Why not replace opium farming with marijuana farming, supplying legitimate medical marijuana needs and legal markets in US and Europe with fair prices? The CIA could still do their drug running, but with less inhumane effects on the local/world populace.

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/12/marijuana-replacing-poppy/

Hey New Jersey!

When do you think that GOP Chris Christie will start to exhibit basic impulse control? Upon election? Really? Does the office itself correct for obvious, life-long impulse control problems?

Perhaps calling him fat is crossing the line, but he made himself that way on the government dole. Will he somehow show impulse control and fulfill his promises to cut this or that spending? I think not. Will he somehow reduce his own appetites and suddenly become impervious to special interests? A man's hungers are his weakness.

Someone who habitually and cavalierly discards ethics and public monies for personal comfort has disqualified himself from government in this environment of public debt, joblessness and required constraint.

We need policy for the people, not for the GOP feed trough.

I'm all about Obama's budget moves, but pretty soon folks will start to ask about the budgetary assumptions based on an emissions Cap and Trade Market that doesn't really exist yet.

I like that it's in there, but when you trumpet numbers based on god knows what model of something that doesn't exist, what are you doing?

This market-spawning policy is pretty tough to make happen without rewarding polluters and therefore could easily be supplanted by another system in the mean time or soon after launch. What happens to the budget then?

If the Cap and Trade market collapses, the whole thing would just amount to pay offs to polluters. That's pretty risky. There should be a more reliable policy that could ensure progress on pollution regardless of the result of the cap and trade experiment.

Cap and Trade plus/vs. Cap and Share

An un-implemented, yet impending Cap and Trade Policy in large part constitutes a subsidy for polluters - the worse you can get right now, the more you'll get paid once the cap is on.

The very idea that such a system is on the way has really provided incentive to blindly increase pollution for several years now. Lord knows what the market's response has actually been, but incentives tend to work.

If Cap and Trade is really to be the policy eventually, one can understand why we export ecological fear while increasing domestic pollution with impunity NOW: it positions us to take most advantage of the cap. So if it is coming, start now, please! Before things get even dirtier.

Cap and Share seems like a great way to get powerful results but with less important side-effects as far as I can see it. The idea is essentially a revenue share program that collects based on a pollution 'grade', waits a year, then redistributes to contributors based on a new grade, creating an incentive reduce pollution year-to-year without taxes or a fake market. He's a hypothetical example of such a system:

Compel polluters or other sorts of environmental 'degraders-by-design' (like with like as pools) to pay (let's say) 1% of revenue into a fund annually  that invests the money until the following year in the safest possible place that yields interest, with the requirement of redistributing it the following year, plus what interest is not spent on managing the fund (wait for the twist). This secures the money, so leveraging it could still be an option to contributors.

Contributions are to be made by a standard formula by pool, something based on units pollution balanced by benefit (revenue dollars perhaps). By standardizing the formula and pooling industries and pollutants, the government would not be in the business of picking winners and losers. The polluters would be determining their own fates:

Distributions would be along the same formula as the Contributions, but with the following years' measurements so polluters are provided with incentive to reduce emissions and to do so in competition with their own industry rivals:

In the materials game especially, a 0.5% advantage over competitors could mean everything.

While the government might choose to assist with the initial payments to help things along, they should see no further costs as administration of the fund should be required to live within the interest on the fund for the year.

Oh, and if you cheat, you are publicly flogged, nationalized, shuttered or something else effectively draconian.

I'm kinda in love with this one, and it has the benefit of being pretty politically palatable and could supply a more reliable incentive to reduce pollution than a Milo Minderbinder Market experiment that I hope works desperately (and comes ASAP), despite my doubts and reservations.

What do y'all think?

My state, New Jersey is on the verge of enacting a Medical Marijuana Law!

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--medicalmarijuana0225feb25,0,4357703.story

As a Lupus sufferer I am glad I will be able to legally and openly discuss and consume my primary medication, and hopefully get it for a lot less money and when I need it versus when it happens to be available.

