Was Osama in a hospital on September 11, 2001?

[Bolo Boffin]

I say no.

There is evidence that Osama was admitted to a Pakistani military hospital on September 10th.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml

Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into a military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment.

"On that night," said a medical worker who wanted her identity protected, "they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them." She said it was treatment for a very special person and "the special team was obviously up to no good."

How long does kidney dialysis take?

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/198_dial.html

As he has for the last seven years, Tony Robinson, 47, heads straight from work on Monday, Wednesday and Friday afternoons to a nearby hemodialysis center in Orlando, Fla.

A nurse gives him a checkup, then Robinson settles into one of the recliners circling the room. Propping his left arm up, he allows a technician to slip two needles into blood vessels near his wrist. The needles--one to capture the blood and the other to return it--are attached to plastic tubes leading to a dialysis machine beside the chair.

For the next three hours, this device, which looks like a tall, narrow, automated teller machine, removes wastes and extra fluid from Robinson's blood. He passes the hours by reading, watching the evening news, and sometimes dozing.

Three hours.

The nurse in Pakistan says this happened on the night of September 10th. A three hour procedure could easily have been accomplished that evening, allowing Osama to be discharged and the normal night crew to resume their duties. However, even if Osama had been admitted at 11:59 pm, he would have been out by 4 am Pakistani time on the 11th.

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=757
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=179

Pakistan is on UTC +5, while New York and Washington is on UTC -4 due to Daylight Savings Time. That is a nine hour difference.

So 4 am, Sept 11th, Pakistani time is 7 pm, Sept 10th, New York time. The attacks on the WTC would not happen at least another twelve hours.

Therefore, the idea that Osama was in the hospital on September 11th (implying that he was there during the attacks) is not true.

[BuddyYoung]

1. The anecdote you cited (Fla. man) doesn't prove your claim about OBL.

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

2. How, exactly, do dialysis treatments differ in Pakistan?

Osama, according to the information, had the entire ward to himself. No waiting. He was in, he was out.

Why exactly do you think the procedure took longer than it takes anywhere else in the world, Buddy?

[BuddyYoung]

3. How, exactly, do you know when OBL left the military hosp. in Pakistan?

You can choose to believe that OBL was back in his Command and Control Cave in Afghanistan at 4:30 a.m. if you want to...and I realize that it serves your purpose to claim you believe he WAS.

You've cited CBS news as your source for claiming Osama was indeed hospitalized on the night of September 10, 2001, and I have no reason to doubt CBS (though many Rightwingnuts say CBS is biased and untrustworthy -- Dan Rather, the hardly news that Bush was a deserter etc.), so I'll accept what CBS says.

Maybe you can do some research and find a source that proves when Osama left the hospital and where he went after he left.

Until then, all we know for sure is that a kidney dialysis procedure for some guy in Florida takes about three hours & that three hours may or may not be typically how long it takes for the average person.

Your belief would be better-founded if it was known:

* What Osama's medical condition was whenever he entered the hospital.
* What kind of treatment he received while he was hospitalized.
* What kind of medical examinations/tests he was given.
* The nature of any and all treatments he underwent while hospitalized.
* How long all that took.
* How long did he usually spend in the hospital for treatment of his medical problems, and was it his usual practice to stay overnight or longer.
* When he was discharged.
* Where he went upon his release from the hospital.

If Osama was the perp behind 911, it would hardly make sense for him to enter a hospital the night before --- not knowing how long he might be required to stay there for medical treatment and knowing that his every movement AFTER he left could be and almost certainly was tracked.

You're entitled to believe what you want to, but wouldn't it be better to use a little bit of common sense before making such a highly unlikely claim?

[Bolo Boffin]

5. How, exactly, did you answer my question?

I asked first, so no answer for you until you answer mine:

How, exactly, do kidney dialysis treatments differ in Pakistan?

I will maintain, until proven wrong, that they do not. Kidney dialysis takes just as long in Pakistan as it does in Florida. When you have the military clearing out the ward so you alone can recieve treatment, I daresay it might take a little quicker. Less paperwork to fill out, less consultation with insurance companies, less waiting for a sterilized machine...

The ONLY source that you have for saying Osama was in the hospital is that CBS report. That same report says he went in for kidney dialysis. You cannot impeach Osama's reason for being there without impeaching the entire report of his being there, Buddy. That, in case you're not used to it, is common sense.

