they will be overjoyed with the opportunity to spin it into some kind of Bush Conspiracy
2006-09-17 04:03:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by S H I R A Z 3
·
2⤊
4⤋
That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.
That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, Banco Ambrosiano, the P2 Lodge, the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so there’s no need to rehash all that. That was then, this is now!
That Jonathan Bush’s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.
That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.
That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama’s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.
That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.
That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.
The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.
That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.
2006-09-17 04:02:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by dstr 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Find him and we will let you know! That aint gonna happen because like Bush said I just dont think about him any more,terror is bigger than one man. By the way blind bush supporter did you know in the battle of tora bora there was only 60 if that much U.S. troops on the ground. It sounds like there is a serious effort NOT to catch Binladen.
2006-09-17 04:10:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by J S 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
well, since he is a friend of the bush family, probably not at all, unless he is actually caught in iraq, which im sure could be arranged. I think that the reason he hasnt been caught, publicly, is that he knows something about the wtc bombings that the bush regime doesnt want known. I dont think he will be captured alive and put on trial, not an open one anyway. to answer your question, think about it, think about why bush hasnt had him hunted down like a rabid dog.
2006-09-17 04:04:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by rand a 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
None whatsoever. Maybe daddy Bush can fork over some of the backpay Osama has coming. Be a great family reunion. Will you cry emotionally?
2006-09-17 04:04:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
The Liberals, or any right thinking person for that matter, are sadder that people like u with yr ideas actually exist. Liberals do not like terrorism as much as any other political group. But people like u , presumably an ill educated, bible waving redneck are more scary.
2006-09-17 04:05:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
It will be a sad day , indeed only thing, that will make it worse, Is
if when we catch him, he is caught dining on pork tamales and
guzzling down a ice cold Corona.
2006-09-17 04:07:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Liberals will celebrate when we catch OBL. We celebrated when we caught Saddam.
But let me guess, you listen Rush and Ann, don't you? Guess what, Rush is a drug addict and Ann is still bitter because she was kicked off Paula Jones' legal team.
2006-09-17 04:05:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by darkemoregan 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yeah if you cant catch him after 5 years there is a reason for that.
1.You are stupid.
2. You are incompetent.
3.You forgot what he looks like
4.You dont really want to catch him because hes actually a CIA operative.
2006-09-17 04:03:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
Of course not. I will be very happy when we catch Bush's buddy Osama.
2006-09-17 04:02:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by a4140145 4
·
4⤊
0⤋
Young man, as I doubt youre even old enough to vote, Osama wont be caught as your butt buddy dubba and his family are in business, and hes great for the adminstrations adgenda
2006-09-17 04:07:18
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