Hi,
I'm not attacking your post - it's just a convenient place to make this point.
:-)
You're right that it's not unexpected that there isn't much evidence whether bin Laden was a CIA operative or not.
But let's consider some logic.
What would make more sense for a multi-millionaire with a family in the construction business to do to further his chosen cause? To personally spend weeks or more in the dirt on his belly learning about war-fighting techniques, or use his money and construction expertise to recruit others and build infrastructure?
Recall that he has a large entourage around him. He has to keep his where-abouts secret. Does it make sense for such a valuable person (due to his money and business contacts, etc.) to be trained by the CIA to fight the Russians in Afghanistan? Would the Taliban rather have him propping up their regime with money or have him running around in bands of young men with Kalashnikovs?
It doesn't make sense that the CIA would have trained bin Laden.
These allegations about bin Laden and the CIA were common months and years before 9/11. They go back to the embassy bombings or earlier.
There's a diversity of opinion in the House and Senate about the CIA. Recall the battles over Iran-Contra. If there was credible evidence (or even credible allegations) that bin Laden was a creature of the CIA, don't you think that someone in the Congress would have had hearings about it? I don't recall any such hearings. And surely if there were such hearings, then critics of the CIA would use such hearings as evidence.
Why hasn't a gadfly reporter/journalist like Christopher Hitchens or Seymour Hersch or even web sites like [link|http://www.spiescafe.com/spiescafe.htm|Spies Cafe] done an investigation if they thought there was anything behind it?
It doesn't make sense.
But I guess that doesn't make it impossible....
Cheers,
Scott.