paki's and possibly even the CIA were the one's supporting terrorism

Bman

[Veltliner]

down the rabbit hole we go.. what is terrorism? i will never understand this word i guess as it seems to be another excuse for a witch hunt..

how can you tell if someone is a terrorist before they commit terrorism? isn't terrorism defined by terrorist actions? if so, is terrorism limited to america's enemies? when we attack other countries illegaly, is that terrorism? i'm just asking questions here so don't think i'm saying the u.s is a state sponsor of terror.. i'm just wondering what makes people in palestine and iraq terrorists after their violent acts but american soldiers freedom fighters after their violent acts.

countries that don't have a strong military backbone (tanks, jets, high-tech weaponry) oftentime resort to desperate measures to level the playing field.

is it terrorism for someone to blow themselves up in a crowd if the same damage would have been caused by a cruise missile? would the cruise missile be terrorism?

it's important to understand that both saddam hussein and osama bin laden were former playtoys for the CIA and the mossad. hussein was backed by the united states for years in an effort to destroy iran's power base. osama bin laden was backed by the united states for years in an effort to destroy russia's power base. in an age where oil is reaching its peak in the supply/demand bell curve, it only makes logical sense that 9/11 and the four riders of the apocalypse started a new world order.. things are slowly coming together for the average person and when those things do show themselves in the grand scheme, it will be shocking to most that they could actually believe one man (Bin Laden) was used as a lubricant to grease the streets of america for the most shocking conclusion of all..

hopefully somewhere today, someone will unplug themselves from the cnn/fox matrix and realize that the michael jackson's and the scott peterson's and the robert blakes are making you forget about what is really happening in the world.. you are being drugged in a sense..

anyways, back to my poker game.

[Bman]

down the rabbit hole we go.. what is terrorism? i will never understand this word i guess as it seems to be another excuse for a witch hunt..

how can you tell if someone is a terrorist before they commit terrorism? isn't terrorism defined by terrorist actions? if so, is terrorism limited to america's enemies? when we attack other countries illegaly, is that terrorism? i'm just asking questions here so don't think i'm saying the u.s is a state sponsor of terror.. i'm just wondering what makes people in palestine and iraq terrorists after their violent acts but american soldiers freedom fighters after their violent acts.





these are good questions but don't apply in this specific case, regarding CIA and Saudi support for Al Qaeda

The time frame here is AFTER Bin Laden had been indicted for terrorism against the US and named as a terrorist by the State Department

B man

[lotimer]

from MSNBC News:


“Pakistani and American officials said Tuesday the hunt for top al-Qaida and Taliban leaders would continue, but acknowledged the trail was cold.”


“No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that ‘casting our objectives too narrowly’ risked ‘a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured’. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that ‘the goal has never been to get Bin Laden’.” ~ Michael Meacher, M.P., 6th September, 2003


http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2005/03/still-at-large.html


Bump

[lotimer]

Why wasn't this ever brought up in the major Media?

New Homeland Security Chief Chertoff represented a man with ties to Osama Bin Laden

I've researched this a bit and it appears to be confirmed by other media articles from the late 1999s.






Good question. You can bet it won't be on Faux News.

[involved]

One big Bush Bin family............wooT!

[involved]

I also read the same report,I don't know how it's getting past the media ? are they completely owned now ?.

[knightroar]

I also read the same report,I don't know how it's getting past the media ? are they completely owned now ?.


basically

[involved]

I have never seen anything like this before..who knew ?

[knightroar]

it's a long story, but it has many players. we have only touched the surface so far.

[involved]

Commentary
A Culture of Secrecy
What has happened to the principle that American democracy should be accessible and transparent?

"Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." –George Orwell, Politics and the English Language

By Charles Lewis

WASHINGTON, February 3, 2005 — In the world's oldest democracy, pressure on investigative journalists is usually exerted in sophisticated, non-lethal ways, under the public radar. Every day in Washington, D.C., thousands of government and corporate public relations flaks and lobbyists purvey their "talking points" with a friendly smile, no matter how odious the client, no matter how intellectually dishonest or morally dubious their message. Journalists must trudge through the shameless "spin"-that vanilla word admiringly used these days instead of "lying," which has a harshly judgmental, jarringly rude ring in Washington power circles.
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
Email This PageEmail This Page
Send Us Your CommentsSend Us Your Comments

Sometimes the persuasion becomes less subtle. For example, when the Center for Public Integrity obtained and prepared to publish online the secret, proposed draft sequel to the USA Patriot Act, known as "Patriot II," we got calls from the U.S. Justice Department beseeching us not to publish.

Over the years, those unhappy with my investigations have tried just about everything to discourage our work. They have issued subpoenas, stalked my hotel room, escorted me off military bases, threatened physical arrest, suggested I leave via a second-story window, made a death threat personally communicated by concerned state troopers who asked that we leave the area immediately (we didn't), hired public relations people to infiltrate my news conferences and pose as "reporters" to ask distracting questions, attempted to pressure the Center's donors, and even brought expensive, frivolous libel litigation that takes years and costs millions of dollars to defend.

Being despised and frozen out by those in power is an occupational hazard-indeed, a badge of honor-for investigative reporters everywhere. Certainly no one at the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity harbors any illusions that he or she will ever be invited to dinner at the White House. This is hardly surprising given that the Center broke the Clinton White House "Lincoln Bedroom" fundraising scandal, first revealed that Enron was George W. Bush's top career patron and years later disclosed that Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, is by far the Bush administration's favorite contractor in Iraq. For these impertinent affronts to officialdom, the Center's reports have received 28 awards from respected journalism organizations since 1996.

Public apathy, though, is another matter. Take our 2003 Center report in which we posted and tallied up all of the major U.S. government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan-a project which won the George Polk Award for online journalism. Center investigators found that nearly every one of the 10 largest contracts awarded for work in Iraq and Afghanistan went to companies employing former high-ranking government officials, and all 10 top contractors are established donors in American politics, contributing nearly $11 million to national political parties, candidates, and political action committees since 1990. And on the eve of the Iraq war, at least nine of the 30 members of the Defense Policy Board, the government-appointed group that advises the Pentagon, had ties to companies that had won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002.

The personal financial disclosure forms of those advisers are secret, and much about the entire contracting process is deliberately hidden, and therefore unknown to the public. For example, it took 20 researchers, writers, and editors at the Center for Public Integrity six months and 73 Freedom of Information Act requests, including successful litigation in federal court against the Army and State Department, to begin to discern who was getting the Iraq and Afghanistan contracts, and for how much. Why? What has happened to the principles of accessible information and transparency in the decision-making process in our democracy?

True, there is nothing illegal about such cozy, convenient confluences in the mercenary culture of Washington, D.C. But what does it say about the state of our democracy that, beyond some spot news coverage of the Center's findings around the world, there was almost no reaction or interest by Congressional oversight committees, which are controlled by Republicans loath to criticize the Bush administration? Of course, no official reaction means no second day story, no "hook" for the cautious and sometimes deferential national news media, no mounting public awareness or concern, and no political problem. Welcome to business-as-usual Washington.

Undeterred by what we had found, we plunged even deeper, producing a report entitled Outsourcing the Pentagon, in which a team of 23 researchers, writers and editors examined more than 2.2 million Pentagon contract actions totaling $900 billion spent over six years. This massive nine-month investigative report profiled the 737 largest Defense Department contractors who, including their subsidiaries and affiliates, have received at least $100 million in contracts. Once again, the Center found, the largest contractors are among the most lavish spenders on political influence. And, most notably, we found that no-bid contracts like the infamous one Halliburton received to do business in Iraq have accounted for more than 40 percent of Pentagon contracting since 1998. That's at least $362 billion in taxpayer money given to companies without competitive bidding.

Following news coverage of our findings, what was the reaction? Another Washington yawn. There was barely any sign of an official pulse, let alone government investigative interest or, perish the thought, outrage. And yet most Americans assume-and expect-that government contracts are competitively bid, partly because White House, Pentagon and company officials have, year after year, emphasized what they want us to know and, like a circus magician, misdirected our attention away from what would expose them.
A Culture of Lying

Over the years, I have investigated and interviewed members of Congress, presidential candidates, judges, captains of industry, government spooks, labor union presidents, crooks and terrorists, FBI agents and Ku Klux Klansmen, billionaires and the homeless, brilliant thinkers and the mentally deranged. And it is fair to say that I have been lied to by people in virtually every part of the United States, in swank marble buildings, smoky bars and dusty local jails, eyeball-to-eyeball and by phone, fax, email and hand-delivered letter, in all kinds of imaginative ways, almost always with a straight face.

The line between truth and falsehood-between the facts and a veneer of verisimilitude-has become so blurred as to be indistinguishable. Increasingly, what the powers that be say has become the publicly perceived reality, simply because they say it is so.

Take the war in Iraq. According to national election polling, a majority of voters for George W. Bush believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, and months earlier, more than half of the nation thought Saddam Hussein and Iraq had close ties to Al Qaeda or were directly involved in the attacks that brought down the World Trade Towers on September 11th. How could most Americans be so tragically misinformed, when official U.S. and international government investigations, widely reported by the news media, concluded otherwise?

