Osama bin Laden's Views on the Assassination

[Jack White]

Herb, you can't see the forest for the trees.

Pat, I think Herb sees quite clearly a critical detail that seems to have escaped many others. How is it possible that OBL was capable of masterminding or orchestrating the Nine-One-One horrors, but since that time has been unable to so much as blow up a mailbox on US soil? Should that odd unwillingness to continue what was begun not make people wonder who the true author/s of the original event was/were? And should they not likewise wonder what the intent of the original event might have been? Let us recall that the original attempt to bring down the WTC would never have transpired without the timely aid provided by an FBI agent provocateur, who was subsequently all but disowned by the very FBI men controlling him. Can we really be certain, at this date and with so much official obfuscation in the interim, that what we've been told about the second attack is genuine? To the contrary, I would argue that we know what we've been told to date is untrue; we are simply uncertain about what actually is true. Again, it is not so different from the Kennedy assassination, is it?

The Project for a New American Century, penned by the very same people who would thereafter run the "appointed" government, virtually prescribed what would be necessary in order to sell to the US populace its plans for the Middle East - "a new Pearl Harbour" - and that prescription was filled. Those who don't subscribe to conspiracy in the PNAC achieving its stated goals must rely upon "coincidence theory" to rationalize how it transpired that a purported enemy - albeit one with longstanding ties to both Bush the Elder's CIA and his private business interersts - provided precisely the provocation PNAC thought necessary to achieve its goals. It is not Herb White's eyes that deceive him.

This grotesquely provocative act has been described as a war on "American freedoms" and a clash of civilizations and much else. But since those who first envisioned "a new Pearl Harbour" - and got it - are now prosecuting the desired war on terror made possible by that provocation, where is the adversary that should be fighting back on US soil? Having launched the sneak attack that PNAC thought necessary, where is the followup? It is as though the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, but had made no plans whatsoever to thereafter continue fighting against the US.

This isn't a war of "let's see how many innocent people we can kill" or "let's see how much terror we can spread" it's a war to get the US out of the mid-east. Bin Laden is not stupid. He knows damn well that increasingly vicious attacks on US soil, against "innocent" entertainers respected world-wide, would DRASTICALLY increase support for US policies throughout the non-Arab world, and probably even backfire in the Arab world.

So, you're saying that Nine-One-One was designed to kill innocent civilians, just as a greeting card or a mission statement, but that any subsequent acts by him against other US civilians would somehow undermine his popularity? It is a distinction with no discernible difference, in my view.

It's a big messy situation, with psyops on both sides. It''s ridiculous, IMO, to think Bush is running the show. Bush's inability to catch Bin Laden, and his failed "war" against terrorism, has DAMAGED not only his own legacy, but his father's legacy.

What "inability" to catch OBL? Had there been such an interest, would the Buxxxxes really have allowed chartered flights to spirit all the Bin Ladens in the USA out of the country immediately after the event? Had there been such an interest on Bush's part, would US forces at Tora Bora have really been ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing? It's an odd war in which innocents and enemy combatants found half a world away are sequestered in Gitmo, while the putative figurehead they serve is provided safe sanctuary by those who allegedly seek him. When's the last time OBL's name actually passed Bush's lips? Yes, Bush adopted a very aggressive public posture of going after OBL; in reality, Bush has shown OBL nothing but solicitude. What an odd way to seek out an enemy, "dead or alive." Apparently "alive" is Bush's preference. Why?

It has bankrupted the American economy, and cost the American people the good will of the international community.

But it has also fattened the bottom lines of corporate interests controlled by the Bush family and its retainers. Why only keep your eye on the debit side of the ledger? If you do not view the asset side of the ledger, how will you ever know who profits most from these events?

Even worse, for Bush personally, it has cost his base, the Republican party, control of congress, and most probably the White House. It has also cost him his friends. One after another Bush's cronies have resigned in disgust and disgrace. Powell, Ashcroft, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Armitage, Tenet, Card, Miers, Rove and now Gonzalez. Pretty much all that's left is Dick and Condi. Those still holding onto the pipedream that Bush, a man who recently called Australians "Austrians," is some sort of Sith Lord have got another think coming, IMO. History WILL show that Bush is a bonehead, and as bad as if not worse than our worst Presidents: Buchanan, Johnson, Grant, Harding, Hoover... The only thing that could change that is Bin Laden's attacking the US again, and giving Bush carte blanche to bomb the heck out of another Arab country.

