Like one of my clothing designs states, "With Bush in office, the terrorists have already won..." The Bush administration has us living in so much terror, that Osama can kick back & relax knowing it was a job well done... We're losing more & more of our rights & getting closer & closer to a society just like the one our soldiers are supposedly trying to liberate. Which leads me to another clothing design I have featuring a famous quote that's probably already been posted many times, but should be posted many more:

Bushboy's Patriot Act...Hitler's Enabling Act. Two of the same.

have you read the actual text of the patriot act before?

You know I actually haven't read it. I am sure it's quite long and lengthy.


All I remember was the rediculous uses it was being used in F9-11.

It also has been used against Democrats in Las Vegas. *Shakes head*

really? i didn't know about that. what happened?

ps. don't trust michael moore for all your opinions. his movie is based deciets.

Thanks for your opinion. I'm sure his team of lawyers and fact checkers will disagree.

What fact checkers? Michael Moore is why President Bush won the election. The American electorate wasn't stupid enough to believe that bile, and as such the Democrat party lost all credibility with any rational thinkers.

Like it or not, you are judged by the company you keep.

Put your bigotry and hate aside & get informed...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/


I'm not sure whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you...

figure out whether to laugh or cry while you scrape the kerry / edwards stickers from the bumpers of your k car

it's funny you mention removing stickers... I just ripped a "W" sticker off a drive thru speaker & tossed it on the ground while getting lunch... it was great! I feel much better...

hey, put your bigorty and hate for w aside, and get informed.
read this:
http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm
dave kopel, who voted for ralph nader in 2000, points out 59 deciets in f911, and gives michael moore a chance to respond to them. michael moore is unable to back up his points. my point is, just because f911 echos your views, does not mean it is the truth.

and if that's too big a read, at least read this:
http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

I've seen a lot of that before, but you have to read that while keeping in mind that no sources were cited by Dave Kopel... I know Moore has publicly stated that several things were mistakes to include, but in the link I provided, he provides sources & even if a fraction of the points are true, it's still scary.
I should also point out that I didn't bring up Moore & I know your response wasn't directed toward me, but I can't help but think that if anyone has a problem with Moore's claims, why hasn't he been sued? Hell, I think he welcomes the opportunity to defend himself...
Oh well, there is plenty of other evidence in mainstream media & elsewhere, so I didn't need to be swayed by Moore.

what do you mean no sources were cited by dave kopel? he backs up every one of his points with non-partisan news articles or other forms of proof. read the whole thing. he even agrees with what you say, kind of. he states that although most the movie is made of deciets, moore makes a few good points.

I'm sorry, I should have stated that I didn't have time to read what was at the first URL, but didn't see any sources cited in the PDF...

Do you realize how pathetic a statement like this makes you look?

Your irrational hatred of President Bush isn't healthy.

pssssssssssssssst moderators the freepers are slinking around here again.

Read the 911 commission report. It may look familiar.

... and Republicans have Rush... a druggy no less. I will take Michael Moore.

Ohhhh... so you are one who believes all the brainwashing BushCo has fed you all these years, even though the lies are well-documented even in Congress, 9/11 reports and numerous other documents, including many members from his OWN cabinet who got weary of hearing his lies.

Isn't it interesting that they wooed gays in 2000 with all sorts of promises, and later invited and hosted the Log Cabin Republicans (gay group) to dinner at the White House, where even Giulani was present. Laura last election stated she was pro-choice....etc. Big flip flops on the "moral" issues from last election to this one.

Kerry shut down the terrorists bank!!! He risked his political career when both sides opposed the investigation and tried to stop him. His integrity kept him trying and he eventually succeeded. Oh yeah, Bush banked there too and his family wasn't happy with the investigation. It turned out Kerry shut it down. Bin Laden banked there, Saddam banked there. It was the "terrorists" bank. He worked to rid the country of terrorism long before it was "in vogue". What a determined man to fight "evil". Not one person got killed, but Kerry won!!!!

Don't take my word for it...check it out in government documents or from your NeoCon friends!!!!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...409.sirota.html

America would be in safer hands under President Moore than under "Pose-ident Bush".

I'm a libertarian (note the small-L). I don't give a f*** if Rush Limbaugh or anyone else does every drug under the sun provided they aren't operating a car or other dangerous equipment, and they don't expect me to take care of them.

