POLITICS-US: Bush Had No Plan to Catch Bin Laden after 9/11

By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 29 (IPS) - New evidence from former U.S. officials reveals that the George W. Bush administration failed to adopt any plan to block the retreat of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the first weeks after 9/11.

That failure was directly related to the fact that top administration officials gave priority to planning for war with Iraq over military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

As a result, the United States had far too few troops and strategic airlift capacity in the theatre to cover the large number of possible exit routes through the border area when bin Laden escaped in late 2001.

Because it had not been directed to plan for that contingency, the U.S. military had to turn down an offer by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in late November 2001 to send 60,000 troops to the border passes to intercept them, according to accounts provided by former U.S. officials involved in the issue.

On Nov. 12, 2001, as Northern Alliance troops were marching on Kabul with little resistance, the CIA had intelligence that bin Laden was headed for a cave complex in the Tora Bora Mountains close to the Pakistani border.

The war had ended much more quickly than expected only days earlier. CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks, who was responsible for the war in Afghanistan, had no forces in position to block bin Laden's exit.

Franks asked Lt. Gen. Paul T. Mikolashek, commander of Army Central Command (ARCENT), whether his command could provide a blocking force between al Qaeda and the Pakistani border, according to David W. Lamm, who was then commander of ARCENT Kuwait.

Lamm, a retired Army colonel, recalled in an interview that there was no way to fulfill the CENTCOM commander's request, because ARCENT had neither the troops nor the strategic lift in Kuwait required to put such a force in place. "You looked at that request, and you just shook your head," recalled Lamm, now chief of staff of the Near East South Asia Centre for Strategic Studies at the National Defence University.

Franks apparently already realised that he would need Pakistani help in blocking the al Qaeda exit from Tora Bora. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld told a National Security Council meeting that Franks "wants the [Pakistanis] to close the transit points between Afghanistan and Pakistan to seal what's going in and out", according to the National Security Council meeting transcript in Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War".

Bush responded that they would need to "press Musharraf to do that".

A few days later, Franks made an unannounced trip to Islamabad to ask Musharraf to deploy troops along the Pakistan-Afghan border near Tora Bora.

A deputy to Franks, Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong, later claimed that Musharraf had refused Franks's request for regular Pakistani troops to be repositioned from the north to the border near the Tora Bora area. DeLong wrote in his 2004 book "Inside Centcom" that Musharraf had said he "couldn't do that", because it would spark a "civil war" with a hostile tribal population.

But U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, who accompanied Franks to the meeting with Musharraf, provided an account of the meeting to this writer that contradicts DeLong's claim.

Chamberlin, now president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, recalled that the Pakistani president told Franks that CENTCOM had vastly underestimated what was required to block bin Laden exit from Afghanistan. Musharraf said, "Look you are missing the point: there are 150 valleys through which al Qaeda are going to stream into Pakistan," according to Chamberlin.

Although Musharraf admitted that the Pakistani government had never exercised control over the border area, the former diplomat recalled, he said this was "a good time to begin". The Pakistani president offered to redeploy 60,000 troops to the area from the border with India but said his army would need airlift assistance from the United States to carry out the redeployment.

But the Pakistani redeployment never happened, according to Lamm, because it wasn't logistically feasible. Lamm recalled that it would have required an entire aviation brigade, including hundreds of helicopters, and hundreds of support troops to deliver that many combat troops to the border region -- far more than was available.

Lamm said the ARCENT had so few strategic lift resources that it had to use commercial aircraft at one point to move U.S. supplies in and out of Afghanistan.

Even if the helicopters had been available, however, they could not have operated with high effectiveness in the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border region near the Tora Bora caves, according to Lamm, because of the combination of high altitude and extreme weather.

Franks did manage to insert 1,200 Marines to Kandahar on Nov. 26 to establish control of the airbase there. They were carried to the base by helicopters from an aircraft carrier that had steamed into the Gulf from the Pacific, according to Lamm.

The marines patrolled roads in the Kandahar area hoping to intercept al Qaeda officials heading toward Pakistan. But DeLong, now retired from the Army, said in an interview that the Marines would not have been able to undertake the blocking mission at the border. "It wouldn't have worked -- even if we could have gotten them up there," he said. "There weren't enough to police 1,500 kilometres of border."

U.S. troops probably would also have faced armed resistance from the local tribal population in the border region, according to DeLong. The tribesmen in local villages near the border "liked bin Laden," he said "because he had given them millions of dollars."

Had the Bush administration's priority been to capture or kill the al Qaeda leadership, it would have deployed the necessary ground troops and airlift resources in the theatre over a period of months before the offensive in Afghanistan began.

"You could have moved American troops along the Pakistani border before you went into Afghanistan," said Lamm. But that would have meant waiting until spring 2002 to take the offensive against the Taliban, according to Lamm.

The views of Bush's key advisers, however, ruled out any such plan from the start. During the summer of 2001, Rumsfeld had refused to develop contingency plans for military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan despite a National Security Presidential Directive adopted at the Deputies' Committee level in July and by the Principles on Sep. 4 that called for such planning, according to the 9/11 Commission report.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz resisted such planning for Afghanistan because they were hoping that the White House would move quickly on military intervention in Iraq. According to the 9/11 Commission, at four deputies' meetings on Iraq between May 31 and Jul. 26, 2001, Wolfowitz pushed his idea to have U.S. troops seize all the oil fields in southern Iraq.

Even after Sep. 11, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney continued to resist any military engagement in Afghanistan, because they were hoping for war against Iraq instead.

Bush's top secret order of Sep. 17 for war with Afghanistan also directed the Pentagon to begin planning for an invasion of Iraq, according to journalist James Bamford's book "Pretext for War".

Cheney and Rumsfeld pushed for a quick victory in Afghanistan in NSC meetings in October, as recounted by both Woodward and Undersecretary of Defence Douglas Feith. Lost in the eagerness to wrap up the Taliban and get on with the Iraq War was any possibility of preventing bin Laden's escape to Pakistan.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

The Crime Behind the Criminal Wars!:

Why is Habeas Corpus Such a Threat to those in Power?

By Maher Osseiran

03/08/08 "TPP" -- Why is the Supreme Court's decision to uphold habeas corpus rights for the Guantanamo detainees so scary that Senator Lindsey Graham, with the support of McCain, will "explore the possibility, if necessary, of a constitutional amendment to blunt the effect of this decision"?

What is so fundamentally wrong with the Supreme Court's decision, whose members are conservative or Bush appointees, to warrant amending our constitution? Have Senators Graham and McCain lost their minds?

I just finished reading a lengthy "friend-of-the-court" brief to the Supreme Court in support of petitioner Boumediene v. responder Bush, et al., a case resulting in a decision that reinstate habeas corpus rights, not just for the detainees, but for all Americans.

As a brief to the Supreme Court, the argument and the conclusion were primarily based in constitutional law and precedent.

A similar brief to a habeas corpus court that would review the legality of detaining the Guantanamo prisoners would undoubtedly take a different form or approach what the writ of habeas corpus has always ensured: that an independent court can inquire into the legal and factual bases for the Executive's assertion of its power to imprison. This guarantee has always included a meaningful judicial evaluation of the law and facts that underlie the Executive's asserted basis to detain.

Other than the meaningful judicial evaluation of the law and facts, a non-military tribunal would make it easier for a detainee to produce exculpatory evidence, evidence that would exonerate him or her; actually, anyone can produce such evidence and anyone can inject it into the court proceedings simply by providing it to any party.

Such exculpatory evidence is abundant and has been in the hands of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, governors, members of congress such as Conyers and Graham, the judiciary committees to the House and Senate, and a variety of law authorities that have jurisdiction as early as 2005; I know that for fact since I placed it there but no investigations resulted.

In February of 2007, Dr. James Zogby of the Arab American Institute, after familiarizing himself with my work, found it imperative to contact Conyers directly and received assurances, conveyed to me by email, that an investigation would proceed in due course; Conyers is still missing in inaction.

The evidence was uncovered when I decided to authenticate the videotape released by the Pentagon on Dec. 13, 2001, a videotape in which bin Laden was confessing to 9/11. My suspicions about the tape quickly materialized but it took close to a year to distill the information in to a format that would stand in a court of law.

The authentication work, the only work of its kind put forth in the public domain, unveiled the most heinous crime ever committed by a sitting president whose victims not only include the detainees in Guantanamo except for a handful, but the untold number of dead and maimed Afghanis, Iraqis, American citizens and soldiers who have died in this fake "war on terror".

The authentication work revealed that the taping of the bin Laden confession was the result of a sophisticated sting operation run by U.S. intelligence with the help of Saudi intelligence and was taped on September 26, 2001, barely two weeks after 9/11 and ten days before the invasion of Afghanistan.

According to the UN charter, "

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

Even though the Bush administration had the evidence that bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks as early as September 26, 2001, such evidence was only shared with those who were important for the execution of their war, such as NATO and Pakistan, and kept away from those sane entities who were looking for a just and peaceful outcome as the UN Charter dictates.

The Bush administration, with premeditation, ignored its international obligations in deference to war. If the Bush administration had supplied the evidence to the world and specifically the Taliban who were requesting such evidence in exchange for bin Laden, the war might not have taken place and bin Laden would very likely be in custody.

Not pursuing that route makes the Afghanistan war an illegal war under the UN Charter and The Geneva Convention; thereby, the majority of the Guantanamo detainees can no longer be classified as enemy combatants but victims of war crimes.

These findings, which were shared with various authorities, were summarized in the "The Crime Behind the Criminal Wars!".

The authentication work also shows that the Bush administration, with premeditation, aided and abetted bin Laden after 9/11 far beyond any aid your average Guantanamo detainee could have ever provided to Al-Qaeda or bin Laden. There are also very strong indications, worthy of serious investigation, that the Bush administration was very aware of the 9/11 operations beforehand and allowed them to happen or even helped in making them happen. This argument was summarized in "Is Bin Laden Responsible for the 9/11 attacks?"

As a consequence of these findings, those handful of detainees who are charged with the more serious crimes, after review and a proper fact finding by a habeas corpus court, would have those charges against them dismissed only to be re-arrested and appropriately charged with less serious offenses; the rest of the detainees would have to be released.

The same court, and the public at large, will reserve the more serious offenses to high-ranking officials in the Bush administration, including the president.

By not acting in 2005 on the information received, Conyers and congress dug themselves a hole that kept getting deeper as time went by. The implications of the findings are very serious and the remedies go beyond those implemented after Water Gate and might prove to be the remedies that would help us reclaim our democracy.

The fundamental and positive change in how our democracy functions is what Senator Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and others in power are afraid of; a fear worthy of a constitutional amendment.

Their fear is genuine because, unlike other evidence in the public discourse of the Bush administration's abuse of power, which the administration and its supporters have been able to duck, this evidence is solid, all in the public domain, the majority of which the administration mistakenly placed there, it cannot be taken back, it cannot be spun, it is intact and most importantly, will remain so.

I am told that proper investigations would start after Bush leaves office. I do think though that no one should be above the law and no criminal should be given special consideration, especially those who hold public office, otherwise we are simply a nation of outlaws.

Maher Osseiran is an Arab-American peace activist. As a close observer of the Middle East, Maher's geopolitical analysis is always ahead of many in big media. As an engineer who worked in research, he uses his technical abilities to write investigative articles exposing one of the most serious crimes of the Bush administration, his work is published in print in The Lone Star Iconoclast, Crawford, TX, and on the web at www.mydemocracy.net

Click on "comments" below to read or post comments

Comments (8) Comment (0)

Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story. We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.

Send Page To a Friend

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator

Guantanamo war crimes defendant helped Bin Laden succeed, FBI agent testifies

Bit players like the Al Qaeda leader's driver are key to protecting Bin Laden, says a spy who interrogated Salim Ahmed Hamdan for 13 days, building a relationship with him by giving him snacks and oth

By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 26, 2008

GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA -- Salim Ahmed Hamdan may have been only a driver for Osama bin Laden, but the legions of bit players in Al Qaeda are what has allowed the terrorist leader to succeed, an FBI agent testified Friday.

"Without people like Mr. Hamdan, Bin Laden would enjoy no support, he would not enjoy protection and he probably would not have been able to elude capture up to this point," Special Agent George M. Crouch Jr. told the military jurors hearing the first U.S. war crimes case in 60 years.

The prosecution witness told the court that Hamdan's cooperation with at least 40 U.S. government interrogators in the months after his November 2001 capture was helpful in the fight against terrorism but does not diminish his responsibility.

But Crouch acknowledged under cross-examination that if he had interrogated Hamdan anywhere but the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, he would have advised him that what he said could be used against him.

"I would have read him his rights," said Crouch, who spent 13 days interrogating Hamdan in June and July 2002. The FBI, like more than a dozen other U.S. government agencies, has had a policy against extending constitutional rights -- including the protection against self-incrimination, known as Miranda rights -- to Guantanamo prisoners since they were brought here from Afghanistan and other conflict areas in January 2002.

Crouch told the six-member jury how he built a trusting relationship with Hamdan during the marathon interrogation, bringing him special snacks and working to ease his "concerns," like letting his wife know that he was still alive.

In the first days of his talks with Hamdan, Crouch and two other FBI agents arranged for him to call his wife in Yemen. He had not been allowed to inform anyone of his whereabouts since his capture in southern Afghanistan on Nov. 24, 2001, at a roadblock manned by Afghans collaborating with U.S. forces. He then disappeared into the secret U.S. network of prisons and interrogation operations until his arrival here in May 2002.

"Mr. Hamdan cried quite a bit. He was very grateful for the opportunity to speak with his wife, mostly I would say grateful and relieved as well that the burden had been lifted. At least his wife knew he was alive," Crouch recalled.

The 10th U.S. federal agent to testify about information provided by Hamdan and now being used against him, Crouch also recounted how he lashed out against the Guantanamo detention officials when they moved Hamdan into solitary confinement during the FBI visits, leaving the prisoner to believe he was being punished for something. The agent complained to the Joint Task Force about the chilling effect the move was having on his work with Hamdan, and the prisoner was returned to a regular cell within 24 hours, Crouch said.

The agent was unaware, though, that during the night Hamdan was also brought to interrogators of another U.S. agency, which under the secrecy practices of the war-crimes court cannot be identified. Detention records handed over to defense lawyers only 12 hours before the trial started included an "SOP" -- standard operating procedure -- on how to exploit the disorientation felt by recently arrived detainees.

Defense lawyers attempted to shed some light on Hamdan's treatment in the hands of U.S. secret agents -- apparently from the CIA -- during nearly a month at the end of 2001 when his whereabouts haven't been accounted for. But a "protective order" from the court prohibits any mention of that period or agency.

The judge, Navy Capt. Keith J. Allred, ruled Monday, on the eve of the trial, that no statements from Hamdan during that period would be admitted because of the "highly coercive" conditions under which they were extracted.

Hamdan is charged with conspiracy and material support for terrorism, and could face a life sentence if convicted. .

Latest Dan Fromkin blog

A War of Convenience?

By Dan Froomkin

Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, July 15, 2008; 1:11 PM

President Bush and Vice President Cheney could have reacted to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in lots of ways. What they chose to do was launch a global war on terror -- potentially a war without end.

This decision now seems like a big mistake. In the name of the war on terror, we have invaded and occupied a country that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, we have emboldened our enemies, we have lost and taken many lives, we have spent trillions of dollars, we have sacrificed civil liberties, and we have jettisoned our commitment to human dignity.

But was it an honest mistake? Did Bush and Vice President Cheney declare war because they believed it was the best way to guarantee the safety of the American people? Or did they do it in a premeditated -- and ultimately successful -- attempt to seize greater political power?

New Yorker writer Jane Mayer's new book, "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals," offers evidence of the latter. (See yesterday's column for an overview.)

In an online interview with Harpers blogger Scott Horton, Mayer sums up her findings this way: "After interviewing hundreds of sources in and around the Bush White House, I think it is clear that many of the legal steps taken by the so-called 'War Council' were less a 'New Paradigm,' as Alberto Gonzales dubbed it, than an old political wish list, consisting of grievances that Cheney and his legal adviser, David Addington, had been compiling for decades. Cheney in particular had been chafing at the post-Watergate reforms, and had longed to restore the executive branch powers Nixon had assumed, constituting what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. called 'the Imperial Presidency.'

"Before September 11, 2001, these extreme political positions would not have stood a change of being instituted -- they would never have survived democratic scrutiny. But by September 12, 2001, President Bush and Vice President Cheney were extraordinarily empowered. Political opposition evaporated as critics feared being labeled anti-patriotic or worse."

Andrew J. Bacevich called attention to this point in his review of Mayer's book in The Washington Post on Sunday: "Mayer recognizes . . . the intimate relationship between the global war on terror and Addington's new paradigm. The entire rationale of the latter derived from the former: no war, no new paradigm. Hence, the rush to declare that after Sept. 11, 2001, everything had changed. The insistence that the gloves had to come off, that the so-called law enforcement approach to dealing with terrorism had failed definitively, that only conflict on a global scale could keep America safe: These provided the weapons that Addington's War Council wielded to mount its assault on the Constitution -- all of course justified as necessary to keep Americans safe.

"Matthew Waxman, who in 2001 was serving as special assistant to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, told Mayer that the decision to frame the U.S. response to 9/11 as a war was taken with 'little or no detailed deliberation about long-term consequences.' Yet the decision was a momentous one, he continues, setting the United States on 'a course not only for our international response, but also in our domestic constitutional relations.'