Precisely. So why hasn't that happened? Because Bin Laden's lost interest? Because he's too busy trying to arrange a date for himself with Whitney Houston? Or because he wasn't the one who orchestrated the first attack? And those who did orchestrate it realize they cannot stage another such event without being caught? Which do you truly find more persuasive?

Thinking Bush is running Bin Laden, or has invented Bin Laden, is like thinking Bill Clinton was behind Ken Starr's investigation into his cigar manipulations. Bizarre.

You posit an adversarial relationship where none exists. Bush the Elder certainly played a role in creating the original Bin Laden, the one who helped triumph over the Soviets in Afghanistan. And let's not forget that the Bushes and Bin Ladens have both seen great profits - via Carlyle - as a direct result of the key event six years back. Seventy five billion and counting isn't exactly chump change. Comparisons to Clinton and Starr - neither of whom saw any true benefit from their adversarial relationship - are well wide of the mark, as I'm sure Herb White could illustrate in a heartbeat.

When they arrest me for "crimes against Bush", I want Robert Charles-Dunne

to argue my case.

Jack

[Herb White]

Herb, you can't see the forest for the trees. This isn't a war of "let's see how many innocent people we can kill" or "let's see how much terror we can spread" it's a war to get the US out of the mid-east. Bin Laden is not stupid. He knows damn well that increasingly vicious attacks on US soil, against "innocent" entertainers respected world-wide, would DRASTICALLY increase support for US policies throughout the non-Arab world, and probably even backfire in the Arab world.

It's a big messy situation, with psyops on both sides. It''s ridiculous, IMO, to think Bush is running the show. Bush's inability to catch Bin Laden, and his failed "war" against terrorism, has DAMAGED not only his own legacy, but his father's legacy. It has bankrupted the American economy, and cost the American people the good will of the international community. Even worse, for Bush personally, it has cost his base, the Republican party, control of congress, and most probably the White House. It has also cost him his friends. One after another Bush's cronies have resigned in disgust and disgrace. Powell, Ashcroft, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Armitage, Tenet, Card, Miers, Rove and now Gonzalez. Pretty much all that's left is Dick and Condi. Those still holding onto the pipedream that Bush, a man who recently called Australians "Austrians," is some sort of Sith Lord have got another think coming, IMO. History WILL show that Bush is a bonehead, and as bad as if not worse than our worst Presidents: Buchanan, Johnson, Grant, Harding, Hoover... The only thing that could change that is Bin Laden's attacking the US again, and giving Bush carte blanche to bomb the heck out of another Arab country.

Thinking Bush is running Bin Laden, or has invented Bin Laden, is like thinking Bill Clinton was behind Ken Starr's investigation into his cigar manipulations. Bizarre.

Pat,

I don't know what you meant by I can't see the forest etc. And I never implied Bush was in charge of UBL. My point was that if indeed we are to believe what we hear about terrortists, and Al Qaeda in particular, that their goal is to tramatize the USA through fear and damage our economy, it is much more easily accomplished through different tactics than large scale attacks over long intervals.

Therefore I don't buy into the official version of 911 or terrorist tactics and goals espoused by many of the so-called experts.

Herb

[Herb White]

Herb, you can't see the forest for the trees. This isn't a war of "let's see how many innocent people we can kill" or "let's see how much terror we can spread" it's a war to get the US out of the mid-east. Bin Laden is not stupid. He knows damn well that increasingly vicious attacks on US soil, against "innocent" entertainers respected world-wide, would DRASTICALLY increase support for US policies throughout the non-Arab world, and probably even backfire in the Arab world.

It's a big messy situation, with psyops on both sides. It''s ridiculous, IMO, to think Bush is running the show. Bush's inability to catch Bin Laden, and his failed "war" against terrorism, has DAMAGED not only his own legacy, but his father's legacy. It has bankrupted the American economy, and cost the American people the good will of the international community. Even worse, for Bush personally, it has cost his base, the Republican party, control of congress, and most probably the White House. It has also cost him his friends. One after another Bush's cronies have resigned in disgust and disgrace. Powell, Ashcroft, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Armitage, Tenet, Card, Miers, Rove and now Gonzalez. Pretty much all that's left is Dick and Condi. Those still holding onto the pipedream that Bush, a man who recently called Australians "Austrians," is some sort of Sith Lord have got another think coming, IMO. History WILL show that Bush is a bonehead, and as bad as if not worse than our worst Presidents: Buchanan, Johnson, Grant, Harding, Hoover... The only thing that could change that is Bin Laden's attacking the US again, and giving Bush carte blanche to bomb the heck out of another Arab country.

Thinking Bush is running Bin Laden, or has invented Bin Laden, is like thinking Bill Clinton was behind Ken Starr's investigation into his cigar manipulations. Bizarre.

Pat,

I don't know what you meant by I can't see the forest etc. And I never implied Bush was in charge of UBL. My point was that if indeed we are to believe what we hear about terrortists, and Al Qaeda in particular, that their goal is to tramatize the USA through fear and damage our economy, it is much more easily accomplished through different tactics than large scale attacks over long intervals.

Therefore I don't buy into the official version of 911 or terrorist tactics and goals espoused by many of the so-called experts.

Herb

[Herb White]

Herb, you can't see the forest for the trees.

Pat, I think Herb sees quite clearly a critical detail that seems to have escaped many others. How is it possible that OBL was capable of masterminding or orchestrating the Nine-One-One horrors, but since that time has been unable to so much as blow up a mailbox on US soil? Should that odd unwillingness to continue what was begun not make people wonder who the true author/s of the original event was/were? And should they not likewise wonder what the intent of the original event might have been? Let us recall that the original attempt to bring down the WTC would never have transpired without the timely aid provided by an FBI agent provocateur, who was subsequently all but disowned by the very FBI men controlling him. Can we really be certain, at this date and with so much official obfuscation in the interim, that what we've been told about the second attack is genuine? To the contrary, I would argue that we know what we've been told to date is untrue; we are simply uncertain about what actually is true. Again, it is not so different from the Kennedy assassination, is it?

The Project for a New American Century, penned by the very same people who would thereafter run the "appointed" government, virtually prescribed what would be necessary in order to sell to the US populace its plans for the Middle East - "a new Pearl Harbour" - and that prescription was filled. Those who don't subscribe to conspiracy in the PNAC achieving its stated goals must rely upon "coincidence theory" to rationalize how it transpired that a purported enemy - albeit one with longstanding ties to both Bush the Elder's CIA and his private business interersts - provided precisely the provocation PNAC thought necessary to achieve its goals. It is not Herb White's eyes that deceive him.

This grotesquely provocative act has been described as a war on "American freedoms" and a clash of civilizations and much else. But since those who first envisioned "a new Pearl Harbour" - and got it - are now prosecuting the desired war on terror made possible by that provocation, where is the adversary that should be fighting back on US soil? Having launched the sneak attack that PNAC thought necessary, where is the followup? It is as though the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, but had made no plans whatsoever to thereafter continue fighting against the US.

This isn't a war of "let's see how many innocent people we can kill" or "let's see how much terror we can spread" it's a war to get the US out of the mid-east. Bin Laden is not stupid. He knows damn well that increasingly vicious attacks on US soil, against "innocent" entertainers respected world-wide, would DRASTICALLY increase support for US policies throughout the non-Arab world, and probably even backfire in the Arab world.

So, you're saying that Nine-One-One was designed to kill innocent civilians, just as a greeting card or a mission statement, but that any subsequent acts by him against other US civilians would somehow undermine his popularity? It is a distinction with no discernible difference, in my view.

It's a big messy situation, with psyops on both sides. It''s ridiculous, IMO, to think Bush is running the show. Bush's inability to catch Bin Laden, and his failed "war" against terrorism, has DAMAGED not only his own legacy, but his father's legacy.

What "inability" to catch OBL? Had there been such an interest, would the Buxxxxes really have allowed chartered flights to spirit all the Bin Ladens in the USA out of the country immediately after the event? Had there been such an interest on Bush's part, would US forces at Tora Bora have really been ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing? It's an odd war in which innocents and enemy combatants found half a world away are sequestered in Gitmo, while the putative figurehead they serve is provided safe sanctuary by those who allegedly seek him. When's the last time OBL's name actually passed Bush's lips? Yes, Bush adopted a very aggressive public posture of going after OBL; in reality, Bush has shown OBL nothing but solicitude. What an odd way to seek out an enemy, "dead or alive." Apparently "alive" is Bush's preference. Why?