Rush Limbaugh is a millionaire. He's paying a lot more tax dollars than me, so I won't have to support him. And if he can do it loaded on pain-killers, maybe he really was doing his show "with half of his brain tied behind his back, just to make it fair".

This doesn't really have anything to do with the topic, but i'm just curious...do any of us go to the freeper board and mess with them like they do here? I've only visited their board one time and then just for a few minutes. It was such a mean spirited, sarcastic and hateful place that i got out real quick and i've never had any desire to go back. I saw no real ideas there, just hate and negativity.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised about that considering who they support and what they stand for.

I really don't understand why they say they hate us and what we stand for and yet they spend so much of their time with us. Makes no sense at all to me.

The problem with them is a control thing. They have a need to be led. They have trouble using their own minds, and get frustrated when they have to. Out of this frustration comes anger and self-doubt. They need to be controlled and a cause to believe in, and at the moment, Bush's terrorism idea is something for them to grasp on to. Anyone disagreeing with them or the ability to make their own judgements constitutes a threat in their minds. They really don't know any better, poor souls. I kind of feel sorry for them at times, until their hatred and unitarian goals bring things back into focus. The fact is, the herd is starting to stampede unchecked, and our liberty hangs in the balance.

Remind me of Taz in the Looney Tunes cartoons. Running around screaming and slobbering and jumping up and down. Let's give em all AK47's and send them out deer hunting.

james

Deceits ? Please answer some questions then... see "Neglected News -Why haven’t we heard more about these stories?"

at http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/05/126996_comment.php

( is that your post about halfway down "James May 13, 2002" ?)

My favorite is ""FBI Cover-up of Mohamed Atta’s Last Days

"'They loaded two Ryder trucks (of Huffman Aviation and Venice Police Department documents) right outside that (police station) window,' one Venice law enforcement official told us.

"‘And then they drove them right onto a C130 military cargo plane at Sarasota airport which flew out with Jeb Bush aboard. The FBI took all our files. Everything.'"" Apparently this was done within 24 hours of the attacks.

www.madcowprod.com

BTW, the Kennedy assassination (a murder) never was prosecuted in Dallas but by Jim Garrison in New Orleans. The results of that episode show at the end of Oliver Stone's movie; we are to wait until 2034 or so before we are allowed the full story. Grand juries require information and its better to wait until more information becomes available before filing papers.

Buddy, I'm sorry but even some of the so called quoted truths in that article are an embarassment. I don't know where that guy gets this joke of peppermints aka box of lies. Obviously, Bush being cited as joking about those issues, and being supported in reading a goat book and joking on top of that are neither defense of his actions, exscuses of what happened, or show any decency whatsoever

In other words, the cited facts of the actual 9/11 report, and most of the skewed reporting in F 9/11 is more informative than the garbage of David Koppel. Or Ted Koppel, for that matter.

http://www.rense.com

If you can't even plausibly explain into the truth or explain it away, why bother making up more lies on top of that? Moore's film is excellent and deep, even though it doesn't show the full story because it reveals the shady truthful connections that US Justice groups have known for years and years, by their Bush administration.

Just curious.
Have any of you folks that believe F911 is 100% factual even looked at any of the rebuttals, or done ANY independant research of your own?

Something doesn't have to be "100%" when its uncovering lies spewed regardless, and thats what F911 did in every possible way. And yes you can do much investigation to see that Fahrenheit, when it comes down to it revealed the true ties that Bush/Cheney has had to Bin Laden all this time and the oil deals pushing and rigging their money campaigns, regardless of any discrepancies or trying to paint it in a "prouder" light.

You want that just go ask Condi Rice, who is queen of pandering crime in a softer more precedent light

Perhaps that is the problem I have with Mr. Moore's "documentary". He mixes the truth in with a bunch of spin, and a lot of people think the whole thing is true.

Let's discuss the Bush / bin Laden family relationship. I think it would be UNusual and strange if there wasn't any connection. A family (Dare I say dynasty?) that’s big in the American oil industry would most assuredly have some ties with one of the most influential families in the Saudi oil business, but to suggest that there is some connection between the bin Laden family’s black sheep and the Bush family ex-black sheep is at best a stretch, at worst a hurtful and ridiculous lie. The whole thing smacks of class envy.

Are you just throwing out words without regard to their meaning?

Pandering is the legal term for what a pimp or madam does. Did you mean "presenting" or "portrayed", or some other word that starts with "p"?

What do you mean by "precedent light", and what crime is being protrayed in a softer light?

Then why is BenLaden still alive? Is it incopetance or by design? I think it is because you guys need a boogy man to fight.

Compliments of BushCo & Tricky Dick Cheney

The few the Proud.

Twisted perspective for those who work with contractors



http://www.markfiore.com/animation/few.html

Who is "you guys"?!?
I think UBL is a bug-riddled blob of mush in a cave somewhere in Tora Bora.

You know, you’re probably right, the CIA wants him for a boogy man, and al Qaeda wants him as an indestructible messiah. UBL is a symbol for simpletons on both sides. Neither wants to admit he's dead. [B]I was NOT fooled by the "October surprise" video, either.

The Global War on Terror is not about one man. It’s really about showing the world that no one can use terrorism against innocent civilians without paying such a terrible price that it is an obsolete means to achieve political change.

Okay, that’s the idealistic version. The cold hard truth is that we’re showing the world that no one can use terrorism against AMERICANS without getting stomped into mush, and if that means “innocents” on their side die too, than so be it, because you don’t f*** with America.

Sounds mean? Tough. Welcome to reality. The world should be damned glad that America won the Cold War instead of the Soviet Union, because America has good-hearted people, like David Sobien, to keep our government in check.[/B]

That is hilarious!

But, seriously, are you naive enough to really believe that both major parties aren't exactly the same in this regard?

“Big Business” doesn’t really care which party is in power, they have the skids greased on both sides of the aisle. You can check the campaign donation disclosure reports. They don’t care which party they give money to. What matters is who’s in power. That’s why the incumbents always get the lion’s share of the contributions.

In case you didn't notice, that cartoon illustrated it. ($5.4M to Bush & $2.3M to Kerry)

The Republicans *itched about campaign finance reform when Clinton was raking in the dough, now the DemocRATS are whining now that the tide has turned. Go figure.

Hey, I just posted a fun little animated cartoon! I didn't say anything about the system NOT being broken. Our whole political process is based on the power of money.

Nope, mine will stay on my Mercedes for the next four years, along with the one that says:
Pro-American,
Anti-Bush

Besides, my state gave Kerry an 11% vote advantage over BushCo, so I'm mighty proud of my fellow statesmen and women, thank you.

Mercedes... You must be one of those rich people who feel guilty because they didn't work hard enough to earn their money, and assume everyone else who has money got it through similar means, and think that the government would be better at giving your money away to charity than you can.

Bush is the most dangerous of dictators. He has his finger poised over the buttons of the Atomic/Hydrogen bombs as well as the dangerous Laser Star Wars weapons.
If anything thinks he is not the fast track dictator, just look at his actions.
Distort any facts and lie.
Declare War. To whip the people into a frenzy of no brains.
Invade one country after another. For no reason except to make more money for his buddies.
Control the media as they are owned by his money backers.
Stop elections. He tried but failed.

His actions are the same as every dictator of history.
If you do not see the facts, I suggest you conpare yourself to the Hitler followers. They too did not see the light and followed him like sheep.

Nowthere's those nukes in the Ukrane that are stored there by Russia, and that new president that was elected is Busch's friend and now Busch will get his hands on those nukes too, and they're right there ready to go maybe, and Busch doesn't even have to semd them from a sub or from the U.S. so I wonder where he's going to send them. Is he going to level Iraq with nukes like Rush Limbaugh and those radio guys like Michael Savidge say he should do?

Apocalypse Soon, By Robert S. McNamara

Foreign Policy
May/June 2005 Issue

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2829

Robert McNamara is worried. He knows how close we've come. His counsel helped the Kennedy administration avert nuclear catastrophe during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Today, he believes the United States must no longer rely on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. To do so is immoral, illegal, and dreadfully dangerous.

It is time-well past time, in my view-for the United States to cease its Cold War-style reliance on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. At the risk of appearing simplistic and provocative, I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high. Far from reducing these risks, the Bush administration has signaled that it is committed to keeping the U.S. nuclear arsenal as a mainstay of its military power-a commitment that is simultaneously eroding the international norms that have limited the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile materials for 50 years. Much of the current U.S. nuclear policy has been in place since before I was secretary of defense, and it has only grown more dangerous and diplomatically destructive in the intervening years.