That means: four hours tops, in that hospital. Until you can provide us with additional sources for this story which cite more tests or more examinations, we can keep to that simple, common-sense schedule. We have no reason to think otherwise.

[BuddyYoung]

6. I don't know how dialysis treatments differ, if they do. Now, it's your

turn to answer the questions I asked. You might be right that Osama left the hospital after four hours, but since you can't provide any proof of when he left, your claim falls into the category of "Faith-Based" claims.

I asked a number of reasonable questions and made some points which you've chosen to ignore. That alone tells me you lack confidence in your claim, and rightly so.

Most rightwingers lambaste CBS as a LIBRUL media outlet that lies. When did you decide that CBS IS credible? When it suits your purpose? Or, have you always had confidence in their news reporting?

Your claim is based solely on the fact that some guy in Fla. spends three or four hours for kidney dialysis treatment. How does that prove when Osama left the military hospital in Rawalpindi?

[Bolo Boffin]

7. One single question in your second post.

And I actually answered in my previous post. It is reasonable to look at that CBS article and conclude that Osama was released well before the 9/11 attacks occurred. And since you don't question the CBS report (you can't because it's your only source for the Osama-in-the-hospital), it's reasonable to conclude from it that your other exhaustive questions about Osama's health are not necessary to know. We know that Osama was admitted for dialysis. It's a three to four hour procedure. End of hospital visit.

Now for the questions from your previous post.

When did I decide that CBS is credible? You're going to have to clarify this question. Are you questioning CBS as a news source? You said you were willing to accept this story, and now you're questioning it? That would be unreasonable of you, because this story is your only source for Osama-in-the-hospital. But if you aren't questioning it, what purpose is served discussing my acceptance of the story?

The Florida man's story was cited as an example of how long dialysis treatments last. Are you seriously questioning the length of dialysis treatments?

[BuddyYoung]

14. BELIEVE what you will, but don't expect 911 TruthSeekers to go along

Other CT'ers don't seem to be interested in trying to help bolster your totally unconvincing claim, despite that they surely know you must feel that if Osama was in the hospital on 9/11, then your CT is in jeopardy.

Why are you afraid of the questions and points I raised? Does common sense and logic pose THAT much of a threat to your BELIEFS?

[Bolo Boffin]

17. I just don't understand your questions, Buddy.

Could you clarify them?

How exactly does Osama being in the hospital on 9/11 jeopardize "my CT"? Osama helped in the planning, and funded the mission, but he wasn't running the show that day. In his own words, he was listening to a broadcast of the attacks. He could have done that in the hospital or back in the cave or sitting on the Riviera. No jeopardy there to "my CT".

However, "Osama in a hospital on 9/11" is one of the more egregious pieces of bullshit that you (and AbeLinkman and Americus before you) liked to peddle around here. You have yet to find even a second source for this story, and my point is that you go far beyond what reasonably can be assumed from the source article.

Clarify the questions, if you would. Are you afraid to? Why would you be afraid to clarify the questions?

Since you accept the CBS article as genuine, why is my acceptance of the article at question?

Are you seriously doubting the length of an average dialysis treatment?

[BuddyYoung]

18. Faith-based beliefs won't convince 911 Truth Seekers.

Your posts seem more and more desperate these days and clearly aimed at trying to bait people that you want to get banned, though I know that YOU have never done that and don't condone it.

You'd be more convincing if you used logic and common sense. Even so, you still don't have any proof for your latest claims about Osama. Interesting to see how you've morphed your CT so that OBL is less and less important in the conspiracy.
Bushco people are doing the same thing: Osama WHO?

Are you seriously claiming that because some guy in Florida spends three or four hours undergoing dialysis treatments, that proves Osama was only in the hospital for three or four hours? Do you want other people to agree with that?

[Bolo Boffin]

20. You ARE seriously questioning the length of an average dialysis treatment

That's so bizarre of you, Buddy.

Especially based on the article I cited. The "guy in Florida" is being used as a typical case of dialysis in the article - which is entitled "Living Day-to-Day With Kidney Dialysis". It was written for the Food and Drug Administration to show people what living with dialysis is like. Tony Robinson's "anecdotal" experience is meant to be typical of normal dialysis procedures.

How long do hemodialysis treatments last?

http://www.kidney.org/atoz/atozItem.cfm?id=39
Usually, each hemodialysis treatment lasts about four hours and is done three times per week.

A type of hemodialysis called high-flux dialysis may take less time. You can speak to your doctor to see if this is an appropriate treatment for you.

I rather doubt that high-flux dialysis was in use in Pakistani in 2001, so let's keep to the longer four hour timeframe.

Now please explain exactly why you think the actual procedure of kidney dialysis in Pakistan is different from how it's performed in America.

[BuddyYoung]

19. I didn't start this nonsense thread about Osama. boloboffin did.

Your entire assertion is based on how long a kidney dialysis treatment takes for some guy in Florida. That's the absolute weakest, most poorly reasoned argument I've ever seen from a bushco911CT'er. And that's not a belief, i's a FACT.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. No, you made this unsupportable assertation in another thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=100223&mesg_id=100290

In a discussion about the choice of the WTC, you felt the compulsion to state that Osama was in a hospital September 11. You provided no source, and still haven't provided any other source for this story but the CBS article I cited. Both you and I know this is because no other source exists, and yet even this source doesn't provide the support for your assertation that you believe it does.

If the story is correct, Osama was admitted to the military hospital on the evening of September 10th for a dialysis treatment. These treatments last about four hours, which would have him discharged in plenty of time to listen to the attacks occur. You like to throw this statement around like it's true, but it's not.

However, a discussion of this particular idiom of yours wasn't appropriate to the subject of the other thread. So I started this one. This isn't "bait to get you banned". It's an expose of the statement.

And anyone who gets banned here has only themselves to blame. The rules are very clear. I'd prefer that no one get banned. Yet some would prefer to attack others instead of admitting to being wrong about something. I've got no problem admitting I'm wrong, and have on several occasions.

Have you ever been wrong about anything, Buddy?

[petgoat]

22. The assumption that Osama was there for the publically announced

reason is not justified.

Therefore the assertion that dialysis treatments do not square with the
timeline, and therefore he wasn't there at all is not logical.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Take it up with Buddy, petgoat.

He's the one claiming unequivocably that Osama was in a hospital on 9/11.

However, his only source for this statement is the CBS report, which is more rationally interpreted as a quick hospital stay.

Discussion as to whether this whole story is agitprop like the unplugged incubators or Zarqawi's fake leg is a legitimate place to disagree. I can respect someone who claims it didn't happen, and probably would agree with them.

But Buddy's story does not say what he says it does.

[BuddyYoung]

24. You intentionally misstated what I said. Don't do that again or else

it will be obvious that your intentions are less than sincere and honorable.

My position is that YOU haven't proven your claim. Not by a long shot.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. How, exactly, precisely, did I misstate what you said? n/t

[BuddyYoung]

25. This thread was started by boloboffin, not Buddy Young.

All I did was point out the errors of your extremely weak reasoning. Really, I'm surprised that you won't just admit how weak it is, now that so many questions and points have been raised that call into question what you said.

P.S. You STILL haven't answered the questions and points I raised. The other CT'ers haven't come to your rescue and that make you feel like you've been hung out and left to dry, all by your lonesome.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Why do you think who started this thread is in question? n/t

[sabbat hunter]

29. does it matter

if he was in the hospital on 911 or not?

the planning for the attack had already been in place. he didnt need to be out in the open on the day it happened. in fact it probably was better if he wasnt.

[petgoat]

31. It matters to me that he was under the guard of the

Pakistani ISI at the same time the attacks occurred and at the same time that the
head of the ISI (General Ahmad) was breakfasting with Porter Goss and Senator Bob
Graham. If the ISI "carelessly" let him go they should have known where to find
him, and given the fact that General Ahmad had been in consultations with top
US intel officials for the week before 9/11 he should have known to ask his
people if they knew where Osama was and our intel guys should have known to ask
Ahmad.

But clearly they didn't want Osama. They wanted an invasion.

It also matters to me that it appears that General Ahmad, Osama's half-brother
Shafig, Osama, and W were hostages while the attacks were happening.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. But there's no reason to think he was under guard at the same time.

If the story is true, then the questions you ask are just as pertinent whether or not he was in the hospital at the same time as the attacks or not.

The divided nature of the ISI has been apparent for quite some time. Throwing support to Musharif is going to be another case of blowback on down the line, just like support of the Afghani muhajideen and Saddam proved to be.

[petgoat]

35. I guess you didn't read the article very carefully.

"They military had him surrounded," said a hospital employee who also wanted his identity masked, "and I saw the mysterious patient helped out of a car. Since that time," he said, "I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden. I also heard two army officers talking to each other. They were saying that Osama bin Laden had to be watched carefully and looked after."


Now if I was surrounded by soldiers when I went into the hospital, and I had officers
saying I needed to be watched, I'd consider myself under guard.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. "At the time of the attacks."

There is no reason to think he was under the guard of the Pakistani military in a hospital AT THE TIME OF THE ATTACKS.

That tactic is beneath you, petgoat.

[petgoat]

39. Mere sloppiness, not a tactic

There is no evidence as to when he left the hospital. That gives us reason to think
he may have still been there at the time of the attacks.

Two months earlier when he went into the hospital in Dubai he'd stayed ten days.

[BuddyYoung]

40. Is bolo SERIOUSLY questioning how long Osama usually stays in the

horsepistol? Boloboffin makes an honest effort to be consistent, so I'll wait for his thoughtful, carefully reasoned (no, seriously) response.

[petgoat]

43. Maybe bolo doesn't want to talk about Osama's visit to the

American Hospital in Dubai from 7-4-01 to 7-14-01 when he was supposedly
the most wanted man on the face of the earth.

[BuddyYoung]

44. His most interesting visitor was the local CIA Station Chief. Probably

just a routine hospitalization for the sickly Osama, and I'm sure that whenever the CIA Station Chief came to visit, they just talked business. If I'm not mistaken, he also received a visit from one of his friends in the FBI during that particular 10 day period.

[petgoat]

51. According to the article in Le Figaro, Osama was

visited by the CIA agent Larry Mitchell, and by the head of Saudi intelligence,
Prince Turki al Faisal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html

Prince Turki is now the Saudi ambassador to the USA, and attended
the most recent State of the Union address.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Not a topic in this thread.

Quit trying to hijack this thread, the both of you.

[petgoat]

55. It's a legitimate subthread.

That Osama's stay in the hospital in Dubai two months earlier lasted ten
days and involved visits from two CIA guys and the head of Saudi intelligence
might suggest to some people that his hospital stay this time also involved
more than meets the eye.

[mhatrw]

57. What tactic? If we believe the article, OBL was surrounded by

Pakistani military within 15 hours of the attacks.

How do you think this arrangement works? Could OBL convene and dismiss a Pakistani military guard as he pleased? If so, what makes you think he dismissed his military guard before the attacks? If not, what makes you think the Pakistani military released him with no strings attached (to where?) before the attacks?

Just wondering ...

[petgoat]

60. And what makes him think the ISI didn't know "Which way did he go?"

at the very least.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. What makes you think I think any such thing?

Quit misrepresenting what I say.

[petgoat]

65. Otherwise I guess I don't see the point to your thread.

You seem to be making unjustified assumptions to defeat a straw man that's
immaterial.

Accepting the cover story at face value, you assume that Osama left the hospital
the morning of 9/11 at the latest, nine hours before the attacks. This fact is only
of significance if the ISI didn't know where he went. And it's not a fact but an
inference that he quickly left the hospital, one based on the assumption that the
dialysis cover story is what he was doing there.

Military hospitals make a good place for high-level meetings. Since Osama's brother
Shafig, W, and General Mahmood Ahmad all seem to have engaged in behavior consistent
with serving as hostages during the 9/11 attacks, the hypothesis that Osama was a
hostage in that military hospital is interesting to me. If so, he went first--lead
hostage. Perhaps Mohammed Atta et. al subsequently showed up for hostage duty.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. The point: debunking a standard claim of BuddyYoung, AbeLinkman, et al.

The result: Buddy's busted.

[Bolo Boffin]

62. Petgoat's tactic was to omit a key qualifier in my statement

and then argue against the absurdity that resulted, implying that I would say something so stupid.

Osama has his own army, mhatrw. I would think that in Pakistan, in the open, Osama would be guarded by Pakistani sympathizers in their army, but was then returned to the safekeeping of his own before the attacks.

Just the way any foreign dignitary accepts the protection of the country he or she visits.

[leftofthedial]

4. he was in Lincoln, NE

waiting to have lunch with king george

[KJF]

8. It's disinfo

At least that's my feeling, although there's no way to prove it.
Abdel Bari Atwan, who's actually met Osama, says:

"There have been reports that bin Laden suffers from serious illnesses. Some fanciful accounts even had him requiring kidney dialysis - often on the same page as another story which had him fleeing US bombardments on horseback through the mountains. I had heard that he has some form of mild diabetes, but when I spent three days with him and slept in the same cave, I didn't notice him taking any medication or showing any signs of ill health at all. We walked for more than two hours in the snow-covered mountains, and he seemed fit and well."
Secret History of Al Qaeda, pp. 61-62

Planting stories about one's opponents that make them seem ill or handicapped must be on page 1 of the pysops manual - remember the story about Zarqawi's leg being amputated? So I'm very sceptical of either of the dialysis stories (in Dubai and Pakistan), although, if you ask me, there's something in the claims they are used to support - that the relationships between Osama on the one hand and the UAE, Saudis, the CIA and Pakistan on the other are closer than we are sometimes led to believe.

[pauldp]

9. Something caused Osama to age dramatically and quickly.

At least that seems to be the case in the videos that appear to actually be him.
Kidney disease would explain that. The guy is only in his late forties - maybe fifty?

[petgoat]

11. Something caused Osama to age. His 24 children! nt

[pauldp]

13. Good point. 4 wives might give you a few grey hairs too. n/t

[KJF]

16. He's 49

He was born in March 1957, apparently.

I checked a few pictures of him. He does seem to have aged perceptibly in the last few years, but that may not necessarily be a result of kidney disease. I suppose his life has got hard.

[pauldp]

10. If it is true, the only significant thing that story proves

is that the Pakistani hospital treated him like royalty. We don't know when he
checked in or when he left. But he got VIP treatment in Pakistan
at a time when a host of foreign nations not to mention
CNN were reporting that he was planning something big against the U.S.
Combine that with the fact that we have evidence that 911 funding came from
the Pakistani ISI :
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=107432

And evidence that Pakistani officials bribed the 911 commission members to eliminate
references to Pakistan in their report:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060313/asp/nation/story_5962372.asp

So again one is compelled to ask the question: What the hell are we doing entrusting Pakistan
with hunting Osama and Al Qaeda?

Oh that's right they are now one of our trusted allies in the war on terror.

:eyes:

[BuddyYoung]

15. Wrong. If true, it seriously calls the OBL as 911 Perp CT into question.

And that is why some of the other CT'ers here are grasping at straws, anecdotes about some guy in Florida, and irrational "belief".

[sabbat hunter]

30. why does it call

why does it call OBL being behind 911 into question?

please explain

what is your theory of what happened on 911. please cite facts to back this up.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. Allow me to translate Buddyesque for you, sabbat.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, Buddy...

...but I think he's saying that since Osama was in the hospital, he couldn't have been in control of the 9/11 attack. Osama would have to be in a big command center, sending people that way or this, according to Buddy, or he couldn't have been involved in the attacks at all. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, was in DC, in the command chair, running our laughable response to 9/11.

Except I thought that the 9/11 attacks were being run (in Buddy's CT) from the WTC 7 emergency station that Guilani had built. Cheney wasn't there, so maybe it was G-man running the show, in New York anyway.

Like I say, this is what I think Buddy is saying. He will swoop in, crying strawman and all of that, and probably never get around to explaining what exactly he thinks the point of Osama being in the hospital is...

Or he could prove me wrong and actually explain what he means. That would be refreshing beyond measure.

[BuddyYoung]

36. Allow me to translate boloesque for you: BS

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Same old BuddyYoung.

He can't even be shamed into providing a worthwhile answer.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

42. I'd recommend right-wing chats to everyone.

You learn what all the current talking points are.

And if you can stay on topic and logical under assault by a circle of drunks
spitting aspersions on your character and wild fantasies about your sexuality
and place of residence you demonstrate to any objective observer the bankruptcy
of their arguments.

[BuddyYoung]

45. Same old bolo.

He can't even be shamed into condemning disinformation or Bushco 911 propaganda.

[pauldp]

32. I think a better example

of a piece of evidence that calls Osama's culpability into question
would be the fake confession tape released by the Bush Administration in November of 2001.
It was clearly a bad double filling in for Osama. The timing of that little
bullshit production piece is very suspicious. Pakistan's complicity in 911 has been well documented so evidence of them helping Osama doesn't seem to me to necessarily mean he was not involved . Frankly I don't
think we have enough evidence to make a determination about whether
or not Osama was directly involved in 911. His family connections to the Carlyle Group
and the Bush family would seem to support the idea that he was involved somehow, and of course
the official conspiracy theory claims he was. Although even the OCT tends to paint him as the "spiritual leader"
and KSM as the mastermind. I'm inclined to think that he willingly played the part of the bogeyman,
for Carlyle/BFEE et al, although he probably did little or none of the actual planning.

[petgoat]

12. I've got a real crazy theory.

But sometimes my theories I think are crazy are validated by others.

Maybe Osama was a hostage in the Pakistani hospital.

It's possible his brother was a hostage, meeting with GHWB at the Carlyle
Group in DC.

It's possible that General Mahmood Ahmad was a hostage, breakfasting with
Porter Goss and Bob Graham.

It's possible W was a hostage, sitting in a school room under the flight
path of the Sarasota airport until the Pentagon hit was achieved.

To me this suggests some very complicated deal, the nature of which I am
not qualified to speculate upon.

Does anybody have any ideas about anybody else who may have been a hostage
at that time?

[petgoat]

28. The medical worker only saw Osama helped out of the car.

The info that he was there was for dialysis comes from Pakistani intelligence. They are
highly motivated to lie.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. The trustworthiness of Dan Rather

A poster here by the name of BuddyYoung has expressed some confusion as to my view of Dan Rather's trustworthiness. I assume that he's doing so based on this thread - since any other thread in which I've talked about Dan Rather has long ago sunk into the archives, and Buddy, being a current non-donor to DU, doesn't have the search function that donors possess.

So of course he's talking about this thread.

Rather than continue the discussion about this issue in the thread in which Buddy began it (offtopic), I decided to bring the discussion back here. People who want a single topic discussed on a single thread can thank me in private.

What exactly is Dan Rather's report here? Actually, it was Barry Petersen's story, but I have no reason to doubt that Rather was the anchorperson that night, and so why quibble over such a point?

What exactly is the report saying? Does it say that Osama was admitted to a hospital on September 10th, 2001?

No.

It says he "may have".

Let's examine the story in detail. We will learn how to apply our skills of comprehension to this story, and be greatly educated thereby.

First, the title:

Hospital Worker: I Saw Osama

This convention of news reporting allows us to understand the gist of the story, while sourcing it specifically to a person or an organization. A hospital worker interviewed by CBS News says that she saw Osama.

CBS was unable to confirm her story. Therefore, instead of printing a title like, say:

OSAMA IN HOSPITAL DAY BEFORE ATTACKS

Which states unequivocably a fact confirmed by CBS News, the chosen title instead tells us that a person has made a claim which CBS cannot substantiate...

This gives a measure of doubt to the event being described. In words that Buddy can understand, Dan Rather himself cannot be certain of this story. His trustworthiness is not on the line because he is reporting both the event and the inability to confirm the event.

Therefore, when I question whether Osama was even in the hospital at all (likening the story to propaganda like Zarqawi's fake leg or the unplugged Kuwaiti incubators), I am not questioning Dan Rather's trustworthiness. Indeed, it is Rather's trustworthiness that has expressed the appropriate doubt of the story that all of us must recognize.

Here are two other places in the story that express doubt of the event in question:

...here's the story of what may have happened the night before.

....

The U.S. has no way of knowing who in Pakistan's military or intelligence supported the Taliban or Osama bin Lade(sic), maybe up to the night before Sept. 11 by arranging dialysis to keep him alive.

bold emphasis is mine

That last phrase is interesting. It assumes that dialysis treatments are the same as in America, and that the treatment was contained to the "night before Sept. 11".

So just as I have said, there is a report of Osama getting dialysis the night before September 11th. This story is the only source of any idea that Osama was in a hospital around the time of September 11th. No other source of this story has been given. Anyone who uses this story as proof that "Osama was in a hospital during the September 11th attacks" is unwarranted in said use.

However, an Osama dialysis treatment the day before the attacks isn't improbable, much less impossible. It could very well have happened, and that's something the story makes clear as well.

Dan Rather's trustworthiness, in my continued estimation, is intact.

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Bump. n/t

[BuddyYoung]

49. You've said he wasn't trustworthy & and now you've said he is....

well, actually, this time you've weaseled a little by not directly saying he's trustworthy, only that his trustworthiness in your "continued estimation" is intact.

Your posts about Osama are contradictory, despite which thread they're in.
Let's recap what you did.

When Dan Rather reported that Osama was actually admitted to a military hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on 9/10/2001, boloboffin claimed that Dan Rather and CBS coudn't be trusted and that it wasn't true that Osama had been admitted to a hospital on 9/10. Incidentally, you did the same thing whenever it was first reported that Osama was hospitalized in Dubai from 7/01-7/10/2001. This was reported by the respected French newspaper "le Monde". You tried to discredit THAT story by saying that "le Monde" isn't a trustworthy source. Did you do that because it was also reported that the local CIA Station Chief visited Osama during his hospital stay?

Most recently, boloboffin posted a message saying that Osama WAS in the military hospital, and he cited DAN RATHER and CBS as his source for the story.

What is boloboffin's explanation for all of this as well as HIS OWN credibility and reputation for being reliably consistent?

[Bolo Boffin]

53. Gotta link, Buddy, to these "claims" of mine? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

56. BuddyYoung, that statement is a lie.

I have never said that Dan Rather is untrustworthy.

Since you have not produced any links as of yet to statements of the sort from me, I took the time to use the search function myself (since I am a donor and have that privilege). Four threads came up. One of them was this one. The other three were archived.

In those three threads, I have never stated the things you say I have about Dan Rather.

I have never ever claimed that Dan Rather and CBS couldn't be trusted. I have never claimed that it wasn't true that Osama had been admitted to a hospital on 9/10. I have never claimed that Dan Rather was untrustworthy.

Furthermore, it is not true that Dan Rather reported that Osama ACTUALLY was admitted to a military hospital on 9/10. He did no such thing. He reported that such a event had been testified to by a witness. He further reported that CBS was unable to confirm or deny the truth of this report. He also reported that this lack of confirmation or denial was due to CBS News not being allowed to examine records that would confirm or deny the truth of this testimony.

Is it likely that Osama was admitted that evening for kidney dialysis? Yes - that's why Dan Rather reported the story. That is why I have always said that the story was likely.

Yes, you heard me right. I have always claimed that the story very well could have been true, and probably was. In fact, my statements in the three previous threads are remarkably consistent with what I have been saying in this thread. How do I know this? I just read through every single post on every single one.

BuddyYoung, in the above post, you have posted lies about my statements. You have posted lies about what Dan Rather reported. And yet you think my credibility is at stake?

I'll put my credibility up against yours any day, Buddy.

[FourScore]

48. Dude!

You're soundin' pretty dumb here! It is absurd to assert that he would have been at a hospital only 3-4 hours for a dialysis treatment. I took my family in a couple of months ago for rabies shots and it took over 6 hours! And they weren't even that busy. You sound like someone whose never had a precedure done at a hospital. Just to go in for a chest x-ray can take hours. And that's in America! Do you really think the Pakistani hospitals are as good as your average American hospital? I don't think so.

[BuddyYoung]

50. I agree with you, but remember that Osama was in a MILITARY hospital

in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. We've yet to hear an explanation for why the world's #1 terrorist was allowed to be treated at a military hospital, then allowed to leave freely to return to one of his cave dwellings or perhaps to his offices at the al Qaeda Headquarters Building in downtown Kabul.

Don't expect a substantive, straight answer from the OCT'ers here, but I think it's a reasonable question to ask...in the proper place (meaning, where a Bush911 apologist can't evade, dance around, change the subject, try to shoot the questioner, or otherwise avoid answering the question.

[Bolo Boffin]

52. Did your family have the military clear out the ward so that

they alone could get treated?

Didn't think so.

[mhatrw]

58. Does OBL control the Pakistani military in your opinion?

How exactly did this arrangement work?

In your opinion, exactly what was the relationship between OBL and the Pakistani military on 9/11?

[Bolo Boffin]

59. No, I don't think OBL controls the Pakistani military.

I think at the time that many in the Pakistani government had sympathy with OBL's espoused causes, and that they were willing to do a lot for the man. I don't think very many of them knew about the 9/11 attack.

America has always sided with India in the India-Pakistan cold war, and so any enemy of America/Saudi Arabia would naturally be sympathetic to most Pakistanis. I doubt any of them wanted such an attack to happen though, because it would force them to take sides publicly. As it is, Osama seems to be holed up in the borderlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where even the President of Pakistan dares not reach for him.

As of now, I think that OBL and a substantial portion of the Pakistani military were allies on the morning of 9/11. Perhaps some of the Pakistani military even helped facilitate the attacks (I'm thinking of the wire transfer here). The story of OBL's dialysis the day before the attacks fits into this hypothesis very well.

