In the world of David Ray Griffin and his cheerleaders, if it is possible to prove that bin Laden is dead, wars would immediately come to an end. Such irrational rationale seems to be the noble driving force behind his most recent book, "Osama Bin Laden, Dead or Alive?", if it were not for its reliance on excessive speculation and falsehoods.

His intentional substitution of facts with absurd speculations is akin to using falsehoods and can only be described as regretful and heart breaking since it risks discrediting all his other work.

The truth was available to Mr. Griffin and pointed out to him on numerous occasions with communications channels opened to him in case he had doubts, questions, or needed contacts with sources, Mr. Griffin puzzlingly disregarded these resources.

"Osama Bin Laden, Dead or Alive?" is the title of the book and seems to be the question to be addressed first. For now, I just want to say that I have looked into the possibility of him being dead while doing my own research and found all evidence to be inconclusive.

For that reason, I am going to address the most outrageous falsehoods in Mr. Griffin's book and will address what I consider inconclusive evidence of bin Laden's death later.

Chapter 2 of the book, Two Fake Bin Laden Videos in 2001?, starts early in the book on page 12, and uses dizzying mental gyrations and total disregard for the truth in support of the book's premise; it is the chapter where the most outrageous falsehoods are found. The question mark after 2001 in the chapter's title, a Fox News tactic, does not absolve Mr. Griffin.

The first video he references, "The "October Video" Reported in November 2001", is a video that David Bamber of the London Telegraph wrote about on November 11, 2001. Mr. Bamber reported that he had access to it, supposedly viewed it and got translations of it, Mr. Bamber also reported that the video would be used by Tony Blair's government as the "centerpiece of Britain and America's new evidence against bin Laden". Three days later, on November 14, Mr. Blair failed to present any video and instead relied on quoting excerpts from the translation.

Mr. Griffin's logical explanation for such a failure is the following:

unless the video was a fake and the government decided, between November 11 [the date of Mr. Bamber's report] and 14 [the date of Mr. Blair's excerpts], that the fakery was so obvious that it should [British Government] deny having a copy while merely releasing damning "excerpts."

Before I give you the true story about the video, I need to point out Mr. Griffin's irrational rationale that I spoke of earlier, if the video is an obvious fakery, why would Tony Blair even release fake excerpts?

The true story about the video was given to me by an ex-bureau chief of Al-Jazeera Television Network whose contacts, including personal email and cell phone, I would have gladly shared with Mr. Griffin. The following is the true story according to my conversation with Al-Jazeera about Tony Blair's failed attempt to release video evidence

An attempt in mid November 2001, by Blair failed. An Al-Jazeera bureau chief explained what happened; Blair attempted to release a tape of a Bin Laden interview conducted by Al-Jazeera. The interview was to be comprised of responses to questions by both Al-Jazeera and CNN. When the Al-Jazeera's team reached Bin Laden's hideout to conduct the interview, their questions were tossed out and were informed that Bin Laden had his own set of questions with prepared answers. The news team objected, but feeling threatened, accepted to conduct the interview. Also, Bin Laden put a condition on Al-Jazeera, either Al-Jazeera airs all or none of the interview. Such a condition forced Al-Jazeera to choose none and refused to be intimidated or to act as Bin Laden's mouthpiece.

The most likely scenario is that CNN, who was very unhappy with the decision , informed the American government, and as a consequence, their cohorts, the British, of Al-Jazeera's position prompting British or American intelligence to steal the tape. The quotes from the tape in David Bamber's report of November 11 helped Al-Jazeera recognize the tape as their own and moved to prevent Blair from using it on November 14.

The excerpt is from an article I wrote that Mr. Griffin had access to Bush, Blair, and the Terrorism Shell Game.

The second videotape Mr. Griffin references in the chapter is what he calls "The Video Dated November 9, 2001" but more accurately, the video released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001. In many circles, this video is known as either "The Bin Laden Confession Tape", or the "Fatty Bin Laden Tape". It is a tape I spent more than a year authenticating with the help of the person who provided the best translation of the tape to ABC News, a videographer with twenty five years experience, and multitude of technical experts with Al-Jazeera ex-bureau chief helping with the timeline.

Mr. Griffin concludes his analysis of the authenticity of the tape with this statement where he refers to me as "A defender" and promoting Professor Bruce Lawrence's position, based on Dr. Lawrence's "friends" in Homeland Security, that the tape is "bogus".

