Regarding Dennis Marks Citing Osama bin Laden As One of His Heroes

There are heroes in evil as well as in good ~ Francois de La Rochefoucauld (9/15/1613 to 3/17/1680) a noted French author of maxims and memoirs. His is a clear-eyed, worldly view of human conduct that indulges in neither condemnation nor sentimentality.

I think it's intensely loathsome and highly repellent. And, yes, I'm talking about the (now deceased) terrorist leader who financed the 9/11 attacks. That Osama is the one who Dennis Marks recently cited as being one of his heroes. I know for a fact that on 9/11/2001 Dennis was walking around with a huge grin on his face. It creeped out his coworkers and family members who all thought he must not be aware of what happened. But when they told him of the attacks in which thousands of innocents perished - that made Dennis smile even wider.

So, why was Dennis so delighted? It was because he recgonized that 9/11 was the new Pearl Harbor that PNAC had been dreaming of. The PNAC manifesto cited a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" just like this as being necessary to galvanize the public into going to war in the Middle East, and now just such an event had occurred. Dennis whooped and cheered when the twin towers fell - just as loud - if not louder than any of the terrorists. Although he cheered internally and silently, as he knew everybody else would be horrified if he did it externally and out loud. But the smiling he could not help.

That is why bin Laden is a hero to Dennis. Not because he wishes to emulate him, but due to the great gift he handed the Neocons, and to the Republican preznit, George W. bush. Dictionary.com reveals that a synonym of "hero" is either a "lead" or a "star". In regards to 9/11, Osama was most assuredly both. Even though it was KSM who planned the attacks, without the bin Laden money none of it would have been possible. And money, in the worldview of Mr. Marks, is the root of everything that is good.

And the attacks of 9/11 were very good, in the estimation of Dennis. The nation was clamoring for the blood of those behind the attacks, and for that reason legislation that gave the preznit unprecedented power to wage war on "the terrorists" sailed though Congress with but one NAY vote (SWTD #244). Given that vote, the preznit did not have to take it up with Congress when it was determined that bin Laden was behind the attacks and was currently holed-up in Afghanistan.

bush desperately wanted to go to war - in order to avenge his daddy, get political capital and steal tax payer money. Dick Cheney's old company Haliburton would benefit from some war contracts, given that it was on the verge of filing for bankruptcy. VP Dick said a war or two would make him extremely wealthy, given that he still held on to some Halliburton stock options. Many other bush cronies could benefit as well. And then, after bush rubbed their backs, surely they would rub his. And he could most certainly profit personally as well. Dick had Halliburton, and the bush family had The Carlyle Group.

Unfortunately there was a problem, which was that OBL was in Afghanistan and bush wanted to invade Iraq. There was no way bush could fool the public into going to war with the wrong country! But Rummy and Wolfie assured him, "we'll do Afghanistan first, and then Iraq". All was good until a second problem arose, which was that Afghanistan's Taliban rulers offered to hand over bin Laden to a neutral third country for prosecution if bush called off the dogs of war. How to deal with that problem? bush decided to make them an offer they couldn't accept.

Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, the Taliban's foreign minister, proposed that the US and Afghanistan should negotiate either "a three-nation court, or something under the supervision of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference". Wakil knew bush wanted war (and he was desperate to avoid it), but he couldn't just hand bin Laden over. Afghani culture demanded aabroh (a Pashtu word for "face-saving formula"). Without aabroh those who even considered capitulating to bush's demands would have been put to death.

But the ultimatum to turn over bin Laden to the United States military by bush was not in the least bit serious. Which is why he made it. bush KNEW the Taliban could not accept. The preznit was simply putting on a act before the invasion began, as he knew it would not be proper if he went to war without even giving the Taliban the option of turning over bin Laden.

Also, if one listens to Dennis, you might think, as he does, that "the Taliban and Al Qaeda were united at that time. In lockstep", but this is false. As noted by Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, "there had always been differences of opinion between the Arab fighters of al-Qaeda and [my] Taliban colleagues". Muttawakil remembers that the Taliban "condemned the attacks because the people targeted were defenseless civilians, women, children, Muslim and non-Muslim. But al Qaeda praised it".

bush knew the Taliban and al Qaeda were not in "lockstep", because, if they had been, he would have simply declared that the attack was sponsored or approved by the Taliban. Instead bush only accused them of "harboring" him. Proof positive that the claims of Dennis do not comport with reality. But Dennis knows, as bush knew, that bringing bin Laden to justice was never a goal of attacking Afghanistan. Because, if bin Laden had been taken into custody the American people would have considered the mission to have been accomplished. And then, what of bush's plans for regime change in Iraq?

No, that would not do. That is why Dennis ridicules the notion of the OIC supervising a trial of bin Laden - referring to it as a "kangaroo court" that would have patted him on the back - even though the Taliban suggested that the OIC only supervise. No offer would have been accepted. War was on the agenda, no matter what.

If an arrangement had been negotiated that brought bin Laden to justice - going into Iraq would have been impossible. That is why the offer was rejected before it was even considered, and that is why the bushies made sure bin Laden got away at Tora Bora. That was the second time that Dennis cheered for his hero, as well as sighing in relief.