Today, the United States has deployed approximately 4,500 strategic, offensive nuclear warheads. Russia has roughly 3,800. The strategic forces of Britain, France, and China are considerably smaller, with 200-400 nuclear weapons in each state's arsenal. The new nuclear states of Pakistan and India have fewer than 100 weapons each. North Korea now claims to have developed nuclear weapons, and U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that Pyongyang has enough fissile material for 2-8 bombs.

How destructive are these weapons? The average U.S. warhead has a destructive power 20 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. Of the 8,000 active or operational U.S. warheads, 2,000 are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on 15 minutes' warning. How are these weapons to be used? The United States has never endorsed the policy of "no first use," not during my seven years as secretary or since. We have been and remain prepared to initiate the use of nuclear weapons-by the decision of one person, the president-against either a nuclear or nonnuclear enemy whenever we believe it is in our interest to do so. For decades, U.S. nuclear forces have been sufficiently strong to absorb a first strike and then inflict "unacceptable" damage on an opponent. This has been and (so long as we face a nuclear-armed, potential adversary) must continue to be the foundation of our nuclear deterrent.

In my time as secretary of defense, the commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Command (SAC) carried with him a secure telephone, no matter where he went, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The telephone of the commander, whose headquarters were in Omaha, Nebraska, was linked to the underground command post of the North American Defense Command, deep inside Cheyenne Mountain, in Colorado, and to the U.S. president, wherever he happened to be. The president always had at hand nuclear release codes in the so-called football, a briefcase carried for the president at all times by a U.S. military officer.

The SAC commander's orders were to answer the telephone by no later than the end of the third ring. If it rang, and he was informed that a nuclear attack of enemy ballistic missiles appeared to be under way, he was allowed 2 to 3 minutes to decide whether the warning was valid (over the years, the United States has received many false warnings), and if so, how the United States should respond. He was then given approximately 10 minutes to determine what to recommend, to locate and advise the president, permit the president to discuss the situation with two or three close advisors (presumably the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), and to receive the president's decision and pass it immediately, along with the codes, to the launch sites. The president essentially had two options: He could decide to ride out the attack and defer until later any decision to launch a retaliatory strike. Or, he could order an immediate retaliatory strike, from a menu of options, thereby launching U.S. weapons that were targeted on the opponent's military-industrial assets. Our opponents in Moscow presumably had and have similar arrangements.

The whole situation seems so bizarre as to be beyond belief. On any given day, as we go about our business, the president is prepared to make a decision within 20 minutes that could launch one of the most devastating weapons in the world. To declare war requires an act of congress, but to launch a nuclear holocaust requires 20 minutes' deliberation by the president and his advisors. But that is what we have lived with for 40 years. With very few changes, this system remains largely intact, including the "football," the president's constant companion.

I was able to change some of these dangerous policies and procedures. My colleagues and I started arms control talks; we installed safeguards to reduce the risk of unauthorized launches; we added options to the nuclear war plans so that the president did not have to choose between an all-or-nothing response, and we eliminated the vulnerable and provocative nuclear missiles in Turkey. I wish I had done more, but we were in the midst of the Cold War, and our options were limited.

The United States and our NATO allies faced a strong Soviet and Warsaw Pact conventional threat. Many of the allies (and some in Washington as well) felt strongly that preserving the U.S. option of launching a first strike was necessary for the sake of keeping the Soviets at bay. What is shocking is that today, more than a decade after the end of the Cold War, the basic U.S. nuclear policy is unchanged. It has not adapted to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Plans and procedures have not been revised to make the United States or other countries less likely to push the button. At a minimum, we should remove all strategic nuclear weapons from "hair-trigger" alert, as others have recommended, including Gen. George Lee Butler, the last commander of SAC. That simple change would greatly reduce the risk of an accidental nuclear launch. It would also signal to other states that the United States is taking steps to end its reliance on nuclear weapons

more....

* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net *
(Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

Global Challenges John Edwards

With no one taking responsibility the last time, I guess the FBI thinks they can also push off responsibility for the next failure.

FBI Chief Won't Mandate Terror Expertise

Updated 4:42 PM ET June 20, 2005
By JOHN SOLOMON

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8arikh00&src=ap

WASHINGTON (AP) - FBI supervisors in the war on terror have acknowledged they lacked expertise, but Director Robert Mueller says he is unwilling to require such managers to have backgrounds in Arabic, the Middle East or international issues.

"Let me tell you that we want to develop that within the bureau, but making that an absolute requirement _ if you do not have it you would be precluded from advancing in counterterrorism _ no," Mueller testified recently.

