MY EXCHANGE WITH OSAMA

This is a mock conversation I have with the O.B.L. using direct quotes from his new video released on Arab television/terrorist network Al Jazeera. Some of these sound familiar. Michael Moore talking points for example. (When a mass murderer starts quoting you-is that good?)


OSAMA: To the American people, my talk to you is about the best way to avoid another Manhattan, about the war, its reasons and its consequences .. I tell you: Security is an important element of human life, and free people do not give up their security. Unlike what Bush says that we hate freedom, let him tell us why didn't we attack Sweden, for example?

TIM: Let me stop you there. I will let you finish but it's pretty clear to anyone over 10 yrs old why you chose the United States to attack instead of Sweden and that was your mistake. I guarantee you. Sweden-that was a good one.

OSAMA: It is known that those who hate freedom do not have dignified souls, like those of the 19 blessed ones. We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation.

TIM: Define "we." The women of Afghanistan weren't free until they kicked your sorry ass out. Is it dignified to treat women as cattle? They were dying under the Taliban because they couldn't see a male doctor and women weren't allowed to be doctors-now they can vote. That must irk you.

OSAMA: We did not find it difficult to deal with Bush and his administration, because it is similar to regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents. We have a long experience with them. Both types include many who are full of arrogance and greed.
This resemblance became clear in the Bush the father's visits to the region. ... He wound up being impressed by the royal and military regimes and envied them for staying decades in their positions and embezzling the nation's money with no supervision.

TIM: What about the sons of oil millionaires? As I recall your family was one of the first four to start pumping billions out of Saudi Arabia before you of course were kicked out of the country. Yes young Osama was a very privileged man, economics degree and all. I find it funny that you prattle on about military regimes who embezzle money with no supervision and then suggest that Prez. Bush's father was fond of them. Thanks to George H.W. Bush Saddam Hussein wasn't able to extend his lawlessness to Kuwait and its oil. Thanks to George W. Bush, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime, both operating with little supervision and against the interests of its people, have been destroyed. Two free nations are emerging. By the way were you behind the anthrax or is that home grown loonies?

OSAMA: He passed on tyranny and oppression to his son, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the pretext of fighting terror. Bush the father did well in placing his sons as governors and did not forget to pass on the expertise in fraud from the leaders of the (Mideast) region to Florida to use it in critical moments.

TIM: So where ever you are your getting the New York Times. That should be the a new Kerry slogan "Bin Laden's against the Patriot Act too!" What act did the Taliban sign before they decided to punish women violently for not wearing burkas? And your observation about the 2000 election. I had no idea you were so concerned with democracy. I would think you would be pleased with the changes in the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan. How exactly is Al Qaeda run. Elections? Campaigns? Checks and Balances?

OSAMA: It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American armed forces would leave 50,000 of his citizens in the two towers to face these horrors alone.
It appeared to him (Bush) that a little girl's talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thank God.

TIM: Well many things didn't occur to you-starting with your ass whooping in Afghanistan followed by the elections in that country. In our country our leaders read to small children in schools or-things you could have spent your millions building in Afghanistan in lieu of terrorist training camps. Our leaders do such things instead of say... raping women and killing them. Sometimes the story is about a goat. Your primary method of travel is a goat. President Bush was waiting while the secured his plane. Who's the fool? By the way the Michael Moore talking points aren't too impressive coming from a supposed "terrorist mastermind."Your no Hitler! But you are enemy # 1 and will be found. I assure you and apologize for the wait.

OSAMA: Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands. Any state that does not mess with our security has naturally guaranteed its own security.

TIM: Well don't you wish. In fact we plan to mess with your security big time. You are a vile human being whose death network is crumbling. There is no peace deal. You are responsible for the deaths of 3,000 fellow countrymen. Anything you had to say was said then. Your laughable attempt at humanizing yourself is repulsive. See ya soon.

NEW BIN LADEN TAPE SAYS BUSH IS CORRUPT, DEMOCRATS AGREE

Osama is Back with Democratic National Committee talking points like "Bush misled the country." Tomorrow I will post my election wrap up focusing on this point. To check out the Bin Laden video you can go to www.drudgereport.com or www.newsmax.com

IT'S REAL-C.I.A. and F.B.I. AUTHENTICATE TAPE

The drudge report is reporting that ABC news has withheld 15 minutes of the terror tape they obtained from the C.I.A. (I was just wondering by the way-Who the f*** does ABC news think it is?) The withheld parts contain warnings about Bush and Cheney and presumably what will happen if we don't elect them. ABC news has decided not to air the tape before the election. ABC investigative reporter Brian Ross said in the Wasington Post (www.washingtonpost.com) that ABC wasn't ready to air something that's "quite frightening." This from a network that airs "The View." ABC isn't airing the video because they fear it could help Bush and Cheney get reelected. We already have ABC news political director Mark Halperin saying Kerry's distortions aren't "central to his efforts to win." The flipside being Bush distorts because he has to, Kerry does it because it's popular. Biased? Yes, quite cleary. The American people have a right to know that the terrorists are employing a technique on the U.S. that has been used effectively in other countries: trying to influence out election cycle. There is a war going on. Why won't ABC let the public in on it?

"THE STREETS WILL RUN WITH BLOOD" NEW AL QAEDA THREAT IN U.S.

This is a report filed by Matt Drudge. The C.I.A. has been unable to authenticate the tape. A disturbing reminder that, as Christopher Hitchens said: "We can talk about bring our boys home but their boys are here!"


XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED OCT 27, 2004 12:42:01 ET XXXXX ABCNEWS HOLDS TERROR WARNING TAPE**Exclusive**In the last week before the election, ABCNEWS is holding a videotaped message from a purported al Qaeda terrorist warning of a new attack on America, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The terrorist claims on tape the next attack will dwarf 9/11. "The streets will run with blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will be unable to count the number of the dead. Further claims: America has brought this on itself for electing George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war on Al Qaeda. ABCNEWS strongly denies holding the tape back from broadcast over political concerns during the last days of the election.The CIA is analyzing the tape, a top federal source tells the DRUDGE REPORT.ABCNEWS obtained the tape from a source in Waziristan, Pakistan over the weekend, sources tells DRUDGE. "We have been working 24 hours a day trying to authenticate [the tape]," a senior ABCNEWS source said Wednesday morning, dismissing a claim that ABC was planning to air portions of the video during Monday's WORLD NEWS TONIGHT.The terrorist's face is concealed by a headdress, and he speaks in an American accent, making it difficult to identify the individual. US intelligence officials believe the man on tape may be Adam Gadhan - aka Adam Pearlman, a California native who was highlighted by the FBI in May as an individual most likely to be involved in or have knowledge of the next al Qaeda attacks.According to the FBI, Gadahn, 25, attended al-Qaida training camps and served as an al-Qaida translator.The disturbing tape runs an hour -- the man simply identifies himself as 'Assam the American.'

What do I stand for? I'll get back to you-Have you heard my accent!

"Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don't know that she's ever had a real job I mean, since she's been grown up. So her experience and her validation comes from important things, but different things. And I'm older, and my validation of what I do and what I believe and my experience is a little bit bigger because I'm older, and I've had different experiences. And it's not a criticism of her. It's just, you know, what life is about." -Teresa Heinz Kerry to a reporter after being asked how she would be different from Laura Bush.
HMMMMMM. Andrew Sullivan(www.andrewsullivan.com) has this one right when he proclaimed "Shut Her Up!"
To me this provides an insight into Teresa's psyche. Being a mother, teacher, and librarian(as the fist lady has) constitutes not having a "real job." Teresa issued an apology(probably written for her) saying how important teaching was, blah blah blah, how sorry she was that she forgot Laura worked,blah blah blah, and how important being a mother is, blah. No one believes the apology is sincere. Laura Bush said one wasn't necessary. Note to Teresa: Thats class. Class isn't just about how large of an estate someone controls-it's about being above the crap tossed around in a presidential campaign. Apparently a "real job" and "experience" is only acquired if you A.) marry a billionaire B.) after he dies, decide how his money is to be spent, including philanthropic causes like your current husbands presidential campaign! By the way all you stay at home moms-or as Teresa would call you "fat lazy baby machines"-you must leave your kids behind and immediately marry a billionaire just to say you have a "real job."
This is like when John Edwards told a group of people in a town hall meeting when asked where he could defeat the president: "Talking like this-the South." HMMMM. That I guess would be the first "Vote for Me because I Talk Like You," platform. This shows the contempt that some elite politicians have for regular people. John Edwards thinks he can fake out the South-"I don't believe what you believe-but I talk like you!" Abortion for 12 yr olds-Sure-but have you heard my accent! Medical Liability Reform-no chance-but my dad worked in a mill! It's part of the strategy that regular people are too dumb to get policy- so just smile at em. The South is vehemently opposed to everything Edwards supports: Abortion, higher taxes, more sex ed in schools,the right to sue for no reason whatsoever, and abolishing God from the public square. However Edwards has got a plan for that too-"Look at my beautiful children!" Edwards wife has recently accused the Cheney's of being ashamed of their daughter. To which I would respond-We love Mary Cheney and her lesbianism, the better question Mrs. Edwards is: Why aren't you ashamed of your husband? In fact Mary Cheney is one of the many people I would vote for over John Edwards. Other names from the list include-Kim Jong Ill, Yasser Arafat, Paul Krugman, etc. In fact there are very few people I would not vote for over John Edwards/John Kerry ticket. They include the Osama Bin Laden/Saddam Hussein ticket-that's pretty much it!

The shameless pandering and patronizing the Dems do down South is part of the bait and switch method. John Kerry opposed everything Reagan did and didn't support the 1st Gulf War-but he served in Vietnam God Dammit! Oh okay, we're sorry-didn't realize that. Parade the families of the candidates around and pretend the Democrats haven't lead the abortion charge. Talk about your father who worked in a mill, then don't explain why you constantly choose the needs of wealthy trial lawyers over poor Americans without health insurance. Talk about "faith" then ban God in public, unless it's Allah. (See the NY city public school system) Talk about the rights of states to deal with gay marriage differently(which I agree with) but only to disguise the fact that you don't support states rights when it comes to education, abortion, or gun control. And if your not exactly on the ticket, just married to someone who is, you can always insult mothers and teachers-then claim to have forgotten the fact that mothering and teaching are jobs in a fake "apology." Even tho you may hate what we stand for-Did you know I grew up in Africa?

Do You want to be a Muslim?

I think examining our failures is necessary, so long as we also focus on the progress we have made and the victories that we have won over slavery, totalitarianism, fascism, communism, and now terrorism. Reveling in the mistakes our ancestors may have made seems to be counter productive in its very nature. If I didn’t loath conspiracy theorists I might suggest that the obsession with our past mistakes is designed to distract attention from our present problem which is largely shaping up to be the fact that a good many lunatics want us dead. The pro longed discussion of any other topic seems infantile and petty when weighed against the consequences of loosing clarity in this new world where boeing planes are missiles. What has been made absolutely clear on 9/11 and in the days after was that terrorists were playing for keeps. Their goal was and remains to this day the absolute destruction of the western world. I think the problem with this goal is that somehow people can’t grasp it. That, in a way, says a good thing about our culture. We cannot comprehend why people would be that evil. We can’t wrap our heads around the idea that people slaughtered innocent civilians to meet virgins in Heaven. We couldn’t understand the intense hatred that would justify such a belief. It is an inhuman thought process that reaches such a conclusion and a completely disturbing rationale for what happened that day. Unfortunately our inability to conceive of this motive effectively sends us on our way searching for another. This is when the “Why do they hate us,” crowd begins to preach about Muslim fundamentalists having specific grievances about U.S. Mid East policy: They don’t like our support of Israel. They don’t like our troop presence in Saudi Arabia. They don’t like any American intervention in the Middle East of any kind. They seek, as characterized by President Bush, “America’s retreat from the world.” Well lets take a look at the specific grievances anyway just to make sure there not reasonable.
Osama’s biggest pet peeve is the American troop presence in Saudi Arabia, which is part and parcel of his abhorrence for the U.S. Saudi relationship. Osama, in his usual charming fashion, called for jihad to “expel the infidels from the holy land.” His belief that infidels, or his affectionate name for non fundamentalist Muslims, must not be permitted in the land of Mecca and Medina-Islam’s two holist sites- isn’t because he doesn’t like our tax policy. It’s because he believes the western world is the source of all evil in the world, and its association with the House of Saud, further illustrates its intention to corrupt Islamic regimes throughout the world. Well, what exactly is America corrupting in Saudi Arabia? Are we stealing the oil? Not by the looks of the Saudi palaces. It looks as if some members of Saudi society have been well compensated by America’s thirst for petroleum. Unfortunately the benefits have only been financial, and unevenly distributed. A great many Saudi’s live in poverty while a decadent class of royalty builds palaces. The impoverished public has become radicalized against America due to state sponsored religious education that blames the West for everything that doesn’t get blamed on Jews. Not surprisingly, the oppressed and angry Saudi Arabians, desperate to blame someone for their lot in life, find the West to be a fitting culprit. It’s the “Great Satan’s” fault. We have a troop presence in Japan and Germany, and have for years. Yet radical Japanese and German groups haven’t demanded we be expelled. This is an important distinction because it gets to the heart of whether there is anything specific American troops are doing in Saudi Arabia that bothers Bin Laden, or is it simply the fact that they are there. This can be seen in the larger context of “Do they hate us for who we are or because we are.” I’m afraid countless evidence points to the latter. Justification for Bin Ladens ‘objection to a U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia can only be offered by those who agree with his characterization of the U.S. as a whole. If the U.S. is indeed the source of the entire world’s evil, as the title “Great Satan” would suggest, than a troop presence would be a troublesome indication of ill intentioned political maneuvering. However to those infidels like me, who see Osama for what he is-Hitler with a turban; the opposition to the U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia, is indistinguishable from his other opinions about where geographically “infidels” should be permitted to go.
