CIA: OSAMA HELPED BUSH IN '04
On October 29, 2004, just four days before the U.S. presidential election, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden released a videotape denouncing George W. Bush. Some Bush supporters quickly spun the diatribe as "Osama's endorsement of John Kerry." But behind the walls of the CIA, analysts had concluded the opposite: that bin-Laden was trying to help Bush gain a second term.
This stunning CIA disclosure is tucked away in a brief passage near the end of Ron Suskind's The One Percent Doctrine, which draws heavily from CIA insiders. Suskind wrote that the CIA analysts based their troubling assessment on classified information, but the analysts still puzzled over exactly why bin-Laden wanted Bush to stay in office.
--"CIA: Osama Helped Bush in '04," Robert Perry, (former journalist for the Associated Press and Newsweek), consortiumnews.com, July 4, 2006.
Now, I know what you're thinking. That I've gone completely around the bend; but actually, this is based on solid fact, with quotes attributed to top CIA analysts--by name--who were there at the time. And there are a couple of reasons why I am writing about this now.
One: When the tape first appeared, just days before a close election, I said to my (Republican) husband that bin-Laden was attempting to manipulate the American people into keeping Bush in office, because bin-Laden NEEDED Bush--he needed someone to hate, so that he could attract more recruits into al Qaeda and whip up the ones he had into the frenzy necessary to get them to go kill themselves.
At the time, my husband gave me that look of disgust that he sometimes gives to me when he thinks I've gone completely nuts, lost all reason and sanity, and joined the lunatic left fringe.
Well, if I'M crazy, then I guess the CIA is too, because this is exactly what their top terrorist experts believed at the time, which I'll show in a minute.
The second reason why I chose to write about this even though I will no doubt be attacked for my supposed insanity, is that I am trying to point out how easy the American electorate can be to manipulate into a desired outcome, if the only place they get their news is TV or closed-off, biased sources, and if they do not apply critical thinking to the things they hear or read from sources that they must surely know are biased--and this goes for both ends of the political spectrum.
A case in point: there has been much screaming and accusing of the New York Times by conservatives because they leaked a story that was really not all that secret in the first place--at least, not to the terrorists, who've known for some time--but anyway, they've been called "treasonous" and criminal prosecution has been suggested for the writers of the story.
This has caused much poisonous ink and air-space to be devoted to that horrible left-wing rag, the Times.
And yet, every single time I hear that from ANYONE, I ask one simple question: Have you ever actually READ the New York Times?
They either ignore the question or admit that, no, they haven't.
So…where are they getting this information? How do they KNOW the Times is so terrible if they've never even read it?
That kind of jumping-on-the-bandwagon rhetoric--and both sides are guilty of it, believe me--underlies the kind of thinking that is easily manipulated. And politicians on both sides know it.
If you don't think this is true, then why do entire companies exist for one purpose and one purpose only: to get you to buy the products of other companies?
And if this is not true, then why is there an entire industry devoted to "spinning" one political candidate over another by "framing" their message in such a way that the most people will buy THAT product as well?
Why are more and more companies paying for "product placement" in movies and on TV shows, if they don't know that it sends a subtle message to an unsuspecting public, that this favorite character or that celebrity uses a Hewlitt-Packard computer, drinks Diet Coke, and smokes Marlboros?
If it didn't work, believe me, they wouldn't do it.
Intelligence experts the world over agree that al-Qaeda is winning the advertising war, that the United States has had a particularly difficult time getting out a competing message to the Arab "street" that its product--freedom, democracy and so on--is superior to al-Qaeda's--hatred of all things American.
And the smartest spin-meister on the planet is Osama bin-Laden.
"At the five o'clock meeting (on the day the videotape was released) deputy CIA director John McLaughlin opened the issue with the consensus view: 'Bin-Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the president.'"
"McLaughlin's comment drew nods from CIA officers at the table: Jami Miscik, CIA deputy associate director for intelligence, suggested that the al-Qaeda founder may have come to Bush's aid because bin-Laden felt threatened by the rise in Iraq of Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; bin-Laden might have thought his leadership would be diminished if Bush lost the White House and their "eye-to-eye" struggle ended.
"But the CIA analysts also felt that bin-Laden might have recognized how Bush's policies--including the Guantanamo prison camp, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the endless bloodshed in Iraq--were serving al-Qaeda's strategic goals for recruiting a new generation of jihadists.
"Certainly," the CIA's Miscik said, "he would want Bush to keep doing what he's doing for a few more years," according to Suskind's account of the meeting.
