[thunderous_funker]

A fantastic in-depth look at the initial findings of the Congressional Inquiry that raises quite possibly the most important questions this nation has yet to face up to.

This is not partisan. These failures go back through at least the last 2 administrations.

We owe it to those who died on that day to get to the bottom of this mess. We owe to our own future to get to the bottom of this mess.

[memento]

That's a pretty good read. It refreshing to hear that this is not a partisan issue. People will try and blame Bush and people will try and blame Clinton or Bush sr. The fact is that this developed over many years and whoever is to blame is not important. What IS important is that something is done to change it. It's too late for the victims of 9/11 but it's never too late for change in the right direction.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I haven't read the report itself, I only have this take on it to go on. So what else is there, I don't know.

But I am not so sure I'd call this article non-partisan. It does occur to me that Commondreams doesn't discuss the other explanations that have been advanced (and substantiated) for why people in the FBI didn't want to invastigate Saudis. Those are an institutional fear of domestic spying and prohibitions on close cooperation with the CIA. That problem dates back to the intelligence hearings of the mid-1970s but became worse with a policy that Janet Reno put in place in 1995. This was her now infamous "wall" separating FBI and CIA that made obtaining warrants under the FISA much more difficult. Link Other reports say that a fear of appearing racist or otherwise insensitive by arresting Arabs is a more recent addition to the mix. For example, until the policy was reversed after 9/11, the FBI was essentially forbidden from monitoring any activity if it took place in a Mosque -- I understand even if the tip would otherwise rise to the level of probable cause.

Of course, the thing that addressed most of these concerns was the much-maligned USA Patriot Act. Is Commondreams going to mention that fact?

I'm not myself trying to be partisan here. I am quite sure that Republican administrations played their part and that a great deal of this was independent of any party political component. In addition, none of those contributing problems were addressed by either party until after 9/11. But I am just surprised that these elements are left out.

[Lerkfish]

outrageous...but we knew much of this already.
Apparently, the most connected country to 9/11 is Saudi Arabia, which makes the royal family's offer post 9/11 of money and biting criticism to NYC all the more reprehensible.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I haven't read the report itself, I only have this take on it to go on. So what else is there, I don't know.

But I am not so sure I'd call this article non-partisan. It does occur to me that Commondreams doesn't discuss the other explanations that have been advanced (and substantiated) for why people in the FBI didn't want to invastigate Saudis. Those are an institutional fear of domestic spying and prohibitions on close cooperation with the CIA. That problem dates back to the intelligence hearings of the mid-1970s but became worse with a policy that Janet Reno put in place in 1995. This was her now infamous "wall" separating FBI and CIA that made obtaining warrants under the FISA much more difficult. Link Other reports say that a fear of appearing racist or otherwise insensitive by arresting Arabs is a more recent addition to the mix. For example, until the policy was reversed after 9/11, the FBI was essentially forbidden from monitoring any activity if it took place in a Mosque -- I understand even if the tip would otherwise rise to the level of probable cause.

Of course, the thing that addressed most of these concerns was the much-maligned USA Patriot Act. Is Commondreams going to mention that fact?

I'm not myself trying to be partisan here. I am quite sure that Republican administrations played their part and that a great deal of this was independent of any party political component. In addition, none of those contributing problems were addressed by either party until after 9/11. But I am just surprised that these elements are left out.

well, I think the walk off at the end of the article covers the possibility that there may be things unknown at present that are factors. You're implying it doesn't, but its there.

Of course, it may well turn out that all such suspicions about the government�s motives are misplaced. Many of the facts about the mishandling of the 9/11 case are perfectly consistent with old-fashioned bungling and incompetence�albeit incredible bungling and staggering incompetence. Somehow it ought to be possible to steer a middle course between wild speculation and cynical whitewash. At both extremes, credulity is a danger. If one thing is certain history keeps surprising us with how venal our national security state can be.

What�s needed now is more evidence. That blue-ribbon panel has its work cut out for it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, I think the walk off at the end of the article covers the possibility that there may be things unknown at present that are factors. You're implying it doesn't, but its there.

The problem is I'm not referring to anything unknown. Just well known issues that are awkward from one part of the political spectrum. And frankly, I think they are a whole lot more documented than the clumsy attempt of the article to hint that it was all because Bush wouldn't let the CIA tail Saudis.

