Col. Lawrence Wilkerson regarding Bush & Cheney: “I Don’t Think THEY REALLY WANTED TO GET BIN LADEN.

[Segami]

Run time: 01:13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4oUlgA4GNM   Posted on YouTube: May 12, 2011 By YouTube Member: bizbuzz2000 Views on YouTube: 254   Posted on DU: May 12, 2011 By DU Member: Segami Views on DU: 1421

 
from RAWSTORY:


Former Colin Powell Chief of Staff: Bush didn’t want to get bin Laden


Former Colin Powell Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson told MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Wednesday that President George W. Bush wasn’t interested in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice.

“I don’t think they really wanted to get bin Laden,” Wilkerson said.

“You could be very cynical and say he didn’t want to get him because once they got him the war was over and that left all the political advantage gone,” he added. “Or you could say that they knew that it was almost an impossibility to get him given what they had done to the intelligence and other aspects of the government that you needed to get him. They just about ruined it.”


http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/former-colin-powell-chief-of-staff-bush-didnt-want-to-get-bin-laden/



.

[Ineeda]

1. I'm going with the first theory.

No OBL --> no boogieman --> no excuse for war --> no world domination --> no money in their pockets.

[Segami]

2. I agree. Thats why they let OBL get away at Tora Bora. They needed to keep the Bin Laden Threat

alive and well in order to continue their " War on Terrorism " campaign of Fear mirage. Weapons manufactures really loved that move.

[SemperEadem]

4. Shock doctrine

[spooky3]

3. The bin Laden family may have also appealed to their friends, the Bush family

To " let it go" in exchange for a little oil money.

[grasswire]

5. I say we send a team in to the Kennebunkport Bush compound...

...and see what Poppy Bush has in his journals. Or maybe just a congressional subpoena from an inquiry.

[jwirr]

6. In order to scare the people you need a monster. They did not want

to get him because they needed him.

[NCcoast]

7. Exactly... Bin Laden was Goldstein from 1984

If they had killed him they would have had to create another one to replace him. Why kill off a perfectly good enemy when he's essential for achieving your nefarious geopolitical goals? Hello... Leo Strauss, neo-conservatism, noble lies, achieving the goals of the ruling class, Exxon-Mobile, that's it in a nutshell. This is exactly what I was thinking a decade ago. But thanks for saying it anyway Lawrence.

[90-percent]

8. MY beautiful mind

Why waste it looking backward at Crimes against Humanity perpetrated by the GW Bush White House?

Now we all get to look forward to a future where we have wars anywhere any time any place for no reason at all.*

-90% Jimmy


*http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AAAFNRAA