In Monday’s editorial “An Osama saga ending,” the writer referred to Osama Bin Laden as “Obama” by accident. The sentence should have read, “Which brings us back to Osama’s successful plot to blow up the World Trade Center…”
Additional CORRECTION: Within that article is the following from a purported exchange between Oliver North and the Iran Contra Congressional investigation, “Threatened? By whom?” the senator questioned. “By a Muslim terrorist, sir,” North answered. “Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?” “His name is Osama bin Laden, sir,” North replied. A forum participant, “Cisco” pointed out and I concur from memory that the terrorist in question was NOT Osama bin Laden. It was Abu Nidal.
James, you force me to correct myself. Osama was post-pubescent in that time frame. I asserted otherwise when I asserted he was still fighting zits and morning wood. My mistake. Sorry. But it may be misleading to assert that he was our “ally” and maintained a direct relationship with the CIA. The question is open. But certainly being the enemy of our “enemy” made him a “friend”.
Colonel, you are asserting a direct collaboration between Osama and the US/CIA. Osama was subordinate to the Mujahideen. It is settled that we were allied with the Mujahideen. It is NOT settled that we had direct business with Osama. Some sources assert direct dealings. Some refute. The question is open. You say it is closed. We disagree.
Phil, having been the military assistant to the Director of Operations of the CIA in that time period, there was direct business with Osama. I would say that I'm glad I left the organization before they engaged in torture, so I wouldn't have to feel dirty.