[mhatrw]

61. So did the Pakistani military continue to protect Bin Laden after 9/11?

Since they supposedly had a sick Bin Laden surrounded just hours earlier, what do you think happened?

Did they lose his trail within hours of basically acting as his nursemaids and body guards? Or did they hang out and all "high five" Bin Laden when the towers came down? If so, have they now -- too late -- realized the error of their destablizing terrorist-protecting ways? Or something else completely?

[Bolo Boffin]

64. As I've said above, I think he was returned to the safekeeping of his own

army.

Whether or not they "lost his trail" after that is further speculation. Either scenario is possible.

[mhatrw]

67. So they returned OBL to his own army -- just in nick of time before

the towers exploded -- at which point the sick man they had just had completely surrounded just hours earlier no longer remained in their power, but instead -- now healthy from his recent dialysis treatment at their expense and protection -- was able to direct his evil minions in their dastardly attack without fear of the Pakistani military's possible negative reaction?

[Bolo Boffin]

68. If you want to call a eight hour span of time "the nick of time"

whatever.

What is so hard about understanding this? The story reported is that Osama got a final hospital dialysis right before the attacks.

And there's no "directing his evil minions" at that point. His part in financing and organizing the attacks was over.

[mhatrw]

70. Yes, I want to call your "eight hour span" the nick of time ...

because that's how your yarn spins.

Personally, I think that:

1) OBL had nothing to do with 9/11,

2) a large contingent of the Pakistani military was assigned to protect OBL, and/or

3) the whole story of OBL getting dialysis on 9/10 is disinfo.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. The "nick of time"

According to this page, "nick of time" refers to the critical moment, the exact instant at which something has to take place. That's how I've always understood the phrase.

An eight hour span of time can't legitimately be described as the "nick of time". Perhaps you should try to restate my position using words I've chosen.

[mhatrw]

72. Eight hours is barely an instant for a very sick guy trying get

from a hospital to the completely undeveloped "badlands" between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

[petgoat]

69. Thanks for highlighting this important issue, bolo.

It's another lesson for me in watching out for my assumptions.

I'd always assumed that Rawalpindi was some hick high-mountain
hospital near the Afghan frontier, and that maybe because of
turf-battles and stuff the communications between the regional
ISI guys and the top guys were flawed.

Wrong.

Rawalpindi is a city of 3 million people located 6 miles from
the capital of Pakistan. The Airport is located in Rawalpindi.
The Pakistani military is HQ'd in Rawaloindi. The American
military advisors are based in Rawalpindi. The opportunities
for high-level meetings are thus multiplied.

Globalresearch comments thus: "It should be noted, that the hospital is directly under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. U.S. military advisers based in Rawalpindi. work closely with the Pakistani Armed Forces. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America's best known fugitive, but then maybe bin Laden was serving another "better purpose". Rumsfeld claimed at the time that he had no knowledge regarding Osama's health. (see CBS transcript above).

"Needless to say, the CBS report is a crucial piece of information in the 9/11 jigsaw. It refutes the administration's claim that the whereabouts of bin Laden are unknown. It points to a Pakistan connection, it suggests a cover-up at the highest levels of the Bush administration.

"Dan Rather and Barry Petersen fail to draw the implications of their January 2002 report. They fail to beg the question: where was Osama on 9/11? If they are to stand by their report, the conclusion is obvious: The administration is lying regarding the whereabouts of Osama."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO311A.html

Here's a map. Note the restricted zones.

http://www.johnthemap.co.uk/pages/mainbody/pindimb.html

Another point: While a routine dialysis of someone who receives dialysis regularly
may take only three hours, there's no reason to think Osama routinely went to
Islamabad for dialysis. So either he had other facilities for routine dialysis
in which his treatment at the hospital was probably not routine, or he did not
routinely get dialysis, in which case his treatment in the military hospital may
have taken considerably longer than 3 hours.

The one thing for certain about 9/11 stuff: the closer you look the more complicated
it gets.

What seems far more important to me than the question of whether Osama was in the
hospital at 17:45 local time on 9/11 is the fact that he was not arrested when he
submitted to the protection of the Pakistani military and the possibility that he
met with high level American officials when he was there.

[petgoat]

73. Osama was in Islamabad 9/10/01 in ISI Military City

near an international airport (probably flew in from Miami).

That's the important thing. Thanks again, bolo, for bringing the truth out!

[Bolo Boffin]

74. Curses! Foiled again!

:eyes: