Newsweek -- CIA Commander: We Let bin Laden Slip Away

[understandinglife]

Exclusive: CIA Commander: We Let bin Laden Slip Away

Newsweek

Aug. 15, 2005 issue - During the 2004 presidential campaign, George W. Bush and John Kerry battled about whether Osama bin Laden had escaped from Tora Bora in the final days of the war in Afghanistan. Bush, Kerry charged, "didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down and kill" the leader of Al Qaeda. The president called his opponent's allegation "the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking." Bush asserted that U.S. commanders on the ground did not know if bin Laden was at the mountain hideaway along the Afghan border.

But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught. "He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK. Asked to comment on Berntsen's remarks, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones passed on 2004 statements from former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks. "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001," Franks wrote in an Oct. 19 New York Times op-ed. "Bin Laden was never within our grasp." Berntsen says Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was."

<clip>

More at link:

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

Bush lies to the people and the Congress of the United States of America, launches an illegal war of aggression, harbors traitors in the White House, and allowed bin Laden to escape. What more needs be said.

http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/remindus
REMIND US

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - How ever long it takes, the day must come when tens of millions of caring individuals peacefully but persistently defy the dictator, deny the corporatists their cash flow, and halt the evil being done in Iraq and in all the other places the Bu$h neoconster regime is destroying civilization and the environment in the name of "America."

[hang a left]

1. My Goodness...

Newsweek has been on *'s ass for a few weeks now. What does everyone make of all the negative press this admin is getting.

[andino]

4. Poll numbers are down and the press sells to the numbers...

MSM at it's best.

[Supersedeas]

87. Pretty much

[Starfury]

12. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the admin blaming...

Isikoff's Newsweek story for the Afghan riots... :)

[LuckyTheDog]

111. SMEAR ALERT!

Expect to hear lots of "dirt" about Gary Berntsen now.

[Erika]

2. W said we'd get OBL dead or alive

How many years ago was that? W doesn't even care anymore. His goal of world corporatism has been achieved.

[Mabus]

31. If they had gone after OBL and caught him

it would have killed their chance to start the war in Iraq. At the time they couldn't afford to catch him, they needed him out there so they could use him as an excuse to go after Iraq.

[Eloriel]

They still need him -- nice, handy bogieman to trot out whenever

they need to stoke the fires of fear.

I just want to know when -- if ever -- he stopped being on the CIA payroll.

[Mabus]

70. I wouldn't be surprised if he was

on Halliburton's payroll too.

[Mad_Dem_X]

108. Bingo!

[anotherdrew]

75. bush ALWAYS does the opposite of what he says when he speaks sense

[ClintonTyree]

84. When has he ever spoken sense?

I must have missed that singular moment, DAMN! :argh: The one time he makes sense and I have to miss it! I've been waiting for 5 years for something coherent to come out of his mouth. Curses! Foiled again!

[Pluvious]

90. Didn't this quote make sense ?

"The illiteracy level of our children are appalling."

—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

[Pluvious]

89. It was Sept 13, 2001, Our Leader did speweth upon the sheeple...

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"

-G.W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001

[liberalpragmatist]

3. So what else was Kerry right about?

:eyes:

[JDPriestly]

8. Just about everything.

How about the cost of the war for starts -- at least $200 billion, the number that Lawrence Lindsay estimated. It goes on from there . . . . Bush is part liar, part ill-informed. Either way, he is a lousy president. Remember how Clinton used to be able to talk about the issues off the cuff and sound intelligent and informed?

[Mabus]

32. Kerry was wrong to vote to give * the "okay" to go to war

As was Clinton, Lieberman, and the other sellouts in Congress.

Yeah, Kerry was right, but unfortunately he had already sold out to the BushCo agenda.

[agincourt]

39. Again ,Kerry only authorized war,

if Saddam was foolish enough not to let inspectors in. Saddam in a spasm of lucidity allowed Hans Blix and the WMD inspectors back into Iraq. Bush lied, said he didn't, and invaded anyway. That's the way it went and if the house and senate wasn't packed with diebold repig degenerates bush would be impeached and removed from office.

[leesa]

42. So why hasn't Kerry loudly and clearly stated the war is illegal and

immoral? Why hasn't he loudly stated that Bush LIED to everyone?

[agincourt]

54. Kerry's main weakness I thought ,

was he knows how rotten Rush, Ann Coulter, and the RW noise machine are. I don't think he grasped how rotten Republicans are. Hell he may even believe rat-face was "mislead by CIA intelligence". That's why I voted for Dean in the primaries because he knows what those people are about. Kerry is a fine individual, he just tries too hard to find the good in people.

[blm]

60. You'd be wrong - Dean said on MTP that Kerry was wrong about Tora Bora

and that Tora Bora was a successful operation and that he stood with the commander-in-chief on that issue - he would have been slaughtered with his own words from July 2002.

Imagine if Kerry HAD more backing from other Dems back when he was SCREAMING about Tora Bora in early 2002. We would have HAD The case made that Bush was an incompetent commander-in-chief and likely Iraq War would have been TOO unpopular to consider.

Unfortunately too many Dems sided with Bush on Tora Bora and distanced themselves from Kerry's criticisms of it.

[agincourt]

69. I'm suprised Dean got suckered into saying that,

maybe he just didn't know the whole story.

[blm]

71. True. But he also didn't have Trippi telling him to try running to Kerry's

left at the time. He intended to run as the centrist candidate, but as war became less popular, he went from supporting Bush's military strategy in July2002 and the B-L version of IWR in Oct2002 to being the antiwar candidate in early 2003.

That's just politics, though. Unfortunately, the end result was a more divided Dem party based on perceptions more than reality. Kerry and Dean were alot further apart on Tora Bora than they actually were on Iraq. Their minor differences on Iraq were needlessly exaggerated by both campaigns during the primary.

