Bin Laden Family Could Profit From a Jump In Defense Spending Due to Ties to U.S. Bank

Wall Street Journal Online ^ | September 27, 2001 | DANIEL GOLDEN, JAMES BANDLER and MARCUS WALKER

[Beep]

If the U.S. boosts defense spending in its quest to stop Osama bin Laden's alleged terrorist activities, there may be one unexpected beneficiary: Mr. bin Laden's family.

Among its far-flung business interests, the well-heeled Saudi Arabian clan -- which says it is estranged from Osama -- is an investor in a fund established by Carlyle Group, a well-connected Washington merchant bank specializing in buyouts of defense and aerospace companies.

[Askel5]

Classic crap. (Journalism major -- sorry!

If I were a journalism major, I'd too would be apologizing for using "classic crap".

[Beep]

You're missing the point. (Deliberately, I believe!) If you take the same set of facts and dole them out to different people, you'll get a different end result depending on what they want to lead you to believe. Straight-up, honest reporting is practically non-existent anymore. (If it weren't for FOX News, I think I'd pull out all my hair!) You don't have to be a journalism major to notice that these days!!

[Askel5]

Are you still in school?

[Askel5]

Just curious ... mostly it's your spirited replies that make me think you're young.

[Beep]

You do like to be coy, don't you?! I was apologizing for ranting. Not for making the observation! ;-}

I graduated loooonnnnggg ago!!

[Beep]

Young at heart, dear! Young at heart! ;-}

[Askel5]

Trust you stay thus always. Regards, SLJP.

[Howlin]

As for "proof", I think you'd be surprised.

I'll be surprised if has any, that's for sure.

Besides, there is the admissible evidence that is the body of sworn testimony he's built.

What sworn testimony has Larry Klayman taken concerning whether or not George Herbert Walker Bush ever met bin Laden?

And I surely do hope you don't think all "sworn testimony" is admissable evidence.

[gopgen]

As I've said before, attacking the bin Laden Group companies (that have no ties to Osama) would be like taking after Hearst Newspapers because Patty Hearst joined the Symbionese Liberation Army. If these people truly shun Osama, and are doing legit business, leave them alone. But if evidence is found that they support Osama, THEN you'll have reason to seize their assets.

[Howlin]

And here I was ready to join Howlin in being proud of the way our Public Servants make an honest buck in the off-season (or beyond our seamless national borders).

Since it's hard to tell with you, could you start labeling your "stuff" as "TRUE" or "SARCASM"?

[Beep]

And you as well! See? We can disagree and be civilized. I like that. Regards in return, Askel5!

[Askel5]

Of course not! Any attorney worth his billable rate gets the good stuff axed.

As happens to Klayman, I'm sure ... not that you'd cut some Joe who's taking on the Evil Clinton and the corruption of our entire federal government any slack ... =)

[Beep]

This is true! Can't argue that at all! The problem is how Klayman twisted and bent the facts to suit his purposes.

[Howlin]

Am I suppose to excuse lies because he went after Clinton?

Actually, what it does is make me question some of that stuff he said about Clinton.

[Askel5]

I'm a bit "spirited" myself but generally am attacking an action or an issue ... not the poster or a person.

With the exception of a few fundamental either/or questions, I'm always happy to agree to disagree as long as substantive discourse ensues.

[Beep]

It can get hard to tell when it starts getting deep, can't it?! ;-}

[Askel5]

Actually, what it does is make me question some of that stuff he said about Clinton.

AAAAAIIIIIAAAAAHHHH!!

(Askel runs screaming into the night having torn out all of her hair ...)

[Beep]

But you have to admit that there are just certain facts about certain people/newspapers/websites that are known to be true. For example -- the New York Times has a severe left-ward leaning, and everybody knows it. That's why Democrats like it, and why Republicans don't, as a rule.

Is the NYTimes a Gannett paper? I don't spend a lot of time reading it, so I have no idea anymore. At any rate, they are all liberal, and Gannett admits to it.

(Sorry to take so long; fell off my ISP!)

[Beep]

Poor Askel!! *G*

[Mercuria]

Am I suppose to excuse lies because he went after Clinton?

Actually, what it does is make me question some of that stuff he said about Clinton.

**blink**

Then I think maybe all of us should apologize to the TRIMPOTUS.

We were led astray by the evil Klayman, who lied about him for so long just for the money.

I'll let you compose the corporate letter begging Slick for absolution for our sin of doubting his integrity.

**G**