PDA

View Full Version : Compliments OF The Blank Check Republicans!



Gayle in MD
11-09-2009, 09:10 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mPYI71G5mw


Note in clip above, Bush Sr.'s pain because his Flesh and blood, W., was "put in the crossfire" toward the end of this clip...THINK!... how many Americans have been "Put in the crossfire" literally, by these two Bush's... Does it hurt? Does it make you ache?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF53YAnCLCg&feature=featured

Proof of how much the Bush family grieves over American "Flesh and Blood, "Put in the Crossfire"


Note; Within hours of 9/11, Geroge W. Bush flew more than one hundred relatives of the bin Laden family out of the country...

Should we be surprised at all that Republicans don't care about how many Americans in their districts are dying because they have no Health Care???

Here are some generous, Christian Americans, with the best Government Run Healthcare moeny can buy...YOUR MONEY!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fzs-UElWc4&feature=related


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
11-09-2009, 09:15 AM
If you want to talk about a blank check administration, how about one that can manage to spent 2 TRILLION dollars in just their first 10 months????????????????????


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

DickLeonard
11-09-2009, 10:51 AM
Gayle your KIdding I can't believe he did that. Why that slime bucket I can't believe he did that dastardly thing. I think I am going to PUKE

Gayle in MD
11-09-2009, 11:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DickLeonard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle your KIdding I can't believe he did that. Why that slime bucket I can't believe he did that dastardly thing. I think I am going to PUKE </div></div>

Check this one out...

Bush, Money Trumps Peace....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R8IAmL0Nq0&NR=1

Hint, the saudis have been financing Sunni terrorists, that means bin Laden, for decades...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Soc7S-pQZ6M&feature=related

War in Iraq, = instability in the oil industry, which drives up the prices, and makes the bin Ladens, Cheney's Bush's all wealthier....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&NR=1

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

pooltchr
11-09-2009, 12:03 PM
I don't blame you. If I were you, I would want to divert attention away from your current administration too!!!!!

Steve

Bobbyrx
11-09-2009, 01:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Note; Within hours of 9/11, Geroge W. Bush flew more than one hundred relatives of the bin Laden family out of the country... </div></div>

Don't tell me you're still floating this old debunked story out there.
Fact Check (http://http://www.factcheck.org/article294.html)
"9/11 Commission (page 329): We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. . . . Clarke told us, "I asked the FBI, Dale Watson . . . to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me." Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."

“I thought the flights were correct,” Richard Clarke told ABC News last week. “The Saudis had reasonable fear that they might be the subject of vigilante attacks in the United States after 9/11. And there is no evidence even to this date that any of the people who left on those flights were people of interest to the FBI.”

And Richard Clarke wasn't selling a book about this....

Gayle in MD
11-09-2009, 01:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Note; Within hours of 9/11, Geroge W. Bush flew more than one hundred relatives of the bin Laden family out of the country... </div></div>

Don't tell me you're still floating this old debunked story out there.
Fact Check (http://http://www.factcheck.org/article294.html)
"9/11 Commission (page 329): We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. . . . Clarke told us, "I asked the FBI, Dale Watson . . . to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me." Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."

“I thought the flights were correct,” Richard Clarke told ABC News last week. “The Saudis had reasonable fear that they might be the subject of vigilante attacks in the United States after 9/11. And there is no evidence even to this date that any of the people who left on those flights were people of interest to the FBI.”

And Richard Clarke wasn't selling a book about this.... </div></div>

You're taking it out of context, as usual, as it was not Clarke's idea, and the Bush/Cheney W.H. didn't give the direct orders, they went through their "Bushies" and had them make the request. No evidence, doesn't mean a damn thing when we're talking about the Bush Administration, and they way they hid everything from the bottom up, to hide their own involvement.

We already know that the 9/11 commission was just an exercise in putting distance between Bush's incompetence, and the disastrous results.

G.

wolfdancer
11-09-2009, 01:42 PM
gee, now you rate two replies from......
I think some people here......must believe the site is well read, and that their posts/replies are as impotent, er important, as lww's,judging from the wordings of their posts?
Will this line ever be topped for the sheer gall behind it:
"I want as many people as possible to read this pos, bs, crap, I am about to post". Well that weren't the exact wording of it, but that was the gist of it
I'm now of the belief that, that rationale is spreading amongst the RW think tank here

pooltchr
11-09-2009, 02:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[ as it was not Clarke's idea, and the Bush/Cheney W.H. didn't give the direct orders, they went through their "Bushies" and had them make the request. No evidence, doesn't mean a damn thing when we're talking about the Bush Administration, and they way they hid everything from the bottom up, to hide their own involvement.


G. </div></div>

Sounds pretty damn smart for someone you spent 8 years telling us was a stupid as a chimp!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Which was he. A big dummy, or someone able to outsmart the entire country?

Steve

Bobbyrx
11-09-2009, 02:46 PM
You use an unlinked quote in the middle of your post "Note; Within hours of 9/11, Geroge W. Bush flew more than one hundred relatives of the bin Laden family out of the country... " from who knows where, but I'm taking something out of context. Right. It's funny when Clarke was selling his book, you believed everything he wrote in it, but when he wasn't selling one and said ""I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House.", then he's lieing. And I guess Factcheck.org is lieing also.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> No evidence, doesn't mean a damn thing when we're talking about the Bush Administration, </div></div>
That makes it pretty easy to accuse anyone of anything don't you think?

eg8r
11-09-2009, 03:22 PM
LOL, here is gaylio making crap up again. She is also talking about an admin that hid stuff. Gee that would just be awful if W was the only one but Obama's admin is doing its best impersonation of W as possible.

I just find it hilarious that when gaylio thinks she has something concrete she posts factcheck.org as the end all be all of the truth, yet when it is done back at her she pisses and moans all over herself.

eg8r

pooltchr
11-09-2009, 04:06 PM
You know how when a whale is sick, they will lose the ability to reason, and will keep swimming toward the beach, even though it will ultimately kill them?

Remind you of anyone we know?

Steve

wolfdancer
11-09-2009, 04:16 PM
Gayle, you simply post a link re: the story......
An "Whaling Jennings" tries to discredit you for doing that.
(She cain't do that, an ruin my take on the situation)

Gayle in MD
11-10-2009, 11:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You use an unlinked quote in the middle of your post "Note; Within hours of 9/11, Geroge W. Bush flew more than one hundred relatives of the bin Laden family out of the country... " from who knows where, but I'm taking something out of context. Right. It's funny when Clarke was selling his book, you believed everything he wrote in it, but when he wasn't selling one and said ""I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House.", then he's lieing. And I guess Factcheck.org is lieing also.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> No evidence, doesn't mean a damn thing when we're talking about the Bush Administration, </div></div>
That makes it pretty easy to accuse anyone of anything don't you think?
</div></div>

You are the twisting king of the board...Clarke NEVER said it was his idea, he was responding to a request, and then checking with others before putting it into motion. I don't recall, doesn't mean a damn thing, according to you righties, right? Cheney, "I don't recall, 72 times? Gonzo, I don't recall, ninety some times?" ( or wss that over a hundred???

Clarke makes it very clear in his book, that the administration ignored his warnings, refused any interest in intelligence other than about Saddam from the moment they crashed into the W.H.

WE all know they cherry picked the intel, as the British memo states, the administration is "Fixing Intel, to fit policy"

We all know the Bush family ties to the bin Ladens. The fact that I hold great respect for the honesty of Richard Clarke, does not require me to agree with EVERYTHING that he thinks.

If you read his entire book, "Against All enemies" it becomes quite clear what the overall ideology of Bush and Cheney was from the beginning, how they blocked the other security agencies from access when all were screaming about an impending attack, Rice, in particular, blocking requests, even emergency requests, unprecedented warnings, and hence, my judgement, since Clarke never states that it was his decision, or that he thought of it in the first place, is that he ws responding to a request, before he checked with the FBI. No where is it written that Clarke, decided of his own volition, to fly those people out.

But, I will take the book out and re-read his own words on the matter, this quote of yours is taken out of context, and does not prove a thing as regards who decided to fly them out, however, other authorities on the subject, all agree, that the order came from Bush, who father was in a business meeting with a number of saudis, including the bin ladens, on that very day! Hence, Da da calls, fly me and my friends out of here....

G.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We know that, immediately after 9/11, many more potential suspects and informants were flown directly to Saudi Arabia by Presidential order than were ever detained and questioned. We will never know what they could have said. Their testimony would have been vital to any real investigation were they not put beyond the reach of even Congress and the FBI.

Putting aside all other questions of recent evidence of CIA involvement with bin Laden prior to 9/11 or altered physical evidence involving the Pentagon attack, any failure to call to account the systematic perjury committed by dozens of top government officials, now exposed as a certainty is an offense to every American.

What do we know? We know the conjecture about 9/11 still stands but for certain, we know we were lied to, not in a minor way, but systematically as part of a plot covering up government involvement at nearly every level, perhaps gross negligence, perhaps something with darker intent.

Are we willing to live with another lie to go with the Warren Report, Iran Contra and so many others? Has the sacrifice of thousands more Americans, killed, wounded or irreparably damaged by a war knowingly built on the same lies from the same liars who misled the 9/11 Commission pushed us beyond willingness to confront the truth?

Have we yet found where the lies have begun and ended? There is no evidence of this, only evidence to the contrary. The lies live on and the truth will never be sought. The courage for that task has not been found.

Can anyone call themselves an American if they don't demand, even with the last drop of their blood, that the truth be found?

How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?

================================================

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran and a regular contributor to Veterans Today. He specializes in political and social issues. You can see a large collection of Gordon's published articles at this link: VeteransToday.com.

He is an outspoken advocate for veterans and his powerful words have brought about change. Gordon is a lifelong PTSD sufferer from his war experiences and he is empathetic to the plight of today's veterans also suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to feature Gordon's timely and critical reports on Salem-News.com, a news organization staffed by a number of veterans, particularly former U.S. Marines.




</div></div>

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php

<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The 9/11 Report was a Whitewash. it was overseen by Bush friendly operatives, who were placed on the committee, to remove any blame from the Bush Administration,obstruct justice, and is full of lies. They stated themselves, they did not seek to place blame. Questions were designed to get the answers they wanted, and nothing else. It was not a truth seeking commission.</span> </span>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Bobbyrx
11-10-2009, 01:58 PM
Your quote:
"Within hours of 9/11, Geroge W. Bush flew more than one hundred relatives of the bin Laden family out of the country... "

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #CC0000">9/11 Commission (page 329): We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. . . . Clarke told us, "I asked the FBI, Dale Watson . . . to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me." Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."

</span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">from FactCheck.org: "And by the way, the man who gave approval for the flight wasn't Bush or even any of his close aides, it was former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, now one of Bush's strongest critics."


</div></div> link again (http://www.factcheck.org/article294.html)

Your "quote" from where ever, insinuates Bush personally had the Bin Laden family flown out. Sources you always use to back up your views, Richard Clarke and FactCheck.org say it's not true. They were flown out after airspace had reopened and after they had been interviewed by the FBI. The only person twisting anything is you in your original quote.

Gayle in MD
11-10-2009, 02:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You use an unlinked quote in the middle of your post "Note; Within hours of 9/11, Geroge W. Bush flew more than one hundred relatives of the bin Laden family out of the country... " from who knows where, but I'm taking something out of context. Right. It's funny when Clarke was selling his book, you believed everything he wrote in it, but when he wasn't selling one and said ""I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House.", then he's lieing. And I guess Factcheck.org is lieing also.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> No evidence, doesn't mean a damn thing when we're talking about the Bush Administration, </div></div>
That makes it pretty easy to accuse anyone of anything don't you think?
</div></div>


<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Another thing, there is no unlinked "Quote" anywhere in my original post. YOU put those quotes in there, not me! However, if you had bothered to view the link I provided, you'd have seen that same statement included.

I've read dozens of books about 9/11, and I have opinions about it which are derived from studying the event, reading books written by those who were on the scene, on that day, and before, and also during the 9/11 commission, and including the history of the neocons, going way back, long before Reagan was president. George bush gave the directive to fly those saudis, including the bin Ladens, out of the country, along with his father, their business associate.

ell me, what would you righties be saying about Obama right now if he had been in business with bi Laden's family, and the Saudis, who are financial providers for al Qaeda, for decades?</span> </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Bobbyrx
11-10-2009, 03:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">George bush gave the directive to fly those saudis, including the bin Ladens, out of the country, along with his father, their business associate.
</div></div>

Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. I have given you Richard Clarke saying it's not true, FactCheck.org saying it's not true, The FBI and the 9/11 Commission saying it's not true. Just give me something besides your opinion.

If Bush ordered it, why would anyone ask Richard Clarke if it was O.K.?

Gayle in MD
11-10-2009, 05:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "9/11 Commission (page 329): We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. . . . Clarke told us, "I asked the FBI, Dale Watson . . . to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. </div></div>

There is nothing in that statement that says that Clarke made the decision. "We found no evidence" also, does not say that no one in the top levels of the administration came up with the diea.

Do you actually think that Bush Sr. was in a meeting with his decades olf cohearts on 9/11 and didn't talk with his son? didn't see to have those terrorist financiers, his business partners, the bin Ladens, taken care of along with himself?

You ae truly naive if that is what you think.

The link I provided tells the story of the White Wash which was the 9/11 report. Baker and the other neocon liars, had one goal only and that was to cover up for the incompetence of George Bush.


Baker is one of the biggest CROOKS in this country!

G.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We know that, immediately after 9/11, many more potential suspects and informants were flown directly to Saudi Arabia by Presidential order than were ever detained and questioned. We will never know what they could have said. Their testimony would have been vital to any real investigation were they not put beyond the reach of even Congress and the FBI.
</div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.

Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.

Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . " When Bush's own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, why was nothing done?

9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, "No one is more qualified to write the definitive book about the tragedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. Fortunately, he has done so. Even more fortunately the language is clear, alive and instructive for anyone who wants to make certain this never happens again."

With the only "official" 9/11 report now totally false
</div></div>
You have proven nothing.

Bobbyrx
11-10-2009, 07:03 PM
You left out "Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You have proven nothing. </div></div>
Fine, but anytime you back anything up with anything Richard Clarke says or FactCheck.org shows....you will have proven nothing also.

pooltchr
11-10-2009, 10:42 PM
Don't you just love how any source, no matter how legitimate is might be, it is dismissed as lies or a "whitewash"? (Her new word of the week)

This is the same person who believes anything in print from HuffPo!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

I think too many servings of kool-ade has turned her brain to mush.

Steve

Bobbyrx
11-11-2009, 09:15 AM
Here's another article from the guy you linked your "information" from, Gordon Duff at Salem-News.com:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> AMERICA WON TERROR WAR IN 2001

BIN LADEN'S DEATH NEWS SUPPRESSED TO SUPPORT IRAQ WAR INTEL LIES

By Gordon Duff and Raja Mujtaba STAFF WRITERS

Osama bin Laden died during or immediately after the Tora Bora attack in December 2001. The cause is believed to have been wounds complicated by advanced kidney disease. This fact is universally accepted in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere in the Islamic world.

It has now reached the point in Pakistan that whenever an Osama bin Laden tape is on television, people roll around the floor laughing themselves to death. This has been verified through the highest levels of Pakistan's military and intelligence services who have confirmed that, not only has Bin Laden been dead for years but the United States has known and accepted this fact, a fact well known to our political, intelligence and military leaders, since well before the invasion of Iraq and confirmed by sources active in FBI counter-terrorism at that time.

</div></div>

link (http://http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9065)

Qtec
11-11-2009, 09:19 AM
Do you ever check if your link works?


Have you any proof that he is still alive?

Q

Bobbyrx
11-11-2009, 09:42 AM
Sorry, try this one link (http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9065)

I have no proof whatsoever. I just assumed he was alive because of all the people saying Bush didn't do enough to try to get him /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
11-11-2009, 09:48 AM
I am simply saying, the sentence sounds to me as though he was checking out a request, not that he had thought of doing it himself.

In fact, I took out his book on 9/11, Against All Enemies last night. His First Chapter is entitled, "Evacuate The White House." It is likely THE most detailed historical record of 9/11, the day when all hell broke loose, from the recollections of the man who was actually running the show that day, from the White House. His every decision is recreated. There is no mention of making that decision.

I was present at Politics And Prose during a book signing and lecture, by Clarke, right after this book came out. I do recall someone asking about that very question, but can't for the life of me recall which agency he said had contacted him about it, but I think it was the CIA, which, actually, when you think about it, would have been the logical place where that group, which was with Bush senior that day, would have asked for aid in exiting the country.

I will share with you what Clarke writes about being sent home for rest, in the Middle of the Night, and being unable to sleep, thinking about further attacks possible from various sleeper cells in our country, and getting up and going back to the White House, to activate further security safegaurds. It's rather interesting:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting al Qaeda. then I ealized with almost a shaarp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take adantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with IRaq. My friends in the pentagon had been telling me that the word was we would be invading Iraq sometime in 2002.


<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>IOW, Bobby, the Bush Administration had a predetermined agenda to invade Iraq, before 9/11 even happened, and throughout the preceeding months of the unprecedented warnings of an impending attack, by al Qaeda, from numberous national security agencies, including from Richard Clarke, the Counter Terrorist CZAR, And from the Director of the CIA. George Bush did not one single thing about the warnings of an attack by al Qaeda, predicted to involve aircraft, "Using aircraft as missiles," and the WTC, being the most likely target along with Federal buildings."