The subject came up in the case of an agent who complained that he had been passed over for promotion in favor of less-experienced men.

Mueller described his own expertise in Middle Eastern terrorism as having been "relatively limited" when he took over the FBI a week before the Sept. 11 attacks. For instance, he acknowledged he didn't know that a blind sheik imprisoned for plotting attacks in New York had been a spiritual adviser to Osama bin Laden.

"I am not certain of the role played between the blind sheik and bin Laden," Mueller conceded.

Mueller also testified he didn't give any guidance to his top managers to seek out the bureau's most experienced counterterrorism agents to work on the war on terror immediately after Sept. 11.

"It was in their hands as to how they did that," Mueller said in a wide-ranging deposition obtained by The Associated Press.

AP reported Sunday that most of the men Mueller appointed to run the war on terror testified that, despite the FBI's pledge to build national expertise in terrorism, they didn't believe Middle East and terrorism experience had been important for choosing the agents they promoted.

Gary Bald, the bureau's executive assistant director in charge of terrorism, testified he had to get his terrorism training on the job when he came to headquarters two years ago. And when asked about his grasp of Middle Eastern culture and history, he replied: "I wish that I had it. It would be nice."

When shown Bald's statements, Mueller defended his selection by saying Bald had run the FBI's Baltimore office during the time of the Washington sniper shootings.

"Running the office gave him some exposure to terrorism," Mueller answered. "Yes, I think absolutely it would give, contribute to his ability to handle counterterrorism."

The testimony has been given in a lawsuit brought against the FBI by one of its most accomplished pre-Sept. 11 terror-fighting agents, Bassem Youssef, who claims he was passed over for top jobs in headquarters despite his expertise.

The testimony has concerned both Republican and Democratic investigators on the Senate Judiciary Committee who are comparing the FBI's actual practices in the war on terror with its sworn promises to Congress and the American public.

The concerns, however, go beyond Congress.

The staff of the independent commission that reviewed Sept. 11 failures conducted interviews with FBI field agents in the war on terror.

"Many field agents felt the supervisory agents in the counterterrorism division at headquarters lacked the necessary experience in counterterrorism to guide their work," the staff wrote in one report.

Mueller described his top anti-terror managers' knowledge of dealing with foreign governments, Middle East history, international terrorism and al-Qaida this way: "Helpful, not essential."

"Leadership ability is transferable," he said. "And often you can pick up the subject matter if you've got leadership skills."

An agent recently named to a top counterterrorism job compared the FBI today with a baseball manager without baseball experience but good leadership skills and experienced people around him.

The manager can "make a pretty good go of it," Deputy Assistant Director John Lewis testified. "But at the end of the season, he's not going to be able to win over the guy on the other side of the field who has all those same things _ plus 20 years of major experience."

Lewis suggested it might take the FBI until 2020 to get the sort of top-level anti-terrorism experience it needs. "Hopefully, the bureau is putting forward its best managers today. In this business, we don't have anyone with 20 years experience who has worked counterterrorism to the extent we're working it today," he said. "I would dare say that some of the midlevel managers that we have today who have been willingly neck-deep in this problem for the last two years are probably among our most seasoned and experienced people."

___

On the Net:

Audio excerpts from Mueller's deposition are available at:

http://wid.ap.org/inv/fbijobs.html

Where is the Homeland Security????

Fake Documents Got Workers Into Nuke Plant

Updated 12:32 PM ET June 20, 2005
By DUNCAN MANSFIELD

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8arevd80&src=ap

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Sixteen foreign-born construction workers with phony immigration documents were able to enter a nuclear weapons plant in eastern Tennessee because of lax security controls, a federal report said Monday.

Controls at the Y-12 weapons plant have since been tightened and there was no evidence the workers had access to any sensitive documents, said the National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees nuclear weapons facilities for the Department of Energy.

However, the DOE inspector general's office said in the report issued Monday that its field agents found "official use only" documents "lying unprotected in a construction trailer which was accessed by the foreign construction workers" at the plant.

"Thus, these individuals were afforded opportunities to access ... (this) information," the inspector general wrote. "We concluded that this situation represented a potentially serious access control and security problem."

The report, initiated by a tip in 2004, said the workers had fake green cards that certified them to work in the United States. Their cases were turned over to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency for deportation.

The Y-12 plant, created for the top-secret Manhattan Project that developed nuclear bombs in World War II, makes parts for nuclear warheads and is the country's principal storehouse for weapons-grade uranium. The plant in Oak Ridge, about 25 miles west of Knoxville, has been criticized for losing keys to sensitive areas and purported cheating on security drills, weaknesses that officials say have been corrected.

In response to the foreign workers intrusion at the plant, visitors now must provide passports or birth certificates along with other background information.

National Nuclear Security Administration spokesman Steve Wyatt said that agency and managers for Y-12 contractor BWXT became concerned earlier this year about the potential for uncleared workers entering a construction site within the Y-12 complex, mostly involving steel and concrete workers.

He said the case was turned over the IG after investigators confirmed that some undocumented workers had access to the area.

The inspector general said it was particularly concerned about allowing subcontractors to self-certify the citizenship of their employees, and that the Office of Counterintelligence didn't know foreign constructions workers were at the Y-12 site until it was notified by the inspector general's office.

___

On the Net:

DOE Inspector General: http://www.ig.doe.gov

Why would Porter Goss NOW come out and say he knows where Osama is but can't say....??

Bush hasn't mentioned Osama in 4 years. His poll numbers are tanking. They have to keep reminding us what we are fighting for in Iraq.... LIARS.

The Daily Show last night did a segment on the FBI and Porter Goss mishaps in the articles above. This administration is getting worse and worse and they think we aren't paying attention.

See also

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...ST&f=98&t=31890

New Al Qaeda Video Surfaces

Updated 4:30 PM ET June 22, 2005

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr..._050617&src=abc

A video of Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant that aired today on Arab satellite TV suggests there may be chinks in al Qaeda's armor, some experts believe.

In the video, Ayman al-Zawahri instructs Muslims not to be lulled into accepting peaceful democratic reforms being pushed by the United States and President Bush.

"There is no way to imagine reform," Zawahri says on the tape, "when our governments are being ruled from the American embassies in our countries, which stick their nose into all of our affairs."

The Arab satellite station al Jazeera played three clips on its evening newscast tonight, showing Zawahri next to his standard Kalashnikov automatic rifle.

"That's really him directing people to carry on the fight and that means one thing. That means you have to kill United States citizens, whether it's abroad or overseas," said Jack Cloonan, a former FBI agent who is now an ABC News consultant,

Zawahri, a former Egyptian medical doctor who is al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, makes specific reference to a demonstration in Cairo last month that was widely publicized because of tough tactics used against Egyptian female demonstrators.

"The removal of the invading crusader forces and the Jews from Muslim lands will not happen solely through demonstrations and shouting on the streets," Zawahri says in the video.

Al Qaeda's 'Nightmare'
"This is his nightmare. Popular democracy, peaceful demonstrations, and al Qaeda would like to intervene in the process," said ABC News analyst Fawaz Gerges, professor of Middle Eastern studies at Sarah Lawrence College.

"Reforms are taking place in the Middle East against al Qaeda's wishes, al Qaeda is being left behind," said Gerges. "Osama bin Laden and Zawahri realize they've lost touch in reality and they would like to have their own say."

In the video, bin Laden's No. 2 man also urges Palestinians to ignore the new democratic initiatives from Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

"I ask them not to abandon their jihad, not to lay down their weapons," he says on the tape.

The plain brown background seen on today's video provided few clues about where it was made, but it did appear Zawahri was well-groomed and in good health. Video of the terror leader last appeared in February of this year and twice in 2004.

See also

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...ST&f=16&t=34056

FBI Warns Police of Possible Terror Attack

Updated 8:13 AM ET August 12, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8bu94s00&src=ap

By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ

LOS ANGELES (AP) - The FBI has warned police that al-Qaida cells might use fuel trucks as weapons to attack Los Angeles, New York and Chicago, but officials stressed Thursday the warning was based on uncorroborated intelligence.

The warning was distributed Tuesday via a computer network by FBI officials in Los Angeles to law enforcement agencies primarily in California, said FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller.

Though intelligence bulletins usually describe how reliable the information is, this one carried no such statement.

The bulletin warned police that terrorists could use fuel tankers in assaults on the three cities. The warning has not been substantiated, according to two law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation.

The intelligence originated from FBI headquarters in Washington. It was not immediately clear why the bulletin was sent without details on its reliability.

Eimiller noted that FBI officials often notify police of possible threats, regardless of how accurate the information might be.

"Information at all levels is shared with law enforcement," she said.