I'm sensing a story behind the overt news this week.

[Waiting For Everyman]

Some dots from the last few days' news, begging to be connected...

Powell's endorsement on Sunday

Biden's gaffe on "testing Obama" (see quote in DU Editorials post linked below)

Obama suspends campaign 2 days for grandmother; two Obama meetings of advisors on tv yesterday
Obama meeting w/ national security advisors; press conference
Obama meeting w/economic advisors; mis-statement on Clinton tax increases ("George W. Bush" was said - distracted?); Volcker there

McCain distraction - absurd gaffe at PA rally

Bush announcement of economic summit 11/15

Palin/McC joint interview w/Brian Williams, instead of Palin alone (Chuch Todd comment on stiffness, feeling of distance)

Obama's Leesburg rally yesterday unannounced in local area; Roanoke made public

Obama/Dems' jitters or negativity about election, even though far ahead (more than just the obvious reasons?)

Oil below $70 per barrel

The WaPo/AP story about Al Qaida bloggers preferring McC win (see post below, which is background to what I'm thinking - it was the "red flag" that got my attention)

______________________

My DU Editorials post on the WaPo story:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x395354

This quote at the end of the first story in my post, relates to Biden's gaffe:
"The idea of testing a new president or hitting us when we're off-balance is enormously attractive to them," said Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University terrorism expert.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102477_pf.html

And this in the second story which "hit me":
"...as the CIA eventually concluded, Bin Laden tried to help George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004 by releasing a late-October tape."
http://washingtonindependent.com/14218/mccain-advisers-freaked-out-by-al-qaeda-preference-for-mccain

________________________

So tell me this...

If OBL helped Bush in 2004, exactly why should we think he didn't do the same thing for him in 2001?

And if that's so, is OBL a contractor for the right wing moneyed interests?

And who did we just bail out? And the Iraq War has cost an additional $800 billion. So figure $2 trillion.

And now oil is tanking, how does that affect the chessboard?

Just what are all the campaign insiders so nervous about? Something is up. Something more is going on, that we're not being told about - something behind the news. They seem "freaked" alright to me, too. All of them, both sides. But probably for different reasons. Call it a hunch. Something is in the wind, something bigger is going on about this election.

[JackRiddler]

1. also...

"If OBL helped Bush in 2004, exactly why should we think he didn't do the same thing for him in 2001?"

Also: Which "OBL" was that in 2004, who suddenly discovered William Blum and talked like Michael Moore?

Same OBL footage was used three years later, with a still frame for 12 minutes over the new audio.

Yeah, right.

[smoogatz]

2. "what are all the campaign insiders so nervous about?"

The election, maybe? :shrug:

[MJkcj]

3. I don't get it - educate me

where are you going with this?

[bunnies]

4. huh?

Not only do I not see the connection, I dont even see the dots!

[FLyellowdog]

5. Dots. What dots? Where? Would that be polka? Talk me down.

[Teaser]

6. you need to correct your post

Obama has not "suspended his campaign"

[Left Is Write]

11. That's right. And Joe Biden's remarks about the testing of a new president were not a "gaffe."

[Waiting For Everyman]

12. Too late to edit.

To suspend campaigning, is what I meant, not a formal statement. Taking a break from campaigning.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. It is reasonable for us to be hyperattuned to what we aren't being told.

But sometimes, the dots are just noise.

[WI_DEM]

8. Biden really didn't commit a "gaffe" imo. He was stating the truth

Obama will probably be tested, just as McCain would be.

[Waiting For Everyman]

13. I agree.

That's what media calls it, so I referred to it that way.

[Fire_brand]

9. *updates database of concerns*

[Waiting For Everyman]

10. I'll try to be clearer...

Here are the two key articles... The first, by WaPo (and AP) about a password protected Al Quaeda website, something like ours here only for them and private, which our intel people picked up on, discussing how much Al Quaeda wants a McC win. And why.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102477_pf.html

That WaPo article caused a conference call yesterday for McC's camp to deal with reporters' questions on it... between James Woolsey and Randy Scheunemann to debunk the article for McC, and opposing their view, Ron Suskind and Richard Clarke. McC's people clearly wanted to put a lid on this story. Here's one of the articles that resulted from that call. (Others at TPM and Reason.)