--ibid
In the days leading up to 9/11, bin-Laden and his al-Qaeda militants were losing in every aspect of the public relations war on the Arab street. Their brand of Islamic fundamentalism had been rejected in Arab societies from Algeria and Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Bin-Laden and his lieutenants had even been expelled from the Sudan.
They decided that a spectacular attack on the United States would most likely be followed by the kind of Bushian overkill that would offend the Islamic world and rally angry young Muslims to al-Qaeda's banner.
The CIA caught wind of something very bad in the air and tried to warn Bush, in person, at the Crawford Ranch on August 6, 2001, but as we all know now, he not only did not listen, but chastened the analyst making the presentation by saying, "Okay, now you've covered your ass."
Still, the decision to go to war in Afghanistan was the kind of response that the Arab world expected--and respected. Secretly, many of the regimes hated the Taliban and were only too glad to step back and let the U.S. wipe them out. Getting rid of bin-Laden, who was not well regarded, would be a bonus.
And if the Bush administration had stayed the course in Afghanistan, taken out bin-Laden when they had the chance, and established a solid foothold in that tempestuous nation, they might have continued to win the public relations war in the world court--not just among friendly Arab nations whose help we desperately need in the region, but among our own allies--and in so doing, perhaps tamped down some of the fiery anti-American fervor in the region.
At the very least, we might have perhaps had more cooperation from law enforcement and the military of borderline countries such as Pakistan in tracking down the bad guys and bringing them to justice--not the token assistance we get now, and the tacit back-door tolerance of extremist mosques and other terrorist breeding grounds.
Instead, Bush not only stood back and let bin-Laden escape Tora-Bora, but shifted U.S. Special Forces away from bin-Laden and al-Qaeda and proceeded to siphon off the vast overwhelming majority of U.S. military might and financial resources to the quagmire in Iraq: thus giving bin-Laden his perfect recruiting moment.
And, again, maybe if the war had been fought the way the commanders on the ground and the Pentagon wanted it, with a full contingency of American troops--at least 300,000--and with full support of our allies and Arab friends; if the security had been gripped tight as soon as the looting began in April of '03; if the reconstruction had not been handed over to big campaign doners in no-bid contracts and subsequently botched so badly that 60% of the projects will not even be begun, much less finished--all of which has led to the unleashing of absolute mayhem and anarchy in Iraqi society…Maybe things would have gone differently in stemming the relentless tide of terrorist recruits that have been inspired by the debacle in Iraq.
Soon, the Iraq war--combined with controversies over torture and mistreatment of Muslim detainees--were serving as recruitment posters for al-Qaeda.
Under Jordanian exile Zarqawi, al-Qaeda set up terrorist cells in central Iraq, taking root amid the weeds of sectarian violence and the nation's general anarchy. Instead of an obscure group of misfits, al-Qaeda was achieving legendary status among many Muslims as the defenders of the Islamic holy lands, battling the new "crusaders" led by Bush.
--ibid
The race between Bush and Kerry was basically neck-and-neck in the week leading up to the elections. It could have gone either way, and both candidates knew it.
Then, the shimmering image of Osama bin-Laden appeared on American televisions, speaking directly to the American people, mocking Bush and offering a kind of truce If U.S. forces withdrew from the Middle East.
Criticizing Bush for his slow reactions to the attacks on the twin towers and so on, bin-Laden said, "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked."
Immediately, all the right-wing pundits, bloggers, and talk-show hosts portrayed the video as an effort to hurt Bush and help Kerry. Most mainstream media seemed to agree.
However, behind the walls of secrecy at Langley, Virginia, U.S. intelligence experts reviewed the evidence and concluded that bin-Laden had precisely the opposite intent. He was fully aware that his videotape would encourage the American people to do the opposite of what he recommended.
By demanding an American surrender, bin-Laden knew U.S. voters would instinctively want to fight. That way bin-Laden helped ensure that George W. Bush would stay in power, would continue his clumsy "war on terror"--and would drive thousands of new recruits into al-Qaeda's welcoming arms.
--ibid
Which is exactly what I said to my husband, that very day.
Think for yourself. Examine the evidence. Study a wide range of information and opinions. Spend less time listening to the din and clatter and more time thinking.
We can outwit them. It's not that hard. There are many more ways to fight a war than with ONLY military muscle. It's time the American people figured that out.
For sure, bin-Laden has.