Between 1999 and mid-2004, there were more than 700 specific utterances by George Bush or Dick Cheney mentioning Iraq, often banging the war drums in ominous tones; interestingly, there was not a single sentence explicitly linking Saddam Hussein to September 11. Instead, that was often slyly implied contextually. At the same time, with some notable exceptions such as Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post and the Knight Ridder's duo of Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel*, investigative news coverage before March 2003 of the Bush administration's ramp-up to the war in Iraq was underwhelming, to say the least. Daily coverage of government policy pronouncements and rationales was largely uncritical, almost stenographic.

At a time in America's history when discerning the truth is more elusive-and more essential-than ever, the mainstream news media seem increasingly incapable of playing their traditional watchdog role and digging out lies and inaccuracies.

The world of journalism is in a crisis that goes well beyond the spate of recent, highly-publicized scandals involving fraudulent or poorly reported stories. The country has witnessed Sumner Redstone, the chief executive officer of Viacom, home of CBS News and its hallowed legacy of journalistic excellence dating back to Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow, publicly endorse an incumbent President on the eve of a national election-something once considered unimaginable. Over the years CBS and many news organizations have become hollow shells of their former selves, letting go of hundreds of newsroom people and positions in order to achieve ever higher profits and corporate consolidation. The result? Less investigative reporting, reduced scrutiny of those in power and, ultimately, a more easily bamboozled populace.

The inadequate picture of reality that emerges is not limited to politics and government. The fact is, most major news organizations, particularly broadcasters, failed to recognize and report on the business lawlessness of the 1990s, in which literally hundreds of companies-aided and abetted by lawyers, underwriters and accountants-cooked the books and lied to their shareholders and federal authorities. Yes, the media did cover the "perp" walks of CEOs in cuffs at the time of arrest or trial, after the fact. But that's not investigative journalism. Where was the high-profile scrutiny when these companies were deregulated, which enabled their greed, deception and fraud and victimized millions of employees and shareholders?

Nor do the American people get "all the news that's fit to print" when it comes to the political activities of the media corporations themselves. The Center for Public Integrity has been exposing their coziness with our national leaders. News companies claim to objectively cover the President, his administration and Congress, but lavish hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying and political donations in the hopes of greater deregulation and other favors from them. That included taking Federal Communications Commission officials on 2,500 all-expense-paid trips over an eight-year period.

What does it all mean? For the most part, there is little appetite for investigative journalism. For the "suits" who control what we read, see and hear, besides potentially alienating the political power structure against their own company or industry, thereby possibly jeopardizing millions of dollars in future profits, this edgy enterprise journalism is not efficient or cost-effective. It simply takes too much time, requires too much money and incurs too many legal and other risks. Forget whether or not this is fair or accurate, or relevant given the civic obligation broadcasters and publishers have to the communities they ostensibly serve. It simply is, and it helps to explain why today we have so little independent, critical reporting and why instead we are mostly fed a steady diet of pap from morning to night.

The problem is made worse by the presence of brilliant communications tacticians in the White House who cleverly frame their controversial policy agendas, setting up the class's stenography assignment for the day, with bold, positive names: "No Child Left Behind," the "USA Patriot Act," the "Clear Skies" environmental policy, the "Healthy Forests Initiative." Needless to say, such Orwellian word ploys-exacerbated by largely docile, straight news coverage-slip devilishly into common usage, leaving the public ill-equipped, unprotected and vulnerable to breathtaking, unabashed manipulation.
The Politics of Fear

That seismic date in our history, September 11, 2001, enabled those in power to strengthen the prerogatives of the Presidency in the name of national security, giving rise to a new politics of fear which has severely diminished what the public can know about its government. The Bush administration came to power already overtly hostile to openness and the public's right to know. In its first months, for example, it unsuccessfully attempted to ensconce George W. Bush's gubernatorial documents in his father's presidential library, outside the state's sunshine disclosure laws. The White House has tenaciously and more successfully kept from the American people information about public policy meetings on public property between energy company executives and top federal officials. A respected reporter's home telephone records were secretly seized in order to ascertain his next story and his confidential sources.

Since 9/11, the country has seen a historic, regressive shift in public accountability. Open-records laws nationwide have been rolled back more than 300 times-all in the name of national security. For the first time in U.S. history, the personal papers of past presidents now may only be released with White House approval. A Justice Department "leak" investigation of the White House regarding an Iraq war-related news story has degenerated into a full-fledged witch-hunt against the news media and the First Amendment, with reporters facing imprisonment if they don't reveal their sources.