For years, I took medications and applied ointments and this and that and I could barely control symptoms if at all. I couldn't really go outside during the day, since the sun triggered all sorts of problems. A bad day at work would mean weeks of symptoms from horrible sores to tremendous joint pain and other fun stuff. Life was getting a bit lame to say the least. I wasn't DOING, I was COPING.

Then I began reading a blog by an Atlanta 19 year old woman who was giving daily witness to her experience with medicinal marijuana really helping her Lupus. hundreds of people began commenting about their own positive experiences. I was convinced and have been illegally self-medicating ever since(YES, Boo, I know this explains A LOT - nyuck-nyuck).

Now my life is almost back to normal, albeit a bit stonier: I can allow the sun on my skin, I can drink coffee, have a bad day at the office - you know the little things you only miss when you're denied them.

I can't say I enjoy it as much as you might think. Being stoned a lot has frankly become boring and procedural, but that's a small price for health.

A huge upside of Medical Marijuana distribution is that there are usually edible forms available, sparing the lungs.

Anyone want to open up a medical marijuana primary care giving center with me?

Looks like things are actually turning around:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28691801/

IMHO, if we get the Paper Markets to remain at least this liquid and then spend as much of the remaining TARP on foreclosure mitigation, we're golden.

Again, the 'plan' I think will work better than waiting on corporate kindness or bankruptcy court reductions to kick in:

   1. Only consider primary home loans
   2. Pool loans regionally
   3. Regions are assigned a reasonable devaluation rate based on recent local market home sales.
   4. All Primary Residence mortgages are reduced at that rate by direct payments on their mortgage principle.
   5. Lenders won't get as much interst over the life of the loan, but will get loads of CASH NOW.
   6. With such considerable reductions in monthly payments and a realignment between home values and mortgage sizes, we can all get back to buying and selling and loaning based on real market values.
   7. The reduction on mortgage holders' interest write offs will help mitigate the cost of the plan over time.

If lenders or mortgage holders can't survive past something like that, they didn't handle their business right and should feel the pain.

http://www.musicwebtown.com/wklitz/217613

Now that we've done our best to confuse the markets into compliance, we have a moment or two to completely overhaul the way mortgages are handled in the US.  Below is a column by George Soros which hits the nail on the head. While the Gov't is pouring money into credit markets to keep businesses open tomorrow, we've got to get to and fix what really caused this problem TODAY: structural deficiencies that rewarded unsustainable behavior and punished sensible market participation.

Blame who you want, but market rules (see 'asymmetry' below) provided one seriously large rug to sweep bad mortgage securities under. Fix those and we're halfway there. Implement a sounder model and it's just about waiting for markets to notice and hope there is capital left to reinvest in them.

Denmark Offers a Model Mortgage Market
There is a safe way to securitize home loans.

By George Soros

The American system of mortgage financing is broken and needs a total overhaul. Until there is a realistic prospect of stabilizing housing prices, the value of mortgage-related securities will erode and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's efforts will come to naught.

There are four fundamental problems with our current system of mortgage financing.

First, the business model of Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) in which profits accrue to the private sector but risks are underwritten by the public has proven unworkable. It would be a grave mistake to preserve the GSEs in anything resembling their current form.

Second, the American style of mortgage securitization is rife with conflicts where entities that originate, securitize and service mortgages are generally not the same as those that invest in mortgage securities. As a result, the incentives to originate sound mortgages and to service them well are inadequate. No wonder that the quality of mortgages degenerated so rapidly.

Third, mortgage-backed securitizations, which were meant to reduce risk by creating geographically diversified pools of mortgages, actually increased risk by creating complex capital structures that impede the modification of mortgages in the case of default.

Finally, and most fundamentally, the American mortgages market is asymmetric. When interest rates fall and house prices rise, mortgages can be refinanced at par value, generating the mortgage equity withdrawals that fueled the housing bubble. However, when interest rates rise and house prices fall, mortgages can only be refinanced at par value even though the market price of the securitized mortgage has fallen.

To reconstruct our mortgage system on a sounder basis, we ought to look to the Danish model, which has withstood many tests since it was brought into existence after the great fire of Copenhagen in 1795. It remains the best performing in Europe during the current crisis. First, it is an open system in which all mortgage originators can participate on equal terms as long as they meet the rigorous regulatory requirements. There are no GSEs enjoying a quasimonopolistic position.

