No more desperate than Krusher was to post that link, I'm just showing how easy it is to turn the same type of argument against Bush.
Those who try to whitewash Bush's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:
Is it true that the Bin Ladens have had business relations with Bush and family off and on for the past 25 years?
Most Americans might be surprised to learn that you and your father have known the Bin Ladens for a long time. What, exactly, is the extent of this relationship, Mr Bush? Are you close personal friends, or simply on-again, off-again business associates? Salem bin Laden - Osama's brother - first started coming to Texas in 1973 and later bought some land, built himself a house, and created Bin Laden Aviation at the San Antonio airfield.
After leaving office, your father became a highly paid consultant for a company known as the Carlyle Group - one of the nation's largest defence contractors. One of the investors in the Carlyle Group - to the tune of at least $2m - was none other than the Bin Laden family. Until 1994, you headed a company called CaterAir, which was owned by the Carlyle Group.
After September 11, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this connection. Your first response, Mr Bush, was to ignore it. Then your army of pundits went into spin control. They said, we can't paint these Bin Ladens with the same brush we use for Osama. They have disowned Osama! They have nothing to do with him! These are the good Bin Ladens.
And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of these "good" Bin Ladens - including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers - with Osama at his son's wedding just six and a half months before September 11. It was no secret to the CIA that Osama bin Laden had access to his family fortune (his share is estimated to be at least $30m), and the Bin Ladens, as well as other Saudis, kept Osama and his group, al-Qaida, well funded.
Using the same tortured circular logic as in krushers link it's clear that Bush is an al-Queda operative.
In the end the backpedaling and obfuscating by the right wing will still not be able to disguise the fact that Bush lied to us about the reasons for war with Iraq.
Just what was the "imminent threat" posed by Saddam?
I don't see it anywhere in Kays report.
