What’s going on with the recent dirty bomb hysteria? Thank God President Bush came to his senses. Nevertheless, the United States seems bound and determined to expand the war on terrorism in Afghanistan to neighboring Pakistan. The fact that both countries are major opium producers has nothing to do with anything, right? In any case, the timing of the US Government’s announcement about the detainment of Abdullah al Muhajir (aka, Jose Padilla of Brooklyn, NY) is highly suspicious. It supports President George W. Bush’s recent announcement to create a department of Homeland Security. Funny how so many random incidents seem to support each other. From what I’ve read in the newspapers, the government’s case against al Muhajir is non-existent. On one hand, they claim to have broken up a terrorist plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb." But on the other hand, they admit there was not a known plan to carry out such an action. "There was not an actual plan," Deputy Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz said at a news conference on June 10. "We have stopped this man in the initial planning stages."

If there was not an "actual plan" to set off a dirty bomb, then why was al Muhajir arrested in the first place? At face value, this makes no sense. But if one examines the bigger picture regarding America’s war on terrorism, then a degree of logic begins to emerge. For weeks now the American news media has inundated Americans with ominus stories about the threat of terrorism which has loomed over us since September 11th. High ranking governmental officials recently predicted that future attacks were eminent. US military strategists have been pushing to start a war in Pakistan. With the announced arrest of al Muhajir and the related media hype, it looks like they might get their wish.

It appears that the news media—which is Jewish controlled for the most part—is trying to dictate foreign policy. Even so, Washington Post reporters were squeamish about reporting al Muhajir’s detainment. No individual reporter wanted to take credit for writing the dirty bomb story—apparently because it was obviously propaganda. Consequently, nine writers put their names on a front-page story about al Muhajir’s arrest published on June 11^th. Post reporters Dan Eggen and Susan Schmidt got ByLine credits for an article entitled Suspected al Qaeda Operative Held as ‘Enemy Combatant’ (June 11); however, seven additional people assisted. They included staff writers Steve Fainaru, Barton Gellman, Colum Lynch, Spencer S. Hsu, Bill Miller, research editor Margot Williams and researcher Lynn Davis. This seems odd indeed. The story did not present much new information—mainly that al Muhajir was arrested on May 8 at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago, that he learned how to build dirty bombs in Pakistan, that his real name is Jose Padilla, and he is an American citizen from Brooklyn. In short, there was no need to have nine people contribute to the story unless the purpose was to provide cover for those who wrote a story that was not entirely truthful.

Another Post story about the "suspect" was written by seven people. Post reporters Michael Grunwald and Amy Goldstein got ByLine credits for an article entitled An Unusual Odyssey: US-Born Latino Turns Islamic Terror Suspect (June 11), but five additional people assisted. They included staff writers Robert E. Pierre, Manuel Roig-Franzia, researcher Margot Williams, and correspondents Catherine Skipp and Christine Haughney. The main objective of the story was apparently to try al Muhajir/Padilla in the media by maligning his character in the eyes of the American public. According to the seven "unbiased" writers, the poor guy must be guilty because he’s (a) an ex-con, (b) a former member of a street gang, (c) completed a substance abuse course, (d) a convert to Islam, (e) married an Egyptian woman, and (f) left the country to join a cult and upset his mom. Wow! That’s some objective reporting about a fanatic Muslim. Thank God we have fair-minded newspapers like the Washington Post.

After thoroughly maligning the suspect’s character, the editorial page of the Washington Post condemned the government for detaining schmucks like al Muhajir/Padilla (p. A24, June 11). No one covers ALL of the bases like the folks at the Washington Post.

To top everything off, an Israeli lobby group called "Stand for Israel" ran a full page ad (p. A18) stating that Americans should support religious nut Jerry Fallwell over Yasser Arafat. Stand for Israel is obviously trying to enlighten Americans about the dirty little secret that evangelical Christians are—for all intents and purposes—watered down over Jews. The only difference between these two groups is that the Fallwell crowd believes that if you repeat the name Jesus enough times, then you’re automatically a Christian. Other than that one superficial point, they’re all essentially Jews. At the Washington Post, everyone is pro-Israel—left, right, moderate, you name it. Their non-stop message remains the same: Jews good, Arabs bad. The new message is "Fallwell good too."

It’s too bad we can’t read any cheerful news like, for example, Chandra Levy is alive and well running a prostitution ring in Tel Aviv. Wouldn’t that be good news. But I for one will sleep soundly knowing that the United States is protecting women everywhere from oppressive regimes like the Taliban, even though they outlawed narcotics. And who did America get to replace the narcotics-free Taliban? Drug smugglers of course—the Northern Alliance. But look at the bright side. At least they’re nice to women. ª