Second, mortgage originators are required to retain credit risk and to perform the servicing functions, thereby properly aligning the incentives. Third, the mortgage is funded by the issuance of standardized bonds, creating a large and liquid market. Indeed, the spread on Danish mortgage bonds is similar to the option-adjusted spread on bonds issued by the GSEs, although they carry no implicit government guarantees.

Finally, the asymmetric nature of American mortgages is replaced by what the Danes call the Principle of Balance. Every mortgage is instantly converted into a security of the same amount and the two remain interchangeable at all times. Homeowners can retire mortgages not only by paying them off, but also by buying an equivalent face amount of bonds at market price. Because the value of homes and the associated mortgage bonds tend to move in the same direction, homeowners should not end up with negative equity in their homes. To state it more clearly, as home prices decline, the amount that a homeowner must spend to retire his mortgage decreases because he can buy the bonds at lower prices.

The U.S. can emulate the Danish system with surprisingly few modifications from our current practices. What is required is transparent, standardized securities which create large and fungible pools. Today in the U.S., over half of all mortgages are securitized by Ginnie Mae, which issues standardized securities. All that is missing is allowing the borrowers to redeem their mortgages at the lower of par or market.

Because of the current havoc in the mortgage market, there is no confidence in the origination and securitization process. As a result, a government guarantee is indispensable at this time, and may be needed for the next few years. As the private sector regains its strength, the government guarantees could, and should, be gradually phased out.

How to get there from here? It will involve modifying the existing stock of mortgages, so that the principal does not exceed the current market value of the houses, and refinancing them with Danish-style loans. The modification will have to be done by servicing companies that need to be properly incentivized. Modifying mortgages that have been sliced and diced into securitizations may require legislative authorization. The virtual monopoly of the GSEs would be terminated and they would be liquidated over time.

A plan to reorganize the mortgage industry along these lines would inspire the confidence that would allow a successful recapitalization of the banking system with the help of the $700 billion package approved last week.

Mr. Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management and the author of "The New Paradigm for Financial Markets" (Public Affairs, 2008).

Hopefully we can tuck most of that $700 Billion blank check back into Paulson's pocket until it is actually needed..

For those who wondered what my Commercial Paper Market obsession was about:

full text

The Fed's drastic move had a nearly immediate impact: Yields on top-rated overnight U.S. commercial paper dropped 0.74 percentage points, to 2.94%, according to Bloomberg Financial Markets. And rates on three-month Treasury bills--the ultimate safe asset to which big investors, like money-market funds, have been flocking--rose above 1.0% on Tuesday for the first time in weeks. Rising yields suggest demand for government debt is easing. Just Monday, yields were 0.43%.

The $700 billion and the rest of it are worthless if this doesn't work.

As I've ranted about before, the first act of the govt/fed should have been to immediately and directly participate in the Commercial Paper market. They are now doing it and it's working at first glance, but only after a ton of unnecessary damage was done.

Through delaying this action because of the debate on all the other bailout points, we've lost trillions of dollars of market value.  I hope this isn't too little too late now that we have been allowed to enter panic and free-fall. My fear is that the market conditions will exist for recovery and that will be roundly ignored because of paranoia.

What everyone should be reminded of is that in this market, bravery and timing will be greatly rewarded: the earlier you get back in, the better you will do. Just not too early ( the dilemma ) - and everyone is waiting at the pools edge, using others' actions to guide them instead of testing the waters themselves.

My schattenfreud has worn off entirely now that my IRA is worth 50% of what it was 3 weeks ago. Good luck to us all.

Instead of doing normal things like direct investment, we've decided to buy a stack of crap. Crap so worthless that no one will buy it. And we are going to be able to sell it for a profit or make the BANKS PAY THE DIFFERENCE. When? What date will it become OK to CHOOSE to make banks insolvent in the future? There is too much magic involved to make this bet.

Where is the leadership?  I was glad to hear George Soros come out for direct investment in banks (Swedish-style) and participation in the paper credit market (confidence building and job preserving, and therefore securities market preserving). Maybe sensibility can reign once this initial dog-and-pony show is concluded. I just fear that we'll have bought at least $350 billion in crap by then..

"Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish...

...there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing.  Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live."

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933

Sorry, McSame, but it's time to both talk the talk AND walk the walk. Your service has been appreciated, but you are not the man for the times.

Tinfoil hats on, please.

I just read a review of a bit of journalism on Armand Hammer. The reviewed book is "DOSSIER: THE SECRET HISTORY OF ARMAND HAMMER" by Edward Jay Epstein What I didn't expect to see where connections between him, the Ruskies, Hoover and Occidental Petroleum. Turns out Al Gore Senior was, at first the political face for Armand Hammer's empire: one built on secret multi-generational family relationships with the Communists (WHHHhhhaaaa?). Apparently Hammer was a secret Commie and son of a not so secret commie. He made his fortune, according to the reviewed book, through backroom dealings with the Communists, essentially helping to secretly set up their access to the capitalist marketplace, especially acting as launderer for Communist funds inside the US.

The under-funded Gore the Senior's career was started with Hammer's money - and therefore tainted by Communist influence on some level. Hoover opened a file on the organization, scrawling 'a rotten bunch' across the top way back in 1919. When Senator Gore retired, he went to work for Hammer's Occidental Petroleum. Before retiring, Gore served (no irony here!!) as chairman of the 'Special Committee on Attempts to Influence Senators' during the 84th Congress (chuckle).

full review

Senator Gore Sr. on Wiki

Soo.. The Bush's were created by dirty dealings with the fascists, the Gores with the Commies..

Kinda makes Joe Kennedy's rum-running look all the more mainstream American by comparison!

Which mass murdering autocrats did YOUR grandfather make shady deals with to attain the pinnacle of power? None? Too bad. Probably explains a lot.

I'm a fan of finding weaknesses early in the vetting process. I'm gonna update this diary regularly as more candidates are in serious contention and I have more snark to retch.

Gov. Richardson - comes off like a hired goon.

Gov Sibelius - Is not Hillary (what matters to former Hillary supporters). Is a double-legacy (Governor Dad and Magistrate Hubby) establishment character when it boils down to it. Don't dilute the brand, Mr. O.

Hillary - Over-exposed!

Ambassador Holbrooke - Promoted East Timorese genocide, providing President Carter with his most hypocritical moment. My money is on him if O goes with a Dem. He's already out shilling expanding the WOT into Pakistan, etc.

Senator Mitchell - A personal favorite. Red Socks fan (and can be accused of a Yankee hunting bias in his recent 'MLB steroid' report). Apparently can be called an Arab American - dangerous in constellation with rumors spawned by Obama's name.

Michael Bloomberg - It just makes sense if you get past the surface demographics of it. The Repug leader of our worst hit city teaming with the Dem who will right the ship of state is a temping story line that would kill McCains remaining strength: the abstract idea that he is 'better on defense issues'. But he's a 'single' Jewish Male. BUT: choosing Mr. Bloom would be doubling down on the bet that the 'guns and angel figurines' vote isn't needed.

Al Frankin - Why deal with serving in the Senate? This rising star would ice the Jewish vote and put the SNL-Archivist bloc back in play (VHS, DVD, and MPEG-ophiles are all said to be 'purple' for the first time in years).

More on the way after work..

Before we went into Iraq, I was running around saying that the War would ignite a fire that no one could extinguish. I had no idea how fucking evil the whole operation would turn out to be, but I did know there was a fucking HUGE scab we were picking at. The fire still burns: Iran and the US are staring across a border at eachother. We are going to build up our forces in Afghanistan and have our eye on Pakistan, which is one 'galvanizing event' away from the sort of chaos that would 'force' us to occupy the nuclear nation. Our takeover of central Asia will happen eventually, be it smash-and-grab or covertly. I oppose this on moral grounds: we have no right to kill people, steal property, eradicate culture and rewrite history for short-term goals and lazy policies, both foreign and domestic.

I've been thinking solutions to slow this down or stop it.

First I though about creating a ghost nation of pro-Western, anti-neocon 'virtual cells' to confuse and frighten them into a domestic overreaction. But apparently nothing is too ridiculously heavy handed for the American people. I think the time for that may have passed, as it would end up legitimizing their domestic rights violations.

Second, and I still think this is the right thing to do for now, I encourage tax revolt. Just turn off the spigot. Anyone that lends the US money under those conditions will be doing so knowing expressly that it will fund War. Ideally the tax revolt would spread to any nation that does so. Anyhow, you get the idea. A democratized solution. Problem is, when the rubber hits the road, folks capitulate and pony up their part because they don't want to risk their family or personal wealth and security. All very understandable.

Now my kick is a little less radical and (IMHO) more elegant. How do you both cut off the GWOT money hose and actually convince people to participate in the mass movement necessary to do so (people are too scared to not pay taxes)? I think the answer might be simple: Federal Line Item Tax Allocation (Can someone come up with a catchier name? I'll use FLITA from here on out). [Details after the fold.]

Time and again, it's the 'strict constructionists' that want to plat games with the constitution; actively working to create exceptions for this situation or that. From successful efforts to do amazingly activist things like the Bush v. Gore decision (only case that can't be used as precedent!!) to their attempts to create a space for the President to ignore the Constitution under certain circumstances. Attempts like this failed one:

From Salon:

Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:48 EDT
Supreme Court rules in favor of Guantánamo detainees

by Alex Koppelman

Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:48 EDT
Supreme Court rules in favor of Guantánamo detainees

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that detainees held at Guantánamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

This is the third time that the court has ruled this way in a case about the legal rights of Guantánamo detainees; each ruling was a setback for the Bush administration. After the two previous rulings, Congress and the administration instituted new procedures for the trial of detainees, but this latest ruling says the current iteration of those procedures is inadequate.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined in the decision by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Kennedy wrote.

The court's conservative wing -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- dissented from Kennedy's opinion.

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Strict Constructionists indeed.

original

Found this on the state department's web site.

I think this is an amazing piece of rhetoric. Just wanted to share it.

Did the U.S. "Create" Osama bin Laden?
Allegations that the U.S. provided funding for bin Laden proved inaccurate

The United States did not "create" Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda. The United States supported the Afghans fighting for their country's freedom -- as did other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK -- but the United States did not support the "Afghan Arabs," the Arabs and other Muslims who came to fight in Afghanistan for broader goals. CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen notes that the "Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding." He notes:

      "While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.

      Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. Freelance cameraman Peter Jouvenal recalls: "There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs. One Afghan told me, `Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.'"

      ... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]

Al Qaeda's number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, confirmed that the "Afghan Arabs" did not receive any U.S. funding during the war in Afghanistan. In the book that was described as his last will, Knights Under the Prophet's Banner, which was serialized in December 2001 in Al-Sharq al-Awsat, al-Zawahiri says the Afghan Arabs were funded with money from Arab sources, which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars:

      "While the United States backed Pakistan and the mujahidin factions with money and equipment, the young Arab mujahidin's relationship with the United States was totally different."

      "... The financing of the activities of the Arab mujahidin in Afghanistan came from aid sent to Afghanistan by popular organizations. It was substantial aid."

      "The Arab mujahidin did not confine themselves to financing their own jihad but also carried Muslim donations to the Afghan mujahidin themselves. Usama Bin Ladin has apprised me of the size of the popular Arab support for the Afghan mujahidin that amounted, according to his sources, to $200 million in the form of military aid alone in 10 years. Imagine how much aid was sent by popular Arab organizations in the non-military fields such as medicine and health, education and vocational training, food, and social assistance ...."

      "Through the unofficial popular support, the Arab mujahidin established training centers and centers for the call to the faith. They formed fronts that trained and equipped thousands of Arab mujahidin and provided them with living expenses, housing, travel and organization." (Al-Sharq al-Awsat, December 3, 2001, Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), GMP20011202000401)

Abdullah Anas, an Algerian who was one of the foremost Afghan Arab organizers and the son-in-law of Abdullah Azzam, has also confirmed that the CIA had no relationship with the Afghan Arabs. Speaking on the French television program Zone Interdit on September 12, 2004, Anas stated:

      "If you say there was a relationship in the sense that the CIA used to meet with Arabs, discuss with them, prepare plans with them, and to fight with them -- it never happened."

