[quote]JTF,
Do you even the read the garbage you post as evidence for your ridiculous ideas first? [/quote]
Yes. But this statement from the article in my previous post, “Since 1994 it has collected just $9,425 in fines for terrorism financing violations.” needs to be updated. You can add $25 million to that total. Thanks for making me look at that a little closer, I almost missed that.
Riggs Bank fined $25M for Saudi transactions
WASHINGTON (APOnline) - Federal regulators fined Riggs Bank a record $25 million on Thursday for allegedly violating anti-money laundering laws in its handling of tens of millions in cash transactions in Saudi-controlled accounts under investigation for possible links to terrorism financing.
The civil fine against the midsize Washington bank with a near-exclusive franchise on business with the capital’s diplomatic community is the largest ever imposed on a financial institution for such violations, experts said. It had been expected.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2004-05-14-riggs-fine_x.htm
Aren’t you sick of the liberal media droning on and on about that – blah, blah, blah… Bush’s uncle is a top Riggs executive http://tinyurl.com/c2bvo … blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Certainly the Bush connection, as we all know, is PURELY coincidental – now if for instance the Bushes had a prior cozy relationship with the Saudis’, then it might start to look a little suspicious. Of course as always, I’ll be reminded that this is unimportant, irrelevant, wacky, “conspiracy theory” stuff – after all what does this have to do with Iraq?.. MOVE ALONG – NOTHING TO SEE HERE… yawn. Quit trying to change the plot in the middle of the story.
[quote]Treasury Dept. - that lopsided assignment was instigated in 1990. Shutting down illegal business contacts with Cuba was a priority - after all, as of 1990, how may terror attacks had we suffered?
Don’t forget, this policy was created prior to the 1991 Gulf War, which was presumably one of the main drivers of OBL’s desire to attack the West - ie, US presence in the Gulf and in Saudi Arabia, etc. In this context, why would targeting OBL in 1990 make sense?
Also, as the priorities shifted in the 1990’s, it would have been the Clinton administration’s call to get the necessary reform. Now I am not here to ‘blame’ Clinton, but since 8 years went by without reform under Clinton’s watch, it is foolish to think that somehow this policy is the dark conspiracy of the Bush dynasty. But then, common sense has never been your strong suit.
Moreover, the article itself talks about how government officials were voicing concerns that there was a failure in the bureaucracy to adequately adapt from the Cold War to the Age of Terror - an important topic, but it can be hardly said that bureaucratic failure and oversight can be realistic evidence of a conspiracy to intentionally not go after OBL.[/quote]
“Sen. Max Baucus, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, requested the figures, which showed that at the end of 2003, OFAC had 21 full-time agents working Cuba violations and just four full-time workers hunting bin Laden’s and Saddam’s riches.”
Is it just me or does anyone else come up with two years between 9/11/2001 and “the end of 2003”? (To be fair, we did see firsthand how much damage a single cigar can do to our country) A little shift in focus would have been nice, maybe bring in a couple of temps - I thought after 9/11, Bin Laden was the “Ace of Spades”, “Public Enemy #1”, our “Top Priority” – hunt him down, smoke him out of his cave.
U.S. Ties to Saudi Elite May Be Hurting War on Terrorism
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1210-04.htm
Of course I’M accused of making wacky connections yet somehow you can make perfect sense of Bush’s “Magical Mystery Tour” from New York to Afghanistan to Iraq – where the hunt for Bin Laden and retribution for 9/11 suddenly switched to Iraq and WMD’s to liberating the Iraqi people. Of course even though we knew BEFORE we went into Iraq that intelligence was bad and inspectors had found nothing, we were assured they were there. http://tinyurl.com/66w9 What did we find - NOTHING.
When skeptics of the war said we would find NO WEAPONS and then after two years they’ve found NO WEAPONS, you might logically conclude there were NO WEAPONS. But not to the Bushites, just proof they were moved - can’t move something if it wasn’t ever there to begin with (HA HA, take THAT liberals). CNN.com - U.S. study: Iraq likely didn't ship WMD to Syria - Apr 26, 2005 Besides that’s not the main reason we went in there – we went there mainly to liberate the Iraqi people from an evil dictator.
Who DOESN’T remember America’s rally cry to “Liberate Iraq!” after the towers fell. I still get a lump in my throat remembering how we all felt, thinking about how that son-of-a-bitch Bin Laden was going to wish he had NEVER BEEN BORN when the Iraqi people finally voted! You can’t put a price on that my friend - unless that price happens to be $300 billion.
[quote]“As myth has it he’ll also be riding a unicorn when he’s captured.”
You know, JTF, I almost didn’t reply to this - there’s no sport in refuting you anymore.[/quote]
Yeah that was a little over the top – I have a feeling they might actually find a unicorn.
More likely the announcement will be made that we finally got him and we’ll be shown a bullet riddled corpse - yep, that’s him alright.
“The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind.”
-Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI