How the U.S. Invented 'al Qaeda'!

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

Al Qaeda was a U.S. creation, specifically a product of inverted right wing psuedo logic. If 'al Qaeda' did not exist, never mind --the shills would invent it and cite it to justify wars abroad, crackdowns on freedom at home! They would bestow upon it a virtual existence via press releases, propaganda and outright lies --deliberate attempts to mislead the American people!

Bin Laden should pay royalties to the U.S. right wing if, indeed, he ever benefited from his new found celebrity, his holographic 'creation' by the mass media, his elevation to arch-enemy status! His is falsely characterized as the 'mega-terrorist' brain behind a sinister world terrorist organization resembling an octopus with tentacles in every real or fictitious terrorist attack. There had not been anything like it since Bond fought SPECTRE --an evil terrorist organization specializing in terrorism and extortion. In the Bushco rewrite the part of Blofeld is played by Bin Laden.

It was a crock!

It was the CIA which bestowed upon Bin Laden himself his near mythical image of sinister master terrorist who commanded a vast world wide network from deep inside a cave in Tora Bora. This was all really, really bad fiction. Many Hollywood producers would have laughed out of their offices anyone daring to pitch it! It was, it seems, a very, very bad rewrite of Ala Baba and his 40 thieves. Ali, like Binny, lived in a cave but --alas --did not have cell phones. But neither did Bin Laden.

The immediate acceptance of the Bush official conspiracy theory proves the diminishing IQs of those who insist upon believing it. The consolation is this: the CIA has no future in Hollywood!

A bad b-movie!

According to the official version of the lie (charitably: the 'myth') goes something like this: the CIA and the Saudis are said to have funded and armed Bin Laden throughout the 80s. His mission impossible: wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. In fact, Bin Laden was working for the CIA.

Simply --Al-Qaeda means 'the base'; in this case --the computer data base of thousands of mujahideen trained and recruited by the CIA. The mission: defeat the Russians. This is cold war James Bond stuff and, in some cases, a just a bad rewrite. Life imitates spy movies.

The problem has become apparent over time: Washington did not know what to do with this 'database', this network that had become obsolete with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It obviously never occurred to DC spooks and/or analysts that with the withdrawal of the Soviet Union, Ala Baba, uh, Bin Laden would focus upon U.S. imperialism throughout the Middle East! But did he? More likely --he was just the convenient scapegoat for an inside job that would become the pre-text, the boogie-man to be cited as justifying a war for the oil resources of Iraq, the poppy (opium) resources of Afghanistan.

The source for how 'al Qaeda' got its name is Sir Robin Cook, the former British Foreign Secretary. In order to protest the British connection to this sorry story, Cook resigned his job.

Benazir Bhutto: Bin Laden was Murdered

---

---

Gore Vidal: Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got to Be So Hated

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Some of the early reviews of Gore Vidal's 'Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace' called it 'inflammatory'. That's because truth is often inflammatory. It is a measure of the American descent into fascism when distinguished authors are denied access to the audience that their work, in fact, created. Neither self-publishing or the blogosphere is, as yet, the solution. Those venues, themselves, are under threat if the news we hear about Google is, in any way, true.

So --what was said by Vidal that scared the pants off the MSM, the mentally constipated, the poohbahs at the Pentagon? Vidal made the case that there are no evils greater than those of the 'state' against its own people! Vidal found fatal flaws in U.S. foreign policy that inspire desperate measures abroad and, of late, at home. An empire whose exploitation of ever greater numbers, leaves its victims desperate, inviting response and retaliation. A nation-state so exploited may fight back with conventional means --armies and weapons! But a 'people' so exploited has only 'terrorism' to fight back with. Tyrants leave them no other choice. Other voices as disparate as Thomas Jefferson and Che Guevara have said the same thing.

Vidal found parallels between Timothy McVeigh and Bin Laden. That, of course, assumes that we know anything at all about Bin Laden. For all we know, Bin Laden is long dead or never existed. He could very well have been a creation of clever video editors. Think about it: how many people do you know who have actually met him? What hard evidence do YOU have that he exists? He probably does (or did) exist, but --to be honest --I don't know that for a fact and cannot prove it! Neither does anyone else who, like me, never met him. Bin Laden is a name in a newspaper article or a blurry image on a TV

Vidal makes little or no distinction between U.S. Foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. That is consistent with my position that the U.S. has but two wings of a single 'Capitalist Party'. Of the two, I believe the Democrats are preferable but that is a highly 'qualified' endorsement based entirely upon the fact that Democrats have consistently outperformed the GOP economically. For example, every Democratic regime since WWII has presided over greater job growth and GDP growth than any GOP regime. The margin by which the GOP are beaten is impressive, clearly, a result of their utterly wrong and 'top down' ideas about economics. Trickle-down or supply-side economics is the best example.

'Preferable' is, admittedly, a qualifying word used when none of the choices are precise. Neither party has articulated a truly desirable or noble 'America'. Neither party inspires us! Neither party has delivered a 'higher pie'! Both parties have, in fact, triangulated not even a center but an 'electorate' of some amorphous sort. No one --most certainly not Bush --has articulated what is right, noble and correct, merely whatever it is that might get one elected to office. Ronald Reagan, for example, had only to make psychopaths feel good about themselves.

On Phil Donahue, Studs Terkel spoke of the need for a 'major voice' to address the un-addressable of which 911 is the most notable example. Even now --no one dares speak realistically about 911. That, of course, was the perfect cover openly desired by Bush who warned against 'outrageous conspiracy theories' while putting forward his own 'conspiracy theory', the 'official' conspiracy which was, in fact, the most outrageous of them all! It was, in fact, the only conspiracy theory for which there is not a shred of rational or admissible evidence. Just propaganda and bullshit!

The 'patriotism' of anyone daring to speak openly or truthfully about 911 was impugned, castigated. Critics of Bush were called, in effect, 'traitors'. A legitimate government of broad-based support does not behave in this manner. It was Bush and his stolen 'office' who was, rather, the traitor to the people and the last time I checked, the people are sovereign. But America seems to have forgotten that.

Vidal's voice needs to be heard now more than ever. 911 must not simply fade away. What was done to this nation and by whom are issues that must be faced and will be --now or later! Calling opinions of any kind 'un-American' is, itself, 'un-American' and must not be tolerated. The alternative is censorship and fascism; conformity and totalitarianism, in this case, a dictatorship in which Fox and one or two other big networks play the role of 'The Ministry of Truth' i,e. 'The Ministry of Propaganda'.

Vidal committed the unpardonable sin. He questioned U.S. assumptions about the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center bombings in New York. He wrote: "That our ruling junta might have seriously provoked McVeigh and Osama was never dealt with."

Writing prior to many 911 revelations, many of which utterly disprove the official conspiracy theory, his critique of the 911 cover story is incomplete. You will find proof that the Bush version of 911 is impossible, defying the principles of physics, mathematics and common sense at: 911 Inside Job Chronicles

Perhaps the only surprise in this book is Vidal's convincing argument that McVeigh had not been behind the bombing of the Murrah building in OKC. Only Vidal could have held this collection of essays together with a single thesis: that we must take seriously people like Timothy McVeigh whom Vidal proves was genuinely outraged by the outrageous murder of civilians at Waco. We must take seriously people like Bin Laden, who may or may not exist. Vidal stopped short of the simplistic 'evil begats evil' but he might have said it outright and would have been correct had he done so.

The point of the book is captured in the first and only new essay - "September 11, 2001 (A Tuesday)", and it is this essay that, presumably, kept the book from being published in this country until now. Has anyone noticed how quiet Vidal has been since 9/11? Well, it wasn't by choice. Just after the 9-11 attacks on the United States, Vidal's initial comments appeared in Portuguese when he shared his views with a Brazilian publication. Those comments were then translated into Spanish and published in the Mexican newspaper La Jornada. Vidal later revised and expanded these early remarks for a piece intended for Vanity Fair. The magazine—among others, including The Nation, where Vidal is a longtime contributing editor—passed on the piece as a result of its "anti-American sentiments", thereby keeping our leading publishers and primary voices of dissent in lockstep with the rest of the mainstream media's newfound desire to censor itself for the supposed good of the country.

Even in those heady days immediately following the attacks, and given the "unified front" rhetoric that has enveloped the country since (a united front that has since made shopping, and consumption in general, as the way to return to those happy-go-lucky days of last summer), it seems astounding that a major American literary figure and cultural critic would have a hard time placing one of his works concerning the most significant domestic event since W.W.II.

--Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace: How We Got To Be So Hated by Gore Vidal (Thunder's Mouth Press/Nation Books)

The 'State' Commits Mass Murder of U.S. Citizens in Waco

If WTC 7 Was a Controlled Demolition, so were the Twins!

Note: The Existentialist Cowboy is currently bombarded by spam from a lunatic name caller of the right wing ilk! Therefore, comments are moderated. Intelligent comments are, as always, welcome! Ad hominem attacks, spam and psychotic drivel is not! Eventually, the offending party will be committed to an asylum and we adults can once again engage in intelligent, articulate dialogue. Thanks for understanding.

Syndicated 'Cowboy' Articles

Subscribe

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Spread the word

Official Lies about 911 Exposed

Guest Columnist, Dr. David Ray Griffin

Although John Farmer's "The Ground Truth" has attracted a lot of favorable attention, it is a deeply flawed book, containing misleading claims and providing an extremely one-sided account of 9/11.

Much of the attention received by the book has been prompted by misleading claims made by Farmer and his publisher. The book's dust-jacket calls it the "definitive account" of 9/11, but it actually deals almost entirely with only one question about that day: why the airliners were not intercepted.

Also, the book's subtitle calls it "the untold story" of 9/11 and its dust-jacket says that it "breathtakingly revises" our understanding of that day. In reality, however, it simply provides new support for the story told about the planes in "The 9/11 Commission Report," which appeared in 2004, and in two publications that appeared in 2006: Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton's book "Without Precedent," and Michael Bronner's essay in "Vanity Fair."

Most provocatively, Farmer presents his book as a rejection of the "official" account of 9/11, which was given by "the government," by which he means primarily the FAA and the Pentagon. But this rhetoric is misleading for three reasons.

First, Farmer's book is a defense of the 9/11 Commission's report, which he calls "accurate, and true" (2), and the Commission was itself a governmental body: its chairman, Thomas Kean, was appointed by Bush; the other members were appointed by Congress; and the executive director, Philip Zelikow, was essentially a member of the Bush White House.

Second, the "official account of 9/11," as generally understood, is the Bush-Cheney administration's conspiracy theory, according to which the 9/11 attacks resulted from a conspiracy between Osama bin Laden and some members of al-Qaeda, and Farmer supports this theory.

Third, in rejecting the "official version," Farmer is referring only to the first version of the official account. It was replaced in 2004 by the 9/11 Commission's version, which since then has been the official version of the official account. In spite of his rhetoric, therefore, Farmer is defending the official account of 9/11 produced by the government in 2004, so the book is far less radical than it has been promoted as being.

Even more serious than the book's misleading rhetoric is its one-sidedness. Rather than containing an impartial examination of various types of relevant evidence, this book by Farmer - a former prosecuting attorney - reads like a lawyer's brief: Besides citing a large number of facts that appear to support the Bush-Cheney conspiracy theory and trying to undermine some of the contrary evidence (which supports the alternative theory, according to which 9/11 was an inside job), it seeks to suppress, by simply ignoring, the enormous bulk of this contrary evidence.

This one-sided approach is acceptable within an adversarial law court, given the presence of an opposing lawyer, but it does not result in a book that is acceptable by scholarly standards.

The one-sidedness of Farmer's book is manifest in his endnotes, which include no reference to any writings aimed at exposing serious problems with the 9/11 Commission: Besides not referring to any of my own books, one of which is entitled "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," Farmer does not even mention "The Commission" by former New York Times writer Philip Shenon - who pointed out, among other things, that Zelikow had secretly written a detailed outline of the Commission's report before his research staff had even begun its work.

This bibliographic one-sidedness is important because it is reflected in substantive one-sidedness, one form of which is the ignoring of a great number of relevant facts. I will mention 15.

1. Claiming that the military did not have information about AA 77 in time to prevent it from striking the Pentagon, Farmer strongly attacks the claim (in the first version of the official account) that the FAA had notified the military about this flight at 9:24 AM. In doing so, he ignores a memo - even though it was discussed and read into the Commission's record in May 2003 - that was sent by the FAA's Laura Brown, explaining that 9:24 was only the time of the "formal notification" - that the FAA had set up phone bridges with the Pentagon and that "real-time information . . . about . . . Flight 77 . . . was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification" (Griffin, "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited" [NPHR] Chs. 1 & 2).