http://washingtonindependent.com/14218/mccain-advisers-freaked-out-by-al-qaeda-preference-for-mccain

It's noted how "freaked out" McC's apologists are about this. I think this story "let the cat out of the bag" for one thing, about Al Quaeda and McC having the same agenda - to keep us at war. But beyond that, what else is found in the article is 1) Osama bin Laden's strategy to bankrupt us, stated in a November 1, 2004 article...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

And 2) the fact that there is a consensus of opinion among CIA analysts that bin Laden did in fact send his 2004 Halloween video in order to help Bush get votes. This, to me, all but confirms that 9/11 was an inside job... also a help to Bush, to solidify his very weak, stolen presidency.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609070006#20061029

We are in fact bankrupted, right? And who did it - Rethug deregulators, 30 years of them. So Al Quaeda just happens to have a convergence of interest? ...to bankrupt us ...and to keep us at war. How convenient for Rethugs!

Now what I'm guessing is, that the issues in this article were being discussed prior to its publication among "people in the know". Did that have something to do with Powell's endorsement? Biden's gaffe? Obama's timing in seeing his g/m? Obama's two meetings on the same day with two groups of advisors? Obama's distraction? McCain's distraction? McCain's distrust of Palin, and making sure he controlled Brian Williams' interview? Additionally, some of the news people and commentators, and some of the other candidates running for office, seem a bit jumpy this week too.

The news that will come out sooner or later is... McCain (Bush, all of them) and Al Quaeda are on the same side!!! (Both in the war, and in the biggest heist in history.) I see the surfacing of this seemingly small story, as the shadow of something bigger to come - the tip of an iceberg.

But I think the Dems don't want this to blow wide open, not now at least, out of fear of unrest and shutting down the elections. However, I think this will become bigger news in the near future, and will be the reason for Al Quaeda attacks to challenge Obama after he's elected... hence why Dems are even more intent on winning this than they already were before, and why the Rethugs are even more determined to steal it back. I pick up much more tension behind the scenes.

Looking back at the events of this week (which I listed at the top of the OP) in light of what came out in the Al Quaeda article, I see something different than my initial impression of these events. Little "tells" are in them, signs of something more going on. Something will come from this, I'm just not sure yet what it is.

I'm just saying read these two articles, and then think back on the news stories of this week, and see what you think.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

14. Is Bush going to stop the election?

[cliffordu]

15. I'm sure that since the al qaeda "private" website has been hacked and outed

that all the information from there is pristine and pure as the meth in wasilla.

I think that part of the story is complete fiction. If there's a private website out there and someone on our side has cracked it, no one will know except the intel community.

What do you think is happening here??

[EmeraldCityGrl]

17. Take into consideration the focus of "The War"

will transfer from Iraq to Afghanistan. When Obama said he will go after OBL,
that was not a mere idle threat. It's also something the current administration has
never seriously attempted for reasons we can only assume.

The general public, particularly Americans have been in the dark on so many levels.

[Waiting For Everyman]

19. Exactly.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

16. Also, this story, which is certainly as much as or more than it seams:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7562289&mesg_id=7562289

[vaberella]

18. I think the key thing and why Obama is nervous is dealing with Bush's mess.

I think the O team is cautious of the election mainly because its' safer to be safe than sorry. Polls mean nothing, Obama has said time and time again to remember New Hampshire. Those robocalls do add to something and there's always something to mess with a racist who may have been talked into voting Obama. So along the lines of winning the election...I don't care if Obama is up in the high doublt digits, which he's not, he's going to be safe.


The rest of it is if he does have a chance. If he wins there's a massive clean up. Rachel Maddow and KO were talking about this two days ago. Guantanamo Bay, closing it so US could look better internationally yet Bush won't make a move and basically said that's for the next administration. Getting our troops out of Iraq, apparently no new treaties and our treaties with Iraq ends at the end of the year---what about our troops and leaves Iraq empty with a massive expulsion of troops at once. Then there's the soldiers dieing in Afghanistan and they showed footage of jammed weapons and continous battles. This is crazy and all on O, so he has reason to meet with those people, if he comes into office.

[windbreeze]

20. Filing, for future reference...n/t