October 30, 2004

Walter Cronkite thinks Karl Rove put Osama up to it

Actual transcript from Larry King Live.

KING: OK, Walter. What do you make of this?

CRONKITE: Well, I make it out to be initially the reaction that it's a threat to us, that unless we make peace with him, in a sense, we can expect further attacks. He did not say that precisely, but it sounds like that when he says...

KING: The warning.

CRONKITE: What we just heard. So now the question is basically right now, how will this affect the election? And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, 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. The advantage to the Republican side is to get rid of, as a principal subject of the campaigns right now, get rid of the whole problem of the al Qaqaa explosive dump. Right now, that, the last couple of days, has, I think, upset the Republican campaign.

KING: Are there enough undecideds to tilt this? Or what do you think of the whole election picture?

CRONKITE: Well, I think it's one of the biggest messes we've had in a long time. I believe that we're undoubtedly not going to know the results of this election. I don't want to knock you off the air on Monday night or anything, or Tuesday night. But I suspect that we're not going to know who the next president is, whether it is Bush or the new man, until very probably sometime in the early spring. There's so much controversy that they're planting, deliberately planting at the polls, that there's almost certainly to be a suit going back to the Supreme Court eventually, going through the other courts slowly first.

Posted by marc at 10:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Does Osama help Bush or Kerry?

Letter to the Editor

It's hard to tell how Osama bin Laden will affect the election since his October surprise appearance just 4 days before the polls open. Osama apparently wants to affect the election - but in what way? The conventional wisdom is that Osama helps Bush because in the past whenever there have been terror alerts Bush's numbers have gone up, and Osama is the ultimate boogie man. On the other hand - the very fact that Osama has surfaced and is looking fit and healthy is a stark reminder that Bush failed to capture and kill him like he promised to. And - I hate to agree with Osama on this - but if Bush had ordered fighter jets into the air instead of doing the photo op reading "My Pet Goat" to kids - then those planes might have been intercepted before the could hit us. So Osama hurts Bush because he exists and speaks and reminds us that Bush has failed to get him.

Perhaps we can guess who Osama wants to win by figuring out who will benefit him the most? Does Osama want Bush or Kerry to win? It's been 3 years since 9/11 and Osama is not only free - but he's well dressed and looking fit and trim. Looks like he's doing very well under Bush. America is bogged down is an unrelated war and has become a symbol of fund raising for the terrorists. High oil prices are making the bin Laden family very rich. From that it would seem that he would want to keep Bush.

Furthermore - Osama says that neither Bush or Kerry can keep America safe and that if we don't attack him - he won't attack us. Its like he's trying to make a deal. Bush has been playing down Osama in the last two years saying, "“I truly am not that concerned about him." Perhaps the reason America hasn't been attacked is because Bush made a deal? I would think Osama would want a president who was not concerned about him. So - what is Osama's hidden message? Perhaps he wants you to vote for Nader? Who can tell?

Posted by marc at 06:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 29, 2004

What does bin Laden statement mean?

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.

Posted by marc at 02:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bush makes deal to let bin Laden go free

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."

Posted by marc at 01:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Why Young People should Vote

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.

Posted by marc at 01:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

IRS goes after NAACP to suppress Black 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.

Posted by marc at 12:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Republican Tactics to suppress vote might Backfire

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.

Posted by marc at 12:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bush wore Device During Debate

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."

Posted by marc at 06:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 28, 2004

Explosives looted AFTER US Invasion

EXCLUSIVE:
5 EYEWITNESS NEWS video may be linked to missing explosives in Iraq

A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein was in the area where tons of explosives disappeared.

The missing explosives are now an issue in the presidential debate. Democratic candidate John Kerry is accusing President Bush of not securing the site they allegedly disappeared from. President Bush says no one knows if the ammunition was taken before or after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003 when coalition troops moved in to the area.

Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS determined our crew embedded with them may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where that ammunition disappeared. Our crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa. On April 18, 2003 they drove two or three miles north into what is believed to be that area.

During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew bunker after bunker of material labelled explosives. Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get in and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.

"We can stick it in those and make some good bombs." a soldier told our crew.

There were what appeared to be fuses for bombs. They also found bags of material men from the 101st couldn't identify, but box after box was clearly marked "explosive."

In one bunker, there were boxes marked with the name "Al Qaqaa", the munitions plant where tons of explosives allegedly went missing.

Once the doors to the bunkers were opened, they weren't secured. They were left open when the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew and the military went back to their base.

"We weren't quite sure what were looking at, but we saw so much of it and it didn't appear that this was being secured in any way," said photojournalist Joe Caffrey. "It was several miles away from where military people were staying in their tents".

Officers with the 101st Airborne told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that the bunkers were within the U.S. military perimeter and protected. But Caffrey and former 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Reporter Dean Staley, who spent three months in Iraq, said Iraqis were coming and going freely.

"At one point there was a group of Iraqis driving around in a pick up truck,"Staley said. "Three or four guys we kept an eye on, worried they might come near us."

5 EYEWITNESS NEWS e-mailed pictures of the material we found to experts in Washington Wednesday to see if it is the same kind of high explosives that went missing in Al Qaqaa. They could not make that determination.

The footage is now in the hands of security experts to see if it is indeed the explosives in question.

Posted by marc at 06:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Chilling Effects of the MPAA

One thing that the Motion Picture Association of America has accomplished is that they have created so much fear of being sued that even when Michael Moore has given permission to post Fahrenheit 9/11 on the internet - people are still afraid to do so. We live in a world of cowards. What a shame.

Posted by marc at 06:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 27, 2004

Why I'm posting Fahrenheit 9-11 for downloading

I'm posting Fahrenheit 9/11 for downloading. You can get it at This Link.

I want to say something else about the legal issues of putting this on the web. Here are the facts:


  1. Michael Moore made public statements giving me and people like me permission to post it.
  2. I am relying on his permission.
  3. Michael Moore is someone who either has the authority or is in a position to speak for those who have the authority to give permission.
  4. All interested parties - copyright holders, distributors - are aware of Michael Moore's public statements.
  5. No other interested party has make any statement refuting Michael Moore's statement. The distributor hasn't stated Michael Moore is wrong.

So - there is a legal concept that if someone is silent when they have a duty to speak - or in this case object - then they are agreeing through their silence to Michael Moore's statement.

I'm saying this because I'm stating publicly that this is legal and I'm advocating that other's follow my example. I want to explain my legal theory behind why I believe it is within my rights to post this work for free.

Posted by marc at 05:47 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Bush flipping the bird - One Finger Salute - Movie

Here's a Movie of Bush flipping the bird! Now tell me - is this guy really a Christian Conservative or is he just taking advantage of Christian's ability to be easilly fooled? I mean really - between this and Cheney's Fuck You - you would think Christians would figure it out that they had been had.

But - cult thinking conquers all. I'm sure Christians will find a way to explain this to themselves.

Is it the Jesus Loves You secret sign?

So - here's the big questions ...


  1. Do you think that the Republican owned new media will cover this?
  2. If this were Kerry - or Gore - or Clinton - would they cover it?

See what I mean?

Lets get this out there and talk about it. If you want the real news - you have to go to the internet blogs. I report the stories that the media won't touch. Why watch ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, or CNN when I'm the one who has the story?

But seriously people - look at the movie and ask yourself - "Is this the kind of guy that you want to order your son to die in a war for? Is this the guy you want to be the most powerful man in the world? Is this the guy that you want to trust America's future to?

We have to get rid of this moron!

So - here's my story. I was thinking about Bush and just about to find Jesus and become a Christian like Bush is and then I saw this as I was getting down on my knees to pray - and - I saw this and decided - if this is what people are like who have Jesus in their heart then I don't see the difference between him and some ignorant redneck cowboy.

Yes - ok - I made up the story - but come on Republicans - look at this and tell me - this is your leader? This represents your religion? Isn't this at least a little about the truth and reality? Yes - Reality - reality is important. Bring a little reality into your life. Let reality fill your soul and ask yourself the sacred question - what is real here?

Posted by marc at 04:04 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Kerry will win the election - but ...

Bush is going to cheat every way he can. Clearly in spite of the Republican owned media support, its pretty clear that Kerry is actually way ahead. So far that they can barely contain it. But now we are facing a fake election with rigged voting machines and the question is - what are we going to do if they steal the election again? Are we going to just roll over and take it - or are we going to stand up and stop it?

Posted by marc at 02:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 26, 2004

Republicans then and now

Letter to the Editor

Republicans sure have changed in the last few years. Issues that were important then are no longer important anymore. I remember when the Republicans were trying to pass a balanced budget amendment - but you don't hear about that anymore. I remember what they talked about putting Social Security in a "lock box" - but you don't hear about that anymore. Who would have thought that it would be the Republicans who would ask churches to turn over their membership lists? Who would have thought it would be Republicans proposing a 23 percent national sales tax? Who would have thought it would be Republicans who turned the largest surplus in the history of the world into the largest deficit in the history of the world?

It used to be that Republicans wanted to keep the government out of people's private business. But now they tout the Patriot Act with the government spying on you wherever you go - whatever you buy - and what books you read at the library. Who would have thought that the Republicans would short fund the military during the war so that the rich could get a tax break? Who would have thought that Republicans would be in favor of torture?. And who would have thought that under a Republican president that if a soldier died for his country, that they would doc his final paycheck for the time he missed. The Republicans have changed and the party that calls themselves Republicans today are not the same as they used to be.

Posted by marc at 04:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 25, 2004

350 Tons of Explosives Stolen - Bush is incompetent!

Letter to the Editor

So now we discover that 350 tons of explosives in Iraq - strong enough to detonate a nuclear weapon - have vanished. These explosives were in our control before the war - but now because of the war the terrorist have it. The big question here is - which is worse? Is it worse that Bush allowed terrorists to steal 350 tons of high explosives? Or - is it worse that the Bush administration didn't even know these explosives were missing? It makes you wonder what other weapons and explosives are missing that Bush doesn't even know about. Bush is incompetent - clueless. I'm voting for Kerry because he's at least smart enough to keep track of what's missing.

Posted by marc at 05:50 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

October 24, 2004

Bush wants to privatize social security

Letter to the Editor

Bush want to partially privatize social security by allowing people to invest part of their social security in the stock market. This is a really bad idea for several reasons. First - Bush and many Americans have the illusion that this money is sitting there waiting for you to retire. In reality - the money is being spend faster that you are paying it in. Your social security is being spent on Iraq. For Bush to invest the mythical social security money in the stock market - he'd kave to borrow it from the communist chineese.

Second - if Bush had invested social security in the market doring his presidency he would have lost a big chunk of your money. The market is severely down since Bush took office. So - if you think that it makes good economic sense to borrow money to gamble in the stock market then vote for Bush. If you think we should be fiscally responsible and get away from borrow and spen - then vote for Kerry.

Posted by marc at 10:15 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack