First the videos with bin Laden ones Exhibit A. He
always seems to pop up strategically at well-timed
moments, almost like we planned it that way. Evidence
points that way.
Consider the one on Friday (September 7) before the
sixth 9/11 anniversary in 2007. Digital image
forensics expert, Neal Krawetz of Hactor Factor, said
it was full of low quality visual and audio splices, a
likely fake. Striking also was bin Laden's beard that
was gray in recent images. In this video, it's black.
In addition, the footage has him dressed in a white
hat and shirt and yellow sweater, precisely his same
attire on an October 29, 2004 video. In addition, the
background, lighting, desk and camera angle are the
same.
Krawetz noted that "if you overlay the 2007 and 2004
videos, bin Laden's face is the same (unaged). Only
his beard is darker, and the picture contrast was
adjusted. Most important are the edits showing obvious
splices, at least six video ones in all. Even more
audio ones were used that appear to be words and
phrases spliced together making Krawetz suspect a
vocal imitator was used.
Now the latest "incident" and video making headlines.
They involve a supposed Persian Gulf confrontation
between Iranian and US vessels in open waters. A
subsequent Pentagon video shows small Iranian boats v.
US warships in the Strait of Hormuz earlier this week.
The Pentagon and major media reported a fleet of
high-speed small craft charged at and threatened to
blow up a three-ship convoy of US warships. George
Bush called it a "dangerous" provocation and warned of
"serious consequences" if there are further incidents.
Iran's response came swiftly and called the Pentagon
video and audio "fabricated." The incident was routine
and something "normal that takes place every now and
then for each party" to identify the other....Iran
Navy units always put questions to passing vessels and
warships at the Strait of Hormuz and they need to
identify themselves. This is in accordance with the
normal procedures." The Tehran spokesman said its Navy
units "asked (the US ships) to identify themselves.
They responded accordingly and continued on their
(non-agressive) path."
On January 9 (according to Agence France-Presse -
AFP), Iran's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) accused
Washington of fabricating footage of the incident it
described as routine and non-confrontational. The
country's state-run Al-Alam Arabic language
international channel and English language Press-TV
both quoted an IRGC spokesman with similar comments.
This hardly needs elaborating. It's unimaginable that
lightly armed small craft would challenge heavily
armed warships from any nation, let alone likely
nuclear-armed ones flying US flags. The very notion
borders on the absurd. Imagining where this may lead,
however, recall the August, 1964 Gulf of Tonkin
incident. No further comment needed.
Now the January, 2008 election: dateline New
Hampshire. Zogby International has a well-deserved
reputation for accuracy. It's January 5 - 7
pre-election poll numbers showed Obama at 42% v.
Clinton's 29% - an impossible gap to close in a few
days or even weeks. Yet magically it happened. Clinton
miraculously snatched victory from certain defeat with
39% of the vote to Obama's 36% with the loser saying
no more than "I am still fired up and ready to go."
Where to he should ask after this type reversal with
obvious grim signs for his hopes.
Consider final New Hampshire vote tallies for all
candidates compared to Zogby's January 5 - 7
pre-election poll numbers. For Republican and Democrat
candidates alike, they were dead-on right with one
glaring exception. Something to ponder and question.
On the Republican side, something fishy happened as
well to its one outlier - Ron Paul. The candidate's
"war room" hand count showed he got 15% of the vote,
but official counting gave him 8% and 9% in total when
electronically tabulated votes were included. His web
site said he scored 10% or better in every township
and listed percentages for them all. They ranged from
34% to 10.25%. If these numbers are accurate, Paul got
a minimum of 10% of New Hampshire's vote for a third
place finish.
Another disturbing report also emerged. The town of
Sutton admitted it voided all Paul votes. He got 31,
but none made the official tally. It was blamed on
"human error" that might account for a slight variance
but highly unlikely to erase his entire total. Yet it
did and raises strong suspicions of fraud. Once this
information got out, other districts where Paul scored
zero changed their final count adding votes for him
never counted. Something clearly is rotten in New
Hampshire. It doesn't say much for the process ahead,
or past ones either for that matter.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site
at sj.lendman.blogspot.com.
As long as people and machines, not ACTUAL VOTING CARDS, are used to determine which of our prospective candidates has more support, our democracy is at risk. In order to ensure a FAIR and EQUITABLE vote, we need to guarantee that votes be cast ONLY in paper form, stored securely for recount if necessary, and we need to eliminate the current election system--the popular vote should determine who is elected, NOT the electoral college.
1
January 16, 2008
Write comment
Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
