2005/01/27

The bounty on Osama's head

Maybe i'm a little behind on this one. I opened my new copy of Time Magazine yesterday, and inadvertantly, i'm sure, they offered more proof that Bush cared more about ousting Hussein than he did in finding the man responsible for killing 3,000 American citizens.

The excerpt from the article in the "notebook" section that caught my attention said this:
"What we're looking for is some young Pashtun living in a town, who knows the value of $25 million and can figure out how to reach us safely", says Kirk. He points out that the lure of a $30 million reward led to the capture and killing of Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay."

So, lets see if i've got this straight. The son's of a man who had done nothing to us, who's biggest crime to America was telling the truth, are worth more than the head of the MOST WANTED MAN ON THE PLANET? They were worth more than the man who carried out the biggest terrorist attack on American soil? They were worth more than the man who orchestrated the flying of our own aircraft into our own buildings and blowing up our citizens?

This is unacceptable. Even collectively (which is what i'm assuming because that's the way the article reads) that is too much. There is talk now of raising the bounty on his head to $50 million. 4 years too late if you ask me.

6 Comments:

Other than you seeing Saddam as a honest, innocent man, I find it impossible to argue with your logic. I'm sorry that IT IS that way, but I guess it is. Great blog.  

Posted by Mechelle
1/27/2005 08:15:00 pm  
i din't say he was innocent. i said his only crime to america was telling the truth. he did nothing to us. it's not up to the u.s. to police the entire world. if it was we'd be in sudan right now. saddam was a horrible man yes, but he did nothing to the u.s. to cause us to destroy iraq the way we have done. 

Posted by angiekruger
1/27/2005 08:49:00 pm  
If Saddam was so horrible, why did our US Government support him, give him money, arms, chemicals, and technology? For years. Many years. The truth is, whether or not a dictator is horrible to his people, or even breeds terrorists (think Saudi Arabia) has nothing to do with whether or not Bush & Co. want to do business with them. For our current Administration, it doesn't matter what these sick, criminal leaders do, just so long as they themselves are making money. This makes them, and us, a party to the sickness, and a party to the crime. In other words, it is clear we did not go after Saddam Hussein because he was a bad man. We went after him because the President and his buddies saw an opportunity for the companies they sit on the boards of to make a lot of money.
Our government maintained its support WHILE he was killing, torturing, and gassing people in Iraq and Iran. You are supporting the very_same_people, Mechelle. And I mean the exact same people:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

How can this fact not cause you to stop and consider the implications? 

Posted by Sarah
1/27/2005 09:05:00 pm  
Good points Sarah. This is another area that conservatives always jump around or make excuses for. The US has been supporting terrorist and dictators for years when it suits their purpose. Most governments around the world are guilty of this in one form or another. Our eyes are closed as long as it's profitable. 

Posted by Dianne
1/27/2005 09:19:00 pm  
Interesting stuff Angie. I wish I knew where Osama was - I could do with 50 million bucks, even 25 would do nicely thank you!

Then again, I wouldn't trust Bush to pay up anyway, LOL. 

Posted by WhyNot
1/27/2005 09:27:00 pm  
I'll follow the link you gave me ...  

Posted by Mechelle
1/28/2005 12:33:00 am  

:
:
:

BloggerHacks

<< Home