I am just going to post this article....

Where Is Osama bin Laden?
Day 1,461 and Counting
By Michael Tomasky
The American Prospect

It's the fourth anniversary of September 11 - and Osama bin Laden is still at large.

This September 11 will mark the fourth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States. The media will focus on the ceremonies at the former World Trade Center site, the Pentagon, and other cities and towns around the country that will honor the dead. The Bush administration, meanwhile, will do its best to remind Americans that today's George W. Bush - except for the Watergate-era Richard Nixon, the most unpopular two-term president, at this point in his tenure, since scientific polling began in the 1940s - is the same man who led the country through tragedy.

In truth, the anniversary should be the occasion for a thoroughgoing discussion of how America has combated terrorism in the last four years. And on that front, even the disaster Bush has created in Iraq takes a back seat to one overwhelming fact: By the time night falls on September 11, Osama bin Laden will have been at large for 1,461 days.

America vanquished world fascism in less time: We obtained Germany's surrender in 1,243 days, Japan's in 1,365. Even the third Punic War, in which Carthage was burned to the ground and emptied of citizens who were taken en masse into Roman slavery, lasted around 1,100 days (and troops needed a little longer to get into position back in 149 B.C.).

Yes, yes: It can be harder to find one stateless man than to defeat an army whose troop movements can be tracked. And that would be a good excuse - if the Bush administration had bothered to make capturing bin Laden a priority.

John Kerry can't be accused, alas, of having offered a coherent foreign policy in last year's campaign, but he was dead right when he said the administration had "outsourced" the job of finding the man responsible for the most deadly attacks ever on American soil. As the journalist Peter Bergen wrote in The Atlantic last October, we were closing in on al-Qaeda leadership in December 2001. But the United States decided to leave the crucial two-week battle of Tora Bora chiefiy to local Afghan fighters. It was, Bergen wrote, "a blunder that allowed many members of al-Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip away."

And, of course, we know why that battle was left to locals - and why, relatedly, we never had more than about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2001. (How's Afghanistan going today? We now have 18,000 troops there, and 2005 has been the deadliest year for U.S. forces since the fighting began.)

The Bush administration had already decided, at the very least, to find an excuse to invade Iraq.
We know from Richard Clarke's testimony and other sources that administration officials, including Bush himself, started asking the counterterrorism chief to find an Iraqi link to 9-11 from the day following the attacks. On December 11, 2001 - right around the time bin Laden began his escape, possibly the very day - Vice President Dick Cheney told FOX News, "If I were Saddam Hussein, I'd be thinking very carefully about the future, and I'd be looking very closely to see what happened to the Taliban in Afghanistan."

Whatever the apologists say, the truth is simple: The administration held back troops from Afghanistan so that it could send 150,000 to Iraq. That, and nothing else, is the reason bin Laden is still at large.

But listen closely to the silence: Outside of magazines like this one and a handful of liberal Web sites, the subject is rarely discussed.

Just imagine bin Laden having been at large this long in President Al Gore's administration. In fact, it's impossible to imagine, because President Gore, under such circumstances, wouldn't have lasted this long. You probably didn't know, until you read this column, the number of days bin Laden has been at large. But I assure you that if Gore had been president, you and every American would have known, because the right would have seen to it that you knew, asking every day, "Where's Osama?" If Gore hadn't been impeached, it's doubtful he'd have survived a re-election campaign, with Americans aghast at how weak and immoral a president had to be to permit those 2,700 deaths to go unavenged this long.

To be sure, the difference is partly a Democratic failure - they're afraid of the right-wing noise machine, pure and simple. That's a failure of nerve, and it's an appalling one.

But the moral failure belongs to Bush and his subordinates and their amen chorus of slatternly propagandists and so-called intellectuals, who made great political advantage of 9-11 but spit on the grieving families by pretending that there is no imperative in seeing justice done for their losses. They may be able to control the dialogue, but they can't control the facts - and the facts condemn them all. [  ]

After a long technical hiatus, my blog has resumed operation! Yay!! More to come.... [  ]

It seems to me that anytime anyone suggests that a policy or decision was a disastrous one - of which many, many are, right or left wing, as we all know looking back through history, the conservative supporters seem to take it personally. "How dare you suggest Iraq is a diaster, you bastard!"

Personally I think the real evil is:

1) the stuff that actually happens and the human tragedies that follow, whether or not anyone criticises it &
2) That people feel personally threatened into not questioning or criticising it so there is a far greater chance of more of the same happening in the future.

How can anyone take stuff personally that people who you don't know have done, without consulting you? Why is it so offensive to suggest that quite possibly the power mongers of this world are doing stuff that is ill-conceived, morally questionable and based on an understanding of the situation that is less than perfect?
 [  ]

I agree with you there Stephen, many feeling are quite ingrained. I've certainly seen and heard that too.. (racist responses to Affirmative Action - see below)

But it certainly would change their true feelings if the government legalized drugs. :-)

All those red-neck racists'd be shocked how fast they became their own despised "nigger-lovers" (their term, not mine) after a couple of pure MDMA tablets.

I see the drug war itself is a form of discrimination - criminalising one type of recreational drug manufacture, sale and use, whilst allowing another equally toxic substance to be manufactured, sold and used legally. It is no coincidence that dope, smack and coke tend to come from non-white countries either. The whole Rastafarian thing - Slaves. Oppression. Alcohol has always been connected to the church and to western culture and is seen to be equated with refinement, though it is still just a poisonous anaesthetic depressant served mixed with a range of flavoured
water.

The original opium prohibition was a direct attack on the Chinese recreational lifestyle, because white men feared the opium dens were attracting their women folk. Cocaine also went from being a cure-all to an evil powder that destroyed the lives of anyone who came within three feet
of the stuff. Laws were changed and subsequently media reports transformed the public perception of previously accepted substances into demonised poisons. Legislation can change attitude.

Another example - smoking was the norm 50-60 years ago. Every office, home, public bar was thick with a pall of toxic fumes. People accepted that everyone and 'bottom-of-a-birdcage breath" - now they're suing and throwing people out on the footpath to puff.

Laws change attitudes - eventually - but attitudes change laws much quicker... The old 'idea whose time has come" concept. Once enough people wake up to something, the walls come tumblin down and any one left behind is just a fool. I don't know what the critical mass is for racism, but I guess it is probably tied in with when they can legally share a spliff, a line and
a couple of pills withe their black and yellow brothers and sisters without fear of arrest, or of mixing with criminals, and if not, then at least maybe to work and study in the same jobs, schools and neighbourhoods together in reasonably balanced numbers. Oh yeah, and when they start having babies together more - so the mixed race kids bring the familes together for Christmas.

**********************************************

This is true, but I was meaning more in terms of a person's inner attitude. And I'm certainly not saying that those laws weren't necessary. Government can change all it wants. It can legislate til the end of the world. But that legislation will not change a person's true feelings.
I've seen proof of that on more than a few occasions.

Stephen
 [  ]

I've heard that argument before - "earth has had cataclysmic climate change before that had nothing to do with humans" - So what? That is no argument for what is happening now, it is merely a statement of the obvious.

It doesn't mean that next time won't have a lot to do with humans. It just means that cataclysmic change can happen. It is an argument to be very aware of the possibility, not to disregard it because nature might do it anyway if we don't. That is the "I might get hit by a bus" argument to not quitting smoking.

You don't have to be a scientist to realise that an ecosystem as complex as earth's, with all its species interdependence, symbiosis, seasonal dependence, chemical relationships etc etc, can be upset with the influence of ignorant, unevolved, greedy business interests who plunder and burn anything in their path, and politicians who let them, on the condition that political party donations are made, and who can't even set the smallest of targets of harm reduction and sustainability. (Kyoto)

I'm sure you've flown on occasions - the earth's surface is completely different than it was, every city is a sprawling, poison-spewing hazy blight, and the countryside is not much better. It is obvious that this kind of scale of change IS going to affect the balance of things on such a finely tuned planet. It is only a matter of how much and in what way - and as humans who can't even grasp the complexities of Middle East customs, politics and culture, we certainly are not going to be able to predict the planet's next move too accurately.

Whether the weather is changing or not, it still is fundamentally wrong to NOT do our absolute most to minimise our destructive impacts on the planet, so the argument should always be "how can we reduce our impact" not "stuff happened before and might or might not happen again so carry on business as usual"

With regard to scientists and funding, currently the largest single employer of scientists is the weapons industry, so if a few scientists are trying to get a droplet of funding for environmental research to help us understand what is happening, good on them, exaggerated claims or not. How exaggerated were the claims to spend billions of dollars in Iraq and the never ending war on terror, and the recently ending war on communism? Every few weeks we hear of a 'credible' warning of an impending massive Al Queda attack on US soil. I'm sure that boosts funding to the military/security industries exponentially.

If sociologists started making a fuss on the long term sociological impacts of the global sex slave trade and they need more funding to learn more about its complexities, are you going to argue that in the past, millions of people have been traded as sex slaves so don't worry about it? I hope not - slavery is a huge problem as is environmental degradation and natural resource depletion. Much greater than the problems that are currently getting the bulk of the funding war and terror.
 [  ]

Let's get the ultimate transparency on our politicians. Lets' find out exactly when and how they get their rocks off. I am going to guess that John Howard, unable to visit ladies of the night, because of the risk of getting busted, and not finding complete satisfaction in his wife, would be reduced to self-abuse in the shower.

I want John Howard to admit exactly how he does it. As the leader of our great nation, it is not too much to ask.... His sexual expression is very relevant - especially since he seems to have strong opinions about what others do in their own private lives. Sex drives everybody. Our leaders are no different. If it turns out that he surpresses his sexuality and has no expression at all, that would be cause for great concern in the public debate.
 [  ]

When the bombings in Madrid happened. Our Prime Minister was quick to hold a press conference to condemn the attacks. When asked who he thought did it, he rattled off a string of theories - he said it could be ETA, or an organisation linked with ETA, it could be Al Queda or a group linked to Al Queda, it could be a combination of ETA helped by Al Queda or a group linked to the two, it could be Islamic fundamentalists not connected with either group or connected with any or all of the above.

Now that is a lot of speculation! For John Howard to speculate so much, he must at least have a vague idea of the range of motivations.

But then, he was asked if the attacks in Madrid might be in respose to Spain's involvement in the war in Iraq. Now that is a very reasonable question, and most of us would probably admit that it is a very real possibility.

His response - "now I'm not going to be drawn into speculating about such things" So he can speculate til the cows come home about who did it, inferring all the reasons, but heaven forbid that he actually admit that the war in Iraq MIGHT have fuelled more terrorism - something almost every human rights organisation, church, independent analyst and man in the street speculated before the war.

Be honest, Johnny, the attacks MIGHT have been a response to the war in iraq, just like they MIGHT have been perpetrated by the long list of suspects you are prepared to roll out.

We must be vigilant and read between the lines of what our leaders say. They have their own agenda - and in John's case his agenda is to always appear to be RIGHT, over and above what may be in our best interests ie admitting what is really going on and how the causal relationships between events play out.

The war in Iraq is still an illegal action, not supported by the UN, condemned by human rights organisations, protested by millions across the globe in the biggest anti-war protest ever. Thousands upon thousands of innocent people have died in Iraq (and Afghanistan) for the objectives of the war(s). It is very logical to speculate that there might be a lot of really pissed off people who resent the hypocracy of those who condemn the killing of some innocent people, and make excuses for the killing of others.
 [  ]

We all know the old story of newspapers reporting three local deaths on the front page, and a 20,000 Bangladeshi's on page 27. The media chooses what is important to report, and by making 200 deaths in Spain more important than any other tragedy, the media itself is supporting the aims of terrorism - ie instilling terror.

Yes it sells newspapers, and yes they will claim that people want to know, but it is now becoming clear that the media's role is extremely counterproductive especially in the climate of this "war". They are giving the terrorists more publicity than any other activists in the world. The media is sending a message to all those planning attacks that the bigger the terrorist strike and the higher the death toll, the more publicity will be received!

Imagine if amnesty international could get front page on every paper in the globe for the 1,500 people a day killed by handguns, and focus the world on the illegal small arms industry. There are countless wars going on right now with thousands upon thousands of people killed, tortured and displaced - but nothing is being done because we don't hear about it.

All we hear about is the relatively occasional bombing carried out by Al Queda. Al Queda resent western cvilization, and they are using a classic martial arts technique - using the power of the enemy against itself. They know that the media are hungry for stories, so they keep feeding the beast. Meanwhile every other agenda on the planet is sidelined - organised crime, sex slavery, child slavery, arms dealing, wars, disease, environmental devastation, corporate crime - the only thing on our minds is terrorism. In the last two years, no more than 5000 people have been killed by terrorist bombs - a drop in the ocean of human suffering.

As a tactic of "war" the media must become silent, cutting off the massive free publicity the terrorists are currently receiving.

It's time for the media to be forced to change their approach. Keep quiet about these attacks. Let the police do their jobs, let those affected grieve locally and appropriately, and stop giving terrorists the voice they need. Only intelligence can prevent further attacks. Front page publicity does nothing but aid and abet terrorists.
 [  ]

Form a Coalition with the Greens!

Lets face it, most people support pretty much everything the Greens stand for - sustainable development, equity, human rights, social justice etc - it's just that they don't think the Greens could actually run the country. The only thing stopping labour from moving right into line with Greens policy is the fear of a backlash against them by unions and other workers in certain industries that would be decimated by a shift towards sustainable development, environmental protection and reform ie loggers, miners, prison wardens, polluters, wasters and junk makers. All that is required is alternative jobs and alternative revenue streams to equal or better the current jobs. A simple reading of the book Natural Capitalism, by Paul Hawken, would provide all the alternatives to make the transition to benign industries. There is more money to be made fixing the planet, regenerating forests, making life better for everyone, than there is killing people, oppressing people and destroying natural habitats. It only takes vision and courage to change tack and head in the right direction. We've already sold too much of the family silver - it's time to start putting it back.

 [  ]

Today, our Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, reacted to supposed threats by Al Queda to carry out car bomb attacks in Australia by saying "we won't be intimidated by such threats"

I'm sorry Mr Downer, I don't know about you, but I AM intimidated by such threats, and I'm sure so are most Australians! I'm shit scared!! I don't want to leave my house and hang out in public places, especially hotel lobbies and night clubs. I don't know how good Mr Downer's memory is, but only 13 moths ago, 88 Australian's died in Bali from a car bomb. How can we not be intimidated by something that is actually happening!!?? Not only that, but something that has been drummed into us day after day in the media. Every single day on every single news bulletin, there are reports about terrorist attacks, and when there is no attack, there is a report about the government warning us of an imminent attack or a heightened alert. Intimidated?? You bet!! And the government is doing the intimidating on behalf of Al Queda.

If the government and media call someone a "terrorist" it means that that person has "terrorised" ie instilled terror in people ie intimidated them.

Not only that, but they are egging Al Queda on, and encouraging more new recruits by declaring a war on terrorism and by telling Al Queda in the same breath that we are not intimidated - essentially issuing a challenge for Al Queda to try harder.

I just want to say to all you people out there who are planning the next car bomb attack - "I am intimidated. I am terrorised, and I am sorry for the stance our government is taking. This is not a war. I don't want to kill you, and I don't want you to kill me. It's taken 12 billion years of evolution to get me where I am today and I want to make the most of my 70-100 years of life that evolution has mustered up for me. I want to find peace and find forgiveness, and figure this whole thing out, so you don't need to become a suicide bomber, and more innocent people don't need to get killed. It is from my position of total intimidation that I ask you to channel your anger directly to the people who cause you such anger - the politicians and business people with whom you have an ideological argument. And use your own evolved skills as a thinker and organiser and intelligent creature to plan and scheme alternative options for your life, the life of your loved ones, and the society as a whole. I would hate for you to kill me in some kind of statement against the politicians and business men, when I am as ideologically opposed to them as you are, perhaps for different reasons, perhaps for some of the same reasons. If you don't kill me, then we can work together for change, and to bring about some solutions to the problems that have led you to make plans to kill me. Let's end the war on terror, let's begin a QUEST FOR PEACE.

Alexander Downer is a politician first and a human being second. He knows nothing of your struggle, your grievances or your motivations, as he knows nothing of mine. Ignore his ridiculous comment and join me in plotting a non-violent attack on the constructs that enslave us all. They are only constructs and they can change, but you can't bring an innocent person back to life and you can't bomb Alexander Downer into enlightenment. You can only pursue a quest for peace on behalf of your family and your decendants.  [  ]