[karynnj]

96. While avoiding inflamatory language he did say

that Bush misled us into war. He was livid about how Bush was treating the troops.

[Mabus]

44. Yes, he authorized, along with the others

despite many of us that contacted the senators and reps before the vote telling them to push for a wait until after the 2002 election; despite the fact that many of us told them that BushCo was lying about Iraq and its involvement with Saddam; not to mention that Kerry voted against the previous Iraq War (although Iraq had attacked Kuwait) and for this one - he was wrong both times.

I agree, if congress wasn't so full of corrupt politicians who care more about the electability then doing what's right America would be a better place and BushCo would be up on articles of impeachment.

[karynnj]

97. I really don't think he was wrong voting against the first gulf war.

That was a very close vote only when the war was won quickly and with few immediate American casualties was it considered a "good" war. There were some very strange manipulations form Bush 1 - such as April Gillespie, the US ambassador signalling to Saddam that we wouldn't intervein. Kerry wanted more diplomacy and he was far from alone on this. (His Senate speech on the realities of war was great)

Some long term conseguences were the Saudi Bases and the treatment of the Iraqis infuriated Bin Lauden.

[blm]

43. IWR was for war as a last resort AFTER weapons inspections and diplomacy.

When you blame IWR, you blindly let Bush off the hook.

IWR would have PREVENTED war if it was administered honestly.

Sadly, Rove won the spin by twisting the media into claiming a vote for IWR is a vote for war. That way it let Bush off the hook and put the blame on the IWR.

[Mabus]

45. No, I hold them all accountable- Dems and Pugs alike

BushCo has been lying to the American public before they took over. We knew it. Our leaders didn't listen to us or speak out on our behalf loudly enough before the vote. There were literally millions marching in the street all around the world. The world knew it was wrong, most of us on DU knew it was wrong but our own leaders didn't listen to us.

[blm]

50. Of course you CAN. But bottom line is that it plays right into Rove's spin

that Bush HAD the complete backing of the IWR.

That way the media doesn't hold Bush accountable for implementing the IWR dishonestly while Dems stay divided over IWR thanks to the spin.

Accuracy matters despite what the media leads the masses to believe.

Imagine if all the Dems were on the same page and screamed that Bush was VIOLATING the guidelines of the IWR.

[Mabus]

53. Actually, the congressional Dems played into Rove's spin

Talk about it anyway you like, both Dems and Pugs were wrong to vote for the authorization without looking into it. They all rushed it, some more than others. For the most part they were all sheep.

Spin however you want, the bottom line is that most Democratic politicians caved and they were wrong.

[blm]

58. So YOU think Bush was implementing IWR honestly?

Because either the IWR did NOT have guidelines in it for Bush to meet and Bush was implementing the IWR honestly.

OR

The IWR did have guidelines in it to PREVENT WAR and Bush implemented it dishonestly.

It's not spin - It's logic.

Read Bonifaz's testimony at the Conyers hearing on DSM - He presents the case where Bush should be impeached BECAUSE of his violations of the IWR.

Unfortunately, Rove and the media already spun the IWR into a blank check, thus ALLOWING Bush to be let off the hook.

[Mabus]

59. No, that's stupid and you're spinning

I said that BushCo has been lying to the American public (and the world) since before they took over. I've never trusted anything that they have said. It was stupid for any Dem to think that BushCo would change. There was ample evidence that they wanted to go to war. The IWR was the way they went about it and you had to be blind, stupid or living under a rock not to see that. The sad thing is so many people bought into it. Unfortunately some that bought into the IRW (thinking that BushCo would implement properly or honestly) were voting in Congress on it.

[blm]

64. Not the point - The only point is did IWR send us to war or Bush's failure

to IMPLEMENT the guidelines of IWR honestly?

If the IWR is the only reason that we invaded Iraq, then YOU are right and the Dems who voted for the IWR are to blame.

If Bush invaded Iraq DESPITE the guidelines in the IWR, then Bush and his administration ALONE are responsible.

You don't even REALIZE that you have been SPUN into blaming the IWR and the Dems - which has the net result of LETTING BUSH OFF THE HOOK.

Why should the media focus on Bush's failure to implement the IWR when too many folks are eager to blame the IWR instead?

All I'm talking about is the END RESULT - and every time someone distractedly blames IWR, even in passing, it becomes the end of the story and doesn't ALLOW for an examination of the IWR to prove that Bush VIOLATED the guidelines of the IWR.

[Mabus]

66. They are all responsible PERIOD

BushCo was politicizing the war, anyone could see that. That's why the vote was held before the elections (and while the press was consumed with the snipers and fell down on their jobs, again) instead of after the elections. If you voted for the IWR then it was one less thing that you didin't have to explain/defend to the majority (according the polls) of people during the election.

Dems allowed themselves to be railroaded into the vote. They should have held firm and asked for the vote to be done after the elections.

At this point, I think we should agree that we disagree on the nuances.

[blm]

67. BUSH alone is responsible for VIOLATING the guidelines of the IWR.

.

[bos1]

102. I second that notion

[anotherdrew]

76. and Kerry and the rest should have KNOWN it would be mis-used

never again a war with no declaration of war

[blm]

78. Truth is that Powell and Clinton were telling them it WOULDN'T be misused.

But, again, the bottom line is that everyone should have fought the spin that it gave Bush all the permission needed.

That spin allowed the IWR to take the all the heat instead of the TRUTH, that Bush actually invaded in VIOLATION of the IWR.

See, Bush had to declare in a letter to congress that even after diplomacy and weapons inspections that HE (alone) DETERMINED that military force was NECESSARY for national security.

DSM helps to prove Bush never had intentions to adhere to IWR and the letter he sent to congress was a LIE. He HAD no evidence that military force was needed after the weapons inspections. A president submitting a false OFFICIAL letter to congress is an impeachable offense.

