I say that it is irrelevant because the war policy makers in the U.S. government can easily deal with a bin Laden death and find ways to justify their never ending war on terror; bin Laden’s vital signs are of little consequence.

In the world of David Ray Griffin and his cheerleaders, if it is possible to prove that bin Laden is dead, wars would immediately come to an end. Such irrational rationale seems to be the noble driving force behind his most recent book, “Osama Bin Laden, Dead or Alive?”, if it were not for its reliance on excessive speculation and falsehoods.

His intentional substitution of facts with absurd speculations is akin to using falsehoods and can only be described as regretful and heart breaking since it risks discrediting all his other work.

The truth was available to Mr. Griffin and pointed out to him on numerous occasions with communications channels opened to him in case he had doubts, questions, or needed contacts with sources, Mr. Griffin puzzlingly disregarded these resources.

“Osama Bin Laden, Dead or Alive?” is the title of the book and seems to be the question to be addressed first. For now, I just want to say that I have looked into the possibility of him being dead while doing my own research and found all evidence to be inconclusive.

For that reason, I am going to address the most outrageous falsehoods in Mr. Griffin’s book and will address what I consider inconclusive evidence of bin Laden’s death later.

Chapter 2 of the book, Two Fake Bin Laden Videos in 2001?, starts early in the book on page 12, and uses dizzying mental gyrations and total disregard for the truth in support of the book’s premise; it is the chapter where the most outrageous falsehoods are found. The question mark after 2001 in the chapter’s title, a Fox News tactic, does not absolve Mr. Griffin.

The first video he references, “The “October Video” Reported in November 2001”, is a video that David Bamber of the London Telegraph wrote about on November 11, 2001. Mr. Bamber reported that he had access to it, supposedly viewed it and got translations of it, Mr. Bamber also reported that the video would be used by Tony Blair’s government as the “centerpiece of Britain and America’s new evidence against bin Laden”. Three days later, on November 14, Mr. Blair failed to present any video and instead relied on quoting excerpts from the translation.

Mr. Griffin’s logical explanation for such a failure is the following:

unless the video was a fake and the government decided, between November 11 [the date of Mr. Bamber’s report] and 14 [the date of Mr. Blair’s excerpts], that the fakery was so obvious that it should [British Government] deny having a copy while merely releasing damning “excerpts.”

Before I give you the true story about the video, I need to point out Mr. Griffin’s irrational rationale that I spoke of earlier, if the video is an obvious fakery, why would Tony Blair even release fake excerpts?

The true story about the video was given to me by an ex-bureau chief of Al-Jazeera Television Network whose contacts, including personal email and cell phone, I would have gladly shared with Mr. Griffin. The following is the true story according to my conversation with Al-Jazeera about Tony Blair’s failed attempt to release video evidence

An attempt in mid November 2001, by Blair failed. An Al-Jazeera bureau chief explained what happened; Blair attempted to release a tape of a Bin Laden interview conducted by Al-Jazeera. The interview was to be comprised of responses to questions by both Al-Jazeera and CNN. When the Al-Jazeera’s team reached Bin Laden’s hideout to conduct the interview, their questions were tossed out and were informed that Bin Laden had his own set of questions with prepared answers. The news team objected, but feeling threatened, accepted to conduct the interview. Also, Bin Laden put a condition on Al-Jazeera, either Al-Jazeera airs all or none of the interview. Such a condition forced Al-Jazeera to choose none and refused to be intimidated or to act as Bin Laden’s mouthpiece.

The most likely scenario is that CNN, who was very unhappy with the decision , informed the American government, and as a consequence, their cohorts, the British, of Al-Jazeera’s position prompting British or American intelligence to steal the tape. The quotes from the tape in David Bamber’s report of November 11 helped Al-Jazeera recognize the tape as their own and moved to prevent Blair from using it on November 14.

The excerpt is from an article I wrote that Mr. Griffin had access to Bush, Blair, and the Terrorism Shell Game.

