White House aided flight of Saudis/Bin Ladens post 9/11?

[Troy S Goodfellow]

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/04/politics/04SAUD.html) reports that 140 important Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, were quickly spirited out of the country with senior administration assistance. Though cleared by the FBI, the fleeing Saudis "were not subject to serious interviews or interrogations."

Pairing this with the Congressional report that intimated at high level Saudi contacts with Al Qaeda, is there any chance that this story could hit the big time?

Troy

[JeffL]

If I was trying to go after Bush in the upcoming elections, I dump this stupid and repetitive rhetoric the Dems seem to chant - like "tax breaks for the rich" etc. And I'd pursue this. Combined with the 29 or so censored pages in the big report, I just wonder how much would unravel if you started pulling on this thread. If you could put in the average American's mind that while he was talking about being uncompromising with terrorism he was playing footsies with some Saudis and trying to hide their involvement, you could strike at the heart of what the average American (I know, this pains people here to hear, but this isn't a board of the average Americans) likes about Bush - they see him as someone who has strong convictions and a straightforward view on how to deal with terrorism. Let the average American start thinking he may have been playing friendly with Saudis who had Al Quaida connections, and I think you knock him out of the White House.

Of course, I do expect a lot of people to jump on this and express horror, ect. I'll believe in the moral outrage if they also express their disgust at what has become an overwhelming accumulation of information that shows how irresponsible Clinton was in not taking the actions he could have and was urged to have taken to take out Bin Ladin and many of his staff. But I guarantee that the same people who will be the most tickled - er, outraged - over the hints that something fishy may be going on with this Saudi issue will find all manner of reasons to dismiss even the possibiliy that Clinton let his political concerns get in the way of taking out Bin Ladin (and being in denial over the whole issue.)

[Machfive]

I agree with Jeff, although with one caveat.

The flights aren't new news; I heard about this well over a year ago. It's too long ago to remember, but I heard a rather convincing argument on why this was done.

I'm sure anyone who does enough digging will find the original news breaks as well as the explanations.

[JeffL]

I'm glad you said that about this being older news being pulled back out - I thought I had heard something about this some time ago, and some explanation that made sense, but I assumed that it must have been something else (and perhaps this really is new news - I've never known the New York Times to be anything but above board.)

[quatoria]

I find it disgusting that when Michael Moore claimed this, on the Dailey Show, over a year ago, he was roundly called a horrible liar by both administration figures and conservative pundits.

[XPav]

Its really just another facet in the administration's efforts to cover up any Saudi links to terrorism.

Now, why they're doing it is the interesting part.

[cyborg]

I may just be a young cynic but I can't help feeling the reason why they're doing it is:

1) The administration really doesn't give a crap about the people
2) It's finacially rewarding

If it's true - and it wouldn't surprise me even slightly if it was.

[antlers]

I'll believe in the moral outrage if they also express their disgust at what has become an overwhelming accumulation of information that shows how irresponsible Clinton was in not taking the actions he could have and was urged to have taken to take out Bin Ladin and many of his staff. But I guarantee that the same people who will be the most tickled - er, outraged - over the hints that something fishy may be going on with this Saudi issue will find all manner of reasons to dismiss even the possibiliy that Clinton let his political concerns get in the way of taking out Bin Ladin (and being in denial over the whole issue.)

I'm as big a Clinton fan as anyone you'll find around here, and I don't think there is any doubt that "political considerations" played a role in deciding not to go after Bin Laden in October 2000 (nor do I think it was a particularly irresponsible decision given what we knew at the time--it's not like Bush went after Bin Laden first thing when he took office, his National Security priority was "missile defense".) Clinton had gotten no end of crap from Republicans for his earlier attempt to take out Bin Laden, and he thought that another attempt just before the election would be seen as a political ploy.

It's perfectly reasonable to judge actions taken after 9/11 with regard to the Saudis and Bin Laden completely differently.

[Lizard_King]

I find it disgusting that when Michael Moore claimed this, on the Dailey Show, over a year ago, he was roundly called a horrible liar by both administration figures and conservative pundits.

I agree. I am disgusted EVERY time Michael Moore opens his mouth. And even if he spent the next 50 years being occasionally right, that will not make "horrible liar" less of an apt label, unless you want to tack on some fat jokes as well.

Jeff, I agree strongly with what you are saying. I really wish someone would start pushing that button, soon, as I am really tired of this Saudi nonsense.

[Brad Grenz]

To be fair it would have been pretty stupid if we let innocent people who were related to Bin Ladin get lynched by mobs of emotional, misinformed villagers.

[chet]

Yes, Brad you are 100% correct. If my fellow Clevelanders and I had seen these people while we were busy chasing down any towelhead we could find with our pitchforks raised high over our head, we would have ripped these innocents apart. I know in Cleveland, there is not one islamic center left standing.

Thank god Bush was there to save us from ourselves!!

What a bunch of apologetic bullshit Brad. But here, so you don't feel alone, here is a man who is telling it how it really was - http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=8548


Gamei'a: "When a group of people attacked my home, I went
out to them and asked why they were doing this. They said
that because we were Muslims we were linked to terrorism. I
explained to them that what they were doing was uncivilized
and was, in effect, a twofold crime, you let the criminals
go free and attack innocents. This does not suit a modern
state and a modern people, and is opposed to human values."

"During my conversations with this group, it became clear
to me that they knew very well that the Jews were behind
these ugly acts, while we, the Arabs, were innocent, and
that someone from among their people was disseminating
corruption in the land. Although the Americans suspect that
the Zionists are behind the act, none has the courage to
talk about it in public."


Chet

[XPav]

That's some funny stuff.

[Brad Grenz]

Please, it would not be unreasonable for uninvolved Saudis to expect a negative reaction, and I can't say I blame them for thinking it may be prudent to leave the country in the immediate aftermath. And why shouldn't the Whitehouse help them if they've been cleared by the FBI? It's not like there wasn't any ignorant Arab bashing going on in the weeks to follow. I, for the life of me, can't understand what's so offensive about this. These weren't coconspirators, they weren't even suspects, they were people who thought they should leave, and it's not like commercial flights were a viable avenue at that point.

[chet]

But Iraq instantly was a suspect.

And where did the terrorists involved come from???


Mr. Schumer said in an interview that he suspected that some of the Saudis who were allowed to leave, particularly two relatives of Mr. bin Laden who he said had links to terrorist groups themselves, could have shed light on the events of Sept. 11.


But the Vanity Fair investigation quotes Dale Watson, the former head of counterterrorism at the F.B.I., as saying that the departing Saudis "were not subject to serious interviews or interrogations."


Chet

[Brad Grenz]

But Iraq instantly was a suspect.

And apparently all Saudis are terrorists until proven otherwise. Bin Laden has like six thousand siblings and has been ostricized from the family. Everyone thought it was the work of Bin Laden instantly. If the connection this guy thinks existed wasn't more than shared paternity then what's the big deal? If the FBI, who I'm guessing was all hot for retribution, said they were clear than they probably were. That's good enough for me, but it sounds like a one way ticket to camp X-ray and weeks of torture is what you were looking for.

[quatoria]

Folks, if Chet is representative of the temperment and rage-level of his fellow citizens, I think we can all see why we had to get those Bin Ladens out of harm's way as quickly as possible! He might have strapped them down and MADE THEM PLAY RUNE.

[Machfive]

I thought the left would support this kind of action, seeing as how he is universally known to be a black sheep in his family, and his family would likely suffer all sorts of horrors at the hands of small-minded fools who believe in guilt by association (or in this case, bloodlines) and would encourage any action to remove them from harm's way.

But this makes Bush look bad, so they're willing to turn a blind eye to what good this may have been and whip out the rhetoric.

But jumping to conclusions is what the far left and the far right are all about, I guess.

[chet]

Wait a minute Brad. You seriously cannot see the wacky leap in judgement here?

We have members of man's family member who planned the attack, not even saying they are suspect but maybe they know somthing, as mentioned in the article they weren't even questioned thoroughly.

And we have a country which has zero connection to the attack.

Who does Bush instantly, that day, lay out an attack plan against?


That's good enough for me, but it sounds like a one way ticket to camp X-ray and weeks of torture is what you were looking for.
You know, I am past bored with this line of debate, don't build me any freaking strawmen okay, this kind of shit is oh so "willy horton"

Brad, to quote Brittney Spears (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6b.htm) who you are sounding like, "Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens. " I guess with that logic, how can you be wrong?

Chet

[chet]

And machfive, thanks for once again playing the role of the 15 year old.

Yes, all muslims were dragged out into the streets and slaughtered like the beast they are. I remember thinking back in October of 2001, "How in the hell am I ever going to clean all this Islamic blood off my boots." Ahhh, those were good old days. Rampaging the Mosques, pulling out the Muslim women and children, slaughtering the children in front of their mothers. Fond memories.

Chet

[Machfive]

There was plenty of property destruction of Arabs of all walks following 9/11, or do you have a sort of selective amnesia, where you remember only what adds more data to your unchanging beliefs and ideas?

And Chet, thanks once again for dragging name-calling into it. You threw the first punch, which just goes to show which one of us is really the more mature of the two.

And so I don't have to come back here and edit for clarity, that wouldn't be you.

[chet]

And there were more _________ places of worship burned to the ground by hate groups in 2001.

Its a madlib and you can fill in - Christian Churches or Islamic Mosques.

Uh, oh!

And you are 100% right, I remember the storming of the fancy neighborhoods, where we yanked out the rich Saudis and ate their children straight from their mother's womb. Hmmmm tasty. Those people were in serious danger.

And, extending your "logic" further, I am only guessing, the blacked-out part of the Saudi involment in 9-11 was done by Bush in hopes of kick starting the black marker industry???

That wacky Bush, always trying to help the economy.

Chet

[Mark Asher]

If the connection this guy thinks existed wasn't more than shared paternity then what's the big deal?

I just think it's weird that the Justice Department was more than willing to round up, hold, and suspend the civil liberties of all kinds of people, yet our government was eager to help family members of Bin Laden and other Saudis get out of the country quickly.

