More lies my president told me?

As the president’s ratings were sinking, his approval for four wars diminishing, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner continued to push for a rise in the 14 billion plus national debt ceiling, Wall Street speculation was still driving up gas and food prices. What better time for Barack Obama to announce the assassination of Osama bin Laden by a team of Navy Seals. It’s a home-made bomb of good news to wipe away all the bad.

In fact, as of May 4, 2011 the New York Times writes For Obama, Big Rise in Poll Numbers After Bin Laden Raid. “Among Independents it rose 11 points from last month, to 52 percent, while among Republicans it rose 15 points, to 24 percent.” For people of conscience it hit the bottom of the barrel.

But fibbing paid off as the president referred to bin Laden as the murderer of millions of Muslims, though bin Laden was originally recruited to fight with the Mujahadeen in a Jihad against the Russians who had attacked Afghanistan to keep a government they favored in power. This Mujahadeen was the brainchild of Zbigniew Brzezinsky, then NSA adviser to Jimmy Carter. The Mujahadeen itself was armed, trained, and paid for by the CIA. Al Qaeda was a file name in bin Laden’s laptop, meaning “the base,” a list of the best men Osama fought with in Russia. Al Qaeda was branded in 2001 by the CIA as the world’s most dangerous terror group, even though the Agency had bought and paid for its creation and maintenance.

Obama also called Osama the World’s Most Wanted Terrorist, but he neglected to mention not for the crime of 9/11. There was not enough evidence according to the FBI to keep him the number one terrorist on the 9/11 list. As to the mostly Saudi “purported terrorists,” whose pictures were hastily pulled out of an FBI file, FBI chief Robert Mueller said shortly after that we couldn’t be certain they were the perps. Actually, seven or eight of them had been living in Mid-Eastern countries at the time, and were victims obviously of identity theft. Also, why show any faces without complete certainty about who they are?

As to the airliners they purportedly hijacked, there are many who do not believe the impact and/or fires of the airliners brought down the World Trade Towers. 1492 hundred engineers and architects believe the Towers were brought down by internal demolition, as was Tower 7, never hit by an airliner, but “pulled” by internal demolition at the request of its owner, Larry Silverstein, because “there had been so much pain and suffering . . .” His announcement was made at 3 PM on 9/11 on national TV. Sure enough at 5:20 PM, down came Tower 7 in 6.5 seconds into its footprint, which is considered the model for Towers 1 and 2, leaving the desolation of Ground Zero. Trouble is it takes months not hours to rig an internal demo for a 47-story, steel framed building, so it had to be set already.

As to the Pentagon, it turned out there was only an 18-foot wide entry hole and an even smaller exit hole. As you may know, military officer April Gallop, who had a top Pentagon security clearance, and who was back after a two-month maternity leave, her son Elisha in his basket beside her, experienced an internal explosion when she turned on her computer. It stopped the Pentagon clocks 7 minutes before Flight 77 purportedly hit the Pentagon at 9:38 AM, leaving no engines, no scuff marks, no luggage, no bodies, nothing but questions.

As to Shanksville, none other than former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently blurted out words to the effect that the Muslim terrorists were the people who blew Flight 93 out of the air. No, Don, that was probably us, too. None of this was mentioned in the president’s speech, lies simply of omission. There are more.

As to bin Laden, he entered the American Hospital in Dubai in July of 2001 for kidney dialysis, and also met there with the Mid-East US station chief, noted by Robert Baer in his book, Sleeping with the Devil—How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude. How could a man as ill as bin Laden have survived the balance of a decade with a serious illness, escaping from Tora Bora later in 2001, as US troops unsuccessfully tracked him? It would have been miraculous if not hard to believe.

The dean of American scholars on the subject of 9/11, David Ray Griffin, mentions in one of his 9/11 books, Osama bin Laden—Dead or Alive- that Bin Laden passed in Pakistan, in late December, 2001. There are death notices from Pakistan newspapers reproduced in the book, announcing that Bin Laden was buried in an unmarked grave somewhere in Pakistan as keeping with the traditions of Islam. This fact was mentioned in the NYT, Huffington Post, and Yahoo News, but in slightly different contexts.