A defender of the authenticity of this "bin Laden video" has claimed that Lawrence was talking about a later one. Lawrence however, made clear that it was this one to which he was referring, calling it the "bogus smoking-gun tape that came out in November 2001"

I do resent the use of the word claim by Mr. Griffin as I do not claim, I state, and the only way I can defend myself is by sharing with you the email I received from Dr. Lawrence three days after his appearance on the Kevin Barrett show in response to my email critical of his statement on the show and presenting my work on the authenticity of the tape and how it was produced by U.S. and Saudi intelligence

Dear Maher:

When I said that the Nov 01 tape was a fake,
I meant that it did not originate with OBL.
I'd be happy to read your document in Word format.
Thanks,

Bruce Lawrence

This can hardly be described as a claim on my part that Dr. Lawrence back peddled, and his play on words that the tape did not originate with bin Laden is either supportive of my work or, if otherwise, needs to be publicly explained. For the record, Dr. Lawrence has since been unresponsive to all communications requesting that he set the record straight. The following is the work I shared with Dr. Lawrence "Is it high treason or just a simple case of dereliction of duty?" found on page 14 of this linked pdf file.

I do not understand Mr. Griffin defense of Dr. Lawrence as much as I do not understand his back handed slap of my work on the tape since Mr. Griffin stated that he believed in the work to the point he tried to include it in "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" and apologized by email for his failure to do so. The following are excerpts from those emails

3-17-2007, In any case, I wanted you to know that after I read both Ed's essay and your latest version, I checked to see if I could modify my account of this video in my book somewhat but it was too late. Cordially, DG

4-20-2007, My book was delayed at the printer. But it's now on its way to Amazon.

You'll be unhappy with the OBL part; I modified it a little but it was too late to do very much.
Cordially,
DG

Obviously, Mr. Griffin not only very familiar with the work but a believer. The supposedly limited time he had was used to include in his book what tenacious Ed Haas got the FBI to admit to and which Mr. Griffin managed to quote about eight times.

I can only call this cherry picking, an ugly practice, since he again quotes the FBI's statement to Ed Haas in this book while ignoring Ed Haas's other work that disagrees with him. The following is the statement Mr. Griffin quotes

The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"

What Mr. Griffin ignores is an article dealing with the same statement that Ed Haas edited and published on his own website, "Is Bin Laden Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks?". The following is an excerpt regarding the FBI statement

Ed Haas' later work regarding the authenticity of the "confession tape" caught the FBI saying: "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11." Ed also caught the FBI admitting that authentication work on the "confession tape" is in a sealed investigative file.

The FBI would rather say bin Laden is not connected to 9/11 because revealing the results of any tape authentication, a necessary process prior to submitting it in evidence to a Grand Jury, would have also revealed the complicity of U.S. intelligence.

Ed Haas and I collaborated on the article after our appearance on the Kevin Barrett radio show. Even though Ed did the editing and scrutinized the veracity of the content, since I did all the writing, Ed did not put his name to the article despite my insistence.

This cherry picking is not limited to Ed Haas' work, Mr. Griffin did that to Jason Burke of the Observer, he quoted what agreed with him and neglected the fact that Mr. Burke reported specifically on the tape in question; the title says it all

Bin Laden videotape was result of a sting The CIA may have set up the terrorist leader to incriminate himself

The most obvious cherry picking relates to my work which determined that the video tape released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001, while claiming that the video tape was made on November 9, 2001, was actually taped on September 26, 2001, and was the result of a joint sting operation by U.S. and Saudi Intelligence. The full analysis is reported in "The Crime Behind the Criminal Wars" which again Mr. Griffin had access to.

These are the incidents of cherry picking that I know of and have no idea how often it was done in the book. Just the fact that there was cherry picking shows that Mr. Griffin's reasoning is flawed.

Now on the issue of "Dead or Alive" - Based on intelligence sources that Mr. Griffin cites, bin Laden has kidney problems and needs dialysis every three days, this is the line Mr. Griffin accepts and leads him to speculate that bin Laden is dead since dialysis machines that bin Laden procured need electricity which is unavailable in the caves of Afghanistan.

Assuming it is true that bin Laden had kidney problems, severity unknown, to present dialysis as the only effective treatment without considering other treatments that are more effective and readily available is simply disingenuous.

There is an older treatment that bin Laden could have stocked up on. Based on recent medical reports, this older treatment is more effective than dialysis and does not require electricity; the treatment was originally developed for poorer nations such as Pakistan and is called "Peritoneal dialysis".

Conclusion: Bin Laden had another treatment option which was readily available.

Also, if bin Laden survived Tora Bora and made his way to Pakistan, kidney transplants are the earliest of the transplant operations and there is no limit to the number of people who would gladly give him a kidney; it is very possible that bin Laden managed a kidney.

Bin Laden's death based on intelligence reporting his dialysis need and later repeated by heads of state here and there are not reliable sources especially when these individuals have vested interests.

Based on the evidence at hand, when it comes to the issue of bin Laden's death, I refuse to speculate and that is exactly what Mr. Griffin has done.

On the other hand, I am glad to report that Mr. Griffin and I agree on one thing, December 13, 2001 is a very important date, a pivotal date, a date he mentioned in his book more that once; Mr. Griffin, on many occasions, gave December 13 as the almost absolute date bin Laden died. One of Mr. Griffin's arguments supporting the death theory is that it is the date bin Laden went quiet, i.e. no electronic intercepts.

