I had been surprised from the beginning that the journalist who was listening to her did not say anything about her mistake. As stalllion4 says there are perhaps better things to do in 2008 but the four times I have been on the Herblay market with my banner "is Bin Laden 911 innocent ? "
. http://911blogger.com/node/13014
I have a lot of questions on Bin Laden from the public and especially at this moment as Bn Laden is being associated with Madame Bhutto's death. On a hot subject like this we have to very attentive with what we are given and not given.

And this incidence has not been a complete waste of time as by our further research concerning Madame Bhutto, we have a clearer idea of the intrigues between our rulers.

Yours John

BBC blatantly altered the video. That is not reporting. You don't assume anything you report. I don't care what mistakes are made in an interview. You don't cut it out and so cleverly like they did. They are trying to hide it. Why? If it was an innocent mistake why hide it? News is not supposed to do that.

Mr. Stallion4 has taken a decent amount of time showing you guys why this is a goose chase and a waste of time and he gets voted down to -2?

Wtf?

911Blogger.com is WHACKED beyond understanding to me. I simply do not understand why this poster's efforts to enlighten others to the truth of the matte is voted down.

Stallion4, THANK YOU for clearing this up. People have been mis-reporting this story for a few days now and you've single handeldly placed the non-issue on the shelf.

Who ever voted this guy down (for what? I can only imagine) needs to recognize.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

that is consistent with her knowing that bin Laden is dead. Until a family member or other associate of hers specifically corrects the record this remains a legitimate avenue of inquiry, imho. Let's go through the statements, shall we?

One day after the Frost interview on November 3, 2007, Bhutto was asked by CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield if she blamed General Pervez Musharraf for helping to produce safe havens in Pakistan, where "Osama bin Laden, the most-wanted terrorist in the world, just might be taking refuge?"

Bhutto's answer to this was...

"I wouldn't like to go so far as to blame General Musharraf directly, but I would certainly say that many people in his administration and his security apparatus responsible for internal security make me feel very uneasy. And I believe that tribal areas of Pakistan could not have become safe havens without collusion of some of the elements in the present administration. And this is why I believe that regime change is very important."

Bhutto makes no direct statement about bin Laden here, she effectively evades the question. Instead she implies that "some elements of the present administration" are colluding with al Qaeda and the Taliban, which we know to be true. Whitfield asks a conditional question, effectively throwing Bhutto a softball.

Bhutto was then asked by Whitfield...

"Do you think General Musharraf knows where Osama bin Laden is?

Bhutto's response...

"I don't think General Musharraf personally knows where Osama bin Laden is, but I do feel that people around him are many who are associated with the earlier military dictatorship of the '80s. That military dictatorship formed the Iran Mujahideen. The Mujahideen subsequently became Al Qaeda and Taliban. So I believe that break has not been made between the supporters and sympathizers of the Mujahideen and thereby, of the Taliban and Al Qaeda that is necessary. We need an administration and a security apparatus that does not have people with links to the Iran Jihad of the '80s."

Bhutto the lawyer is very precise here when she says that she doesn't "think General Musharraf personally knows where Osama bin Laden is", she then skillfully sidesteps the question by talking about the connections between some "people around him" (clearly ISI and Pakistani military) and the Mujahideen, al Qaeda and the Taliban. She says nothing about whether bin Laden is alive or dead, nor did Whitfield ask that question, which one would assume to be THE question following the statement Bhutto made the night before. Is it in CNN's interests to report that bin Laden is dead?

June 2007...

Mush's toppling, not a nightmare for West: Bhutto
9 Jun 2007 (The Times Of India)
"If the Taliban are eliminated, or if their poster-boy Osama bin Laden is caught, the international cries for restoration of democracy will only deepen"

First point here is that this is four months before her statement to Frost, in November, she has returned to Pakistan and gotten new intelligence, perhaps been told of bin Laden's assassination. Second, this sets the table for her to say something like "bin Laden is dead, the war on terror cannot be used to postpone Pakistani democracy any longer." She is not explicitly stating that he is alive, it is a very useful conditional statement that someone might say, especially if they knew bin Laden was dead and were holding that card for later.

Oct 2007...

Bhutto Would Let U.S. Target Bin Laden
Pakistan Opposition Leader Benazir Bhutto Would Accept U.S. Aid in Targeting Osama Bin Laden
Oct 1, 2007 (AP)
"If there is overwhelming evidence, I would hope that I would be able to take Osama bin Laden myself without depending on the Americans,"

When you think about this, this is actually a very clever statement. Assuming she already knew him to be dead, she is confidently stating that she thinks she can get bin Laden without the help of the U.S. Taking a dead man is a slam dunk.

I think it is useful to think of the knowledge of Osama bin Laden being dead as a card in a game of poker. Played carefully, you can maneuver your way into power, wealth or both. Played carelessly, you can get yourself killed, even if you are an internationally known politician.

As I said in another thread:

It is entirely possible that Benazir Bhutto let slip a dangerous truth at an inopportune time. The next day Musharraf declares a state of emergency and shuts off all non-state controlled media, effectively limiting which media talk to her. Five days later he puts Bhutto under house arrest, directly controlling which journalists get to interview her.

Bin Laden's first messages after 9/11 were clear denials of responsibility for the attacks.

Saeed Sheikh is then used to silence the misbehaving patsy in late 2001 or early 2002 and then gives himself up to his masters at the ISI for protection in February 2002.

There is more than one report of a bin Laden funeral around this time.

All subsequent bin Laden audio's and video's support the U.S. myth of 9/11 and are highly questionable.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed now takes the blame for Daniel Pearl and eventually Saeed Sheikh quietly gets released again.

I think this conjecture is just as likely as a not-so-simple slip of the tongue. In the context of the Frost interview it seems quite clear to me that Bhutto is carefully implying that the ISI/"al Qaeda" nexus was involved in the bombing they were discussing. In this context it makes perfect sense that she would let slip a significant fact like the assassination of bin Laden. Why did she carefully mention Hamza bin Laden and not OBL when discussing possible perpetrators? Additionally, Bhutto's statements after Nov. 2 are ambiguous non-denial denials. If there is a clear correction of the record by Bhutto, I have yet to see it or read it.

In my opinion this is worth pursuing a bit more to see where it leads.

I freely admit that this is all conjecture, but it does fit all the facts I am aware of.

At this point, dismissing it as a slip of the tongue and that she meant to say Daniel Pearl is also conjecture.

We are both parsing language here.

I also fully understand your lack of enthusiasm in pursuing the matter.

I have yet to decide if I will look into this further, myself.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.