"Little deliberation occurred because none was deemed necessary. As Mayer makes clear, the White House seized upon the prospect of open-ended war with alacrity. And why not? In the near term at least, going to war almost invariably works to the benefit of the executive branch. War elicits deference from Congress and the courts. As a wartime commander-in-chief, the president wields greater clout. In this particular case, war also helped deflect demands for accountability: Despite what Mayer describes as 'the worst intelligence failure in the nation's history,' the aftermath of 9/11 saw not a single senior official fired."

Frank Rich picked up on that last point in his Sunday New York Times opinion column: "In [Mayer's] telling, a major incentive for Mr. Cheney's descent into the dark side was to cover up for the Bush White House's failure to heed the Qaeda threat in 2001. Jack Cloonan, a special agent for the F.B.I.'s Osama bin Laden unit until 2002, told Ms. Mayer that Sept. 11 was 'all preventable.' By March 2000, according to the C.I.A.'s inspector general, '50 or 60 individuals' in the agency knew that two Al Qaeda suspects -- soon to be hijackers -- were in America. But there was no urgency at the top. Thomas Pickard, the acting F.B.I. director in the summer of 2001, told Ms. Mayer that when he expressed his fears about the Qaeda threat to Mr. Ashcroft, the attorney general snapped, 'I don't want to hear about that anymore!'"

And in an opinion piece in Sunday's Washington Post, former CIA analyst Glenn L. Carle wrote that we as a nation have allowed the specter of the terrorist threat "to distort our lives and take our treasure.

"The 'Global War on Terror' has conjured the image of terrorists behind every bush, the bushes themselves burning and an angry god inciting its faithful to religious war. We have been called to arms, built fences, and compromised our laws and the practices that define us as a nation. The administration has focused on pursuing terrorists and countering an imminent and terrifying threat. Thousands of Americans have died as a result, as have tens of thousands of foreigners. . .

"I spent 23 years in the CIA. I drafted or was involved in many of the government's most senior assessments of the threats facing our country. I have devoted years to understanding and combating the jihadist threat. . . .

"We do not face a global jihadist 'movement' but a series of disparate ethnic and religious conflicts involving Muslim populations, each of which remains fundamentally regional in nature and almost all of which long predate the existence of al-Qaeda.

"Osama bin Laden and his disciples are small men and secondary threats whose shadows are made large by our fears."

(See my July 25, 2007, column, Al Qaeda's Best Publicist.)

Carle writes: "This administration has heard what it has wished to hear, pressured the intelligence community to verify preconceptions, undermined or sidetracked opposing voices, and both instituted and been victim of procedures that guaranteed that the slightest terrorist threat reporting would receive disproportionate weight -- thereby comforting the administration's preconceptions and policy inclinations."

Louis Bayard writes for Salon: "'The Dark Side' is about how the war on terror became 'a war on American ideals,' and Mayer gives this story all the weight and sorrow it deserves. . . .

"Above all, [her book] underscores one of the least remarked aspects of our nation's counterterrorist policy: the degree to which it has been driven not by spies or generals but by pasty men in ties. . . .

"Almost from the moment America was attacked, Mayer writes, Cheney 'saw to it that some of the sharpest and best-trained lawyers in the country, working in secret in the White House and the United States Department of Justice, came up with legal justifications for a vast expansion of the government's power in waging war on terror. As part of that process, for the first time in history, the United States sanctioned government officials to physically and psychologically torment U.S.-held captives, making torture the official law of the land in all but name.' . . .

"[T]he bureaucratic colossus who bestrides this narrow world is David Addington, Cheney's general counsel and a figure of Robespierrian purity. 'Tall and bespectacled,' with 'the look of an irascible sea captain,' Addington jealously guards the paper flow to Cheney and, ultimately, to Bush -- even as he shouts down all opposition. No one stands to his right, and no one challenges him without risk of career suicide. 'We're going to push and push and push,' he tells one colleague, 'until some larger force makes us stop.' . . .

"Cheney and Addington, for their part, got what they had been waiting for half their lives -- the chance to shift power back to the executive branch. By arguing that the president needed free rein to fight al-Qaida, they were able to expand domestic wiretapping, neutralize Congress, and undo many of the restraints that Watergate had put in place three decades earlier. Their ultimate goal, as Rep. Jane Harman put it, was 'restoring the Nixon presidency.'"

Tim Rutten writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Mayer does a superb job of describing how the trauma of 9/11 all but unhinged Bush and Cheney and predisposed the chief executive to embrace the ready-made unitary executive theory of presidential power, which the vice president and his chief aide, David Addington, had come to Washington prepared to promote. In the opinion of the late historian Arthur Schlesinger, 'the Bush administration's extralegal counterterrorism program presented the most dramatic, sustained and radical challenge to the rule of law in American history.'"

Craig Seligman writes for Bloomberg about how Mayer traces the nation's torture policies directly back to Cheney, Addington, former secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo.

"Wrapping themselves in the flag, repeating the mantra 'security' and attacking anyone who questioned this insanity as soft on terrorism, they succeeded in disgracing their country before the world, and now they deserve to be called what they are: traitors. In a just world they would be prosecuted and convicted."

Bush's Dubious Claims

I've called for more skepticism in the face of Bush's assertions that "enhanced" CIA interrogations have saved lives.

In the Harper's interview noted above, Mayers has more to say on that subject: "President Bush has repeatedly defended the need to use 'enhanced interrogations' in order to get life-saving intelligence, and has pointed to Abu Zubayda's case as an example. I went over the claims in this case carefully, and found them highly dubious. Bush claimed three breakthroughs from coercive tactics used on Abu Zubayda.

"First, he said, Abu Zubayda told the CIA that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the terrorist behind the 9/11 plot. But, if one reads the 9/11 Commission's detailed report on what information had reached the CIA prior to the 9/11 attacks, it is clear that the CIA already had this information.

"Second, President Bush said that Abu Zubayda revealed that an American-born Al Qaeda figure was on his way to attack America. This is widely understood to be a reference to Jose Padilla. But numerous published accounts indicate that Abu Zubayda gave this information to interrogators prior to being physically coerced. So it's not accurate to describe it as an argument for coercion.

"Third, the President said Abu Zubayda gave up information leading to the capture of another top Al Qaeda terrorist, Ramsi Bin Al Shibh. But circumstantial evidence, as well as previously published accounts, suggest that Bin Al Shibh was more likely located by the United States as the result of an interview he gave to Al Jazeera.

"Meanwhile, although President Bush has argued that 'enhanced' interrogation had led to numerous breakthroughs he has never publicly acknowledged the false and fabricated intelligence it has yielded, too. One former top CIA official told me, 'Ninety percent of what we got was crap.'"

The British Plot

Bush has also spoken repeatedly about the disruption by British authorities of an alleged plot to blow up trans-Atlantic airliners with liquid explosives.

Here he is in a November speech: "Just last year, Osama bin Laden warned the American people, 'Operations are under preparation, and you will see them on your own ground once they are finished.' Seven months later, British authorities broke up the most ambitious known al Qaeda plot since the 9/11 attacks -- a plot to blow up passenger airplanes flying over the Atlantic toward the United States. Our intelligence community believes that this plot was just two or three weeks away from execution. If it had been carried out, it could have rivaled 9/11 in death and destruction."

But Elaine Sciolino writes in the New York Times: "Now, as the three-month trial of eight defendants draws to a close, prosecutors indeed have presented evidence of meticulous planning, with experiments on a new kind of bomb, research into plane schedules, videos threatening martyrdom, an apartment purchased for more than $270,000 in cash and a mysterious outsider with strong ties to Pakistan.

"But the testimony has shown little evidence that the suspects were prepared to strike immediately, or of any link to Al Qaeda -- potential vulnerabilities in the case that several defendants have tried to capitalize on in court.

"Three defendants pleaded guilty to intent to cause explosions, the judge announced Monday, in what was apparently an attempt to convince the jury that their intention was not to commit mass murder, as prosecutors alleged.

"Instead they said they had planned a series of small, nonfatal blasts -- a 'publicity stunt,' one defendant said -- to protest British and American foreign policy in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East."

Guantanamo Watch

Charmaine Noronha writes for the Associated Press: "Lawyers for a Canadian prisoner at Guantanamo Bay released excerpts of videotaped interrogations Tuesday, providing a first-ever glimpse into the secretive world of questioning enemy combatants at the isolated U.S. prison in Cuba.

"The 10 minutes of video -- selected by Omar Khadr's Canadian lawyers from more than seven hours of footage recorded by a camera hidden in a vent -- shows a 16-year-old Khadr weeping, his face buried in his hands, during the 2003 interrogation that took place over four days.

"The video, created by U.S. government agents and originally marked as secret, provides insight into the effects of prolonged interrogation and detention on the Guantanamo prisoner. . . .

"Khadr also tells his interrogator that he was tortured while at the U.S. military detention center at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan, where he was first detained after his arrest in 2002.

"Later on in the tape, a distraught Khadr is seen rocking, his face in his hands.

"'Help me,' he sobs repeatedly in despair."

No Torture Questions

At Bush's hastily scheduled press conference this morning -- his first in over two-and-a-half months -- not a single reporter asked him about torture. It's understandable that the primary focus was on the economy. But couldn't someone have at least asked whether he still maintains that the U.S. hasn't tortured detainees? And if he does, how he defines torture?

Bush on the Economy

The housing market is in crisis, oil is at record highs, the dollar is at record lows, the Dow is down, retail sales growth is weak, inflation is rearing its head, GM is cutting jobs and benefits -- but Bush took to the podium today for yet another round of economic cheerleading.

"The economy's growing, productivity is high, trade is up," said the same president who recently admitted that he had kept private his concerns about progress in Iraq in 2006 because he didn't want to demoralize the troops.

"I think the system basically is sound. I truly do," he said. "And I understand there's a lot of nervousness, but the economy's growing, productivity's high, trade's up, people are working -- it's not as good as we'd like. . . .

"All I can tell you is we grew, in the first quarter. . . .

FLASHBACK: Ten Years Ago, Bin Laden Demanded Barrel Of Oil Should Cost $144Filed

By Faiz on Jul 5th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

FLASHBACK: Ten Years Ago, Bin Laden Demanded Barrel Of Oil Should Cost $144»

In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden — the terrorist organizer of 9/11 who still roams free — listed as one of his many grievances against the U.S. that Americans “have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims” by purchasing oil from Persian Gulf countries at low prices. The real price of a barrel of oil should be $144, bin Laden demanded.

Ten years ago today, the price of a barrel of oil was just $11. Heading into this holiday weekend, the price of a barrel of oil rested at $144 — a thirteen-fold increase.

One month after 9/11, the New York Times wrote of possible “nightmare” scenarios that would deliver bin Laden’s goal. Neela Banerjee warned that among the “misguided decisions” that would put oil supplies at risk would be “that the United States attacks Iraq.” The Times included this quote in its story:

“If bin Laden takes over and becomes king of Saudi Arabia, he’d turn off the tap,” said Roger Diwan, a managing director of the Petroleum Finance Company, a consulting firm in Washington. “He said at one point that he wants oil to be $144 a barrel” — about six times what it sells for now.

Bin Laden didn’t have to become king of Saudi Arabia to achieve his goal; in fact, Bush’s policies delivered it for him. The Bush administration’s catastrophic decision to invade Iraq, sink the nation into debt to pay for that war, and consequently, weaken the dollar have all caused oil prices to soar astronomically.

Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last May, Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, reminded Congress about bin Laden’s goal:

[A]bout ten years ago, Osama bin Laden stated that his target price for oil is $144 a barrel and that the American people, who allegedly robbed the Muslim people of their oil, owe each Muslim man, woman, and child $30,000 in back payments. At the time, $144 a barrel seemed farfetched to most. […]

I would like to impress upon this Committee that $144 a barrel oil will be perceived as a victory for the Jihadist movement and a reaffirmation that the economic warfare component of its campaign against the West is a resounding success. There is no need to elaborate on the implications of such a victory in terms of loss of U.S. prestige and our ability to prevail in the Long War of the 21st century.

Indeed, ten years later, a mission accomplished for bin Laden.

120 Responses to “FLASHBACK: Ten Years Ago, Bin Laden Demanded Barrel Of Oil Should Cost $144”
scytherius Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Anyone that doesn’t have an orgasm every time Rush Limbaugh speaks knows the terrorists won along with China owning the U.S. What is saddest is that Bin Laden knew how stupid America was but America didn’t know.

July 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm

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

Alecto Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

George Bin Laden

July 5th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

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

Badmoodman Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Ten Years Ago, Bin Laden Demanded Barrel Of Oil Should Cost $144”

- - Oh OBL, you visionary dreamer, you.

July 5th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

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

Alecto Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Arrest, Try, Hang, Decapitate, INcinerate, send to the sun George W. booosh and all of the other NeoCon traitors.

July 5th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

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

katy Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

how in the world would binladen ever “become king of Saudi Arabia” anyway???

who seriously thinks these things?

July 5th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

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

YouCantHandleDaTruth Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Bush has done more to progress Bin Ladens goals than one can imagine.

MsM will make sure to ignore this or down play as much as possible

July 5th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

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

LiberalVoter Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

So Bush is really shilling for OSB. It seems everything OSB wanted, Bush has given him. And now the same a**holes that supported Bush and his criminal cabal want to continue it by voting for McCain? What in the hell is wrong with these people?

July 5th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

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

Hussein McCain Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

We are living in the twilight zone. Please God, let me wake up!

July 5th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

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

Alecto Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Boooosh caved into OBL back 2 days before the Mission accomplished speech, or have we all forgot that the ONLY thing OBL wanted, was to remove the bases from Saudi Arabia. And on April 30, 2003 we announced we would do just that.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/ org/ news/ 2003/ 030430-psab01.htm

boooshit caved into PBL back then, and he had the same agenda as OBL $144+/bbl oil as OBL. They are birds of a feather. “Two, two, two terrorists in one.”

http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm

July 5th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

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

Briseadh na Faire Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Note the silent acceptance of this phrase, “the Long War of the 21st century.”

As we continue to fight “the Long War of the 21st century” our standard of living must, of necessity, decline. Deficit spending cannot be sustained indefinitely. Yet tax cuts to the ruling class (and no-bid contracts to the ruling class) ensure that the economic burden will fall upon the working class.

There will be a point in time where taxes on the working class will be insufficient to pay the interest on the debts of this nation; will be insufficient to fund any infrastructure or social programs. Our nation will be forced into bankruptcy. Countries which funded our spending spree with then be able to dictate to us what we can and cannot do.

Then, the Long War will be over. We will have lost.

July 5th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

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

Alecto Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

PBL should be OBL.

I want the enemy booosh dead.

July 5th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

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

Badmoodman Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

katy Says:
how in the world would binladen ever “become king of Saudi Arabia” anyway??? who seriously thinks these things?

- - People who think the John Woo movie Face Off was non-fiction?

July 5th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

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

hussein toasterhead Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

July 5th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

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

dbadass Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

He isn’t wearing a Swatch is he?

July 5th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

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

DieNowForPeace Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Then, the Long War will be over. We will have lost.

Yet the Neocons whole-heartedly believe that we MUST democratize the rest of the World in order to sustain our prosperity (endless growth). When in fact a healthy diplomatic relationship, rather than bombing campaigns and occupying sovereign soil, goes a long way towards opening economic avenues into foreign lands.

What the Cons fail to realize is that societies dictate the basic principals and philosophies of their respective governments, and you can’t change 100’s of years of cultural evolution overnight. Therefore it would behoove us to try, at least, to play nice because we are the youngest nation on Earth and culturally, we have very little unity.

We are weak, we have no pretext. So those who might pillage, do so, and those prone to weakness, fail.

July 5th, 2008 at 1:32 pm

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

ralph the wonder llama Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Can someone explain again to me why bin Laden would want anyone but Bush (or, now, McBush) in the White House?

July 5th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

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

Zooey Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Long War of the 21st century

The Bush/Cheney wet dream — pure profit, until we lose.

July 5th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

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

DieNowForPeace Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

He isn’t wearing a Swatch is he?

Looks more like a date/calender/digital, back-lit LCD Casio.

Fugly as hell, but chic in the nerd crowd.

July 5th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

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

Zooey Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Oops, BnF got there before me. Typical. ;)

July 5th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

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

rozerze Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden — the terrorist who organized 9/11 — listed as one of his many grievances against the U.S. that Americans “have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims” by purchasing oil from Persian Gulf countries at low prices.

So the us has “stolen” from muslims by not doing enough business with them?.what the hell does he really want?.

July 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pm

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

ninique Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

with all that’s been said and done we still see images of BushCo and people applauding every programmed word that falls out of his pie hole in the backround… WHY????

July 5th, 2008 at 1:41 pm

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

dbadass Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

DieNowForPeace Says:
——————————————————————————–

He isn’t wearing a Swatch is he?

Looks more like a date/calender/digital, back-lit LCD Casio.

Fugly as hell, but chic in the nerd crowd.

—
Ya know fugly is a good word that needs to come back into common usuage. Thanks for that. I say everyone try to make it a point to say fugly atleast a have a dozen times today

July 5th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

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

DieNowForPeace Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Something I’ve long feared is the assimilation of socio-economically disenfranchised groups into existing terror networks, especially here in the U.S.:

“Its the Economy Stupid”: Analysis of Al-Qaeda”

The fact is, Sunni and Shia radical groups, with the help of US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine (by way of Israel) have become much stronger in the seven years since 9/11.

