🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:24:00 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:

>On 2007-07-15 19:53:57 -0400, Phil <dogglebe@yahoooo.com> said:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:43:13 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2007-07-15 11:36:44 -0400, Phil <dogglebe@yahoooo.com> said:
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:57:01 -0400, Joeseph P. Blow <jpblow@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> So blowing the same women and children to bits from a distance like
>>>>> the US does isn't cowardice? Fool.
>>>> 
>>>> Actually, it's the smart way to conduct war.
>>> 
>>> So Bin Laden is a genuis in your eyes for 9/11?
>> 
>> No.  Bin Laden didn't commit an act of war.  He committed an act of
>> terrorism.
>> And it wasn't him in the plane, either.
>
>What about George Bush? The conventional thought would be that Osama 
>would want Bush gone because of his dreaded �war on terror�, except for 
>the fact that Osama apparently doesn�t qualify for Bush as a target of 
>this war. Lets look at the facts:
>
>Five months before 9-11, the Bush administration welcomed the Taliban 
>to the White House, knowing full well they supported and harbored 
>Osama. The administration then also gave 43 million dollars to the 
>Taliban, reportedly for aid in light of the destruction of the opium 
>crop that year. Osama must have been grateful.
>
>Two months before 9-11, when bin Laden was still public enemy # 1 
>because of his alleged role in the Cole bombing, he was actually 
>treated in an American hospital in Dubai. Not only was he treated for 
>his ongoing kidney problems, but also he was reportedly seen by a CIA 
>agent, and then was simply allowed to ride off into the bad-guy sunset. 
>Of course the administration denies this, but it was broadly reported. 
>Widely respected John O�Neill, the counter-terrorism expert who was 
>renowned for being the most committed tracker of Osama, resigned from 
>the FBI at this point because of what he called repeated obstruction by 
>the White House. O�Neill tragically, and conveniently, dies in the 
>Trade Center attacks, on his first day at his new job. Osama must be 
>really starting to like our President at this point.
>
>After being blamed for the 9-11 attacks, Bush then gave bin Laden a 
>two-month head start before trying to track him down. Multiple reports 
>from that country at that time simply state that he still could have 
>been caught, if that was truly the goal of the administration. After 
>installing the new government, and signing the pipeline deal on the 
>first day, Bush largely ignored Afghanistan and when asked about bin 
>Laden soon after, he responded that �he is someone who is marginalized 
>now, I really don�t think about it that much.� Reports say that bin 
>Laden was registering as a republican at this point.
>
>The single event that sealed bin Laden�s support for Bush, was the 
>decision to invade Iraq. The benefits for bin Laden were threefold. On 
>the one hand, it took resources out of Afghanistan, so that the Taliban 
>could reassert themselves and he could be left alone. Secondly, he got 
>to watch Bush obliterate a country that he opposed, due to its secular 
>nature. I know Cheney would have you believe that Saddam had bin Laden 
>over for curry goat every month, but the truth is that they were polar 
>opposites and actually never really collaborated on anything.  Lastly, 
>because of all the attention paid to Iraq, which has nothing to do with 
>a war on terror, bin Laden has been allowed to fade into the fabric of 
>American fear again, only to be pulled out during election times, with 
>vague and unsubstantiated warnings.
>
>There is no doubt that Osama would vote for Bush. In just three years 
>he went from public enemy number one, to being marginalized. One day 
>you are a worldly pariah, the next day, you are not thought of much. 
>Who would Osama vote for? I think that is pretty obvious. Bush hasn�t 
>done wrong by him yet, why change in mid-stream?

>--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

No kidding? That's scary.