Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (663402)	12/1/2004 4:38:29 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Silly Sandy.... The CIA never said there weren't 'contacts'... there were. Just no operational alliance, no cooperation. CIA reported that Saddam turned down the offer of 'cooperation'. OBL didn't go to Baghdad (probably because he didn't cotton to the idea of putting his life in the hands of Saddam). If you are looking for real cooperation, look where the money came from (Saudi Arabia). Look where 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers came from (Saudi Arabia). Look where the tactical support of a Secret Service came from (Pakistan). Look who wired $100,000 to the 9-11 hijackers just before they struck (the head of Pakistan's CIA). Look where he gained succor and support (Sudan and Somalia and Afghanistan). But, if you think that any contact means there is an operational 'alliance'... then that would probably include every Arab nation in the world, much of the former Soviet Southern Asia 'republics'... and most especially the USA (if you only go back far enough). Hell, OBL was CIA trained while fighting in Afghanistan. That's a 'tie'. Members of his family invested big money into Bush's earliest oil ventures, into his Texas Rangers investment, that's a 'tie', by your sloppy definition. Saddam had (especially after Desert Storm) more then enough trouble with the West --- he certainly didn't need to go courting more. And OBL hated Saddam for all the Islamic fundamentalists he'd put to death. 'Secular' Dictators like Saddam and the Saudi Royals were EXACTLY who OBL was calling to be over-thrown by the Arab street... to be replaced with his glorious Islamic fundamentalist republic. Putting Saddam and OBL together would have been like a spider and a centipede in a bottle: only one would come out). Your Michael Reagan article --- every time it tries to tries to talk about an 'Iraq/OBL relationship', it slips SUDAN in instead. It's silly. Didn't you even read it?