I have a more plausible take on this quietness and it is not death.

December 13 also happens to be the date the Pentagon released the "bin Laden Confession Tape", This is what I wrote on May 9, 2007 about the release

By releasing the tape, a by-product of a sensitive intelligence operation, to justify an illegal policy of aggression to the detriment of America's national security, the Bush administration committed high treason.

When Bin Laden saw himself on TV confessing he realized that the taping was done by a covert camera and realized how close intelligence were to capturing him; Bin Laden would never let anyone that close again.

The release of the tape undermined all future efforts to capture Bin Laden, whether they were conducted by the Bush administration or any future administration.

On December 13, 2001, the promise of "dead or alive" became the biggest lie that the American public and the world would live.

It is no coincidence bin Laden went silent on that date and into deep hiding; it was the only logical reaction to the release of the tape.

The reports of his death followed shorty after, early 2002, by the likes of Karzai, Musharraf, and other heads of state in the region. Mr. Griffin accepts these proclamations at face value and quotes them liberally without scrutiny and never considered the possibility that these heads of state acted in the service of their masters and that such statements were specifically designed to flush bin Laden out.

I don't know who Mr. Griffin's masters are but if I follow the irrational rationale he uses in his book, a rationale endorsed on the first pages by a CIA official, a State Department Counterterrorism official, and a founder of the USMC intelligence center, a rationale based mostly on official sources which include the Pentagon and Homeland Security rather than independent research, I have to conclude that Mr. Griffin's masters reside among those people.

Mr. Griffin's notoriety within the truth movement, coupled with his intentional desregard for the truth, cherry picking, and dubious sources, again, using the irrational rationale used thoughout the book, could I conclude that Mr. Griffin is a mole in the truth movement entrusted to undermine the very truth the movement is looking for?

The net effect of the book is not the naïve attempt to stop the war in Afghanistan. Instead, the book propagates falsehoods within the truth movement and diverts attention from the evidence that could be duplicated by any other independent investigator, evidence that would stand in court and point to the fact that George W. Bush committed treason, murder, and high crimes against humanity.

Prosecuting Bush is the only we we can stop more deaths, American, Afghan, and even Iraqi, and the only way to stop Obama from committing more war crimes.

Maher Osseiran is an Arab-American, peace activist, and a member of Al-Awda, an organization advocating the right of return of the Palestinians to their ancestral land. He can be reached at [email protected]

The creation of Guantanamo was a stroke of genius; hard to say but true. After 9/11, the country needed a remote place to incarcerate America's deadliest enemies, those sworn to destroy its democracy, its constitution, its economy, and rob it from its way of life.

A work of genius can still be flawed and we, "Super Progressives for Obama", strongly request that the Obama administration address these deficiencies and elevate Guantanamo to the level it deserves; the beacon of justice for western democracies and the world.

I do understand that what is being said is raising some eyebrows and causing some lips to pucker, especially those of the lesser "Progressives for Obama", but please, hear us out.

Guantanamo is the most humane place for the serious terrorism offenders. Let us take for example Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind 9/11, if he were in a federal prison, he would not survive a day; the predictability of the daily torture regime would seem to him like a Spa treatment when compared to the incessant fear of being stabbed in the back or even worse.

Okay, the "T" word slipped out, we, as "Super Progressives for Obama", are very much against the "T" word and all other words that are truncated to their first letters including torture. We do think that, part of addressing the deficiencies at Guantanamo, all detainees should be granted what is a universal right, the right to habeas corpus, and should be tried in federal courts. If found guilty, Guantanamo would be their humane place of incarceration in the company of their peers.

Considering the inability of the Military Commission trials held at Guantanamo to convict, the federal court system would have an even harder time since only a handful is convictable.

That raises a new dilemma; Guantanamo will never rise to its glory, would considerably shrink in size, and could even be closed. As "Super Progressives for Obama", we cannot allow that to happen and recommend a repopulation of the facility, but where could such people be found?

Grabbing people randomly in foreign lands because they were wearing rags on their heads, properly known as turbans, is not going to cut it this time. We need bodies that our fair judicial system could easily find guilty of waging war on U.S. democracy, its constitution, its economy, and the American way of life, whichever way you define it, spiced up with a little murder, a pinch of high treason, and tons of total disregard for human life.

At one of our brain storming sessions in preparation for this position paper, a dear "Super Progressive for Obama" colleague suggested rounding up anyone going in and out of the Capitol buildings in Washington as better suited for Guantanamo than those already there but the idea was immediately shot down by our "Super Duper Progressive" attorney as unconstitutional; "you need cause", he grunted.

It was then that I remembered this little investigative article I had written; it fit what was needed to a "Tee". I tell the gathering that the investigation uncovered a good amount of murder, plenty of high treason, and tons of total disregard for human life, and all pointed to W's White House.

