"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:3FRZc.107321$Fg5.31523@attbi_s53...
BUFDRVR wrote:

Mike Dargan wrote:


Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists?


I'm sure you can provide an example?

Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud.

"This is where Unger's accusations are greeted with skepticism. For experts,
connection does not prove corruption. Jonathan D. Tepperman, senior editor
at the policy journal Foreign Affairs, argues that Unger's book "has done a
really good job" showing "a lot of smoke but what he hasn't done is shown me
there is any fire." Tepperman wrote a critical review of Unger's book in The
New York Times Book Review. In an interview, Tepperman agreed with Unger
that "these connections" (such as President Bush hosting Bandar at his
Crawford ranch, an honor usually reserved for heads of state) do "look bad."
But he adds "what I don't see is any evidence that the Bush family ever let
their personal financial concerns dictate U.S. policy."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in612852.shtml

A book full of inuendo, and short of hard evidence.


No? I didn't think so.

If you don't think very well, try to not think too much.

So what you are saying with all of that obtuse wording is that you don't
think too much?


Cheers

--mike

The only thing the
Saudi government has been guilty of is not cracking down on the Wahabbi
madrasses that are creating people who will be drawn to terrorist
groups. After
they blew up a square block of a Saudi city, the government got the
point and a
crack down has begun.

Odd how you missed out on this more important bit of Bufdrvr's response.

Brooks



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"