The second specific grievance the nihilists have is a widespread disapproval of U.S. support for Israel. They argue that the U.S. supplies Israel with weaponry and funding to commit acts of terrorism. The Israeli-Palestinian crisis has been the catalyst for thousands of Palestinian homicide bombers to blow themselves up in Israeli disco Tec’s on teen night. Israel has responded with, at times, devastating military force that has killed Palestinian civilians. Long sordid story short: the conflict is a mess in which America has tried to strike a balance, and hasn’t succeeded in doing that. And rightly so, we should support Israel; not in everything it does, but in its right to exist as a free nation. I’m waiting for the Palestinians to convince me that they recognize Israel’s right to exist. We have a historic responsibility to support democracy, and Israel-the only democracy in neighborhood that favors totalitarianism, is the recipient of not only our aid but also our opinion. President Bush is the first American president to call for a Palestinian state. He is vocal on Israeli actions that he feels might hurt the war on terror. In fact, Israel complains that we restrain them from fighting terrorism when we oppose massive military strikes or bulldozing settlements in the West Bank. Israel has lived with terrorism for a long time, and is a great example of what it means to “steel yourself” to terror. Essentially “steel yourself” means to toughen up. Israel has not been correct in every response to terrorism and at times has used excessive force, but they have also been experiencing daily attacks for years, and are tired of seeing their children die. It is a perplexing situation, especially when Israel is being confronted with a hatred so deeply imbedded in Muslim society. Saddam Hussein’s Baath party was started in Syria and inspired by some of Hitler’s most effective Nazi propaganda. Theatres in Egypt were going to show the Passion because it would inflame hatred against Jews. Saudi Arabian clerics have expressed (on state sponsored television) that the recent attacks in the kingdom are the result of “the Zionists,” and that Islam permits praying for the destruction of Christians and Jews. A myth that the Jews who had been working at the world trade center had been warned not to go into work that day was widely circulated in the Arab media. Some media outlets even went as far as to say that Israeli intelligence was responsible for the attack. So the Jews get the blame for 9/11, killing Christ, conspiring with the Great Satan to oppress Arabs, allowing women to drive and hold elected office, and generally exemplifying the qualities of an infidel. The hatred for America is partly because; the crazy Muslims like Bin Laden think that U.S. foreign policy is run by the Jews, and therefore is specifically designed to oppress Muslims. That’s not a grievance, that’s insanity. Anyone who subscribes to that idea that if America abandoned Israel: Al Qaeda would play nice, is worse than wrong, they’re stupid.
Al Qaeda’s specific grievances seem to be more of a non specific hatred of anything Western. They also might like us more if we cloaked our women, enforced a fundamental interpretation of the Koran by force, and renounced the evil of technology (meaning showers) -any takers? Their disagreements with U.S. policy grow out of a willful ignorance that is employed to mask the fact that people like Osama Bin Laden, a multi millionaire with a degree in economics-which he uses to mastermind terror attacks from a cave-are the real problem with the Middle East. Osama was a millionaire. It’s not about money. He had a degree in Economics. It’s not about education. His family was connected. He had opportunity. What motivated him to reject the luxurious life of a Saudi business man? What drove him to seek refuge in the darkest corners of the earth? What effectively turned him evil? What motivates countless young men and women with futures to sacrifice themselves for the cause of Islamic extremism? Liberals have gotten the war on terror wrong, for the same reason that they got the cold war wrong. This isn’t about better health care. This is much deeper. The phrases good and evil are attacked for geopolitical oversimplifications, but overcomplicating someone’s motives in attempts to understand them is dangerous.
This wasn’t a hunger strike to promote human rights. This was a vicious attack carried out by people who felt that they were doing God’s work. The terrorists didn’t come with a list of demands. As NY Times columnist Tom Freidman said, “Their act was their demand.” Their goal was not to foster an understanding of political injustice in the world. Their goal was to destroy symbols of American prosperity, thousands of lives, and send the rest of us cowering in fear. Not exactly the best way to prove a point, if indeed there was a point. What could they have hoped to achieve from 9/11 except America’s destruction? Want to make them happy? Keep up the Michael Moore crap about us starting this. They must love that.