[karynnj]

100. Kerry and the other Senators tried to use the conditions

in the IWR to get Bush to go to the UN - then when Saddam allowed the inspectors in and even allowed the destruction of the missles (while Bush complained the inspectors weren't doing anything.)- there was a glimmer of hope that war could be avoided.

When the IWR was pushed, Bush had already amassed troops to attack and was claiming he could based on the war on terror vote. (Not to mention that as CIC, he could order an attack if he felt the forces were in danger. (I know Congress authorizes war - but it last happened in WWII.)

There is a trail of Senate speeches - Kerry was consistently arguing for diplomacy, not war. (In one interview, Teresa was asked if Kerry would have invaded if he was President. The answer was a quick "of course not". She gave an opinion that the IWR delayed the war about 4 or 5 months. )

I went to Washington with my daughters in Jan (Feb?), 2003 to protest. The NJ organizer on our bus was talking about the difference between that rally - which was huge - and the ones in October. Kerry had an editorial at this time begging Bush to give the inspectors more time. (Dean was to the right of Kerry even at this point.) This was the time when the millions of people were marching. My husband, daughters and I went to the march over President's week in NYC and couldn't get into the marked off streets because there were too many people.

If Bush were not determined to have war, he could have declared the inspections a success, taken credit for disarming Saddam, relaxed the sanctions which were hurting the poor in Iraq and used some of his forces in Afganistan to get Bin Laden and brught the rest home with no war. The detour of going to the UN would have been a success. The world would have been better off and Bush would likely have been re-elected easilly.

[understandinglife]

5. I think Howard Dean, Congressman Conyers and others will ....

.... know exactly what to do with this information, though it would be wise for all of us to spread it far and wide!

WATCH IT; SPREAD IT http://www.bushflash.com/right.html

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - How ever long it takes, the day must come when tens of millions of caring individuals peacefully but persistently defy the dictator, deny the corporatists their cash flow, and halt the evil being done in Iraq and in all the other places the Bu$h neoconster regime is destroying civilization and the environment in the name of "America."

[TacticalPeek]

6. Rate this joker up!

:evilgrin:

[understandinglife]

7. "CIA supressing new book about Tora Bora"

This Daily Kos diary appeared on July 30, 2005:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/30/203627/519

A few interesting commments. I'll append any other pertinent references to this thread just to make it convenient for those wanting to distribute it to folk who need to understand the significance of just how correct Senator Kerry and others were on this topic.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

9. Star Tribune: "Book on bin Laden's escape from Tora Bora suppressed by CIA

Book on bin Laden's escape from Tora Bora suppressed by CIA, former agent says

by Katherine Shrader, Associated Press

July 28, 2005

WASHINGTON -— The CIA is squelching publication of a new book detailing events leading up to Osama bin Laden's escape from his Tora Bora mountain stronghold during the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, says a former CIA officer who led much of the fighting.

In a story he says he resigned from the agency to tell, Gary Berntsen recounts the attacks he coordinated at the peak of the fighting in eastern Afghanistan in late 2001, including how U.S. commanders knew bin Laden was in the rugged mountains near the Pakistani border and the al-Qaida leader's much-discussed getaway.

Berntsen claims in a federal court lawsuit that the CIA is over-classifying his manuscript and has repeatedly missed deadlines written into its own regulations to review his book. His attorney, Roy Krieger, said he delivered papers to the U.S. District Court in Washington after hours Wednesday.

More at the link:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/5530576.html

Bush's culture of death and torture seems to apply largely to the innocent rather than being focused on the truly bad dudes like bin Laden.

Just what you would expect from an awol chickenhawk moma's boy who's never had to do anything difficult in his entire wimp-assed life.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[hang a left]

15. Roy Kreiger?????

Isn't that the same lawyer who is representing that other "unnamed" former CIA official regarding his lawsuit against the CIA that was just recently written about in the NY Times?

[hang a left]

16. Yep...sure is.

Ex-agent says CIA wanted false data
By Reuters | August 2, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A fired CIA agent, whom a newspaper says told superiors in 2001 that Iraq had abandoned part of its nuclear program, is asking the FBI to investigate allegations that the spy agency dismissed him for refusing to falsify intelligence.


A July 11 letter to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III from the former agent's lawyer suggests that CIA officials may be guilty of criminal violations involving intelligence he produced on weapons of mass destruction in 2000 that contradicted an official agency position.

The lawyer, Roy Krieger, said his client initially asked the CIA's inspector general to investigate allegations that CIA officials had pressured him to alter the intelligence and retaliated when he refused. But the inspector general rebuffed his request.

''If the CIA is telling him to falsify information, that's potentially a crime. This merits an investigation, and if the CIA's not going to do it, the only other place is the FBI," Krieger said. An FBI spokesman declined to comment.

[understandinglife]

36. Huffington Post provides homepage coverage and link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/2005/08/cia-officer-we-let-bin-l_5264.html


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[hiley]

52. says you can pre-order this book..

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0307237400

[pa28]

10. "I don't know where bin Laden is . . .

I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Nearly four years on the run and still out there planning new attacks. I'll bet Londoners wish it were a bigger priority.

[City Lights]

37. Yes, and yet the wing nuts blamed 9-11 on Clinton because he didn't get

OBL after the Cole incident. :eyes:

I also remember ** poking fun at Clinton over the way he chose to target OBL. Something about how he wouldn't fire $2 million dollar missiles to hit a camel in the butt. Tough-guy-macho-weasel-man was gonna do things differently. :puke:

He's wasted billions of dollars on his Iraqi FUBAR and thousands of lives - both military and civilian, OBL is still on the loose, and he has the gall to smirk and grin while vacationing down at his fucking former pig farm.

He's a soulless prick. If there is a God, he has a special place reserved in Hell for **.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

11. If we'd have caught him in Tora Bora, Iraq would have been a ....

much harder sell.

