Wednesday, August 30, 2006

The Mysterious Case of Osama Bin Laden

It seems another Bin Laden special is going to air on TV!


And lest you think my last post on this subject was weird, read this from the Washington Post as to why 9.11 isn't on the web page for OBL:

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

No logic to it? So what does that say about needing to bring justice to the citizens of America for the crime perpetrated against it? What was our reason for invading Afghanistan, if not to catch Bin Laden, the so-called mastermind of the worst act of aggression on our soil since 1941? No logic, or no reality to the illusion that has been presented to the American public?

But it goes on, "It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

I can agree with that, but it underscores my point that OBL has been made out to be Public Enemy #1, and yet legally nothing has been done which means that legally this administration has no real reason to justify utilizing resources in pursuit of this friend of the Bush family.

So then is terrorism really why we are in Iraq? And is it really the reason we are sabre rattling about Iran?

I don't think so.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

I see that CNN was running a special about Usama Bin Laden. I thought that was interesting.

I say that because I am sure that in the minds of most Americans, he is Public Enemy #1. I would have. After all, our government released the video of the man admitting to the horrorof 9.11. What else do we need?

Yet if you hop over to the FBI website, and look up the Most Wanted folks, you will of course find Mr. Bin Laden. And if you look closely under the reasons for which he is wanted, you will notice a glaring omission. Here it is in it's entirety:

"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

1998? That was when Clinton was President. Not one word of 9.11, unless you count that vague sentence on the end. Isn't that a bit weird? After all, we invaded Afghanistan on the basis of 9.11.

According to Ed Haas, a freelance writer, he called the FBI and they stated they didn't have enough hard evidence to indict UBL for the 9.11 crime. Which is why there is no indictment at the Department of Justice against Bin Laden.

So I googled around, searching for indictments against Bin Laden, which would be a public document. And lo and behold, all that came up was the efforts of President Clinton to arrest this man and try him for his crimes. Not one mention anywhere of an indictment for 9.11.

This actually offers an explanation for what occurred at Tora Bora in the Afghan war campaign. Tora Bora is in far eastern Afghanistan, just north of the Pakistan boder, where it seemed in early 2002 we had a chance to catch or kill Bin Laden. It seemed, and still does, rather incredulous that the most innovative, powerful, and technologically savvy power in the world can't catch one man.

Yet he "slipped away." In light of the above facts, I wonder if that slipping was facilitated. Much like the lame excuses that have been proven wrong in regards to Iraq, the one excuse for invading Afghanistan isn't even wanted for the very reason we went there to get him. Or so we were told.

Keep in mind that the only thing working grandly well in Afghanistan to this day, is the poppy crop every year which has blossomed almost 500% since we invaded. Poppy is something the pharmaceuticals would be interested in. Or someone wanting to finace under the radar arms deals and/or covert operations. Like the French did in Viet Nam, in imitation of the Viet Cong.

Oh, and the Taliban is still a presence in Afghanistan.

So does this fact that there is no indictment against Bin Laden explain President Bush's comments that he doesn't care where Bin Laden is, that he doesn't think about him? Remember that the Bin Ladens are friends of the Bushs, and Daddy Bush regularly has lunch with a Bin Laden, and a Bin Laden neice has recorded a CD here in America.

It would seem so. And despite the fact I didn't see the CNN special, I doubt it raised these points I have mentioned. On the basis of the right wing nuts they hire at CNN to bloviate, it seems fair to guess that it was just more right wing effort to paint an illusion about teorroism which the administration itself doesn't believe. In other words, they are trying to look like they are better at national Security than anyone else, just in time for the elections.

The proof however, says otherwise.