It has bankrupted the American economy, and cost the American people the good will of the international community.

But it has also fattened the bottom lines of corporate interests controlled by the Bush family and its retainers. Why only keep your eye on the debit side of the ledger? If you do not view the asset side of the ledger, how will you ever know who profits most from these events?

Even worse, for Bush personally, it has cost his base, the Republican party, control of congress, and most probably the White House. It has also cost him his friends. One after another Bush's cronies have resigned in disgust and disgrace. Powell, Ashcroft, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Armitage, Tenet, Card, Miers, Rove and now Gonzalez. Pretty much all that's left is Dick and Condi. Those still holding onto the pipedream that Bush, a man who recently called Australians "Austrians," is some sort of Sith Lord have got another think coming, IMO. History WILL show that Bush is a bonehead, and as bad as if not worse than our worst Presidents: Buchanan, Johnson, Grant, Harding, Hoover... The only thing that could change that is Bin Laden's attacking the US again, and giving Bush carte blanche to bomb the heck out of another Arab country.

Precisely. So why hasn't that happened? Because Bin Laden's lost interest? Because he's too busy trying to arrange a date for himself with Whitney Houston? Or because he wasn't the one who orchestrated the first attack? And those who did orchestrate it realize they cannot stage another such event without being caught? Which do you truly find more persuasive?

Thinking Bush is running Bin Laden, or has invented Bin Laden, is like thinking Bill Clinton was behind Ken Starr's investigation into his cigar manipulations. Bizarre.

You posit an adversarial relationship where none exists. Bush the Elder certainly played a role in creating the original Bin Laden, the one who helped triumph over the Soviets in Afghanistan. And let's not forget that the Bushes and Bin Ladens have both seen great profits - via Carlyle - as a direct result of the key event six years back. Seventy five billion and counting isn't exactly chump change. Comparisons to Clinton and Starr - neither of whom saw any true benefit from their adversarial relationship - are well wide of the mark, as I'm sure Herb White could illustrate in a heartbeat.

RCD,

Thanks for smelling my drift, as a somewhat redneck buddy of mine would be wont to infer. The absence of any subsequent terrorist activity on US soil is the primary motivation for me to doubt the

official version of 9/11. It might lead some sentient beings to surmise that just possibly there are a couple of very good reasons that we haven't seen further actions in the USA. 1) It provides the Bush regime the ability to claim that their diligence has prevented or squashed all terrorist plots on the homeland 2) They (not the terrorists) are saving an additional attack for when the timing is most propitious, say perhaps close to an election, when they are about to be ousted from power.

If I had to bet the house on the true story of 9/11 it would be something along the lines of criminal negligence. I have a strong hunch that there were elements within our government and other centers of power, that had knowledge of the impending plans for the attacks on 9/11. If one is familiar with the incident of the "dancing Israelis" and the activities of the Israeli "art students" one has the sense that

quite possibly Mossad was monitoring the movements of many of the prime actors in the 9/11 plot and deemed it in their best interests not to share it with US intel, or at least elements in US intel that would have taken action to prevent the attacks.

If one throws into the stew the facts about concurrent "war games" and security stand downs during the hijackings, one can become quite paranoid about prior awareness of the plot by those of a certain political bent. And just because you are paranoid, doen't mean no one is out to get you.

Herb

[Len Colby]

I know of several cases of "anti-semitic" Jews. Some people put ethics above race.

So Jack, are you saying that being anti-Semitic is ethical and (by extension) that not being anti-Semitic is unethical?

[Pat Speer]

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Bush and Cheney have cynically exploited Bin Laden's existence to expand Presidential power and reward their friends. But Bin Laden is undoubtedly a thorn in their side. Bush's failure to catch him has been a major embarrassment to his administration, and has hurt his party.

Not at all. In March of 2002 Bush said he didn't even think that much about

bin Laden, and the gop won big in 2002.

The Bush family and the bin Laden family are long-time business partners.

Black markets thrive in chaos.

Mission accomplished.

This is 2007. Bush's political party suffered huge losses in 2006, and stands to suffer bigger losses in 2008. He is openly criticized on television, painted as a buffoon. The economy is suffering. The American people's confidence in his leadership has drastically taken a dive. He's been abandoned by his cronies. Even chumps like Rush Limbaugh take every opportunity to distance themselves from him. NONE of the presidential candidates of his party have made any efforts to rally his support. At a recent debate they mentioned "Reagan" by name something like 50 times while his name was only mentioned once. No president has been as reviled since Nixon.

Mission complete failure. Heck, Halliburton has been unable to spend most of the money we've given them because Iraq has been too unstable for them to rebuild the infrastructure. What good is it to blow up a country if the no-bid contract construction companies you've hired to rebuild the country can't even make a buck?

Edited September 11, 2007 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Bush and Cheney have cynically exploited Bin Laden's existence to expand Presidential power and reward their friends. But Bin Laden is undoubtedly a thorn in their side. Bush's failure to catch him has been a major embarrassment to his administration, and has hurt his party.

Not at all. In March of 2002 Bush said he didn't even think that much about

bin Laden, and the gop won big in 2002.

The Bush family and the bin Laden family are long-time business partners.

Black markets thrive in chaos.

Mission accomplished.

This is 2007. Bush's political party suffered huge losses in 2006, and stands to suffer bigger losses in 2008.

None of which has anything to do with Bush's failure to capture bin Laden.

Check the exit polls from 2006 -- how many people voted democratic

because Bush failed to capture bin Laden?

The issue isn't even on the screen.

When bin Laden popped up on video in 2004 Bush's support went UP.

He is openly criticized on television, painted as a buffoon. The economy is suffering. The American people's confidence in his leadership has drastically taken a dive. He's been abandoned by his cronies. Even chumps like Rush Limbaugh take every opportunity to distance themselves from him. NONE of the presidential candidates of his party have made any efforts to rally his support. At a recent debate they mentioned "Reagan" by name something like 50 times while his name was only mentioned once. No president has been so reviled since Nixon.

Right, and at such time Bush has to rely on his family friend, Osama, to put out

not one but two (!) videotapes to give Bush a boost.

Pat, surely you must realize that it is the Iraq War, the faltering economy,

failing health care system, and republican greed/incompetence which are the

sources of the public's disenchantment with all things GOP.

Mission complete failure. Heck, Halliburton has been unable to spend most of the money we've given them because Iraq has been too unstable for them to rebuild the infrastructure. What good is it to blow up a country if the no-bid contract construction companies you've hired to rebuild the country can't even make a buck?

For anyone who buys the above:

I'm happy to report an excellent business opportunity here in my home town,

San Francisco.

I have an exclusive position on a couple of bridges you might want to think

about purchasing.

I highly recommend the orange one...

Edited September 11, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Why didn't the Japanese continue on to California after nailing Pearl Harbor? Because it wasn't to their advantage... Bin Laden's war is with the West. That he has chosen to focus his attacks in places more accessible than the U.S. is to his credit.

1) Further attacks on U.S. soil will increase American resolve when it is clearly flagging... You don't spit in a man's face when you got him on the ropes.

2) Attacks in Iraq help assure the failure of Bush's policies, which will in turn lead to America's pulling out of Iraq.

3) Attacks in European countries supporting Bush's policies will lead to a public resentment of the U.S. Attacking Americans in Germany, for example, would lead to Germans questioning whether they want Americans there in the first place. smart, smart, smart.

IMO, it's a big mistake to assume that Islamic terrorists are all drinking from the same water. Many of these groups are opposed to each other, and only a small number of them are under Bin Laden's control. As a result, it seems possible, even likely, that one or more of these groups will strike U.S. civilians in the next year. The level of hatred is so great among some that the objective gets lost in the hatred, and hatred and murder become the objective. This is true in every war.

But in the war of ideas, Bin Laden is winning, and doesn't want to blow it by giving Americans another Alamo, Maine, or Pearl Harbor to rally round. He wants this to be Vietnam, not WWII. It's important to remember that Afghanistan was Russia's Vietnam, and that Bin Laden knows how to win such a war.

[Cliff Varnell]

Why didn't the Japanese continue on to California after nailing Pearl Harbor? Because it wasn't to their advantage... Bin Laden's war is with the West. That he has chosen to focus his attacks in places more accessible than the U.S. is to his credit.

1) Further attacks on U.S. soil will increase American resolve when it is clearly flagging... You don't spit in a man's face when you got him on the ropes.

What on earth makes you think bin Laden has the U.S. on the ropes?

The amount of sheer hysteria this guy engenders is hilarious!

America's resolve is flagging?

Since the only area in which "resolve is flagging" is the idiotic enterprise

in Iraq, am I to conclude that you (along with Bush) argue that "Iraq is the

central front in the War on Terror"?

If so, I refer to my prior offer of a position on several local bridges...

2) Attacks in Iraq help assure the failure of Bush's policies, which will in turn lead to America's pulling out of Iraq.

Bush's policies were self-assured failures. You cannot make a country like you

and want to adopt your form of government by invading, occupying, and killing

hundreds of thousands.

3) Attacks in European countries supporting Bush's policies will lead to a public resentment of the U.S.

It is the American occupation of Iraq that has lead to public resentment of the U.S.

Since when has the U.S. been held responsible for terrorist attacks in other

countries?

Attacking Americans in Germany, for example, would lead to Germans questioning whether they want Americans there in the first place. smart, smart, smart.

It would? When I was in Germany in 1971 and 1996 there were plenty of Germans

who were questioning whether they wanted Americans there in the first place.

People don't like foreign troops on their soil, Pat. That's why the Sunnis in Anbar

are attacking Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq. Once those guys are taken care of, they'll go back

to attacking Americans with the weapons the Americans gave them.

IMO, it's a big mistake to assume that Islamic terrorists are all drinking from the same water. Many of these groups are opposed to each other, and only a small number of them are under Bin Laden's control. As a result, it seems possible, even likely, that one or more of these groups will strike U.S. civilians in the next year. The level of hatred is so great among some that the objective gets lost in the hatred, and hatred and murder become the objective. This is true in every war.

But in the war of ideas, Bin Laden is winning, and doesn't want to blow it by giving Americans another Alamo, Maine, or Pearl Harbor to rally round. He wants this to be Vietnam, not WWII. It's important to remember that Afghanistan was Russia's Vietnam, and that Bin Laden knows how to win such a war.

Bin Laden is winning the war of ideas?

Really.

That's funny, I don't see a lot of people clamoring for a 7th Century lifestyle...

[Charles Drago]

Bush v. bin Laden?

Really, it's tough for me to get all worked up. What with more pressing and realistic bets to be placed.

Now ... does The Undertaker deserve a title shot?

And what about Alien v. Predator?

C'mon ... whose sides are we on?

It's a f*****g CHARADE!

[Len Colby]

Normal text in the quote boxes = Pat Speer

Blue = Robert

How is it possible that OBL was capable of masterminding or orchestrating the Nine-One-One horrors, but since that time has been unable to so much as blow up a mailbox on US soil? Should that odd unwillingness to continue what was begun not make people wonder who the true author/s of the original event was/were? And should they not likewise wonder what the intent of the original event might have been?

Perhaps that’s because they’ve been unable to. It took them years to pull off 9/11, there first ever attack on the US when they had safe haven and the US had “its pants down” now that they/he is on the run and US security has tightened doing so again would not be easy. Also they seem to have pulled off some attacks in other parts of the world.

Let us recall that the original attempt to bring down the WTC would never have transpired without the timely aid provided by an FBI agent provocateur, who was subsequently all but disowned by the very FBI men controlling him.

I’ve heard that claimed but see little supporting evidence. All there is are tapes made by the informant after the fact in which he claimed he had told them about the attack ahead of time and could have switched the explosives but it seems they had basically “disowned” him before the bombing.

The Project for a New American Century, penned by the very same people who would thereafter run the "appointed" government, virtually prescribed what would be necessary in order to sell to the US populace its plans for the Middle East - "a new Pearl Harbour" - and that prescription was filled.

Untrue. I’m no fan of PNAC or their agenda but that’s not what their paper (which you apparently never read) called for. They said: “…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor". “The process of transformation” it was referring to was not regime change in the Middle East or anything along those lines (which isn’t called for anywhere in the paper) but for “the Department of Defense [to] move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems.”

http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

It's a big messy situation, with psyops on both sides. It''s ridiculous, IMO, to think Bush is running the show. Bush's inability to catch Bin Laden, and his failed "war" against terrorism, has DAMAGED not only his own legacy, but his father's legacy.

What "inability" to catch OBL? Had there been such an interest, would the Buxxxxes really have allowed chartered flights to spirit all the Bin Ladens in the USA out of the country immediately after the event?

A bit of a myth http://911myths.com/html/family_flights.html

Had there been such an interest on Bush's part, would US forces at Tora Bora have really been ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing?

