posted October 29, 2004 11:23 PM              

He isn't dead of kidney failure or rotting in a cave somewhere in the Hindu Kush. He wasn't smoked out of his hole, and he in no way appeared to be on the run. The images broadcast on every American television station in the last few hours showed a man apparently in good health, clothed in traditional white and wrapped in a golden robe. His hands were steady and his voice was clear. From all appearances, Osama bin Laden is tanned, rested and ready.

In as much as it is possible for a wanted mass murderer to have a conversation with the American public, this is what we are seeing tonight. Osama bin Laden directed his message not at the Muslim world, not at the American government, but at the people gearing up to vote for a President on Tuesday. "You American people, my speech to you is the best way to avoid another conflict about the war and its reasons and results," said bin Laden. A lot of people thought the capture of bin Laden would be the 'October Surprise' to affect the vote. Instead, we got, hard as it is to believe, an election editorial from Osama, who remains alive and free. As far as October surprises go, this one is completely off-the-grid strange.

For the first time, bin Laden openly took responsibility for the attacks of September 11. "We fought you because we are free...and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security, we undermine yours," he said. "To the U.S. people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster. I tell you: Security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security."

Bin Laden attempted to explain his reasons for the 9/11 attacks, stating that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 lit his homicidal fuse. "I will tell you the reasons behind these incidents," he said. "I will be honest with you on the moment when the decision was taken. We never thought of hitting the towers. But after we were so fed up, and we saw the oppression of the American-Israeli coalition on our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind and the incidents that really touched me directly goes back to 1982:. When the US permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon with the assistance of the 6th fleet. In these hard moments, it occurred to me so many meanings I can't explain, but it resulted in a general feeling of rejecting oppression, and gave me a hard determination to punish the oppressors. While I was looking at the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it came to my mind to punish the oppressor the same way and destroy towers in the U.S. to get a taste of what they tasted, and quit killing our children and women."

While candidates Bush and Kerry were careful to avoid using the video as a club to batter each other, their surrogates have already taken to the airwaves to spin this event for one or the other. At first blush, it is difficult to imagine how bin Laden's entrance into this voting season helps the election prospects of Mr. Bush. The videotape was first broadcast by the al Jazeera network, which is based out of Qatar. According to CNN, the U.S. Ambassador to Qatar attempted to stop Al Jazeera from broadcasting the tape. That, as much as the actual content of the tape, speaks to how nervous the re-appearance of bin Laden makes the Bush administration.

Beyond the demonstrable fact that Mr. Wanted-Dead-Or-Alive is still upright and breathing, there is the scathing mockery bin Laden leveled at Bush, along with a back-handed thank-you to Bush for giving the 9/11 terrorists the time they needed to complete the attack. "We never thought that the high commander of the U.S. armies would leave 50,000 of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors alone," bin Laden said. "It appeared to him 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."

Once again, Bush's comments from March of 2002 rise again with the impact of a gut-punch. "So I don't know where he is," said Bush of bin Laden at the time. "Nor - you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I... I truly am not that concerned about him." The fellow who orchestrated the massacre of 3,000 people, the fellow whom Bush said he wasn't concerned about, thanked Bush for giving him the time necessary to complete his wretched act. In the parlance of American youth, Bush got punked by the top terrorist on national television.

An issue which has already been pressing on this campaign season now resonates with new urgency. For the last several days, the Bush administration has been wrestling with the fact that nearly 400 tons of high explosives - the same kind of explosives used to bring down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, the same kind of explosives used to blow a hole in the USS Cole - walked away from a storage bunker in Iraq.

Videotape from a Minnesota news station, shot by embedded reporters during the invasion of Iraq, showed members of the 101st Airborne cutting the locks on the place. No troops stayed to guard the well-known bunker, however, because such duty was not a priority of Bush administration officials handing out marching orders to the troops. Bush's own weapons inspector, David Kay, was appalled at what he saw on the Minnesota news station's footage of the opening of the bunker. "When you break into it, you own it," said Kay. "It's your responsibility to secure it."

Thanks to the disastrous Iraq invasion, and the continuing debacle that is the occupation, Iraq is now a place where al Qaeda terrorists may operate freely. How much of the missing explosives in question have fallen into the hands of bin Laden loyalists? How much of the thousands of tons of explosives and weaponry that went similarly unguarded by American forces all across Iraq have likewise found their way into al Qaeda hands? The re-emergence of Osama bin Laden makes these questions all the more pressing.

How all of this will shake out among the American electorate remains to be seen. Perhaps the American people, upon seeing a healthy bin Laden again on their televisions, will be reminded of Bush's failure to capture or kill him and punish Bush at the polls. Perhaps they will be angered that bin Laden dared to throw his two bloody cents into the political conversation and side with Bush over Kerry. Perhaps the only absolute conclusion to draw from all this is the one that almost certainly occurred to every American who tuned into the broadcast.