Milt Bearden served as the CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, where he was in charge of running the covert action program for Afghanistan. In his memoirs titled "The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the CIA's Final Showdown with the KGB," Bearden says the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK were "major players" in the effort to aid the Afghans. Bearden writes:

      "[President Jimmy] Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, had in 1980 secured an agreement from the Saudi king to match American contributions to the Afghan effort dollar for dollar, and [Reagan administration CIA director] Bill Casey kept that agreement going over the years." (The Main Enemy, p. 219)

From 1983 to 1987, Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf was in charge of the Afghan Bureau of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which ran Pakistan's covert program to aid the Afghan mujahidin. In his book The Bear Trap: Afghanistan's Untold Story, Brigadier Yousaf confirms the matching U.S.-Saudi arrangement, stating:

      "For every dollar supplied by the US, another was added by the Saudi Arabian government. The combined funds, running into several hundred million dollars a year, were transferred by the CIA to special accounts in Pakistan under the control of the ISI." (The Bear Trap, p. 81)

Bearden makes it clear that the CIA covert action program did not fund any Arabs or other Muslims to come to the jihad:

      "Contrary to what people have come to imagine, the CIA never recruited, trained, or otherwise used Arab volunteers. The Afghans were more than happy to do their own fighting -- we saw no reason not to satisfy them on this point." (The Main Enemy, p. 243)

Marc Sageman worked closely with the Afghan mujahideen as one of Milt Bearden's case officers, from 1987 to 1989. In his book, Understanding Terror Networks, he writes:

      "No U.S. official ever came in contact with the foreign volunteers. They simply traveled in different circles and never crossed U.S. radar screens. They had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis, official Saudis, and other Muslim supporters, and they made their own deals with the various Afghan resistance leaders. Their presence in Afghanistan was very small and they did not participate in any significant fighting." (Understanding Terror Networks, pp. 57-58.)

The Central Intelligence Agency has issued a statement categorically denying that it ever had any relationship with Osama bin Laden. It stated, in response to the hypothetical question "Has the CIA ever provided funding, training, or other support to Usama Bin Laden?":

      "No. Numerous comments in the media recently have reiterated a widely circulated but incorrect notion that the CIA once had a relationship with Usama Bin Laden. For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with Bin Laden (emphasis in original)."

In summary:

•  U.S. covert aid went to the Afghans, not to the "Afghan Arabs."
  
•  The "Afghan Arabs" were funded by Arab sources, not by the United States.
  
•  United States never had "any relationship whatsoever" with Osama bin Laden.
  
•  The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Arab backing for the "Afghan Arabs," and bin Laden's own decisions "created" Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, not the United States.

Created: 14 Jan 2005 Updated: 14 Jan 2005

In summary:
*The CIA and DOD are, in fact, not OBL's biological parents, and therefore did not 'create' him. A high standard for a relationship indeed.
*Funding 'Afghan Arabs' is the same thing as funding OBL. We didn't fund the 'Afghan Arabs' therfore we didn't fund OBL. QED.
*The US gave tons of money to the Pakistani ISI (whose links to OBL and 9/11 are indisputable) to pass on to Afghanis, so ISI support and funding of OBL isn't our fault. "They had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis." The Pakistani CPAs were studious in keeping the accounts totally separate.
*The CIA said it didn't fund OBL, so it didn't.
*We did not 'create' OBL. We just used a shell game to empower him and fund him.
*Even if you take the gov't line above on it's face, by ignoring the occupation of Arab lands, permanent bases in Saudi Arabia and dissing his weird aspiration to liberate Kuwait when Iraq occupied it (among OBL's own stated reasons for fighting the US) makes this piece pure propaganda.

Our tax dollars at work again folks. Let's hope your refund check is coming to us at the cost of the next OBL.