This stunning CIA disclosure is tucked away in a brief passage near the end of Ron Suskind's The One Percent Doctrine, which draws heavily from CIA insiders. Suskind wrote that the CIA analysts based their troubling assessment on classified information, but the analysts still puzzled over exactly why bin-Laden wanted Bush to stay in office.
--"CIA: Osama Helped Bush in '04," Robert Perry, (former journalist for the Associated Press and Newsweek), consortiumnews.com, July 4, 2006.
Now, I know what you're thinking. That I've gone completely around the bend; but actually, this is based on solid fact, with quotes attributed to top CIA analysts--by name--who were there at the time. And there are a couple of reasons why I am writing about this now.
One: When the tape first appeared, just days before a close election, I said to my (Republican) husband that bin-Laden was attempting to manipulate the American people into keeping Bush in office, because bin-Laden NEEDED Bush--he needed someone to hate, so that he could attract more recruits into al Qaeda and whip up the ones he had into the frenzy necessary to get them to go kill themselves.
At the time, my husband gave me that look of disgust that he sometimes gives to me when he thinks I've gone completely nuts, lost all reason and sanity, and joined the lunatic left fringe.
Well, if I'M crazy, then I guess the CIA is too, because this is exactly what their top terrorist experts believed at the time, which I'll show in a minute.
The second reason why I chose to write about this even though I will no doubt be attacked for my supposed insanity, is that I am trying to point out how easy the American electorate can be to manipulate into a desired outcome, if the only place they get their news is TV or closed-off, biased sources, and if they do not apply critical thinking to the things they hear or read from sources that they must surely know are biased--and this goes for both ends of the political spectrum.
A case in point: there has been much screaming and accusing of the New York Times by conservatives because they leaked a story that was really not all that secret in the first place--at least, not to the terrorists, who've known for some time--but anyway, they've been called "treasonous" and criminal prosecution has been suggested for the writers of the story.
This has caused much poisonous ink and air-space to be devoted to that horrible left-wing rag, the Times.
And yet, every single time I hear that from ANYONE, I ask one simple question: Have you ever actually READ the New York Times?
They either ignore the question or admit that, no, they haven't.
So…where are they getting this information? How do they KNOW the Times is so terrible if they've never even read it?
That kind of jumping-on-the-bandwagon rhetoric--and both sides are guilty of it, believe me--underlies the kind of thinking that is easily manipulated. And politicians on both sides know it.
If you don't think this is true, then why do entire companies exist for one purpose and one purpose only: to get you to buy the products of other companies?
And if this is not true, then why is there an entire industry devoted to "spinning" one political candidate over another by "framing" their message in such a way that the most people will buy THAT product as well?
Why are more and more companies paying for "product placement" in movies and on TV shows, if they don't know that it sends a subtle message to an unsuspecting public, that this favorite character or that celebrity uses a Hewlitt-Packard computer, drinks Diet Coke, and smokes Marlboros?
If it didn't work, believe me, they wouldn't do it.
Intelligence experts the world over agree that al-Qaeda is winning the advertising war, that the United States has had a particularly difficult time getting out a competing message to the Arab "street" that its product--freedom, democracy and so on--is superior to al-Qaeda's--hatred of all things American.
And the smartest spin-meister on the planet is Osama bin-Laden.
"At the five o'clock meeting (on the day the videotape was released) deputy CIA director John McLaughlin opened the issue with the consensus view: 'Bin-Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the president.'"
"McLaughlin's comment drew nods from CIA officers at the table: Jami Miscik, CIA deputy associate director for intelligence, suggested that the al-Qaeda founder may have come to Bush's aid because bin-Laden felt threatened by the rise in Iraq of Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; bin-Laden might have thought his leadership would be diminished if Bush lost the White House and their "eye-to-eye" struggle ended.
"But the CIA analysts also felt that bin-Laden might have recognized how Bush's policies--including the Guantanamo prison camp, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the endless bloodshed in Iraq--were serving al-Qaeda's strategic goals for recruiting a new generation of jihadists.
"Certainly," the CIA's Miscik said, "he would want Bush to keep doing what he's doing for a few more years," according to Suskind's account of the meeting.
--ibid
In the days leading up to 9/11, bin-Laden and his al-Qaeda militants were losing in every aspect of the public relations war on the Arab street. Their brand of Islamic fundamentalism had been rejected in Arab societies from Algeria and Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Bin-Laden and his lieutenants had even been expelled from the Sudan.
They decided that a spectacular attack on the United States would most likely be followed by the kind of Bushian overkill that would offend the Islamic world and rally angry young Muslims to al-Qaeda's banner.
The CIA caught wind of something very bad in the air and tried to warn Bush, in person, at the Crawford Ranch on August 6, 2001, but as we all know now, he not only did not listen, but chastened the analyst making the presentation by saying, "Okay, now you've covered your ass."
Still, the decision to go to war in Afghanistan was the kind of response that the Arab world expected--and respected. Secretly, many of the regimes hated the Taliban and were only too glad to step back and let the U.S. wipe them out. Getting rid of bin-Laden, who was not well regarded, would be a bonus.
And if the Bush administration had stayed the course in Afghanistan, taken out bin-Laden when they had the chance, and established a solid foothold in that tempestuous nation, they might have continued to win the public relations war in the world court--not just among friendly Arab nations whose help we desperately need in the region, but among our own allies--and in so doing, perhaps tamped down some of the fiery anti-American fervor in the region.
At the very least, we might have perhaps had more cooperation from law enforcement and the military of borderline countries such as Pakistan in tracking down the bad guys and bringing them to justice--not the token assistance we get now, and the tacit back-door tolerance of extremist mosques and other terrorist breeding grounds.
Instead, Bush not only stood back and let bin-Laden escape Tora-Bora, but shifted U.S. Special Forces away from bin-Laden and al-Qaeda and proceeded to siphon off the vast overwhelming majority of U.S. military might and financial resources to the quagmire in Iraq: thus giving bin-Laden his perfect recruiting moment.
And, again, maybe if the war had been fought the way the commanders on the ground and the Pentagon wanted it, with a full contingency of American troops--at least 300,000--and with full support of our allies and Arab friends; if the security had been gripped tight as soon as the looting began in April of '03; if the reconstruction had not been handed over to big campaign doners in no-bid contracts and subsequently botched so badly that 60% of the projects will not even be begun, much less finished--all of which has led to the unleashing of absolute mayhem and anarchy in Iraqi society…Maybe things would have gone differently in stemming the relentless tide of terrorist recruits that have been inspired by the debacle in Iraq.
Soon, the Iraq war--combined with controversies over torture and mistreatment of Muslim detainees--were serving as recruitment posters for al-Qaeda.
Under Jordanian exile Zarqawi, al-Qaeda set up terrorist cells in central Iraq, taking root amid the weeds of sectarian violence and the nation's general anarchy. Instead of an obscure group of misfits, al-Qaeda was achieving legendary status among many Muslims as the defenders of the Islamic holy lands, battling the new "crusaders" led by Bush.
--ibid
The race between Bush and Kerry was basically neck-and-neck in the week leading up to the elections. It could have gone either way, and both candidates knew it.
Then, the shimmering image of Osama bin-Laden appeared on American televisions, speaking directly to the American people, mocking Bush and offering a kind of truce If U.S. forces withdrew from the Middle East.
Criticizing Bush for his slow reactions to the attacks on the twin towers and so on, bin-Laden said, "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked."
Immediately, all the right-wing pundits, bloggers, and talk-show hosts portrayed the video as an effort to hurt Bush and help Kerry. Most mainstream media seemed to agree.
However, behind the walls of secrecy at Langley, Virginia, U.S. intelligence experts reviewed the evidence and concluded that bin-Laden had precisely the opposite intent. He was fully aware that his videotape would encourage the American people to do the opposite of what he recommended.
By demanding an American surrender, bin-Laden knew U.S. voters would instinctively want to fight. That way bin-Laden helped ensure that George W. Bush would stay in power, would continue his clumsy "war on terror"--and would drive thousands of new recruits into al-Qaeda's welcoming arms.
--ibid
Which is exactly what I said to my husband, that very day.
And it is exactly what happened.
Call me crazy if you want to, but this time, I'm right.
All I'm saying is…don't be so quick to judge things on their surface appearance, or so ready to automatically accept what the talking heads are telling you to accept. Learn to recognize canned "talking points" when you hear them or read them on the Internet.
Think for yourself. Examine the evidence. Study a wide range of information and opinions. Spend less time listening to the din and clatter and more time thinking.
We can outwit them. It's not that hard. There are many more ways to fight a war than with ONLY military muscle. It's time the American people figured that out.
For sure, bin-Laden has.
posted by Deanie Mills at 2:29 PM
1 Comments:
Well said.
The trick is still to get the people who haven't read the New York Times to admit they haven't and then to actually read it.
The toughest thing in the world (especially when it comes to politics) is to admit you've been manipulated.
Post a Comment
<< Home