Were they ever actually looking for him in the first place? If so, why did they let his family members leave the country on Sept. 11?
This also brings to mind the story of John O'Neill, former FBI counterterror cheif in charge of the Bin Laden investigation, who resigned from a 32 year stint in the Bureau to head security at the World Trade Center. Apparently he died in the fatal attacks on 911. Learn more about him here.
The US government's inability (unwillingness?) to capture Bush family friend and former (current?) CIA asset Bin Laden raises quite a few questions. Some believe he is already dead. Regardless, the FBI admits there is no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the 911 attacks.
Whatever the case may be, it is obvious that his capture hasn't been a top priority for the Bush regime or the US intelligence community. So why are we still talking about him?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think it's perposterous to imagine that Bush would make OBL Enemy #1, and then wish to not find him. Anti-Bushies have imaigined that OBL was already killed or captured, and that the Bushies would announce it when they needed a poll boost. Now they're imagining that Bush never wanted to capture/kill him in the first place.
It certainly doesn't make sense either that if Nadir kills somebody that (1) the US govt is responsible or that (2) Nadir's family needs detainment. But this is what the anti-Bushies erect as conditions of Bush competence in these matters.
These commentaries seem to derive from a Grand Unified Theory of Everything, in which super powerful alliances of people pull special levers that dictate everything that appears in the news. Can't find Hussein? That's because Bush doesn't want to find him. Found and killed him? Result of some sinister mechanation. No banned weapons found? It's because Bush lied via a network of subterfuge. If they do get found, it'll result from Bush planting them. Whatever happens in the news, it results from evil super powers of a hidden network of devils.
I used to buy into this view, but reject it now. I think that Bush wants to capture OBL, etc., that US forces can facilitate a free democracy in Iraq, that most people there want this, that freedom and democracy in Iraq will lead to greater average wealth amoungst its people, that this will "speed along history" leading to other muslim nations doing so as well, and that widespread freedom/prosperity will minimize the amount of anti-US terrorism and maximize the economic benefits for the US. Bush's beliefs may turn out to be wrong, but I am certain that these are his beliefs and aims.
The truth is no evidence points to Osama Bin Laden in the 911 attacks. He was used as a boogeyman to unite the nation behind the previously planned US invasion of Afghanistan. 911 was simply the justification for this act.
We know that Colin Powell discussed this invasion with foreign diplomats as early as May 2001. The precursor was Clinton's bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan after the embassy bombings which also produced no evidence that implicated Bin Laden.
The US was determined to overthrow the Taliban because of their opposition to the natural gas pipeline and their refusal to play ball with Washington on other issues.
Bin Laden was and has always been a patsy and a scapegoat for the US government.
If invading Iraq made sense after 911 it certainly made sense before 911... even more sense, as it could have theoretically prevented 911. But erecting a democracy takes time, as does harvesting its fruits. A democracy in Iraq in 1999 or 2000 probably wouldn't have prevented 911 (assuming that this model is sound), but a 1991 establishment of democracy in Iraq may have prevented a 911 in 2001.
The super clever, omnipotent Bushies, staging 911, but unable to plant WMDs in Iraq. "The truth is out there," Nadir, and it must be a burden to have discovered it. What a terrible country! Why would anybody ever want to live here?
Post a Comment