[EFerrari]

13. kick

[Lecky]

14. Big News

Why on Earth would Bush blow the chance of capturing Osama Bin Laden? What's up with the restraint on finding the mastermind behind 911 and so many other acts of terror? If only Bush would have shown as much restraint when faced with the sketchy WMD intelligence on Iraq. Makes one wonder doesn't it?

[dansolo]

35. They wanted to make nice with Pakistan

If they captured OBL, they would have captured a lot of Pakistani ISI agents who were working with him in Afghanastan. They couldn't attack Pakistan, so they pretended that the terrorists in Pakistan didn't exist.

[sunnystarr]

56. The same reason he refused to get Zarkawi 3 TIMES

It wasn't politically expedient because he was selling that Saddam sanctioned terrorist training camps ... they counted on people being too dumb to know that Saddam didn't control the northern Kurd region.

[GarySeven]

17. if OBL dies, then the war dies ...

thus, Bush needs him alive to perpetuate the so-called war that benefits conservative contributors and ideologues alike.

We are told by the current CIA chief that we know exactly where Osama is now - only international politics stops us from taking him. Yet it was not long ago that The Moran said any nation that harbors terrorists will be taken down.

Osama is Bush's symbiant - but which is the worst monster?

[Lorien]

40. Right on the money!

Concise and well put, GarySeven. :thumbsup:

[thecrow]

18. OMG!!! This is HUGE!!!!

Kicking

[AtomicKitten]

19. So that makes John Kerry

RIGHT!!!!

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. I've been posting this info since 2002

when I heard the story from a very close friend who knew one of the Special Ops guys from Fort Bragg that was there.

This fellow and his group was one of the first to be dropped into Afghanistan after 9-11. They had tracked bin Laden down in the Tora Bora mountains and had him cornered. When they were ready to go in for the capture/kill all of a sudden the Brass showed up and shut them down. They were told that the Brass was now in charge of the operation and then the helicopters came and took bin Laden away.

Glad to see more of this story coming out to the public.

BTW: A number of Special Ops from Fort Braggs committed 'suicide' not long after this 'operation'. Could have been a case of 'knew too much'.

[Mabus]

33. They knew too much

They had to commit "suicide" when they returned. Do you have numbers?

[Trevelyan]

104. The Blog I've listed below had a story on the heliocopter that

took Bin Laden away while the military was forced to stand down as they were on 911. He also mentions the suspiciously high number of suicides and accidents of the men on this mission.

http://constantpated.blogspot.com/

[sunnystarr]

57. That Special Op guy would be one helluva whistle blower!

If true, that's enormous ... that itself would put an end to this administration!

[Rebellious Republican]

21. Rated it , only 32 users so far!

Current rating: 4.5 by 32 users

:kick:

[cmd]

22. done

[emulatorloo]

23. Get ready for the BushBots - "Disgruntled CIA employee" "Out of the Loop"

etc etc etc

Let's pray he doesn't have a wife to attack and smear.


-----------------------------------------------------

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=16674

Tom Tomorrow
03.30.04
This Modern World: Slime and Defend

[Q]

24. It was a member of bin Laden's family that put Bush in his first business.

...and he has been a Bush/Reagan asset in the past. Perhaps George wants bin Laden alive just in case he or the Party needs him again?

They'll need another 'Pearl Harbor' by 2008.

[leftchick]

25. Looks like Goss isn't clearing the book....

At least not yet. What a surprise.


<snip>
Berntsen's book gives, by contrast, a heroic portrayal of CIA activities at Tora Bora and in the war on terror. Ironically, he has sued the agency over what he calls unacceptable delays in approving his book—a standard process for ex-agency employees describing classified matters. "They're just holding the book," which is scheduled for October release, he says. "CIA officers, Special Forces and U.S. air power drove the Taliban out in 70 days. The CIA has taken roughly 80 days to clear my book." Jennifer Millerwise, a CIA spokeswoman, says Berntsen's "timeline is not accurate," adding that he submitted his book as an ex-employee only in mid-June. "We take seriously our goal of responding quickly."

[hiley]

55. sig line is great!

Fuck Bush is my motto too..
Written on huge white board by my desk ! When you come in the entry hall and look into living room it is the first thing you see..
Hiley
edit to say had to get one too.
http://toolz.blogs.com/toolz_of_the_new_school/

[smoogatz]

26. Kerry WAS right

They outsourced the attack on Tora Bora. It's amazing, given all the air support that was apparently in the area, that al Qaeda on horses and mules were able to slip away. It's an open question, I think--was it sheer military incompetence, or did Bushco make a calculated decision to let OBL go to Pakistan--where he is now a welcome guest, apparently. I think military incompetence is the more credible option--but with this crew of psychopaths in power, anything's possible.

[hang a left]

51. I also read that a helicopter scooped him out of Tora Bora.

This story has been around the internet for at least a couple of years. I am just surprized to see MSM talk about it.

[smoogatz]

62. First I've heard of the helicopter story.

Sounds a bit tinfoil-hattish to me--but I suppose it could've been the Pakistani intelligence service to the rescue. Could explain why it wasn't fired on by US choppers/fighters. Pakistani intelligence is full if Islamist hard-liners, and was/is a major enabler of al Qaeda and bin Laden, apparently.

[BikeWriter]

27. They can't afford to catch him!

[Jim Sagle]

28. Catch and release - it's the plan.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

29. This IS huge

But the book absolutely has to make the point of why this was allowed to happen, and who may have ordered it.

We needed the Bin Laden boogeyman for Iraq. And now we're dusting him off again for Iran.

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

30. What if Clinton had done this???

[geckosfeet]

34. I have always thought that the Bush family ties to the Bin Laden family

and the Saud's would insulate Osama from being killed or captured. Its a rich boy game.

Shrubbish and his family have always put their own agendas far ahead of those of the citizens of the country.

[warrens]

38. Gotta steel my nerve and go see FRetard City

There must be bloody chunks of flesh flying over there. HAHAHAHAHA, I love this stuff. My prediction: Krieger MUST be a liar and he only went to Afghanistan because he's a lieberal bush-hater. Probably a homo too.

[warrens]

47. Wow, not ONE word

Probably the sap who posted it got banned instantly. There was THIS amusing headline, though.

Bodies needed in Sacramento today for Rally

[leesa]

41. Franks is a traitor and he abandoned his troops in time of war.

Franks lied from Day 1...how does that make him a great American??

[agincourt]

46. Conservatives and Al Quaida work together,

Granted the suicide bombers and terrorists act in "good" faith, and don't know the collusion between their cult leaders and conservative republicans. For the Rightwing they get a submissive scared population which provides them political hegemony. We wouldn't take W's shit if it wasn't for terrorism. The terrorist leaders get something too, maybe money, arms like Iran-contra, or information on the their rivals that they wish to rub out.
Thats why conservatives must always be pointing their fat fingers at liberals for being traitors, it isn't just an ideology it's an alibi,a smoke screen.
Not too long ago in my Omaha World Herald paper a conservative republican wrote in that women who seek abortion should get the death penalty. Don't think for a minute they wouldn't slaughter thousands of Americans to get us all under their boots and that includes working with terrorist.
Pat Robertson, a major kingpin, in the republican was good buddies with Charles Taylor. What was Charles Taylors connection to Al Quaida? He laundered money for them. If THAT got as much attention as Durbin comments, who knows what might be dug up.
That Tim bin Laden would get a free pass from Bush to do more terrorism to improve Bush politically is not ludicrous at all. We're not Spain, no, they analyze like adults.

[architect359]

48. Outraged

I still cannot believe that dispite all these facts, there is still blind support for this administration. Am I missing something here? I don't know, maybe I am biased but this is another fact that supports the incompetent effort to get to the terrorists responsible for attacks on our country. This may even throw light on and give credence to perhaps a hidden agenda to militarize our social attitude and make the country more acceptable for an Iraqi invasion - an invasion that could be merely a personal grudge against the former Iraqi leader.

[hiley]

49. "We take seriously our goal of responding quickly."

The CIA has taken roughly 80 days to clear my book." Jennifer Millerwise, a CIA spokeswoman, says Berntsen's "timeline is not accurate," adding that he submitted his book as an ex-employee only in mid-June. "We take seriously our goal of responding quickly."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek
typical bs from the CIA..

[BamaBecky]

61. Bin Laden would have spilled the 911 beans........we just couldn't

allow that to happen..........that would have messed up the whole PLAN.....to this day THEY KNOW where he is....I think!

Bama

[smoogatz]

65. If that was true

Seems to me they'd desperately want him dead. They appear content to let him live unmolested in Pakistan. If the LIHOP/MIHOPpers are right, Buscho may figure they'll need OBL to strike again, on the eve of the '08 elections--perhaps so they can declare martial law and suspend the election. It'd have to be a huge attack though--something on the order of a nuclear bomb in L.A. harbor. More likely, it's part of whatever Faustian bargain they've made with the Pakistani government. We'll take Afghanistan, you can have Mullah Omar, bin Laden and A.Q. Khan.

[BamaBecky]

72. right....that's why he is still alive....they need him...n/t

[BamaBecky]

63. Ul........you're on a roll.......!

Bama

[electron_blue]

68. When this was going on on in Fall 01 I knew this was wrong

the U.S. let the AFghan soldiers go into the mtns, at the final stages of the fights, to capture OBL. I remember this on the news and I immediately started ranting and raving to whoever would listen. I said this was b.s. - U.S. military (far superior to what the Afghans could put up, not just trained personnel, but also the communication technology) was there in place, the best should get him. I said by letting the Afghani's go "get him" they were letting OBL slip through the cracks intentionaly. I said they did not want OBL captured. It seemd so transparent at the time, but nobody else agreed with me.

[anotherdrew]

74. OBL may well have been on OUR planes flying pakistani 'volunteers' home

4 or more C130s flew thousands of Pakistani guys home, may think OBL was among them.

[anotherdrew]

73. singalong: all the CIA guys say, "we coulda had him any day" ...

pancho bin laden

[KansDem]

77. So Bush lets bin Laden get away then outs an American intelligence officer

...and her front company she was using to gather information on WMDs?

I really don't know why his "approval" ratings are as high as they are. And I really, really don't know why he isn't in prison.

Can someone please explain it to me? I'd really, really, really would to know...

[blm]

81. They control most media. "Bush can't be beat on the terror issue."

How many times a day did the public hear that from the media with no one in the media ever bothering to shine a light on Bush's enormous FAILURES and the incompetence of his decisions, and the treasonous reasoning behind some of them?

[The_Casual_Observer]

79. The news from there at the time was really creepy and contradictory

Lots of hushed up stories that would appear for a day or so and then disappear. They were relying on the "Northern Alliance" to do the dirty work because the rangers and "special forces" couldn't be counted on.
I got the feeling at the time that things were really going wrong.

[xxqqqzme]

80. I have been re-reading parts of DUer

Paul Thompson's 'The Terror Timeline'. His chapter: The Hunt for Bin Laden details all the 'missed' attempts to kill or capture bin Laden. All that was in place during Clinton's last two years was abandoned by commander cuckoo bananas by March, 2001.

[bettyellen]

82. in hindsight, we know he didn't want to catch him. iraq wouldn't have

happened if we had caught osama. people would have been satisfied with that.
hell, most people thought we were in iraq because of 9/11.
bush wouldn't have had justification for anything he did in the past four years if he caught him.

[scarletwoman]

83. Are there still any poor innocents out there who don't understand that OBL

is a business partner in bushco?

He's their star hitman, there was NEVER any intention of "capturing" him.

sw

[paineinthearse]

85. "He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK - Here we go again

Here we go again. Newsweek gets the story, gets it right, and will be challenged and out maneuvered by Rove, forced to back down and retract. Any bets?

[halobeam]

86. So, what do we think now that the new report is OBL will be in Iraq

during Ramaden? They'll say they have him, to bring up ratings? They will ignore this? I seem to lean with the thought that they need him free in order to continue their "war on terra" or whatever they are calling it today.

[volitionx]

88. Bushbaby Needed Osama On the Loose...

Bush didn't actually want to catch Osama...he needed his boogeyman out there, on the loose, where he could supposedly scare the fuck out of Americans.

If Osama were caught, Bush would lose some of the fear factor he needs to control public opinion in the U.S. They made a strategic decision to let Osama go.

He's of more value to the neocons on the loose.

That way the neocons can have their Global Corporate Empire, and any time they need to scare people, they just bring up the old Osama bit.

And yes, Osama is probably still on the CIA payroll.

[Gregorian]

91. Because if we caught him, he'd tell the REAL story about 9/11.

And Bush can't have that.

[Roland99]

92. ** Here are some related articles to give you all some background info **

Transcript: Jane Wallace Interviews Seymour Hersh

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hersh.html

SY HERSH: There was about a three or four nights in which I can tell you maybe six, eight, 10, maybe 12 more-- or more heavily weighted-- Pakistani military planes flew out with an estimated-- no less than 2,500 maybe 3,000, maybe mmore. I've heard as many as four or 5,000. They were not only-- Al Qaeda but they were also-- you see the Pakistani ISI was-- the military advised us to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. There were dozens of senior Pakistani military officers including two generals who flew out.

And I also learned after I wrote this story that maybe even some of Bin Laden's immediate family were flown out on the those evacuations. We allowed them to evacuate. We had an evacuation.

JANE WALLACE: How high up was that evacuation authorized?

SY HERSH: I am here to tell you it was authorized — Donald Rumsfeld who — we'll talk about what he said later — it had to be authorized at the White House. But certainly at the Secretary of Defense level.

Where's Osama?
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/schuster.column

Musharraf told the BBC that Pakistani forces had come close to bin Laden: "There was a time when the dragnet had closed, and we thought we knew roughly the area where he possibly could be," he said. "That was, I think, some time back ... maybe about eight to 10 months back."

The Pakistani government launched a military campaign in the previously autonomous border area of South Waziristan during the last two years. There were numerous clashes, 48 by the government's count, between the military and what it called al Qaeda militants.

The result? More than 250 government troops were killed, according to a Pakistani official. But that campaign is over, and the troops are largely gone from the border area.

How Bush blew it in Tora Bora
http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FJ27Ag02.html

"No one knows where bin Laden is," Pakistan's Foreign Office spokesman Masood Khan said last Sunday. So maybe we should ask the Pentagon. According to a number of leaks by Pentagon officials, bin Laden is hiding in South Waziristan, in the Pakistani tribal areas, not far from the Toba Kakar mountain range in Baluchistan province. Khan seemed to be startled by this revelation: "We are getting in touch with them to clarify this matter." Don't ask the Pakistani military. Major General Shaukat Sultan has said they have been pursuing all of the Pentagon's leads, to no avail. So maybe we should ask Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf. In a recent interview with NBC he referred to "some broad indications" to proclaim he was "reasonably sure" that bin Laden is alive and absolutely sure he would be captured or killed. But he "didn't know his location".

<...>

According to Musharraf, "there's no pressure" on him by the White House and the Pentagon to find bin Laden. "What pressure? he asked in his NBC interview. "Their leadership, a few high level, and others mid and low level have been arrested - then we have attacked them in the mountains. We have attacked three of their very big sanctuaries in the valleys in the South Waziristan agency in tribal areas - but they're on the run now. And they're in smaller groups. Maybe there are a few more concentrations, which we don't know. But they are on the run, as far as al-Qaeda is concerned, they're on their own, surely."

<...>

On November 17, 2001, as the Taliban regime was self-disintegrating, Osama bin Laden, his family and a convoy of 25 Toyota Land Cruisers left Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan headed toward the mountains of Tora Bora. In late November, surrounded by his fiercest and most loyal Yemeni mujahideen in a cold Tora Bora cave, bin Laden delivered a stirring speech. One of his fighters, Abu Bakar, later captured by Afghan mujahideen, said bin Laden exhorted them to "hold your positions firm and be ready for martyrdom. I'll be visiting you again very soon."

A few days later, around what would probably have been November 30, bin Laden, along with four Yemeni mujahideen, left Tora Bora toward the village of Parachinar, in the Pakistani tribal areas. They walked undisturbed all the way - and then disappeared forever.

[wishlist]

93. Enough to make a person suspect Bush cut a deal with Bin Laden/ family

The more these kind of stories come out:

-Bin Laden brother invested in Bush oil business and visited him in Texas,

-Bushco made Bin Laden no longer a high national security priority shortly after taking office,

- Bush helped Bin Laden family members to leave U.S. swiftly without questioning after 9/11,

- Bushco denied any warning about 9/11 but then forced to admit by 9/11 commission that he was given the memo about Bin Laden determined to strike U.S. but took no decisive action,

-Bush stating outright that he didn't care where Bin Laden was,

-Bush denying Kerry's allegations that turn out to be true about not sending U.S. military after Bin Laden in Tora Bora,

-Bush/Saudi royals kissing and handholding ad nauseaum,

the more suspicious it becomes how Bush has never seemed very determined about bringing Saudi Arabian Bin Laden to justice the way he has obsessed over Saddam. Raises a lot of questions, and none of the possible answers look good for Bush.

[mrmonarch]

94. CIA owns Al Qaeda

Considering that the CIA owns Al Qaeda, it is perfectly logical that he "slipped away". The irony is that it is not, and has never been, a secret that Al Qaeda is founded, trained, and financed by the US. It's just conveniently not mentioned much in mainstream press, which is why "news items" as the above can be released in the first place and considered something akin to logical.

So in the future, whenever you see the name "Al Qaeda", I would suggest mentally replacing it with "CIA" (or any of their alphabet friends), and it'll be so much easier to understand what goes on. The London bombings would be a good example.

[mrmonarch]

98. Sample

Replying to myself here... to give y'all an example of how to decipher writings about Al Qaeda, let's look at Robin Cook's recent article in the Guardian, which contains a wealth of information if you know how to read it. Cook, being former foreign secretary and responsible for MI6, certainly knows what is going on, and in this article he outlines this without really saying it out loud. Here's the original.

In advance of the commemoration there have been many stories told of the courage of those who risked their lives and sometimes lost their lives to defeat fascism. They provide moving, humbling examples of what the human spirit is capable, but at least the relatives of the men and women who died then knew what they were fighting for. What purpose is there to yesterday's senseless murders?

First note the use of the word "fascism". "Terrorists", in the way they are portrayed in mainstream media, cannot really be "fascists", since that depends on a highly structured form of corporatism, i.e. it is a form of police state government. So why compare these so-called "terrorist acts" with fascism? Perhaps because the "terrorists" are governments and not "fundamentalists in a cave"?

Who could possibly imagine that they have a cause that might profit from such pointless carnage?

Note the use of the word "profit". It is commonly used when the gain of an act is monetary, and not ideological, as the "terrorists" aims are supposed to be. Perhaps the aim of the "terrorists" has nothing to do with ideology?

At the time of writing, no group has surfaced even to explain why they launched the assault. Sometime over the next few days we may be offered a website entry or a video message attempting to justify the impossible, but there is no language that can supply a rational basis for such arbitrary slaughter.

Here Robin suggests what is going to happen, simply because he knows what is going to happen, simply because he knows who did it, and what they typically do in these kinds of cases. And he explains that whatever will be written is not going to make any sense, simply because there is no sense, at least if the perpetrators are "fundamentalists in caves" who "hate freedom" etc.

The explanation, when it is offered, is likely to rely not on reason but on the declaration of an obsessive fundamentalist identity that leaves no room for pity for victims who do not share that identity.

Here Robin actually tells us something about the identity of the real "terrorists", and their mindset. It is a deliberate Freudian slip. They have NO pity for victims who do not "share that identity". Who have a strong "identity" and which have no "pity for victims"?

Yesterday the prime minister described the bombings as an attack on our values as a society. ... Nothing would please better those who planted yesterday's bombs than for the atrocity to breed suspicion and hostility to minorities in our own community. Defeating the terrorists also means defeating their poisonous belief that peoples of different faiths and ethnic origins cannot coexist.

Read this part very carefully, and keep in mind that Robin knows perfectly well who did this, and that it is not "terrorists in a cave". He spells it out quite clearly even though you need to read between the lines to "get it".

Osama bin Laden is no more a true representative of Islam than General Mladic, who commanded the Serbian forces, could be held up as an example of Christianity.

And why is OBL not a true representative? Simply because he is bought and paid for:

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

The myth, of course, is that Al Qaeda "turned". Considering that the "organization" is, more or less, a list of mujahideen fighters who are recruited and trained by the CIA, hence all the control of those fighters are CIA and not anyone on the list itself, there is nothing that can "turn". There is no "head" that can "betray", or "turn", since that "head" is CIA itself. Hence, Al Qaeda is nothing more than a useful patsy. Unless CIA itself has "turned". And that would be just whacky.

The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation.

Which is, of course, the entire point of the "War on Terror", since the "terrorists" are phoney from the beginning.

It is basic marketing 101: if you want to sell a product ("war" in this case), the best way to do it is to first create a demand.

Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us.

Again, consider that Robin knows perfectly well who the real "terrorists" are, and we're not talkin' "fundamentalists in a cave".

In particular, it would be perverse if the focus of the G8 on making poverty history was now obscured by yesterday's bombings.

Which he, of course, knows was one of the key purposes behind the timing. Again, a deliberate Freudian slip.

President Bush is given to justifying the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that by fighting terrorism abroad, it protects the west from having to fight terrorists at home. Whatever else can be said in defence of the war in Iraq today, it cannot be claimed that it has protected us from terrorism on our soil.

And Robin knows perfectly well why.

This is but one example of how you can apply the simple fact that CIA=Al Qaeda (note: I am certainly not suggesting that CIA is doing all the FFO's that are carried out in the name of Al Qaeda. There are other organizations that specialize in such mindgames).

Tragically, it seems Robin may have been a little too explicit in his deliberate Freudian slips, so to be on the safe side he is now on the
other side.

Food for thought.

[TNOE]

101. Welcome to DU Mr. Monarch

Great first Posts!!

:hi:

[paineinthearse]

95. CIA blocking release of book - video of interview with Berntsen's lawyer

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4288207&mesg_id=4288207

[Felix Mala]

99. Because it's never been about bin Laden

It's all about Oil.

It was on Sept. 10, It was on Sept. 11 and it was on Sept. 12.

It was all about oil when put the war lords back in charge of Afghanistan, instead of bringing those people democracy.

It was about oil when we invaded Iraq.

It was about oil when the Energy bill is signed into law today.

It'll be about oil when we go to bed tonight and it will be about oil when we wake up tomorrow morning.

[Mnemosyne]

103. .

:kick:

[Trevelyan]

105. On After Downing Street site which just came up after being down all day

there was a post stating that CNN had just said that Bush was taking a break from his vacation by flying to New Mexico. (to get away from the growing support for Cindy Sheehan)

The following is pretty wild, was on two sites and don't know if it is true but considering the surreal events since bush stole the office of presidency and the rumors of bush/cheney indictments - better to know the truth and be forewarned. Have to pick your way carefully between information on the web but for what it is worth there is more on the following websites. WRH is more detailed.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index795.htm

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=7456

Monday 8th August 2005

BUSH FLEES US??