Stem Cells Cure Terrorism?

WW III is well underway, and interestingly enough stem cells won’t be much help. Islamic militants are be-heading any foreign individual working to stabilize Iraq in the hopes of persuading that individuals country of origin to agree to the terrorist’s demands and remove troops from Iraq. The disturbing images of captive men screaming for their lives broadcast across the world are horrifying to any civilized person. It should only to serve to deepen our understanding of the enemy we face, and make us want to kill them. So its not, how shall we say, “out of character” for liberals to blame George W. Bush. They think invading Iraq was our mistake, primarily because it has angered the terrorists, also the fact that Saddam didn’t have stockpiles of weapons that John Kerry and Bill Clinton thought he did.
So far, the tactic that the terrorists are employing has only worked on two countries: the Philippines and Spain. After a tape of a Philippine man pleading for his life came over the airwaves of that country, their government removed all troops from Iraq. The man was released. The man’s mother thanked the terrorists for not harming her son. Apparently the fact that her son was kidnapped, tortured, and threatened with decapitation deserved a Hallmark card because instead of killing her son, the terrorists succeeded in forcing her nation’s foreign policy to be subservient to the will of Allah. After the bombing of the Madrid train station by Al Qaeda, the public of Spain elected a socialist government that removed all troops from Iraq. In the papers of Spain the bombing was blamed on the Iraq war. By confronting Saddam Hussein, the USA had stirred up trouble in the usually benign and peaceful Middle East. Thus the cowboy Americans were once again creating “new enemies” like the fundamentalists in Iran and Syria who were celebrating the 4th of July and singing the star spangled banner right up until the Iraq war when they “started” to hate us. These two victories emboldened Al Qaeda, which is excited at using this new method of political terror.
In fact the mentality of surrender is alive and well in every corner of the world, except unfortunately the Middle East. Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Qaeda, Ansar al Islam, etc are undaunted by violence, hardship, and chaos. They call it Tuesday. They aren’t dissuaded by temporary setbacks. They are devastatingly patient and diabolically committed to their murderous work. They aren’t concerned with the rise and fall of public opinion for their acts of genocide, nor do they put much stock in the Geneva Convention. They welcome death. They live by war. It is an honor to be “martyred” or even better to “martyr” oneself taking as many people with you as possible.
Terrorists watch missiles light up the sky over Baghdad like its “Disney on Ice” steadfast in their course of action, never reconsidering their maniacal behavior, or the goal it’s supposed to achieve. The Iraq war is their Super Bowl, where they have a chance to defeat the Great Satan, proving Bin Laden’s theory. The one formulated after Clinton withdrew troops from Rwanda following our soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu .The theory is that the U.S. is a “paper tiger” that will fold if things get tough. Bin Laden & Company believes that any superpower is beatable after they were able to force the Soviets to retreat (with help from the U.S.) from Afghanistan in the 1980’s. That victory gave the terrorists do have a sick savvy about them. If they can beat the United States, they can pretty much waltz through Europe taking power unopposed.
Devotees of the Bin Laden doctrine equate surrender with death. Terrorists may be lacking in sanity, perspective, and proper hygiene but one thing they have going for them is an unwavering resolve to kill anyone who doesn’t subscribe to a fundamentalist version of Islam. Why? As sick as it is, they believe in what they are fighting for. The question is: do we?
With the political season upon us, some bad intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs, and a political party that has taken every opportunity to de-legitimize a war while it’s being fought(Democrats supported the Iraq war only long enough to send troops into battle) Americans should remember that we’re still at war. The Farenheight 9/11 crowd, who have divorced themselves from all logical thought long ago, keep blathering about Bush lying about the weapons. That charge has no merit since the C.I.A., Britain’s M.I.6, and Russia’s intelligence agency all told Bush that Saddam had weapons. As Bill O’Reilly pointed while debating Michael Moore, “Acting on bad information isn’t a lie, it’s a mistake.” Moore refused to see that; more evidence of the rabid dog theory.
The mistake was the intelligence failure, not the war. Characterizing the liberation of a country as a “mistake” seems trivial. Saddam is gone. He won’t be funding Palestinian suicide bombers, or gassing the Kurds, or aiding Al Qaeda (You don’t think so-read the 9/11 Commissions report.) The people of Iraq are building a democracy against tremendous odds in a part of the world that could use one. Democrats will only concede that a free Iraq will be a devastating blow to terrorism with the cynical refrain “Yeah if it works.” Well that’s the plan. The Iraq people want democracy run by Iraqi’s, and that’s what they’ve got. 1000 American lives have been lost in that effort. Surrender isn’t an option. The paper tiger isn’t purring.

This looks like "evidence" to me.

This is some of the "evidence" that Democrats keep insisting doesn't exist with regard to Saddam and Al Qaeda: An article I wrote about an event at nassau.

