Washington Post reporter, Dan Eggen, whistles government tune on Osama bin Laden
In the Monday, August 28, 2006 edition of the Washington Post appeared an article by Washington Post Staff Writer, Dan Eggen, titled Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings? Staff Writer, Sari Horwitz is listed as having contributed to the report. In the article, the Washington Post attempts to explain to its readers why the FBI’s Osama bin Laden Ten Most Wanted poster makes no direct mention to Osama bin Laden being wanted for the events of September 11, 2001. Eggen and Horwitz make no mention whatsoever as to what prompted them to write this article at this time.
It is clear that the Muckraker Report article, FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” has been circulated extensively since it was published on June 6, 2006. It is also obvious that when I.N.N. World Report ran a segment on the Muckraker Report article during its June 7, 2006 newscast after FBI spokesman Rex Tomb confirmed his quotation in the Muckraker Report article to I.N.N. World Report News Editor, Claire Brown, awareness of the curious omission of 9/11 from the FBI’s Osama bin Laden Most Wanted poster was certain to become widespread across the Internet.
The Washington Post makes no reference to the news sources responsible for its story. Instead Eggen and Horwitz presented their article as if the topic originated from their own research. They’re not alone. Last week, MSNBC show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann ran a short segment on the fact that the FBI’s Osama bin Laden Most Wanted poster makes no mention of 9/11. In both instances, the Washington Post and MSNBC failed to mention that the FBI is on record, confirmed by two independent news sources, as saying that the reason Osama bin Laden is not officially wanted by the FBI for 9/11, is because it has “No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” However, there is a big difference between how the Washington Post and Countdown reported this story. Keith Olbermann accurately implied the absolute absurdity associated with the fact that Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster didn’t mention 9/11, nearly five years after the fact! The Washington Post on the other hand, engaged in white lie plagiarism while once again assuming the role of media mockingbird. From a journalistic standpoint, I.N.N. World Report and the Muckraker Report have done a better job presenting the facts to the public on this topic than the Washington Post.
In its article, the Washington Post has resorted to the last line of defense against independent news sources, such as the Muckraker Report, that ask probing questions regarding the government’s official version of 9/11. As its last resort, the Washington Post and the rest of the so-called mainstream media have been reduced to name calling and labeling as conspiracy theorists, any independent investigative reporting on 9/11 that challenges the shortcomings of the government’s official version and post 9/11 actions. Why the Washington Post is so eager to zealously endorse the government version of 9/11 is a peculiarity worthy of its own investigative report.
While admitting, but discounting as unimportant, the curious omission of 9/11 from the Osama bin Laden Most Wanted poster, the Washington Post seems more focused on its attempt to define the 36 to 42 percent of Americans that question the government’s official version of 9/11, by incorrectly surmising that “The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the September 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.
What’s even more disturbing is that the Washington Post reportedly asked FBI spokesman Rex Tomb to explain why 9/11 wasn’t mentioned on the Osama bin Laden Most Wanted poster, but failed to ask him to explain his “No hard evidence” quote made on June 6th to the Muckraker Report and on June 7th to Claire Brown at I.N.N. World Report. Instead the Washington Post quotes Rex Tomb as saying, “There’s no mystery here. They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don’t need to at this point…There is a logic to it.” Apparently Washington Post writers, Eggen and Horwitz, find this acceptable. Hopefully the readers of the Washington Post will not.
Think about it. Here is a man, Osama bin Laden, supposedly the most wanted terrorist in the world according to the U.S. government, the reported mastermind and person responsible for nearly 3000 deaths on 9/11, the justification for the United States launching invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq; invasions that have resulted in well over 150,000 fatalities, many of the which were civilians, over 2600 U.S. military fatalities and counting, with no end in sight, 20,000 U.S. casualties, and hundreds of billions of U.S. tax dollars being shipped 7000 miles away into the Middle East, and the Washington Post is going to allow the FBI to get off with “There is a logic to it”?
You tell me who the real conspiracy theorists are because this is a disgrace, a discredit to the profession of journalism, and a real slap in the face to the American people. Maybe once the Washington Post and the rest of the media elite get off their mockingbird perches, they can peck out for the masses, a media bone here – of course only if the government first approves of the message leaving the nest – and demand that the government’s actions, even remotely, matches its words. Who gives a damn whether there is logic to it! Based on all that has happened since September 11, 2001, WANTED FOR 9/11 should be in red, bold ink all over the Osama bin Laden Most Wanted poster – PERIOD! Remember, "I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'" G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI. Sorry President Bush, but no such poster exists. And nobody within the media elite syndicate seems to care.
Anxious to deflect from the fact that independent news sources have actually been more aggressive and honest with the public when reporting about what is actually known and unknown about 9/11, the Washington Post attempted to dismiss the fact that 9/11 isn’t mentioned on the FBI’s Osama bin Laden poster by writing, “ Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings.” The Washington Post should be ashamed of itself. When Eggen wrote, “bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings”, he was clearly referring to what has been dubbed the Osama bin Laden “confession video”. This video was released by the Department of Defense to the U.S. media on December 13, 2001.
Unfortunately for the readers of the Washington Post, their newspaper failed to mention the fact that there is no record whatsoever of any U.S. government official publicly declaring that the U.S. government had determined that the so-called “confession video” was authentic before it was released to the U.S. media. To the contrary, independent media sources have actually done the side-by-side video comparisons of the “confessing bin Laden” and other confirmed footage of Osama bin Laden, and the results raise valid questions. The Osama bin Laden image in the confession video is blurred enough to not be able to confirm a match with other Osama bin Laden images on record. The Washington Post reported in December 2001 that the "confession video" was authentic, but failed to report the names and agencies responsible for the authenticity process. Sharing this type of information with the public just makes good sense, particularly since the omission of such reference feeds speculation. What is so difficult about this is anybody’s guess. The Muckraker Report has been working towards gaining access to this information - information that the Washington Post is most likely holding back from its readers.
On August 11, 2006, the Muckraker Report ran an article titled, Government refuses to authenticate bin Laden “confession video”. This article centered on the fact that the Muckraker Report made a Freedom of Information Act Request to the FBI in an effort to obtain documentation that would confirm or deny the authenticity of the December 13, 2001 Osama bin Laden “confession video”. After all, newspapers like the Washington Post ran articles about the “confession video” as if it were gospel while the 24-hour news channels played the video for days – every hour on the hour. With this amount of exposure, it just seems prudent to confirm with visible proof and documentation, that somebody in the U.S. government took the time to verify the authenticity of the tape.
The government response to the Muckraker Report FOIA request: The material you requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, subsection (b)(7)(A).
It is worrisome enough to live in a country during a time of war, with arguably, the most secretive and evasive administration ever in our nation’s history at the helm. Having a free press that readily accepts the government talking points, absent critical skepticism and investigation, only makes matters worse. If many Americans made up their minds about Osama bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11 as a result of the December 13, 2001 “confession video”, and if the Washington Post is going to continue to make implied references to the video as it did in its August 28, 2006 article, shouldn’t the people now renew their demand for the U.S. government to release the original copy of the video for analysis and determination of authenticity, or is the authenticity and details of how the confession video was actually obtained as unimportant as 9/11 not being mentioned on the Osama bin Laden Most Wanted poster?
It’s not fodder Eggen. It’s jet fuel.
Please help our fight against the New World Order by giving a donation. As bandwidth costs increase, the only way we can stay online and expand is with your support. Please consider giving a monthly or one-off donation for whatever you can afford. You can pay securely by either credit card or Paypal. Click here to donate.