Multi-millionaire Bush family biz associate kills more than

[RainDog]

3000 people on Sept. 11, 2001. His family is allowed to leave the country without questions.

from Dude, Where's My Country- you can read three exerpts at The Guardian.

just another example of the way in which America's media gets on it's knees and services Republican crooks and traitors.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,1056702,00.html

"Danger - multi-millionaires at large"

"I've always thought it was interesting that the mass murder of September 11 was allegedly committed by a multi-millionaire. We always say it was committed by a "terrorist" or by an "Islamic fundamentalist" or an "Arab", but we never define Osama by his rightful title: multi-millionaire. Why have we never read a headline saying, "3,000 Killed by multi-millionaire"? It would be a correct headline, would it not?

Osama bin Laden has assets totalling at least $30m; he is a multi-millionaire. So why isn't that the way we see this person, as a rich fuck who kills people? Why didn't that become the reason for profiling potential terrorists? Instead of rounding up suspicious Arabs, why don't we say, "Oh my God, a multi-millionaire killed 3,000 people! Round up the multi-millionaires! Throw them all in jail! No charges! No trials! Deport the millionaires!!" "

[teryang]

1. Only little people suffer from war

...the rich go on with their deals and schemes as if nothing is happening other than increased profiteering.

[RainDog]

2. Moore also noted media whoredom in this way

...Rush, are you reading?

If Clinton had been in business with members of the McVeigh family when the OK City bombing occurred, would the so-called liberal media have let that pass in the same way they've let the Bush/bin Laden connections pass?

would they have continued to support the president's lies that the terrorist was estranged from his family, if the same family was celebrating his son's wedding six months before the attack?

No. The corporate-controlled media, especially Rush, would have been on that story like a fly on shit.

So why is the so-called liberal media virtually silent about the dubious connections between Bush and the bin Ladens, or Kean, head of the 9-11 investigative committee, and Khalid bin Mahfouz, listed as a financier of terrorism after the Cole bombing, yet in biz with Kean up until three weeks before Kean was appointed to head the 9-11 committee? (that was from Fortune, any freepers who might come across this should know, if they don't already.)

bin Mahfouz also owned 11% of Harken Energy.

Would the media have been silent on these "oddities" --esp considering the PNAC statement that they would need a "new Pearl Harbor" to justify an invasion of Iraq, and more?

Why did Bush try to stall an investigation into 9-11 for more than a year? Why did Bush keep 28 pp from the American public...could it be because those pages deal with his friends and sponsors of terrorism in Saudi Arabia?

If Bush is serious about a war on terror, why didn't he ask, back in July, who outed a CIA operative? If Bush is serious about the war on terror, why is he now trying to deflect attention from his unwillingness to allow equal justice under law? Does he think he and his administration are above the law? It's bullshit for him to say that it could be any more than a handful of "senior administration officials" who gave up a CIA agent to our enemies. An agent who worked on the hunt for WMD.

Is there one law for the rich and another for the poor?

Does Bush only care about WMD when he's lying about them?