Monday, June 20, 2005

CIA AND BIN LADEN

k

A Muslim FBI agent has to sue the government to get them to do the simplest thing: promote and train real experts in Muslim terrorism. He has to force them at legal gunpoint to do what should have been enthusiastically done in the first place instead of the white Christian buddy boy network promoting only themselves...geeze, once again, Dean is proven right since all these men doing this are also Republicans, too!

Now it is the CIA's turn.
The director of the CIA says he has an "excellent idea" where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but that the United States' respect for sovereign nations makes it more difficult to capture the al-Qaida chief.
Wow. A Bush toady mentions bin Missing Laden! I am not surprised that Goss knows where this Bush buddy is. After all, old bin L. is an old CIA tool.

Let's refresh our minds: when Bush decided to go after Saddam and went around along with Cheney, lying about Saddam, people asked him why he wasn't hunting down bin Laden. "He doesn't matter anymore, he might be in a cave with a door open or a cave with a door shut," Bush said rather cyrptically last year. Bin Laden did show up sans cave right before the election to remind us we are being led by an idiot. In a sane country, the media would have hammered Bush for not doing a thing about bin Laden instead, derailing the war on terror with the escapade in Iraq.

It didn't happen. The mass media flew to the idiot's defense and all trumpeted that this proof bin Laden is laughing at Bush is a sign that Bush is successful in this war. I was astonished at this blatant reversing of sentiment.

From the Washington Post:
So far in 2004, Bush has mentioned Osama bin Laden by name on eight occasions -- and he once answered a question about bin Laden without himself using bin Laden's name. By contrast, he has mentioned Saddam Hussein's name on about 125 occasions during the same period.)
Geeze, I wonder why? Heh. The media conspired with Bush to never ever mention bin Laden so they didn't. One time only, Bush slipped up and mentioned bin Laden without someone prompting him, breaking Rove's iron rule to never ever talk about black ops CIA agents:

Well, today, Goss knows where bin Laden is openly hiding. So what is happening?
"When you go to the question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play," Goss said. "We have to find a way to work in a conventional world in unconventional ways."

Asked whether that meant he knew where bin Laden is, Goss responded: "I have an excellent idea where he is. What's the next question?"
OK. This information opens many doors. The reporter couldn't ask about these caves with doors open or doors closed because of course, preserving bin Laden's freedom to move about and do black ops is very important.

The fact that old bin Laden hasn't attacked the USA again is telling. Bush didn't want an attack when he was running on the "I am strong and I am protecting America" platform. But now the fiction of the last election is revealed to all since Bush must be the world's most unpopular President in history outside of former Soviet states! Indeed, his victory was supposedly because he is a Taliban right wing Christian interested in turning back the clock but his raging unpopularity is due entirely to the fact that voters are angry that he is a Taliban right wing Christian! So what happened eight months ago? Hmmm.

Meanwhile, the NYT has an article today about the CIA:
A STRIKING number of readers have denounced The New York Times for describing the Central Intelligence Agency's covert air operations for transporting suspected terrorists in a Page 1 article on May 31.

The 2,900-word article focused on a C.I.A.-affiliated company, Aero Contractors Ltd., whose planes are often used when the agency wants to grab a suspected member of Al Qaeda overseas and deliver him to interrogators in another country. The legal term for this is rendition, and the practical result is interrogation in a country with looser rules on what constitutes torture. Given the heated public debate over the rendition program, the article's detailed look at the C.I.A. air operations was especially controversial.
This is from the Ombudsman of the NYT. He evidently got freeped by the right and is patiently explaining to them why the NYT isn't keeping secret all the Geneva Convention violations our rulers are indulging in.
"Perhaps it's the result of my having worked as a correspondent in the Soviet Union for a few years, but I think there's a strong case that excessive government secrecy leads to waste and abuse, and that an aggressive press improves the effectiveness of intelligence agencies in the long run. In this case, if reporters using public information can penetrate these air operations, I suspect foreign intelligence services, or Al Qaeda operatives, would have little difficulty doing so. Our story was based on information from public F.A.A. and corporate records and F.A.A. flight plan data available to all from commercial vendors. Before our story was published, the tail numbers, and photographs, of several of the rendition planes could be found easily via a Google search on the Web.

"In addition, a summary of the planned story was provided to the C.I.A. several days prior to publication, and no request was made to withhold any of its contents.
Secrecy is also the way governments become monsters because they can kidnap and torture and kill anyone they want with no trials. Which takes us back to the ongoing flap over critics calling our gulag a gulag and not a goolash: we are aping the Soviet Union in way too many ways now.

This can no longer be evaded. We hold scores of people prisoner who are charged with nothing and who have evidently done nothing and who are nothing but human chattle in our war against terror which seems to be conducted in the most infantile, stone stupid way possible. It is easy to arrest humans at night an torture them. This is the stupidest but most satisfying way to run things. Takes zero skill and no intelligence. Grab people and beat them up is what stupid bullies do.

Why is the CIA which is supposed to be filled with smart people who can think things through being run by stupid bullies who think this gives them a green light to be brutal? Well, it seems the American people in general want the "bully boy" short cut to popularity. This road to destruction, making enemies faster than one can beat them up, always ends badly. A person with intelligence can point this out only our bully boys in the media and in the government will beat up anyone pointing this out, witness the campaign to destroy Congressman Durbin!

If the propaganda arm of the CIA/GOP manages to force Durbin to "apologize" and take back his accurate remarks, this won't change a thing in the real world. Our control of Muslim lands continues to slip, we continue to go deeper into debt with no end, the destruction of our own country continues, note that Bush has slashed funds to wire schools and provide them with modern computers!--Medicaid is being cut, all sorts of things are being cut that make our lives better and stronger!--all so we can "fight terror" in what has to be the dumbest way imaginable.
|

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home