Hence, Bush did everything he could do to prevent the investigation, including cutting off money for it.

When it finally went down, they blocked everything of import regarding their own incompetence, and failure, by using "Classified" claims, and cliams of National Security, hence, there ha been no ivnestigation to this day.

ITMT.... dozens of books have been written by former CIA, Military, NSA and other security agencies, all pointing to the incompetence and deciet of the Bush administration.

You should read them, instead of wasting time nit picking from my posts, accusing me of quotes which I never used in the first place.</span> </span>


On the morning of the 12th, DOD's focus was already beginning to shift from al Qaeda. CIA was explicit now that al Qaeda was guilty of the attacks, but Paul Wolfowitz, rumsfeld's deputy, was no persuaded. It was too shphisticated and complicated an operation, he said, for a terrorist group to have pulled off by itself, without a state sponsor-Iraq must have been helping them.

I had a flashback to Wolfowitz saying the very same thing in April when the administration had finally held its first deputy secretary-level meeting on terrorism. When I had urged action on al Qaeda then, Wolfowitz had hared back to the 1993 attack on the WTC, saying al Qaeda could not have done that alone and must have had help from Iraq. The focus on al Qaeda was wrong, he had said in April, we must go afer Iraqi-sponsored terrorism. He had rejected my assertion and CIA's that there had been no Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the United States since 1993. Now, this line of thinking was coming back.


<span style="color: #000066"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Dick Cheney: "WE have to go where the oil is." </span></span>

By afternoon, on Wednesday, Secretary Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objective of our response and "Getting Iraq." Secretary Powell pushed back, urging a focus on al Qaeda. Relieved to have some support, I thanked Colin Powell and his deputy, Rich Armitage. "I thought I was missing something here," I vented. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>"Having been attacked by al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl harbor."</span>Powell shook his head. "It's not over yet."

Indeed, it was not. Later in the day, Secretary Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq. Instead, he noted that what we needed to do with Iraq was to change the government, not just hit it with more cruise missiles, as Rumsfeld had implied.


And from the first page of the preface:

This is the story, from my perspective, of how al Qaeda developed and attacked the United States on September 11. It is a story of the CIA and FBI, who came late to realize that there was a threat to the United States and who were unable to stop it even after they agreed that the threat was real and significant. It is also the story of four presidents:

Ronald Reagan, who did not retaliate for the murder of 278 United States Marines in Beirut and who violated his own terrorism policy by trading arms for hostages in what came to be called the Iran-Contra scandal;


George H.W. Bush, who did not retaliate for the Libyan murder of 259 passengers on Pan Am 103; who left Saddam Hussein in place, requiring the United states to leave a large military presence in Saudi Arabia;


Bill Clinton, who identified terrorism as the major post-cold War threat and acted to improve our counterterrorism capabilities; who (little known to the public) quelled anti-American terrorism by Iraq and Iran and deeated an al Qaeda attempt to dominate Bosnia; but who, weakened by continued <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Political attack </span> could not get the CIA the Pentagon, and the FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat;


<span style="color: #000066"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Republican crippled the Clinton administration using the same kinds of political slander they are using right now, against Obama. </span></span>


<span style='font-size: 17pt'>George W. Bush, who failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks; and who launched an unnecessaqry and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide.</span>


This is unfortunately, also the story of how America was unable to develop a consenses that the threat was signnificant and was unable to do all that was necessary to deal with a new threat until that threat actually killed thousand of Americans.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Even worse, it is the story of how even after the attacks, America did not aliminate the al Qaeda movement, which morphed into a distributed and elusive threat, how instead we launced the counter-productive Iraq fiasco; how the Bush administration politicized counter terrorism as a way of insuring electoral victories; how critical homeland security vulnerabililties remain; and how little is being done to address the ideological challenge from terrorists distorting Islan into a new ideology of hate.</span>


Chance had placed me inside key parts of the U.S. govenment throughout a period when an era was ending and another was born. The Cold War that had begun before my birth was ending as I turned forty. As the new era began I started what turned into an unprecedented decade of sontinuous service at the White House, working for the last three presidents.

As the events of 2003 unfolded, I began to feel an obligation to write what I knew for my fellow citizens and for those who may want to examine this period in the future. This book is the fulfillment of the obligation. It is, however, flawed. It is a first person account, not an academic history. The book, therefore, tells what one participant saw, thought, and believed rom one perspective. Others who were inovolved in some of these events will, no doubt, recall them differently. I do not say they are wrong, only that this account is what my memory reveals to me.

I recognize there is a great risk in writing a book such as this that many friends and former associates who disagree with me will be offended. The Bush White House leadership in particular hve a reputation for taking great offense at criticism by former addociates, considering it a violation of loyalty. they are also reportedly adept at revenge, as my friend Joe Wilson discovered and as former Secretary o the Treasurey PPaul O'Neill now knows. Nonetheless, friends should be ael to disagree and, for me, loyalty to the citizens of the United States must take precedence over loyalty to any poliical machine. </div></div>


I will remind you, Bobby, that interrogations have revealed that al Qaeda operatives have stated that the failure of our country to take action after the attack on our marines during Reagan, and no retaliation after Pan AM 103 tragedy, under Bush One, along with Bus One's extended numbers of remaing American forces in Saudi Arabia, after the senior Bush's Gulf War, (having left Saddam in place) and in order to protect the Saudis, his business partners for decades, who also finance al Qaeda, was the encouragement for their determination to form al Qaeda and attack the WTC in the early 90's.

G.

Qtec
11-11-2009, 10:35 AM
Nice try but Bush 'vowed' to get those responsible for 9/11, identified OBL as the ring leader then said, Bin who? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMVdh8vdJfs)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I don't know where he is. YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T SPEND THAT MUCH TIME ON HIM, Kelly, to be honest with you. </div></div>

Q?

Gayle in MD
11-11-2009, 10:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You left out "Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You have proven nothing. </div></div>
Fine, but anytime you back anything up with anything Richard Clarke says or FactCheck.org shows....you will have proven nothing also.
</div></div>

I don't form my opinions according to any one source about anything regarding the Bush administration, FYI.

My opinions are formed though reading books, by the dozens, written by those career government employees in the CIA, military Generals, many of whom resigned, or were axed by Bush, because of his illogical War For Oil, which replaced appropriate retaliation for 9/11, the FBI and other national security agencies, the best reporters in the country, the most respected journatlists of my time, and operatives whose specialty is foreign affairs, the Middle East, the Constitution Of The United States Of America, and the historic accounts of our presidents.

You are reading assumptions into Clarke's statement, which he has never stated. I don't recall, does not mean, "No one asked me" nor does it mean, "I made the decision."

The simple act of reading Clarke's book, could straighten the subject out for you, but I'm quite sure, you'd never take suach a drastic step as that!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
11-11-2009, 11:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I don't know where he is. YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T SPEND THAT MUCH TIME ON HIM, Kelly, to be honest with you. </div></div>Maybe he was telling qtip that he secretly knows OBL is dead and is hoping qtip will catch a clue and quit blaming him for not doing enough.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-11-2009, 11:23 AM
You just proved you paid little attention to the first link I provided.


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Putting aside all other questions of recent evidence of CIA involvement with bin Laden prior to 9/11 or altered physical evidence involving the Pentagon attack, any failure to call to account the systematic perjury committed by dozens of top government officials, now exposed as a certainty is an offense to every American.

What do we know? We know the conjecture about 9/11 still stands but for certain, we know we were lied to, not in a minor way, but systematically as part of a plot covering up government involvement at nearly every level, perhaps gross negligence, perhaps something with darker intent.

Are we willing to live with another lie to go with the Warren Report, Iran Contra and so many others? Has the sacrifice of thousands more Americans, killed, wounded or irreparably damaged by a war knowingly built on the same lies from the same liars who misled the 9/11 Commission pushed us beyond willingness to confront the truth?

Have we yet found where the lies have begun and ended? There is no evidence of this, only evidence to the contrary. The lies live on and the truth will never be sought. The courage for that task has not been found.

Can anyone call themselves an American if they don't demand, even with the last drop of their blood, that the truth be found?

How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?

</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Don't use the 9/11 Report as a means to highjack my post, as you nit pick over something that is not the main subject of the post in the first place...BECAUSE the 9/11 Report WAS A WHITEWASH! </span>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Bobbyrx
11-11-2009, 05:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> You just proved you paid little attention to the first link I provided</div></div>
the link you provided was by Gordon Duff Salem-News.com, the same guy who, among other wacky things, writes that OBL was killed in 2001, if you read the earlier posts. Give me ONE credible source (I'll even take CNN or MSNBC) that has reported that Bush personally ordered OBL's family flown out of the U.S. hours after the 9/11 attacks. I've given you sources that you have used yourself in earlier posts. All of a sudden theyr'e not credible now?