I guess I would prefer to read the report itself, or a more neutral source summarizing it. The report sounds probing and in-depth and probably should be left to speak for itself.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
outrageous...but we knew much of this already.
Apparently, the most connected country to 9/11 is Saudi Arabia, which makes the royal family's offer post 9/11 of money and biting criticism to NYC all the more reprehensible.

This I agree with. All the roads do seem to lead to Riyadh.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The problem is I'm not referring to anything unknown. Just well known issues that are awkward from one part of the political spectrum. And frankly, I think they are a whole lot more documented than the clumsy attempt of the article to hint that it was all because Bush wouldn't let the CIA tail Saudis.

I guess I would prefer to read the report itself, or a more neutral source summarizing it. The report sounds probing and in-depth and probably should be left to speak for itself.

I agree I'd rather read the report, and I also agree that this is a partisan view of the report, even though it does attempt to inject some balance, more so than many partisan views would.
I imagine, though, the report to be quite lengthy.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This I agree with. All the roads do seem to lead to Riyadh.

And yet, we invaded Iraq. Go figure.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
And yet, we invaded Iraq. Go figure.

Well, you have to start somewhere.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, you have to start somewhere.

Not funny.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Of course, the thing that addressed most of these concerns was the much-maligned USA Patriot Act. Is Commondreams going to mention that fact?

How exactly did the Patriot Act "address most of these concerns"?

Its becoming more and more clear to me that there was no lack of intelligence, motive, suspicion, evidence, opportunity to thwart this plot very early on.

It seems to me they knew everything they needed to know about these men but failed to do anything about it.

Early on apologists characterized the 9/11 plot as "a needle in a haystack". Not only do I think there is no evidence to support that claim (and surprisingly large amounts of evidence to flat out refute it), it would seem that the Patriot Act is shockingly designed to increase the size of the haystack rather than empower us to find needles.

Acquisition of intelligence was not an obstacle. Analysis of the intelligence was. I fail to see how anything in the Patriot Act addresses the failure of analysis.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
How exactly did the Patriot Act "address most of these concerns"?

The two specific things I had in mind is that it took down Reno's wall, allowing the CIA and FBI to cooperate and communicate more, particularly in obtaining FISA warrants (as discussed without this context in the article).

Secondly, the effective prohibition on FBI intelligence gatherings at Mosques and other religious sites was lifted. This isn't directly related to 9/11 as far as I am aware, at least not in the US. But if you bear in mind the Finsbury Park situation, it is a smart move to have the ability to monitor religious sites in the same way as any other public space. Separation of church and state shouldn't mean that religious sites are law enforcement-free zones.

The first situation is the most relavent to what the article discussed from the report. The CIA apparently knew things. The FBI apparently knew things. They just didn't communicate and hand off to one another as the terrorists crossed the border (where CIA jurisdiction basically ends, and FBI basically begins). That was a function of the wall created in the mid 1970s, and increased in the mid 1990s. There is still a wall, but it is much more sensibly-sized now than before.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The two specific things I had in mind is that it took down Reno's wall, allowing the CIA and FBI to cooperate and communicate more, particularly in obtaining FISA warrants (as discussed without this context in the article).

Secondly, the effective prohibition on FBI intelligence gatherings at Mosques and other religious sites was lifted. This isn't directly related to 9/11 as far as I am aware, at least not in the US. But if you bear in mind the Finsbury Park situation, it is a smart move to have the ability to monitor religious sites in the same way as any other public space. Separation of church and state shouldn't mean that religious sites are law enforcement-free zones.

I find it hard to justify the Patriot Act with just these 2 very small, limited rule changes that could have easily been accomplished without the rest of it slashing the Bill of Rights to shreds.

Not only that, but I fail to see how your link has anything to do with how the CIA & FBI cooperate. All it talks about are lowering the barreirs to authorized surveillance. What about this case suggests to your mind that there was a lack of surveillance? Seems to me that all they did was surveil when they should have been arresting, interogating, detaining and deporting.

The reforms undertaken under the banner of Homeland Security are at least in the right direction, but I don't see them accomplishing much so far. I don't see what the Patriot Act does for "cooperation".

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I find it hard to justify the Patriot Act with just these 2 very small, limited rule changes that could have easily been accomplished without the rest of it slashing the Bill of Rights to shreds.

Not only that, but I fail to see how your link has anything to do with how the CIA & FBI cooperate. All it talks about are lowering the barreirs to authorized surveillance. What about this case suggests to your mind that there was a lack of surveillance? Seems to me that all they did was surveil when they should have been arresting, interogating, detaining and deporting.

The reforms undertaken under the banner of Homeland Security are at least in the right direction, but I don't see them accomplishing much so far. I don't see what the Patriot Act does for "cooperation".

I'm sorry. This is another one of those things where what I know about an issue is based on sources that I don't have to hand any more. What I posted before was just what I could find with a quick google search. It isn't actually where I got the information. You can either trust me on this, or you can disregard.

On the other hand, you could look at this official web site if you like.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm sorry. This is another one of those things where what I know about an issue is based on sources that I don't have to hand any more. What I posted before was just what I could find with a quick google search. It isn't actually where I got the information. You can either trust me on this, or you can disregard.

On the other hand, you could look at this official web site if you like.

Fair enough. But I'm somewhat surprised to find you defending the Patriot Act. Well, maybe more disappointed than surprised.

I think we can all agree that serious reforms to the intelligence agencies is needed to overcome traditional rivalry, suspicion and lack of cooperation. I think that effort has bipartisan support (some Dems even claim they were for it long before it was considered cool) even if the results to date are arguable.

But to endorse the monstrosity that is the Patriot Act for the 2 or 3 sentences that might have dealth with honest obstacles--rather than wholesale suspension of rights in the interests of agencies that have demonstrated zero competence in dealing with the facts and rights they already have access to-- is pretty weird, IMO.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Fair enough. But I'm somewhat surprised to find you defending the Patriot Act. Well, maybe more disappointed than surprised.

I think we can all agree that serious reforms to the intelligence agencies is needed to overcome traditional rivalry, suspicion and lack of cooperation. I think that effort has bipartisan support (some Dems even claim they were for it long before it was considered cool) even if the results to date are arguable.

But to endorse the monstrosity that is the Patriot Act for the 2 or 3 sentences that might have dealth with honest obstacles--rather than wholesale suspension of rights in the interests of agencies that have demonstrated zero competence in dealing with the facts and rights they already have access to-- is pretty weird, IMO.

The aspect i am talking about here isn't trivial. Nor is it just encouraging the CIA and FBI to cooperate. They were actually virtually forbidden to cooperate.

Some personal history is probably called for. I did a research paper a few years back (i.e. before 9/11) on the intelligence investigations of the 1970s. Researching that I started reading about the restrictions on intelligence sharing. I think that it made some sense given the context of the 1970s, but even so, I think it went too far. The implications for a world with terrorism were pretty clear. Those policies dating back to the early Carter Administration were just suicidal by the end of the Clinton Administration.

To me, this is every bit as illuminating as the "connect the dots" stuff. We had a mindset that just didn't grasp the nature of the threat. And I think in some respects that still exists.

Most of what I have read in the Patriot Act reflects ideas that were percolating for some time prior to 9/11. It isn't the rushed monstrosity of ill repute. On the other hand, Congress was smart to build in a sunset provision. What is unnecessary can be deleted on repassage (assuming there is repassage).

I'm as much of a civil libertarian as the next person. But I recognize that physical safety and theoretical civil liberties sometimes have to be balanced against one another. Many of the things that people have railed against in the act are just trivial inconveniences or completely theoretical invasions. Things like library records. I just can't get upset about that. Nor is it really true to talk about wholesale suspension of rights. A lot of what has been said about this act is sheer hyperbole.

[Lerkfish]

Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong here....But IF the Bush administration has direct evidence of Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks, even of direct funding and meetings with al quaida in the Saudi consulate, but continues to protect the Saudis....er.....I"m no lawyer, but doesn't that make George Bush guilty of treason?

I mean....really. That would make the Saudis an enemy of the state.

Simey? You are studying law. How is that not treason?

is that an impeachable offense, not to mention outrageously reprehensible?



at any rate, to sum up:

Here's the show so far:

1. We invaded a country that we claimed had ties to al Qaida, even though it didn't, and we lied about the implied connection (or at the very least exaggerated it)
2. We may have knowingly protected a country that is directly involved in both 9/11 and Al Qaida, but we don't invade them, in fact, we black out the portion of the report that directly ties them to the terrorist attack, in order to protect them.


is this bizarro world, or what?

