The Bush administration, it seems, has kept Bin Laden alive for about seven years now, despite reports by the Fox news network that the alleged terrorist mastermind has been dead for years. On December 26, 2001, the Fox network reported that Osama bin Laden died of "serious lung complications" in mid-December of that year. If so, it means that Benazir Bhutto was correct to say that bin Laden is dead but it does not mean that she misspoke when she said that bin Laden had been murdered. The original Fox report is as follows:
Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.
"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.
Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.
About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some "Taliban friends," attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the "great leader."
The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden's face before burial said "he looked pale ... but calm, relaxed and confident."
Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said "no." Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of "pagans" against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.
When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, "I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished."
If Fox was correct, then Bin Laden could not have issued a video tape of October 29, 2004 --just two days before the US election. It was a tape that many pollsters and pundits believe swung the election to George W. Bush over John Kerry.
On October 29, 2004, two days before the US elections, the Arab television network al-Jazeera sprung an October Surprise by broadcasting a videotape of a healthy looking bin Laden addressing the people of the United States in which he took responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. He also condemned the Bush government's response to the attacks, and presented the attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence begun after personally seeing the destruction of the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. See 2004 Osama bin Laden video. President Bush opened up a six-point lead over John Kerry in the first opinion poll to include sampling taken after the videotape was broadcast. [21] Walter Cronkite found the video very convenient for the Bush administration, and said of it "I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing." [22]
Not only Fox, but the New York Times also reported the death of Bin Laden.
Osama bin Laden is dead. The news first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan almost six months ago: the fugitive died in December [2001] and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, echoed the information. The remnants of Osama's gang, however, have mostly stayed silent, either to keep Osama's ghost alive or because they have no means of communication. Click for full sized image With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, could not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with. Would he remain silent for nine months and not trumpet his own survival?
NYT has apparently re-published the story. The original publication date was: July 11, 2002. Fox, it would appear, scooped the NYT but, apparently forgot what they had reported.
The issue of bin Laden's pulse surfaced recently when the venerable BBC clearly censored remarks by Benazir Bhutto to the effect that bin Laden had been murdered. It still fair to ask why the BBC would have deleted only that portion of the interview. Following is the original, unedited version in which Bhutto states that Bin Laden had been murdered.
The BBC's Censored version can be found here.
A fallacious rationalization has surfaced: Bhutto misspoke, that she had meant to say "Daniel Perle". There is absolutely no logical reason to believe that Bhutto misspoke. She did not pause. She did not struggle to find a name. Secondly, only an idiot would mistake Bin Laden for Perle. Bhutto is not an idiot. Even if Bin Laden were alive, it would not prove that Bhutto misspoke, only that she was wrong. Not the same thing. In fact, Bhutto was probably correct that Bin Laden is dead but wrong about the cause of death.
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/
Len Hart is a Houston based film/video producer specializing in shorts and full-length documentaries. He is a former major market and network correspondent; credits include CBS, ABC-TV and UPI. He maintains the progressive blog: The Existentialist Cowboy
No Logical reason to think she misspoke? Yes, there is. In fact, there is no logical reason to think she didn't. Only an idiot would mistake Bin Laden for Pearle? How about spending 30 seconds and doing a little research. Why did she say in June of 2007,.."If the Taliban are eliminated, or if their poster-boy Osama bin Laden is caught, the international cries for restoration of democracy will only deepen" here
Because she doesn't think he was killed by Saeed perhaps? Why did she say in Oct of 2007..."If there is overwhelming evidence, I would hope that I would be able to take Osama bin Laden myself without depending on the Americans".. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3676687
Because she doesn't believe he was killed by Saeed perhaps? Why did she say on Nov 3rd, the DAY AFTER the Frost interview, when asked directly about the whereabouts of Bin Laden...."I don't think General Musharraf personally knows where Osama bin Laden is, but I do feel that people around him are many who are associated with the earlier military dictatorship of the '80s"..... http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/03/cnr.06.html
Because she doesn't believe he was killed by Saeed perhaps? She never ever implied at all that she thought Saeed killed Bin Laden before and after the interview. So to think she misspoke is more than logical. And as for how she could confuse Pearle with Bin Laden, she was speaking about a person in the Pakistani Government. She was describing him without naming him. Her people have though identified this person, As Ijaz Shah. And as she said during her interview he was involved with Saeed, and what she didn't say, and misspoke of was that Shah was also involved with Osama Bin Laden. From wikipedia...."Shah was the ISI handling officer of the British-born international terrorist Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, convicted for the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and part of the terrorist group Harkat-ul Mujahideen as well as the handling officer for Osama Bin Laden". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijaz_Shah
The only thing these tapes prove is that David Frost needs to retire because he can't stay awake during interviews and the worthless BBC covers his ass.