2. Simply assuming that Osama bin Laden authorized the 9/11 attacks, Farmer fails to mention that the FBI has admitted that "no hard evidence" supports this assumption (Griffin, "9/11 Contradictions" [9/11Contra] Ch. 18).

3. While mentioning that some of the alleged hijackers spent time in Las Vegas (62), Farmer fails to point out that, while there and in other places, they drank, went to strip clubs, and did other things that contradicted the Commission's portrayal of them as devout Muslims ready to die for their faith (9/11Contra Ch. 15).

4. Farmer calls Hani Hanjour, who allegedly flew AA 77 (a Boeing 757) through an extremely difficult trajectory to crash into the Pentagon, a "trained pilot" (45), failing to mention the much-documented fact that Hanjour could not even safely fly a single-engine plane (9/11Contra Ch. 19).

5. While claiming that "American 77 crashed into the Pentagon at a speed of 530 miles per hour" (186), Farmer does not point out that, according to the official seismic report, no station, including one only 63 km away, recorded the impact. He also fails to mention that many witnesses at the scene, both inside and outside, reported seeing no crashed airliner (NPHR Ch. 2).

6. Claiming that the alleged hijackers purchased tickets and boarded planes (62, 106), Farmer fails to mention that none of their names - indeed, no Arab names whatsoever - were on the passenger manifests of the flights released by the airlines or on the Pentagon autopsy report (NPHR Ch. 6).

7. Repeating the Commission's claim that Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz al Omari took an early morning flight from Portland (Maine) to Boston to catch American Flight 11 (103-05), Farmer does not point out that this story was a late invention, created after authorities learned that Adnan and Ameer Bukhari, originally said to have taken that flight, had not died on 9/11 (9/11Contra Ch. 16).

8. Writing as if the alleged phone calls from the airliners actually happened, Farmer does not point out that, after originally supporting the view that many of the reported calls were made on cell phones, the FBI in 2004 - after members of the 9/11 Truth Movement showed that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners would have been impossible - quietly withdrew its support for such calls. The FBI thereby contradicted, among others, Deena Burnett, who was positive that she had been called by her husband, Tom Burnett (whom Farmer mentions), because she recognized his cell phone number on her Caller ID (9/11Contra Ch. 17).

9. Farmer repeats the claim, supported in 2004 by "The 9/11 Commission Report," that CNN commentator Barbara Olson had twice called from AA 77 to talk to her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson (163, 166). But Farmer fails to point out that in 2006, after members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had reported that American's 757s did not have onboard phones, the FBI - in its report for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called 20th hijacker) - said that Barbara Olson's (one) attempted call did not go through and therefore lasted "0 seconds" (9/11Contra Ch. 8).

10. Farmer endorses the claim that the hijackers had box-cutters (161, 163), not mentioning the fact that this claim had been made only in the reported calls from Barbara Olson, which the FBI now says never happened (9/11Contra Ch 8).

11. While repeating the Commission's claim that al-Qaeda hijackers finally succeeded in breaking into UA 93's cockpit 30 seconds after they started trying (189), Farmer fails to ask why, in all that time, the pilots did not use the transponder to squawk the hijack code - a procedure that takes about 2 seconds (NPHR Ch. 6).

12. While claiming, like the Commission, that "Vice President Cheney learned that the Pentagon had been hit while he was in the tunnel under the White House leading to the shelter" (207), Farmer does not point out that Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta told the Commission that Cheney had been in the shelter (the Presidential Emergency Operations Center) at least since 9:20 AM, hence about 20 minutes before the reported time of the Pentagon attack - an observation that was supported by other witnesses, including counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke (9/11Contra Ch. 2).

13. While acknowledging that Richard Clarke's account of his White House videoconference contradicts the 9/11 Commission's claims about the whereabouts of not only Cheney but also Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, Farmer simply asserts that Clarke's account "does not square in any significant respect with what occurred that morning" (184), failing to point out that the question of who told the truth could be cleared up simply by looking at the videotape.

14. Suggesting that the Twin Towers came down because each one was "fragile at its core" (28), Farmer implicitly denies the fact that each tower was supported by 47 massive core columns and ignores the question of why several scientific studies, including one by the US Geological Survey, showed that the dust at Ground Zero contained various elements that, unless explosives had been used to bring down the buildings, should not have been there (Griffin, "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7," Ch. 4).

15. Although Farmer's entire case for the 9/11 Commission's version of the official account, which involves his accusing a remarkable number of people of lying, rests entirely on logs and audiotapes not examined by the Commission until several years after 9/11, he fails to consider reasons that have been provided for believing that these tapes and logs had been doctored (NPHR Chs 1-3, 10).

There would be much more to say in a complete review, but the above points suffice to suggest that Farmer's book is deeply flawed, providing an account that is far from the "ground truth" about 9/11.

--David Ray Griffin, PhD

---

If 911 had not been an inside job, it would have been investigated! The cover up that followed has only one purpose: the protection of the guilty! It is not only the absurd, alleged conspiracy of 19 Arab hijackers, a cover story for which there is absolutely no convincing or admissible evidence, it is the fact that the events that day were deliberately covered up and access to evidence denied investigators.

It was odd to me that I was dispatched to go to New York even before the second plane hit the South Tower, while the media was still reporting only that a “small plane” had collided with the North Tower — far too small of a catastrophe at that point to involve FEMA . FEMA was mobilized within minutes, whereas it took ten days for it to deploy to New Orleans to respond to Hurricane Katrina, even with abundant advance warning! It was odd to me that all cameras were so fiercely prohibited within the secured perimeter of Ground Zero, that the entire area was declared a crime scene and yet the “evidence” within that crime scene was so rapidly removed and destroyed. And then it was very odd to me when I learned that FEMA and several other federal agencies had already moved into position at their command center at Pier 92 on September 10th, one day before the attacks! ...

We are asked to believe that all four of the “indestructible” black boxes of the two jets that struck the twin towers were never found because they were completely vaporized, yet I have footage of the rubber wheels of the landing gear nearly undamaged, as well as the seats, parts of the fuselage and a jet turbine that were absolutely not vaporized. This being said, I do find it rather odd that such objects could have survived fairly intact the type of destruction that turned most of the Twin Towers into thin dust. And I definitely harbor some doubts about the authenticity of the “jet” turbine, far too small to have come from one of the Boeings!

--Kurt Sonnenfeld, 9/11 FEMA videographer at Ground Zero goes public

Among the many lies about 911, the most egregious are the 'official ones' put forward by the Bush administration and Bush personally. Make no mistake about it: the story of 19 Arab hijackers co-ordinated from a cave in Afghanistan by a man who was most certainly already dead of kidney failure, is the most absurd lie among them. If Bush had taken his 'case' to court, a 'burden of proof' would have been imposed. It would have been interesting to see the government prosecutor attempt to 'prove' a case against a man that that could not have been proven to have been alive let alone co-ordinate multiple hijackings with cell phones from inside a remote cave in Afghanistan!

The many lies about 911 are evidence of guilt. The guilty are most always most motivated to cover up their crimes and only an idiot would suppress evidence if it would exonerate him!

Bush ordered the destruction of evidence, in fact, the cover up of 911. He and his administration shut down every investigation. Bush hid the truth. At the very least, the Bush administration obstructed justice because it is fully culpable for the inside job we call 911. And the lot of them should be indicted and put on trial for the crimes of high treason and mass murder.

911: An Inside Job

Why I moderate comments

• SPAM: 'comments' that link to junk, 'get rich' schemes, scams, and nonsense! These are the worst offenders.
• Ad hominem attacks: 'name calling' and 'labeling'. That includes the ad hominem: 'truther' or variations!