After he let bin Laden escape bush decided the time was right to make his case to topple Saddam. So he told some more lies to the American people concerning (forged) documents that showed Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake uranium, aluminum tubes that could not be used in centrifuges, and mushroom clouds incinerating American cities (by way of nukes Saddam had no way of manufacturing).

In regards to bin Laden, bush said "I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you". Dennis heard those words and grinned from ear to ear. That night Dennis kissed the poster of the terrorist leader that was tacked to his bedroom wall and said a prayer to thank God bush was president on 9/11. Because Dennis knew, as Rudy Guliani did, that if Gore were president the US wouldn't have gone to war with two Muslim countries.

"Thank you, Osama... I love you" Dennis murmured as he drifted off to sleep. As he slept Dennis drempt of the incredible riches starting two unnecessary wars was going to yield for both the bush and Cheney families. In Dennis' dream the preznit spoke, imploring Shafiq bin Laden to "pass my thanks on to your brother". Then bushie added "no need for him to worry for his safety, however, as I surely have no intention of ever finding him". Shafiq smiled and replied, "Thank you, Mr. bush. We are defintely on the same page".

Dennis woke the next morning to find his undies were soiled due to an nocturnal emission that no doubt came about due to his dreaming of bush and Shafiq discussing how much wealthier each of their families were about to become. "Good times" Dennis remarked as he removed the sticky undergarment. Dennis' eyes then drifted to the bin Laden poster, and that is when he decided a date with Palmela Handerson was in order. Laying back in his bed Dennis finished the deed, screaming out "Osama!" as he climaxed.

Note: This commentary, which contains some speculation in regards to how dmarks views OBL, was written in response to the vile liar saying "there are some (WD sides with) who want such reform [of the Pentagon] not to save money, but to make the nation weak and strengthen our enemies such as his hero Bin Laden".

Frankly, given how much Dennis wanted OBL to escape, I find it much more likely that OBL is Dennis' hero. Hence this narrative, which is intended as satire, even though it could be closer to the truth than even I realize. As for OBL being my hero, I already identified that as a vile lie. I wanted him brought to justice ASAP, which the Taliban offer would have provided for, 10 freaking years earlier (SWTD #76).

And, the OIC could not have let Osama go, BTW, as their position would have only been supervisory, if they had been involved at all.

Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, Taliban's last foreign minister, told Al Jazeera in an exclusive interview... "Even before the [9/11] attacks, our Islamic Emirate had tried through various proposals to resolve the Osama issue. One such proposal was to set up a three-nation court, or something under the supervision of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference [OIC]"... (Taliban offered bin Laden trial before 9/11 by Mujib Mashal. Al Jazzera, 9/11/2011).

Certainly we could have given it a shot - as opposed to selecting war as the first and only option. It wouldn't have been as if we were throwing away a chance to catch him, as WE DIDN'T CATCH HIM! On purpose, perhaps... (SWTD #33).

SWTD #240, dDel #19. See also TADM #28 and TADM #33.

Bullplop On Blowback

Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world ~ Lt. General William Odom (6/23/1932 to 5/30/2008) a retired U.S. Army 3-star general, and former Director of the NSA under President Ronald Reagan, which culminated a 31-year career in military intelligence.

In a 3/9/2014 post the Libertarian-leaning blogger Willis Hart (WTNPH) gets all un-libertarianish in disagreeing with the head guru Ron Paul. According to said blogger, "for Mr. Paul or anybody to think that 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombings, and Benghazi wouldn't have happened had only our troops not been placed in Saudi Arabia for a spate is a little bit silly and naive in my estimation".

In reply I must say "what a dope". Our military presence in Saudi Arabia was cited by bin Laden as his rationale for the 9/11 attacks (a "spate" of 12 years), but a LOT has happened since then (both before and after we withdrew from Saudi Arabia in 2003), such as an illegal invasion of two countries and sustained drone strikes in several others we aren't at war. Drone strikes that continue to claim the lives of innocent civilians. The Boston Marathon bombings and Benghazi were blowback for those things, you dolt!

A 5/17/2013 CNN article reports that bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wrote "in a message scribbled on the boat where he was found hiding [that the] bombing victims were collateral damage in a strike meant as payback for U.S. wars in Muslim lands".

The author of this idiocy goes on to list his problems with "radical Islam", and WTNPH has very valid concerns, but, in my estimation, a large number of those who have been "radicalized" chose the "revenge" route exactly because of our response to 9/11, which was for bush to take advantage of the shock of the nation - as well as the strong feeling at the time that we needed to strike back - and go to war with two Middle Eastern countries.

Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-American citizen, and attempted Times Square car bomber acted "because of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan. Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009 because of U.S. military strikes in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan-American, planned a suicide attack on New York City's subway system because of the U.S. role in Afghanistan" (excerpt from the 4/27/2013 Consortium News article "The Blowback from Interventionism" by Melvin A. Goodman).

Following 9/11 bush saw an opportunity to become a "war president", get political capital, use that to further his other agenda items and get elected to a second term. The attacks also presented a wonderful opportunity for the bushies to plunder the treasury by way of "no bid" Afghanistan and Iraq "reconstruction" contracts. A 3/20/2013 International Business Times (IBT) article puts the cost of pilfered loot at $138 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for government contracts. IBT reveals that "ten contractors received 52 percent of the funds" with Halliburton's KBR receiving $39.5 billion "over the past decade".

