In one 2004 tape “discovered” by U.S. forces in Afghanistan which I believe used an imposter to represent bin Laden he is seen chortling over the attack and showing with his hand how one of the planes dove into the World Trade Center tower. Having met the real Osama bin Laden I am convinced that the man in the tape, who was far heavier and broader of face than bin-Laden was a fake. The purpose of the tape was to convince American audiences of bin Laden’s guilt.
The Lies (and misconceptions) of the "'truth' movement"
I readily admit that I have no doubts that most members of the “truth movement” sincerely believe all the nonsense that they spout. I even think that most of the “leaders” of the movement, the ones who run the sites and write the books make the videos etc believe all of what they purport. However far too many of them present the facts in a less than honest fashion: quotes are taken out of context, contrary information omitted, rumors are reported as fact etc, others are too blinded by their preconceived notions to see the fallacies of their theories. I did want a blog title that would garner attention and ‘The Misconceptions of the Truth Movement’ just wouldn’t have the same ring to it.
I will address specific errors made by leading “truthers” in this blog and will erase any generic replies that have nothing to do with the entry topic. In other words if the entry is about Amanda Keller contradicting herself replies going on about the debris from flight 93 or Silverstein’s “pull it" comment etc. etc. will be deleted. Personal attacks and insults whether directed at me or other commenters, whether made by “truthers” or “debunkers” will be deleted as well.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Yesterday I forgot to say that though Margolis didn’t make clear who would be responsible for the “Eruption on the Nile” after Mubarak he seemed to indicate it would be Islamists rather than secularists:
Egypt’s secular political opposition barely exists. The regime’s real opponent remains the relatively moderate, popular, Islamic Brotherhood, which predates World War II. It would win a free election hands down. But the Brotherhood’s leadership is old and tired. Younger, more dynamic leaders have all been jailed or bought off. Half of Egyptians are under 20.
What a confused paragraph! The first three sentences clearly indicated he thought the Islamic Brotherhood would be at the forefront of the ‘eruption’ but the next (and last) two portrayed them as emasculated.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
In a series of posts a few months ago I pointed out that former Toronto Sun columnist Eric Margolis has told a number of lies over the years including that he met OBL, that he consistently questioned who was responsible for 9/11 and about what happened during a hijacked flight he was on. Unfortunately he has not stopped bending the truth. In his latest Lew Rockwell column he wrote:
President Barack Obama reportedly scourged CIA for not predicting the revolt on the Nile. Maybe CIA did, but no one in the White House was listening.
An impending explosion in Egypt was obvious to old Mideast hands like myself. Last 26 April, I wrote a column, "Eruption on the Nile," predicting Mubarak’s rule would soon end and that the US had already selected intelligence chief Gen. Omar Suleiman as his successor. CIA could save a lot of time, money and error by simply reading LewRockwell.com each week.
However it is simply is not true that Margolis “predict[ed] Mubarak’s rule would soon end” in the column. Quite to the contrary he twice indicated that he expected the dictator to die in office:
“President Husni Mubarak, the US-supported strongman who has ruled Egypt with an iron hand for almost 30 years, is 81 and in frail health. Amazingly, he has no designated successor. No one knows who will take over Egypt when he dies.”
“Now, as Mubarak’s health fails, the US and Israel are increasingly alarmed his death could produce a political eruption in long-repressed Egypt.”
Technically one could argue Margolis’ claim was accurate because he “predict[ed] Mubarak’s rule would soon end” but that was due his “frail health” rather than popular revolt. Thus Margolis was further off the mark than pundits who indicated the president would retire this year. What he predicted was turmoil over Mubarak’s succession.
While it’s true he said “Gen. Omar Suleiman, an ally of the US and Israel, is another possible strongman” he also mentioned Mubarak’s son Gamal and “another army or air force general” as strong possibilities and said “Washington would do well to back el-Baradei”.
But Margolis not the first person, by a long shot, to predict turmoil over Mubarak’s succession or cite Suleiman as a strong candidate. Almost 10 years before his column “Egypt: Stable, but for How Long?” by Jon B. Alterman appeared in the Autumn 2000 edition of the Washington Quarterly (Volume 23, Number 4, , pp. 107-118). In the section `Configuring Stability: But What About the Succession?’ [pg. 114, PDF pg. 4] Alterman wrote that while Gamal and some army generals were possibilities, “Publicly attuned Egyptians and other astute observers, however, put their money on domestic intelligence veteran Omar Suleiman.”
Alterman MIGHT have been the first person to write that Suleiman was a leading candidate, but he was definitely not the last one before Margolis. Below are few examples of hundreds of such articles that appeared from years to days before "Eruption on the Nile":
“Apart from [Gamal Mubarak], speculation has swirled around the country's intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, who came into the international spotlight recently as Egypt's go-between in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”
“Now, finally, he seems to be grooming an heir in each camp: one a general, the other an entrepreneur; the first arguably his closest aide, the second his son…Until not so long ago few Egyptians even knew who Lieutenant General Omar Suleiman, Egypt's powerful chief of intelligence, was.
“[Gamal Mubarak’s] main rival is one of Mubarak’s best friends, General Omar Suleiman, 69, the spy chief”
“The other name most commonly raised is Omar Suleiman, the longtime head of intelligence”
“[Omar Suleiman], believed to be the second-most-powerful person in Egypt and a potential successor to the 80-year-old [Hosni Mubarak], has been entrusted with the "Israeli file."”
"Egyptian Regime Worried by Increasing Pressure on President Mubarak To Select Security Services Chief Colonel Umar Sulayman as his Successor”
“Mubarak’s politician son Gamal, widely tipped as a possible successor. But others too have their eye on the top job, notably intelligence chief Omar Suleiman”
The first is Omar Suleiman, Egypt's intelligence chief and long-rumored successor to Mubarak…Suleiman is the most likely candidate for vice president, who would succeed the president in the event of the president’s death or incapacitation.
Note that the last one came out just 4 days before Margolis’ column and discussed the possibility “another army or air force general” might get the nod.
So there is no reason for the CIA to “[read his column in] LewRockwell.com each week” why should they waste their time with a liar who has shown no signs of being ahead of the curve?