Iraq was a threat, said Laurie Mylroie; President of the Washington think tank Information for Democracy and the author of Study of Revenge and Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf with New York Times reporter Judith Miller, while speaking at Nassau Community College in October of 2002.
Mylroie’s contention is that in the years following the Gulf War and the passing of U.N. resolution 687 (which called for Iraq to declare all the components of its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs within 105 days so they could be destroyed by inspectors and sanctions could be lifted) Saddam Hussein’s regime has been actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorism directed at the United States. “A major mistake was made in the 90’s that lead to the events of 9/11,” said a mournful Mylroie before laying out the case that Iraq was complicit in several terrorist attacks directed at the U.S. including the first world trade center bombing and 9/11.
Mylroie began her presentation with a brief history of the aftermath of Desert Storm, recounting Saddam’s refusal to comply with the “core element” of the 1991 cease fire agreement resolution 687: declaring his nuclear, biological, and chemical materials so inspectors could destroy them. Instead Hussein kicked inspectors out, and thus sanctions weren’t lifted. As a Middle East advisor to Bill Clinton’s campaign in 92 and a critic of his handling of terrorism once in office, Mylroie explained that the prevailing wisdom at that time was that lifting sanctions against Iraq would put Saddam “in the weapons business.” Therefore the foreign policy intelligencia believed sanctions would effectively contain the danger that Iraq posed to the U.S. In August 1995 Khamil Hussein, Saddam’s stepson, defected and informed on the regime to U.S. authorities. Khamil claimed he supervised Iraq’s unconventional weapons program. He maintained that Iraq had “huge amounts” of unconventional weapons banned by U.N., including chemical agents like VX gas. This came a year after Iraq admitted to having anthrax, synthesized from a biological program intended for “peaceful purposes.” Other “stunning revelations” that were revealed from Khamils’ defection included that Iraq had 25 scud missiles with biological warheads strategically pointed to be fired at Israel and Saudi Arabia if the regime fell. She spends less time on the weapons, possibly because before the Iraq war the belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was widely held as a “given.” Her most compelling argument for deposing Saddam is that Iraq has attacked the United States several times, “hiding behind” the veil of Islamic militancy. She contends these attacks have resulted in the death of thousands of Americans, but have been wrongly attributed to terrorist networks operating independently of state sponsorship.
“But The Gulf War never really ended. The two phenomena the ongoing war with Iraq and the spread of Islamic militancy existed at the same time, the 1990s, and in the same space, the Sunni Muslim Middle East. Did they merge?” Mylroie asks. This question frames her thesis that Iraq has been behind both world trade center attacks. In fact the Middle East expert said “Iraq was almost certainly directly involved in those attacks. After 1996, when Osama bin Laden moved from Sudan to Afghanistan, Iraqi intelligence became an integral part of Al Qaeda, or so it would seem.” Mylroie, who holds a doctorate in political science from Harvard, lays out the evidence of the Iraq-Al Qaeda link like a professor “Since September 11, 2001, American authorities have learned a great deal more about Al Qaeda. As they now understand, a clan lies at the heart of the major acts of Islamic terrorism directed against America from the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center though the September 11 strikes. That family consists of the person known as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and a number of his "nephews." So far, five such individuals have been publicly named, and there are probably more. Mohammed is the recognized mastermind of the September 11 attacks…The most well-known of Mohammed's supposed nephews is Ramzi Yousef, who is the recognized mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.” She insists this connection isn’t meaningless; it reveals the extent of Iraqi involvement in terrorism. “The individuals in this "family" are all Baluch, a Sunni Muslim people who live in Eastern Iran and Western Pakistan…Saddam Hussein's intelligence apparatus had deep and well-established ties with the Baluch on both sides of the Iranian-Pakistani border…This whole "family" of terrorist masterminds is, quite arguably, a construction of Iraqi intelligence: While Iraq occupied Kuwait, Iraqi intelligence tampered with Kuwait's files to create legends for elements of its Baluch network. That is why these people appear to be a family,” explained Mylroie with the degree of absolute certainty that had been a theme of her lecture.
Mylroie insists that the Washington bureaucracy has been blind to any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. She pontificates that a resistance to acknowledge mistakes, inarguably leaving Saddam in power after the Gulf war, has been partially to blame. Also she believes the Clinton administration “spun America’s terrorist problem” while ignoring Iraqi ties to militant Islam and believing that terrorist networks like Al Qaeda which are headed by fundamentalists like Osama wouldn’t be linked with Saddam Hussein because he is a secularist. She notes that differences can always be worked out in the interest of a common enemy. She concludes the secular vs. religious argument isn’t definitive reason to dismiss a possible connection. Mylroie offers searing indictments of those in the political community who believe that terrorists could be capable of such devastating attacks without some form of state backing. That notion, she says, is “wishful thinking.” She concluded confidently by stating “If the administration were to lay out all the evidence it has linking Iraq to al Qaeda, including the 9/11 attacks, it could also explain that the U.S. has no choice but to finish off Saddam — he is already at war with us.” Mylroie has been steadfast in sticking by her assessment, even after the 9/11 comissions’ report that Iraq and Al Qaeda didn’t collaborate in 9/11. In an article in the New York Sun she wrote “The claim of the 9/11 commission that "no credible" evidence exists linking Iraq to Al Qaeda's assaults on America, including the attack of September 11, 2001, is itself not credible.” She is resolute in her analysis and never in doubt and her presentation is provoking because it deals with an issue that has been largely dismissed by the press. Laurie Mylroie certainly isn’t letting this story go.

WE REPORT. YOU EXTORT.

"Today is the worst day of my life," said a somber Bill O'Reilly, the host of the most watched cable news program "The O'Reilly Factor." O'Reilly and FoxNews were filing a countersuit for extortion in response to a purported request for 60 million that came from Andrea Mackris, a fox producer, who is suing O'Reilly for sexual harassment. Mackris claims she has tapes of the lewd conversations she shared with the anchor, over dinner and the telephone. After supposedly trying to extort 60 mil from Bill, he said "enough is enough." He went on Live with Regis&Kelly to confess that he is fully aware that he "might go down" as a result of his decision to file suit(and publicize the incident) but that he had to take a stand regardless of the way it affects his career. "It's who I am," said FoxNews' main event. More on this story as the facts become clear. One thing that is quite clear tho: It's gonna be a story.

MEDIA BIAS TIME!

Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004 (I got this from www.drudgereport.com)
This is a memo obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT from ABCNEWS political director Mark Halperin where an average person on LSD would notice he was asking his staff to take sides. You Decide.


It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite graveI do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.

War Update
In the season of political debates, 30 second attack ads that play fast and loose with the truth, and analytical observations from the self appointed gaurdians of political discourse-the pundit class, it is easy to forget the cold hard truth of the matter: we are at war. Suprisingly, especially for fans of cable news, this war is not between Republicans and Democrats. It is a monumental conflict between those who value freedom and human rights and those who contort the religion of Islam to justify facism, genocide, and terrorism. In case one feels that the terms "facism" "genocide" and "terrorism" overstate the argument, I would direct you to familiarize yourself with the situation in Sudan (which Sec. of State Powell has called "genocide"), the routine discoveries of mass graves in Iraq that were filled with regime dissidents and bodies of women and children or Saddam's childrens prison where Iraqi children whose parents were enemies of the Baath party were imprisoned. In the future I will post links to all these sources, but for now it will have to suffice to say that the most cursory research into any of these subjects will validate my claims and in large part my terminology. The term "facism" shouldn't be used lighty. For example, inarguably, the two most egregious examples of facism in the last century have been Adolf Hitler's rise to power and Michael Bloomberg banning smoking in the bars and restuarants of New York City. Hitler, much like his present counterparts in the Muslim world, oppressed and exterminated people that didn't meet certain criteria. For Hitler, it was all those not of the Aryan race. For the Islamofacists it is those who don't subscribe to a fundamentalist version of Islam or "infidels," as Usama charmingly refers to us. For Michael Bloomberg-it is the smokers. The disturbing images of be-heading from Iraq should serve to deepen our understanding of the enemy we face and shape our perspective on this war on terrorism that we must win. Even those who call for retreat and defeat in Iraq do not advocate abandoning the war on terror on the whole. Often the argument made is that the resources being used in Iraq could've and should've been used to locate bin Laden(assuming that he's not dead) and "finish the job in Afghanistan." Afghan elections went off without major violence to derail them this past week. However, due to erasable ink, 14 of the candidates are challenging the results. The headline shoud've been " Afghan elections: Just Like Palm Beach." The election itself was an encouraging sign but reports that the Taliban, with the help of local warlords, have regained control of certain parts of the country cannot be dismissed. I will offer detailed analysis of both military efforts in the next post. This introductory screed is meant to frame, in general terms, the necessity of an honest debate and exchange of ideas without loosing clarity about this war-which we all own now. It's not Donald Rumsfeld's war. It is our friends who are dying and our tax dollars financing this. I think it's time to pay attention to more than 30 sec. ads.This is a reality to which the vigorous debate of stem cell reseach should understandably take a back seat. Elections should undoubtedly be a referendum on the leadership of the administration in power, the qualifications of the challenger, and the issues of the day( whether they be stem cell research, tax cuts, education, etc.) but they shoudn't erode our national unity or distract us from our mission.