File the Bin Laden Phone Leak Under 'Urban Myths'

and his choir mis-follows

is if these things are so secret, how does everyone find out about them?

And W can hardly tell it from reality.

Trial Reveals a Conspiracy of Calls, But Only Tidbits about bin Laden

by Phil Hirschkorn
CNN
April 16, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20010808073944/http://www.cnn.com/LAW/trials.and.cases/case.files/0012/embassy.bombing/trial.report/trial.report.04.16/index.html

Al-Qaeda's Satellite Phone Records Revealed

by Nick Fielding and Dipesh Gadhery
The Sunday Times
March 24, 2002
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/sundaytimes032402.html

These are especially interesting in light of the fact that we now know every single one of these calls was monitored by the NSA at the time. Even Bush noted this recently. If that is so, and given that bin Laden was calling some of the main participants in the 1998 Africa embassy bombings BEFORE the bombing, how is it those bombings weren't stopped in time?

Note also that according to the actual phone records, bin Laden didn't stop using the phone until TWO MONTHS after the embassy bombing. Which means that not only is Bush wrong, but this Washington Post article is at least partially wrong, too.

I'd be more worried about RFID's entering his 'cone of silence' if you know what I mean,

Wink wink, nod nod. This stuff really just gives more credence to the theory that bin Laden met with US CIA in July of 2001 in a hospital in Dubai

Bin Laden Met with the CIA in July and Walked Away
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0111/S00077.htm

Now there's an urban 'myth' that just won't go away until they cover up wayyyyy too many facts that substantiate it. If OBL is one of ours it's only a matter of time before his org turns on him !

BTW, look who owns 40% stake of Le Figaro in 2001
http://www.carlyle.com/eng/geo/casestudy-755.html

""Carlyle acquired 40 percent of Le Figaro Group in July 1999 through a combination of shares and convertible bonds from the company’s parent, Socpresse. Socpresse was 100 percent owned by the Hersant family at the time of Carlyle’s investment. The Hersant family had held Le Figaro since the 1970s, and also had interests in numerous regional papers.""

When ALL the facts come out, just as with the JFK murder, we'll all know the truth...

what's an RFID?

http://www.epic.org/privacy/rfid/

Now, get conspiratorial and think 'nanotechnology'. "Make 'em small and track 'em all !"

(1)Bush "won" the election
(2)Saddam orchestrated the 9/11 disasters
(3)WMDs in Iraq
(4)US has never tortured prisoners
(5)Now the satellite phones

There must be dozens more I'm overlooking.
:puke:

or the number of times any of them have opened their mouths in the last 5 years. If their mouths are moving, they're lying.

speech. It's been repeated over and over by all the media. The correction won't be as eagerly reported. Most Americans will continue to believe the lie.

Lyng liars once again.

Bin Laden released video of himself USING a damn satellite phone. God, I hate Repukes, the lying, smug assholes.

that the Repubs have been spamming.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When Bush lies about Bin Laden he is repeating an urban myth. When Clinton lies about Lewinski, he is impeached.

When Bush lies about Bin Laden he is repeating an urban myth. When Clinton lies about Lewinski, he is impeached.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030101fareviewessay10229/ellen-laipson/while-america-slept-understanding-terrorism-and-counterterrorism.html

Benjamin and Simon also decry the impact that political scandals had on the last two years of the Clinton presidency and passionately denounce the media's obsession with Clinton's fall from grace. In their view, the press lost sight of the national interest and distracted the American public and government from core security concerns. The uproar over Clinton's decision to bomb the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan after the East African embassy bombings was a case in point. Critics questioned whether the plant had a military purpose and accused Clinton of using foreign policy to distract attention from his domestic problems. For Benjamin and Simon, the target choice was completely defensible, even in hindsight. They make a strong case that Salah Idris, al Shifa's owner, had ties to al Qaeda and that his plant was involved in the production of suspicious chemicals. But they have trouble accepting that the president's credibility was not strong enough to withstand the intense press scrutiny that would naturally follow such a high-profile, high-risk operation. One can agree about the excesses of some parts of the media, but the "blame game" that the authors play is more than a bit lopsided.

A few other instances of myopia slip into this first-person account. For example, Benjamin and Simon recount with some drama the millennium weekend, describing multiple threat warnings and the immense stress of trying to monitor and prevent any terrorist attack against the United States at home or abroad. But many of their colleagues were holed up in special 24-hour command posts monitoring not terrorism but the year 2000 computer rollover. For these officials, the burning question was not whether radical Islamists would strike but whether the world's computer systems would crash and lead to global confusion. Although the authors are obviously right to emphasize the importance of terrorism, it is worth remembering that the U.S. government must contend with a whole range of national security concerns.

TAMING THE LEVIATHAN

Benjamin and Simon's description of American counterterrorism efforts during the 1990s raises important questions about preventing future attacks. Can the big bureaucratic machine of government, with its intentional diffusion of power and multiple interests, work as one unit in fighting terrorism? Will officials in intelligence, law enforcement, and policymaking figure out how to overcome the competitive instincts and security concerns that interfere with effective information sharing? Will they find ways to gather more information more quickly about terrorists, without compromising America's fundamental civil liberties and freedoms?

Benjamin and Simon cannot answer all these questions, but they shed some useful light on what it is like on the inside, how well-informed and well-intentioned people sometimes focused on the wrong things, and how small failures of leadership can allow the bureaucracy to muddle along in its inertia. Their account makes one very wary of the real impact of the new Department of Homeland Security in rectifying the problems of the past. For every bureaucratic logjam it fixes, it will likely create new ones. The authors, moreover, would like to centralize authority in the White House, so that all departments and agencies are accountable to the president and his team. Yet decades of history suggest that the American system of governance always veers away from excessively accumulating power in any one institution. Should terrorism push the United States to revise its core belief in checks and balances?

more...

make people think their lawbreaking was justified. but once again, their lies caught up with 'em in a matter of hours.

his cell phone.

but 1998 wasn't during the Bush cabal's reign.

"President Bush asserted this week"

"President Bush asserted this week"

"President Bush asserted this week"

but, go on. figure out some way of bashing Clinton.

:shrug:

when they pursued Gore about his comment that his Mother's prescription cost more than the dog's ...or something like that. Then they made him out to be a liar.

...according to most experts, after an incident a little farther north. In April of that year, the Chechen rebel leader Dzhokar Dudayev answered his cell phone and chatted for more than the usual 2 minutes. After which he found a Russian missile coming at his head.

Can you hear me NOW?

:rofl: