So, un, waitaminnit. I need someone to just 'splain this like I’m 5 years old.
So far I’ve missed the point, seen anything resembling a debate, and picked up yet another warning for not debating. I need a few things in this specific thread clarified.
1.) Bush is evil.
2.) Bush is an idiot.
3.) Bush is a patsy controlled by evil forces. (Making him actually innocent in everything)
4.) Bush is responsible for Lay’s death to cover everything up.
5.) Bush is a pawn in a power struggle that involved Lay’s death.
6.) Bush helped orchestrate bad diets that led to Lay’s death.
7.) Bush somehow orchestrated a trial situation that allowed Lay to die before sentencing.
8.) Bush used his madd skillz to kill Lay with no evidence pointing to him.
Have I missed anything? If not, I still have some questions about this to those of you failed scriptwriters.
First, is Bush good or bad in this? Either he was instrumental in Lay’s death, or he did everything he could to protect his “buddy”.
Second, considering the awesome power Bush holds over the world (reference the plethora of comparisons to Hitler), why would a death be needed to help a friend? Paging Marc Rich.
Third, if you can search threads, check out the 1 or 84 OPs started when this whole story broke blaming Bush for the whole thing.
This thread is either blaming Bush for the situation, or blaming someone withing the sphere of influence around Bush.
Very few are willing to accept that Lay was just a crook, nor that he was a crook prior to January 2001. If he really had people in high enough places to protect secrets to keep the current “regime” in power, he’d be tanning in Tahiti right now, not fertilizing daisies.