Can you provide a citation for this claim?

[Greg Wagner]

Clearly, Bin Laden and his people recognize the disconnect between the American People (as revealed in virtually every poll available) and this administration. I think it's interesting that he chooses to use the JFK assassination as a tool to connect with Americans and demonstrate that we have something in common with him - a distrust of of the U.S government. He may be a misguided coward and murderer (Bin Laden, that is), but it's a schrewd ploy on his part and demonstrates that he understands this issue is a legitimate wedge of mistrust between us and our government.

[Ron Ecker]

The Project for a New American Century, penned by the very same people who would thereafter run the "appointed" government, virtually prescribed what would be necessary in order to sell to the US populace its plans for the Middle East - "a new Pearl Harbour" - and that prescription was filled.

Untrue. I’m no fan of PNAC or their agenda but that’s not what their paper (which you apparently never read) called for. They said: “…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor". “The process of transformation” it was referring to was not regime change in the Middle East or anything along those lines (which isn’t called for anywhere in the paper)

Untrue. The whole purpose of this “transformation” was to maintain what is referred to in the document (p. 26) as “America’s status as a superpower and as the guarantor of liberty, peace and stability.” (Ha ha ha ha ha.) This requires “the presence of American forces in critical regions around the world.” In particular it requires “a substantial American force presence in the Gulf,” with the removal of Saddam Hussein as “the immediate justification” for that presence.

"A new Pearl Harbor” was needed to speed up this transformation for global hegemony, which called for establishing a military presence in the Gulf.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Ron Ecker

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

My current comments are in this lovely shade:

How is it possible that OBL was capable of masterminding or orchestrating the Nine-One-One horrors, but since that time has been unable to so much as blow up a mailbox on US soil? Should that odd unwillingness to continue what was begun not make people wonder who the true author/s of the original event was/were? And should they not likewise wonder what the intent of the original event might have been?

Perhaps that’s because they’ve been unable to. It took them years to pull off 9/11, there first ever attack on the US when they had safe haven and the US had “its pants down” now that they/he is on the run and US security has tightened doing so again would not be easy.

How difficult is it to arrange car bombs in Washington? They need not execute a full-scale attack of any great magnitude; regular small-scale reminders would do the trick just as effectively. When people theorize that the absence of secondary attacks on US soil are attributable to improved US security regimes, I can provide just as much evidence that this absence of violence is because I pray very hard to a pet rock in my basement which is all powerful. Which is to say, there is no evidence for either conjecture. At least you prefaced your supposition with "perhaps," an important qualifier to provide in such assertions.

Also they seem to have pulled off some attacks in other parts of the world.

Oddly, attacks in other parts of the world were largely conducted, based upon extant knowledge to date, by home-grown radicalized Muslims, rather than those imported for such a purpose. There can be little doubt whom they believed to be the inspiration for their actions, but there's been precious little to demonstrate, thus far, that they were undertaken at the express bidding of OBL or his AQ entourage. Consequently, when you say "they seem to have pulled off some attacks in other parts of the world," one is unsure of precisely who "they" are.

Let us recall that the original attempt to bring down the WTC would never have transpired without the timely aid provided by an FBI agent provocateur, who was subsequently all but disowned by the very FBI men controlling him.

I’ve heard that claimed but see little supporting evidence. All there is are tapes made by the informant after the fact in which he claimed he had told them about the attack ahead of time and could have switched the explosives but it seems they had basically “disowned” him before the bombing.

There's far more to the tale than that, which I cannot go into at the moment, but let's assume your assertion is correct. How stunningly successful a result ensued from FBI first planting a mole into a radical cell and then ignoring him? Is this not akin to the later lapse when one George Bush, et al, managed to ignore a briefing memo headed "OBL determined to attack the US," which included the prediction that such an attack would use hijacked planes to accomplish the deed? Does one not detect a rather strong blind spot, an unwillingness to confront looming threats and then falsely plead ignorance after the fact? What purpose is served by such admissions of incompetence when facing what is only thereafter characterized as an implacable enemy?

The Project for a New American Century, penned by the very same people who would thereafter run the "appointed" government, virtually prescribed what would be necessary in order to sell to the US populace its plans for the Middle East - "a new Pearl Harbour" - and that prescription was filled.

Untrue. I’m no fan of PNAC or their agenda but that’s not what their paper (which you apparently never read) called for. They said: “…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor". “The process of transformation” it was referring to was not regime change in the Middle East or anything along those lines (which isn’t called for anywhere in the paper) but for “the Department of Defense [to] move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems.”

http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

I see that the formidable Ron Ecker has already dispatched that particular canard, so I'll not dwell upon it.

Pat Speer - It's a big messy situation, with psyops on both sides. It''s ridiculous, IMO, to think Bush is running the show. Bush's inability to catch Bin Laden, and his failed "war" against terrorism, has DAMAGED not only his own legacy, but his father's legacy.

What "inability" to catch OBL? Had there been such an interest, would the Buxxxxes really have allowed chartered flights to spirit all the Bin Ladens in the USA out of the country immediately after the event?

A bit of a myth http://911myths.com/html/family_flights.html

I see you subscribe to a contra-myth, which is precisely what is contained in the above link. A far more accurate, albeit convoluted, chronogy of events is provided by Daniel Hopsicker at:

http://www.madcowprod.com/06282007a.html

It should disturb you as much as it does me that we have known since October 5, 2001, when it was reported by the Tampa Tribune, that at least one such flight did take place in US airspace at a time when no other flights were authorized - despite repeated denials by Bush, the FBI, the FAA, et al that such had ever occurred - only to later be grudgingly acknowledged. When agencies of one's own government repeatedly lie, and come clean only when there is no other option, what does it say about one's government, or the credulity of people who continue to embrace such myths only because they wish them to be true?

Had there been such an interest on Bush's part, would US forces at Tora Bora have really been ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing?

Can you provide a citation for this claim?

Sure. You may recall that John Kerry repeatedly made this claim, presumably with some basis in fact, while running in the '04 election. It would be a simple matter to cynically denounce such claims as political posturing by a Presidential candidate at the expense of the incumbent. Were it not for the subsequently published book "Jawbreaker" [Dec. '05], written by the CIA point man in charge of seeking out OBL at Tora Bora. CIA initially stalled vetting his book, which had to be submitted to the Agency prior to publication as is common in all such cases, then ensured that some of the book's most damning allegations were excised. Those interested in the meat of the matter might benefit from reading what can be found at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

A transcript of a January '06 Paula Zahn interview on CNN with the book's CIA-operative author, Gary Bernstein, can be found midway down the page at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/06/pzn.01.html

Much that corroborates Bernstein's version of events can be found in "First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan" by Gary Schroen, also a Jawbreaker veteran, and Robert Baer has been no wallflower in recounting his own bitter experiences trying motivate a serious hunt for Bin Laden.

And this solicitude toward the Bin Ladens by the Bushes is not the first, nor unique. Now that I now you share my admiration for Greg Palast, Len, allow me to direct your attention to an old report of his - November '01 - illustrating that the Bush White House seems to have shut down US intelligence interest in two members of the Bin Laden clan living next door to the CIA in early '01. While this event, transpiring prior to the attacks, is less damning than solicitude shown by Bush toward OBL and kin after the attacks, it illustrates the unbroken pattern of a President doing his level best to ensure that a presumed enemy - already wanted for prior crimes against US interests abroad and already slated for murder by CIA via a Clinton authorization - has never had to pay for his crimes, real and alleged. I look forward to your comments once you've had a chance to read Palast's piece, which can be found at:

http://www.gregpalast.com/september-11-wha...0%9d/#more-1844

[Tim Gratz]

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

How is it possible that OBL was capable of masterminding or orchestrating the Nine-One-One horrors, but since that time has been unable to so much as blow up a mailbox on US soil? Should that odd unwillingness to continue what was begun not make people wonder who the true author/s of the original event was/were? And should they not likewise wonder what the intent of the original event might have been?

Of course he ignores the obvious answer.

From an interview of Norman Podhoretz by Kathryn Lopez of "National Review"

Lopez: Knock on wood … but why haven’t we been attacked again?

Podhoretz: Well, as I often say, someone must be doing something right. Which means that the Dept. of Homeland Security and the FBI, with the help of the Patriot Act and the surveillance tools that so many liberals are so eager to take out of their hands, have been able to head off any new attacks.

Mr. Podhoretz rightly characterizes the war on fundamentalst muslim terrorists as WW IV.

Link to the interview:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjUwN...DE0YmE5ZjUzYmM=