I guess ole Mike Moore was right after all....

Search

919

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
9,361
Reaction score
73
Saudis did get early flights out, post 9-11
by kos
Mon Mar 28th, 2005 at 15:30:01 PST

Ummm, so much for this being a crazy Michael Moore-driven conspiracy theory.

The FBI played an active role in arranging chartered flights for dozens of well-connected Saudi nationals -- including relatives of Osama bin Laden -- after the 9/11 terror attacks.

The New York Times reported that the documents show Federal Bureau of Investigation agents gave personal airport escorts to two prominent Saudi families who fled the United States, while several other Saudis were allowed to leave the country without first being interviewed, citing newly-released US government records. The Saudi families, in Los Angeles and Orlando, had requested the FBI escorts out of concern for their personal safety in the wake of the attacks.
 

MathProf

RX Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
729
Reaction score
0
All of you who are fact-adverse, please ignore:

1. No Saudi flights occured prior to 9/13 when US airspace was open
2. the FBI escorts were provided to members of the Saudi Royal Family
at their request; this is standard diplomatic procedure.
 
docmercer--banned

docmercer--banned

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Reaction score
0
New Details on F.B.I. Aid for Saudis after 9/11
By Eric Lichtblau
The New York Times

Sunday 27 March 2005

Washington - The episode has been retold so many times in the last three and a half years that it has become the stuff of political legend: in the frenzied days after Sept. 11, 2001, when some flights were still grounded, dozens of well-connected Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, managed to leave the United States on specially chartered flights.

Now, newly released government records show previously undisclosed flights from Las Vegas and elsewhere and point to a more active role by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in aiding some of the Saudis in their departure.

The F.B.I. gave personal airport escorts to two prominent Saudi families who fled the United States, and several other Saudis were allowed to leave the country without first being interviewed, the documents show.

The Saudi families, in Los Angeles and Orlando, requested the F.B.I. escorts because they said they were concerned for their safety in the wake of the attacks, and the F.B.I. - which was then beginning the biggest criminal investigation in its history - arranged to have agents escort them to their local airports, the documents show.

But F.B.I. officials reacted angrily, both internally and publicly, to the suggestion that any Saudis had received preferential treatment in leaving the country.

"I say baloney to any inference we red-carpeted any of this entourage," an F.B.I. official said in a 2003 internal note. Another F.B.I. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said this week regarding the airport escorts that "we'd do that for anybody if they felt they were threatened - we wouldn't characterize that as special treatment."

The documents were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Justice Department by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, which provided copies to The New York Times.

The material sheds new light on the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and it provides details about the F.B.I.'s interaction with at least 160 Saudis who were living in or visiting the United States and were allowed to leave the country. Some of the departing Saudis were related to Osama bin Laden.

The Saudis' chartered flights, arranged in the days after the attacks when many flights in the United States were still grounded, have proved frequent fodder for critics of the Bush administration who accuse it of coddling the Saudis. The debate was heightened by the filmmaker Michael Moore, who scrutinized the issue in "Fahrenheit 9/11," but White House officials have adamantly denied any special treatment for the Saudis, calling such charges irresponsible and politically motivated.

The Sept. 11 commission examined the Saudi flights in its final report last year, and it found that no Saudis had been allowed to leave before national airspace was reopened on Sept. 13, 2001; that there was no evidence of "political intervention" by the White House; and that the F.B.I. had done a "satisfactory screening" of the departing Saudis to ensure they did not have information relevant to the attacks.

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch, with major passages heavily deleted, do not appear to contradict directly any of those central findings, but they raise some new questions about the episode.

The F.B.I. records show, for instance, that prominent Saudi citizens left the United States on several flights that had not been previously disclosed in public accounts, including a chartered flight from Providence, R.I., on Sept. 14, 2001, that included at least one member of the Saudi royal family, and three flights from Las Vegas between Sept. 19 and Sept. 24, also carrying members of the Saudi royal family. The government began reopening airspace on Sept. 13, but many flights remained grounded for days afterward.

The three Las Vegas flights, with a total of more than 100 passengers, ferried members of the Saudi royal family and staff members who had been staying at Caesar's Palace and the Four Seasons hotels. The group had tried unsuccessfully to charter flights back to Saudi Arabia between Sept. 13 and Sept. 17 because they said they feared for their safety as a result of the Sept. 11 attacks, the F.B.I. documents say.

Once the group managed to arrange chartered flights out of the country, an unidentified prince in the Las Vegas group "thanked the F.B.I. for their assistance," according to one internal report. The F.B.I. had interviewed many members of the group and searched their planes before allowing them to leave, but it nonetheless went back to the Las Vegas hotels with subpoenas five days after the initial flight had departed to collect further information on the Saudi royal guests, the documents show.

In several other cases, Saudi travelers were not interviewed before departing the country, and F.B.I. officials sought to determine how what seemed to be lapses had occurred, the documents show.

The F.B.I. documents left open the possibility that some departing Saudis had information relevant to the Sept. 11 investigation.

"Although the F.B.I. took all possible steps to prevent any individuals who were involved in or had knowledge of the 9/11/2001 attacks from leaving the U.S. before they could be interviewed," a 2003 memo said, "it is not possible to state conclusively that no such individuals left the U.S. without F.B.I. knowledge."

The documents also show that F.B.I. officials were clearly riled by public speculation stirred by news media accounts of the Saudi flights. They were particularly bothered by a lengthy article in the October 2003 issue of Vanity Fair, which included charges that the bureau considered unfair and led to an internal F.B.I. investigation that the agency named "Vanitybom." Internal F.B.I. correspondence during the review was addressed to "fellow Vanitybom victims."

Critics said the newly released documents left them with more questions than answers.

"From these documents, these look like they were courtesy chats, without the time that would have been needed for thorough debriefings," said Christopher J. Farrell, who is director of investigations for Judicial Watch and a former counterintelligence interrogator for the Army. "It seems as if the F.B.I. was more interested in achieving diplomatic success than investigative success."

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, called for further investigation.

"This lends credence to the theory that the administration was not coming fully clean about their involvement with the Saudis," he said, "and we still haven't gotten to the bottom of this whole affair."



<!-- footer -->
 
JinnRikki

JinnRikki

New member
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Messages
7,379
Reaction score
1
MathProf said:
All of you who are fact-adverse, please ignore:

1. No Saudi flights occured prior to 9/13 when US airspace was open
2. the FBI escorts were provided to members of the Saudi Royal Family
at their request; this is standard diplomatic procedure.
Fact AVERSE (if your going to be a petulant pup learn how how to spell).
And tell us all PROF if you or I or your daddy had a member of our family that was suspected of bringing down two large buildings do you think we would have been ushered out of the country on 9/13 or 9/14 or 9/15 or ever?
At least I live in the reality based community.
 

Hobbes

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
148
Reaction score
0
JinnRikki said:
Fact AVERSE (if your going to be a petulant pup learn how how to spell).

AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY--"Adverse: Acting or serving to oppose; antagonistic"

Seems to me that adverse was appropriate in the context it was used. Also, your use of your was not gramatically correct, but I get your gist so I won't make a big deal out of it...
 
Last edited:
SmallDaddy

SmallDaddy

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
7,168
Reaction score
35
I dont see what the mystery about this is.
The Saudi Ambassador was on Larry King and admitted it a long time ago.
 
DarrylParsons

DarrylParsons

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
5,412
Reaction score
0
JR is correct on the spelling observation IMO. Even if fact-adverse is grammatically correct, it is more awkward and less natural than fact-averse in that situation. Whether it's big enough of a deal to point it out is another matter, though.
 
JinnRikki

JinnRikki

New member
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Messages
7,379
Reaction score
1
Not a big deal at all, just the good prof continues to disparage anyone he deems doesn't get the facts according to him. I just thought if he was going to continue looking down on we mere mortals he should spell correctly. And as it happened it wasn't spelling but grammar, my bad. I could have pointed out occurred which he spelled incorrectly. As for my misuse of your and you're it's a mental block with me I should try harder on that word, but I always give myself 10 lashes if it's pointed out.
 

Hobbes

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
148
Reaction score
0
"American Heritage Dictionary---Averse: Strongly disinclined; reluctant".

Well Darryl, JR isn't correct if you actually read the definitions of the two words. One is strongly disinclined, one is antagonistic. Either definition works. Neither definition has anything to do with grammar, and whether or not it is natural is not relevant. The larger point is who the hell cares which word was a better fit, the general point was communicated and it's childish to point out grammatical and/or spelling errors...
 
DarrylParsons

DarrylParsons

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
5,412
Reaction score
0
JR,

I get yer drift...I used to be one of those math dudes who would berate math dunces for their stupidity, but then I realized two things: 1) It doesn't do anyone any good, and 2) I can learn from even a 1-year old who doesn't even know what a number is.

I too have to stop and think about "your" vs. "you're" a lot ...btw it's "looking down on US mere mortals" (I think)
 
DarrylParsons

DarrylParsons

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
5,412
Reaction score
0
Hobbes said:
"American Heritage Dictionary---Averse: Strongly disinclined; reluctant".

Well Darryl, JR isn't correct if you actually read the definitions of the two words. One is strongly disinclined, one is antagonistic. Either definition works. Neither definition has anything to do with grammar, and whether or not it is natural is not relevant. The larger point is who the hell cares which word was a better fit, the general point was communicated and it's childish to point out grammatical and/or spelling errors...

I agree with the last part. I don't think I've ever pulled out the spelling or grammar card in any argument. The content is what it's about.

Regarding grammar, customary usage is indeed a big part of it. If you use expressions in non-customary ways that don't add any stylistic flavor, you tend to lose points in grammar class. The points are even more certain to get deducted when there happens to be a customary usage that fits wonderfully in its place and is just one letter off.
 
eek.

eek.

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Reaction score
4
Spelling is irrelevant, Shakespeare couldn't spell for chit.

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
 

lander

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Reaction score
0
JR,
C'mmon, after seeing 30 some slow states fall victim to "weapons of mass distraction", you should have been better prepared for AlgebraQueen's episode of "monkey-see-monkey-do" ...

Geez.
 
JinnRikki

JinnRikki

New member
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Messages
7,379
Reaction score
1
lander said:
JR,
C'mmon, after seeing 30 some slow states fall victim to "weapons of mass distraction", you should have been better prepared for AlgebraQueen's episode of "monkey-see-monkey-do" ...

Geez.
I know Lander, just tired of the drive-by crap slingers. My complaint really isn't with spelling, you'RE correct. It's more with the lack of civility exhibited by some who seem to come into the political forum for no other reason that to let us know how superior they are. Or how their set of facts are the only facts anyone needs.
 
Redneckman

Redneckman

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,723
Reaction score
0
Mathprof right on as usual. Dodo Landass wrong as usual.
 

lander

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Reaction score
0
Redneckman said:
Mathprof right on as usual. Dodo Landass wrong as usual.

Lander working during business hours, as usual. F*ktard slow-stater posting in a degenerate gambling forum during business hours, as usual.
 
Redneckman

Redneckman

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,723
Reaction score
0
Dodo Landass, maybe some people not required to work during business hours to feed themselves. Thought ever occur to your feeble mind.
 
docmercer--banned

docmercer--banned

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Reaction score
0
Redneckman:

Sorry ya got your rear end chewed out tonite for leaving out Ketchup on that order tonite at the local McDonald's but no reason to take your frustration out on Lander ...

Hang in there ... Ray Kroc would be proud of being part of the 10 Yr Asst Mgr Training Program ..
 
one9

one9

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
612
Reaction score
0
Your post is right on 919. Too bad some people don't know the truth even when you smack them over the head with it.
 

lander

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Reaction score
0
Redneckman said:
Dodo Landass, maybe some people not required to work during business hours to feed themselves. Thought ever occur to your feeble mind.

Indeed -- it's called welfare.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,141,333
Messages
13,918,459
Members
104,800
Latest member
nh2362995
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com