The second videotape Mr. Griffin references in the chapter is what he calls “The Video Dated November 9, 2001” but more accurately, the video released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001. In many circles, this video is known as either “The Bin Laden Confession Tape”, or the “Fatty Bin Laden Tape”. It is a tape I spent more than a year authenticating with the help of the person who provided the best translation of the tape to ABC News, a videographer with twenty five years experience, and multitude of technical experts with Al-Jazeera ex-bureau chief helping with the timeline.

Mr. Griffin concludes his analysis of the authenticity of the tape with this statement where he refers to me as “A defender” and promoting Professor Bruce Lawrence’s position, based on Dr. Lawrence’s “friends” in Homeland Security, that the tape is “bogus”.

A defender of the authenticity of this “bin Laden video” has claimed that Lawrence was talking about a later one. Lawrence however, made clear that it was this one to which he was referring, calling it the “bogus smoking-gun tape that came out in November 2001”

I do resent the use of the word claim by Mr. Griffin as I do not claim, I state, and the only way I can defend myself is by sharing with you the email I received from Dr. Lawrence three days after his appearance on the Kevin Barrett show in response to my email critical of his statement on the show and presenting my work on the authenticity of the tape and how it was produced by U.S. and Saudi intelligence

Dear Maher:
When I said that the Nov 01 tape was a fake,
I meant that it did not originate with OBL.
I'd be happy to read your document in Word format.
Thanks,
Bruce Lawrence

This can hardly be described as a claim on my part that Dr. Lawrence back peddled, and his play on words that the tape did not originate with bin Laden is either supportive of my work or, if otherwise, needs to be publicly explained. For the record, Dr. Lawrence has since been unresponsive to all communications requesting that he set the record straight. The following is the work I shared with Dr. Lawrence "Is it high treason or just a simple case of dereliction of duty?" found on page 14 of this linked pdf file.

I do not understand Mr. Griffin defense of Dr. Lawrence as much as I do not understand his back handed slap of my work on the tape since Mr. Griffin stated that he believed in the work to the point he tried to include it in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking” and apologized by email for his failure to do so. The following are excerpts from those emails

3-17-2007, In any case, I wanted you to know that after I read both Ed’s essay and your latest version, I checked to see if I could modify my account of this video in my book somewhat but it was too late.
Cordially,
DG

4-20-2007, My book was delayed at the printer. But it’s now on its way to Amazon.
You’ll be unhappy with the OBL part; I modified it a little but it was too late to do very much.
Cordially,
DG

Obviously, Mr. Griffin not only very familiar with the work but a believer. The supposedly limited time he had was used to include in his book what tenacious Ed Haas got the FBI to admit to and which Mr. Griffin managed to quote about eight times.

I can only call this cherry picking, an ugly practice, since he again quotes the FBI’s statement to Ed Haas in this book while ignoring Ed Haas’s other work that disagrees with him. The following is the statement Mr. Griffin quotes

The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

What Mr. Griffin ignores is an article dealing with the same statement that Ed Haas edited and published on his own website, “Is Bin Laden Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks?”. The following is an excerpt regarding the FBI statement

Ed Haas’ later work regarding the authenticity of the “confession tape” caught the FBI saying: “the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Ed also caught the FBI admitting that authentication work on the “confession tape” is in a sealed investigative file.

The FBI would rather say bin Laden is not connected to 9/11 because revealing the results of any tape authentication, a necessary process prior to submitting it in evidence to a Grand Jury, would have also revealed the complicity of U.S. intelligence.

Ed Haas and I collaborated on the article after our appearance on the Kevin Barrett radio show. Even though Ed did the editing and scrutinized the veracity of the content, since I did all the writing, Ed did not put his name to the article despite my insistence.

This cherry picking is not limited to Ed Haas’ work, Mr. Griffin did that to Jason Burke of the Observer, he quoted what agreed with him and neglected the fact that Mr. Burke reported specifically on the tape in question; the title says it all

[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/16/september11.terrorism1|Bin Laden videotape was result of a sting
The CIA may have set up the terrorist leader to incriminate himself]]

The most obvious cherry picking relates to my work which determined that the video tape released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001, while claiming that the video tape was made on November 9, 2001, was actually taped on September 26, 2001, and was the result of a joint sting operation by U.S. and Saudi Intelligence. The full analysis is reported in “The Crime Behind the Criminal Wars” which again Mr. Griffin had access to.

These are the incidents of cherry picking that I know of and have no idea how often it was done in the book. Just the fact that there was cherry picking shows that Mr. Griffin’s reasoning is flawed.

Now on the issue of “Dead or Alive” – Based on intelligence sources that Mr. Griffin cites, bin Laden has kidney problems and needs dialysis every three days, this is the line Mr. Griffin accepts and leads him to speculate that bin Laden is dead since dialysis machines that bin Laden procured need electricity which is unavailable in the caves of Afghanistan.

Assuming it is true that bin Laden had kidney problems, severity unknown, to present dialysis as the only effective treatment without considering other treatments that are more effective and readily available is simply disingenuous.

There is an older treatment that bin Laden could have stocked up on. Based on recent medical reports, this older treatment is more effective than dialysis and does not require electricity; the treatment was originally developed for poorer nations such as Pakistan and is called “Peritoneal dialysis”.

Conclusion: Bin Laden had another treatment option which was readily available.

Also, if bin Laden survived Tora Bora and made his way to Pakistan, kidney transplants are the earliest of the transplant operations and there is no limit to the number of people who would gladly give him a kidney; it is very possible that bin Laden managed a kidney.

Bin Laden’s death based on intelligence reporting his dialysis need and later repeated by heads of state here and there are not reliable sources especially when these individuals have vested interests.

Based on the evidence at hand, when it comes to the issue of bin Laden’s death, I refuse to speculate and that is exactly what Mr. Griffin has done.

On the other hand, I am glad to report that Mr. Griffin and I agree on one thing, December 13, 2001 is a very important date, a pivotal date, a date he mentioned in his book more that once; Mr. Griffin, on many occasions, gave December 13 as the almost absolute date bin Laden died. One of Mr. Griffin’s arguments supporting the death theory is that it is the date bin Laden went quiet, i.e. no electronic intercepts.

I have a more plausible take on this quietness and it is not death.

December 13 also happens to be the date the Pentagon released the “bin Laden Confession Tape”, This is what I wrote on May 9, 2007 about the release

By releasing the tape, a by-product of a sensitive intelligence operation, to justify an illegal policy of aggression to the detriment of America’s national security, the Bush administration committed high treason.

When Bin Laden saw himself on TV confessing he realized that the taping was done by a covert camera and realized how close intelligence were to capturing him; Bin Laden would never let anyone that close again.

The release of the tape undermined all future efforts to capture Bin Laden, whether they were conducted by the Bush administration or any future administration.

On December 13, 2001, the promise of “dead or alive” became the biggest lie that the American public and the world would live.

It is no coincidence bin Laden went silent on that date and into deep hiding; it was the only logical reaction to the release of the tape.

The reports of his death followed shorty after, early 2002, by the likes of Karzai, Musharraf, and other heads of state in the region. Mr. Griffin accepts these proclamations at face value and quotes them liberally without scrutiny and never considered the possibility that these heads of state acted in the service of their masters and that such statements were specifically designed to flush bin Laden out.

I don’t know who Mr. Griffin’s masters are but if I follow the irrational rationale he uses in his book, a rationale endorsed on the first pages by a CIA official, a State Department Counterterrorism official, and a founder of the USMC intelligence center, a rationale based mostly on official sources which include the Pentagon and Homeland Security rather than independent research, I have to conclude that Mr. Griffin’s masters reside among those people.

Mr. Griffin’s notiriety within the truth movement, coupled with his intentional desregard for the truth, cherry picking, and dubious sources, again, using the irrational rationale used thoughout the book, could I conclude that Mr. Griffin is a mole in the truth movement entrusted to undermine the very truth the movement is looking for?

The net effect of the book is not the naïve attempt to stop the war in Afghanistan. Instead, the book propagates falshoods within the truth movement and diverts attention from the evidence that could be duplicated by any other independent investigator, evidence that would stand in court and point to the fact that George W. Bush committed treason, murder, and high crimes against humanity.

Prosecuting Bush is the only we we can stop more deaths, American, Afghan, and even Iraqi, and the only way to stop Obama from committing more war crimes.