The ******* is still alive.

posted October 29, 2004 11:51 PM              

Associated Press

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.

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. As you undermine our security we undermine yours.

---

Even as you enter the fourth year after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush is still misleading and deluding you and hiding the real reason from you. Consequently, there are still reasons to repeat what happened. I will tell you about the reasons behind these attacks and will tell you the truth about the moments during which the decision was made, for you to contemplate.

God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind. The incidents that affected me directly go back to 1982 and afterward, when America allowed Israelis to invade Lebanon, with the help of the American 6th Fleet.

In these tough moments, many things raged inside me that are hard to describe, but they resulted in a strong feeling against injustice and a strong determination to punish the unjust.

While I was looking at those destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women

---

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.

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.

---

We had agreed with the general emir Mohammed Atta, God bless his soul, to carry out all operations within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration noticed. It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American armed forces will 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.

---

posted October 30, 2004 12:54 AM              

Is it just me or do you guys find something very fishy in the fact that just before the election, in a close race, two videos have surfaced and one with bin Laden hisself?

The first video last week was a guy who called himself the American al Quaida but he had an accent. His video was all threats about more institutions being attacked and it was fear, fear, fear. Something that would be to Bush's advantage because he uses fear all the time.

In bin Laden's video he could have been working for the RNC. It sounded like he was campaigning for Bush. Why would he do that? Maybe, just maybe, these videos were released because they are afraid of Kerry winning. Kerry would be able to work with the rest of the world and the UN and mend the damage done. That would mean the UN troops in Iraq to help out and also a united world with more troops committed to Iraq by other countries.

I don't know but it seems to me the enemy is campaigning for Bush to win. I think they would rather have Bush's bungling incompentcy in Iraq then more troops and more world support which Bush is never going to be able to bring about after he thumbed his nose at the UN and the world.

Osama bin Laden even used things from Kerry's campaign. That would not be for Kerry's benifit but Bush's because you can be sure Bush and the Republicans are going to jump on that.

posted October 30, 2004 12:57 AM              

Ugly.

First, he shouldn't care one way or another who wins here in America, since Kerry and Bush differ very little in their views. Kerry has already promised to escalate the war in Iraq, which is a step further than the President would have gone.

People like Pat Robertson have already started denouncing Bush for the loss of life in Iraq, and suddenly conservative coffers all over America have opened up for John Kerry.

But, not Bush's old friend, the evil Osama bin Laden. What does he do? He gives Bush his thumbs up of support, by denouncing Bush in his video, knowing people will be repulsed and do just the opposite of what he says.

I'm sure Osama's relatives from Saudi Arabia, Bush & Bush Sr.'s best buddies, would be very proud of him.

We knew Bush was saving an ace in his hat in the form of Osama until right until the election, but had no idea it would take this form.

Now Osama and his stupid American hating buddies appear right before the election in an attempt to keep his ultra-conservative friends Bush and company in office. After all, that's what these terrorists are: they are extreme right zealot religious fanatics, and are no lovers of freedom.

As before, I'm sure the Bush family and the bin Laden family are all very proud.

posted October 30, 2004 03:43 AM              

In both video's that came out this week there is the fear factor which everyone knows has worked well for Bush in brainwashing half of the American people. Osama bin Laden knows this. He knows how Bush has used fear to increase his power in this country. Which he has just as bin Laden says, through the Patriot acts. Those acts take away many of the rights of the American people guaranteed under the constitution. He got those acts passed by the use of fear and intimidation of Congress who were so afraid of being called unpatriotic that they sold out the American people and democracy. Sen. Robert Byrd said that in his book that I am reading, "Losing America." Bryd is really more angry at Congress than he is Bush. Bush is just another of a long line of presidents who all wanted more power. Thing is Bush used the fear of 9/11 to gain what the other presidents couldn't - complete power.

The Republicans are already using the tape from bin Laden and blaming the Democrats for it. The President hasn't done that. Not yet anyway. Tomorrow is another day. But his party and campaign people are and they are playing right into bin Ladens hands.

Osama bin Laden, by saying the things he said against Bush knows that will anger people and more people will vote for Bush because of it. More people will vote for Bush out of fear too, not wanting now to take the risk of a new president. Nope, he wants Bush to get elected and both tapes make that obvious. The RNC and Bush will play right into his hands by blaming Kerry and the Democrats. Bush will use more of his John Wayne tough guy talk too.

Bin Laden is afraid of what Kerry might accomplish by uniting the world once again to aid us in Iraq. And also mending our relations with the UN. United we stand. Divided we fall. Bush has caused division in this country - bin Laden knows that. Bush has severed relations and caused division with America and the world - bin Laden knows that. It is to bin Laden's advantage that this country and the world remain divided.