The key aspect that many analysts are overlooking is the enormously unfair and unjust social and economic conditions in the Arab world, which are playing right into Al-Qaeda’s hands. Previously, AQ was relatively elitist. For example, all but one of the 19 9/11 hijackers had a university degree. Now this is changing. The discovery of recent cells in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon and Gaza suggests that Al-Qaeda recruits are increasingly coming from poor backgrounds.

LINK

July 5th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

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

hussein toasterhead Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

rozerze Says:
So the us has “stolen” from muslims by not doing enough business with them?.what the hell does he really want?.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
______

$144/barrel crude.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

July 5th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

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

ralph the wonder llama Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

rozerze Says:

So the us has “stolen” from muslims by not doing enough business with them?.what the hell does he really want?.

Why don’t you ask your man Bush what bin Laden really wants? He seems pretty adept at meeting OBL’s desires.

July 5th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

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

LiberalVoter Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Aarg. Sorry, in #7 OSB should be OBL (not enough coffee yet).

July 5th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

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

joe cantwell Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

roz,

you’re in over

your head.

*

try an easier subject

to comment on.

like tee ball.

*

good luck.

%

July 5th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

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

curmudgeon Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Wouldn’t a photo of Usama bin Laden standing next to George W. Bush, smiling, with an arm draped around each other’s shoulder, and flashing a thumbs up sign with a “Mission Accomplished” banner in the background just say it all?

July 5th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

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

Zooey Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

rozerze still doesn’t realize Bush is OBL’s tool.

July 5th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

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

Badmoodman Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Doesn’t that photo of bin Laden just scream Urban Outfitters?

July 5th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

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

kasinca Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

The Bush Crime Family has done more to hurt the USA than Bin Laden ever could. The amzing thing is that the GOP can still convince their base to be scared of Bin Laden while Dubya is ripping them off. One thing about wingers, they are really good at stupid.

July 5th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

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

rozerze Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

ralph the wonder llama Says:

Why don’t you ask your man Bush what bin Laden really wants? He seems pretty adept at meeting OBL’s desires.

as if gas prices are his fault…world oil production has peaked, demand from developing, and developed countries hasn’t.

July 5th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

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

dbadass Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

#29
Good call but what is that green mystical orb thing in from of him. Pier 1 maybe?

July 5th, 2008 at 1:54 pm

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

DieNowForPeace Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

So the us has “stolen” from muslims by not doing enough business with them?

A little slow on the up-take there chief?

Since all we really want is to sell them McDonalds and Starbucks franchises (products they don’t want) while demanding a reduced price for their natural resources in the open market, I’d say they’re entitled to that belief.

July 5th, 2008 at 1:54 pm

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

ralph the wonder llama Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

rozerze Says:

as if gas prices are his fault…world oil production has peaked, demand from developing, and developed countries hasn’t.

First, gas prices: the current price of oil is directly affected by Bush’s “fiscal conservatism”, since oil is (for the moment) priced in dollars, and Bush’s deficit spending and reckless war mongering have led to an incredibly weak dollar. Moreover, the absolute lack of any significant alternative-energy program over the last eight years has contributed mightily toward the increased demand for a finite resource.

Now, beyond that, I mentioned Bush’s uncanny ability to deliver what bin Laden seeks, and that goes way beyond $144 a barrel oil. It includes removing the US military from Saudi Arabian holy sites (done), provoking a costly and protracted land war in the middle east, designed to drain our prosperity and willpower (done) and causing panic in our government that led to degraded civil liberties, diminished respect for the US around the world and loss of any moral authority we carried.

Mission accomplished.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

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

barfly Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

rozerze Says:

as if gas prices are his fault…world oil production has peaked, demand from developing, and developed countries hasn’t.

Is RR saying there is such a thing as peak oil? Conservative apostasy; off with his head!

July 5th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

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

Guido the Loving OBGYN Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

I don’t give a shit what Osama thinks or thought. No amount of grievances justifies him killing civilians. These barefoot terrorists should have been learning how to effectively change public opinion through non-violence starting 1948.

1. Osama and Zawahiri should be dead or in prison.

2. Bush/Cheney let them go.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

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

had enough Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

I wonder if Beleize and other like countries that encourage retired US citizens to reside in their country for their country’s economic reasons are still doing that.

And if our country falls, what are these people, the citizens abroad to do?

July 5th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

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

regular_joe Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Ten Years Ago, Bin Laden Demanded Barrel Of Oil Should Cost $144”

Mission Accomplished!

July 5th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

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

Bad Eye Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

“We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” bin Laden said in the transcript.

(From CNN.com’s archives, 2004)

July 5th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

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

backup Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

It obviously wasn’t the intention, but probably the best thing that could have happened to spur conservation, innovation, and reduced emissions of CO2.

The silver lining of high oil prices is lower demand for oil.

Blame Bush for high oil prices, but embrace the higher prices as a catalyst for reduced dependancy and a cleaner environment.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

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

Keith Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

rozerze Says:
as if gas prices are his fault…world oil production has peaked, demand from developing, and developed countries hasn’t.

When oil was $19 per barrel, W said it was President Bill Clinton’s fault. But now that it is $144, we are not allowed to say that it is Pres W’s fault? Kind of a double standard. Everything W and Dick have done has resulted in increased price of oil (including the Iraq ivasion and constant threats toward Iran). And their oil buddies are loving it. The big western oil corporations’ reserves are now worth about $3 TRILLION.

For about eight years of Pres Clinton, my gas stayed at about 95 cents per gallon.

During Pres Carter I could easily find a job at $12 per hour.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

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

Keith Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

rhf flagged for uncalled for off topic abuse.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:30 pm

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

Bad Eye Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

backup Says:

The silver lining of high oil prices is lower demand for oil.

Blame Bush for high oil prices, but embrace the higher prices as a catalyst for reduced dependancy and a cleaner environment.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Yet drilling the hell out of this country to get a few extra years of cheap (yeah, sure) oil will have just the opposite effect, right?

July 5th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

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

barfly Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

backup Says:

It obviously wasn’t the intention, but probably the best thing that could have happened to spur conservation, innovation, and reduced emissions of CO2.

The silver lining of high oil prices is lower demand for oil.

Blame Bush for high oil prices, but embrace the higher prices as a catalyst for reduced dependancy and a cleaner environment.

No, blame you for higher gas prices, since you voted for the oilman, and we didn’t.

Still waiting for your apology for lying, backup.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

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

had enough Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

# 37 Guido the Loving OBGYN Says:

I don’t give a shit what Osama thinks or thought. No amount of grievances justifies him killing civilians. These barefoot terrorists should have been learning how to effectively change public opinion through non-violence starting 1948.

1. Osama and Zawahiri should be dead or in prison.

2. Bush/Cheney let them go.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Bsh/Sheney let them go?

If anything productive is to be done, isn’t an all out non biased investigation of the years starting with 1980, including the real facts about 9/11, Cheney’s secret energy meetings, the Bush/media LIES selling the Iraq war,the robbing of our treasury and borrowing from China to pay for this horrific deed still going on benefiting the Saudis (who bombed us 9/11) and evil minded corporatist?

I believe in the Constitution, a Constitution that has been trashed, and will fight and die for my country.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:38 pm

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

RUCerious Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Mission Accomplished! Bin Laden’s mission that is.
Congrats you effing traitorous administration!

July 5th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

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

Bad Eye Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Found an article in FoxNews’ archives referencing a Bush-Cheney ad during campaign 2004 that blasted Kerry for suggesting a 50 cents/gal. gas tax. Gas at that time was $2.12 cents in San Diego, as referenced in the article. Adding the gas tax would have taken it to $2.62.

Now that gas is double that, what do we get from the Bush/Cheney administration? No damned concern whatsoever.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

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

barfly Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

prono Says:

How do you like your ideological cellmates, backup?

He’s a real peach.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

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

Keith Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Bad Eye, Bill Clinton was blasted in the 1992 campaign for suggesting a nickel per gallon tax.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

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

barfly Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Sombody flag el porno…

July 5th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

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

Bad Eye Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Prono’s links appear to go to a porno site. I’m flagging them.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

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

dbadass Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

republicans hate facts:
What is your damage?

July 5th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

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

Bad Eye Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Keith Says:

Bad Eye, Bill Clinton was blasted in the 1992 campaign for suggesting a nickel per gallon tax.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Yep. And I remember when he did enact a 4 cent increase in the fed tax and the wingnuts went wild. A week later, the price of gas in our area dropped 6 cents, or 2 cents cheaper than before the tax was added.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

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

dbadass Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

sorry barfly I can’t help. I have a policy against it.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

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

backup Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

barfly. I disagree with the fraud and liar rhetoric, but I acknowledge that it was due in large part to you that I had to examine the relevancy of the snopes link to the point I was making. (The credit for getting me to understand it goes to Gregor, who did a more effective job of communicating it).

I walked away from the discussion with a better understanding of the quotes (those who thought Saddam was a threat in ‘98 may not have thought he was a threat in ‘03 and many who thought Saddam was a threat in ‘03 didn’t think war was the answer).

Please continue to question my posts.

I will be better off for it. Thank you.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

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

barfly Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

republicans hate facts:
What is your damage?

[barfly covers ears]

Oh, no, not again….

July 5th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

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

barfly Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Please continue to question my posts.

I will be better off for it. Thank you.

Pointing out fraudulent uses of data is what I enjoy most, so it’s a two-fer.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

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

barfly Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

But I’m still waiting for the apology, backup, or the dead chicken stays where it is, you bad doggie.

July 5th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

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

ThomasMc Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Did anyone really doubt this would happen when the Oil Men stole the White House?

July 5th, 2008 at 3:00 pm

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

dbadass Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

I think it is really freakin’ weird that I can use no variation on the anole eyes word around here but the shit is A-okay. What’s up with that?

July 5th, 2008 at 3:00 pm

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

backup Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

barfly. Here’s your apology. (If that’s what makes you happy).

I’m sorry that you’re obsessed with discrediting me and not just my ideas. Makes it seem that you more than a little threatened.

But, it is complimentary. Thank you.

I’m not sure when the battle of ideas became a team sport, but you truly are a team player.

Go, team.

July 5th, 2008 at 3:01 pm

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

dbadass Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

the/that you get the point don’t year dear big brother moderator…

July 5th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

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

barfly Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

backup, your ideological brother prono, is wandering from thread to thread. Do see if you can get a grip on him, like a good chap.

July 5th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

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

dbadass Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

year/you. You know what I mean. TP please explain. “anole eyes” they’re watching you….

July 5th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

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

barfly Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

barfly. Here’s your apology. (If that’s what makes you happy).

Good Doggie! Come here, and let me cut that nasty carcass off you. I hope you learned your lesson - now go play!

July 5th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

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

xtro Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

It should be clear to you that Bin Laden was just a ploy used by the Bush admin and the CIA (which employs Bin Laden) to get exactly that price threshold he mentioned. He wasn’t talking the dreams of a terrorist fanatic, he was previewing the ambitions of the next administration. Let me make it clear - Bush and the neocons deliberately orchestrated 9/11, using Bin Laden (a CIA asset going back to the Russian/Afghan wars) to vilify the arab world and make the costly wars with Iraq (and even Iran) possible.

The NYT article said the sinking of 3 tankers in the Strait of Hormuz would be enough to get oil from $11 to $144 a barrel. 3 tankers. Does anyone think that even if Iran was heavily bombed, they WOULDN’T be able to take out at least 3 tankers? So what happens if 3 or more tankers were sunk today? If prices shot up at the same rate the NYT predicted they’d go up SIX TIMES what oil sells for now. That means oil would go from $144 a barrel to $864 a barrel, or about $25 for a gallon of regular unleaded. Even an increase of half that would DESTROY the US economy in its current state, we’re talking about the complete financial collapse of the US.

From this it can be concluded that the US WILL NOT be attacking Iran any time soon, just as it won’t be attacking Russia anytime soon. Because, a Russian response would be in terms of physical devastation, what an Iranian response would be in terms of financial devastation.

Hence the only reason for the continued threats of an attack are to drive up the price of oil and keep it up. Either way Bush’s actions are clearly criminal and against our national security interests (the same way an unprovoked attack on Russia would be against our interests).

That is, unless what some say is true and the neocons really are planning on using an economic collapse to facilitate the adoption of the North-American-Union, a gov’t with an unelected parliament, above the US Supreme Court and Congress, that would transform the US from a democratic republic into a “market-state”. Read this review of top neocon Phillip Bobbitt’s recent book, “Terror and Consent”:

“Specifically, we must stop thinking like a nation state and start thinking like the “market state” that we are inevitably becoming. The nation state — a constitutional order dedicated to protecting and improving the material welfare of its citizens — served the United States well from the mid-19th century to the end of the Cold War. But Bobbitt contends it’s vulnerable to a new battery of threats. The accessibility of weapons of mass destruction, the globalization of international capital and the “universalization of culture” have eroded the conventional borders that once legitimated national security.

What’s needed is a constitutional order that takes its structural cues from multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations, relying “less on law and regulation and more on market incentives” to expand people’s options. Such a market state keeps its finger on the pulse of consumer demand, advocates trade liberalization, is prone to the privatization of public works and “will outsource many functions.”
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=8315

Only one event could create the kind of government he describes - the complete and total collapse of the US financial system. A war with Iran would do that. This may be the 9.11-part 2 they’ve been speaking of…

July 5th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

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

dbadass Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

backup:
Do you know the correct spelling of “pwned”?

July 5th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

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

stewarjt Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Ten Years Ago, Bin Laden Demanded Barrel Of Oil Should Cost $144

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

July 5th, 2008 at 3:09 pm

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

Gregor Samsa Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

I remember the quaint ole’ days when reichwingers would get apoplectic every time a political opponent made a statement that even remotely resembled something Bin Laden had said before.

Now that their Dear (mis)Leader’s disastrous policies have resulted in the very outcome Bin Laden was aiming for, will they have the same temper tantrums?

(It’s a rhetorical question, of course. I know they won’t. The Bush personality cult followers don’t mind getting played by their Supreme Leader. I’d say they rather enjoy it)

Heckuva job Georgie!

July 5th, 2008 at 3:10 pm

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

upside99 Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

I wonder if OBL has sent his personal Thank You to BushCo?

I know Darth and the Bush Crime Family have sent theirs; which is that he is still at large.

They all are billions richer now. As is the entire Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia.

July 5th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

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

Gregor Samsa Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Let’s hear it, Bush bootlickers!

Let your yakking begin: “It’s Clinton’s fault!!”

(You can also try to reach back to Carter or FDR. It makes your prattle even more irrelevant and asinine)

July 5th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

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

JBaddo Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

#1 What is saddest is that Bin Laden knew how stupid America was but America didn’t know.

Bin Laden simply put it: f**k with us in our countries we will f**k with you in your country. Blowback for America’s nefarious meddling in countries it wants to control. Human nature is people defending itself against aggression and strike at the homeland of the aggressor. The IRA did this successfully against Britain.

July 5th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

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

barfly Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

If Iraq is going so well that a theme park is planned for the near future, when will they be building one in Afganistan?

Just think of the thrill of rollercoastering through the simulated-live-fire-rifle-and-mortar-shell-ed mountains, at breakneck speed, up and down near-shear cliffs, through villages, and waterfalls, and poppy fields as far as the horizon.

Call it, the Taliban Twister…

Or the Wahhabi Nightmare…

July 5th, 2008 at 3:22 pm

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

Noob17 Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Osama was correct. Maybe he will inform which numbers will win the next $500.00 Mega lottery.

July 5th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

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

dbadass Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Hi prono:
What are you up to today? I sort of have an idea but do you really think everyone else has to see it? Think of the children…

July 5th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

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

Gregor Samsa Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

The saddest part is that the Bush administration hasn’t had enough yet.

They have their eyes on Iran and I am afraid they won’t be happy until they have set the entire Middle East on fire.

Such is the Bush legacy: Incompetence, cronyism, disastrous policies, and one of the biggest military blunders.

July 5th, 2008 at 3:27 pm

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

barfly Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

prono spill, in produce!

Bring the shop-vac…

July 5th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

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

Nashoba nowa Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Oil $144.00 a barrel, the U.S. Constitution scorned and suppressed by our own Government, Fear Mongering by our President at every breath, apathy on behalf of most Americans, the U.S. bogged down in the Occupation of Iraq spending 12 billion dollars a month, I would say that bin Laden got far more than he ever thought possible.

July 5th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

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

Crusty Old Bastard Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Today is a slow day so I will go OT and practice for the next post about the flip-flopping of Obama and McPain.

For want of something better to do I have succumbed to the temptation of examining the present political partisan phenomenon phrased as phlip-phlopping. My reference (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, C. & G. Merriam Company, Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 1977) defines “flip-flop” as an intransitive verb denoting the action of a sudden reversal of direction or point of view. Note there is no value judgement attached to the action. It is only when the action is assigned judgement in terms of an adverb or adverbial phrase and applied to “My Guy” or “Your Guy” does the concept of “flip-flopping’ take on a positive or negative connotation. “Your Guy is a flip-flopper because he is a wish-washy opportunist. BAD! “My Guy” is a flip-flopper because he is a fact-considering pragmatist. GOOD!

To illustrate the concept in real terms let us consider a scenario with which we are all too familiar. Imagine, if you will, two drivers side-by-each, at a stop light. Both drivers have a common destination but that is the end of their similarity. The driver in lane 1 (closest to the curb) waits for the light to turn green by revving his engine, creeping over the line and watching the opposing light to gain an advantage at the start. When the light turns green he makes a rubber-burning jack-rabbit start and begins using the means to justify the end–getting to the destination in front. He changes lanes without looking, signaling nor considering the drivers he cuts off, he exceeds the speed limit, he pushes the limit on yellow lights, he honks, he curses, he follows too closely, if not breaking the laws he sure bends the crap out of them, ignores all the one-finger waves and mouthed profanities, and if stopped he lies about his actions. The driver in
lane 2 spends his time waiting for the green light by carefully planning his trip. He considers the traffic, the time of day (rush hour), the day of the week (week-day, week-end), time of the month (holiday), and the month of the year (season). When the light turns green he observes the entrance to the intersection and when safe to do so he starts at a reasonable rate to conserve gas. He uses the means dictated by law and common sense to attain the end (destination) safely and legally. He changes lanes when the circumstances dictate that it would be a prudent move but only after checking the traffic and making the proper signals. He maintains a safe and prudent speed at or under the posted limit. He anticipates the traffic lighs and does not stop suddenly nor proceed unsafely. He uses his horn only as a safety measure to warn other drivers of his presence. He obeys all the applicable laws to assure he is not stopped. He exchanges friendly five-fingered
waves of greeting with his fellow drivers. Who got there first? Who knows? Who cares? The point is that both drivers flip-flopped continuously during the trip. Was one a “good” flip-flopper? Absolutely! Was one a “bad” flip-flopper? Without a doubt. Which is which? Now is the time to apply those value laden adverbs. For the driver in lane 1 the two words that come to mind immediately are “arbitrary” (selected at random and without reason) and “capricious” (characterized by a sudden, impulsive, unwarranted change of mind). For the driver in lane 2 the terms “considered” (matured by extended, deliberative thought) and “justified” (proven to be just, right and reasonable).

How, you ask, does the preceding tale shed light on the pressing problem of the present political phenomenon phrased as phlip-phlopping?

One need to look no farther than the lanes which the drivers have chosen”

The arbitrary and capricious flip-flopping driver in lane 1 is on the RIGHT.

The considered and justified flip-flopping driver in lane 2 is on the LEFT.

July 5th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

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

barfly Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Noob17 Says:

Osama was correct. Maybe he will inform which numbers will win the next $500.00 Mega lottery.

Save your cash. There’s a sale on Bay Rum hair tonic, at TJ Max.

Cheers, mate.

July 5th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

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

barfly Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Hey Crusty:

A little more paragraphing would make your post much more palatable. Look at it. It sits there like a huge pill, just waiting to be swallowed whole. Next time, bust it up a little, for those of us with limited attention spans.

July 5th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

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

dbadass Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

barfly:
Are you now or have you ever been a tenth grade english teacher? Do you have any idea how tired the teaching of the 5 paragraph essay has become?

July 5th, 2008 at 3:45 pm

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

Max-1 Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

.

M I S S I O N
ACCOMPLISHED!

.

July 5th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

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

MapleStreet Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Dare I point out that as OBL’s predictions for the future come true, that he is in a much better position to be leader than Shrub ?

Or as it says in the good book, if one’s predictions come true then they are a prophet and should be listened to. If not, they are a false prophet and should be stoned. (and I’m not referring to Shrub’s being stoned on drugs either).

July 5th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

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

Mrvee Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Give me a break. Bin Laden? Mission Accomplished??

How transparent is this story? It’s got Karl Rove written all over it. Whatever it takes to deflect attention from President Bush and McBush from the total decimation of this nations economy he’s about planting it. No way in the world will he escape responsibility for what he’s done with our country.
I expect more stories like this one to crop up in the press. Worse than Jimmy Carter ever was.

July 5th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

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

Angry McAngus Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Of course all the “traitors” who pointed out in the runup to Iraq in ‘02 that this was the case (blood for oil), that occupying a Middle Eastern country would create a “quagmire” (”once you break it, you own it”) and bankrupt the U.S. (see USSR/Afghanistan) were told they were completely wrong-headed blame-America-first-ers who compared Iraq to Vietnam when these were completely different as one was a jungle while the other is a desert, stuck in pre-9/11 thinking blah blah

July 5th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

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

SteveSOD Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Heckuva job, Junior Bush, you cokeheaded, Connecticut-born, false-Texan, miserable failure fraud.

July 5th, 2008 at 4:12 pm

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

backup Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

barfly. my post #63 and yours #67 and you accuse me of lies of omission?

you might have more luck attacking a mirror.

you have helped me to see things more clearly:

that you’re clearly not someone capable of reason.

Take care, my friend. I’m not giving up on you. :)

July 5th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

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

Crusty Old Bastard Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

barfly and dbadass,

Thanks for reading my stuff. I’ll do better next time.

Actually it is all TP’s fault!!! If they let us use all that wasted space and void over there on the RIGHT (pun intended) the aspect ratio would change and it would look like a capsule and not a pill.

July 5th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

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

McWars Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

I think Obama was railing against late-term abortions, rhf. That’s what I heard of the radio clip. If there’s more to the story, anybody except rhf should fill me in.

Can’t have it both ways, Chucky RHF. You’re either a progressive who respects all progressive posters, namely ZOOEY, or you’re a stalking psycho who’s missing the fruits from his loops (credit: Wayne).

July 5th, 2008 at 4:44 pm

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

McWars Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Georgie told the Marines they couldn’t surround Tora Bora and capture Bin Laden, because he knew they’d never find him there. Not surprising, they’re also off limits from searching the guest room at Bush’s ranch. Well, make that a “long-term” guest room.

July 5th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

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

dbadass Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

what McWars said @92

July 5th, 2008 at 5:34 pm

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

Game of Life Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

bin Laden made a deal with the devil (chimpy.)

chimpy: I’m not concern with bin Laden.

July 5th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

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

Game of Life Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

backup Says:

It obviously wasn’t the intention, but probably the best thing that could have happened to spur conservation, innovation, and reduced emissions of CO2.

The silver lining of high oil prices is lower demand for oil.

Blame Bush for high oil prices, but embrace the higher prices as a catalyst for reduced dependancy and a cleaner environment.

It doesn’t seem to affect the rich like mcchimpy and his “freedom” plane, heck he didn’t know the price of gas. The high price only affects the poor; higher cost of food, higer cost disposable products etc. So with you limited thinking only the rich deserve fuel and food.

July 5th, 2008 at 5:55 pm

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

had enough Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Gregor Samsa Says:

The saddest part is that the Bush administration hasn’t had enough yet.

They have their eyes on Iran and I am afraid they won’t be happy until they have set the entire Middle East on fire.

Such is the Bush legacy: Incompetence, cronyism, disastrous policies, and one of the biggest military blunders.
July 5th, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Saddest of the sad is we are still just talking instead of acting. Not even doing this

July 5th, 2008 at 5:58 pm

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

barfly Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

backup Says:

barfly. my post #63 and yours #67 and you accuse me of lies of omission?

you might have more luck attacking a mirror.

you have helped me to see things more clearly:

that you’re clearly not someone capable of reason.

Take care, my friend. I’m not giving up on you. :)

Now, you don’t sound apologetic at all! That’s just you, trying to make a point? I must confess your wit escapes me, as does your point.

Am I going to have to re-tie that wormy carcass around your neck, again? Please, don’t make me do it, doggy. It hurts me more than it does you.

…well, not really, but the smell is godawful!

July 5th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

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

jay_severin_has_a_small_pen1s Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

The jokes on Bin Laden.

The US dollars we are paying with are worthless!

July 5th, 2008 at 6:34 pm

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

DaTruth Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Ah! Yes he roams free alright. After 9/11 Bush gave him Carte Blanche. A long time friend of the Bushes, tracing back to the Saudis and the Carlyle Group. He was told : “…knock down the WTC Towers and you can write your own ticket! We’ll find a secluded hideaway where you can plan future terrorist attacks in case we need another!” Thanks to Bin Laden Bush got “re-elected”. Bush Bin Laden Partnership 7yrs later it is so obvious.

July 5th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

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

pluege Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

jay_severin_has_a_small_pen1s Says:

The jokes on Bin Laden.
The US dollars we are paying with are worthless!

Jackass - what’s that $100 fill-up doing for you and all the other Americans paying into Exxon-Mobil instead of buying food and paying their mortgage? I guess bush really got one over on bin laden now didn’t he - shhheeessshhh, how stupid can you be.

July 5th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

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

ralph the wonder llama Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Uh… pluege? I think jay_severin_has_a_small_pen1s was being sarcastic.

Just a hunch.

July 5th, 2008 at 7:49 pm

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

WmPennsExperiment Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

uh oh first post on TP.
How do we get mainstream USA out of their Hummers long enough to understand what is really going on? Here’s a quote from OBL in the NY Timesfor god’s sake.

July 5th, 2008 at 8:02 pm

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

John Kerry Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Well, now thanks to the DO NOTHING Dem lead Congress your dreams are coming TRUE!!

Nice job libs!

July 5th, 2008 at 8:04 pm

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

Turfkiller Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Of course before Bush and the tax cuts that made this great American economy what it is today, $144 was a lot more money 10 years ago.

All these attacks on oil countries are really meant to drive up the price of oil high enough so the large oil companies can really teach us the real meaning of obscene profits.

As for the do nothing Dem congress… the previous Republican congresses would have done better doing nothing as everything they have done has been wrong.

July 5th, 2008 at 8:14 pm

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

Cats r Flyfishn Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Looks like Bin Lauden beat the boy Bush at his own game or is the boy Bush really a good buddy of Bin Lauden. Makes me wonder sometimes considering the fact that the boy Bush let Bin Lauden get away.

July 5th, 2008 at 8:30 pm

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

Cats r Flyfishn Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Apologies - should be Bin Laden and not Bin Lauden.

July 5th, 2008 at 8:31 pm

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

wizard2000 Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

The Republicans (and a few DLC Blue Dog Democrats) have definitely been a boon for Osama bin Laden and his cutthroat band of right-wing religious zealots.

Just as Prescott Bush, Georgie’s grandpa, had extensive dealings with Hitler’s Nazi Germany, the Bush family has had extensive dealings over prior decades with Saudi Arabian kings and princes, and no doubt, contact with the bin Laden family, which is a major player in Saudi politics.

So, on Aug. 6, 2001, a CIA officer briefs George W. Bush, reading from a presidential daily briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.”, after which Bush (and his national security team) promptly did nothing.

Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, sends right-wing terrorists under his command to launch a suicide attack inside the U.S., with 15 of the attackers being fellow Saudis (among the rest, not a single one was Iraqi).

Within hours of the 9/11 attacks, Bush (and his national security team) began moving Saudi nationals around inside the United States, gathering them at a staging site, from which they were flown out of the country…even as all other U.S. air carriers were grounded following the attacks.

Bush (and his crack”pot” national security team) initially want to attack Iraq, but with all the evidence pointing to Osama bin Laden and fellow Saudis being behind the 9/11 attacks, they have to deal first with bin Laden in Afghanistan, except that when Osama bin Laden was cornered at Tora Bora, the Bushites let bin Laden escape, allowing him to flee across the mountains into Pakistan.

Now, I read that Osama bin Laden in 1998 was wishing for $144-a-barrel oil prices.

In late 2000, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) snuck a provision into a bill that deregulated on-line energy trading, which opened the door to price-fixing by Enron’s on-line energy traders, under the command of the late Kenneth Lay. The West Coast of the U.S. bore the brunt of this Gramm/Lay/Enron scheme, suffering rolling blackouts in early 2001, with utility customers seeing tripled monthly utility bills.

Gramm’s little deregulatory provision, called the “Enron loophole,” was left wide open for years, with Republicans thwarting attempts by concerned Democrats to close it. Enter the oil futures speculators, especially the ones trading on-line.

After hearing this quote by Osama bin Laden from 1998, what would stop Osama bin Laden, or any of his terrorist sympathizers, including members of his own family in Saudi Arabia, or even among the Saudi royals, from pumping millions of dollars into oil futures speculation?

This would have the effect of driving up world oil barrel prices to $144-a-barrel (and gasoline prices at the pump in the U.S.), essentially making a self-fulfilling prophecy of what bin Laden said in 1998, with George W. Bush, Republicans and a few lapdog DLC Blue Dog Democrats looking the other way while our national security is severely undermined, if not on the brink of being a national disaster.

So, I agree. What Bush, the Republicans, and certain Blue Dog Democrats have done has only helped the hardcore, right-wing religious terrorists, like bin Laden and his zealous thugs, while causing harm to our nation that will be extremely difficult to fix. We all know now who the true traitors are…Bush, Cheney, Republicans and some Blue Dog Democrats.

July 5th, 2008 at 8:39 pm

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

dbadass Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Hi John Kerry:
I think I speak for all of us when I welcome you to stay and chat a bit. You always seems so rushed. Do you take milk with your tea? Help yourself to those silly little sandwiches…

July 5th, 2008 at 9:57 pm

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

MusicLover Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

“Mission Accomplished.”

July 5th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

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

ralph the wonder llama Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Maybe it’s just me but I’ve always felt bin Laden looked a lot like the dry cleaner that Jerry cajoles into admitting guilt for shrinking a shirt on Seinfeld.

I mean, with a fake beard and all that.

July 5th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

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

Brain From Planet Arous Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

BushLaden Productions with it’s main antagonist, Osama Bin Goldstein, and his many doubles and disguises. Oceania is never safe when Bin Goldstein broadcasts.

Brought to you live from a cave in the Stella Doro Mountains.

July 5th, 2008 at 11:32 pm

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

jasonabdon Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

HA! Worthless American dollars? They only accept the Euros.
Put that in your turdblossem pipe and smoke it.

July 5th, 2008 at 11:52 pm

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

Leftside Annie Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Ah, yes, Boy George and OBL = BFFs. They have been in cahoots for years, IMO. Cave in Pakistan, my ass. OBL is tucked up snug and secure in the bosom of his family in Saudi Arabia, courtesy of King George and his evil court.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!

July 6th, 2008 at 12:33 am

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

ForTruth Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Bin Laden is purely political. There were no plans to actually get him. It’s all a farce people.

Lets show some caves gettin’ blowed up!

Binny is a business partner to the Booosh Family.

July 6th, 2008 at 12:46 am

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

Bad Eye Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

John Kerry Says:

Well, now thanks to the DO NOTHING Dem lead Congress your dreams are coming TRUE!!

Nice job libs!

July 5th, 2008 at 8:04 pm

The Repubs led Congress for 12 years; what did they do to help prevent the current issue with oil prices? Hmmmm?

July 6th, 2008 at 8:15 am

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

Bozo The Neoclown Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

“John Kerry Says:

Well, now thanks to the DO NOTHING Dem lead Congress your dreams are coming TRUE!!

Nice job libs!”

Perhaps you would be better served taking a Civics course at your local junior college to avoid sounding like an utter moron on a regular basis. The Democrats do not have a clear cut majority in the Senate and your tin idol in the White House likes to use the power of the veto like it’s going out of style. Compound that with the obstructionist Waaahhhhpublicans in both houses (think back to them wetting their nappies over the G.I. bill) and you end up with a stalemate.

July 6th, 2008 at 8:24 am

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

Turfkiller Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

After looking at all of these comments it appears we have 2 choices:

1. The do nothing democrats
or
2. The do everything wrong republicans.
so

If you get a W2 at the end of the year, you almost have to vote democratic.
or
Why would anyone who gets a W2 vote republican?

July 6th, 2008 at 9:54 am

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

Alecto Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

backup Says:

barfly. Here’s your apology. (If that’s what makes you happy).

I’m sorry that you’re obsessed with discrediting me and not just my ideas. Makes it seem that you more than a little threatened.

But, it is complimentary. Thank you.

I’m not sure when the battle of ideas became a team sport, but you truly are a team player.

Go, team.

GOing a little o/t
See this is the Reichwing difference between fanaticism (religious) and science. Fanaticism relies on th personal opinion and “understanding” of the their world, and how this personal “understanding” should be EVERYONE’s understanding of the world, as compared to SCIENCE which shares the basic understanding of the world around us all, and shares the commonality of those experiences to build a framework of expectations of the world around us.

Just saying.

July 6th, 2008 at 11:44 am

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

Briseadh na Faire Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

Why would anyone who gets a W2 vote republican?

I. gays in the military

II. gay marriage

III. abortion

IV. Flag lapel pins

V. skin color

VI. “Christianity”

VII. “Death” tax

VIII. “terrorists”

IX. Tax cuts

X. Commander in Chiefiness

July 6th, 2008 at 11:56 am

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

Mugsy Says:
----------------------------------------------------------

George Bush, bin Laden’s best friend, let me count the ways:

1. Ignored the threat of al Qaeda before 9/11, allowing them to pull off their spectacular attack. :(

2. Helped bin Laden’s family flee the country in the days after 9/11.

3. Tora Bora.

4. Pulled U.S. troops, stationed in Saudi Arabia, out of the country (a stated reason OBL gave for attacking the U.S.).

5. Turned sights from completing the job in Afghanistan to focus on Iraq (even pulling troops out to go to Iraq) to overthrow a secular dictator that OBL himself sought to overthrow.

6. Bankrupted the U.S. economy, devalued the dollar, pushed the U.S. into a recession, and now has oil trading at over $144/barrel, exactly where OBL said it “should be” trading for.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: “Just whose side is George Bush on???”