Anyone who thinks Al-Qaida may pull off an "October Surprise" in the U.S. to try to influence the American electorate to dump Dubya is definitely looking in the wrong direction and should probably quit buying maps from Ahmed Chalabi. Al-Qaida (or its innumerable franchisees provided free license[s] courtesy of Bushco’s Iraq subsidiary) might indeed be planning a pre-election spectacular of some sort, but its political intent, if any, would be to help retain our current incrumbent. What better ally could a group determined to undermine the very fabric of American society have than good ol' Mr. War/Peace/War President? With his pathetic performance of promoting panic, pandering to pious party power players, picking the people’s pockets, and populating his presidency with pompous pigheadedness, Dubya’s doing double duty in decimating democracy all by his lonesome George.

Osama bin Laden has probably been uncontrollably grinning non-stop for some time now, given George Bush's uncanny penchant for playing right into his blood-soaked hands. (Perhaps Dubya’s secret plan is to smile bin Laden to death.) I picture the terror mastermind praising Allah for his unbelievable good fortune to have committed September 11's atrocities on Bush's watch (or, more accurately, non-watch).

And why not? After the logical initial U.S. foray into Afghanistan, practically every subsequent Bush push has seemed tailored to inflame the Muslim world, thereby drastically reducing Al-Qaida’s recruiting expenditures for the next, oh, hundred years or so.

There’s always a silver lining, though, since it seems at least one group of folks has shown appreciation for Bush’s “strategy”: Reportedly, in a recent poll conducted by Terrorist World Monthly, Bush overwhelmingly got the bad guys' east-facing nod as “President Most Likely to Make Al-Qaida's Day -- or Century.”

Why will Bush, rather than John Kerry, be the balloting beneficiary if a pre-election terrorist attack does occur here in the states? Simple: Ever since 9/11, Dubya’s scheming dream team has excelled at scaring the bejeebers out of a large number of Americans, constantly reminding them how icky it would be to be nuked or slimed. It matters not that the odds of this happening on an individual basis are actually catawamptiously small, something akin to, say, hearing Bush speak proper English; in other words, practically nil.

I truly don’t write this cavalierly, but a terrorist attack, in a way, is like an airplane crash: it rarely happens but when it does, the people involved usually die; the mathematical chance of a person actually being in one, though, is incredibly miniscule.

Not-so-funny funny things happen, however, when people are frightened or traumatized, regardless of what logic may dictate, and they are far more apt to stick with known misery, if terrified, rather than take a chance on stepping into the unknown (sort of like why I stayed much too long in my first two marriages). Karl Rove (who, if you think about it, looks a lot like another master of propaganda, Josef Stalin, or would, given the right mustache and a lot of plastic surgery to make him look that way), has Bush and Dick Cheney playing the fear angle to the hilt because he understands how people act (and would likely vote) when scared.

But, so does Al-Qaida -- all too well. Obviously, it needs no incentive for carrying out its nefarious acts, but such doings prior to Election Day would likely carry the super-bonus of helping the Bumble Bush stay in the White House, the one most responsible next to Osama himself for keeping Al-Qaida's deadly hives stocked with a steady supply of killer bees, drones decidedly more threatening to America than any that Saddam Hussein possessed. Bin Laden and everyone else alive recognize Kerry is a smart man who is far more likely to cramp Al-Qaida’s style than the incompetent Dubya. (Everyone, that is, except for the hardcore Bush supporters who would cast ballots for Bush even if he were caught on video snorting coke and not having sex, because, after all, he is a Christian, you know.)

Alanis Morissette, listen up: Wouldn’t it really be ironic if Americans elected the Bushies out of post-attack fear, thereby retaining the same crew that, for all of its self-congratulatory chest-thumping, had actually helped grease the wheels for an Al-Qaida encore to begin with? Besides stoking the boiler of global anti-Americanism with the giant coal shovel that is Iraq and inexplicably poking the eyes of longtime allies whose cooperation is indispensable in truly combating terrorism, Bush’s record since 9/11 at helping America defend against and prepare for another domestic attack is simply abysmal:

· Hope Yen of the Associated Press writes in January 2004: “The U.S. Conference of Mayors released a survey of 215 cities that found 76 percent have yet to receive any of the $1.5 billion in federal homeland security funds designated for ‘first responder’ teams such as police and fire departments.”

· MaritimeTV (www.MaritimeTV.com), billed as “an Internet TV channel [covering] the maritime industry” (who knew?), reports in May 2004 that “87% of the visits to U.S. ports in 2002” were made by “foreign flag ships and crews,” concluding that this “overwhelming presence…in U.S. ports [poses] a clear and present [security] threat.” Why? As Ed Kittel, identified as “Chief of the Explosives Division for the Transportation Security Administration,” explains to Maritime TV: “In the attacks of September 11, clearly we saw that the airplane became the bomb. It would not take much of a leap to show that a ship could become the bomb, particularly a ship with volatile cargo.”

Of course, if it does happen, at least we’d likely be comforted by Condi Rice telling us no one had ever considered the possibility of such a thing.

· If so much carnage could be wrought with just airplanes on September 11, wouldn’t it make sense to exert monumental effort ASAP to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear bomb components? Well, also in September, according to the U.S. Department of Energy web site, when Secretary Spencer Abraham was in Vienna attending the Global Threat Reduction Initiative International Partners Conference, he told its participants (representatives of nations he deemed “the holders and users of nuclear and other radioactive materials that serve the peaceful interests and objectives of the civilized world…”): “This conference will only be judged a success if we follow on its conclusion with substantive actions aimed at reducing the threat posed by under-secured nuclear and radiological materials.”

Unfortunately, Abraham said this in September 2004. Maybe he and the administration are hoping if they wait long enough, the “born-on” dates for the world’s unsecured supplies of enriched plutonium and uranium will just expire. Alas, as any American grade school science student knows (that is, if there are any left in the country), radioactive stuff has a fairly long shelf life; almost as much, in fact, as a Chik-O-Stix.

Just wondering: How long did Halliburton have to wait before getting contracts to rip off U.S. taxpayers -- I’m sorry, rebuild Iraq?

· Speaking of going nuclear: Ralph Vartabedian of the Los Angeles Times writes in April 2004 that “the General Accounting Office…[reports] that the threat posed by terrorists against the nation’s [nuclear] weapons labs is estimated by intelligence agencies to be far more lethal than what the Energy Department [has planned for].” He also reports: ”A training video produced by the Energy Department shows terrorists defeating the most intensive security measures…The teams are shown moving with lightning speed, penetrating buildings in seconds after alarms go off.” He then offers this reassuring thought: “Energy Department weapons experts estimated that a bomb with a yield of 1 kiloton [enough to ‘cause tens of thousands of casualties’] could be built in minutes by terrorists once they gained access to the materials.”

· OK, so what if some suicidal bad guys get into a nuclear power plant but absent-mindedly leave their “How to Build a Nuke in Five Minutes” manual back at the cave, and just decide to set the place ablaze to try to melt the reactor? No worries; the Bush administration is right on that one, too: The Progressive’s Anne-Marie Cusac reports in August 2004 that, in case of fire at America’s nuclear facilities, the White House, via a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposal, wants to “let the power companies rely on workers to run through the plants and try to turn off the reactors by hand while parts of the facilities are engulfed in flames” instead of enforcing the currently mandated installation of automatic heat-activated reactor shut-off equipment. Makes you feel all tingly and mutated inside, doesn’t it?

So, instead of enforcing adherence to current standards, the Bushies simply suggest lowering them. This may be fine for individuals during last call at Joe’s Bar, but is not so great at the national level.

And just what is the NRC’s excuse -- er, reasoning? According to Cusac, former NRC executive director for operations William D. Travers writes: “A concerted enforcement effort creates a prospect of significant resource expenditure without clear safety benefits.” This is typical lapdog federal agency Bushspeak meaning that hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer dollars can go into the Iraq war’s black hole, but nickels and dimes needed to lean on administration power industry cronies to spend a fraction of their precious profits for true national security and safety purposes just can’t be found.

· More fox from the henhouse news: The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says its member companies “[represent] about 90% of America’s basic industrial chemical production” and in June 2004, issued a release crowing about how its affiliated “facilities have completed rigorous security vulnerability assessments” while also soberly proclaiming it “has been pushing the Administration and…Congress to…enact meaningful federal legislation that will require all chemical facilities to address security as rigorously as do our members.”

Funny, ‘cause two years earlier, in summer 2002, according to John Mintz of the Washington Post, “The petrochemical industry…launched an intense lobbying campaign to upend [Democratic New Jersey Senator Jon S.] Corzine’s proposal for mandatory [chemical plant] security measures, prompting most Republicans on the panel to withdraw support.” Last spring, in reaction to another similar bill proposed by Corzine and Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), ACC spokeswoman Kate McGloon huffed (pun possibly intended): “Government commanding changes in our operations can create unintended risks.”

Why the ACC U-turn this year, then? A little closer look at the group’s new-found regulation adoration reveals it may not emanate so much from altruistic concern over the possible human barbeque factor of people living near the ten percent of chemical companies that choose not to conform to ACC’s self-serving security standards, but rather from those businesses not being forced to fork out the dough to meet them, thereby retaining more of their all-important revenues and giving ACC members a little harder run for their money. Shocking, eh?

And the administration’s reaction to Corzine’s and Edwards’ attempt at much-needed chemical facility security regulation? Well, you know the drill: Mintz reports the White House, along with the aid of Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), responded by formulating “a bill that would require chemical companies to abide by standards drawn up by their industry association [ACC], rather than be subject to mandatory government measures advocated by environmental activists and many Democrats.”

These are but a few examples of how what is utmost on the minds of this administration is not how to best guarantee the safety of the American people, but rather how to best guarantee the safety of continuing unimpeded profits for American Big Business. In those rare cases in which administration pals either haven’t figured out a way to squeeze out or hold onto one last dime -- such as when it comes to countering nuclear weapons material proliferation -- Bush is utterly lethargic, no matter the risk to U.S. citizens.

And unlike our commander-in-sleep, Al-Qaida reads the papers. Its members and those of its countless spin-offs know how thoroughly unprepared he and his fellow power and greed addicts have left us. Though indisputably evil, Al-Qaida and its ilk aren’t stupid, and would love nothing more than a two-for-one attack that would both kill as many Americans as possible plus help keep in power for another four years a guy who, despite all his butchered bluster about protecting the “homeland” (man, how I hate that word), has unforgivably left America needlessly vulnerable, and whose main ability (other than keeping linguists busy) lies in being the best damn recruiter any terrorist organization worth its sand could pray several times a day for.

Here’s greatly hoping, then, that the only October Surprise in store is that the San Francisco Giants win the World Series. (Although, I suppose, in an effort to retain some sort of credibility, I really should use an example that actually has a chance of happening in this lifetime).

Because if, heaven forbid, something occurs this month that is a repeat performance of 9/11 or even worse, not only would it by its very nature be utterly devastating, but also would almost assuredly saddle us and the world with four more years of the counterfeit cowboy from Crawford, a depressing development sure to leave Al-Qaida feeling like it is definitely sittin’ in the catbird seat.



Copyright © 2004 Mark Drolette. All rights reserved.

Interview with the al CIAda Ossoma.

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims.-"

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/obl_int.htm

check it out. Again.

...that OBL and the Taliban were nurtured by the U.S. when our government deemed them to be on our side. But--and even in this day of news that isn't news and ongoing disinformation dissemination--I still say the overhwhelming evidence, in my view, is that OBL and Al-Qaida perpetrated 9/11 and pose a genuine, very serious threat to the U.S.

Sheep, not EVERYTHING bad that happens in the world is brought about by American intelligence agencies. Mankind has done horrible stuff to itself ever since it started walking on two legs. If I see some serious investigative reporting from a credible source who him/herself uses corroborating, credible sources, then I will pay attention. So far, I haven't seen any, your appreciated efforts notwithstanding.

and a real clever way of writing them. Just how did OBL manage to have NORAD stand down? He must be even more clever than yourself.

This guy is total useless spewing trash.

Ann Ar Key, do you evet proof read your stupidity?

dear me. I missed a key. Blow me.

kerry the shoesliding mule lurchs for a more collective solution, and the soshies in europe aint buyin nothin more than pacifism.

Kerry will send more American countrymen into the meat grinder.

What do you expect from another elite butt munch who has investments in the M. I. Consortium?

The corporate media ( Whores Inc.) has served another plate of steaming choice for our next Imperial C.E.O. Screw them.

Nader 04

A vote for Nader is as good as voting for Bush.*

America's corrupt political system needs a thorough overhaul, there's no doubt about it. But, sheesh, first things first. Unless you WANT Bush in the White House for another four years, electing Kerry (provided the whole thing isn't already rigged), is a small but critical step in doing that.

It's either Kerry or Bush, period. The only thing your "protest" Nader vote is going to do is get you a "thank you very much now go screw yourself" from the GOP.

Is Kerry the perfect candidate? Hell, no. But he is intelligent and for damn sure will help restore some of America's credibility in the eyes of longtime allies, many of which still bear Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld spittle.

If you haven't already, I suggest you read at least some of Kerry's testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 04/22/71. Pretty impressive stuff.

www.wintersoldier.com

* Yes, I understand a president is elected by the Electoral College and not by direct popular vote, so in a "safe" Kerry state like California, a few more votes here and there for Nader isn't going to damage anything. But, personally, I think it is important to kick Bush out by as many electoral AND direct votes as possible.

Are you a rabbit or a mouse? A rabbit driven by fear (ABB) of the approaching hounds or a mouse lured by the smell of food into a steel or sticky death trap? Either way, the end will come in a land where the people have let themselves be reduced to the level of prey. I choose to be a human with my own conscience to account for in a society I share with my brothers and sisters for a world that cries and screams for justice as the terror of a mindless evil fueled by insane greed rains death upon the weak.

Nader 04

No, Sheep, I am neither, but rather a thinking American who both loves his country and, after much thoughtful consideration and debate, has decided that, short of revolution (which is not going to happen within the next month), a vote for Kerry November 2 is the most intelligent tack to take at this moment.

If Kerry wins, at least some breathing room has been bought and the real work of reforming America's political process must and will continue. You see, I belive there is still a shred of hope left that this country can be turned around by working with what we have left now. The Constitution is still the law of this land, no matter how shamelessly it has been treated, and in my view, it is up to those of us who care enough about what it really means to take action to help pump breath back into it again.

Now, if you don't believe that, that is certainly your right, but if not, then we'd all love to see your plan. Because, otherwise, casting inconsequential ballots and then moaning about the horrible state of affairs in this country (and it is a very sad state indeed) and yet not offering any realistic solutions is pointless, unless it just makes you feel good to do it. But it doesn't help the rest of us out here who are just as sickened as you are by what the Bushies have done to America and the world, and what more they will do if they get four more years.

Don't try to make me some whipping boy, simply because I care about my country and am trying to help out as best and intelligently as I can. If you have different opinions about fixing this mess, fine: share them. But cracking on me and others who want to help America become the truly great nation it can be is truly self-defeating.

On the other hand, if you don't care about what happens to America (which I don't believe is true), then that is a different argument altogether and one in which I have neither the time nor the desire to engage.

P.S. I like you, Sheep, and if you want to civilly debate till the cows come home in an effort to come up with some positive actions that can be taken to right this sinking ship, that's quite all right with me; in fact, I welcome it. But if you choose to get personal, then I'm not in. That type of stuff is, sadly, indistinguishable from about 95% of what passes for political "discourse" these days and is utterly inane, unhelpful, and a complete waste of time, especially during a period in this country's history when it can least afford such nonsense.

I'll apologize for for any rudeness directed towards someone who cares about this country and its people. You see, when Kerry was speaking to congress, I was active duty, watching my buddies die in another war for imperialism in a land of beauty which was raped for the singular reason of corporate profit. I see the same scenario now as we are driven like farm animals into another frenzy of carnage out of fear and ignorance.

You seem to shy away from the history of our own criminal government, pleading for what you call reputable evidence of treason against our own people. Let me list a few examples of psychotic power and disregard for life.

Operation Northwoods

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3140.htm

The Jonestown massacre

http://www.parascope.com/articles/0997/jonestown01.htm

http://www.parascope.com/articles/0997/jonestown02.htm

Waco

http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html



1993 WTC bombing

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/adam.htm

The Ok bombing

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1998/vo14no15/vo14no15_bombs.htm

(I have provided URLs to flesh out the above incidences, but as in the past, you refuse to credit them .)

And all of above were attributed to the actions of lone nuts with the subsequent and continuing cover up of government involvement by the pentagon controlled media.

Maybe this is enough for some to consider the gangster state and its terrorist cronies, like the Bush and Kerry Skull & Bones brothers.

Do you really believe that any of these choices offered us has any inclination of turning the path we are on towards a nation of polarized obscene wealth and serfdom policed by a ruthless militarized enforcement arm of brainwashed mercenaries?

Maybe I wont convince you, but maybe I will convince some to stand up and say 'Hell No'.

Nader 04

...then I accept, and I thank you. If not, oh well.

I do unequivocally thank you for your service in Vietnam, a totally shitty war (as if most wars aren't) that was a complete waste of life and money--except for, as you note, corporations that benefitted.

Iraq: Another totally shitty war, prompted by the PNAC crowd, perpetrated solely for purposes of American power and corporate interests, as I have said from way before it even started--in the streets, in the papers, on the Internet, to friends, to relatives, to co-workers, to my senators, to my representative, to strangers. So I do not "shy away" from acknowledging or speaking out about my government's obscene misdeeds, if I feel I know enough about that which I speak.

But I ask you again, Sheep: What is your plan to improve things here?

Re the links: That's a lot of URLs and it will take me a few days to digest them and get back to you. Thanks, as always, for providing them.

"Do you really believe that any of these choices offered us has any inclination of turning the path we are on towards a nation of polarized obscene wealth and serfdom policed by a ruthless militarized enforcement arm of brainwashed mercenaries? "

I can only hope, and perhaps naively, that Kerry as president will give us an opening to effect the change necessary so America does not metastasize into even more of a plutocratic police state. If Bush wins or it's already rigged, I think things may get very ugly very fast in the U.S.

P.S. Gloomy (but pretty easy) prediction: No matter who gets the nod or what follows, the U.S. is headed for a major financial crisis that will do a lot of upending on its own. How things shake out from that, irrespective of the politics involved, is anybody's guess.

Like I once before said on this board ( and subsequently criticized for offering only talk) I offer this advice. There is a path we can take albeit a long one, of education, mobilization, indirect and direct action. Do what I do.

Boycott, to the profiteers of pain.

Banks, credit cards, sponsors of media and major institutions of consumer waste. For instance. I don't buy new items when I can purchase used ones or maintain the ones I have. I have a car that I've owned for 33 years, a bug which I bought for $125. I shop at thrift stores and raise as much of my table food as I can in my own yard. I bake my own bread, use baking soda instead of toothpaste and deodorant and have a grey water irrigation system from my sinks and showers as a small sample of smart living. In other words, I don't feed the system anymore than I have to and I try to leave as small a footprint upon the earth as I can.

I educate in person or electronically as this board is an example of. Indeed this is why I had to become self employed, as the staff at the company I worked 11 years for didn't like engineers that spoke up in meetings about subjects that made them uncomfortable. Standing up for moral reasons can be hazardous to a wage slave and his career.

I have organized a neighborhood collective for mutual aid and resource pooling.

I do what I can.

And I vote.

Nader 04

You walk your talk, which, in my book, is what it's about. I also tell people, "I do what I can." My belief is that if we all do what we can, (those of us who want to see America some day consistently and more truly exemplify positive values like justice, liberty, compassion, helpfulness, etc.), then we've got a shot.

Get back to you later on the URLs you posted when I get some time to read them and respond--it's been hectic in this neck of the woods lately.

Mark

OK, Sheep, here’s my take so far:

Operation Northwoods: Undoubtedly factual, in my book, and truly Dr. Strangeglovian. Thanks for turning me onto this. I think I'd heard of the name, but knew nothing about it.

I just now got into the Jim Jones stuff (this is a glacial pace, I know, but I'll get there eventually), so I'll let you know when I'm done with it.

Jonestown: I don't buy the "zombie army" stuff. I read an eyewitness account, shortly after the affair, by one of the survivors who'd accompanied Ryan. If I remember correctly, according to this individual who was there (and wounded on the airstrip next to a guy who had his brains blown out), things happened pretty much as they've been reported over the years. Every so often, what I consider justifable interest surfaces up here in Northern California about how Jones gained such access to S.F. governmental leaders, and I think that the stuff provided by the URLs you offered does have a lot of facts, but I also think those facts are often mixed together with liberal doses of speculation.