Gayle in MD
11-11-2009, 05:23 PM
You can't prove that Bush didn't make the request. You haven't proved amything. Clarke did not say that he made the decision on his own, and it wouldn't have been his place to make such a decision in the first place.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Bobbyrx
11-11-2009, 05:48 PM
If Bush ordered it, why would he or anyone else ask Clarke?

pooltchr
11-11-2009, 06:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can't prove that Bush didn't make the request.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
</div></div>

Everyone knows it is not possible to prove a negative. You can't prove someone didn't do something....only that they did.

You can't prove that Iraq did not have WMD. Only that we didn't find them there.

You can't prove that I never had a pro pool player take lessons from me. I can prove that they have.

Your arguement doesn't hold water.

Steve

Gayle in MD
11-11-2009, 06:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Bush ordered it, why would he or anyone else ask Clarke? </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Do you actually think that the counter Terrorist Czar, would be the individual who would make that decision?

You think that with Bush SR. at a meeting with his, his son's and the vice Presidents "friends" theri business associates, from Saudi Arabia, the bin ladens, and other Saudis they have all been in business with for decades, all of whom were heavily invested in The Carlyle Group, some of whom put up money for George Bush' first failure, his oil company in Texas, Carlyle, being a Bush Family enterprise, Clarke, working with every agency in this country trying to see that all aircraft was out of the sky, all Federal Buildings in Washington and new York, were evacuated, on closded circuit television with every National Security Agency, and Ever Agency head, and he would be tyhing about a bunch of Middle East Oil men in a business meeting?

BWA HA HA HA!

You are seriously lacking any grasp of the subject of National Security, the Bush Family business dealings, the Cheney Family business dealings, and the investments of the top Neocons in this country including, and Particularly, Baker, and including the day to day obligations of the Counter Terrorist Czar, to even begin to make such an outrageous claim!

Further, the 9/11 commission asked questions in a certain way, and made every effort to avoid anything that would highlight bush's incompetence, and total lack of response to the NUMEROUS unprecedented WARNINGS of the threat of the coming attack.

G.

Your ignorance on the subject, is stunning!

G.</span>

Bobbyrx
11-12-2009, 09:58 AM
Then why did he say that he did? "Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."
So he was lieing to the 9/11 Commission?

Gayle in MD
11-12-2009, 10:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Then why did he say that he did? "Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."
So he was lieing?? </div></div>

Do you even know who was in the White House on that day?

I didn't think so....

I gave a list of disasters left over from Bush, and you are distracting from them by focusing on one issue.

As I told you, Clarke did not make the original decision. Bush wasn't even in the White House that day.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Amazon.com Review
The perilous ramifications of the September 11 attacks on the United States are only now beginning to unfold. They will undoubtedly be felt for generations to come. This is one of many sad conclusions readers will draw from Craig Unger's exceptional book House of Bush House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties. As Unger claims in this incisive study, the seeds for the "Age of Terrorism" and September 11 were planted nearly 30 years ago in what, at the time, appeared to be savvy business transactions that subsequently translated into political currency and the union between the Saudi royal family and the extended political family of George H. W. Bush. On the surface, the claim may appear to be politically driven, but as Unger (a respected investigative journalist and editor) probes--with scores of documents and sources--the political tenor of the U.S. over the last 30 years, the Iran-Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan, the birth of Al Qaeda, the dubious connection between members of the Saudi Royal family and the exportation of terror, and the personal fortunes amassed by the Bush family from companies such as Harken Energy and the Carlyle Group, he exposes the "brilliantly hidden agendas and purposefully murky corporate relationships" between these astonishingly powerful families. His evidence is persuasive and reveals a devastating story of Orwellian proportions, replete with political deception, shifting allegiances, and lethal global consequences. Unger begins his book with the remarkable story of the repatriation of 140 Saudis directly following the September 11 attacks. He ends where Richard A. Clarke begins, questioning the efficacy of the war in Iraq in the battle against terrorism. We are unquestionably facing a global security crisis unlike any before. President Bush insists that we will prevail, yet as Unger so effectively concludes, "Never before has an American president been so closely tied to a foreign power that harbors and supports our country's mortal enemies." --Silvana Tropea --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.



From Publishers Weekly
In this potentially explosive book, investigative journalist Unger, who has written for the New Yorker, Esquire and Vanity Fair, pieces together the highly unusual and close personal and financial relationships between the Bush family and the ruling family of Saudi Arabia—and questions the implications for Bush's preparedness, or possible lack thereof, for September 11. What could forge such an unlikely alliance between the leader of the free world and the leaders of a stifling Islamic theocracy? First and foremost, according to Unger, is money. He compiles figures in an appendix indicating over $1.4 billion worth of business between the Saudi royal family and businesses tied (sometimes loosely) to the House of Bush, ranging from donations to the Bush presidential library to investments with the Carlyle Group ("a well-known player in global commerce" for which George H.W. Bush has been a senior advisor and his secretary of state, James Baker, is a partner), to deals with Halliburton, of which Dick Cheney was CEO. James Baker’s law firm even defended the House of Saud in a lawsuit brought by relatives of victims of September 11. Unger also questions whether the Bush grew so complacent about the Saudis that his administration ignored then White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke’s repeated warnings and recommendations about the Saudis and al-Qaeda. Another question raised by Unger’s research is whether millions in Saudi money given to U.S. Muslim groups may have delivered a crucial block of Muslim votes to George W. Bush in 2000—and it’s questions like that will make some readers wonder whether Unger is applying a chainsaw to issues that should be dissected with a scalpel. But whether one buys Unger’s arguments or not, there’s little doubt that with this intensely researched, well-written book he has poured more flame onto the political fires of 2004.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As the author of House of Bush, House of Saud, I am not sure if it is appropriate to respond here, but I did not want erroneous right wing criticism of my book to stand without a rebuttal. "Seeker of Truth" claims my figure of $860 billion invested by the Saudis in the US is "a factoid" which I invented. The source was Allan Gerson, an attorney representing the families of 9/11 victims. (...)
Likewise, Seeker of Truth takes issue with the fact that I found more than $1.4 billion in investments and contracts going from the Saudis to companies with ties to the Bushes. He writes, "The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn't join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998-five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm."


My critic uncritically accepts the explanation of Carlyle's publicist, leaving the reader with the impression that the Bush family and its allies had little or no relationship with the Carlyle Group until 1998. If that were true, he might have a point.

But in fact, the Bush-Carlyle relationship began eight years earlier when the Carlyle Group put George W. Bush on the board of one of its subsidiaries, Caterair, in 1990. In 1993, after the Bush-Quayle administration left office and George H. W. Bush and James Baker were free to join the private sector, the Bush family's relationship with the Carlyle Group began to become substantive.

By the end of that year, key figures at the Carlyle Group included such powerful Bush colleagues as James Baker, Frank Carlucci, and Richard Darman. Because George W. Bush's role at Carlyle had been marginal, the $1.4 billion figure includes no contracts that predated the arrival of Baker, Carlucci and Darman at Carlyle. (These figures are itemized in the appendix of House of Bush.) With former Secretary of Defense Carlucci guiding the acquisition of defense companies, Carlyle finally began making real money from the Saudis, both through investments from the royal family, the bin Ladens and other members of the Saudi elite, and through lucrative defense investments.

Craig Unger </div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In Craig Unger's book, he reveals an incredible link between Saudi money, and the last 40 years of the Bush family and their business dealings and investments. It turns out that Prescott Bush, the Senator from CT, and father of George Bush Sr. '41 was something else, before he retired to be a Senator from CT. He was the Managing Partner of Brown Brothers Harriman which is a private bank, used only by the rich and famous, as today, BBH will not take an account for less than $3 million in cash/securities.
Through these money connections and through Bush '41 and Bush '43 oil connections, incredible amounts of Saudi money were invested in companies that were either owned by the Bush family or that the family had interest in. The biggest of these is the Carlyle Group, a giant private equity company. Unger estimates that $1.4 Billion was invested by Saudi's in the Carlyle Group which very much directly benefitted the Bush family.

But the most interesting part of Unger's book, is the fact that it was published between that of O'Neill's book and Clarke's book, and thus got a bit of the short shrift in the marketing department. However, Unger's book supports both O'Neill's book and Clarke's book.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Apparently, a little known fact is that during the period between 9/11 and 9/13/2001, there were several commercial non-military airplanes flying over the skies of the US of A. These planes contained members of the Saudi Royal Family and the Bin Laden family, who were congregating in Lexington, KY in readiness to evacuate the country.

No one else was allowed to fly. Former President Clinton was stuck in Australia at the time and was not allowed to fly back in. Former V-P Al Gore was in Austria at the time and was not allowed to fly back in. But with White House approval, a bunch of Saudi's, about 140 all told, were not only allowed to fly during the no fly period, but some even left the country on 9/13, prior to Logan International being reopened for commercial traffic, with special White House Clearance. This event is what Unger characterizes as the "Greatest Crime In American History." When the country is devastated, when the vast majority of the hijackers and killers had been identified as Saudi Nationals, and in cooperation with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the White House lets 140 members of the Saudi Royal Family and members of the bin Laden family, to fly, unimpeded, around and out of the country.

Unger's book gives excruciating detail about the connections between the Bush '43 administration and the Saudi Royal Family. In fact, George W. Bush was personal friends with Prince Bandar, as was his father.

Unger explicitly indicates, that it is difficult to imagine that a President would act entirely in the national interest, when his personal interest is so tightly tied to the interests of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, in addition to the failure to develop a cohesive anti-terrorism plan, despite Richard Clarke's preparedness to do so at anytime, and his plan sitting doing nothing waiting for the NSC to review it, the Bush administration badly damaged our ability to really properly respond to a threat such as the type that Al Qaeda was and is involved in still to this day. And that the very funders of this terror are also the closest allies of the Bush family. And that this indeed seems to represent a serious conflict of interest for the President of the United States of America.</span>This is recommended reading for all US citizens who want to have at least a glimpse of the truth, without nearly the spin that the White House is putting on its statements today in the news. It is highly recommended for its well researched factual revelations.

</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This book will shock you! The average American works, takes care of their kids and likes to enjoy some free time. The government realizes that we don't have enough time to question everything, so we trust the government. What does the government do? They take your tax dollars to do all sorts of unethical things, which we as Americans would never approve of if we knew. This is a well-researched book, which talks about the Iran-Iraq war, how the Bush family got their wealth and connections, the Saudi royal family, the Bin Laden family, 9/11 and Mid-East relations. This book has a lot of facts, people and information - it is probably good to read the book twice to absorb everything.

Some appalling facts:

- Our CIA hired Saddam Hussein when he was 22 to be an assassin.

- We gave Iran and Iraq weapons of mass destruction to use on each other

- George Bush senior, during his Vice Presidency, was went to the Middle East during the 1980s as a CIA operative to give Iraq weapons of mass destruction and the media showed the meeting as "moving the peace process forward".

- Saddam killed thousands of Iranians and Kurds and we turned a blind eye to it - as long as he was willing to help us out.

The author did a good job of writing a well-researched, compelling book. I highly recommend this book, you will learn a lot.

</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 42 of 46 people found the following review helpful:
Terrifying Truth Behind Today's Headlines, April 19, 2004
By S. Wilson "tradersww" (NYC) - See all my reviews


This review is from: House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties (Hardcover)
From April 19, 2004: "NEW YORK (CNN) - A top Saudi official has assured President Bush that his country will increase oil production to lower gas prices before November to help the president's re-election prospects, according to a broadcast report Sunday."
This book is well-written, meticulously researched and very, very scary. I am a moderate Republican, but in the past four years I have become shocked at the actions of the Bush/Cheney White House. There was a time when I thought the idea of America invading Iraq on a WMD pre-text and then giving the lucrative oil contracts to Cheney's Halliburton was nothing more than leftist rhetoric. Then it actually happened. I've spent the past four years with my jaw literally agape as this administration has schemed (and succeeded in many ways) to undo 100 years of environmental progress, gone to war on fabricated evidence (uranium in Africa), alienated key allies (and lost potential support for its trillion-dollar nation-building), and budgeted billions for Mars Exploration (why now?) and Nuclear Weapons improvements (not missile defense, but weapons improvements, for God's sake).

Never before have so many pillar Republicans (O'Neil, Jeffords, McCaine, Whitman) come forth to warn the American people about the madness that is the Bush/Cheney White House. I stand aghast at what goes through Bush-supporters minds. 9/11 was conceived and carried out by Saudi Arabians - a kingdom which has our White House in its back pocket.

</div></div>

pooltchr
11-12-2009, 10:11 AM
What a stupid argument! When someone says "anybody in the white house" they mean anyone who works in the white house.

With your line of reasoning, Bush couldn't have had any responsibility for 9/11, because we all know he wasn't physically in the white house that day!

Steve

Gayle in MD
11-12-2009, 10:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Then why did he say that he did? "Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."
So he was lieing to the 9/11 Commission? </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Chapter One
The Great Escape

It was the second Wednesday in September 2001, and for Brian Cortez, a desperately ill twenty-one-year-old man in Seattle, Washington, the day he had long waited for. Two years earlier, Cortez had been diagnosed with congestive heart failure, and since then his prognosis had become even worse: he suffered from dilated cardiomyopathy, a severe swelling of the heart for which the only permanent solution is a transplant.

Cortez had been on the official heart transplant waiting list for months. Now, thanks to an accident in Anchorage, Alaska, an organ was finally available. The transplant team from the University of Washington Medical Center chartered a plane to Alaska to retrieve it as quickly as possible. The human heart can last about eight hours outside the body before it loses its value as a transplanted organ. That was the length of time the medical team had to remove it from the victim's body, take it to the Anchorage airport, fly approximately fifteen hundred miles from Anchorage to Seattle, get it to the University of Washington Medical Center, and complete the surgery.

Sometime around midnight, the medical team boarded a chartered jet and flew back with its precious cargo. They passed over the Gulf of Alaska and the Queen Charlotte Islands, and finally, Vancouver, Canada. Before they crossed the forty-ninth parallel and reentered U.S. airspace, however, something unexpected happened.

Suddenly, two Royal Canadian Air Force fighters were at the chartered plane's side. The Canadian military planes then handed it off to two U.S. Air Force F/A-18 fighter jets, which forced it to land. Less than twenty-four hours earlier, terrorists had hijacked four airliners in the worst atrocity in American history, crashing two of them into New York's World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon. Nearly three thousand people were dead. America was grounded. Brian Cortez's new heart was eighty miles short of its destination, and time was running out.

* * *

Cortez's medical team was not alone in confronting a crisis caused by the shutdown of America's airspace. The terrorist attacks had grounded all commercial and private aviation throughout the entire United States for the first time in history. Former vice president Al Gore was stranded in Austria because his flight to the United States was canceled. Former president Bill Clinton was stuck in Australia. Major league baseball games were postponed. American skies were nearly as empty as they had been when the Wright brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk. America was paralyzed by terror, and for forty-eight hours, virtually no one could fly.

No one, that is, except for the Saudis.

At the same time that Brian Cortez's medical team was grounded, Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, was orchestrating the exodus of more than 140 Saudis scattered throughout the country. They included members of two families: One was the royal House of Saud, the family that ruled the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and which, thanks to the country's vast oil reserves, was without question the richest family in the world. The other family was the Sauds' close friends and allies, the bin Ladens, who in addition to owning a multibillion-dollar construction conglomerate had spawned the notorious terrorist Osama bin Laden.

At fifty-two, Prince Bandar had long been the most recognizable figure from his country in America. Widely known as the Arab Gatsby, with his trimmed goatee and tailored double-breasted suits, Bandar was the very embodiment of the contradictions inherent in being a modern, jet-setting, Western-leaning member of the royal House of Saud.

Profane, flamboyant, and cocksure, Bandar entertained lavishly at his spectacular estates all over the world. Whenever he was safely out of Saudi Arabia and beyond the reach of the puritanical form of Islam it espoused, he puckishly flouted Islamic tenets by sipping brandy and smoking Cohiba cigars. And when it came to embracing the culture of the infidel West, Bandar outdid even the most ardent admirers of Western civilization -- that was him patrolling the sidelines of Dallas Cowboys football games with his friend Jerry Jones, the team's owner. To militant Islamic fundamentalists who loathed pro-West multibillionaire Saudi royals, no one fit the bill better than Bandar.

And yet, his guise as Playboy of the Western World notwithstanding, deep in his bones, Prince Bandar was a key figure in the world of Islam. His father, Defense Minister Prince Sultan, was second in line to the Saudi crown. Bandar was the nephew of King Fahd, the aging Saudi monarch, and the grandson of the late king Abdul Aziz, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, who initiated his country's historic oil-for-security relationship with the United States when he met Franklin D. Roosevelt on the USS Quincy in the Suez Canal on February 14, 1945. The enormous royal family in which Bandar played such an important role oversaw two of the most sacred places of Islamic worship, the holy mosques in Medina and Mecca.

As a wily international diplomat, Bandar also knew full well just how precarious his family's position was. For decades, the House of Saud had somehow maintained control of Saudi Arabia and the world's richest oil reserves by performing a seemingly untenable balancing act with two parties who had vowed to destroy each other.

On the one hand, the House of Saud was an Islamic theocracy whose power grew out of the royal family's alliance with Wahhabi fundamentalism, a strident and puritanical Islamic sect that provided a fertile breeding ground for a global network of terrorists urging a violent jihad against the United States.

On the other hand, the House of Saud's most important ally was the Great Satan itself, the United States. Even a cursory examination of the relationship revealed astonishing contradictions: America, the beacon of democracy, was to arm and protect a brutal theocratic monarchy. The United States, sworn defender of Israel, was also the guarantor of security to the guardians of Wahhabi Islam, the fundamentalist religious sect that was one of Israel's and America's mortal enemies.

Astoundingly, this fragile relationship had not only endured but in many ways had been spectacularly successful. In the nearly three decades since the oil embargo of 1973, the United States had bought hundreds of billions of dollars of oil at reasonable prices. During that same period, the Saudis had purchased hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons from the United States. The Saudis had supported the United States on regional security matters in Iran and Iraq and refrained from playing an aggressive role against Israel. Members of the Saudi royal family, including Bandar, became billionaires many times over, in the process quietly turning into some of the most powerful players in the American market, investing hundreds of billions of dollars in equities in the United States. And the price of oil, the eternal bellwether of economic, political, and cultural anxiety in America, had remained low enough that enormous gas-guzzling SUVs had become ubiquitous on U.S. highways. During the Reagan and Clinton eras the economy boomed.

The relationship was a coarse weave of money, power, and trust. It had lasted because two foes, militant Islamic fundamentalists and the United States, turned a blind eye to each other. The U.S. military might have called the policy "Don't ask, don't tell." The Koran had its own version: "Ask not about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble."

But now, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the ugly seams of the relationship had been laid bare. Because thousands of innocent people had been killed and most of the killers were said to be Saudi, it was up to Bandar, ever the master illusionist, to assure Americans that everything was just fine between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Bandar had always been a smooth operator, but now he and his unflappable demeanor would be tested as never before.

Bandar desperately hoped that early reports of the Saudi role had been exaggerated -- after all, Al Qaeda terrorist operatives were known to use false passports. But at 10 p.m. on the evening of September 12, about thirty-six hours after the attack, a high-ranking CIA official -- according to Newsweek magazine, it was probably CIA director George Tenet -- phoned Bandar at his home and gave him the bad news: Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis. Afterward, Bandar said, "I felt as if the Twin Towers had just fallen on my head."

Public relations had never been more crucial for the Saudis. Bandar swiftly retained PR giant Burson-Marsteller to place newspaper ads all over the country condemning the attacks and dissociating Saudi Arabia from them. He went on CNN, the BBC, and the major TV networks and hammered home the same points again and again: The alliance with the United States was still strong. Saudi Arabia would support America in its fight against terrorism.

Prince Bandar also protested media reports that referred to those involved in terrorism as "Saudis." Asserting that no terrorists could ever be described as Saudi citizens, he urged the media and politicians to refrain from casting arbitrary accusations against Arabs and Muslims. "We in the kingdom, the government and the people of Saudi Arabia, refuse to have any person affiliated with terrorism to be connected to our country," Bandar said. That included Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the attacks, who had even been disowned by his family. He was not really a Saudi, Bandar asserted, for the government had taken away his passport because of his terrorist activities.

* * *

But Osama bin Laden was Saudi, of course, and he was not just any Saudi. The bin Ladens were one of a handful of extremely wealthy families that were so close to the House of Saud that they effectively acted as extensions of the royal family. Over five decades, they had built their multibillion-dollar construction empire thanks to their intimate relationship with the royal family. Bandar himself knew them well. "They're really lovely human beings," he told CNN. "[Osama] is the only one... I met him only once. The rest of them are well-educated, successful businessmen, involved in a lot of charities. It is -- it is tragic. I feel pain for them, because he's caused them a lot of pain."

Like Bandar, the bin Laden family epitomized the marriage between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Their huge construction company, the Saudi Binladin Group (SBG), banked with Citigroup and invested with Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch. Over time, the bin Ladens did business with such icons of Western culture as Disney, the Hard Rock Café, Snapple, and Porsche. In the mid-nineties, they joined various members of the House of Saud in becoming business associates with former secretary of state James Baker and former president George H. W. Bush by investing in the Carlyle Group, a gigantic Washington, D.C.-based private equity firm. As Charles Freeman, the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, told the Wall Street Journal, "If there were ever any company closely connected to the U.S. and its presence in Saudi Arabia, it's the Saudi Binladin Group."

The bin Ladens and members of the House of Saud who spent time in the United States were mostly young professionals and students attending high school or college. Many lived in the Boston area, thanks to its high concentration of colleges. Abdullah bin Laden, a younger brother of Osama's, was a 1994 graduate of Harvard Law School and had offices in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Several bin Ladens had attended Tufts University, near Boston. Sana bin Laden had graduated from Wheelock College in Boston and organized a Saudi festival at the Children's Museum in Boston. Two bin Ladens -- Mohammed and Nawaf -- owned units in the Flagship Wharf condominium complex in Charlestown Navy Yard on Boston Harbor.

Some of the young, chic, sophisticated members of the family appeared even more westernized than Bandar. Wafah Binladin, a twenty-six-year-old graduate of Columbia Law School, lived in a $6,000-a-month rented loft in New York's fashionable SoHo and was considering pursuing a singing career. Partial to Manhattan nightspots such as Lotus, the Mercer Kitchen, and Pravda, she was in Geneva, Switzerland, at the time of the attack and simply did not return. Kameron bin Laden, a cousin of Osama's in his thirties, also frequented Manhattan nightspots and spent as much as $30,000 in one day on designer clothes at Prada's Fifth Avenue boutique. He elected to stay in the United States.

But half brother Khalil Binladin wanted to go back to Jeddah. Khalil, who had a Brazilian wife, had been appointed as Brazil's honorary consul in Jeddah and owned a sprawling twenty-acre estate in Winter Garden, Florida, near Orlando.

As for the Saudi royal family, many of them were scattered all over the United States. Some had gone to Lexington, Kentucky, for the annual September yearling auctions. The sale of the finest racehorses in the world had been suspended after the terrorist attacks on September 11, but resumed the very next day. Saudi prince Ahmed bin Salman bought two horses for $1.2 million on September 12.

Others felt more personally threatened. Shortly after the attack, one of the bin Ladens, an unnamed brother of Osama's, frantically called the Saudi embassy in Washington seeking protection. He was given a room at the Watergate Hotel and told not to open the door. King Fahd, the aging and infirm Saudi monarch, sent a message to his emissaries in Washington. "Take measures to protect the innocents," he said.

Meanwhile, a Saudi prince sent a directive to the Tampa Police Department in Florida that young Saudis who were close to the royal family and went to school in the area were in potential danger.

Bandar went to work immediately. If any foreign official had the clout to pull strings at the White House in the midst of a grave national security crisis, it was he. A senior member of the Washington diplomatic corps, Bandar had played racquetball with Secretary of State Colin Powell in the late seventies. He had run covert operations for the late CIA director Bill Casey that were so hush-hush they were kept secret even from President Ronald Reagan. He was the man who had stashed away thirty locked attaché cases that held some of the deepest secrets in the intelligence world. And for two decades, Bandar had built an intimate personal relationship with the Bush family that went far beyond a mere political friendship.

First, Bandar set up a hotline at the Saudi embassy in Washington for all Saudi nationals in the United States. For the forty-eight hours after the attacks, he stayed in constant contact with Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Before the attacks, Bandar had been invited to come to the White House to meet with President George W. Bush on September 13 to discuss the Middle East peace process. Even though the fifty-five-year-old president and he were, roughly speaking, contemporaries, Bandar had not yet developed the same rapport with the younger Bush that he'd enjoyed for decades with his father. Bandar and the elder Bush had participated in the shared rituals of manhood -- hunting trips, vacations together, and the like. Bandar and the younger Bush were well-known to each other, but not nearly as close.

On the thirteenth, the meeting went ahead as scheduled. But in the wake of the attacks two days earlier, the political landscape of the Middle East had drastically changed. A spokesman for the Saudi embassy later said he did not know whether repatriation was a topic of discussion.

But the job had been started nonetheless. Earlier that same day, a forty-nine-year-old former policeman turned private investigator named Dan Grossi got a call from the Tampa (Florida) Police Department. Grossi had worked with the Tampa force for twenty years before retiring, and it was not particularly unusual for the police to recommend former officers for special security jobs. But Grossi's new assignment was very much out of the ordinary.