Also see:

• A Spiritual Mind Movie
• How the US Became a Vassal State of China
• Terrorism is Worse Under GOP Regimes
  
• The US Army Document That Proves the US is the World's Number One Sponsor of World Terrorism
• Dissecting the Scrambled Brains of the GOP
  
• Why the CIA is the World's Number One Terrorist Organization
  [w/LINKS]
• Why the CIA is the World's Number One Terrorist Organization [PDF]
• How the GOP Pays Off its 'Base' of Elites
  

Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

Subscribe

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Spread the word

John McCain: From Politician to Party Whore

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has made his Faustian pact with the GOP. Topping his previous idiocies -- a war of one hundred, perhaps even 'ten thousand years' -- McCain now claims that al Qaeda "might attempt spectacular attacks in Iraq to try to tilt the US election against him". McCain forgets that the only US party to have ever benefited from an al Qaeda attack is the GOP, partners and fellow terrorists. [See: Terrorism is worse under GOP regimes] The prospect of erstwhile gain, after all, is why McCain made peace with Mephistopheles seen on the right first in line.

McCain, at a town hall meeting in this Philadelphia suburb, was asked if he had concerns that anti-American militants in Iraq might ratchet up their activities in Iraq to try to increase casualties in September or October and tip the November election against him.
"Yes, I worry about it," McCain said. "And I know they pay attention because of the intercepts we have of their communications ... The hardest thing in warfare is to counter someone or a group of individuals who are willing to take their own lives in order to take others."

--McCain says al Qaeda might try to tip US election

McCain surely hopes you are as stupid as the GOP rank and file who, apparently, never figured out that whenever Bush was in trouble, Bin Laden released another tape as if on cue. Clue: it was! Al Qaeda was, in fact created by the CIA. It's alleged leader, Bin Laden, worked with US intelligence throughout the '70s and '80s; he was visited by American 'spooks' as he received dialysis in Dubai, just months before 911.

According to Richard Clark, Al Qaeda, a creation of the CIA [See also: Disinformation: CIA Posing as Al-Qaeda?; Al-Qaeda: A CIA protégé], was created for the purpose of enabling the House of Saud to bankroll Osama bin Laden during the Afghan war against the Soviet Union. Throughout this 1980s war, Washington and Riyadh funneled some $3.5 billion to the mujahideen.
Bin Laden became a US patsy when it was clear that he was much more valuable as a bogeyman around which a crooked and illegitimate Bush regime would create 'al Qaeda' --an evil terrorist "Spectre" which could be conveniently blamed for Bush's every red herring, his every pretext for wars of naked aggression against oil producing countries --notably Iraq.

Is McCain naive or complicit? Both! McCain is naive for falling for the GOP line of bullshit. He is complicit because, like Faust, he sold his soul if he ever had one. Even America's ABC News was 'suspicious' of Bin Laden's lack of substance but, most significantly, the political timing from which only Bush benefited.

Osama bin Laden's latest message is a hodgepodge of anti-capitalist vitriol, impassioned Islamic evangelism and what can best be described as a twisted attempt at reconciliation: Join us, or we'll kill you. 

Analysts say the video that came out days before the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks is more about timing than substance, an attempt by history's most wanted fugitive to thumb his nose at the forces arrayed against him and remind the world that he hasn't been caught.

--ABC News

Even ABC reported in 2007 that Bin Laden's beard looked phony but never bothered to ask why! Simple explanation: both Bin and the beard were phony. As Benazir Bhutto told the BBC before she would be gunned down in the streets of Karachi --Bin Laden had been murdered. Most, if not all, Bin Laden tapes were therefore faked, perhaps produced and directed by the CIA. The record will prove conclusively that whenever Bush was in trouble, Bin Laden could be counted on to release another production.


McCain was trashed and dragged through the mud by rabid, fanatical Bushie fundamentalists down south, a land of red states and redder necks. But don't shed any tears for McCain who recovered from the sucker punch just in time to play kiss up to the Bush gang of traitors! Don't waste your time with a modern Faust, a party whore who literally lined up to kiss Bush's ass, pretending all the while that the emperor was fully dressed. Unlike Faust, however, Party Whores cannot expect redemption at the end of a long poem, only ignominy at the end of a human tragedy.

