<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ex-CIA Man Had Bin Laden in Sights 10 Times</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mediaroots.org/ex-cia-man-had-bin-laden-in-sights-10-times/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mediaroots.org/ex-cia-man-had-bin-laden-in-sights-10-times/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:55:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://mediaroots.org/ex-cia-man-had-bin-laden-in-sights-10-times/comment-page-1/#comment-89</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:29:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/mediaroots/ex-cia-man-had-bin-laden-in-sights-10-times/#comment-89</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for the link, you  always know the headlines that I&#039;ll want to check out. 

The claim that he had him in his sights 10 times seems spectacular - but to me this is really more of a limited hangout as it supports the official conspiracy theory.  

By the government&#039;s own admission, Bin Laden was a CIA asset code named Tim Osman. Scheuer&#039;s claim that they (the CIA) “We were aware of him but he absolutely refused to talk to us...&quot; is easily disprovable bullshit. 

Meanwhile, is the Telegraph merely incurious or are they in on it? Did it really not occur to them to ask &quot;Why do you think your superiors prevented you from pulling the trigger?&quot;, &quot;Are you aware of other instances of the CIA protecting Osama?&quot; and &quot;Why are you just now coming out about this?&quot;. 

The truth is, once you are CIA, you are always CIA. Scheuer is just doing his part to protect his employer. 

By the way, it&#039;s really lame that your feedback form will wipe out a comment if you happen to enter the wrong captcha information.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the link, you  always know the headlines that I&#8217;ll want to check out. </p>
<p>The claim that he had him in his sights 10 times seems spectacular &#8211; but to me this is really more of a limited hangout as it supports the official conspiracy theory.  </p>
<p>By the government&#8217;s own admission, Bin Laden was a CIA asset code named Tim Osman. Scheuer&#8217;s claim that they (the CIA) “We were aware of him but he absolutely refused to talk to us&#8230;&#8221; is easily disprovable bullshit. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, is the Telegraph merely incurious or are they in on it? Did it really not occur to them to ask &#8220;Why do you think your superiors prevented you from pulling the trigger?&#8221;, &#8220;Are you aware of other instances of the CIA protecting Osama?&#8221; and &#8220;Why are you just now coming out about this?&#8221;. </p>
<p>The truth is, once you are CIA, you are always CIA. Scheuer is just doing his part to protect his employer. </p>
<p>By the way, it&#8217;s really lame that your feedback form will wipe out a comment if you happen to enter the wrong captcha information.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
