I'm surprised you'd call what Slick did (provocative bombings in Iraq for a decade before 9/11, during which time Osama was recruiting for murder-volunteers) "protecting America," but it figures you and much of the audience would agree with Rudy despite the facts. You're angry, as am I. It doesn't make you right, though.

Consider for a moment: You are Osama bin Laden, and you're a heroic fighter. With the help (now un-appreciated -- take note interveners!!!) of the Christian Intelligence Agency, you have kicked the Atheists -- the second most powerful military in the world -- out of Afghanistan despite the odds. It's the early '90s, and while victorious over there, back at your home there are awful problems, you think. The evil Saddam's failed Kuwait adventure has led the Saudi dictators you hate to invite the Christian armies to stay on the Holiest of All Lands in great numbers even after his invasion failed & was kicked-out of Kuwait. Worse yet, the Christians' BJ-hound President enforces an idiotic and corrupt UN "Oil for Food" program in Iraq from the Holiest of All Lands in Iraq, and occasionally he sends planes from the Holiest of All Lands to bomb fellow Muslims also on Muslim land -- an outrage in your eyes as innocent children starve, and you DO NOT blame Saddam (you see their media, remember, not ours!). Both Saddam and the Saudi dictatorship, to you, are horribly corrupt, but far worse is the ultimate evil of letting foreign invaders have a military presence that's so-provocative on the very lands The Prophet walked, peace be upon his name.

You want to recruit suicide bombers not to attack Israel again this time, but to attack the Christians of the USA and split them from the corrupt Saudi dictatorship (sarcasmo agrees with Osama on the subject of the Saudi dictatorship, BTW, they're NOT our friends as various Presidents seem to think). Doesn't our occasionally bombing or sending cruise missiles -- as Clinton weakly-did, to rabid & irrational bipartisan support -- help Osama in that effort? "The USA destroyed an aspirin-factory!!!" doesn't have to be true, or if it's true doesn't have to be deliberate, to work effectively as a recruiting tool. Young, dead-ender Saudis, who understand (rightly!!) that something's severely-wrong with the leadership of their country, are likely to be motivated to your cause by that kind of thing, and it's understandable IMO in an environment where politics doesn't work for those young people to turn -- sadly -- to extreme-religion and become tools of terror, as 15 out of 19 did that day. It has nothing to do with the simplistic "they hate freedom" explanation that's politically-popular. Violence begats violence, and despite 50 years of claiming to want peace, the USA & Russians have basically spent 50 years trying to become the biggest arms dealer in the mideast, with scant attention to any other form of trade except the all-holy substance, oil. This stands in remarkable contrast to other, much-more-peaceful US military interventions in other places over that same period, such as Korea and Germany, which -- while expensive and unwise long-term IMO -- have been much more of a success because of more of a focus on trade. For me, the best way to peace is always more unfettered trade (see Cuba vs Vietnam). Also, Dr. Paul's campaign points out (to absolute media silence, as usual) the press release I'll paste in next.
JMR

Exactly, CV.  My interest in Gingrich also ended when he sold out to AGW and Kerry.   I Iike Thompson and Romney, too, and I want to see how they develop as the campaign unfolds.  Romney has the best creds of any candidate from either side to run the country well, but he has electability questions.  I'm not too worried yet about early opposition, because that's being fanned in part by Dems who fear him.   It's still early, and down the road those electability issues will be answered.