Actually, it is a simple question. One of the simplest ever. Here's your problem. Assuming a conclusion, then assigning blame based upon that conclusion. OBL is supposed to be in the pakistan tribal regions, where Pakistan will not all our troops, so getting to him is rather difficult. Since pakistan will not go in there either, in force. It makes it doubly difficult doesn't it? Pakistan is realizing their policy is a mistake: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/w...0856000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all And we are trying to get him: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSISL13654620070619?pageNumber=1 But lobbing missiles in there is all that is possible. Does either of these stories sound like bush not caring about OBL? (I don't care how his name is spelled). If you want to continue to play beaten wife and wonder how the offense bothers him; that's your perogative.
By the way, going back on topic, Ron Paul is not more popular because of the main stream media. They don't want his kind of talk about the Constitution and freedom because they are controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations. Ron Paul is not a member like John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Rudy Giuliani. The CFR is for world government and dismantling the sovereignty of the United States. Are you for that?
I don't concern myself with that private organizations think about. CFR has opinions that vary the spectrum. They have R's, D's and guys in the middle. It's not an organization hell bent on anything. It's a think tank. Who cares. Do you? Maybe you should concern yourself with actual issues, such as figuring out how you feel about OBL's demands, instead. Don't you think?
Bush himself said, and I quote, "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
So you didn't bother to look at either of the links I posted, read the stories or anything. Or you didn't even bother to read my entire post about it. Glad you are confirming that you want to remain ignorant.
See this post of mine for total pwnage of GTech, lorien and the rest of the crazy gang mate. They couldn't give me an answer to my question, and that is because Tim Osman was a patsy. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=252803
AGS is happy that "bush isn't after OBL", because in AGS mind OBL is innocent of all crimes and just flies kites out in the desert. Dunno why he brings up that thread. He confirms the same several times there
LOL. You clowns could not answer that simple question that I posed in that thread. I pwned your asses because you had no answer. Even your own hero Bush said that he "didn't think that much about him" only 6 months after he said that he will be found "dead or alive" after (ostensibly) masterminding the deaths of around three thousand people. One word: Patsy.
he danced and danced around that one without really answering the question... AGS, I have come to the conclusion that these people are not worth talking to.
Here's your problem. Assuming a conclusion, then assigning blame based upon that conclusion. OBL is supposed to be in the pakistan tribal regions, where Pakistan will not all our troops, so getting to him is rather difficult. Since pakistan will not go in there either, in force. It makes it doubly difficult doesn't it? Pakistan is realizing their policy is a mistake: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/wo...pagewanted=all And we are trying to get him: http://www.reuters.com/article/world...9?pageNumber=1 But lobbing missiles in there is all that is possible. Does either of these stories sound like bush not caring about OBL?
A few of the "GTech crazy gang" danced around that thread mate, not a single one of the idiots could give an answer to it. Imagine that, a few hours (yes hours!) after 9/11 OBL was already fingered for it (fucking amazing as they were supposed to have no idea about the attack ) then MISERABLE FAILURE Bush said that he will be found "dead or alive." Only six months after that the MISERABLE FAILURE Bush says that he "doesn't think about him too much these days." You do the math.
Incorrect, again. You simply proved, once again, that facts do not matter and confirmed your support for bin laden by confirming you don't believe he's guilty, even after he's admitted so. Lorien noted above, that we do not have permission from Pakistan to go trapsing around their country looking for him. This has been a long standing policy from Pakistan, yet you pretend it's not there. Further, you take one sentence out of the context of his Press Conference. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html But you wouldn't post the full context, which answered your silly question in the first place. Nope, you simply confirmed your support for him by declaring him innocent. Twice in one day, supporting terrorists. That has to be a record for AGS.
I don't think Usama Bin Laden is innocent... as a matter of fact he should be hung for all the crimes he's committed. I also don't think he was the mastermind behind 9/11.
Last post for me today babe as it's 4.30a.m here in the good 'ol UK and AGS needs his beauty sleep. You still never answered why Bush's outlook on Bin Laden changed within six months, forget the Pakistan BS if Bush had really wanted to he could have called that one, the reason he didn't was because Bin Laden was the patsy and served his purpose. Funny ain't it GTech he is never mentioned any more. Don't you find that strange? I certainly do as we heard nothing but Osama Bin Laden every single day for months after 9/11. He served his purpose and the rest is history, thousands of inniocent civillians dead, US troops dying every single day and all because your President is a lying terrorist scumbag. I'm amazed that you can sleep at night GTech.
Bush answered it himself. I quoted it. The single line quote was dishonest to begin with. When it's all put together, not only does it make sense, but it answers your ficticious question. Lorien followed up with why we cannot just go trapsing around in Pakistan, as did I. It's all right there, but I suspect that the facts are not what you had in mind.
found something interesting... in video 4 about 3/4 of the way through, Ron Paul says he's seen no evidence that our government was behind 9/11 http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=2720