Devil, heres my opinion: (that is shared by many libertarians) I'm a libertarian who is a Republican when pushed.... i'll leave it at that... have fun with this thread...
Exactly. So we can kill them all if we want to, but we cannot reason or negotiate with them. They'll have none of it.
I think you changed it by providing a link to that article. As for everything else, I'm not going to bother. We're just running around in circles and it's useless. Agree to disagree. Oh, and "sanctimonious neo-conservative compassionate crap"? That's a good one, never heard that one before! Have fun going nowhere with this thread.
We may never know Bush's motives unless he comes clean in a memoir like MacNamara did. It's useless to speculate either way. I've always suggested that Bush was unwise and imprudent in occupying Iraq. I don't assume and do not maintain that he did it for personal reasons, although I'm sure he has some. He's aware of his reponsibility and I'm sure he was attempting to act on behalf of America. I just think he blundered badly with his neocon policy of trying to influence international politics with displays of American military power. That only works in situations where all the cards are in our favor, and we should reserve it for that. In Iraq Bush has exposed all of the weaknesses of our high-tech military in dealing with guerilla war. We should have been past this after Vietnam, and in fact we were. We lost focus on the true enemy -- Al Qaida. We did not stay on track after the really well-done operation in Afghanistan. Osama is still out there. Meanwhile we squander many lives and billions of our treasure on people who hate us and are killing our troops. Hillary's 1992 cradle-to-grave health care system could have been implemented for less than what we have wasted in Iraq already. Fair enough. I do not think the President connived to finish some old family feud. I don't think Bush was being self-seeking . . . I think he was being rash and foolish. I don't think he understands how to properly wield military muscle. And I do think we were misled.
I disagree, but that's what debates are made of. Rash and foolish? Rash, perhaps, but not foolish. Bush did not go into this without the advice of many learned and informed people. Sometimes the hard choices have to be made. That's why I appreciate the actions that Bush took. He didn't cock an ear to ascertain the direction of public winds. Military muscle is the only thing some people understand. Misled? No. Misinformed? Maybe. The one constant in this equation is 9/11/01. Not everybody can draw a straight line from al qaeda to Saddam. But the line does get there. Better safe than sorry, and, frankly, I am not the least bit sorry. Losing our youth to war is sad but necessary. It's how we got to where we are today. Taking a wait and see or soft approach to terrorism is not the way to go. Thank God Gore and Kerry lost. I wouldn't want to know where we'd be today had they been elected.
Ok. Let's talk terrorists. There are a suspicious number of links between Bush and the terrorists. Their chumminess demands an explanation, and none has been forthcoming. Let's look at them: George Bush Sr. and bin Laden Sr. were business partners. The bin Laden family financed George Bush Jr.'s early failed businesses. From their generous contributions, even though the companies failed, George was still able to live high on the hog. According to the book Fortunate Son bin Laden money, invested via James Bath, enabled George to get hooked on cocaine. He was busted in 1972 but got off with community service at Project P.U.L.L. a project for troubled black youth. In 1995, his father arranged to have the record purged and his son to get a new drivers' license number. George Bush Sr. and the bin Laden family are on the board of the Carlyle Group, a large defense contractor. The respected French daily Le Figaro owned by the Carlyle Group which employs George Bush Sr., reported that Osama bin Laden underwent treatment 72 days prior to 9-11 at the American Hospital in Dubai, he met a senior CIA official. He was not arrested even though he was internationally wanted. Radio France corroborated the story. According to the University of Ottawa Professor Michel Chossudovsky in his essay Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration? The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) in the September 11 Attacks, in the week prior to 9-11 all of Bush's cabinet met with Mahmud (sometimes spelt Mahmoud) Ahmad, the Pakistani ISI head of security, the man who is fingered in bankrolling bin Laden by wiring $100,000 to the lead highjacker Muhamed Atta just prior to 9/11. During the week before 9-11, Ahmad met with nearly all of the top people in Bush's administration. The instant the first plane hit on 9-11 hit Mahmud Ahmad was having breakfast with Representative Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Senator Bob Graham D-Florida and other members of the House Intelligence Committee. In Crossing the Rubicon, Mike Ruppert lists the exact times of each meeting and who was present. Ahmad's punishment for his role was being given early retirement according to the Times of India 2001-10-09. George Bush Jr. arranged for the bin Laden family to escape the USA by private jet when everyone else was still under lockdown. The bin Laden family were asked no questions. The bin Laden family have publicly renounced the black sheep Osama, but still talk to him on the phone and still give him large sums of money. According to Time Magazine 2002-12 Revelations that charitable donations by Bandar's wife Princess Haifa al-Faisal were sent to associates of associations of two Sept. 11 highjackers had some Congressmen questioning Saudi Arabia's commitment to the war on terrorism. The "donation" was $140,000 according the the Village Voice. Prince Bandar is the Saudi Ambassador to the USA. Bush calls him "Bandar Bush" and has been a close personal friend for many years. Bush parties with him. He is a charming member of the decadent Saudi royal family, and these guys make Michael Jackson look normal. Child rape is standard party entertainment among Saudi royals.
I thought you said you wanted to talk terrorists. Bin Laden's family are not terrorists - Osama Bin Ladin is a terrorist.
Actually, I wanted to discuss facts. But since nobody cares about the truth here, this is more fun. Call it martin-ization. At least this way, I get a good laugh out of it.
I'm unsure what to make of the relationship between the Bushes & the Bin Ladens. It's certainly something that people should wonder about and doesn't get alot of press. The facts you presented don't tell us anything more than that we should be suspicious. The truth is that this is politics - shady deals going on that the mass majority will never know about. We will never know the full story behind this & can only make our own assumptions behind the vague information that is known. And sometimes it does seem like no one here is interested in the facts, but it's just that people aren't interested in facts that don't support their beliefs. I'd say close to everybody here is guilty of it, regardless of which side of the spectrum you're on.
Ding Ding Ding. Rep points for the correct response. Following Mystikillusion's logic, anybody aligned with the Kennedys condones the murder of young women.
