Wednesday, August 23, 2006


Michael Scheuer, who once headed the CIA's bin Laden unit, says bin Laden has been given permission by a young cleric in Saudi Arabia authorizing al Qaeda to "use nuclear weapons against the United States ... capping the casualties at 10 million."

"He's had an approval, a religious approval for 10 million deaths?" I asked him.

"Yes," Scheuer responded.
He first made this charge here; 11/14/03 (on CBS). IS THIS SO LONG AGO WE SHOULD IGNORE IT, NOW?!?! Maybe, but maybe NOT: ALL of Binladen's major jihadoterror attacks have always been planned YEARS ahead of time. The time may be fast approaching...

I take this charge with a grain of salt: Scheuer was the incompetent head of the Binladen desk at the CIA during the time we failed to get him when we could've, and he's an anti-Semitic piece of crap who like Sheehan and Chomsky argues we went to war against Saddam because Israel/the Likud wanted us to, while at the same time he argues that we are controlled by the House of Saud.

NEVERTHELESS: the fact that Saddam wanted nukes (which he could have given to al Qaeda), and that Iran is trying to make nukes (which they can give to Hizballah), and that North Korea may have some to sell to... ANYONE, makes this charge one that must be paid attention too.



Roderick said...

So now that the Bin Laden unit at the CIA was closed down under the watch of Bush-toady Porter Goss you want to blame Scheuer for not catching Bin Laden?


metasailor said...

If you notice, this article points out yet another connection of Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia.

Yet we invaded...Iraq.

Oh, and this criminal piece of garbage Bin Laden, who helped kill 3,000 US civilians on 9/11?

He's free, and we're not bothering to try and find where he is, even though most intelligence sources place him in Pakistan. Why are we not searching for him?

Is it a) because the Pentagon is continuing to fire rare and sought-after Arabic translators if they happen to gay - because who someone likes to screw is more important than making sure our soldiers and people are safe.

Or is it b) because we're out of funds, and the Bush administration is refusing to hold Halliburton accountable for $9 BILLION in taxpayer funds that are 'missing'.

Or is it c) because we're running low on troops and funds in the Iraq occupation - while the mercenaries we call 'contractors' are paid BY THE US at a rate of several times the honest, volunteer soldier.

I thought that being Republican and conservative meant believing in accountability and personal responsibility.

Isn't it time to hold President Bush accountable? Won't it be, ever?

Jason Pappas said...

One has to assume that Musharraf is playing a double game. Bin Laden and his cronies are safe in Pakistan; but Musharraf throws us a crumb now and then. His motivation? As long as the threat continues we give him aid and sell him weapons. It is in his interest to keep us in fear and yet prevent the worst attacks (such as the recent attempt in London.)

Why hasn’t Bush gotten him? I’d like to see Bush’s critics call for an invasion of Pakistan. Then I’ll take their criticism seriously. I don’t even hear a call for getting tough on Musharraf. It’s only time before he is replaced by a fundamentalist regime. I assume Bush hopes this doesn’t happen on his watch. Neither party is giving us leadership.

Free Thinker said...

Jason, A couple of things:

1. "I’d like to see Bush’s critics call for an invasion of Pakistan. Then I’ll take their criticism seriously."

So unless we crow for an unecessary invasion, we aren't being "serious"? WTF? Musharaff has NUKES dude...that means he gets to stay. This is why we don't want iran to have nukes...not that they'll use it on us, but that the mullahs will stay in power forever once they do. Destabilizing a country with nukes is too dangerous even for GWB...so why would you expect Bush's critics (eg sane people) to call for something so idiotic.

What you DO hear us calling for is a serious effort to go after bin laden, using our relationship with pakistan constructively in that regard...strong arming with refusals to give aid, etc... NOT invasion. Though I agree, you probably haven't heard a call for this because we lefties are a little more concerned about the cliff bush is driving us off than the threat from bin laden. (before your head explodes from that statement, realize that bush's actions are responsible for MANY more deaths in the world (and in the US) than bin laden - and most thinkers don't think they are justified deaths. (Afghanistan was justifiable, Iraq is not.) Bush has done more damage to the US than Bin Laden, but you won't understand how or why for about 10 years).

Jesus, that's how you right-wingers want to solve all your problems...by invading people. It's like that old saying about walking around with a hammer and only seeing nails. You guys walk around with a hard-on for war and see only countries who are asking to get fucked.

2. "the worst attacks (such as the recent attempt in London.) "
You mean the attacks that were so "imminent" that none of the attackers had passports?

I'm SO scared.

Monkey In Chief said...

Scary then the Bush administration did nothing to prevent North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons and then shutdown the Bin Laden unit at the CIA.

But since water bottles have been banned from planes, we all must safe.