posted on October 22, 2001 07:56:50 AM new
Yeah, yeah, the bin laden family supposedly disowned their errant black sheep, but that's got nothing to do with the financier of his operations for several years also being directly and indirectly in business with George W. Bush.
There are links upon links and it's not conspiracy theory. It seems that dumbya's close ties may be shown to extend to as late as 1999. Maybe later than that. But it's all innocent, right? Well, if you admit to his lameness maybe it is.
But considering that there have been at least hints of plans for extreme terrorist attacks which go back as far as the early 1990's is it really conceivable that no one ever advised the prospective candidate about the improprietous appearance of his dealings? At least?
"On September 24, President George W. Bush appeared at a press conference in the White
House Rose Garden to announce a crackdown on the financial networks of terrorists and
those who support them. “U.S. banks that have assets of these groups or individuals must
freeze their accounts,” Bush declared. “And U.S. citizens or businesses are prohibited from
doing business with them.”
"Though Bush told the Wall Street Journal he had “no idea” BCCI was involved in Harken’s
financial dealings, the network of connections between Bush and BCCI is so extensive that
the Journal concluded their investigation of the matter in 1991 by stating: “The number
of BCCI-connected people who had dealings with Harken—all since George W. Bush came on
board—raises the question of whether they mask an effort to cozy up to a presidential son.”
Or even the president: Bath finally came under investigation by the FBI in 1992 for his
Saudi business relationships, accused of funneling Saudi money through Houston in order
to influence the foreign policies of the Reagan and first Bush administrations.
Worst of all, bin Mahfouz allegedly has been financing the bin Laden terrorist
network—making Bush a U.S. citizen who has done business with those who finance and
support terrorists. According to USA Today, bin Mahfouz and other Saudis attempted to
transfer $3 million to various bin Laden front operations in Saudi Arabia in 1999. ABC
News reported the same year that Saudi officials stopped bin Mahfouz from contributing
money directly to bin Laden. (Bin Mahfouz’s sister is also a wife of Osama bin Laden, a fact
that former CIA Director James Woolsey revealed in 1998 Senate testimony.)
When President Bush announced he is hot on the trail of the money used over the years to
finance terrorism, he must realize that trail ultimately leads not only to Saudi Arabia,
but to some of the same financiers who originally helped propel him into the oil business
and later the White House. The ties between bin Laden and the White House may be much
closer than he is willing to acknowledge."
posted on October 22, 2001 02:57:15 PM newkrs - come on over to "The erotic truth" thread and talk about sex with us. Get your mind off what's his name Laden.
posted on October 26, 2001 01:21:01 PM new
Not sure why Bunnicula, but when one is defending W it seems one must resort to sarcasm and foolishness rather than discuss the pros and cons of W's abilitites. I would sincerely like to participate in a discussion with a W sopporter or two regarding his record in business, politics, party life, etc. Starting to think there is no other side...ya can point out his short comings but no one can intelligently point out his abilities. They just get sarcastic, compare his record as being equitable to Clinton's (which the obviously hold in contempt). I am starting to think that W's only good point is that he is Republican...
posted on October 26, 2001 05:46:00 PM new
W's decisions affect the lives of my-and every other person who has someone in the military-loved ones.
So while y'all are busy dissing the man, keep in mind that those of us with family in the military are praying the man is the right man for the job regardless of what he's done or not done in the past.
posted on October 26, 2001 11:30:29 PM new
"those of us with family in the military are praying the man is the right man for the job regardless of what he's done or not done in the past."
I understand how you feel but, purely from observation, it is obvious to me that George is only out for himself and he will sacrifice anything and anyone to get what he wants.
[ edited by outoftheblue on Oct 27, 2001 06:58 PM ]
posted on October 27, 2001 01:01:27 AM new
When the bombing of the former Yugoslavia was going on, the Apaches were trotted down there and told to get ready to provide support for possible ground troops. At the time, Gen. Clark advocated ground troops to go in and make short work of the situation instead of dragging things out using strictly air raids(with strict rules and regs about who, what, where, and when they bombed).
Gen. Clark was shot down by the suits in DC who were busily covering their political asses for the American people who weren't prepared to lose any of our kittens over there. The bombings continued.
While all the wrangling was going on, one of the Apaches went down and both pilots were killed.
Not long after that, the decision came from DC(and the Pentagon) to halt bombing. The goal of forcing Milosevic was not achieved. He remained in power until his own supporters forced him out and turned him over for prosecution on war crimes. All the bombings did was make life difficult for the average citizen. Gen. Clark was considered not to be a team player(meaning he had the best interests of his people in mind, the desire to do the mission to which he was assigned, AND refused to be a sheep to the suits in DC) and essentially fired from his job. The Pentagon replaced him with Gen. Ryan, a move that was interpreted as a way to make up to Ryan for losing out on the JCoS job and to reward him for being a team player.
We watched the change of command ceremony and Ryan's "Gee, I'm glad to be here" speech and the stony faces and negative body language of the other NATO members present said it all-they were not at all amused by what the suits had done.
One of the Apache pilots who died in that crash was the husband of a quilting buddy. Given what happened, both those pilots died for nothing, all because the politicians(and I include the suits at the Pentagon here) were more interested in their polls and playing politics than in how their decisions might affect the troops in the field.
And I won't go into how the suits betrayed the troops in the field during Viet Nam...
I'm well aware of how politicians can screw with the lives of the military as though the troops aren't real people but little playing pieces to be shoved around a board in a sort of living game of Risk. I'm no dewy-eyed optimist and I have a low opinion of the current crop of suits in DC and the Pentagon.