[AKcrab]

You forgot #3: We raped our Bill of Rights.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
You forgot #3: We raped our Bill of Rights.

We did? How?

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
We did? How?

The Patriot Act

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Simey? You are studying law. How is that not treason?

You need witnesses of the act, or an admission in open court. Speculation on the web by partisans with axes to grind doesn't cut it.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You need witnesses of the act, or an admission in open court. Speculation on the web by partisans with axes to grind doesn't cut it.

no, before you get your panties in a twist, analyze what I said. I said IF this is true, wouldn't that be treason?
The question implies proof would be found at some point.
I'm asking a point of law here. If a foreign nation is found to be complicit in a direct attack on our soil, and the president helps to cover up their involvement in said attack, does that or does that not constitute treason?

Just answer the question directly, or don't. It doesn't matter whether I ask the question or spliffdaddy does. Is it treason or not?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You need witnesses of the act, or an admission in open court. Speculation on the web by partisans with axes to grind doesn't cut it.

You mean the GOP run Congress??



The report says they had plenty of evidence to suspect, every opportunity to intercede, and failed. They also blocked investigations for political reasons (Clinton too). What are we waiting for? Let's see the heads roll.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
The Patriot Act

Tell me, how has the Patriot Act changed your life in any way personally?

What could you do before, that you can't do now?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Tell me, how has the Patriot Act changed your life in any way personally?

What could you do before, that you can't do now?

Be surveiled without a warrent. Searched without warrant. Arrested without charge. Held indefinitely in secret.

You might have read the Inspector General's report

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Be surveiled without a warrent. Searched without warrant. Arrested without charge. Held indefinitely in secret.

You might have read the Inspector General's report

\
And how many times has that happened to you?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
\
And how many times has that happened to you?

Things aren't wrong unless they happen to me?

" Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. "

Or were you implying that the Inspector General made it up?

[Zimphire]

What I am saying is, you wont find innocent people having problems with this. The only people that will be effected for the most part are the guilty.

If you aren't doing anything wrong, you wont have anything to worry about.

BTW Jesus also said to obey the laws of the land.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What I am saying is, you wont find innocent people having problems with this. The only people that will be effected for the most part are the guilty.

If you aren't doing anything wrong, you wont have anything to worry about.

Thanks for proving that you didn't read the Inspector General's report detailing how innocent people's rights were violated.

Your reputation as a complete and utter troll is entirely warranted. If you aren't going to even read what people post, why bother us with your drivel?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Thanks for proving that you didn't read the Inspector General's report detailing how innocent people's rights were violated.

Oh, I did. You are talking about the racially profiling that was warranted.

Your reputation as a complete and utter troll is entirely warranted. If you aren't going to even read what people post, why bother us with your drivel?

More silliness.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
no, before you get your panties in a twist, analyze what I said. I said IF this is true, wouldn't that be treason?
The question implies proof would be found at some point.
I'm asking a point of law here. If a foreign nation is found to be complicit in a direct attack on our soil, and the president helps to cover up their involvement in said attack, does that or does that not constitute treason?

Just answer the question directly, or don't. It doesn't matter whether I ask the question or spliffdaddy does. Is it treason or not?

And I gave you a legal answer. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. Unless you meet the constitutional prerequisites, nothing is "treason."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And I gave you a legal answer. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. Unless you meet the constitutional prerequisites, nothing is "treason."

sorry, unless I've misunderstood your answer, what you gave me was what form the testimony would have to take to convict someone of treason, rather than whether the act would be considered treason. You see the difference, yes?
That is a different answer to my question than I was seeking.
I'm asking whether this scenario constituted treason, specifically whether the definition of treason encompasses the scenario I outlined.

another way to put it would be that I asked you if this was a song, and you said you have to sing it in the key of C. Of course, then you followed with accusing me of having an axe to grind....sigh...but I've come to expect that sort of thing from you I guess.


The reason I ask is, according to the dictionary definition, it WOULD be treason:

Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

but whether the legal definition is the same is something I didn't know.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
outrageous...but we knew much of this already.
Apparently, the most connected country to 9/11 is Saudi Arabia, which makes the royal family's offer post 9/11 of money and biting criticism to NYC all the more reprehensible.

Sad, in't it?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
sorry, unless I've misunderstood your answer, what you gave me was what form the testimony would have to take to convict someone of treason, rather than whether the act would be considered treason. You see the difference, yes?

Lerk you asked me the question in legal form. To quote your question: "I'm asking a point of law here." You also asked me about it specifically referring to the fact that I am a law student. To quote your original question to me: "Simey? You are studying law. How is that not treason?" You didn't ask me a dictionary definition, you asked me a legal one. That is the way I answered your question.

You basically want to make a political point by attaching a label to something. Actually, you want to attach a label to an individual, which of course is one of those ad hominem attacks you criticize every one else for, but never seem to see in your own posts. The point is this: treason is a legal term. Just as you cannot call someone a perjurer, or a murderer without a conviction, you cannot call someone a traitor without a conviction. We have this rule that people are innocent until proven guilty. In this case, not only is there no conviction, there isn't even an indictment.

So what you are saying is that in your opinion, if the president were impeached, and if he subsequently were indicted for treason, you think he would meet the standard for conviction, which, as I have indicated, are set forth in the Constitution. I think you are stretching here -- especially since the entire basis for your accusation is a website that you admitted above is slanted.

There are extremists who called Clinton a murderer based on unfounded allegations about the death of Vince Foster. There are also those who called him a drug smuggler on the basis of allegations of smuggling at Mina Airport. If you want to sink to the same level, that is up to you. But please don't get indignant because other people don't want to join you.

[theolein]

I find this whole 9/11 debate really sad. I still remember that day vividly, and it had nothing to do with me, as I'm not American and don't live there. So many people dying was plainly and simply bloody horrific. Ruined lives and emtional scars for life are so often the consequence of such things. There aren't many who can brush it off and simply "carry on".

At the time I had the feeling that something like that could only happen in America. I felt that because I suppose it seems to me that big events are always bigger, more noisy, more in the public eye and more costly in America. I imagined later that if such an event had happened anywhere else, it would have been one airliner into one building.

The whole thing unreeling in front of news cameras sort of gave it that Hollywood sort of feeling of unreality, huge sets, enormous budgets and coffee and mineral water for the actors after the take.

It was such a shock that it defied reality.

Reading the news that day with so many reports of the heroics of the passengers of the airliner revolting even that they knew they would probably die was terribly sad.

The things that happened after 9/11 have been somehow insane. The invasion of Afghanistan, while ostensibly to capture Osama bin Laden, gave the Afghans a chance at a new life, not under a violent primitive government, such as the Taleban was.

The political effects in America seem to have been to make Americans more frightened than they were with regular warnings of vague terrorist threats. They seem to have made Americans more amenable to invasions of their privacy and giving up rights that they would not have even dreamed of earlier.

I don't know, 9/11 made America more amenable to very right wing ideas of freedom and control it seems.

The post Iraq invasion hangover with the added effects of higher unemployment seem to be breaking the veil of shock that has existed since the attacks.

I think however, that some things will go into national myth, no matter how far stretched they might seem. I read today on the WP that a recent poll in the USA showed 70% of Americans feeling that 9/11 and Saddam Hussein were linked, even though there has never been any proven links between them. Perhaps it's the compression effect of memory that happens with the passage of time, perhaps it's the lack of interest in the American population in the outside world.

If there are any lessons to be learned from 9/11 what would they be?

I would think mine would be:

Live life as fully as possible.
Be careful of what your government tells you.
Take an interest in the world around you.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Lerk you asked me the question in legal form. To quote your question: "I'm asking a point of law here." You also asked me about it specifically referring to the fact that I am a law student. To quote your original question to me: "Simey? You are studying law. How is that not treason?" You didn't ask me a dictionary definition, you asked me a legal one. That is the way I answered your question.

well, forgive me if I mistakenly thought you misunderstood the nature of the question. As I said, I'm not a lawyer...to me, saying how someone can avoid being convicted of a crime and whether their action is a crime are two different questions.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You basically want to make a political point by attaching a label to something. Actually, you want to attach a label to an individual, which of course is one of those ad hominem attacks you criticize every one else for, but never seem to see in your own posts. The point is this: treason is a legal term. Just as you cannot call someone a perjurer, or a murderer without a conviction, you cannot call someone a traitor without a conviction. We have this rule that people are innocent until proven guilty. In this case, not only is there no conviction, there isn't even an indictment.