There was a look of puzzlement on the faces of those in the room and piercing glares. Sound like conspiracy theory one said, anything new?

It does sound like conspiracy theory, I agreed, but it is not since the work could easily be duplicated by independent investigative bodies and would get even stronger if such bodies had subpoena power.

Obviously, there was a need to give more background, I continued, usually, leaks are the only source for such juicy material; it is not that different in this case. The evidence of White House criminality was extracted from the bin Laden confession videotape the White House and Pentagon inadvertently released on Dec. 13, 2001. They inadvertently released it in support of their war activities, present, Afghanistan, and future, Iraq, thinking no one could figure out how it was produced, but I did; it is not your typical leak, it is more like governmental incontinence.

There was a chuckle and quite a few ears perked up, so I push for more attention saying, what is really fascinating, even though disturbing and unfortunate, is that the evidence of these crimes is crystal clear. Unlike evidence of criminal activities relating to the Iraq war, this evidence is as good as black and white, it cannot be spun, cannot be denied, cannot be taken back or wished away, but most importantly, it is immune to any statutes of limitation and the prophylactic pardons Bush Jr. attempted to grant during his last days in office.

At this point, I pause, the details are tedious, but these "Super Progressive for Obama" are adamant at restoring and preserving Guantanamo's glory, words of encouragement quickly came through, go on Maher.

The analysis of the videotape, an authentication process that took close to a year to complete, shows that the videotape was the result of a two-part sting operation run by U.S. intelligence with the help of Saudi intelligence. The first part was to tape bin Laden confessing on September 26, 2001, barely two weeks after 9/11, and ten days prior to the invasion of Afghanistan. The second part, which was designed to capture him, was deferred to a later time and unknown date.

For the better designed part of the sting, the taping part, U.S. intelligence knew, four to five days in advance, the date of the taping operation, twenty four hours in advance its exact location, and had a very good idea how long bin Laden would be at that location since his favorite son, Hamza, and his mother, bin Laden's favorite wife, lived in that village. Such detailed knowledge and abundant time to plan for bin Laden's capture, was the best opportunity for the Bush administration to fulfill its legal duty to capture the most wanted man on the FBI's most wanted list and its self imposed moral obligation to keep its promise of "dead or alive", but if bin Laden were captured, there would have been no legal basis or popular support for the invasion of Afghanistan ten days later; Bin Laden, with premeditation, was allowed to walk away a free man.

The least the Bush administration could be accused of on September 26, 2001, is, dereliction of duty and giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war; that is called treason - U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2381. The Bush administration could also be accused of murdering all those unsuspecting troops and civilians who lost their lives since that invasion.

The audience captivated, I continue, the capture of bin Laden, the second part of the sting operation, was deferred to an unknown future date for when bin Laden returned to the village to visit with his family. For that purpose, a Saudi intelligence operative was left behind in order to alert the American Special forces of bin Laden's return.

Here, the Bush White House could not catch a break, call it an act of God, bad luck, Bush Karma, or simply the expected screwy result of hubris and wishful thinking, bin Laden returned to that village on a day with sleet, snow and freezing rain.

Despite the inclement weather, two Special Forces Black Hawk helicopters, supported by F-14 fighter jets, were dispatched from the aircraft carrier USS Roosevelt; a suicide mission on its own due to the extreme weather. Flying through night vision goggles and relying on instruments, the helicopters reach the village by mid-night November 2, 2001 but not without surprises.

What is most likely an uninvited guest, a prototype Predator drone operated by the Air Force, but as a prototype most likely under the control of the CIA, makes it to the village and rams one of the helicopters; the capture mission fails.

The helicopter crashes, the second helicopter rescues the reportedly injured crew while an F-14 bombs the crashed helicopter in an effort to conceal and destroy any evidence pointing to the purpose of the mission.

In the least, we can say that the mission was partly successful, bin Laden and his family never suspected that they were the target since his kids, lead by Hamza, were shown in the video released by the Pentagon playfully running up the hill to inspect the crash site, kicking the main rotor, dragging smaller parts of intermingled helicopter and Predator wreckage indoors, and videotaping all as if documenting, down to the equipment tags, tag images that were very helpful to the investigation.

I don't know if any laws were broken here. The Predator/helicopter collision might have been a weather related accident but intelligence sources told me that it was intentional sabotage. Either way, an investigation is justified and if found to be a case of sabotage, more deserving candidates for Guatanamo are found.

Again, I don't know if any laws were broken but it shows a total disregard for human life when those troops were sent on what amounted to be a suicide mission without informing them of the better designed opportunity to capture bin Laden five weeks earlier on September 26.

Noticing that I was starting to loose my audience, especially the recent converts from the "Progressives for Obama" crowd, I say, but these are not the most serious of crimes, there is more.

The most serious crime is the release of the tape itself. Since bin Laden was never captured, the two-part sting operation, in its totality, was a failed operation. As a sensitive by-product of a failed intelligence operation, the confession tape had to be declassified and only Bush and Cheney had that authority.