Against this backdrop, thousands of people have been interrogated by law enforcement officials and hundreds illegally detained-in many cases held for more than three years without any charges filed against them, their right to counsel and court review denied, the customary arrest information withheld. White House and other senior government officials have defended such policies (some of which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in June), as well as the physical and psychological abuse and torture of foreign prisoners, as essential to the "war on terror," disregarding the Geneva Conventions and continuing to systematically violate human rights.

How far has the national security state mentality gone? Consider the issue of political expression. In China last June, the fifteenth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, the government tightened security in the name of "sound, stable social order," and scores of dissidents (potential protesters who might politically embarrass those in power) were harassed, physically detained and removed from Beijing. The U.S. Government, via the State Department at its daily briefing, expressed its concern "about the harassment, house arrest, detention and any other restrictions . . . We call on the Chinese government to respect the right of the citizens to peacefully express their views."

Yet two months later, at the Republican National Convention in New York, more than 1,800 protesters-predominantly non-violent-were arrested during the days of the convention and kept from public view, some held for 60 hours without seeing a judge, prompting a State Supreme Court judge to order hundreds of them released and finding city authorities in contempt. Civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel said at the time, "We believe the city's plan is to keep protesters detained until George Bush leaves the city tonight." Although Siegel's statement was hotly denied by authorities, the incident nevertheless represented the largest number of dissidents arrested at a political convention in U.S. history, more than Chicago 1968 or Miami 1972. Mayor Michael Bloomberg's explanation: "The city did what it was supposed to do: It protected the streets."

Of course we are not China, where, as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof recently noted, 42 reporters are in prison, or Russia or Colombia, where according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 29 and 30 reporters, respectively, have been murdered in the past decade. The situation here is nowhere near as tragic or dire. But more than anytime in recent history, political authorities in the United States are doing many, many things in the name of "protecting the streets," to the ominous detriment of truth in our democracy.

Despite the inhospitable landscape and the grim nature of the work-forensically excavating the cold corpus of unvarnished reality-most investigative reporters would probably grudgingly acknowledge that they are, to paraphrase John Kennedy, "idealists without illusions," with some modicum of hope that things can and should be better than they are.

Hope and perspective are essential, for there is much work to be done.

Julia DiLaura, Sheetal Doshi, Eva Koehler and Julia Kohen of the Center contributed research.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/ga/report.aspx?aid=649

[knightroar]

great article involved. I enjoyed reading it. they are a good organization.

[SCHICK]

I read the whole thread from go to whoa last night, I couldn't believe it, I have re-read it tonight, I still cant believe it, what in Gods name is the media doing about it? sadly the public are not informed,worse,if they were informed would they understand? great thread and participation by all concerned :happy_01:

[Bman]

I read the whole thread from go to whoa last night, I couldn't believe it, I have re-read it tonight, I still cant believe it, what in Gods name is the media doing about it? sadly the public are not informed,worse,if they were informed would they understand? great thread and participation by all concerned :happy_01:


I know..It's fucking unreal..

Where is the TV media??? To be fair, the newspapers are covering this, as that is where I got most of my articles... Even DATELINE ran a story about Chertoff, but until you get a high profile newsman taking up the cause, this will simply go unnoticed...

People just don't care. Remember.. the bigger the lie, the easier it is to get people to believe it

Bman

[knightroar]

I know..It's fucking unreal..

Where is the TV media??? To be fair, the newspapers are covering this, as that is where I got most of my articles... Even DATELINE ran a story about Chertoff, but until you get a high profile newsman taking up the cause, this will simply go unnoticed...

People just don't care. Remember.. the bigger the lie, the easier it is to get people to believe it

Bman


exactly

[Bman]

Just a quick summary of what we've covered so far:


1. In 2001 when Bush took over , the FBI was ordered to halt investigation of Saudi support of terrorism. This was done at the behest of the oil companies who were afraid it would jeapardize their investments, etc.. The FBI deputy director in charge of hunting Bin Laden, John O'Neill resigned in Aug. of 2001 over frustration at the Administration's blocking. John O'Neill died a month later in the WTC attack as he was in one of the towers at the time.

2. On the morning of 9/11/01, Congressmen Porter Goss and Bob Graham were meeting with the Pakistani head of intelligence, General Ahmad. Ahmad had been in the US for a week or two and newspapers had noted that it was quite unusual for him to be here and there was speculation as to what he was up to.. Ahmad returned to Pakistan a few days after the attacks but he was fired from his job in Oct. of 2001 after Indian Intelligence outed him as a financier of Mohammad Atta,... one of the alleged hijackers.

3. At the same time that Ahmad was eating crumpets with Goss and Graham, George HW Bush, the ex President, ex CIA head , and father of W was meeting with his long time aquaintance, Shafig bin Laden.. brother of Osama at the Ritz Carton in Washington DC. The Bush's and Bin Laden's have a rich history together and Papa Bush allegedly used the Bin Laden family and Saudi government officials as a go-betweens during the Iran/Contra affair when Papa Bush was Vice President. Of course, Bin Laden brother Salem had been alleged to have played a big role in Iran/Contra but he died in a mysterious plane crash in Texas, in 1988, right around the time Papa Bush become President.. Seems fortunate for Papa Bush, given the Iran/Contra hearings at the time.

4. Meanwhile in 2000, GW's Uncle (and HW's brother) Jonathan Bush got a promotion to CEO of one of the units at RIGGS BANK.. Riggs Bank, long associated with CIA covert operations, was fined by the government for allowing Saudi Ambassador "Bandar Bush" to funnel money to terrorists using the bank. The Bank recently SETTLED A LAWSUIT with the families of the 9/11 victims for this very reason. Jonathan Bush is still a senior executive at the bank, though the CEO (and close friend of the Bush family) Joe Albritton recently resigned as a result of the scandal.

5. In March of 2003, Khalid Sheik Mohammad was arrested in Pakistan, living not in a cave but in a tony neighborhood heavily populated by military and government officials from Pakistan. KSM was never seen or heard from again, and has never stood trial for the murder of 2800 Americans, despite the claim that he planned and masterminded the attack.

6. In early 2002, Jose Padilla, a US citizen returned from an alleged meeting with terrorists in Pakistan. He was immediately arrested by US authorities and President Bush declared him an "enemy combatant" which meant the government could hold him with no charges, no access to lawyers or due process, indefinitely. Padilla's detention was unusual in that other "terrorists" have been allowed to "have their day in court", including the alleged 20th hijacker, the Lackawana Seven, Shoe bomber, Richard Reid, and "enemy combatant" John "Taliban" Walker... One can only speculate as to why Padilla isn't allowed to tell his side of the story.. Probably for the same reason that KSM has never faced trial... No one wants their story of what they were doing in Pakistan revealed!

7. Daniel Pearl was alleged to be investigating the role of the Pakistani ISI (with close historical ties to the CIA) in 9/11 when he was beheaded in Pakistan... One man who was ordered to stand trial for Pearl's killing was Omar Sayeed, who was linked to the Pakistani ISI General who was funding Mohammad Atta... The Paki ISI is interesting because the CIA under Reagan/Bush worked closely with the Paki ISI in funding Bin Laden and his Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. There are allegations of CIA/ISI drug running in the herion markets as well, with the illegal profits used to fund "off the record" covert ops.



Ok... that's for starters.. We'll continue to build on this.. I'm sure I left some out but this was from memory

Bman

[Bman]

In addition,

Recent Bush Homeland Security appointee , Michael Chertoff, took a very unusual case when he was in private practice as a lawyer in NJ. That's because Chertoff was a big name lawyer and former US Attorney who typically represented large companies, etc.. but Chertoff "stepped down" out of his typical league in order to represent a NJ doctor accused of funnelling money to Al Qaeda through a bogus HMO scheme. The doctor, of course, also happened to be a big contributor to the GOP.. CHertoff, as it turns out, was able to get his client off the hook... The client's brother had been caught on tape trying to buy rocket launchers and tank weapons in a US survelliance tape of terrorist activity in Pakistan (I believe).

When it comes to defending terrorists, the Bush cronies have a rich record. James Baker, President BUsh's "special envoy" to the Middle East.. a man with a desk in the White House, has a number of "side jobs" in addition to his work for Mr. Bush...

Mr. Baker, an attorney, was also tapped by the Saudi Government to represent "Bandar Bush" who was sued by the families of 9/11 victims for the role the Saudi's played in the attacks...Mr. Baker, it seems, was a wise choice for the Saudi's and Bandar Bush , as the courts dismissed most of the charges against the Saudis....

One wonders why Mr. Bush surrounds himself with so many lawyers that are so interested in defending alleged terrorists???

Bman

[Bag Sniper]

Instead of stroking each other why don't you guys take all this astounding information to CBS ... just think of all the books you could write ... the movies you could produce and how rich you'ld become because of it ....

Why ... just think .... you might even get Dan Rather's job back for him .... you'll be instant celebrity's ....

Naaaaahhhhhh ... there's a reason all your bullshit isn't in the MSM ... and that's because it's all bullshit .....

But that's never occured to you dullards has it .... nope .... you're too busy giving each other facials ....

[Bman]

UPDATE **********

It appears the secrets of alleged 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad will remain UNTOLD ... for now... this is a loss for the pro-truth folks, but rest assured.. our day is coming!



The Supreme Court refused to let Moussaoui question Khalid Sheihk Mohammad, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, who are being held as enemy combatants by the US (allegedly)...

Both of these men are linked to the Pakistani ISI..

the US government will never let these men talk.. I'll tell you that.. Because they might, if pressured, give up the true story of who was behind 9/11.




High court rejects Moussaoui case
By Phil Hirschkorn
CNN



(CNN) -- The Supreme Court Monday rejected the appeal of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person publicly charged in the United States in connection with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The justices announced their decision Monday after meeting privately Friday to discuss the case.

Moussaoui, an admitted member of al Qaeda, the Muslim terrorist group linked to the September 11 attacks, had asked the court to rule on whether his right to a fair trial hinges on obtaining testimony from other al Qaeda detainees who, he believes, would exonerate him.

The trial, originally scheduled for September 2002, has been indefinitely delayed as a dispute over witness access moved through the U.S. courts.

Moussaoui is facing the death penalty in a six-count federal indictment obtained three months after 19 hijackers commandeered four jetliners and crashed them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing 2,973 people, not counting themselves.

Four of the counts are death-eligible conspiracies.

Moussaoui, 36, a French citizen of Moroccan heritage, was arrested a month before September 11 after arousing suspicion at a Minnesota flight school. He maintains that he had no involvement or advance knowledge of the terrorist plot.

The government contends that Moussaoui's actions, from attending an al Qaeda paramilitary camp in Afghanistan to flight schools in the United States, mimicked the hijackers and that he received money from the same operatives.

Case returns to federal court
Moussaoui's trial is stalled in a dispute over access to key detainees in custody -- Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the architect of the attacks, Ramzi Binalshibh, a coordinator of the plot, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, a financier of the hijackers.

The government considers these military prisoners, which it holds in undisclosed locations in other countries, "enemy combatants" out of reach of the U.S. courts.

In what it calls an effort to both preserve its prosecution and protect national security, the government offered the trial court written summaries of the detainees' interrogations.

U.S. District Court Judge Leonia Brinkema, who presides over the case in Alexandria, Virginia, deemed those substitutions inadequate, but a federal appeals court in Richmond last year instructed the parties to reconsider them.

The appeals court ordered the government to allow defense attorneys to submit questions to the detainees and share in the composition of new summaries.

The attorneys argued that any substitute for live testimony would disadvantage Moussaoui.

Moussaoui's attorneys say the standoff puts three Constitutional amendments in play, chiefly the Sixth Amendment right of a defendant to call available witnesses to testify.

They contend the Fifth Amendment right of due process and the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment mean that a defendant facing the death penalty, as is Moussaoui, must be allowed to obtain all exculpatory information in the government's possession.

In 2003, Brinkema ordered videotaped depositions of Binalshibh, Mohammed, and al-Hawsawi, but the government refused to make the men available.

Consequently, Brinkema barred evidence of September 11 from the case and said the prosecution could not seek the death penalty. That order was reversed on appeal.

"Captured al Qaeda members represent one of the most important opportunities this nation has for uncovering vital information about al Qaeda's assets and plans," the solicitor general told the Supreme Court in its brief last month. "Permitting the defense to have direct access to the captured enemy combatants would cause the United States irreparable harm in the war against al Qaeda."

Both lower courts found the al Qaeda witnesses could provide relevant, favorable testimony for Moussaoui. The government maintains they would help convict him.

CNN's Bill Mears contributed to this report.



Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/21/scotus.moussaoui

[Bag Sniper]

Face it Bboy ... you aren't qualified to know .... you're only qualified to whine .... so if you don't like it why don't you offer your most excellent legal skills to the defense team .... I'm certain they'll give you the time of day .... like about 1 second of it .... if that ....

[Bman]

Face it Bboy ... you aren't qualified to know .... you're only qualified to whine .... so if you don't like it why don't you offer your most excellent legal skills to the defense team .... I'm certain they'll give you the time of day .... like about 1 second of it .... if that ....


LOL..

That's all you can say, eh Bag?? You're a joke.. I'm done talking with you

Bman

[Bman]

Ok.. .so where were we??

Bush appointee to head Homeland Security , Michael Chertoff acted as legal defense for a NJ Doctor alleged to be running a money laundering scam for Osama Bin Laden....