Dick Cheney, as a result of Halliburton contracts, profited over $7 million dollars (stock options he received while working for the company increased by 3,281%). In addition, Cheney continued to receive a "deferred salary" while VP, to the tune of an average of 200k a year. The IBT article further points out that "the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan [estimates that] the level of corruption by defense contractors may be as high as $60 billion". Halliburton and KBR were in on that corruption.

That WTNPH consistently has defended bush in regards to his lying and thieving is, in my opinion, thoroughly disgusting. Yes, he does criticize him for the way he went about it, but he does agree "Saddam in fact did have to go". And he absolutely refuses to believe that bush ever lied about WMD, even though the evidence proves otherwise. bush lied, Iraqi civilians and US soldiers died (and were maimed)... and bush cronies profited tremendously.

Ron Paul, while I may strongly disagree with MOST of what he believes, is correct when he said 9/11 "was blowback for decades of US intervention in the Middle East". And he was also correct when he said "the last thing we needed was the government's response: more wars, a stepped-up police and surveillance state, and drones".

Yes, OBL "publicly denounced Saudi dependence on the U.S. military, arguing the two holiest shrines of Islam, Mecca and Medina, the cities in which the Prophet Mohamed received and recited Allah's message, should only be defended by Muslims" and cited our military presence in that country as the motivation for the 9/11 attacks, but Al Qaeda was (prior to 9/11) an obscure Islamic movement and most likely faded from existence if not for our military response.

It was our response post-9/11 that continued the blowback (and made it worse). Another response and the problem of radical Islam surely would be a lot serious than it is today. That Willis thinks Ron Paul believes Saudi Arabia is the only reason for the rise of radical Islam is more than a bit silly and naive in my estimation. And, where the usually Libertarian Mr. Hart should be agreeing with Ron Paul he goes the interventionist regime change route. Which is odd, because when it comes to the US economy he is stridently opposed to intervention.

Also, I think it should be noted that, while the Hartster insists there is "no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public", he is positive Obama lied about Benghazi.

The main point of the Hartster's commentary is, in my opinion, to push his Islamophobic (and more Republican) POV in which the US is blameless and all fingers should be pointed at the "rag heads" practicing a religion he is biased against. For the record WTNPH doesn't use the term "rag head", but reading his commentary you very much expect him to.

Further proof that WTNPH is full of bullplop when he says "the argument that U.S. foreign policy has sowed the seeds of discontent and prompted Islamic retaliation -- ultimately fails"... ->Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11 by WashingtonsBlog, 9/5/2012. Excerpt: Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of Al Qaeda in the 1970s to fight the Soviets. ->More Blowback from the War on Terror by Jennifer Daskal, Salon 10/1/2008. Excerpt: In late 2006, the Bush administration backed a full-scale Ethiopian military offensive that ousted the Islamist authorities from Somalia's capital, Mogadishu... [That innocents were caught up in the fighting and killed or tortured has] fueled anti-American rancor in Africa.

See Also: Dennis Marks Sez Ron Paul Speaks With One Voice Alongside The Terrorists tadm-21. 3/12/2014.

 swtd-239. ost-52. 

Frenemies with Benefits: 9/11 Villans George W bush & Osama bin Laden

We will take them out; we will kill bin Laden; we will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority. Tonight I can report to the American people and to the world, that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda, and a terrorist who is responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children ~ Barack Obama (dob 8/4/1961) making a campaign promise on 10/7/2008, and announcing (on 5/2/2011, as president) that the promise had been fulfilled.

Definition, Frenemy: a portmanteau of "friend" and "enemy" that can refer to either an enemy disguised as a friend or to a partner who is simultaneously a competitor and rival. The term is used to describe personal, geopolitical, and commercial relationships both among individuals and groups or institutions (Source: Wikipedia).

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 5/2/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. The discussion concerns the operation (code named Neptune's Spear) carried out by Navy SEALs on 5/2/2011 which lead to the death of Osama bin Laden. (Information within brackets are notations added by me).

Thom Hartmann: ...this is a very significant moment [referring to the OBL kill]. But why now? Why not before? Gareth Porter is with us. Gareth Porter is an investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national security policy. You can read his writings over at ipsnews.net and elsewhere. Gareth, welcome to the program.

Gareth Porter: Thanks very much Thom.

TH: I was at at dinner party a couple of weeks ago with a progressive member of Congress and a couple of local DC pundits, and I made the comment that in 2001 the Taliban made an offer to George bush. The Taliban offered to turn over Osama bin Laden and George bush turned them down. Everyone in the room, without exception, looked at me like I'd just said that the moon landing didn't actually happen.

GP: I think that is a fair comment on what happened in 2001.

TH: Actually, my understanding is that the Taliban didn't actually offer to turn bin Laden over to bush. They said to bush that they'd turn him over to a third country where he could get a fair trial [if the US was able to produce evidence that OBL was guilty of planning the 9/11 attacks].

GP: Actually, they went beyond that. That was their position as of the first week of October 2001; three weeks after 9/11. But after the US began the bombing of Afghanistan on October 7th, the Taliban very quickly adopted a new position - which was taken to a secret meeting in Islamabad by the then Taliban foreign minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil. The new offer was to turn over, without any preconditions, and you can forget about the evidence...