The only reason the Bush administration declassified the tape was in response for calls for proof from the Arab and Muslim streets. Tony Blair, and Colin Powell, having failed to provide the proof they promissed, forced the hand of the Bush administration to release the only proof they had.

When bin Laden viewed the tape, which he would inevitably do, he would immediately realize that it was taped covertly and that intelligence services could have captured him. The first time bin Laden deviated from his strict security protocol - by observing Arab and Muslim codes of hospitality and going to where the visitor is, in accommodation to the paraplegic Saudi intelligence operative, Khalid al-Harbi, instead of having the visitor come to him - intelligence operatives were feet from him, taping him. As a result, bin Laden's security protocol would get even tighter and no one would ever get that close to him again, not the Bush administration nor any other administration that follows.

The release of the tape by the Bush administration insured bin Laden's continued freedom almost indefinitely. The Bush administration by first allowing bin Laden to walk away free on September 26, 2001, failing to capture him on November 2, 2001, and finally, releasing the video on December 13, 2001, provided more help to bin Laden than 99% of the Guantanamo detainees.

Based on U.S. law, the crimes committed range from murder, to treason, to high treason. The unjustified invasion of Afghanistan was an egregious violation of the Geneva Convention and as a result, untold numbers of innocent civilians were killed; that would surely qualify as a high crime against humanity.

The authentication work on the videotape resulted in a timeline of the crimes and names of individuals involved in its production, including Federal agents named in an intelligence report exclusively sent to Dick Cheney which describes meetings over a period of time between one FBI agent, Brad Lee, and one CIA agent, Robert Wachtel, with the Saudi intelligence operative who visited with bin Laden, Khalid al-Harbi, in Manila in October of 2001 where money was exchanged; most likely for a job well done.

All the information was shared with U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as early as 2006, and with Biden's Judiciary Committee in 2007; if a special prosecutor is appointed, indictments should result within weeks and arrests in less than three months.

The failure of these institutions to fulfill their constitutional obligations and prosecute, considering the seriousness of the crimes, is by itself a criminal act, § 2382 Misprision of Treason U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, which should result in more candidates for the noble cause of repopulating Guantanamo.

According to ABC, Biden said the following in September of 2008: "If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued". As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Biden has already failed. Also, considering that the expansion of the illegal/criminal war in Afghanistan is the cornerstone of Obama's policy in that region, that promise was just a lie.

Instead of being investigated and soon to join his buddy Khalid Sheikh Mohammed at Gitmo, Bush is basking in the warm Texan sun promising us that history's slow and usually warm lens would vindicate his criminal acts.

In our longing to repopulate Guantanamo, we insist that Obama grant him his wish sooner and have twelve honest citizens judge him.

Obama needs to prosecute Bush for the sake of the country, the constitution, and the rule of law. If all that is not a good enough reason for Obama, he should certainly do it for his own sake; sooner or later, the illegality of the Afghanistan war will be evident to all and Obama's plan to expand that criminal war would only make a criminal out of him.

In these difficult economic times, times that should nurture and foster positive turning points in our history, we, as "Super Progressives for Obama", would not want to see Obama, America's last chance and only hope to lead its recovery in an orange jumpsuit at Gitmo.

Mr. Obama, the Afghanistan war is more criminal than the Iraq war and so much easier to prove as such. Mr. Obama, you have been fairly warned, sease and desist and prosecute those responsible for the deaths of so many innocents who include our brave troops that perished or were injured in this synthetic war on terror.

Note to the reader: Karl Marx got it wrong; religion is not the opiate of the masses, it is hope. Hope, as the tool of last resort in hard times can create a dependency that blinds. Hope has shown its power in cases of terminal desease but historically failed us in all other circumstances where what was needed was action. Hope is at the heart of Obama's appeal and many of my friends, all progressives, have been saying "give the man a chance". I don't see the prosecution of Bush and Cheney as denying Obama his chance, on the contrary, the prosecution of Bush and company would take away from Obama the opportunity to expand and wage more wars but would force him to focus on the pressing issues such as the economy and energy; green energy.

If you support the prosecution of Bush and Cheney, please sign the following petition found at
http://www.democrats.com/special-prosecutor-for-bush-war-crimes

For those in the UK who believe Blair should also be prosecuted, please sign the following petition found at
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?BWCF&1

Reference articles:
Osama's Confession; Osama's Reprieve

Is Bin Laden Responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

Since McCain will not be our next president, this article will strictly deal with an Obama presidency and how Obama will fit within this continuity of US foreign policy.

By examining the Obama foreign policy team, during the primaries, and in its latest version, announced in June of 2008 after he became presumptive candidate; an assessment of the team's contributions to American foreign policy through the decades will help us accurately predict their future war plans.