Laff, what you sort of suggested, correct me if I am wrong, is that perhaps Bush, The House of Saud in Saudi Arabia ( bin Laden's home) and bin Laden are in league. If that is what you are suggesting I agree that is a strong possibility and that is why we haven't caught and killed bin Laden. Millionaires all of them. Another factor bin Laden might be worried about is that Kerry will catch and kill him.

I find it curious that bin Laden, up until this video, has never admitted he had anything to do with 9/11. He wants the American people to know that he did adding more fuel to the fire of anger to get Bush elected again.

Bin Laden would rather have a divided world, a divided country and a bungling incompetent group that makes up Bush and his administration than have Kerry elected to unite. Because united the world stands against him.

Bush will probably win the election now because most Americans can't think past their noses and he had the help of the enemy to do it. That should give us an indication of what our future and our children and grandchildren's future is going to be.

Having the help of the enemy to win the election should make you real proud of Bush, jwhop.

posted October 30, 2004 08:16 AM              

If they had wanted to kill bin Laden they would have by now. I mean, come on, we are supposed to be the most powerful nation on earth. Are our military leaders so inept and incompetent, and are our intelligence people so incompetent that they couldn't find this guy? From the weight bin Laden has put on and that tan it looked like he spent his summer vacation on the Caspian Sea in his yacht.

According to the White House interviews that Bob Woodward was granted for his book it is true what Kerry is saying ( though Bush denies it ) that they could have caught bin Laden in Afghanistan. Instead Cheney and company diverted the money that Congress had appropriated for the war in Afghanistan to send Gen. Tommy Franks to Kuwait to build roads, lay pipeline and prepare for their pre-emptive strike on Iraq. They did it this way so they could keep their secret from Congress. This was a year before Congress and the American people were told that Hussein had WMD's and they were going to take him out. Tonight on Bill Mayer's show retired Gen. Wesley Clark confirmed this by telling how just before a meeting Rumsfeld pulled him aside and asked if he wanted to hear a joke. He told him there was not time for a joke but Rumsfeld pulled him into a room and said, "the joke is that we are going into Iraq to take out Hussein." Clark said he told Rumsfeld, "well the joke's not funny." Clark became a Democrat after that.

None of it makes any rhyme or reason. None of what this administration has done. And now who is Bush's biggest election campaigner? Osama bin Laden himself. How ironic is that? Everything bin Laden said was to anger people into voting for Bush in my opinion.

True he said that our safety is up to us neither Kerry nor Bush. What did he mean by that? Need to think on that one.

posted October 30, 2004 10:13 AM            

Did I smell a little paranoia here?

Kerry is the terrorists candidate for Prez. They know he's the same kind of weak kneed ball-less leader as Clinton who left them alone while they attacked the US, both here an abroad.

No one could possibly believe John Kerry when he says he would hunt terrorists and kill them. Kerry's the antiwar peacenik's candidate who would abandon Kerry in a nanosecond if they thought that was true. Of course, it isn't true, it's just a device to get the votes of those who aren't carrying a full charge.

The one thing the terrorists know for certain is that Bush fully intends to track them down and kill them. They know that because that's exactly what he is doing.

posted October 30, 2004 10:44 AM            

Bin Laden and Michael Moore have something else in common besides their common enemy, the United States. They're both colossal liars.

Bin Laden and Michael Moore have something in common with John Kerry too...aside from Kerry's serial lying. Bin Laden, Michael Moore and John Kerry are all pulling for a catastrophic US failure in Iraq and anywhere else United States forces are deployed in the world.

Friday, Oct. 29, 2004 9:29 p.m. EDT
Bin Laden Compliments Michael Moore

Al Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden paid tribute to leading Kerry supporter, conspiracy filmmaker Michael Moore on Friday, by invoking a scene from his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" to attack President Bush.

In his first appearance on video in more than a year, the delusional terrorist leader described the segment in Moore's film where the president continued to read the children's book "My Pet Goat" to a Florida elementary school class after he got word that America was under attack.

"It appeared to Bush," said bin Laden, "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."
Echoing Moore's complaint, the fugitive terrorist continued:

"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the US armed forces would leave 50,000 of his citizens in the two towers to face these horrors alone at a time when they were most in need of him."

Moore has set the tone for Democrats this year since December - when he openly criticized Bush as a National Guard "deserter" while campaigning for Gen. Wesley Clark.

In July, Moore was feted at the Democratic National Convention, where he was invited to sit in ex-President Jimmy Carter's box.

Earlier this month, Moore began openly fundraising for Kerry during his speaking engagements.

posted October 30, 2004 11:19 AM              

The only thing about the tape that might be of help to Kerry's campaign is that bin Laden is still alive and still a video star.

Mentally I'm just putting the pieces together and analyzing them. We won't know for certain who it benefits the most until we see the effect it has in the polls. Though a couple of stations are saying that Bush has a 5 pt lead, the majority of the polls are saying it is a dead heat. That was before bin Laden's tape.

I think, and the operative word in that sentence is "think", that bin Laden was trying to stir up anger and patriotic fervor in favor of Bush. Just as the 9/11 events did that. I think that is why he finally admitted he was behind the 9/11 attack on the WTC. He has never admitted to that before. Maybe that's what he meant by our security being in our hands. The other tape that ABC News got last week played on the fear factor that seems to be so rampant in half of the American people. Myself I am not about to let any tyrant control me through fear. Including Bush and his administration. Allowing fear of terrorists, anger and the need for revenge, and misguided patriotism to let our constitutional rights be taken away from us in the name of National Security is a victory for terrorism. Bin Laden was right in what he said about Bush's power and the Patriot Acts.

So far Bush has served bin Laden well. He is still free and getting more recruits all the time. Bush is in a quagmire in Iraq with an insurgency going on daily. More and more American troops are being killed. Tons of munitions turn up missing, and it was proven on the news a couple of days ago that those munitions were there when our troops went into Iraq. In short, things are a mess in Iraq and that benefits bin Laden.

On the other hand, he hears Kerry speeches where he talks of mending our relations with the world community and the UN. Kerry talks of getting help from the world community in Iraq for reconstruction and to end the insurgency. That would not benefit bin Laden. Diplomacy and good world relations frighten terrorists more than weapons and tough talk. They have been warlords and fighting for 2000 years and more in the Middle East. Wars don't frighten them. Tough talk doesn't frighten them. Diplomacy and a world united against them frightens them. He wants the world to be divided and the U.S. going it alone with little man power. We did not have enough troops for this mission from the beginning. But if Kerry unites the world community again and works with the UN it means more support and more troop support in Iraq. So why would bin Laden want to influence the vote in favor of Kerry? Not when he is doing so well with Bush running the show alone.

I think Kerry worries bin Laden. He is not sure what he can achieve world wide but knows he will work for that. Should Kerry unite the world again with the U.S. and unite this country again he would be in big trouble.

It's obvious he is in a place where he has access to technology and he is following this election. From what he said about the goat book it seems he even saw "Farenheit 9/11." Wonder what he thought about the scene flying his family out of the U.S. and the song Michael Moore played in the background, "We Gotta Get Out Of This Place."

posted October 30, 2004 11:31 AM              

He only reported in his movie what actually happened. Video doesn't lie. It was right there to see. Video taped by a mother of one of the classmates. So how is Moore responsible for Bush's own actions? What is with you people? Why is Bush never responsible for his own actions? Why is it always someone else's fault? That has to be some kind of mass insanity with Bush supporters. Some kind of brain washing because I know Bush always has someone else to blame and never takes responsibility.

You people are always blaming everyone but the President and he is the one in charge. He is the one who is responsible for his decisions and his actions. No one else is. It is that way for all humanity. Why is he exempt from that rule of cause and effect that operates our whole universe.

posted October 30, 2004 12:48 PM            

Most of the excerpts of this video tape reflect upon events that have either taken place during time that we either might have forgotten about or that 1/3 of the voters were never around to seek vital attention to, for the fact that some of these events were either before the American youth's time or that they were too young to remember, bin Laden's tape is a sleek reminder of a time in the world that either no longer exists or that too many broken pieces of it was dispersed thoughtout "diverous"<--(a word that Christ used,meaning various)places!

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

In June 1978, Prime Minister Begin, under intense American pressure, withdrew Israel's Litani River Operation forces from southern Lebanon. They were replaced by UNIFIL, a UN force to restore peace and help the Lebanonese government re-establish its authority, as authorized by UN Resolution 425. The withdrawal of Israeli troops without having removed the PLO from its bases in southern Lebanon became a major embarrassment to the Begin government, maintaining pressure for Israel to return.

UNIFIL was unable to prevent terrorists from reinfiltrating the region and introducing new, more dangerous arms. Cross-border conflict between Israel and the various forces in Southern Lebanon continued at differing levels of intensity after 1978. Civilians on both sides, and UNIFIL peacekeepers, were killed as the fighting ebbed and flowed. Israel increased its support of the Lebanese Christian Militia in the south, under Major Saad Haddad, who regularly fought armed PLO fighters but also caused casualties among non-combatants. The US government during the Carter administration (1976-1980) had several times joined in UN condemnations of Israeli raids and reprisals in South Lebanon, always condemning simultaneously PLO terrorist cross-border activities (generally not condemned by the UN).

In July of 1981 Lebanese-American Philip Habib was sent by the Reagan Administration to negotiate a more lasting cease-fire between Lebanon and Israel. On July 24 Habib announced agreement that all hostile military action between Lebanese and Israeli territory in either direction would cease. For the next eleven months the cease-fire was in effect as a formality, but the PLO repeatedly violated the agreement. Israel charged that the PLO staged 270 terrorist actions in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and along the Lebanese and Jordanian borders. Twenty­nine Israelis died and more than 300 were injured in the attacks. In April 1982, after a landmine killed an Israeli officer, the rocket attacks and air strikes recommenced.

Israeli strikes and commando raids were unable to stem the growth of the PLO army which built camps, trained thousands of fighters, and stockpiled arms in south Lebanon. The situation in the Galilee became intolerable as the frequency of attacks forced thousands of Israeli residents to flee their homes or to spend large amounts of time in bomb shelters. Israel was not prepared to wait for more deadly attacks to be launched against its civilian population before acting against the PLO terrorists.

The final provocation occurred in June 3, 1982 when a Palestinian terrorist group led by Abu Nidal attempted to assassinate Israel's Ambassador to Great Britain, Shlomo Argov. The IDF subsequently bombed PLO bases and ammunition dumps in Beirut and attacked other targets in Lebanon on June 4-5, 1982. The PLO responded with a massive artillery and mortar attack on the Israeli population of the Galilee. It was the PLO shelling, and not directly the Argov shooting as is sometimes assumed, that triggered the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

On June 6, 1982, under the direction of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel invaded Lebanon with a massive force, called Operation Peace for the Galilee, driving all the way to Beirut and putting the PLO and residents, as well as the Lebanese civilian population of that city, under siege. Israel justified its breech of the Habib cease-fire by citing the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador in London and a build-up of PLO armaments in South Lebanon. Israel was also concerned by increasing Syrian involvement in the Lebanese civil war and wanted to forestall a hostile, Syrian-backed government developing in Lebanon.

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said of the operation:

No sovereign state can tolerate indefinitely the buildup along its borders of a military force dedicated to its destruction and implementing its objectives by periodic shellings and raids. (Washington Post, June 16, 1982)

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

Needless to say, George HW Bush was VP during this time of events and (of course) the fact that this wasn't so looked upon as any big deal for the fact, that after the fact that a more weightier and overwhelming, imfamous, situation took place back in April,1986...

The Iran/Contra Affair

bin Laden also goes on about another affair that took place in another time, but this time it didn't really serve any kind of importance for it's time to the Americans, but something took place during that two day visit that Bush Sr. made to Kuwait to speak with some Suadi Nationals about some regional and international issues, but to bin Laden, that wasn't the case at all!

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

Bush heads to Kuwait from Saudi Arabia
Kuwait-Regional-USA, Politics, 12/2/1998

Former US President George Bush and members of his accompanying delegation arrived in Kuwait on Tuesday for a two-day visit. Bush will hold talks during his visit with high-ranking state officials on regional and international issues.

Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmad al-Sabah on Tuesday received Bush and members of his delegation. Present at the meeting were Kuwaiti Crown Prince Sheikh Saad al-Abdullah al-Sabah, high-ranking Kuwaiti officials and the US ambassador to Kuwait.

This is Bush's second visit to Kuwait since the liberation of the Gulf state from Iraqi troops. Earlier in the morning Bush concluded a five-day visit to Saudi Arabia, during which he met with King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz and Crown Prince Abdullah.

During his visit to Jeddah and Riyadh, Bush met with several economic and cultural activists. On Monday he gave a lecture at King Abdul Aziz Library in Riyadh on the reasons behind the fall of the Soviet Union. The lecture was attended by high-ranking Saudi officials, princes and ministers.

Previous Stories:
Baghdad accuses Kuwait of not giving information about 1,000 missing Iraqis (12/1/1998)
Kuwait refuses to receive any Iraqi delegation (11/30/1998)
Kuwaiti president receives Gulf states' secretary general (11/24/1998)
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/981202/1998120202.html

...and the result of that ended up being....

JANUARY 2, 2003 – "Former US President Bush... arrived in Kuwait on Tuesday for a two-day visit. Bush will hold talks... with high-ranking state officials on regional and international issues... Earlier in the morning Bush concluded a five-day visit to Saudi Arabia, during which he met with King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz and Crown Prince Abdullah."

So read the story in the Arabic News on December 12, 1998.

Oil prices were at the ultra-low price of $9.70 per barrel at this time. The American economy was coasting along, and no energy shortage was in sight.

A few months later, in March of 1999, Saudi Arabia led a meeting in the Hague of OPEC nations and formed an agreement to slash production. Soon after, oil prices began to rise, jumping up to $12.75 per barrel by mid-march for April selling, and by mid May, oil prices had almost doubled, reaching $16.5 per barrel.

Already by April of 1999, the increase was starting to hit consumers' pocketbooks.

"The price of gasoline in the United States has been creeping up in recent weeks and, according to the government, could rise even more by summer," CNN reported on April 9, 1999. Another CNN article on June 27, 1999 reported that the reason gas prices were rising was "because of oil production cutbacks."

By this they meant the oil production cutbacks the Saudis and other OPEC nations undertook almost immediately after meeting with former President Bush, whose son, as luck would have it, was just on the verge on launching a run for the White House.

By the time the 2000 election rolled around, oil prices were a full-fledged issue and provided just enough of a drag on the economy to put a little doubt into people's minds about whether or not things would continue as well as they had for the rest of Clinton's time in office. Battles over whether or not to use the strategic oil reserves became hot issues and were used to dent Al Gore's election bid, and Clinton/Gore's inability to stem the drastic rise in oil prices that occurred following former President Bush's visit, for no publicly announced reason, with the heads of state of the OPEC nations, allowed just enough of an opening for his son, George W. Bush, to have a chance at getting into the White House.

It all began with some very unhappy oil people but a very happy American economy. The price of oil was $9.70 a barrel. Then former President George H. W. Bush visited the allies he had from back in the Gulf War, the king of Saudi Arabia and other mid-east oil nation heads of state.

A few months later, oil was up to almost $13 a barrel, then almost $17. In fact, how drastically did world oil prices spike after President Bush took his tour of mid-east oil producing nations for no stated reason?

As Lawrence Goldstein, president of the non-profit Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, told the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on November 23, 1999, "...erosion in stocks has led to a very dramatic increase in crude oil prices from a low of about $11 to $12 dollars earlier this year to $27 dollars today." This was less than a year since former President Bush made his mid-east rounds, and about one year before his son would try to win an election to the White House.

A jump like that has an immediate effect on people's pocketbooks in a negative manner. For the average consumer, within this 11 month period, gas prices alone rose between 30 and 35 cents a gallon, not to mention a spike in heating oil and natural gas prices that paralleled. This sudden rise in gas and energy prices began to put a bit of speed bump in front of the previously soaring Clinton economy, allowing a bit of heretofore unthinkable economic doubt to enter into the election cycle.

While the OPEC oil production cuts had a major role to play in the drastic rise of gasoline prices, there's more to gas prices than just oil supply. As California Attorney General Bill Lockyear said in a report released one day before the above report, on November 22, 1999, "Our concern is that high gas prices in California are the result of low competition in the market." The article states that Lockyear cites, "the concentration and control oil companies have over the production and sale of gasoline," as one of the major causes for rising consumer gas prices.

In other words, Saudi Arabia and its OPEC partners cutting production drastically following the meeting with former President Bush in December 1998 was one prong of the action that caused the spike in energy prices that would become a central issue of the 2000 President election. The other was power energy companies.

Consolidation of the refinery and gasoline production industries put more power in fewer hands - hands which drastically wanted both higher energy profits and the son of an oil man, George W. Bush, in office.

As reported in the oil industry trade journal, Drilling Contractor, Chairman of America's predominant oil refinery company, Halliburton, was not so upset about the rising oil prices.

"We think 1999 is a trough, and 2000 we think will be significantly improved over that," said the Chairman, a man named Dick Cheney.

And he could not have been more right. Look at what happened with a company named Anadarko, a Houston based petroleum company which, as luck would have it, is the company Dick Cheney holds more stock of than any other, save for his former company Halliburton.

As reported on July 30, 2000 by the Houston Business Journal, Anadarko's income rose a breathtaking 33,166%. Look at this number again - this is not a typo. Not 33,166 dollars, not 33.166 percent, but in one year Anadarko's income rose thirty-three thousand one hundred and sixty-six percent. In raw numbers, "Anadarko reported income rose from $2.4 billion in 1999 to $796 billion in 2000."

In fact, Anadarko was not alone in making such a leap. As the July 2000 Houston Business Journal reported, "Of the 15 new companies listed on this year's top public companies list, nine are energy related."

While OPEC oil cuts were partly to blame for the massive, ultra-rapid rise in energy prices, the other prong of the attack was being led by energy companies. As CNN reported on February 16, 2000, "Gasoline prices have been rising steadily since last March, when OPEC cut crude oil production by 7.5%, or more than 2 million barrels a day..."

However, that alone was not the only cause for the sudden spike. "Part of the problem is that U.S. refineries normally increase production of gasoline during the first three months of the year... That is not happening this year." Refiners, CNN reported, were cutting back because of high oil prices and short supply.

What CNN doesn't mention is that cutting back on refining at a time when oil is in ultra-short supply also helps to further drive up oil prices - this is the "concentration and control oil companies have over the production and sale of gasoline" that California Attorney General Lockyear talked about. The oil companies argued that they couldn't afford to keep refining in this market, and yet their profits were increasing over thirty-thousand percent.

Enter Election 2000. As reported in this same CNN report, by February of 2000 - perfectly nine months before the election - oil and gas prices had now become a front and center issue.

"Unhappy with what they're paying at the pump, Americans already are talking about curtailing their driving just as resorts and other vacation spots are starting to gear up for summer."

"It's ridiculous at this point," one person was quoted as saying. "I do as little driving as possible because it's so expensive."

Tapping into the strategic petroleum reserve was being considered, and the Clinton administration had to release $200 million from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program - money that went directly to energy company and OPEC country profits.