They said they would turn bin Laden over to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which is a Saudi-based international organization of Islamic countries. It is a moderate Islamic organization. I believe it is a fair presumption that bin Laden being tried by an OIC international panel of jurors would certainly result in a guilty verdict for the 9/11 attacks.

Had George bush seized upon this proposal - the process [his trial by an Islamic organization] would have arguably reduced the appeal of bin Laden and al-Qaeda enormously throughout the Islamic world. Having Osama tried by Islamic jurists and by an Islamic international organization would have been an enormous advantage [in that the Islamic world would have accepted the verdict as legitimate].

TH: Why did the bush administration not want that to happen?

GP: That's a very interesting question, Thom. I have been writing a chapter for a book I'm working on precisely on this topic of why bush did not catch bin Laden. There are a couple of answers to that question. The first one is that the neoconservative inner core of the bush administration's national security team (Cheney and Rumsfeld) were determined to avoid getting involved in Afghanistan. They, of course, had their hearts set on Iraq and a major US military operation there. They never took bin Laden and Al-Qaeda seriously. Cheney and Rumsfeld dismissed the idea that Al-Qaeda could threaten the United States because they weren't state sponsored but independent actors. So they convinced bush not to do anything that could possibly prejudice the plans for an attack and occupation of Iraq.

TH: Which we know now he had been talking about in 1999 to his biographer Mickey Herskowitz, and was the subject, according to Paul O'Neill, of the very first cabinet meeting that they had in January 2001. [see YouTube video below].

GP: Exactly. The bush administration never had a plan to actually capture bin Laden. Even after 9/11.

TH: Right. Even at Tora Bora where he was arguably right there in front of him [Rumsfeld let bin Laden escape in 2001, says Senate report].

GP: You have to understand that what was being done there was strictly improvisation. There was no planning ahead of time. There would have to have been very detailed planning immediately following 9/11 for any possibility of an effective operation to capture bin Laden in Afghanistan.

TH: Gareth, here's my theory on this... if Lex Luthor didn't exist in the Superman comic books, and all Superman did was run around and stop gas stations from being robbed, they would be the most boring comic books on earth. The "good" of a good character in fiction is defined by how "evil" the evil character is. So for George bush to turn himself from a ne'er-do-well who was appointed by the Supreme Court - into Superman - he needed to have a Lex Luthor. And he took the opportunity to turn Osama bin laden into Lex Luthor so he could be Superman.

GP: I think there's something to that, but let's stop and recall a very important distinction here. When he had the opportunity to really do something about al-Qaeda and bin Laden in 2001 he was not interested at all. And remember that even in early 2002, after bin Laden had escaped to Pakistan, it was George W bush who reasurred the American people that bin Laden wasn't really important. He only invented bin Laden as a factor in his policy after the Iraq war began to go badly.

TH: Ah ha. So that's when it got convenient from him.

GP: Yea.

TH: Gareth Porter. Gareth, thanks so much for being with us. Great talking with you.

GP: Thank you Thom.

[End Thom Hartmann/Gareth Porter 5/2/2011 discussion]

My conclusion, based on this conversation (and everything else I have read), is that GWB didn't take the threat posed by OBL and Al-Qaeda seriously until it suited him. Richard Clarke (chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council) told bush that, since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (10/12/2000), he had been working on an "aggressive plan to take the fight to al Qaeda".

bush didn't want to hear it, so he demoted Richard Clarke and re-assigned the counter-terrorism issue to a task force headed by Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney's task force didn't meet until 9/4/2001. This was 234 days after the bush administration assumed power, but only 7 days before the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In the next segment Thom Hartmann concludes that GWB, "just wanted to transfer billions of dollars to his buddies in the defense industry", and points out that Halliburton was on the verge of bankruptcy before 9/11, and now, in the last quarter, this former US-based company (which is now located in Dubai) posted a 5 billion dollar profit. In bush's mind "the best way to revitalize the economy is war", and the best way to judge how the "economy" is doing is to examine how the wealthy elites are faring.

Clearly OBL and GWB exploited each other for their own advantage. Osama provided George with the excuse he and PNAC needed to launch their unending "war on terror" and "revitalize the economy". 9/11 also allowed bush to brand himself a "war president" and paint the Democrats as "weak on national defense", thus securing his second term - because you can't change a horse midstream when we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.

In return bush handed Osama the bona fides he craved as a Wahhabi leader. Pre-9/11 Osama lead an obscure Islamic movement that was going nowhere. When bush declared war on "terror" and declared it was a "crusade", he elevated Osama to the level of super-villain (or hero fighting back against the "Great Satan", depending on your point of view) and revitalized Al-Qaeda. Outraged Muslims whose family members were killed ceased being innocent civilians and joined the "insurgency" to fight the American invaders. Osama's plan was to bog down the United States in a war of attrition and bleed America to the point of bankruptcy. George bush delivered in spades.

This is why call George bush and Osama bin Laden "Frenemies with benefits". Osama is now dead, "justice" having been served. But what about George bush? Why is he still a free man? We know where he is, so I think Seal Team 6 could take him out quite easily. Whether or not I'm kidding (about assassinating bush) I do believe he belongs behind bars - along with the other war criminals in his administration. I think that would be appropriate for a group of war profiteers that are responsible for the deaths of over a million people.

