The constant references to the resistance movements in Anbar and other areas of Iraq as 'Al Qaeda', while certainly effective propaganda, are probably laughed at by experts.

Among the armed resistance groups based in the Sunni areas of Baghdad, Anbar, Salah ad-Din and Diyala are: The General Command of the Armed Forces, Resistance and Liberation in Iraq (mostly former Ba'athists); Popular Resistance for the Liberation of Iraq (secular Sunni outfit); Iraqi Resistance and Liberation Command (secular nationalist, anti-Ba'ath); Al 'Awdah (former security personnel of the Ba'ath); Harakat Ra's al-'Afa (Ba'athist, linked to tribes in Ramadi and Fallujah); Nasserites, (a small bunch of non-Ba'ath pan-Arab nationalists); Thuwwar al-'Aral-Kata'ib al-Anbar al-Musallahuh (anti-Saddam nationalists); General Secretariat for the Liberation of Democratic Iraq (leftist nationslists); Higher Command of the Mujahideen in Iraq (both religious and nationalist); Munazzamat al-Rayat al-Aswad (religious nationalist); Unification Front for the Liberation of Iraq (anti-Saddam and anti-Baath); National Front for the Liberation of Iraq (incorporates both former Republican Guards and Islamists); Jaish Ansar al-Sunnah (one of the largest groups in Iraq, incorporating both Kurdish and Sunni Arab Islamists); Mujahideen al ta'ifa al-Mansoura (Salafist, includes non-Iraqis); Kata'ib al Mujahideen fi al-Jama'ah al-Salafiyah fi al-'Arak (Salafists, with some connections to former Afghan groups); Jihad Brigades/Cells (Islamist guerillas); Jaish Muhammad (apparently one of the largest Islamist groups); Islamic Army of Iraq (Salafist); Jaish al Mahdi (you know these guys already, and they do sometimes operate in the north where there are Shia living).

And that's far from comprehensive.

Al Qaeda is a CIA/Mossad op created to commit false-flag attacks to suppport an agenda of global enslavement.

Period.

Osama Bin Laden is an operative of the military industrial complex. He was, and still is on the american payroll. He appears every time they need a poll boost, and parrots the statements of the administrations opposition in america. Read the transcript of his latest tape.

Bush and the Bin Ladens have tight connections. They've been working together for a shared anti-Iran policy for years. The Saudis or the Americans are going to end up controlling Iraqs oil fields, Iran is the only country standing in the way.

Bin Laden is an actor. He's not a real person. Al' Qaeda isn't a real institution, it's a dummy group set up just like "Emmanuel Goldstein" in 1984. What is their agenda? They said they wanted the UN to step in and get involved in Iraq, but then, when the UN is making moves to do so, they bomb UN building. Except for a tape of extremely dubious validity, there's no evidence connecting them to 9/11.

Something about the ENTIRE pretext, rather than the nuances, of our current global situation STINKS of lies on the level that NONE of us want to think about.

Is Osama Bin Laden real?

wtf, Osama on the payroll? you really think the CIA has the competence to pull something like that off? But reason people still readily accept it's all AQI is cause that makes it all real simple and then there's no need to worry about what differentiates a shia from a sunni. How many Americans know the difference, like 20%?

Obviously, bush never read about the Crusades, was too doped up to remember Viet Nam, and momma never told him the story about the boy who cried wolf. What a Dumb Ass.

The only reason Dubya chose this general, is that he first, promised to lick his boots and lie as any thug in the crime family. Answer all of the questions below honestly:

1. What has this administration been right about in the past six years?

2. Has the administration ever lied to you?

3. What did Iraq have to do with 911?

4. Where are the WMD?

5. Where is Osama Bin Laden?

6. Who is the enemy in Iraq?

7. Why haven't we improved the infrastructure in Iraq?

8 Why do we kill civilians in a country that we supposedly went to help?

9. Why would anyone believe a lying, drunken, AWOL, pretend cowboy, who never served his hitch in the military to finality?

10. How can you be so stupid to let these lying thugs, in this crime family, pull the wool over your eyes over and over?

Still looking for consistency please.. Is it Al Qaeda, Al Qaida, Al Quesadilla? While I'm looking for consistency across the media the lie will persist that "Al Qa.." however it's spelled is some seamlessly organized, massed presence in any area of the world where Muslims, Civil War, and/or unrest and bloodshed caused by US military operations are present. Al Quesa (the cheese) is a force so easily conjured in such circumstances that it is certainly food for the gullible and war prone American and not to be taken seriously coming from the mouths (the press) of serial liars (the Bush administration). Truth is buried in a landfill somewhere next to several mega-tons of weapons of mass destruction.

Of course the role of al Qaeda in Iraq is very limited and greatly exagerrated for political gain, that's what should be a no-brainer, but the reasons for this continuos stretching out the myth is what is missing from any of the journalists questions, save for Michael Ware and less than a handful of media. If one were to explore this myth and its pushers they may realize that they have hit upon the very truth. The constant warble of "Al Qaeda" is nothing less than terrorism itself.

Daricus @ 18:

From Nafeez Ahmed's essay "Ties With Terror: The Continuity of Western-Al-Qaeda Relations in the Post-Cold War Period" (link to at end of post)

1. The Formation of al-Qaeda

As early as June 1979, and perhaps earlier, the United States had already commenced a series of covert operations in Afghanistan designed to exploit the potential for social conflict. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser under the Carter Administration, US involvement had begun long before the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on December 27, 1979. (1) Brzezinski’s revelations have been corroborated by former CIA Director Robert Gates in his memoirs From the Shadows, where he writes that US intelligence began sponsoring an Afghan rebellion in Afghanistan six months before Soviet intervention. (2)

According to Jane's Defense Weekly, the ISI operatives in contact with al-Qaeda had received assistance from “American Green Beret commandos and Navy SEALS in various US training establishments.” Over 10,000 mujahideen were “trained in guerilla warfare and armed with sophisticated weapons.” By 1988, Jane's reports that “with US knowledge, Bin Laden created Al Qaeda (The Base): a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells in countries spread across at least 26 countries.” But in the meantime, “Washington turned a blind eye to Al-Qaeda.” (3)

2. The Utility of al-Qaeda Beyond Afghanistan

After the departure of Soviet troops from Afghanistan and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the anti-Soviet Afghan factions began competing for power. Although in 1991 the US and the USSR formally agreed to jointly cease aiding any faction in Afghanistan, the US Department of State had remained anxious about who might emerge as the winner of this competition. According to Labeviere, European intelligence sources reveal that the CIA and the Saudis – intent on securing a regime commensurate with their joint regional interests – agreed that they did not want to give up “the assets of such a profitable collaboration,” referring to the Cold War Afghan-US alliance controlled significantly by Osama bin Laden. Accordingly, in 1991, the CIA, Saudi intelligence, and bin Laden held a series of meetings. Although exactly what was agreed upon remains secret, Labeviere reports that the CIA remained determined to maintain its influence in Afghanistan, “the vital route to Central Asia where the great oil companies were preparing the energy eldorado for the coming millenium.” The Saudis were also intent on preserving the bin Laden-Pakistan alliance “at all costs,” which was agreeable for the US in order to ensure a regional stalwart against influence from Shi’ite Iran. (4)

Labeviere’s findings are corroborated by other credible sources. After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, Osama bin Laden “returned for a short period to Saudi Arabia to tend to the family construction business at its Jeddah head office.” (5) Even after 1991 when Saudi security held on to bin Laden’s passport purportedly “to prevent or at least discourage his contact with extremists he had worked with… during the Afghan jihad,” he had considerable influence in Saudi circles: “After Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait he lobbied the Saudi royal family to organize civil defense in the kingdom and to raise a force from among the Afghan war veterans to fight Iraq.” (6)

The Saudi regime turned down his offer, instead accepting the influx of 300,000 US soldiers. According to Gerald Posner – a leading investigative journalist who contributes regularly to NBC’s TODAY Show – this was the key point at which bin Laden decided to become an enemy of the Saudi regime. But in April 1991, according to a classified US intelligence report, then head of Saudi intelligence services Prince Turki al-Faisal struck a secret deal with bin Laden – despite his being under house arrest for his opposition to the presence of US soldiers. Under the deal, although the regime would publicly disown him, bin Laden was permitted to leave Saudi Arabia with his funding and supporters. Moreover, the regime would continue to fund his activities on condition that he does not target the Saudi kingdom itself. (7) Posner’s account of a secret arrangement between bin Laden and Saudi intelligence known to US intelligence confirms the general tenor of Labeviere’s findings. Citing European intelligence sources, however, Labeviere, goes further in suggesting that the CIA was integrally involved in the 1991 Saudi-bin Laden agreement. Even by Posner’s account though, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion of at least tacit US connivance in the agreement since US intelligence was clearly aware of the deal but did nothing about it.