At least this is how things started, but as I went deeper into the analysis, Brzezinski came to the forefront and Obama faded away. As I was finishing this follow-up, I stumbled upon Webster G. Tarpley's excellent work "The Postmodern Coup: Making of a Manchurian Candidate".

...the Illinois Senator is a synthetic Manchurian candidate who has been concocted over a period of two decades or more by a political intelligence faction associated with the Zbigniew Brzezinski clan...W.G. Tarpley, Feb. 19, 2008

From the little that I have read, if my analysis has similarities with Mr. Tarpley's work, it should be looked at as an independent confirmation from a geopolitical perspective into how Obama, through Brzezinski, would operate on the international stage.

Brzezinski and the Neocons

On my part, I could not complete this task without reading "Second Chance", a book written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama's earliest advisor during the primaries that spanned the same period and the same administrations I had already reviewed in relation to the Iraq war.

We also need to keep in mind that Brzezinski had written "The Grand Chessboard - American Primacy and its Geopolitical Imperatives" an American foreign policy roadmap after the fall of the Soviet Union.

As a book, a "Second Chance" is the earliest sales pitch for the Obama presidency. First published in 2006, it talked to the ruling elite and not to the people of this country; it examined the performance of the three presidents since the fall of the Soviet Union, Bush I, Clinton, and then Bush II. Professor Brzezinski gave the first two mediocre grades and ended with an F for Jr., for lack of a lower grade. Finally, he went on to describe the ideal future president; namely, Obama.

If we first examine Brzezinski's other book, "The Grand Chessboard", we quickly realize that the neocons hijacked Brzezinski's work of the 90's in order to develop their own plans for Central Asia and winging a plan for the Middle East through the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The neocons, headed by Bush Jr., stole Brzezinski's well-thought vision and turned it into a global quagmire. No wonder Brzezinski wants a "Second Chance" to implement his plans, but can he turn back the clock and erase eight years of what he considers a dismal failure, and what are his odds for success?

In order to establish American hegemony, Brzezinski and the neocons are in agreement as to what is needed, a spectacular attack on the United States, without it, Brzezinski argues, there would be no internal support within the United States for the sacrifices needed to implement his plans for American supremacy. In his book "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives", Mr. Brzezinski writes:

Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.

Similarly, The Project for a New American Century, a Washington think tank that took the reins, as embodied by the neocons, at the Pentagon and the Bush II White House, felt strongly about the need for a "Spectacular Attack" that they openly conveyed their wish in a September 2000 white paper, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, thusly

Furthermore, the process of transformation [rebuilding America's Defenses], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.

These expansionist plans that would affect Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, and the military support they require, can only be accelerated and such acceleration acceptable to the American public if there were a new Pearl Harbor and the public felt a continuous outside threat of unpredictable catastrophic attacks; that was Brzezinski's theory that the neocons implemented by allowing the 9/11 attacks to take place and through their declaration of the "war on terror"; the failure was in the execution Brzezinski laments

Alas, the foreign policy that the president forged [after 9/11] became outspokenly unilateralist ("if you are not with us, you are against us"), demagogic, fear-driven as well as fear-inspiring, and politically exploitative of the slogan "we are a nation at war". It ultimately plunged America into a solitary war of choice in Iraq.

Brzezinski obviously favors a more consultative and coalition-building approach with the U.S. at the helm. Again I ask, can Brzezinski turn back the clock and erase eight years of unilateralism?

Brzezinski and the "old guard"

Brzezinski felt that the only way he could turn back the clock and restore some of the goodwill toward America that Bush II totally squandered, was to present the world with a fresh face - not any fresh face - but one that is an amalgam of JFK and Martin Luther King that bridges the cultural divide, is appealing to a Muslim audience, but most importantly, acceptable to the Europeans who are to be Brzezinski's cornerstone of a global alliance of advanced, moderate, and wealthy nations. In "Second Chance" he writes

In brief, by selectively drawing the more advanced and democratic non-European states into closer collaboration on global issues, a dominant core of moderation, wealth, and democracy can continue to project a constructive worldwide influence.

As a close observer of Washington's machinations, Brzezinski had a clear understanding of the competing currents at the highest levels of American politics; it is no longer a competition between Republicans and Democrats with corporate giants and the industrial military complex weighing in, it is a fight tooth and nail for the survival of the United States between its self-appointed protectors, the "old guard", Republican and Democrats allied on one side, and AIPAC and the neocons on the other.

The consensus among the "old guard" that the Bush II presidency was out of control came toward the end of his first term, they were probably all wishing he would not get re-elected.

Once re-elected, they fired a bi-partisan first shot across the bow in the form of The Iraq Study Group (ISG), formed to independently evaluate conditions in Iraq. The ISG, led by James Baker, a Bush family friend, and Lee Hamilton was critical of the conduct of the war in Iraq and favored phased withdrawal and dialogue with Iran and Syria.

Shortly before the ISG released its report, a Republican member, Robert Gates, resigned due to his nomination for Secretary of Defense, and it is presumed that Robert Gates shares the ISG's recommendations and was most likely forced on Bush by the "old guard" as their ambassador in Bush II's court.