Video: When did bush decide to invade Iraq? A 2004 60 Minutes report says (according to then Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill) bush spoke of invading Iraq during his FIRST cabinet meeting! (2:01)

SWTD #76

Who's Harboring bin Laden Now?

I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to ~ Hillary Rodham Clinton, 67th US Secretary of State (1/21/2009 to Present), referring to the Pakistan government and the conventional wisdom that bin Laden and al Qaeda are hiding out somewhere in Pakistan's Hindu Kush mountains (10/29/2009).

Personally I think that Osama bin Laden is probably dead (as Benazir Bhutto believed), although for the purposes of this post I'll go along with the belief that he's alive and hiding out in "northwestern Pakistan's impenetrable Hindu Kush mountains... in the Chitral region".

Obviously Hillary Clinton believes it to be the case - that OBL is hiding out in these mountains, or somewhere else in Pakistan - and that the Pakistani government (or elements within the government) know where bin Laden is and aren't doing everything they could be doing to see that he is brought to justice.

Apparently this is the same area he has been hiding out in since December of 2001, after he "escaped" following the battle of Tora Bora. Since then we've sent Pakistan 8.6 Billion (as of 2008) in bribes to fight al Qaeda and hunt down bin Laden. Yet, according to retired Pakistani general Mahmud Durrani, "The army itself got very little. ...The military was financing the war on terror out of its own budget".

Most of the money went toward propping up Pakistan's sagging economy, and toward "support capability against India". It isn't like this information is new either; the US has suspected it for quite some time, but done nothing. I pointed out in my previous post that Afghanistan was invaded because they were "harboring" bin Laden. So if what Secretary Clinton says is true, coupled with the fact that most of the billions we've sent them isn't being used to fight al Qaeda or capture bin Laden, do Pakistan's actions not amount to harboring?

Does anyone else find it odd that the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" resolution of 2001 gave bush the authority to invade Afghanistan because they were "harboring" bin Laden, but Pakistan, who (it could be argued) has been harboring bin Laden for years, gets billions of dollars to use as they please?

Could it be the reason we're bribing them is because they've got nukes? That is partly the reason, I believe. Also, the bribes allow us to fly drones over their territory, fire missiles, and accidentally kill scores of innocent people without having to answer for the collateral damage negligent homicides? Attacks which Pakistan then officially denies they've approved.

The US Department of Defense defines "collateral damage" as, "unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time". And that, "such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack".

I don't agree that killing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians in addition to the 14 wanted al Qaeda leaders you were actually targeting is not excessive (1/14/2006 to 4/8/2009). This is an indictment against the bush administration AND the Obama administration, under whom drone attacks have intensified.

This isn't the point I was trying to make with this post, however. I wanted to highlight the hypocrisy of toppling one government (the Taliban of Afghanistan) when they clearly tried to give us what we wanted, and giving billions in bribes to another while looking the other way when they use that money for purposes other than what we gave it to them for. And this isn't also an indictment of the Obama administration, because that is apparently starting to change. Now military aid will be "contingent on Pakistan's efforts to cut government ties to insurgents". "Government ties to insurgents" sounds like "harboring" to me. I don't know why this wasn't a condition of continued aid before!

Maybe this is why bush traded our nuclear technology for India's mangos? He knew that would force Pakistan to use our billions defending themselves against India and not on fighting al Qaeda and finding bin Laden. The nuke technology we gave India was supposedly for civilian use only, but they are not signatories to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

Given Pakistan's "obsession with India [which] has made [their] military resistant, practically up to the present, to reorienting its defense posture to include counterinsurgency capabilities needed to deal with growing internal threats", it's not surprising they are now on the verge of becoming a failed state. If this wasn't intentional, then what the hell was bush thinking? Even if the nuke technology we handed off to India doesn't end up in the hands of their military, I'm sure there are those in the Pakistani government who believe otherwise.

More importantly, why are we again funding (or providing technology to) both sides in a long running conflict? This reminds me of how the Reagan and George HW Bush administrations armed both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. (Yet another example of war crimes committed by Republican Presidents!)

I do not know how much merit there is to what Hillary Clinton said. It is obvious, however, that Pakistan needs to direct more of their attention towards internal threats rather than blowing all our money defending themselves against India; a miscalculation which could end with Pakistan becoming the world's first nuclear armed failed state.

9/26/2014 Update: As we all now know, OBL was not dead and not hiding out in "northwestern Pakistan's impenetrable Hindu Kush mountains. He was ALIVE and living in a compound in Abbotabad... Pakistan. According to Wikipedia, "Bin Laden was reported to have evaded capture by living in a section of the house for at least five years".

A 3/19/2014 NYT article by Carlotta Gall says "members of the ISI, Pakistan's main intelligence service" were responsible for hiding bin Laden.

Shakil Afridi, "a Pakistani physician who helped the CIA run a fake vaccine program in Abbottabad... to confirm Osama bin Laden's presence in the city by obtaining DNA samples" said (in a Fox News interview) that "Pakistan's fight against militancy is bogus. It's just to extract money from America".