According to a former CIA analyst cited by Labeviere in his Dollars for Terror: “The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia.” (8)

In other words, the CIA had always seen vast potential to use the terrorist network established by bin Laden during the Cold War in an international framework in the post-Cold War era against the Russian and Chinese power, i.e. in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Central Asia.

*source:http://www.911blogger.com/node/2966

QFT

According to MSNBC, bin Laden's latest video basically and conveniently reinforces that al Qaeda is the force to be reckoned with in Iraq. the timing of this video is impeccable.

bin Laden is indeed a symbol, a symbol of yet another great failure for Bush and co. Most Americans, who don't eat Elmer's glue paste, have accepted that Bush failed in getting bin Laden and that we're fighting a bogus war. Yes, this is unremarkable observation, but I can't help to repetitively scream this at the top of my lungs.

have you noticed how bush and the neocons always point to that bombing of that mosque in samarra as when aqi started to make it's presence known? my guess is that bomb, many of the beheadings and other spectacular attacks are false flag ops being conducted by western military or intel agencies. the reason? so we have an excuse to stay.

Retired General James Jones admitted to Sen. Bayh in a congressional hearing that foreign jihadists make up 2 per cent or less of those forces who are fighting against the U.S. military in Iraq. That admission and that statement is huge and has also been echoed by investigative reporter Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post and Congressman John Murtha of Pa. That information should be front page news on all the major newspapers and should be the number one topic on all the Sunday talk shows tomorrow but in all likelihood this will not happen. This bit of news should, in theory, be picked up and reiterated by all the [so-called] liberal Democrats, especially those running for president, but again, it is doubtful if this will happen. This should be the raison d'etre why American forces should leave Iraq post haste but, as was mentioned before, it is quite unlikely if the U.S., like in Vietnam, will ever admit any time soon that it is wrong.

I told a woman who works at a local bank, whose son is in Iraq, about the minute number of Al Qaeda members in Iraq about a month ago and the best she could come up with was that, even after informing her of what Murtha and Ricks had said about the number of terrorists in Iraq, was that this was just my opinion. Unfortunately, I think that this is simply symptomatic of either how little true information is presented by the mainstream media or it may mean that this woman and others like her are all too willing to believe what the government and Fox "News" tell them to believe.

It comes down to one thing: none of them want to admit that they were wrong about all of the above.

Everyone admits al quaeda was a code name for a CIA database of Islamists (many of them agents)
The vast majority of attacks are special forces causing sectarian tension. The rest are the resulting retaliation

willyloman @ 28:

I agree with the assesment of the OBL tape lumping real progressive liberal ideals into his own agenda, but I think it is for a more sinister reason. I think the next attack will "supposedly" include "left wing radicals" in the 19 hijackers story, and that will give the administration a free hand at stiffening the survailance practices and rounding up American "insurgants". It's been done many times to remove the left-wing liberal opposition all across the world, by our very own CIA. Much of it done under Bush 41s watch.

Jeez, make me look like an optimist, why don'tcha. :)

kasinca @ 17:

This is a war for the profits of the military industrial complex and oild companies...now turned into a Karl Rove ideal to help the GOP stay in some kind of control by stretching it out to blame the Democratic Party for the failed policies of the worst thing to ever happen to this great nation...Dubya.

I don't know what alternate universe you are living in, but here on planet earth in the Milky Way Galaxy, the Democratic Party is just as pro- war, empire, corporatism, authoritarianism, interventionist foreign policy, police/surveillance state as the Republican Party. One would have to literally be ignorant of all of American history, including recent history, to pretend otherwise. People like Kucinich are anomalies without any real power--simply window dressing to keep the anti-war base voting "blue."

This country has been at war pretty much non-stop since its inception, although much of this war has either been carried on outside the American consciousness or whitewashed. And the Democratic Party has been there in cahoots with the Republican Party (and the Whigs before that) every single step of the way. Americans are a very violent, war-loving people. There is no disputing this fact. It's all there in the congressional record:

The conquest of North America, the Hawaiian Islands, and parts of Mexico. Direct military involvement prior to WW I in Tripoli, Mexico, Algiers, Cuba, Argentina, Peru, Sumatra, Fiji, China, Uruguay, Panama, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Angola, Japan, Colombia, Egypt, Korea, Haiti, Chile, Honduras, the Philippines, Dominican Republic, and Turkey. Germany during WW I. Direct military involvement between WW I and WW II in Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Soviet Russia, Turkey, Honduras, China, Guatemala, Russia, Nicaragua, and the Netherlands. Germany, Japan, Africa and the Middle East during WW II. After WW II, direct military and covert operations in China, Italy, Greece, The Philippines, Korea, Albania, Germany, Iran, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Syria, Indonesia, British Guiana, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Haiti, Algeria, Ecuador, The Congo, Brazil, Peru, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Uruguay, Chile, Iraq, Australia, Angola, Zaire, Grenada, Libya, Panama, Afghanistan and El Salvador.

The history of the U.S. is the history of the perpetual war of Orwell’s nightmares.

In the postwar years after WW II, no other country on earth comes remotely close to the U.S. when it comes to violent aggression directed at other countries, and the Democratic party is every bit as responsible for this holocaust that has taken the lives of millions as the Republican party. What do you people need to finally get some sort of a grip on reality? Another 100 years of bloodshed?

There are some really excellent posts on this thread and to them I would add the notes of Gustave Gilbert, the allied intelligence author who interviewed Goering at Nuremberg in 1946:

Excerpt:

Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

As we move closer to the anniversary of 9/11 and the "General Petraeus Iraq Report" the neocon noise machine is already cranking up the talking points on winning in Iraq to defeat the 9/11 attackers.

The sad reality is that Cheney and Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to try to expand American hegemony into the middle east simply for oil. They and their followers will continue to beat the "Al Qaeda Boogeyman drum" as loudly and as long as they can to manipulate as many Americans as they can into continuing this horrible mistake.

But while they beat that drum, we should remember that Bin Laden is still free, the Taliban are back in business and Al Qaeda has regrouped and rebuilt... in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan... not Iraq!

Cases in point... both stories with great video links:

FOX News attempts to connect Osama bin Laden with American left and Democrats

Two YouTube videos feature segments of Fox News' Hannity and Colmes, featuring a total of four guests appearing to offer comment on the recent video released by what appears to be Osama bin Laden. The guests and co-host Sean Hannity work towards connecting bin Laden's speech to the current tone among the Democrats.

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/FOX_News_attempts_to_connect_Osama_0908.html

Former top DOJ lawyer speaks out on fight against Bush spying

Former Department of Justice lawyer Jack Goldsmith, who frequently countered White House legal justifications for expanded executive power during his time as director of the Office of Legal Counsel, spoke publicly for the first time on the Thursday edition of ABC's Nightline.

SNIP!

Goldsmith's most frequent sparring partner was David Addington, then legal counsel for Vice President Cheney and currently the vice president's chief of staff.

"He was always pushing other people to go out on a limb to do things and take responsibility for things that they weren't always in agreement about," said Goldsmith. "One never saw him doing the same thing."

As related in his book, Goldsmith says that an infuriated Addington once told him that because of one administration-bucking decision, the blood of 100,000 people who died in the next attack would be on Goldsmith's hands.

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/ExDeputy_AG_speaks_out_on_DOJ_0907.html

number9 @ 36:

Rasputin @ 35:

But while they beat that drum, we should remember that Bin Laden is still free, the Taliban are back in business and Al Qaeda has regrouped and rebuilt... in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan... not Iraq!

Yawn. Let me know when my chances of being killed in a terrorist attack exceeds that of being struck by lightening. What's next, a war on bathtub drownings? The U.S. kills more civilians in a single year in Iraq than all terrorist groups on the planet combined (Muslim or no) have killed over the last 30 years.

I doubt this latest OBL tape is even legitimate. We are expected to believe so on the basis of some anonymous "official". It's patently obvious that the OBL confession video was a fake. If it was real, the FBI wouldn't have said they have no hard evidence linking OBL to 9/11 and 9/11 would be mentioned on OBL's most wanted page (it's not). Frankly, I'm a lot more interested in who is putting out fake bin Laden tapes.

Yawn? Perhaps you should have a cup of coffee and wake up before you start responding to other posters because the last two words were "not Iraq", the point being that its propaganda for a bogus war, in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and where the boogeyman of Al Qaeda has a tiny and insignificant "foot print."

While you assert that the "Americans are a very violent, war-loving people." I don't believe that to be true any more than the idea that there is something innately wrong with the German people because of what Hitler did in WWII.

What I have written about is the manipulative tactics of atrocious leaders that have taken Americans down the path of war and discussed how similar tactics are used by all such tyrants and despots. While you talk about history... you focus on only American history, ignoring the lessons that world history has to offer to your perspective.

[...] Source: crooksandliars.com [...]

Global public opinion could hardly be any worse. This winter, at a table of expat travellers (from many nations, and two from Britain. I'm Canadian) discussed the US at an outdoor bar in Bangkok. Concensus was, we'd all xxx Bush if we could, and the USA today sucks bit time. I travel a lot and hear the same stuff everywhere.

roxnev @ 40:

Al Qaeda in true Arabic talk means OIL

For sure.

And to aid Israel.
And to control the brown people as a added bonus.

Edwin @ 46:

I'm not religious, but I have always thought the deadly sins warrant some contemplation. Scan the list and ask yourself, "How many is this administration guilty of?" (My answer: All of them.)

deadly sins

sins leading to damnation: the sins that lead to damnation according to some Christian beliefs. The seven deadly sins are anger, avarice, envy, gluttony, lechery, pride, and sloth.
Also called seven deadly sins

[Translation of Latin peccata mortalia ]
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. ⓒ 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

I don't think its a question of which sins they have committed as much a question of which ones they haven't committed and I don limit my list to the seven deadly sins!

I do agree that this is all about the oil markets. On the same note (although it at first doeesn't seem to be), I disagree that the Republican party has changed: they are still conservatives, but it is the market that has changed. Before they liked things just as they were (doing their best to keep the money flowing into exactly the same pockets in exactly the same way), but the days factories and the tobacco industry are behind us: although production has moved abroad, and demand for oil (instigatingly) increased, the pockets remain the same.

Freakaloin @ 23:

have you noticed how bush and the neocons always point to that bombing of that mosque in samarra as when aqi started to make it's presence known? my guess is that bomb, many of the beheadings and other spectacular attacks are false flag ops being conducted by western military or intel agencies. the reason? so we have an excuse to stay.

Unfortunately there is a deep precedent for this, perhaps the best example being the Basra SAS debacle where special forces agents were caught dressed up as Arabs randomly shooting people. When they were arrested with all kinds of incriminating evidence by the Iraqis themselves, and armored division broke into the jail and freed them at a huge cost of life.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BOW20050...

em, just my 2 cents and whatever, but roughly what % of liberals truly believe Bin Laden is on the Bush payroll/ Bush had anything to do with 9/11? Because as much as I have contempt for the average Republican; I would have less for anyone who believed in such nonsense.(I'm not from the US of A btw so I've no way to gauge these things through everyday experiences).

Cowboy Bob in Austin @ 54:

It is truely amazing GOOD LUCK for Bush for a Bin Laden tape to appear just DAYS before the Betray-Us hearings in Congress.

WHY is the apearance of this tape NOT considered to be an ABSOLUTE CONDEMNATION of Bush's whole foreign policy? Where are some DEM TALKING POINTS, like...

"Proof, again, that Bush FAILED to get Bin Laden."

"Proof, again, that Bush FAILED to stop Al Qaeda in Afghanistan."

"WANTED-Dead or Alive" just didn't mean anything from the cowboy president."

"BUSH... All Hat, and No Horse!"

"Another Bin Laden tape PROVES that the occupation of Iraq has accomplished NOTHING."

Face it... you're just far too cynical! That Bin Laden tape showing up ten days before the 2004 election was just coincidence.

You may remember that tape. They released the first and last five minutes of the tape and hid the middle section until the afternoon of the election when every one was running to the polls.

The middle of it was where Bin Laden said how over joyed he was with the success of the 9/11 attacks and it only cost him $500,000 to bring the WTC down. He went on to say that his objective was to bankrupt the US and that where ever he raised the flag of Al Qaeda the US would send a huge army and for every dollar he spent... the US would spend a million. He said he knew he could bankrupt us because he had done it in Afghanistan.

With the war costing us $9 billion a month... Bin Laden was right! He can do it and George Bush has helped him to achieve his ends.

The Al Qaeda In Iraq Lie Still Lives

I am very grateful Nicole Belle wrote about and resourced this issue. The links were outstanding, informative and exhaustive in the topic area. I have posted many comments about this very lie, and, after watching AQI grow from conception to the monster it is today, I can only say: Its is about time someone paid attention to the lie of the year.

Most important is the way in which the AQI lie misdirects this issue. Money, time, and our most valued resources are being misused to bring a major focus to the wrong enemy. This wrong and I hope Bush get called on it before he leaves.

What is also very upsetting is the amount of apathy toward this lie. The Democrats keep saying "it's not important because Al Qaeda was not in Iraq when we got there." So what, why are they being misused today? That is very important. I have pointed out why and the amount of traction was next to zero. This is related to our troops staying in Iraq for more rotations,to our smart bombs killing more innocent Iraqis, and to our Oil companies getting into position to steal more Iraqi oil.

Bush knows most Americans want to see Al Qaeda wiped off the face of this earth for what they done on 9/11. I am still taken back at the fact that Bin Ladin, who released another video yesterday, was never found. Yet, he comes up when Bush needs a helping hand. I recall a Bin Ladin video on the 2004 election day. It was supposed to have given Bush a slight rise in the polls. In his latest video, Ladin dyed his beard. I thought Islamic terrorist could care less about the color of their beard. The more white the more indication that person has wisdom. There is something awfully American about our latest Bin Ladin.

When the Democrats win the next round of elections, we have about two years of work to do just to put our country on their previous footing. However, the work that must be done concerning this war does not have to wait. It can start now by the public demanding the truth from our Media and elected officials.

Joseph

AQ in Iraq? It's like this:

There was this one-hit band in the 60's called Steppenwolf. "Born to be wild." Ever since there have been a few traveling acts calling themselves Steppenwolf when in fact they only have the lead singer or the drummer and a couple of roadies. QA in Iraq is a couple of roadies and the alternate bassist.

I hope Ms. Belle appreciates this special.

where is the video?!
where is the video?!
where is the video?!

where is the video?!

where?

Eamon @ 53:

em, just my 2 cents and whatever, but roughly what % of liberals truly believe Bin Laden is on the Bush payroll/ Bush had anything to do with 9/11? Because as much as I have contempt for the average Republican; I would have less for anyone who believed in such nonsense.(I'm not from the US of A btw so I've no way to gauge these things through everyday experiences).

Intelligent Americans believe it. What? A US government rep would not kill his own people? Um, what do you call Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam? Etc, etc, etc, etc...they don't care at all

Rasputin @ 55:

Face it... you're just far too cynical! That Bin Laden tape showing up ten days before the 2004 election was just coincidence.

You may remember that tape. They released the first and last five minutes of the tape and hid the middle section until the afternoon of the election when every one was running to the polls.

The middle of it was where Bin Laden said how over joyed he was with the success of the 9/11 attacks and it only cost him $500,000 to bring the WTC down. He went on to say that his objective was to bankrupt the US and that where ever he raised the flag of Al Qaeda the US would send a huge army and for every dollar he spent... the US would spend a million. He said he knew he could bankrupt us because he had done it in Afghanistan.

With the war costing us $9 billion a month... Bin Laden was right! He can do it and George Bush has helped him to achieve his ends.

Face it, if these bin Laden tapes were authentic, the FBI wouldn't have said that they have "no hard evidence" linking bin Laden to 9/11, and his involvement in 9/11 would be mentioned on their bin Laden most wanted page, which it isn't. Do you know something the FBI doesn't? I think the reverse is probably the truth: the FBI knows something you don't, and are protecting their ass.