grade schools targeted

[OperaTenor]

Whether the Bin Ladens were flown out on the 12th or the 13th, and whether it was GWB's or Clarke's decision to do it, they were flown out of the country, while hundreds of other Arabs/Muslims were detained, some to this day!
These people were direct relatives of the facilitator of the worst crime against the U.S......EVER!

If I was Ted Bundy's brother, I would find it reasonable that I would be investigated and questioned thoroughly following Ted's arrest and discovery of his heinous crimes.

How could the FBI conduct a thorough examination and investigation on a trans-Atlantic flight?
Why did we bother to collect them and ship them out? Why did I pay for it as a taxpayer?

[Shapley]

OT,

whether they were flown out on the 12th or the 13th makes a big difference when your arguing Michael Moore's assertion that they were flown out while American's and everyone else flying in American airspace were grounded. It was a lie.

RE: why did we bother to collect them and ship them out? Haggis posted this from the 9/11 commissions report: 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.

Id doesn't sound like we "collected them and shipped them out", I would suspect, from the sound of it, that the Saudi government made the request for a flight arrangement, and that the showed up without being "collected".

As for taxpayer's paying the cost, what makes you think that happened? Michael Moore?

V/R
Shapley

[haggis]

”It would seem to me that such misinformation would be damning to our national security, and the credibility of our leadership, to the point that would warrant criminal prosecution.”

OT, the film is protected as satire under the first amendment. Even if it was actionable, and I don’t think it was, can you imagine the reaction of the liberal MSM if someone had tried to take action?

For a better discussion of what was wrong and what was actually fabricated read this piece in Newsweek]

Since, according to Gallup, 20% of the American public (including you, as I recall) don’t believe the U.S. landed on the Moon, its not hard to see how gullible many Americans were about this film. It’s still “primacy of print” to most Americans.

Besides, despite the shrill rhetoric of some on these boards and unlike Canada , the protection of free speech is still very much alive in the U.S.

I personally thought the film was inappropriate for a nation at war but “I will defend, yada yada yada”

President Bush decided that it was beneath him and his campaign to reply to the allegations, a smart move in my opinion; Kerry should have done the same when the Swift boat ads appeared.

”Whether the Bin Ladens were flown out on the 12th or the 13th, and whether it was GWB's or Clarke's decision to do it, they were flown out of the country, while hundreds of other Arabs/Muslims were detained, some to this day!

These people were direct relatives of the facilitator of the worst crime against the U.S......EVER!”

9/11 Report

"...Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.31”

This was an after the fact review of the FBI's actions by the 9/11 commission and I'm willing to accept that the independent reviews were thorough

”If I was Ted Bundy's brother, I would find it reasonable that I would be investigated and questioned thoroughly following Ted's arrest and discovery of his heinous crimes.”

Don’t think he had a brother but I take your point. If I had been his brother I would have been offended if I had been detained and interviewed (and that’s what we’re talking about here). As a criminal investigator I might have talked with the brother to see if he could shine any light on Bundy’s movements but I certainly wouldn’t have considered his a suspect based on their relationship.


”How could the FBI conduct a thorough examination and investigation on a trans-Atlantic flight?”

They didn’t, read my earlier post. ”… The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures.”

”Why did we bother to collect them and ship them out? Why did I pay for it as a taxpayer?”

We didn’t, the Saudi government did.

<small>[ 10-12-2004, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Haggis ]</small>

[Shapley]

Haggis,

RE:Since, according to Gallup, 20% of the American public (including you, as I recall) don’t believe the U.S. landed on the Moon, its not hard to see how gullible many Americans were about this film. It’s still “primacy of print” to most Americans.

You mean gulp 80% of the people have been duped?????

[RC]

There is an issue here that was made by Michael Moore which was simply this, the Saudi's, who were directly related to the bad guy left very quickly after 9/11. They had access to people who could get them out quickly. Not just finding planes and pilots, they had to coordinate with the FBI etc...

Anyone here know who to call if you need to get out of the country in a huge hurry after 9/11?

I don't recall if Moore actually said they were in the air on 9/13 or not. I think that was ME that said that and you all thought it was me quoting Moore. Not.

I was mistaken anyway, I said 9/12 and then checked a weather report (don't ask). Shot myself right in the foot. 9/13 and 9/14.

Pretend I know what I'm talking about and back up the time line like I did. Who had time to talk to these people between 9/11 and 9/13? Wasn't the Pentagon still on fire or am I mistaken again?

There was a lot of planning going on. Is this just a matter of money talks?

No one is assuming that we let a bunch of criminals escape the country. At least I'm not.

I think I know what Moore was getting at and I think he was probably right, those folks had a connection.

[Shapley]

RC,

I'm not privy to any special information here, but keep in mind these were foreign citizens living in a foreign land.

When 9/11 occurred, they most likely called the Saudi Embassy, requesting information on what to do. Keep in mind that their relative had declared war on the United States, and that he had expressed interest in the World Trade Center as a target ever since the failed bombing in 1993. Their concerns would have been very real.

The Saudi Embassy would have most likely been supportive. Get them out. Keep in mind, it was business as usual at the Suadi Embassy, they had not been attacked, and were most likely watching the news on TV, just like the rest of us. They would also have been on the "hotline" home, where they may well have been instructed to get certain people out of the U.S. as quickly as possible.

They would have called their friends in Washington (they have friends on both sides of the isle) and asked for assistance. Those friends would have directed them to the people who were in charge of making such arrangements, not just for Saudi's, mind you, but for all foreign citizens anxious to leave the country. They would have been told that air travel was suspended and that they could leave as soon as air travel was resumed.

Saudi airliners were most likely grounded along with all the others. Saudi officials would have the authority to bump any other travellers in favor of those on the list to leave. Those requesting to leave would then likely have been advised by the Saudi Embassy where to go for their scheduled seats on the available airlines. If sufficient Saudi airliners were not available, then they could pull a few strings to make other planes available.

By the time air traffic was allowed to fly, the bin Laden's were at the airport and ready to embark.

There's really nothing shady about this scenario. That is, after all, what embassy's do.

You or I may not know how to get out of the country in a hurry, because we've never had to think about doing it. That doesn't mean foreigners who travel here, particularly from certain regions of the world, do not.

I recall instances where Americans have found themselves on foreign soil when trouble erupted, and our embassy's were there to get them out.

V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 10-12-2004, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[RC]

Of all the foreigners in the US on 9/11; from all over the middle east; with all kinds of ties that may have been seen as suspicious to the public; the ONE family who turned out to be related to THEE PRIME PERPETRATOR, had an entire aircraft chartered from a commerical carrier solely for the purpose of evacuating that family.

9/13 airspace was reopened to civil aviation. This does NOT mean passengers were flying home and regular service resumed.

The Federal Aviation Administration ordered several stringent measures Wednesday to make the nation's airports and skies safer, while allowing limited air traffic to resume late in the day.

Flights diverted after Tuesday's terrorist attacks flew to their original destinations Wednesday, but the FAA grounded all other commercial air traffic for a second straight day.

You suppose any other embassy officials were on the phone looking to evacuate their citizens?

Yet someone managed all these special arrangements.

Keep in mind, we supposedly did NOT know who was responsible yet. So, of all the foreigners wanting to get the heck out, why the bin Ladens? Coincidence?

A few things strike me as peculiar; 1. there was a likely contact in the administration pulling strings, and 2. the administration figured they knew who was responsible the minute it happened? 3. the Saudi's certainly suspected that OBL was responsible.

Moore draws the line directly to Bush and there is hard evidence that Bush was more than casually acquainted with some members of the Saudi royals.

[OperaTenor]

They were the direct relatives of the facilitator of the worst attack against the U.S. or any of its interests, and we let them go, while we detained HUNDREDS of other Arabs/Muslims, the vast majority of whom had less connection with al Qaeda or the 9/11 hijackers?!! Why? Because it was in our interests to accede to the Saudi government's wishes to get them out of the country(if that was actually the case)?

I read the applicable passage in the 9/11 report. I find it interesting they were careful not to disclose the identity of the Saudis who were flown out. Do you suppose that was motivated by fear of backlash?

So you folks are telling me there was absolutely no business connection between the Bushes and Bin Ladens?

And you're also telling me I can go out and produce any kind of treasonous, national security sensitive rhetoric, label it "political satire", and that'll make it prosecution-proof? Even with Ashcroft as AG?

Oh, wait....

A distinct possibility was just brought to my attention. The administration won't go after Michael Moore because it's an election year, and, rather than risk him actually proving his w/a claims in court, it's safer to make him look like a kook.

[Shapley]

OT,

President Clinton named bin Laden a public enemy, and he had declared war on us years earlier. Even so, his family was free to come and go into and out of the U.S., long before President Bush was elected. Are you suggesting that they were never scrutinized, that their ties to his cause, if any, to him were not clear to those in charge?

Who are these hundreds of Arabs/Muslims who were detained? My recollection was that we bent over backwards not to offend our Islamic friends, and detained no one without an extremely heavy burden of proof.

When Sudan offered to turn bin Laden over to us after the embassy bombings, we turned them down. If bin Laden has a guardian angel in our government, he/she was there long before President Bush assumed office.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Yes, President Clinton had issued a hunting license for UBL. But, UBL had not attacked the U.S. or its interests on any scale remotely comparing to the 9/11 attacks. What I'm suggesting is I find it hard to believe an adequate investigation was carried out in the day and a half prior to their hopping on their chartered jet to go back to Saudi Arabia. What say you, Haggis? Is a day and a half enough time to conduct a thorough investigation on two dozen people?

My memory may be wrong, but the figure of 650-700 detainees comes to mind. These people were apprehended/arrested without the usual requisite protections normally afforded U.S. citizens under the Constitution/Bill of Rights, due to the extraordinary circumstances post 9/11. Many were deported, etc. as a result. Many were also released without so much as a "sorry for the inconvenience", and some are still held without arraignment.
What makes the Bin Laden relatives so special that they were excused from all of this?

I believe it was the Sudanese foreign minister who testified to offering UBL to the Clinton administration. There is no corroborating evidence or recollection from any U.S. official to support his claim. At the time the offer was purported to have been made, the Clinton administration wanted UBL very badly, and have records to support it, so it makes no sense whatsoever that they would have ignored the offer. Plus, the members of the former administration who have testified have been very forthcoming with regrads to their inactions/mistakes, as well as their accomplishments regrading UBL, so I really don't think they buried any connecting information.

Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report? I almost think it should be required reading for any voter prior to casting their ballot.

[Shapley]

OT

RE: The 9/11 report.

I have a copy, but haven't read it through.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Let me guess, you've only read the Republican half of it...



Tsk, tsk, tsk...

<small>[ 10-13-2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[haggis]

Wahington Times report

"U.S. security officials are investigating a recent intelligence report that a group of 25 Chechen terrorists illegally entered the United States from Mexico in July.

The Chechen group is suspected of having links to Islamist terrorists seeking to separate the southern enclave of Chechnya from Russia, according to officials familiar with intelligence reports."

"It could not be learned whether the reported infiltration is related to the recent Education Department warning to school officials to examine security in the aftermath of the attack last month by pro-Chechnya Muslim terrorists on a school in Russia, in which more than 300 people were killed and some 700 wounded."

I'm skeptical of these kind of reports, but it does ties some things together, doesn't it?

[OperaTenor]

Wow. Those guys are from a relatively cool climate, right? Hiking anywhere in southern AZ in July is foolhardy at best. Hopefully they met with justice naturally.

[sarcasm] However, if we employed the same investigative techniques used to examine the Bin Laden relatives prior to their departure, we should have located them by mid September, right? [/sarcasm]

[Shapley]

OT,

RE:Let me guess, you've only read the Republican half of it...

It's the only part my rose-coloured glasses will let me see.

It's not my fault that Democrats write in red ink...

[RC]

The notice said the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are "currently unaware of any specific, credible information indicating a terrorist threat to public and private schools, universities or colleges in the United States."
The letter stated that indicators of terrorist surveillance before an attack include interest in site plans for schools, bus routes and attendance lists from persons who don't normally request such information.

That is the information reported to have been found on the Iraqi Insurgent.

[haggis]

"[sarcasm] However, if we employed the same investigative techniques used to examine the Bin Laden relatives prior to their departure, we should have located them by mid September, right? [/sarcasm]"

Sigh, such cynicism in one so young.....

[The Great Carouser]

Originally posted by Shapley:

...It's not my fault that Democrats write in red ink...

So now you're trying to blame 'W' on the Democrats?! It's creative anyway

[piqaboo]

[quote]Originally posted by Haggis:
[b] "[sarcasm] However, if we employed the same investigative techniques used to examine the Bin Laden relatives prior to their departure, we should have located them by mid September, right? [/sarcasm]"

Sigh, such cynicism in one so young.....