The Abbottabad Commission report (a judicial inquiry paper authored and submitted by the Abbottabad Commission, led by Justice Javaid Iqbal, to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on 1/4/2013) blamed "incompetence at every level in the Pakistan's intelligence and security services [but] did not rule out the involvement of rogue elements within the Pakistani intelligence service.

SWTD #34

Why bush Really Invaded Afghanistan

I want justice... there's an old poster out West, I recall, that said, "Wanted, Dead or Alive" ~ George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States (1/20/2001 to 1/20/2009) referring to the 9/11 attacks "prime suspect" Osama bin Laden on 9/17/2001.

The US military bombed and invaded Afghanistan because that is where Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were located - "guests" of the Taliban Regime which refused to hand him over to the US for prosecution. There isn't much more to the narrative, as far as most people are concerned. Most people will acknowledge that there is some controversy surrounding the decision to invade Iraq, with some calling it a "war of choice" (you can place me firmly in that camp).

However, contrary to the conventional wisdom that Afghanistan was the "good war" (wisdom that our current president agrees with), I believe the evidence strongly suggests that Afghanistan was another "war of choice". If you recall, before the US invaded Afghanistan bush contacted the Taliban and demanded that they turn over bin Laden, implying that the bombing and invasion wouldn't happen if they complied.

The fact is that Taliban did offer to give up bin Laden. Negotiations between the US and the Taliban had been ongoing for 3 years prior to the 9/11/2001 attacks. Unfortunately President Clinton was unable to close the deal. He did, however, put together an "aggressive plan to take the fight to Al-Qaeda".

But bush rejected the Clinton administration's claim that bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were a serious threat. bush said, "I didn't feel a sense of urgency" (as reported by Bob Woodward in his book "Bush at War", 2002). So he tossed the Clinton administration plan and handed off responsibility for formulating a new strategy to VP Cheney. Cheney's counter terrorism task force never met.

Fast forward to the aftermath of the (preventable) attacks of 9/11. With virtually the entire world backing him, bush submitted an ultimatum to the "rulers" of Afghanistan, the country which was "harboring" bin Laden (the words in quotes are in quotes because Afghanistan was not then and is not now actually a country, but rather a collection of independent tribes and villages).

bush demanded, "We know he's guilty, turn him over". The Taliban, not wanting to be bombed or invaded, offered to take bin Laden into custody and send him to a neutral third country for trial. bush "summarily rejected" the offer.

Under the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" (a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on 9/18/2001), bush was granted "the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force against those whom he determined planned, authorized, committed or aided the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups".

After the Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden they were no longer "harboring" him, and thus the invasion was not necessary or appropriate. It was at this point that, instead of issuing an ultimatum, negotiations should have begun (or been renewed). A deadline could have been attached, but, IMO simply rejecting the offer outright was a violation of the resolution.

It is human nature to be offended when presented with an ultimatum when you're expecting an offer of negotiation. Saving face is important in Muslim culture, and that they responded negatively to bush's demands shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone in the administration. Any idiot could have deduced that they'd be insulted when they were informed that they would not be allowed to save face, but instead were expected to submit to a humiliating and embarrassing capitulation.

This is why, in my opinion, bush refused to listen to the Taliban's offer. He deliberately insulted them to short circuit negotiations, which would allow him to proceed with an invasion. What we heard from the bush administration was "this is not a negotiation", and that the Taliban needed to "act to meet all of the president's demands now". Why give in to your adversary's demands when they've made it clear they're going to attack anyway?, which is what the bush administration signaled they were going to do by rejecting all offers of negotiation.

The logical conclusion is that bush had decided in advance that he was going to invade Afghanistan, and asking for the Taliban to give up bin Laden was a deceptive manipulation designed to make it appear as though his administration hadn't already decided to go to war.

Even though war with Afghanistan was not what bush actually desired. As noted by bush's official biographer, Mickey Herskowitz, bush was "thinking about invading Iraq in 1999", and that, if he had the chance to invade he would not "waste it". But because it was common knowledge that bin Laden was in Afghanistan and not Iraq, the American public wouldn't accept a war with Iraq... initially.

Case in point, Chief counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, thought Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was joking when "as early as the day after the attacks, Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though Al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan".

It was unavoidable; the path to war with Iraq went though Afghanistan. So bush bullied and insulted the Taliban into NOT giving up bin Laden, even though they were desperate to do so (to avoid being bombed). However, a war with Iraq would not be saleable if bin Laden was to actually be captured. So, when US forces came close to catching him at Tora Bora, Rumsfeld sidelined "the vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army", and sent "fewer than 100 U.S. commandos, working with Afghan militias" to track down bin Laden. As a result bin Laden and compatriots "walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan's unregulated tribal area".

This information is from a 11/30/2009 Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, "Tora Bora Revisited: How We Failed to Get Bin Laden and Why It Matters Today". An article from the UK's Guardian, "Rumsfeld Let bin Laden Escape in 2001, says Senate Report" suggests that Rumsfled's "incompetence" is to blame. Even though the article title contains the word "let", implying that it was on purpose. Obviously this is because it's an article about how bin Laden "escaped", not an article accusing Rumsfeld of treason.