"The police had been giving Saudi students protection since September eleventh," Grossi recalls. "They asked if I was interested in escorting these students from Tampa to Lexington, Kentucky, because the police department couldn't do it."

Grossi was told to go to the airport, where a small charter jet would be available to take him and the Saudis on their flight. He was not given a specific time of departure, and he was dubious about the prospects of accomplishing his task. "Quite frankly, I knew that everything was grounded," he says. "I never thought this was going to happen." Even so, Grossi, who'd been asked to bring a colleague, phoned Manuel Perez, a former FBI agent, to put him on alert. Perez was equally unconvinced. "I said, 'Forget about it,' " Perez recalls. "Nobody is flying today."

The two men had good reason to be skeptical. Within minutes of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the Federal Aviation Administration had sent out a special notification called a NOTAM -- a notice to airmen -- to airports all across the country, ordering every airborne plane in the United States to land at the nearest airport as soon as possible, and prohibiting planes on the ground from taking off. Initially, there were no exceptions whatsoever. Later, when the situation stabilized, several airports accepted flights for emergency medical and military operations -- but those were few and far between.

Nevertheless, at 1:30 or 2 p.m. on the thirteenth, Dan Grossi received his phone call. He was told the Saudis would be delivered to Raytheon Airport Services, a private hangar at Tampa International Airport. When he arrived, Manny Perez was there to meet him.

At the terminal a woman laughed at Grossi for even thinking he would be flying that day. Commercial flights had slowly begun to resume, but at 10:57 a.m., the FAA had issued another NOTAM, a reminder that private aviation was still prohibited. Three private planes violated the ban that day, in Maryland, West Virginia, and Texas, and in each case a pair of jet fighters quickly forced the aircraft down. As far as private planes were concerned, America was still grounded.

Then one of the pilots arrived. "Here's your plane," he told Grossi. "Whenever you're ready to go."

* * *

What happened next was first reported by Kathy Steele, Brenna Kelly, and Elizabeth Lee Brown in the Tampa Tribune in October 2001. Not a single other American paper seemed to think the subject was news-worthy.

Grossi and Perez say they waited until three young Saudi men, all apparently in their early twenties, arrived. Then the pilot took Grossi, Perez, and the Saudis to a well-appointed ten-passenger Learjet. They departed for Lexington at about four-thirty.

"They got the approval somewhere," said Perez. "It must have come from the highest levels of government."

"Flight restrictions had not been lifted yet," Grossi said. "I was told it would take White House approval. I thought [the flight] was not going to happen."

Grossi said he did not get the names of the Saudi students he was escorting. "It happened so fast," Grossi says. "I just knew they were Saudis. They were well connected. One of them told me his father or his uncle was good friends with George Bush senior."

How did the Saudis go about getting approval? According to the Federal Aviation Administration, they didn't and the Tampa flight never took place. "It's not in our logs," Chris White, a spokesman for the FAA, told the Tampa Tribune. "... It didn't occur." The White House also said that the flights to evacuate the Saudis did not take place.

According to Grossi, about one hour and forty-five minutes after takeoff they landed at Blue Grass Airport in Lexington, a frequent destination for Saudi horse-racing enthusiasts such as Prince Ahmed bin Salman. When they arrived, the Saudis were greeted by an American who took custody of them and helped them with their baggage. On the tarmac was a 747 with Arabic writing on the fuselage, apparently ready to take them back to Saudi Arabia. "My understanding is that there were other Saudis in Kentucky buying racehorses at that time, and they were going to fly back together," said Grossi.

* * *

With just three Saudis on it, the Tampa flight was hardly the only mysterious trip under way. All over the country, members of the extended bin Laden family, the House of Saud, and their associates were assembling in various locations. At least seven other planes were available for their transportation. Officially, the FBI says it had nothing to do with the repatriation of the Saudis. "I can say unequivocally that the FBI had no role in facilitating these flights one way or another," says Special Agent John Iannarelli.

Bandar, however, characterized the role of the FBI very differently. "With coordination with the FBI," he said on CNN, "we got them all out."

Meanwhile, the Saudis had at least two of the planes on call to repatriate the bin Ladens. One of them began picking up family members all across the country. Starting in Los Angeles on an undetermined date, it flew first to Orlando, Florida, where Khalil Binladin, a sibling of Osama bin Laden's, boarded. From Orlando, the plane continued to Dulles International Airport outside Washington, before going on to Logan Airport in Boston on September 19, picking up members of the bin Laden family along the way.

As the planes prepared for takeoff at each location across the country, the FBI repeatedly got into disputes with Rihab Massoud, Bandar's chargé d'affaires at the Saudi embassy in Washington. "I recall getting into a big flap with Bandar's office about whether they would leave without us knowing who was on the plane," said one former agent who participated in the repatriation of the Saudis. Bandar wanted the plane to take off and we were stressing that that plane was not leaving until we knew exactly who was on it."

In the end, the FBI was only able to check papers and identify everyone on the flights. In the past, the FBI had been constrained from arbitrarily launching investigations without a "predicate" -- i.e., a strong reason to believe that an individual had been engaged in criminal activities. Spokesmen for the FBI assert that the Saudis had every right to leave the country.

Meanwhile, President Bush was in Washington working full-time at the White House to mobilize a global antiterror coalition. On Friday, September 14, a dozen ambassadors from Arab nations -- Syria, the Palestinian Authority, Algeria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Persian Gulf states -- met at Prince Bandar's home in McLean, Virginia, to discuss how they would respond to Bush's new policies. Bandar himself had pledged his support for the war on terror and, perhaps most important, vowed that Saudi Arabia would help stabilize the world oil markets. In a breathtaking display of their command over the oil markets, the Saudis dispatched 9 million barrels of oil to the United States. As a consequence, the price instantly dropped from $28 to $22 per barrel.

On Tuesday, September 18, at Logan Airport, a specially reconfigured Boeing 727 with about thirty first-class seats had been chartered by the bin Ladens and flew five passengers, all of them members of the bin Laden family, out of the country from Boston.

The next day, September 19, President Bush met with the president of Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, and with the foreign ministers of Russia and Germany. His speechwriting team was also working on a stirring speech to be delivered the next day, officially declaring a global war on terror. "Our war on terror... will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated," he vowed.

Meanwhile, the plane that had originated in Los Angeles and gone to Orlando and Washington, another Boeing 727, was due to touch down at Boston's Logan International Airport.

At the time, Logan was in chaos. The two hijacked planes that had crashed into the World Trade Center's Twin Towers had departed from Logan. The airport was reeling from criticism that its security failures had allowed the hijackings to take place, and exceptional measures were now being taken. Several thousand cars were towed from the airport's parking garages. "We didn't know if they were booby-trapped or what," said Tom Kinton, director of aviation at Logan.

Even though the Federal Aviation Administration had allowed commercial flights to resume on September 13, because of various security issues, Logan did not reopen until September 15, two days later. Even then, air traffic resumed slowly.

Then, in the early afternoon of September 19, a call came into Logan's Emergency Operations Center saying that the private charter aircraft was going to pick up members of the bin Laden family. Both Kinton and Virginia Buckingham, the head of the Massachusetts Port Authority, which oversees Logan, were incredulous. "We were in the midst of the worst terrorist act in history," Kinton said. "And here we were seeing an evacuation of the bin Ladens!"

Like Kinton, Virginia Buckingham was stunned that the bin Laden family was being spirited out of the country. "My staff was told that a private jet was arriving at Logan from Saudi Arabia to pick up fourteen members of Osama bin Laden's family living in the Boston area," she later wrote in the Boston Globe. " 'Does the FBI know?' staffers wondered. 'Does the State Department know? Why are they letting these people go? Have they questioned them?' This was ridiculous."

Yet there was little that Logan officials could do. Federal law did not give them much leeway in terms of restricting an individual flight. "So bravado would have to do in the place of true authority," wrote Buckingham.

"Again and again, Tom Kinton asked for official word from the FBI. 'Tell the tower that plane is not coming in here until somebody in Washington tells us it's okay,' he said.

As the bin Ladens were about to land, the top brass at Logan Airport did not know what was going on. The FBI's counterterrorism unit should have been a leading force in the domestic battle against terror, but here it was not even going to interview the Saudis.

"Each time," Buckingham wrote, "the answer was the same: 'Let them leave.' On September 19, under the cover of darkness, they did."

* * *

Of course, the vast majority of the Saudis on those planes had nothing whatsoever to do with Osama bin Laden. The bin Laden family itself had expressed "the strongest denunciation and condemnation of this sad event, which resulted in the loss of many innocent men, women, and children, and which contradicts our Islamic faith." And a persuasive case could be made that it was against the interests of the royal family and the bin Ladens to have aided the terrorists.

On the other hand, this was the biggest crime in American history. A global manhunt of unprecedented proportions was under way. Thousands of people had just been killed by Osama bin Laden. Didn't it make sense to at least interview his relatives and other Saudis who, inadvertently or not, may have aided him?

Moreover, Attorney General John Ashcroft had asserted that the government "had a responsibility to use every legal means at our disposal to prevent further terrorist activity by taking people into custody who have violated the law and who may pose a threat to America." All over the country Arabs were being rounded up and interrogated. By the weekend after the attacks, Ashcroft, to the dismay of civil libertarians, had already put together a package of proposals broadening the FBI's power to detain foreigners, wiretap them, and trace money-laundering to terrorists. Some suspects would be held for as long as ten months at the American naval base in Guantánamo, Cuba.

In an ordinary murder investigation, it is commonplace to interview relatives of the prime suspect. When the FBI talks to subjects during an investigation, the questioning falls into one of two categories. Friendly subjects are "interviewed" and suspects or unfriendly subjects are "interrogated." How did the Saudis get a pass?

And did a simple disclaimer from the bin Laden family mean no one in the entire family had any contacts or useful information whatsoever? Did that mean the FBI should simply drop all further inquiries? At the very least, wouldn't family members be able to provide U.S. investigators with some information about Osama's finances, people who might know who him or might be aiding Al Qaeda?

Moreover, national security experts found it hard to believe that no one in the entire extended bin Laden family had any contact whatsoever with Osama. "There is no reason to think that every single member of his family has shut him down," said Paul Michael Wihbey, a fellow at the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, told the New Yorker, "I've been following the bin Ladens for years, and it's easy to say, 'We disown him.' Many in the family have. But blood is usually thicker than water."

In fact, Osama was not the only bin Laden who had ties to militant Islamic fundamentalists. As early as 1979, Mahrous bin Laden, an older half brother of Osama's, had befriended members of the militant Muslim Brotherhood and had, perhaps unwittingly, played a key role in a violent armed uprising against the House of Saud in Mecca in 1979, which resulted in more than one hundred deaths.

Another bin Laden relative, Osama's brother-in-law Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, was widely reported to be an important figure in Al Qaeda and was tied to the men behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, to the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, and was alleged to have funded a Philippine terrorist group.

Khalil Binladin, who boarded the plane in Orlando to leave the United States, won the attention of Brazilian investigators for possible terrorist connections. According to the German wire service Deutsche Presse-Agentur, he had business connections in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais and visited its capital, Belo Horizonte, which was allegedly a center for training terrorists, including members of the Hezbollah movement.

How is it possible that Saudis were allowed to fly even when all of America, FBI agents included, was grounded? Had the White House approved the operation -- and, if so, why?


</div></div>

Bobbyrx
11-12-2009, 10:52 AM
Well you throw out so many issues at a time, I just picked out one that I knew had been proven wrong long ago. Clarke told the 9/11 Commission he left the decision up to the FBI. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Flights of Saudi Nationals Leaving the United States
Three questions have arisen with respect to the departure of Saudi nationals from the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11: (1) Did any flights of Saudi nationals take place before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001? (2) Was there any political intervention to facilitate the departure of Saudi nationals? (3) Did the FBI screen Saudi nationals thoroughly before their departure?

First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001.24 To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.25

Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. The issue came up in one of the many video teleconferences of the interagency group Clarke chaired, and Clarke said he approved of how the FBI was dealing with the matter when it came up for interagency discussion at his level. Clarke told us, "I asked the FBI, Dale Watson . . . to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me." Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."26

Although White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card remembered someone telling him about the Saudi request shortly after 9/11, he said he had not talked to the Saudis and did not ask anyone to do anything about it. The President and Vice President told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media. None of the officials we interviewed recalled any intervention or direction on this matter from any political appointee.27

Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights.28 The Saudi government was advised of and agreed to the FBI's requirements that passengers be identified and checked against various databases before the flights departed.29 The Federal Aviation Administration representative working in the FBI operations center made sure that the



--329--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI was aware of the flights of Saudi nationals and was able to screen the passengers before they were allowed to depart.30

The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.31

</div></div> link (http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/XXI/GWOT/911-Report/911-Report-10.html)
If Clarke had nothing to do with it, why didn't he just say so?

Bobbyrx
11-12-2009, 10:58 AM
from your post: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Not a single other American paper seemed to think the subject was news-worthy.
</div></div>

any link to where all that came from?

Gayle in MD
11-12-2009, 11:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Then why did he say that he did? "Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."
So he was lieing to the 9/11 Commission? </div></div>

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/04/11/unasked_questions/

Gayle in MD
11-12-2009, 11:08 AM
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/04/11/unasked_questions/?page=2

Gayle in MD
11-12-2009, 12:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">from your post: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Not a single other American paper seemed to think the subject was news-worthy.
</div></div>

any link to where all that came from? </div></div>


This is my last response to your ridiculous fandango about this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Instead, former White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, who was supposedly one of the only individuals on the ball when it came to recognizing the terror threat sitting like a burning pile of manure on America’s doorstep, gave his stamp of approval to the White House initiative.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>“Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin laden family, leave the country,” Clarke told Vanity Fair magazine in an interview. “So I said, ‘Fine, let it happen.’” </span>Maybe this was simply Clarke’s last straw in attempting to focus the Bush administration’s attention on what appeared to be a major domestic threat. Clarke soon said his goodbyes to the dirty world of espionage and anti-terrorism to write books dedicated to the blundering Beltway.

</div></div>

End of story!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15186

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

From now on, as I have suggested to you in the past, do some research before you high jack on of my threads with a bunch of nit picking about a subject that was proven long ago, accepted by the public at large as factual, and try to blow it into some big deal expose' to dilute the crux of my thread.

G.

pooltchr
11-12-2009, 01:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
End of story!

G. </div></div>

Gayle's way of saying "Please don't challenge what I wrote because I really don't understand it, and I can't defend myself when you beat me up with facts"

Steve

Bobbyrx
11-12-2009, 06:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #FF0000"> </span> From now on, as I have suggested to you in the past, do some research before you high jack on of my threads with a bunch of nit picking about a subject that was proven long ago <span style="color: #FF0000">LOL </span> , accepted by the public at large as factual <span style="color: #CC0000"> really???</span> , and try to blow it into some big deal expose' to dilute the crux of my thread. <span style="color: #CC0000"> The crux of your thread was 1 youtube video showing a parody of EVERYTHING bad about George Bush, 1 youtube video of Bush and Gorbachev: The Berlin Wall interviews and 1 youtube video of Republican speakers against the government takeover of healthcare. How can I hijack a post that is about 50 different topics just in the first youtube video alone. After you list the youtube video of Bush and Gorbachev: The Berlin Wall interviews, you throw in the comment that has nothing to do with the video just listed "Note; Within hours of 9/11, Geroge W. Bush flew more than one hundred relatives of the bin Laden family out of the country..." So I called you on it and I'm nit picking. So I link to FactCheck and interviews of Richard Clarke by the 9/11 Commission proving the statement false and you link to some guy who thinks OBL has been dead since 2001, Craig Unger, the author of "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties" who says "The White House told me that it is "absolutely confident" the Sept. 13 flight from Tampa did not take place. The FBI said "unequivocally" it played no role in facilitating any flights. The Federal Aviation Administration said that the Tampa-to-Lexington flight was not in the logs and did not take place.

But they are all wrong." Sure they all are involved in a coverup...right... from Factcheck (Unger's book, published in March of this year, reports that the FBI was only able to check papers and identify everyone on the bin Laden flight. That is contradicted by the more authoritative Commission report, published July 22, 2004. The Commission interviewed, among others, the FBI agent who supervised the questioning of the bin Laden family members.)

and last but not least a Globalreasearch.ca (??)article link (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=home) who on their homepage are telling people not to get flu shots....it's another conspiracy!! If you think research is going to every conspiracy theory site on the web, have at it...I'll take Factcheck and Clarke's own words (when he was under oath before the 9/11 Commission, before he decided to cash in and make money on a "book".) Wonder why he didn't mention Bush flying all of these people in his book???


</span>
</div></div>

Gayle in MD
11-13-2009, 05:54 PM
Nice try, BUT...


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>“Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin laden family, leave the country,” Clarke told Vanity Fair magazine in an interview. “So I said, ‘Fine, let it happen.’” </span></div></div>

These are Clarke's words, and you have read more into your chosen Clarke statement than is there, like you always do. Twiting words, like a good Republican.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
11-13-2009, 07:41 PM
So somebody asked Clarke "Can we?" and Clarke said "Sure"

Where is the white house even mentioned in your quote?

Steve