by
jimd3100 (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 22 comments)
on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 10:09:16 PM
Ms. Bhutto's comments did not rule out whether Musharraf could not determine whether Bin Laden was in Islamic Heaven or Hell. If what she implied on the bbc interview was that she had unimpeachable evidence Bin Laden is dead, that would have been enough to snuff her. If she chose the "right time" to release her evidence, everything would unravel to chaos if true.
by
JackN (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments)
on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 11:49:40 PM
Why do people keep missing the point? What difference does it make to this article whether or not bin Laden is in heaven or hell?
The point of the article is: There is evidence to believe that Bin Laden is dead! Whether or not Bhutto misspoke! And --if bin Laden is dead, then Bushco most probably manufactured a phony tape for release just prior to election day in a blatant attempt to sabotage the Kerry campaign.
by
Len Hart (122 articles, 158 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 475 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 4:13:25 AM
<em>No Logical reason to think she misspoke? Yes, there is. In fact, there is no logical reason to think she didn't. </em>
Not surprisingly, you have it backwards. The "burden of proof" is on those who assert. You've asserted that Bhutto misspoke. Prove it! Failing that, state a single reason to believe what you've said. Frankly, I don't think you understand the meaning of the word: "misspeak".
<em>How about spending 30 seconds and doing a little research. </em>
You have merely ASSUMED or SUPPOSED that Bhutto misspoke. You have made a similar baseless assumption here. Why are people so emotional about this. Fact is: people who believe --upon NO EVIDENCE whatsoever --that Bhutto misspoke subject others to emotional, ad hominem attacks. As you have done here.
<em>"If the Taliban are eliminated, or if their poster-boy Osama bin Laden is caught, the international cries for restoration of democracy will only deepen" here</em>
What she may have believed in 2007 is absolutely irrelevant and does not even speak to what she might have learned subsequently. Even so --it is not a reason to believe she "misspoke". And it certainly doesn't prove it.
<em>Because she doesn't believe he was killed by Saeed perhaps? She never ever implied at all that she thought Saeed killed Bin Laden before and after the interview. </em>
The rest of your post is full of the word "perhaps"! That proves my point. Everything is a "perhaps". "Perhaps" is not evidence. Secondly, even if Bhutto was wrong, it does not mean that she "misspoke". Look up a word before you launch into an emotion attack on someone.
<em>The only thing these tapes prove is that David Frost needs to retire because he</em>
In case you missed it, the crux of my first article was that the BBC CLEARLY censored Bhutto's remarks. That article was published first on The Existentialist Cowboy and has since been picked up all over the net. That thesis would have been true whether or not Bhutto misspoke. There is, of course, no logical reason to believe she did. Look up the word! Emotional assertions that she did misspeak are fallacious and are based upon PURE SUPPOSITION.
At last --I don't care when Frost retires. Why do you? Why are so irrationally vehement? And what do you have against older folk? Take a pill and chill out!
by
Len Hart (122 articles, 158 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 475 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 4:07:00 AM
<<Not surprisingly, you have it backwards. The "burden of proof" is on those who assert. You've asserted that Bhutto misspoke. Prove it! Failing that, state a single reason to believe what you've said. Frankly, I don't think you understand the meaning of the word: "misspeak". >>
OK, so showing every interview she has ever done when talking about Bin Laden, other than the Frost interview where I claim she misspoke, and in these interviews she talks as if she believes he is alive is not any kind of "proof" that she thinks he was alive. I showed 3, how many should I show? I think this shows you have no interest in any kind of proof, that shows you are wrong.
<<You have merely ASSUMED or SUPPOSED that Bhutto misspoke. You have made a similar baseless assumption here. Why are people so emotional about this. Fact is: people who believe --upon NO EVIDENCE whatsoever --that Bhutto misspoke subject others to emotional, ad hominem attacks. As you have done here. >>
I just sited 3 articles written 5 months, and 3 weeks before her Frost interview, and another 1 day after, where it is obvious she doesnt think Saeed killed Bin Laden, but you claim this is not evidence. You might want to re-evaluate who is being emotional.
<<What she may have believed in 2007 is absolutely irrelevant and does not even speak to what she might have learned subsequently. Even so --it is not a reason to believe she "misspoke". And it certainly doesn't prove it.>>
What she believed just before and just after her interview, is absolutely irrelevant? I think you're exposing yourself here. You have no interest in the truth.
<<The rest of your post is full of the word "perhaps"! That proves my point. Everything is a "perhaps". "Perhaps" is not evidence. Secondly, even if Bhutto was wrong, it does not mean that she "misspoke". Look up a word before you launch into an emotion attack on someone>>
Ever heard of sarcasm? Perhaps I think you don't care about proof?
<<In case you missed it, the crux of my first article was that the BBC CLEARLY censored Bhutto's remarks. That article was published first on The Existentialist Cowboy and has since been picked up all over the net. That thesis would have been true whether or not Bhutto misspoke. There is, of course, no logical reason to believe she did.>>
There is no logical reason to think she did? Again just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. If every interview she ever did doesn't mention she believed he was murdered, except this one interview, but in fact she speaks the opposite, I think that pretty much closes the book on what she thought, or knew. This Frost interview isn't the only one she ever did, in case you didn't know.
<<At last --I don't care when Frost retires. Why do you? Why are so irrationally vehement? And what do you have against older folk? Take a pill and chill out!>>
So I am young, emotional, and care about Frost retiring? OK, so you are batting .000. I couldn't care less about Frost, I am middled aged, and don't need a chill pill. It's none of your Bussiness, but I actually believe Bin Laden is dead, and 9/11 was an inside job. A so called 9/11 truther. Bhutto wasn't. And the 9/11 truth movement is turning into the 9/11 BS movement. I don't think that's helpfull. As for the BBC. Yes, they censured it. Because it makes their reporter look like an idiot. Or maybe you don't think so? He could have said..."excuse me...did you just say Bin Laden was murdered?" He didn't. Because he was obviously not paying attention. The BBC as I said is worthless garbage, and does censure things for their sheep audience, hey we agree on something!
by
jimd3100 (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 22 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 6:45:36 AM
You cannot possibly know whether or not Bhutto mispoke.
None of that was proof. Neither you nor anyone can know whether or not Bhutto mispoke.
"Mispeak" describes a mental state about which there is no verifiable evidence.
That you are so emtionally attached to this issue discredits you. You simply have your own emotions invested in it. There is NO reason to suppose that Bhutto misspoke. None! And Bin Laden is most certainly dead anyway and, about that Bhutto was correct.l
by
Len Hart (122 articles, 158 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 475 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 7:46:35 AM
I think it's pretty clear who is emotionally attached to their point of view and who isn't. It's also pretty clear who is willing to look at different explanations for events and use logic to come to sound conclusions. Just keep repeating the words emotional and no proof, no matter what kind of proof is shown and what lind of logic(not emotion is used)if that's the best you've got I guess you'll have to use it.
by
jimd3100 (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 22 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 11:35:55 AM
Supposition and baseless conjecture. And you call it fact and get all pissed off because I don't agree.
You're a bloody miindreader.
And you are proof of my premise about which I've written: American schools don't teach critical thinking.
Get a life! >>
Actually I point to articles and interviews with Bhutto herself and call that proof. But then again it looks like someone is getting a bit emotional and attacking. LOL......I'm going to use the word perhaps again and say//Perhaps you need to take that chill pill.
by
jimd3100 (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 22 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 12:14:40 PM