However, I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, praying that perhaps this crop of suits will be the exception and not just another version of the rule.
Incidentally, I see all this beefing about W and Co. but is anyone actually doing anything about the situation? Or is beefing all that's being done?
Unless a person is going to take constructive action to rectify a situation-and if one thinks constantly beefing on a chat board is constructive, one is mistaken-beefing means squat.
posted on October 27, 2001 04:46:34 AM new
Shadowcat,
There are several ongoing efforts to amass support for 'puttin up' as you term it, but do remember that it took nearly five years of grassroots effort before Vietnam became a sufficient political issue to sway the actions (or promises) of suits. Unless you are challenging some vocal objectors to make the ultimate change as has been done in the past?
Part of the difficulty is that the military will almost uniformly support military actions. The military gains from the top to the bottom in cases such as this one. Budgets are allocated with ease, promotions are made rapidly and careers are thereby enhanced. Very many of the unnecessary deaths in Vietnam were a direct result of the desire amongst the officer ranks to enhance their careers by having a 'combat' command on the record. Completely inept people were given those chances for commands, awards, and the other acoutrememnts of combat service--the blue braid, the ranger sticker, the valorous unit awards, or just a particular unit patch to wear on the left shoulder. It became ultimately so bad that troops were killing their officers to save their own lives, and the frequency of that occurance, now minimized by the military, will never be known. The troops were as puppets to the self seeking personal, financial, and political aims of the country and in the later years, especially with fairly easy access to news, they knew it. No one fought or died in Vietnam in defence of this country.
This 'war' smacks of the same opportunism. Where it began to hunt bin laden, as he was the perp, it soon became unimportant to find him but rather to take out the Taliban with side targeting of Irag. Now there are as many as sixty nations under consideration by the administration for attack under the blanket cause of war on terrorism.
Yesterday Kabul was bombed on some holy day for all muslims. What was the point of that other than to excite all muslim nations to fight?
In other cases, as in bosnia, the US involvement resulted from participation in U.N. efforts at peacekeeping, but this time there's none of that. We're bullying nations with technology so as to have our way with their resources. It's got nothing to do with the WTC anymore.
posted on October 27, 2001 08:13:50 AM new
To attack President Bush and his administration is about as tactful as accusing Vietnam vets of being baby-killers who were only following orders. It's one part truth, mixed with nine parts political rhetoric.
No Vietnam combat veteran will ever get over that war. But WTC is not Vietnam. I'm sure the people who live in New York City and Washington, DC don't see it that way.
Terrorism is real, a very real threat to American citizens on American soil. You can bet your ass that Bin Laden is getting ready to light up nuclear weapons on America. Pulling out of Israel won't stop him. The only solution is to put Bin Laden's head on a spike, and level any political group that supports him.
posted on October 27, 2001 09:46:19 AM new
But Steve,
For those that disagree with you...they should be able, even encouraged to speak too. It is un-American to try to make them quiet. We all should have the chance to form our opinions, to speak and discuss them. It does not mean one is not patriotic...it just shows we are individuals capable of individual thoughts.
posted on October 27, 2001 10:10:39 AM new
I don't understand this desire to squelch dissent. I'm not comfortable with many of the actions recently taken to protect us from terrorism. I think there may be more to fear from unwarranted searches than from anthrax - and I live in an area where anthrax is travelling through the mail.
Shadowcat, what do you mean by "Put up"? For many of us, voicing our opinions on issues is our way of "putting up".
I get the feeling that some people fear that if we don't put up a solid,unquestioning front, we're doomed. I don't see things that way. I'd like to see our armed forces act effectively, but I also think some of these threats are home-grown and we'd be wise to address that issue as well.
posted on October 27, 2001 10:12:27 AM new
GF, I have no desire to stifle anyone. I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe in a free and open exchange of ideas. Having said that, in all the time I've been at AW, that one post ^^^ (Bush will sacrifice your son to get what he wants...) is the most inconsiderate and hurtful I've seen yet. I expressed my opinion re: that kind of dialog a while back.
It's not the discussion that irks so much as the hypocrisy. This board is dominated by a small (very small) faction of posters who attempt to further their own political agenda by attacking the U.S. government. Bush certainly isn't the only one using this crisis to enhance his own political agenda.
Free and open discussion is wonderful. Endless, impotent haranguing of our government based on a decades-old resentment is tiresome. My opinion is the same for any poster who uses these forums to promote their own political or religious agenda. Give it a rest once in a while.
posted on October 27, 2001 11:00:24 AM new
When I need a break Steve, I quit reading. Seems much more effective than me trying to convince someone else to start or stop talking.
posted on October 27, 2001 11:24:35 AM new
Well, Granny, you're right about that. I've been chatting at another (unmoderated) forum but came back for some intelligent political discussion. This place doesn't change.
Despite claims, bottom line, this forum is nothing but opinions. Truth always lies somewhere in the middle. Folks that cling rigidly to their own belief system aren't interested in truth; they are in the game for ego fulfillment. Having an open mind is, IMO, a prerequisite to intelligent discussion.
posted on October 27, 2001 06:38:41 PM new
twinsoft
If you are referring to me, I made and observation based on many of GWs comments. I do not like the man and his arrogance and have a right to voice an opinion. I didn't like Clinton particularly either but no one here seems to mind if people bash him. I will admit that the statements I made could have been more tactful..
I have the right to speak my mind and you have the right to correct me if I'm wrong. That's what freedom of speach is all about.
[ edited by outoftheblue on Oct 27, 2001 06:57 PM ]