For instance, the body of bin Laden, according to Huffington Post, was “dropped in the sea in order to leave no definitive location for his final resting place” and done so only hours later. It was CNN that originally reported “the drop” hours later. And so, are we to take it as an article of faith that there was a body, or at least pictures somewhere of the deceased, bullet-riddled Osama bin Laden. The religious issue aside, without a body we really have no case. And invoking Muslim tradition becomes a thin argument.

In Griffin’s book, published in 2009 by Olive Branch Press, the burial was noted (on page 2) from The Observer of Pakistan and the cause of death was given as “serious complications of the lungs.” Bin Laden is described as having “a natural and quiet death.” The Observer of the Pakistan newspaper “wrote he himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and the saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days [earlier].” The actual day the report was published was on December 25, 2001. The Observer also mentioned that “20 to 30 of al-Qada fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taliban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave . . .

The report was publicized, published and elaborated upon by Fox News in the United States. Griffin’s 98-page book is well worth reading in its entirety for the treasure of information it contains, including “causes of death; two fake bin Laden videos in 2001; purported bin Laden messages after 2001; who might have been motivated to fabricate messages; and the convenient timing of many of the messages.” I doubt if anyone in the Obama White House read this book.

Again, according to Huffington Post, “The fight lasted 40 minutes . . . a surgical raid” conducted by a Navy Seals unit. Bin Laden’s adult son was killed, as were two of his couriers and a woman being used as a human shield [though one paper said it was bin Laden who had done that]. Also, his wife was said to have been killed. And Bin Laden himself ‘did resist the assault force’ a senior administration official said. How did he resist? Reports on Sunday night said the terrorist leader was ultimately shot in the head.” But how did he resist? No answers yet.

In fact, in May 4, 2011’s New York Times, New US Account Says Bin Laden was Unarmed During Raid. Now we are told, “Members of a Navy Seals team burst in on Bin Laden in the compound where he was hiding and shot him in a room on an upper floor, after a fierce gun battle with other operatives of Al Qaeda on the first floor.” Huh.

“Bin Laden’s wife, who was with him in the room, ‘rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed,’ said the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, reading from the brief account, which was provided by the Defense Department. “Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed.” Sounds like an execution to me though that ugly phrase is fudged . . .

“Mr. Carney said that Bin Laden’s lack of a weapon did not mean he was ready to surrender, and he and other officials reiterated that this was a violent scene, that there was heavy fire from others in the house, and that the commandos did not know whether the occupants were wearing suicide belts or other explosives.” Uh huh, uh huh.

But as you know by now, Osama wasn’t living in the caves of the Afghan/Pakistan border when this happened. He was secured in a “massive compound about an hour’s drive north from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. He was hiding in the medium-sized city of Abbottabad, home to a large Pakistani military base and a military academy of the Pakistani Army, as described by The New York Times. So it would be a rather “safe” environment for him.

Huffington Post added that, “The house at the end of a narrow dirt road,” “was roughly eight times larger than other homes in the area, but had no telephone or Internet connections . . .” But the Times continues, “When American operatives converged on the house on Sunday, bin Laden ‘resisted the assault force’ and was killed [shot in the head] in the middle of an intense gun battle, a senior administration official said, but details [and everything else] were still sketchy. Obviously, the story was still being worked on. I predict it will continue to change ad infinitum.

Huffington added details that the neighborhood in Abbottabad was “insulated from urban areas or places susceptible to natural disaster and terrorist attacks. The home was ‘roughly eight times larger than the other homes in the area,’ and it was also surrounded by 12-to-18-foot-high walls, topped with barbed wire. It had two security gates and a value of roughly $1 million . . .

“An even more telling clue for intelligence operatives: The occupants of the house were burning their trash rather than putting it out for collection.” But “One senior administration official suggested bin Laden had been staying at the compound for at least six months without moving. Bin Laden was known to have regularly shifted locations to evade capture, so it’s unusual that he chose to stay in one spot for such an extended period.”

Perhaps it was also that, as Huffington Post adds, “More recently, the Obama administration had reduced the number of drone strikes in the area—while ramping up surveillance—in an effort to give the al Qaeda leader a heightened sense of safety in his home.” I’m sure the real estate agent pointed that out to Mr. bin Laden.

Nevertheless, in a Yahoo/AP article it was said, Bin Laden’s neighbors noticed unusual things. There were 23 children at the compound and unclear, even in a large house, how that many people could live there. Various names were given, various languages were spoken, a group of expensive SUV’s surrounded the house, and things seemed out of kilt.

But knowledge of the resident, i.e. the presence of a “high value target,” i.e. bin Laden, came through “a courier who had a very close relationship with Osama.” Osama’s locale was also mentioned by the ever-confessing, ever-waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed, supposed mastermind of 9/11. And so Santa’s helpers “ . . . began working on a plan to get him.” And on that evidence they prepared to attack the massive compound. Or course, the deft attack team managed to have one of its helicopters crash nearby due to mechanical failure. One of three men killed in the gun battle was said to be bin Laden’s son (reminiscent of Kaddafi) and the other two his couriers. What, no carrier pigeons?

Of course, the announcement received the full drama of Obama’s rhetoric Sunday night, coming directly from the White House. America’s thumbs, regardless of the anomalies, were thrust up in victory gestures hither and yon. And Obama dutifully warned us that this victory must not signal an end to our vigilance against terrorists and those who would seek to harm us. What he didn’t mention was that since our original mission to attack Afghanistan was to get Osama, now that that was done, we could be pulling our troops out of A-land, and Pakistan (with whom we did not consult on this mission), and Iraq, still smoldering in the ruins of our shock and awe, and out of Libya, convulsing under NATO air strikes, and save billions.

Nevertheless, back here in New York City, security is being beefed up, paranoia ramped, and warnings made of possible reprisals from allies of the slain Osama.

But you have to stop and think for a minute, who are the real terrorists here? I know Obama said, “We didn’t ask for this fight. It was brought to us . . .” It could as well have been brought to us by George Bush and Company as an inciting incident to their hegemonic march for oil in the Caspian Sea Region and Iraq, which march has not diminished but expanded beyond Pakistan into Africa now, and is still bankrupting us, morally and financially, and killing many in its wake.

In fact, there was no mention of withdrawal from anywhere. So it’s Homeland Security and business as usual, if not more. Yet, many people are waving flags down at the still uncompleted World Trade Center and gathering to celebrate “the victory.” My question to them is, how has the world changed for you? Are the troops coming come? Is the price of gas and food going down? How does one more fallen, albeit high level, enemy signal a massive victory?

The real celebration should come when every single American soldier has come home, when jobs have begun to be created in the hundreds of thousands, and when the economy is pulled back from the brink of catastrophe, and when we all see substantial proof that the “taking out” of Osama took place, i.e. photos of the corpse, a death certificate, etcetera. I’ll save my celebration for that day and let this clever intelligence move pass. Call me cynical if you wish, but Libya was supposed to be a “limited mission,” as was Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Meanwhile they are still all ongoing.

That’s why I have real difficulty swallowing this Pyrrhic victory and its rigged tale, including bin Laden’s military nickname of Geronimo EKIA. Isn’t that just a touch racist, characterizing an “Apache leader in the 19th century who spent many years fighting the Mexican and U.S. armies until his surrender in 1886,” with a purported Middle Eastern leader defending his people against the U.S.? That represents a certain “skin-deep” thinking, another unusual lie from the dusky-skinned Obama.

The bottom, bottom line is, will this further inflame Muslims to retaliate, or worse, for Zionists to respond to retaliation with nuclear weapons. Either side’s retaliation in that manner would be even a greater tragedy that what we now face. Fingers crossed folks. And let’s imagine somehow a more peaceful tomorrow.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer, life-long resident of New York City. An EBook version of his book of poems “State Of Shock,” on 9/11 and its after effects is now available at and He has also written hundreds of articles on politics and government as Associate Editor of Intrepid Report (formerly Online Journal). Reach him at

2 Responses to More lies my president told me?

  1. Janet McMillan

    But it’s still unclear why two sons of bin Laden would declare jihad on Pres. Obama for their father’s death–if he wasn’t dead.

  2. Is he dead, was he dead, when did he die, who really killed him and why? There are still so many questions swirling about that lack total, bona fide resolution, including whether the Navy SEALS, the purported killers, were killed themself when their helicopter took them up after the op and blew up to pieces in air. One thing we knew is that dead men, in call cases, tell no tales.