Bush's actions have always shown him to be soft on the sponsors of terrorism

Submitted by Rachel Garber, Philadelphia (United States), Oct 3, 2007 at 21:07

I've commented on this before. George W. Bush, and the Bush family have an incestuous relationship with the Saudis, the main sponsors of terrorism within the Muslim world. After 9/11 it was determined that Osama Bin Ladin was the primary sponsor of the bombing of the World Trade Center, yet after a few months of pursuing bin Ladin in Afghanistan, where did the hunt for terrorists shift to, Iraq. Even though there was certainly much abuse of the Iraqi citizens by Saddam Hussein, our government never cared about it until it proved a good diversion from bin Ladin. So obsessed was Bush in tracking down Hussein, that he ignored all evidence to the contrary. He even outed a CIA agent in retaliation for her husband's unwillingness to fall into line regarding the "yellow cake" issue.

For anyone who doesn't think there is a connection between the Saudis and terrorism because bin Ladin was ousted from their country, keep in mind that was done only because the Saudi royal family is afraid of the bin Ladin's of the world getting too much power over them. In her book, Because They Hate, Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian, now an American citizen details the enormous amount of money the Saudis have invested in our country, in many companies, as well as universities. Aside from wanting to use their money to influence American public opinion regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, they are also "storing" their money where it is safe from the prying eyes of the Muslim mullahas. As much as they allow Wahhbism to flourish in Saudi Arabia, they know that their days can be numbered. As much as they inveigh against the infidel, and his evil ways, they also like to come to the US to "wallow" in our "sinful" ways.

Just to remind people, in addition to the falling off of interest in Bin Ladin a few months after 9/11, a few days after 9/11, several Saudis were permitted to leave the US without being interviewed by the CIA or anyone else. Now I wonder why that would be.

Clinton was impeached for lying about having sex with a woman in the Oval Office. While I don't condone Clinton's behavior, I can't help but wonder if George W. Bush's actions haven't warranted impeachment. Of course that would never happen with the Republicans controlling Congress, and now for some reason, the Democrats don't seem to be up to it either.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".