Because remember, there was no actual cause for this drastic increase in oil prices from $9.70 to over $27 or for gas prices to shoot through the sky except that, following that December 1998 meeting with former President Bush, first the people he met with in the Middle East, and then his Texas oil company associates in the U.S. decided to run prices up higher by cutting supply and reducing refinery production. There was no war or conflict that caused this price rise, nor shortage of oil available for drilling. It was a simple choice on the part of parties that George H. W. Bush visited and knew to "boost prices."

While most Americans were starting to feel the pinch of rising energy prices, the very people who would donate to Governor George W. Bush's presidential campaign were seeing a surge, and, not coincidentally, donating by the bundle. George W. Bush would go on to shatter all fundraising records, being the first candidate to ever waive matching funds and raise over $100 million dollars.

In the meantime, the Clinton administration tried to fight back. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson hosted an "energy summit" in Boston to hear consumer complaints, and then met with leaders in Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other OPEC nations to try and and "reason with them."

"(I will) talk to OPEC and non-OPEC members about the importance of... having more supply of oil on the market," said Richardson, as reported by CNN .

So then the Saudis and other OPEC nations were in the middle of a feud - and not so coincidentally smack in the middle of our presidential election. On the one hand, former President George H. W. Bush, his oil company allies, and his son the presidential hopeful, wanted them to keep production at the reduced level at least through the end of the election cycle, while the current Clinton administration and presidential hopeful Vice President Al Gore wanted them to get producing again.

The Saudis and OPEC, unsure of who would win the Presidential election, had to work constructively with the Clinton administration, hedging their bets in case Al Gore became the next President. On July 4, 2000, they began to ramp production back up, agreeing to add 500,000 additional barrels a day to the market until prices came back down from prices then over $30 a barrel to a more moderate $25 a barrel - still almost 300% higher than they were before former President Bush's visit, but over a 25% drop from the astronomical prices oil had risen to.

And yet, the situation did not improve. Clinton turned up and turned up the pressure on OPEC, but gasoline and domestic energy prices remained extremely high, keeping the issue alive, and indeed adding a bit of doubt to the economy, throughout the presidential election cycle.

The reason Saudi Arabia and OPEC's reversal at the behest of the Clinton administration did not usefully reduce the high price of energy in America was that the domestic refinery and petroleum companies - companies like Halliburton and Anadarko - did not follow OPEC's lead. They were intent on keeping energy prices high.

As OPEC member, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, told News Perspective Quarterly in 2001, "(OPEC) alone cannot determine prices. For example, refining capacity is not being totally utilized. In the US, refineries are not operating at full capacity."

In other words, Halliburton, Anadarko, and the other US oil and energy companies were operating in a manner that was keeping energy prices high, and there was nothing Saudi Arabia or OPEC could do about it.

And so, from ultra-low oil prices of $9.70 a barrel, immediately following a visit with the heads of state of several mid-east OPEC members by former President Bush, world oil prices jumped over 220% within a year and a half, pumping billions upon billions of extra dollars into the pockets of would be George W. Bush supporters, creating a major issue in the 2000 presidential election, and putting a speed bump in front of the economy which allowed an opening for the younger Bush to have a shot at winning the election.

The energy issue picked up steam as the election neared. The Bush campaign derided Gore for tapping into the strategic oil reserves and attacked the Clinton/Gore administration for allowing this "energy crisis" to occur. When in June of 2000 Al Gore's campaign released an energy plan brought on by a need to deal with the energy price crisis, the Bush team whacked away.

"In a transparent attempt to fix a political problem with voters angry over higher gas prices, Al Gore is offering recycled ideas that will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil," said Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett in a news release," as reported by Reuters on June 28, 2000. As this quote shows, voters were now angry about the energy price situation and it was a central issue in the presidential campaign.

The Bush campaign further attacked Gore's release of the plan, deriding it as, "a knee-jerk response to a sudden spike in gasoline prices this election year," according to the Reuters report.

The Bush team failed to mention the causes for the spike, of course.

Instead, as with Professor Harold Hill in The Music Man, a problem was created and then harangued about. For those who have seen the Bush administration seemingly create problems only so they can assail someone else for them and claim to be the saviors America needs to fix the problem, this is the first example to be seen of this.

The evidence is clear. As Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said, as reported by AP, while gloating in December of 2000 over Bush's recent victory in the presidential election, "It wasn't until September of 2000 that anyone in power started talking about an energy problem."

First of all, we can see that he was lying, as he so often did - above we see that in June of 2000 Al Gore had presented an energy plan to deal with the problem.

But in any case, Ari makes the more important point: that no one foresaw this crisis coming. His conclusion about this fact is completely off the mark, however. Fleischer's asserts that the sudden, from out of nowhere appearance of this energy crisis showed that, "In Washington, we need to do a little better job of looking down the road," a slam at the Clinton/Gore administration, asserting that it was their inattention to a looming energy crisis that led to the whole mess that helped sweep Bush into office.

In reality, we see clearly that the reason no one foresaw the crisis and that nobody "in power started talking about an energy problem" until mid-2000 was because there was none to talk about. In fact, at no point was there ever an energy problem. As would be the situation in California the following summer, lack of energy had nothing to do with the problems that occurred. The only thing that was at fault were people conspiring to create a seeming crisis so as to drive prices through the roof.

As Enron did a year later, Bush's Gulf War allies and US oil company friends conspired to create a crisis that no one could have foreseen, that helped to shape - and very possibly decide - a presidential election, and gave countless wealth to those who participated. And the campaign of George W. Bush took advantage of it at every turn, casting blame on those who had no part in the problem, and presenting themselves as heroes who would save America from the crisis their friends and allies had drummed up in the first place.

This was manipulation of markets and elections at its worst. And while the rest of the media has given the Bushes a free pass on it, we at The Moderate Independent are now here to report the actual news, comprehensively and in its full context. This should be the biggest story of the millennium so far. Now we are putting it out there so it may be.

The Harold Hill pattern has been followed again and again by the Bush administration: they failed to act to prevent 9/11, and then said we should thank God they were there to deal with the crisis; they presented exaggerated evidence to make Iraq seem a "pool table, with a capital P" type problem, and now claim to be heroic for saving us from this exaggerated problem; and, of course, President Bush took advantage of Enron's bilking of California - which, not so coincidentally, employed the same scheme we see above - to try and pass his energy bill allowing, among other things, drilling in the Artic Wildlife Preserve and, ultimately, to overthrow the duly elected governor of California.

But George W. Bush would not have been able to do any of these things had his possible first swindle - the manipulation of energy markets to help him get elected - not occurred.

NOTE: This is part one in an occasional series. In part two, we will continue the coverage of this story with a study in how Enron followed the Bush campaign's lead in crafting and employing its scheme to bilk California out of billions, and how President Bush used the situation as a political hit on a Democratic foe.
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i18hwbush.htm

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

Of the begining of the excerpts, bin Laden mentions about something that was to take place this year in Sweden, but it never happened, there is really no telling why any terrorist network never went ahead in it's plans of a possible chemical assault upon the Manchester United soccer stadium and bin Laden's message doesn't reveil any of those clues either, but he wanted to make it a point to the American people, for some obscure reason!
http://www.iht.com/articles/516088.html

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

bin Laden has also has made points about our own concerns over some policies of the Bush Administration and has pointed out about our anxieties and woes over them. He's made references to the Patriot act and the unfairness over the "Florida voting counts"

He also speaks about the September 11th attacks on this nation and the reasons that he had for those attacks that has chosen to place against us, he makes clear that he was very upset at the time that he ordered those attacks and that he also makes clear that the deed that he made, the deed that took place, was a justifiable reason in his mind for the things that were either carried out by the diplomats or the armies that we have from the previous administrations against his country and his people! As we have increasingly "turned a blind eye" to the dark events that were unfolding in the muslim countries, 9/11 to him seemed to be an inevitable "wake up call" to the American people, in hopes to stop the death and the suffering that repeatedly takes place of today! It doesn't seem that what is going on in Iraq or in Afghanistan is making even that much of a difference to him anyway, it's just another "slow day in hELL" to him!

But he does comment about and over the fact that our own president, our "Commander and Cheif" can be either so heartless to sacrifice (possibly) so many innocent lives of his own civilized loyal subjects on that dreadful day or that he might just be so stupid and naive! He didn't expect the administration to "just do nothing", prior to the obvious warnings that he had recieved! This is his own arguement that he has for the American people, that this is a man(men and women) that will go no length to achieve they're own goals, by having a hearty breakfast by breaking alot of eggs! This OctoberFest in the year 2001, happened prematurely and his henchman a week ago has warned us of an early Thanksgiving this year, if Bush wins of course, but also wants us to know that Kerry will not help us either, the decision is up to us and us alone! I wish it was that easy Mr. bin Laden!

I really don't believe that Osama bin Laden is endorsing Bush nor Kerry or anybody else at that matter, I think that(if anything),he's endorsing his position and his own state of mind over this country and us on it's behalf!

I really don't care too much were I got this information from or how relevant it is, the point that I'm trying to make is that we are trying to figure out what is going on in the mind of a man that has given us a mere "appetizer" of the waves of doom that he sets forth upon us all, that can lead to our own demise, if we're not careful!

His message to us is just another step closer to figuring out his way of thinking!

posted November 01, 2004 03:23 AM              

The impression I got from Bin Ladens message, is that he wants Kerry to be voted in because he thinks Kerry is a push over. Now Im not saying that Kerry IS a push over...Im just saying that I think thats what Bin Laden thinks. Definatly doesnt sound like a Bush endorsement to me. Maybe it is in the way that Americans may think to themselves "well, if Kerry is Bin Ladens choice...maybe I should vote for Bush"