Bush appointee to head the CIA, Porter Goss was meeting with a man who was funding Mohammad Atta, on the morning of 9/11/01... funny Goss never mentioned that in his "Investigation" into 9/11 when he chaired a committee charged with that very subject..

Now, who is left? ahhh yes.. .our old friend John Negroponte, who Bush just appointed to fill the new "intelligence Czar" position.....Negroponte has been accused of having a hand in Iran/Contra as well..

Bush, like Vladimir Putin, is loading up the government with career intelligence operatives used to operating outside the realms of the law, accountability and checks and balances.

This is an ominous trend, I can assure you.



Excerpt from a long article in Today's Washington Post


Negroponte's Time In Honduras at Issue
Focus Renewed on Intelligence Pick's Knowledge of Death Squads in 1980s
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 21, 2005; Page A01


It has been two decades since John D. Negroponte left his post as ambassador to Honduras, but the man President Bush has chosen to become the United States' first intelligence czar is still being hounded by human rights activists such as Zenaida Velasquez.

Their paths first intersected in 1983, when Velasquez asked for the ambassador's help in tracing dozens of Hondurans, including her brother, allegedly kidnapped by agents of the U.S.-backed Honduran military. Little came of the meeting, and the disappearances continued for at least another year.

Over the years, Velasquez has gotten the CIA, an official Honduran ombudsman and an international human rights court to acknowledge that the Honduran army was responsible for her brother Manfredo's kidnapping and presumed killing. But Negroponte has repeatedly insisted that military-backed death squads did not operate in Honduras while he was ambassador.

The selection of Negroponte for the new post of national intelligence director has focused renewed attention on the question of how much he knew about the Honduran military's involvement in nearly 200 unsolved kidnappings during the 1980s, and what he did about it. The subject has dogged him in the past, and Democratic staff members said it is likely to be revisited when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence holds nomination hearings, tentatively scheduled for April 12.

A review of hundreds of declassified State Department and CIA documents suggests that Negroponte was preoccupied with "managing perceptions" about a country that had become a key U.S. ally in a decade-long campaign to stop the spread of communism in Central America. The documents show that he sought to depict Honduras in a generally positive light in annual human rights reports to Congress, and played down allegations of government abuse.

Opinions differ sharply over whether Negroponte, who served most recently as U.S. envoy to Iraq and the United Nations, ever suppressed pertinent intelligence information for fear of undermining support for U.S. policies.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52001-2005Mar20?language=printer

[knightroar]

bump

[Bman]

Don't worry.. there is still plenty more to uncover.. even if I have to piece it together myself from the public domain

Bman

[knightroar]

Don't worry.. there is still plenty more to uncover.. even if I have to piece it together myself from the public domain

Bman


I'll join the search with you in a couple of days. I'm finishing up on a project for George right now, but i should be done by Wednesday.

[zapcomix]

[QUOTE=Bman] UPDATE **********

It appears the secrets of alleged 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad will remain UNTOLD ... for now... this is a loss for the pro-truth folks, but rest assured.. our day is coming!

The Supreme Court refused to let Moussaoui question Khalid Sheihk Mohammad, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, who are being held as enemy combatants by the US (allegedly)...

Both of these men are linked to the Pakistani ISI..

the US government will never let these men talk.. I'll tell you that.. Because they might, if pressured, give up the true story of who was behind 9/11./QUOTE]

You are kidding...right? You're reading too many conspiracy books.

[Bman]

[QUOTE=Bman] UPDATE **********

It appears the secrets of alleged 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad will remain UNTOLD ... for now... this is a loss for the pro-truth folks, but rest assured.. our day is coming!

The Supreme Court refused to let Moussaoui question Khalid Sheihk Mohammad, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, who are being held as enemy combatants by the US (allegedly)...

Both of these men are linked to the Pakistani ISI..

the US government will never let these men talk.. I'll tell you that.. Because they might, if pressured, give up the true story of who was behind 9/11./QUOTE]

You are kidding...right? You're reading too many conspiracy books.


Why would I be kidding??

Maybe you can answer a question I posed earlier... Why hasn't Khalid Sheik Mohammed been tried?? What about Jose Padilla?

let's try them and punish them.. as an example of how just the US is, and what happens to those that kill Americans...

Why would anyone oppose that??

Bman

[Bag Sniper]

[QUOTE=zapcomix]


Why would I be kidding??

Maybe you can answer a question I posed earlier... Why hasn't Khalid Sheik Mohammed been tried?? What about Jose Padilla?

let's try them and punish them.. as an example of how just the US is, and what happens to those that kill Americans...

Why would anyone oppose that??

Bman

Oh I don't know Bboy ... maybe you're not joking ... but you *are* delusional .... it's called National Security dipshit ....

Are you saying you don't have the feintest idea how a criminal court procedure operates ... you know like ... oh ...say the evidence trail for one thing .... you know ... you have to show how you got certain information, who you got it from and how .... just little things like that ...

But I suppose it's OK with you if the US government just outs it's agents, it's contact system and methodology ... put out in the public domain exactly who's on the payroll spying on who, where and how ... dead drops, handlers .. you know ... the whole fucking shibang .... the normal everyday juror isn't cleared for that information much less you ...

If it's working and apparently it's working pretty well then it's no one's business because of national security how it's done or with who .... I personally don't give a fuck ....

But if you need a case in point ... how about that huge tip off a few months or so ago ..... gosh .... when it came to light the whole MSM wnet nuts reporting that our inside guy was a computer operator central to AQ communications .... damn .. they printed his name and everything ...

So long secret source underground our guy .....

You're a fuckin idiot ... and if you fashion yourself some kind of Louie Cypher wannabe then fine .... that's all you're gonna get ... a wannabe ....

Do enjoy your mud pies .....

[TrustButVerify]

Obviously TBV is confused by the "........" in your post and not by your writting style when compared to mine .... when I write and use "periods" it's typically no more than 3 or 4 at a time ... to emphasis a pause ... anything more is boring ....

Also my writting style is completely different from your's ... it's unique upon myself yet consistant with my personality, world experiences and opinions ... IHer's may experience games from the look-alike site denizens ... but for over 4 years I haven't deviated my style an inch ... what you see is what you will always get .... some times in spades with a flamethrower or napalm ... but I'm me and no one else ....

I stand corrected - for now :mad_01:

[Bag Sniper]

I stand corrected - for now :mad_01:

Uhhmmm ... no ... you stand corrected ... period ....

[knightroar]

Ok.. .so where were we??

Bush appointee to head Homeland Security , Michael Chertoff acted as legal defense for a NJ Doctor alleged to be running a money laundering scam for Osama Bin Laden....

Bush appointee to head the CIA, Porter Goss was meeting with a man who was funding Mohammad Atta, on the morning of 9/11/01... funny Goss never mentioned that in his "Investigation" into 9/11 when he chaired a committee charged with that very subject..

Now, who is left? ahhh yes.. .our old friend John Negroponte, who Bush just appointed to fill the new "intelligence Czar" position.....Negroponte has been accused of having a hand in Iran/Contra as well..

Bush, like Vladimir Putin, is loading up the government with career intelligence operatives used to operating outside the realms of the law, accountability and checks and balances.

This is an ominous trend, I can assure you.



Excerpt from a long article in Today's Washington Post


Negroponte's Time In Honduras at Issue
Focus Renewed on Intelligence Pick's Knowledge of Death Squads in 1980s
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 21, 2005; Page A01


It has been two decades since John D. Negroponte left his post as ambassador to Honduras, but the man President Bush has chosen to become the United States' first intelligence czar is still being hounded by human rights activists such as Zenaida Velasquez.

Their paths first intersected in 1983, when Velasquez asked for the ambassador's help in tracing dozens of Hondurans, including her brother, allegedly kidnapped by agents of the U.S.-backed Honduran military. Little came of the meeting, and the disappearances continued for at least another year.

Over the years, Velasquez has gotten the CIA, an official Honduran ombudsman and an international human rights court to acknowledge that the Honduran army was responsible for her brother Manfredo's kidnapping and presumed killing. But Negroponte has repeatedly insisted that military-backed death squads did not operate in Honduras while he was ambassador.

The selection of Negroponte for the new post of national intelligence director has focused renewed attention on the question of how much he knew about the Honduran military's involvement in nearly 200 unsolved kidnappings during the 1980s, and what he did about it. The subject has dogged him in the past, and Democratic staff members said it is likely to be revisited when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence holds nomination hearings, tentatively scheduled for April 12.

A review of hundreds of declassified State Department and CIA documents suggests that Negroponte was preoccupied with "managing perceptions" about a country that had become a key U.S. ally in a decade-long campaign to stop the spread of communism in Central America. The documents show that he sought to depict Honduras in a generally positive light in annual human rights reports to Congress, and played down allegations of government abuse.

Opinions differ sharply over whether Negroponte, who served most recently as U.S. envoy to Iraq and the United Nations, ever suppressed pertinent intelligence information for fear of undermining support for U.S. policies.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52001-2005Mar20?language=printer

bump