Bush Flees United States for Saudi Arabia as Israel Accelerates Attack Timetable in Continuing Secret War with America, US Prepares For Martial Law

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Russian Subscribers

Russian FSB reports circulating today among Intelligence Analysts are reporting that the Saudi Arabia Government has surrounded with Military Forces a large area of their capital city Riyadh, including the United States, British and Russian Embassies, in order to protect the America President George Bush who entered Saudi Arabia last evening with a large contingent of his family members and personal aides.

It is interesting to note in these reports that the American President was accompanied by United States Military Protection Forces instead of the customary contingent of Secret Service Protection Forces, leading some Intelligent Analysts to suspect the American President no longer has confidence in those Secret Service Forces protecting his life.

These reports also state that the American Presidents Saudi Arabia visit is only to last two days and he will stay at the American Embassy which has already announced their closure, but for reasons not related to the true facts, and as we can read as reported by the New York Times News Service in their article titled "U.S. Closes Offices in Saudi Arabia" and which says, "United States diplomatic missions in Saudi Arabia will be closed for at least two days in response to possible threats against American buildings, embassy officials said Sunday. No specific details were provided, but a statement posted Saturday on the embassy’s Web site warned of "ongoing security concerns in the region, including for seaborne vessels traveling in the southern Red Sea," Reuters reported."

The reasons being speculated upon in the American President fleeing his country have to do with the United States Secret War upon Israel, and whom the American President blames for the September 11, 2001 New York Massacre, and which has taken a most ominous turn with today’s announcement of the resignation of the Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and as we can read as reported by the CBN News Service in their article titled "Israel Facing Shock of Netanyahu Resignation" and which says;

"Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shook up his country’s government when he resigned from the cabinet Sunday. He stepped down after the cabinet voted for the forced evacuation of three Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip. Netanyahu said, “I think there is a great battle in the world today, between the forces of terror and the forces of freedom. The only way that we can win this battle - anywhere, everywhere - is by confronting terror, and not appeasing it. Appeasement doesn’t work. You can try to go around this a hundred times. It just doesn’t work.”

{More on sites above}

[mrmonarch]

106. Sorcha Faal and the reasons for the US war on Israel

First of all, I would suggest that the mindful reader take a moment to find out who this Sorcha is. "She" doesn't seem to exist, and has a name that is an anagram of "as of Rachal", as in Rachal Booth, daughter of David Booth, who "Sorcha" promotes quite fervently.

In any case, the above mention of the "United States Secret War upon Israel" is interesting, and probably new to many people who believe that the US is actually supporting Israel. And they are, but only for the moment, as a means to an end. And what end would that be? Well, the answer is right in front of ya, in da holy book:

There's a new religious cult in America. It's not composed of so-called "crazies" so much as mainstream, middle to upper-middle class Americans. They listen - and give millions of dollars each week - to the TV evangelists who expound the fundamentals of the cult. They read Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. They have one goal: to facilitate God's hand to waft them up to heaven free from all trouble, from where they will watch Armageddon and the destruction of Planet Earth. This doctrine pervades Assemblies of God, Pentecostal, and other charismatic churches, as well as Southern Baptist, independent Baptist, and countless so-called Bible churches and mega-churches. At least one out of every 10 Americans is a devotee of this cult. It is the fastest growing religious movement in Christianity today. -- Dale Crowley Jr., religious broadcaster, Washington D.C.

This idea pervades the thinking of the Christian Right, and while it may seem like an outlandish idea it is actually being used as a reason in various constitutional institutions to avoid long-term thinking with regard for, as an example, the environment. Here's one example:

I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns. -- James Watt, U.S. secretary of the interior speaking before the House Interior Committee, in an apparent refutation to arguments for conserving natural resources.

If Armageddon is around the corner, and Jesus will save us all right after that, what is the point of saving the environment now? Or having a balanced budget? Answer: there is none!

So how do the Christian Right think about their Israeli "friends"? As above, currently convenient, but inevitably they will all convert to christianity. Because the Book sez so:

Only 144,000 Jews will remain alive after the battle of Armageddon. These remaining Jews - every man, woman and child among them - will bow down to Jesus. As converted Christians, all the adults will at once begin preaching the gospel of Christ. Imagine! They will be like 144,000 Billy Grahams turned loose at once!" -- Hal Lindsey

So while the "war for oil" and "war for money" and all that is certainly true, it is only really a means to an end, and that end is nothing less than Armageddon, the twisted belief being that it will somehow "save us all". That is, "all" as in "all believing Christians".

Food for thought.

(Source)

[Mnemosyne]

107. I saw these yesterday, we can only hope

that the coward has fled, it would at least end his reign of terror here. I want him to be imprisoned, but will gladly take this in second place.
There is so much faulty info, how to separate fact from fiction?

[Nothing Without Hope]

109. All too related: the Bush family's cozy, profitable ties with the Saudis

...which, of course, includes the powerful bin Laden family, which was helped out of the US after 9/11 before embarrassing questions could be asked.

For a truly hard-hitting article on the sorry situation with the Saudis, see this Aug 9 LA Times editorial by Robert Scheer:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1996241
Thread title: WOW!! LA Times editorial BLASTS Bush Administration for its Saudi support

[Generator]

110. Damn that John Kerry!

He's always right about everything. Damn smartypants. But dull...just not exciting. So America, you voted for Bush..(well if you didn't, sorry) but anyway..STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES. I will never in a billion years understand anyway that voted for Bush. Ever. Stupid is as stupid does. I don't give a shit. You've been HAD, doncha get it? Bush is incompetent at the one thing you supposdely voted for him most, catching and killing the bad guys!!!! It's all lies. Doncha hate being lied to? This country isn't even the one I thought it was. Where is the outrage? Does anybody care that it's all a sham?

I remain amazed. Maybe this an alternate reality. Dude, where is my country? I can't find it here.