Additional resources

• BBC Censored Benazir Bhutto's Reports that Bin Laden Had Been Murdered
• Another Inconvenient Truth: Bin Laden is Dead
• FOX News Joins BBC in Censoring Benazir Bhutto's Statement That Osama bin Laden Is Dead
• CIA Holocaust Claims Twenty Million Victims
• Why the CIA is the World's Number One Terrorist Organization
• The CIA Created Al Qaeda and there is 'Probable Cause' to Charge George W. Bush with High Treason!
• How a Second Terrorist Attack Will Benefit George W. Bush
• Another Inconvenient Truth: Bin Laden is Dead
• Benazir Bhutto: US Policy Causes World Terrorism
• Oil Traders Seize Control of World Oil Prices
• Why and How Governments Betrayed Our Dreams of Freedom With Lies and Incompetence
• The war on Iraq threatens the US Economy as mass murder ceases to be profitable
• Wizard of Whimsy
• Government spending causes ballooning deficit
• A Timeline of CIA Atrocities
• Uncle Sam, Your Banker Will See You Now
• Bush's Defense Budget Biggest Since Reagan Era
• The Decline and Fall of the American Empire, Gore Vidal
• Steve Kangas: The Origins of the Overclass
• Michael Moore: 9/11 Could Be Inside Job
• Economic Inequality of Health
• The Rise of the Corporate Special Interest System
• What is New World Order?
• Terrorism is Worse Under GOP Regimes   

Fox News/New York Times: "Bin Laden is Dead"

The Bush administration, it seems, has kept Bin Laden alive for about seven years now, despite reports by the Fox news network that the alleged terrorist mastermind has been dead for years. On December 26, 2001, the Fox network reported that Osama bin Laden died of "serious lung complications" in mid-December of that year. If so, it means that Benazir Bhutto was correct to say that bin Laden is dead but it does not mean that she misspoke when she said that bin Laden had been murdered. The original Fox report is as follows:

Fox News: "Bin Laden Already Dead"

Wednesday, December 26, 2001

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.

Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some "Taliban friends," attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the "great leader."

The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden's face before burial said "he looked pale ... but calm, relaxed and confident."

Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said "no." Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of "pagans" against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.

When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, "I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished."

If Fox was correct, then Bin Laden could not have issued a video tape of October 29, 2004 --just two days before the US election. It was a tape that many pollsters and pundits believe swung the election to George W. Bush over John Kerry.

On October 29, 2004, two days before the US elections, the Arab television network al-Jazeera sprung an October Surprise by broadcasting a videotape of a healthy looking bin Laden addressing the people of the United States in which he took responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. He also condemned the Bush government's response to the attacks, and presented the attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence begun after personally seeing the destruction of the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. See 2004 Osama bin Laden video.
President Bush opened up a six-point lead over John Kerry in the first opinion poll to include sampling taken after the videotape was broadcast. [21] Walter Cronkite found the video very convenient for the Bush administration, and said of it “I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing.” [22]

--Colin Bett, A 'Conspiracy Theory' Too Far?

Not only Fox, but the New York Times also reported the death of Bin Laden.

Osama bin Laden is dead. The news first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan almost six months ago: the fugitive died in December [2001] and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, echoed the information. The remnants of Osama's gang, however, have mostly stayed silent, either to keep Osama's ghost alive or because they have no means of communication. Click for full sized image
With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, could not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with. Would he remain silent for nine months and not trumpet his own survival?

--New York Times. July 11, 2002

NYT has apparently re-published the story. The original publication date was: July 11, 2002. Fox, it would appear, scooped the NYT but, apparently forgot what they had reported.

The issue of bin Laden's pulse surfaced recently when the venerable BBC clearly censored remarks by Benazir Bhutto to the effect that bin Laden had been murdered. It still fair to ask why the BBC would have deleted only that portion of the interview. Following is the original, unedited version in which Bhutto states that Bin Laden had been murdered.

The BBC's Censored version can be found here.

A fallacious rationalization has surfaced: Bhutto misspoke, that she had meant to say "Daniel Perle". There is absolutely no logical reason to believe that Bhutto misspoke. She did not pause. She did not struggle to find a name. Secondly, only an idiot would mistake Bin Laden for Perle. Bhutto is not an idiot. Even if Bin Laden were alive, it would not prove that Bhutto misspoke, only that she was wrong. Not the same thing. In fact, Bhutto was probably correct that Bin Laden is dead but wrong about the cause of death.

An essential resource: Can someone with no flight training safely land an airliner? Plus: Pilotless planes, overpaid pilots and other aviation myths.

The Cowboy's Shared News Items

Bin Laden
Taliban
911
Terrorism

Spread the word: