Letter to the Editor
With just 4 days till the election bin Laden is addressing American. What does this mean? What it means that no one can argue with is that bin Laden is alive - he's free - and he got away with 9-11. When bin Laden attacked America Bush said he was going to get him. Bush said we are going to "smoke him out". Obviously Bush has failed. Bush has tried to downplay the importance of bin Laden saying, “I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.” He described bin as “marginalized” and said, “I just don’t spend that much time on him.”
Clearly Bush is a failure and he just doesn't get it. Bush doesn't get it that bin Laden has not been "marginalized" and the fact that bin Laden is making statements reflects Bush's failure to protect America. We need a president who will actually get bin Laden. John Kerry is reporting for duty and I think he'll get the job done where Bush has failed.
This is a repost of a story I ran a year ago that was in the Times of India. The link to the original story is dead but I saved it just in case it vanished.
What relevant is that bin Laden just said that if we don't attack him - he won't attack us. And we know that Bush let bin Laden go to go after Iraq - and America hasn't been attacked. And - Bush has made several statements playing down the importance of going after bin Laden. And - as we know from Fahremheit 9-11 - Bush's family is in business with bin laden's family. So - it looks to me like Bush has given into bin Laden and perhaps is in partnership with him.
So - for those who were looking for the October surprize - here it is.
--------------------
Bush made Osama deal with Musharraf
IANS[ SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 2003 06:49:05 PM ]
LONDON: Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has struck a deal with the US not to capture Osama Bin Laden, fearing this could lead to unrest in Pakistan, according to a special investigation by The Guardian.
The paper reported Saturday that Bin Laden was being protected by three elaborate security rings manned by tribesmen stretching 192 kms in diameter in northern Pakistan.
The paper's information is based on comments made by Mansoor Ijaz, an American of Pakistan origin who, the paper said, knows al-Qaeda better than most people and had close contacts in Pakistan's intelligence agencies.
Ijaz believed an agreement was reached between Musharraf and US authorities shortly after Bin Laden's flight from his stronghold Tora Bora in Afghanistan in December 2001.
The Pakistanis feared that to capture or kill Bin Laden so soon after a deeply unpopular war in Afghanistan would incite civil unrest in Pakistan and trigger a spate of revenge al-Qaida attacks on Western targets across the world.
"There was a judgment made that it would be more destabilising in the longer term. There would still be the ability to get him at a later date when it was more appropriate", Ijaz told The Guardian.
The Americans, according to Ijaz, accepted the argument, not least because of the shift in focus to the impending war in Iraq.
So the months that followed were centred on taking down not Bin Laden but the "retaliation infrastructure" of al-Qaeda.
It meant that Musharraf frequently put out conflicting accounts of the status of Bin Laden, while the US administration barely mentioned his name.
In January last year Musharraf said he believed Bin Laden was probably dead. A year later he said he was alive and moving either in Afghanistan or perhaps in the Pakistani tribal areas.
"Yet Western diplomats say they believe the Pakistani authorities are committed to the hunt for Bin Laden, although they admit that frequently the official accounts of the timing and location of successful arrests do not square with reality," the report stated.
"Pakistan must now end the charade and get Bin Laden... With so much of the retaliation infrastructure gone or unsustainable, Bin Laden's martyrdom does not pose nearly the threat it did a year ago," Ijaz told the paper.
According to Ijaz, Bin Laden is hiding in the "northern tribal areas", part of the long belt of seven deeply conservative tribal agencies which stretch down the length of the mountain ranges that mark Pakistan's winding border with Afghanistan.
The paper said that Ijaz, who recently visited Pakistan, believed that Bin Laden was protected by an elaborate security cordon of three concentric circles, in which he is guarded first by a ring of tribesmen, whose duty is to report any approach by Pakistani troops or US Special Forces.
Inside them is a tighter ring, around 19 km in diameter, made up of tribal elders who would warn if the outer ring were breached.
At the centre of the circles is Bin Laden himself, protected by one or two of his closest relatives and advisers.
Bin Laden has reportedly agreed with the elders' argument that he will use no electronic communications but handwritten notes, and will move only at night and between specified places within a limited radius.
Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat told the daily: "We have been getting reports of his presence across the border inside Afghanistan and along the border area also.
"Not all reports have been credible at times. If others were credible, we would certainly have been able to get near to him but certainly that has not been the position so far."
Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general and security analyst said: "I think the Americans find their reliance on the Pakistanis is now increasing."
Letter to the Editor
It is well known that young people 18-24 don't vote and old people do. Many young people think there's no reason for them to vote. After all - if the election isn't tied - what's the chances that someone is going to win by one vote? But there are other reasons to vote than breaking a tied election and I hope that people of all groups who don't usually vote will think about these reasons.
Because older people show up at the polls politicians know they better take care of old people. That's why social security is something politicians protect. But young people don't vote - so if they cut college funds and raise tuition - so what? Why cater to a group of people who don't vote? So as you can see - it's not even as much of an issue who you vote for as it is to show up and vote so that your group's numbers are higher. When you vote you are really voting twice. You are voting for your candidate and your issues - but you are also voting for your age group - your race - and your gender. If young people show up in strong numbers then politicians will take young people's issues into consideration. As you know - the issue of the military draft is on the table. Either candidate might institute the draft. So it's important for young people to vote sending whoever wins a message - we're young and we vote. Show them you have a voice because you show up to vote.
Letter to the Editor
The IRS is being used by the Bush administration to intimidate the NAACP and to suppress the black vote. The NAACP is accused of using their tax exempt status to oppose the Bush administration. The NAACP is barred from political endorsement but are permitted to make statements about policy. I find it interesting that the IRS chooses to go after the NAACP for legal policy comments while ignoring the fact the the Bush campaign has asking churches to turn over their membership lists to his campaign which is totally illegal.
It's not the NAACP who is breaking the law here - its the IRS who is breaking the law. They are allowing themselves to be used to affect the outcome of the election by going after Democrats only and ignoring Republican abuses. We can not allow Bush to keep people of color from voting. In this nation every person has a right to vote, but in order to preserve that right people have to stand up and take that right and vote out the oppressor. Its time to fold or fight and I say show up at the polls and fight.
Letter to the Editor
The Republican tactic to suppress the vote of Democrats in swing states might backfire on them and cost them more votes than they gain. The Republicans are making an all out effort in key states to keep Democrats from voting. In Ohio for example, Republicans are sending "election challengers" to polling places to slow down the voting process and intimidate voters in Democratic areas only. They are challenging the thickness of paper required for voter registration. The have used Republican owned companies to sign up Democrats and then destroy the registrations. Republican impersonating election officials have called Democratic voters to give them wrong information about where their polling place is.
Although these tactics will succeed in reducing the Democratic vote it might offend Republicans and Independents who feel that it is wrong to cheat to win. Some people have a basic sense of fairness and honesty believing that everyone who is eledgable to vote should be allowed to exercize their constitutional rights to vote in free and fair elections. These people might be turn off by cheating and vote against the Republican party.
So the question is - will the Republicans gain or lose from this. Clearly they think cheating works. But I wonder, now that they are being watched closely, if the same tactics that got Bush elected in 2000 will work again in 2004.
Bush wore a device during the debate and he still lost to Kerry showing that those who cheat don't always win.
NASA Photo Analyst says Bush wearing device
"George W. Bush tried to laugh off the bulge. "I don't know what that is," he said on "Good Morning America" on Wednesday, referring to the infamous protrusion beneath his jacket during the presidential debates. "I'm embarrassed to say it's a poorly tailored shirt."
Dr. Robert M. Nelson, however, was not laughing. He knew the president was not telling the truth. And Nelson is neither conspiracy theorist nor midnight blogger. He's a senior research scientist for NASA and for Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and an international authority on image analysis. Currently he's engrossed in analyzing digital photos of Saturn's moon Titan, determining its shape, whether it contains craters or canyons.
For the past week, while at home, using his own computers, and off the clock at Caltech and NASA, Nelson has been analyzing images of the president's back during the debates. A professional physicist and photo analyst for more than 30 years, he speaks earnestly and thoughtfully about his subject. "I am willing to stake my scientific reputation to the statement that Bush was wearing something under his jacket during the debate," he says. "This is not about a bad suit. And there's no way the bulge can be described as a wrinkled shirt."