The Senate report does, however, conclude "unequivocally that in mid-December 2001, Mr. bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, were at the cave complex, where Mr. bin Laden had operated previously during the fight against Soviet forces". It also "suggests that a larger troop commitment to Afghanistan might have resulted in the demise not only of Mr. bin Laden and his deputy but also of Mullah Muhammad Omar, the leader of the Afghan Taliban. Mullah Omar, who also fled to Pakistan in 2001, has overseen the resurgence of the Taliban", but that "fewer than 100 American troops committed to the area were not enough to block his escape".

So we're to believe that Rumsfled's "incompetence" is to blame, even though this was his second term as Defense Secretary (he served under President Gerald Ford from 1975 to 1977)? Rumsfeld has plenty of experience, yet we were supposed to be worried about electing Barack Obama because of his lack of experience? This theory is completely unbelievable.

This explains why Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-New York), recently told MSNBC host David Shuster that the Bush administration "intentionally let bin Laden get away" in order to justify the Iraq war. When Schuster suggested, "That will strike a lot of people as crazy", Hinchey replied, "I don't think it'll strike a lot of people as crazy. I think it'll strike a lot of people as very accurate".

On 3/13/2002 (87 days after bin Laden "escaped") bush said, "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him. And, again, I don't know where he is. I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him". Why wasn't bush concerned? bush wasn't concerned about bin Laden because he had escaped into Pakistan and was beyond our reach, and thus the possibility no longer existed that he might be captured, dead or alive, and foil bush's plans for invading Iraq.

Afghanistan Timeline
->10/07/2001: Afghanistan Invaded.
->12/16/2001: bin Laden escapes during the Battle of Tora Bora.
->03/13/2002: bush says, "I truly am not that concerned about him (bin Laden)".
->03/20/2003: Iraq Invaded.

Further Reading
[1] Poll: Do you believe that the Bush/Cheney Administration made a conscious decision to let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora? by R. Donald Snyder, Newsvine 11/30/2009.
[2] Rumsfeld Order Allowed bin Laden's Escape by Gabriel Winant, Salon 11/30/2009.

SWTD #33

Best Friends George and Osama

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed ~ Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States (3/4/1861 to 4/15/1865)

Osama bin Laden financed, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed planned and organized, and Al-Qaeda operatives (15 of whom were Saudi nationals) carried out the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Most people would agree that this is a comprehensive list of the principal players. There is one person omitted from the list however. The key co-conspirator whose assistance was essential, because without his help the attacks on 9/11 may have been averted. The costly and pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would never have been fought. And al Qaeda would have remained an obscure Islamic movement and most likely faded from existence.

No, George and Osama were not literally BFFs. OBL clearly considered George a useful idiot, a simpleton he manipulated into doing his bidding. However, instead of being angry at having been used - because he was completely oblivious to the fact that he was doing exactly what Osama wanted him to - I'm sure George was grateful to Osama for the help he provided in saving his presidency, and getting him elected to a second term by allowing him to become a "wartime president" - thus gaining a lot of "political capital".

Osama's stated goal was to "[bleed] America to the point of bankruptcy" through the use of a "war of attrition". He also remarked that it was "easy for us to provoke and bait [the bush] administration". bush, on the other hand, had his own reasons for accepting Osama's bait. Osama correctly deduced that bush "gave priority to private interests over the public interests ... [as] anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind [can see]".

These statements are from a video released by al Qaeda in late 2004 which should have been titled "Thank you George W. bush".

Osama witnessed first hand how fighting a war of attrition resulted in victory during the Afghan-Soviet War. The Mujahideen (which received funding and assistance from both the US and OBL, ironically) fought the Soviets for 10 long years (1979-1989), ending with a Soviet retreat. This defeat in Afghanistan, and the billions of dollars expended in achieving it, lead directly to the collapse of the USSR in 1991.

Maybe Osama learned that the Project for the New American Century desired a New Pearl Harbor, so he decided to do his buddy George a solid and give him exactly what he and his friends Dick and Donald so desperately wanted?

I'm guessing that is what happened. After all, when George learned that Osama was planning a big surprise for him, he kept the secret on the down-low. If your best friend was planning a surprise party for you, would you spoil it? I'm referring to the President's Daily Brief titled bin Laden Determined To Strike in US.

But this wasn't the first time George had heard that his friend was up to something. Outgoing President Bill Clinton didn't like Osama and tried to convince George that he was bad news. George had just moved into the White House when Bill and a group of his friends staged an intervention.

Richard Clarke (chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council) told George that, since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (10/12/2000), he had been working on an "aggressive plan to take the fight to al Qaeda".

Of course George was shocked. al Qaeda was a religious prayer group Osama lead, but it was just a bunch of guys who got together to study the Bible Qur'an and engage in jihad. George could relate. He used to snort coke and binge drink until he found the Lord. Then he cut back. Osama was probably thinking of running for political office. He came from a wealthy family and was now devoutly religious, the same as George.

But Bill wouldn't stop hassling him, so George pretended that he'd take the "threat" al Qaeda posed seriously and let Richard Clarke keep his job. Unfortunately RC turned out to be a real buzz-kill. All he did was run down Osama. It was "Osama this and Al-Qaeda that", so George demoted him (taking away his cabinet-level access) and had him report to Condi. It didn't help matters when George junked his plan to go after Osama and handed off responsibility for putting a new improved anti-terrorism strategy together to his VP.