Other than Mr. Gates, Admiral Fallon was assigned to replace General Abizaid as head of Central Command whose area of operation includes Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Admiral Fallon can be single handedly credited for delaying an attack on Iran, not just by publicly opposing it, but by bringing the issue to the forefront and into the public debate.

Also, shortly after that, Admiral Mullen ascended to the highest military position at the Pentagon as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

It is no coincidence that Admiralty was suddenly at the helm, no pun intended. The Pentagon needed a steady hand and Admirals tend to be more deliberative, have a better grasp of world affairs, and are the ones who could rein in the cowboy mentality pervasive in the other services.

One would think that by now the writing is on the wall: the neocons and their brand of governance was no longer welcome. However, the neocons know all too well that, once out of the White House, it is going to be very difficult for them to get back in.

The stakes are very high, the neocons and the "old guard" with their respective allies are engaged in the most vicious fight between two competing currents within government and is the reason why foreign policy positions seem disjointed until we divide them into two different categories.

The first one under the control of the "old guard" through Robert Gates at the Pentagon; setting the ground for the Obama presidency, while the other is under the control of the neocons, lead by Dick Cheney and company; Bush II is nothing but a stooge flailing in the wind and what he says and does is more like a weathervane indicating which faction has more control at that instant.

What is under the control of Robert Gates is direct military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and we see a shift there that emphasizes troop reduction in Iraq and an increase in Afghanistan. If we add to that the many meetings on US aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea between admirals and the Pakistani military, we know that Obama's war focus is not just campaign rhetoric; it is a full blown war in that region. We even hear Obama insinuating the draft in recent speeches.

On the other hand, the disruptive activities of the neocons, who still yield significant control through Dick Cheney are designed to help McCain in the short run, during the elections, and if McCain fails to secure the presidency, would create new international realities, neo-realities, that undermines the plans of the "old guard", potentially set them up to fail, and keep a back door open for the return of the neocons in four years.

Examples of these disruptive activities would be:

1. The creation of the Georgia situation and the re-activation of the cold war with Russia.


2. Keeping unauthorized channels open such as the contacts between the US ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalizad, a neocon protégé, and Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto and newly elected president of Pakistan.


3. The attempted white coup in Turkey, a stable Islamic democracy and a key country to implementing American diplomacy in Central Asia; by trying to shut down its ruling party and bringing the military back in control, the neocons would have a partner known to be more interested in war to justify its existence.

The picture is not very pretty internationally; it has actually been very ugly for a long time and is currently getting uglier on the Euro-Russian front. The "old guard" clearly have to deal with these neo-realities once Obama is in office.

Brzezinski the Puppet Master

Leading those who are helping Obama deal with these issues is Brzezinski, who has chosen to work in the shadows like a true puppet master, and his foreign policy team that he announced in June of 2008, shortly after he became the presumptive nominee.

Brzenzinski's intellect can deal with any adversity and he probably welcomes them as challenging and fun. The rest of the Obama team is understandably tapped from the last democratic administration, Bill Clinton's, with extensive hands-on experience in foreign policy, nuclear proliferation, defense and weapons systems, etc...

The most puzzling were the latest additions shortly after he defeated Hillary Clinton; Hillary's heavy weight, Madeleine Albright, the one responsible for paving the way for Bush II to invade Iraq, jumped ship and joined the Obama team, so did Lee Hamilton, a leading member of the Iraq Study Group that was so critical of the Bush II Iraq policies, and, a leading member of the white-wash 9/11 commission whose report left so many questions unanswered and failed to address potential complicity of the White House.

This expanded advisory is quite large, too large to lead and may be even too large to reach a policy consensus. It is more like recycled gravitas that would help shore up Obama's perceived inexperience and to help calm down a jittery "old guard".

Still, the combined experience of the final condensed version, the executives of foreign policy in the Obama White house, would be coming entirely from the Clinton presidency, the presidency that picked up where Bush I left, paved the way for the Bush II's war in Iraq, and would have to pick up now where Bush II left and deal with his neo-realities strictly through the Brzezinski perspective. But could this "Brzezinski team" turn back the clock and what does turning back the clock mean?

A turning of the clock should be anchored in a watershed moment in American history, 9/11; it is the moment where the entire world was full of goodwill toward the US. A similar event or conditions would need to be created in order to provide the optimum conditions for Brzezinski's "Second Chance" for American hegemony.

Is it sufficient for Brzezinski to introduce a new face, a half-white, half-black, half-Christian, half-Muslim, to regain this worldwide goodwill that he needs? Or would a savvy world population see it for what it really is; a Sarah Palin like maneuver that is pandering to a specific crowd, albeit larger?

Brzezinski, Unplugged

The answer is an unequivocal no; the clock could not be turned back. What Brzezinski knows too well and purposely failed to tell us in "Second Chance" is the true damage Bush II inflicted on America's standing in the world.

What Bush II did is irreparable; he stripped the US of its mask, America is now playing geopolitical poker with an open hand, its worldwide plans clear enough that its adversaries, big and small, are always a few steps ahead of it. It is true of Hizballah, the neocons' nemisis in Lebanon, Al-Sadr in Iraq, Ahmadi Najad in Iran, and Putin of Russia; all have reacted to US sponsored actions in ways unanticipated by Bush II.

Nevertheless, whatever the outcome (mostly failures) of a Bush sponsored action is, new parameters and new realities are created. As two of the most important areas under a president's watch, war effort and the economy, reach catastrophic failure, World War III can be seen as the natural progression of the policies that got us there, and may become the new savior reality in the twisted minds of the neocons if McCain is elected.

The stakes are way too high and the risks associated with a McCain presidency are intolerable to the "old guard"; McCain can no longer enjoy the protection of his family's long military heritage. The October surprise will be the airing of McCain's true Vietnam record. According to Colonel Earl Hopper, a thirty-year intelligence veteran who had served in Korea and Vietnam, McCain was worse than a collaborator, he was a traitor

McCain, for what he did while he was in captivity, was a traitor. Because he gave information to the enemy, classified, military information to the enemy, which caused the deaths of many of his fellow aviators that came in behind him... The result of this, according to the information that came out later on, in intelligence,... we started losing 60% more aircraft and more men than we had previously.

I doubt very much that a POW yellow canary could ever become our president.

Brzezinski's perceived "Second Chance"

In the absence of goodwill from the world, the only tools Bush II is leaving his successor are: brute force, intimidation, bribary, and coercion; these are the tools Obama and Brzezinski will instantaneously inherit.

Whatever bump in the level of goodwill a newly elected Obama will receive will quickly erode unless Brzezinski can capitalize on a Bush II neo-reality and convert it into a rallying call not too different from what 9/11 was; that is where Pakistan comes in.

In "The Mass Killing of the Good Options..." I discuss the peace conference in Annapolis between Palestinians and Israelis from a fairly unique perspective, I describe how the "good options" are falling one by one to Bush II's policies to the point of extinction, and thereby transforming the Greater Middle East into a powder keg with Pakistan as its fuse.

Obama is still clinging to 9/11 and describes the war in Afghanistan as the "just war", and thinks of Pakistan, the fuse, as the source of the problem. He is a proponent of pursuing the Taliban across the Pakistani-Afghani borders and engaging them in Pakistan with or without the consent of Pakistani authorities.

Many analysts in the US see that as a destabilizing move of the Pakistani government and military; it might even plunge Pakistan into its own civil war and even partition.

The negative impact of destabilizing Pakistan will not be limited to its borders. The instability in Pakistan would quickly spread across the border into Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Eastern Turkey, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and spread westward to Europe's backdoors; Algeria and Morocco.

These countries, whose majority share borders, is a contiguous swath of land that is very close to Europe and whose population is heavily represented within the European immigrant community; a swath of land where militant Islam roams unchecked and threatening.

It would be the equivalent of 9/11 as it brings together in a tight alliance a panicky Europe, America, and the rest of Brzezinski's civilized world, in an atmosphere similar to that of the cold war, but this time in a struggle against militant Islam; what Bush Jr. failed to achieve in eight years, Brzezinski will have to make happen within six months of the Obama presidency before the little bump in goodwill fades away and before anyone wises up to their plans.

The Georgia situation, which is strictly a neocon creation, will be allowed to cool down and Russia will be somehow rewarded with an apology for the inconvenience.

Bush II used 9/11 to launch "two" criminal wars, Obama acknowledges only one, the Iraq war, not as criminal but as a war of choice, and still clings to the war in Afghanistan as the "just war"; the Obama presidency will start with a lie, nine months sooner than Bush II, and his "just war" will expand and unjustly kill more innocent civilians and unsuspecting US soldiers doing their duty.

To understand the extent of the criminality of the war in Afghanistan, you might want to read "The Crime Behind the Criminal Wars!". Obama and Biden cannot deny knowledge of how criminal that war is. As a member of Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden received, in early 2006, detailed information about the crimes committed by Bush in preparation for and during the Afghanistan war, which include high treason, high crime against humanity, and murder of both US and foreign citizens.

If Obama and Biden are sincere about prosecuting crimes committed by the Bush administration as they recently expressed,

"If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued," Biden, The Guardian, Sept. 4, 2008

they should have prosecuted the crimes committed by George W. Bush in the Afghanistan war while they were in the senate, and certainly if elected, they should declare the Afghanistan war a criminal war and refrain from using it as a launching pad for Brzezinski's vision; that is the only chance, last chance, for the US to get it right and recapture, on solid footing, the goodwill Bush II so frivolously squandered.

As president, McCain will more than likely continue Bush II's policies with World War III as their natural progression.