If anything, in the interests of national security, these people should have been treated as "persons of interest" or whatever it is the FBI calls suspects now. They should have been detained for a week or two and thoroughly interrogated.

Why take chances with national security? Why rely on the expertise of the same FBI and CIA who completely whiffed on 9/11? Those guys, the ones who blew it, say dozens of Bin Laden relatives and other Saudis are ok to leave without being questioned? What's wrong with this picture? How is this even defensible?

[Brian Koontz]

If my memory and what created my memory are accurate, you guys are missing the obvious...

Saudi Arabia is a considerable US ally, for their oil of course. Bin Laden's family has powerful Saudi oil ties. Removing them from harm's way seems prudent.

My memory reminds me to tell you that Bin Laden's family has fully rejected him, and they certainly know less about his current situation than the CIA does.

I know you guys are eager, even rabid, to find flaws with Bush, but surely more effective snarling can be found elsewhere.

[JeffL]

I am hardly the flaming liberal on this board; I'm usually the one arguing with them (if for no other reason than it's fun and the numbers here are on their side.) And there certainly is a large contingent here that are completely biased and one-sided in their thinking. That said - it appears, with the data I can see, that for some reason Bush and company have been going out of their way to protect some Saudis. Blacked out pages in a report, this spiriting these guys away - maybe there are good explanations, I'll be willing to listen to them with an open mind. But until then, it sure has the appearance of special treatment.

My hope for Iraq, purely selfish for America: things eventually get settled down, we have a huge new supply of oil that allows us to tell Saudi Arabia "Not only can you now eat your oil, but NOW we can kick your ass for being a primary supporter of international terror for years." "Kick your ass" not meaning invade, but certainly measures that would be painful to Saudi Arabia. I'm sure there's a #1 Country song hit in this paragraph.

[Ben Sones]

I know you guys are eager, even rabid, to find flaws with Bush, but surely more effective snarling can be found elsewhere.

Aside from all the obvious flaws that we already know about, you mean?

[Jason McCullough]

Bush is in the tank for the Saudis for some reason, but this isn't evidence of it. It's evidence they were trying to keep the extended family from being torn apart in the streets.

[XPav]

Bush is in the tank for the Saudis for some reason, but this isn't evidence of it. It's evidence they were trying to keep the extended family from being torn apart in the streets.

Bullshit.

Were the Bin Ladin family and these other Saudis going to walk out into the street with "BIN LADIN IS MY UNCLE" tshirts on? Were mobs of rampaging Americans going to storm the Waldorf-Astoria screaming "WE KNOW YOU HAVE SAUDIS IN THERE!"?

The right thing to do would have been to treat them the same way everyone in the US was treated. "You don't get a plane. You shouldn't leave their hotel and should probably seek additional security, just in case."

[Mark Asher]

Perhaps I have a selective memory, but was there rioting and lynchings after 9/11? I remember a few reports of violence, but I think people were just stunned and saddened and didn't spill into the streets in a rage.

[Jason McCullough]

Dunno, I would have done the same thing as Bush on this one.

[chet]

Mark there was that and raping and pillaging. I know there isn't a single Muslim left alive in Ohio. Didn't you do your American duty and clean out your state?

Can't wait for football season to start and they truck in some new muslims for us to slaughter.

Chet

[JeffL]

Perhaps I have a selective memory, but was there rioting and lynchings after 9/11? I remember a few reports of violence, but I think people were just stunned and saddened and didn't spill into the streets in a rage.

Not that I could remember. I did something odd - when my wife called me at work and told me a plane had hit the tower, and I went down to our TV here at work in the kitchen and saw the plane hit the second tower, I told my wife to put the VCR in LP mode (six hour mode) and put a tape in the VCR and start recording. I didn't know what the hell was going on, but it was obvious this was the start of something big. I came home (and told all of my people at work they were free to go home) around noon. And we kept the VCR going, taping newscasts (we would switch stations regularly, so we got CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, all three networks, and some international coverage) every day for probably a month.

There were a number of broadcasts, later when it became clear who was behind this, talking about the concern that mosques, etc. would become targets. And there were reports about the fears of middle eastern (or anyone who looked middle eastern) folks. But there was also a burst of feeling that Americans should not treat foreigners with predudice, that we should put on our best face in terms of what America is all about. Looking back at those, it's amazing how the very best in the average American seemed to come out.

Anyway, I don't recall anything other than an isolated wacko attack here and there. There certainly wasn't (as far as I could see) mass violence against either Muslims or people of middle eastern origen.

FWIW

[Brad Grenz]

I never said it was a huge problem, but it was not unreasonable for these Saudis, or the administration to be concerned. The President's speaches went to great pains to ensure there wouldn't be the kind of anti-arab hate crimes everyone was worried about. I just think this is a completely ludicrous thing to be mad about.

[XPav]

I never said it was a huge problem, but it was not unreasonable for these Saudis, or the administration to be concerned. The President's speaches went to great pains to ensure there wouldn't be the kind of anti-arab hate crimes everyone was worried about. I just think this is a completely ludicrous thing to be mad about.

The problem is the completely special treatment shown to these Saudis.

[Brad Grenz]

You mean the rich, famous, important ones?