Dick assured him he'd fast track put on the back burner ignore the request and he quickly got to work setting up meetings between Big oil and his Energy Task Force. Dick knew they needed to decide how to carve up Iraq's oil fields if (wink, wink) something like a new Pearl Harbor occurred on George's watch giving them the opportunity to invade Iraq and topple Saddam.

In the meantime George took on his top priorities of cutting taxes, deregulating business, denying people with horrible diseases any hope by cutting off funding for stem cell research, allowing Wall Street to risk people's retirement money, creating a "guest worker" program so big business could employ slave cheap labor, spending Bill's surplus to curry favor with the voters, and driving the federal budget back into the red.

Despite his cool agenda George knew that Congress and the American people still wouldn't be hip with his desire to invade Iraq. He wished that Osama would hurry up with that surprise, because George was getting impatient. Plus he had to work really hard ignoring all the details that were leaking out.

Reports came in from all over the globe. In June of 2001 Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban's Foreign Minister, cautioned US intelligence straight up that an "attack was imminent, and would kill thousands". German intelligence passed on some info suggesting that al Qaeda was going to "hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons". The FBI had been hearing that Middle Eastern men were training at flight schools in Florida and elsewhere. Finally, it was learned that Osama was "very disappointed that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the World Trade Center" and that he "was planning large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001".

Unfortunately the cat was out of the bag. Unbelievably US intelligence failed to connect the dots and operation "Big Wedding" (Al-Qaeda's code name for 9/11) remained a go.

Of course none of these reports were viewed by George personally, but they were summarized in the 8/6/2001 PDB "bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US", which was delivered to George while he was chilling in Crawford on one of the longest presidential vacations ever. The briefing confirmed that the threat of a bin Laden attack in the United States remained both current and serious was historical in nature (whew!).

George scolded the CIA briefer for interrupting his "me time" by telling him, "All right. You've covered your ass now". Then he got back to clearing brush, playing golf and riding his mountain bike.

Image: Two buddies kicking back and hanging out.

SWTD #30

e-mail Newsletters

The following two articles (which I am posting excerpts from below) were delivered to my inbox this week courtesy of "Bush Headline News" and author/journalist Greg Palast, respectively.

Politics of Deceit: Dictator Bush's Scare Tactics Not Working By Paul Krugman

Just two days after 9/11, I learned from Congressional staffers that Republicans on Capitol Hill were already exploiting the atrocity, trying to use it to push through tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. I wrote about the subject the next day, warning that "politicians who wrap themselves in the flag while relentlessly pursuing their usual partisan agenda are not true patriots". The response from readers was furious -- fury not at the politicians but at me, for suggesting that such an outrage was even possible.

"How can I say that to my young son?" demanded one angry correspondent. I wonder what he says to his son these days. We now know that from the very beginning, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress saw the terrorist threat not as a problem to be solved, but as a political opportunity to be exploited. The story of the latest terror plot makes the administration's fecklessness and cynicism on terrorism clearer than ever. (End excerpt).

The Fear Factory By Greg Palast

I'm going to tell you something which is straight-up heresy: America is not under attack by terrorists. There is no WAR on terror because, except for one day five years ago, al Qaeda has pretty much left us alone.

That's because Osama got what he wanted. There's no mystery about what Al Qaeda was after. Like everyone from the Girl Scouts to Bono, Osama put his wish on his web site. He had a single demand: "Crusaders out of the land of the two Holy Places". To translate: get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.

And George Bush gave it to him. On April 29, 2003, two days before landing on the aircraft carrier Lincoln, our self-described "War President" quietly put out a notice that he was withdrawing our troops from Saudi soil. In other words, our cowering cowboy gave in whimpering to Osama's demand.

The press took no note. They were all wiggie over Bush's waddling around the carrier deck in a disco-aged jump suit announcing, "Mission Accomplished". But it wasn't America's mission that was accomplished, it was Osama's. (End excerpt).

.........................

Paul Krugman (b. 2/28/1953) is an economist at Princeton University who has written several books and since 2000 has written a twice-weekly op-ed column for The New York Times. He is currently a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. (Source: Wikipedia.

Greg Palast is a New York Times-bestselling author and a journalist for the British Broadcasting Corporation as well as the British newspaper The Observer. His work frequently focuses on corporate malfeasance but has also been known to work with labor unions and consumer advocacy groups.

Notably, he has accused Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and Florida Elections Unit Chief Clay Roberts, along with the ChoicePoint corporation, of election fraud during the US Presidential Election of 2000 and again in 2004 when, he argued, the problems and machinations from 2000 continued and that challenger John Kerry actually would have won if not for disproportional "spoilage" of Democratic votes. (Source: Wikipedia).

Additional Options
->Continue reading "Politics of Deceipt" by Paul Krugman.
->Subscribe to Bush Headline News.
->Continue reading "Fear Factory" by Greg Palast.
->Visit Greg Palast's Website.

Recommended Reading
1. Jim Crow Revived in Cyberspace by Greg Palast & Martin Luther King III (2000 election theft).
2. How They Stole Ohio by Greg Palast (2004 election theft).
3. We Don't Need no Stinkin' Recount by Greg Palast (2006 Mexican election theft).

 swtd-5