label, schmabel. I don't care what you call it. IF the president or his administration knows with certainty the complicity of Saudi Arabia in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and continues to protect them for political reasons or because of oil, then I"m outraged to the very point of my being, regardless how you label it. What I can't understand is why that wouldn't outrage you as well, or anyone for that matter.
on a separate point, When I make reference to ad hominem attacks on this board, I'm referring to attacking another macNNer for expressing their opinion. That is different from criticizing a public official or a celebrity. I've never claimed it was ad hominem for people to hate Micheal Moore, etc, in the rubric of this discussion board. I might find their reasons odd or attack their arguments, but I don't consider criticism of public figures as an ad hominem attack. Not sure why you can't make that distinction. Seems clear enough to me.
My references to ad hominem attacks are when people, like yourself, cannot avoid getting personally nasty with another macNN poster simply because you disagree with their opinion, instead of just addressing the content of their opinion, or arguing against the platform of their position.
I'm sure you can see the difference, yes?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So what you are saying is that in your opinion, if the president were impeached, and if he subsequently were indicted for treason, you think he would meet the standard for conviction, which, as I have indicated, are set forth in the Constitution. I think you are stretching here -- especially since the entire basis for your accusation is a website that you admitted above is slanted.

no, that's not the entire basis of my conjecture, (notice this is not an accusation). I'm asking the valid question: IF the bush administration, or Bush himself, has concrete knowledge of Saudi Arabia's direct complicity in an attack against us, doesn't witholding that information, or protecting the Saudis constitute treason?
I arrive at this valid question independent of this website, to wit:
It is already known from news reports since 9/11 that certain high level officials made odd decisions not to investigate certain individuals with direct al-Qaida links...to the frustration of those requesting permission to investigate them. The independent report has entire sections blacked out that even the Saudis themselves acknowledge is concerning their involvement in 9/11 (which I found an odd assertion several weeks ago).
The majority of 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia or funded or connected to Saudi Arabia....Bin Laden comes from a very wealthy and well connected Saudi family, and the Bush administration is on record as telling people specifically NOT to investigate the Saudis in regard to 9/11.
I don't need this website to raise red flags in my mind, I've been wary of the Saudi connection for some time now independently on my own, and so apparently are you, or you wouldn't have commented that "This I agree with. All the roads do seem to lead to Riyadh."
...right? So you, yourself are suspicious of the Saudi connection, and it is not a secret that the Bush adminstration, and the Clinton administration, have both turned a blind eye to their connections. The difference would be IF after 9/11, and the Bush administration has direct knowledge specific to that attack, that's different than just oil diplomacy.
I think it bears examination, if nothing else.

Frankly, I can't imagine a legitimate reason for Bush protecting the Saudis if this is the case, but it smells to me like something is up. The blacked out portions of the report should set off bells ringing in everyone's head, not just mine.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There are extremists who called Clinton a murderer based on unfounded allegations about the death of Vince Foster. There are also those who called him a drug smuggler on the basis of allegations of smuggling at Mina Airport. If you want to sink to the same level, that is up to you. But please don't get indignant because other people don't want to join you.

see....this is the nature of the nasty sort of personal ad hominem attack you are getting to be adept at: "sink to your level", etc.

The real question should be in your mind, what if there is any validity to this question? If not in your mind, then fine, say so. Try doing it without your nasty personal slurs. Just try it. The debate would be elevated if you would.

Back to the thread (since I"m done talking with Simey here), We should be asking ourselves, if there is a situation here where the administration is protecting the very country that was most complicit in the 9/11 attack, whether the natural tendency to support a standing president is stronger than our outrage.

[eklipse]

Food for thought: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attac...036772,00.html

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attac...036590,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3085656.stm
http://www.itv.com/news/119348.html

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
We should be asking ourselves, if there is a situation here where the administration is protecting the very country that was most complicit in the 9/11 attack, whether the natural tendency to support a standing president is stronger than our outrage.

IF we found out that Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy actually participate together in Satanic rituals, kidnap children and murder them, would your natural tendency to support your political party give way to outrage? I'm just asking. I'm not making any accusations here.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Food for thought: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attac...036772,00.html

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attac...036590,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3085656.stm
http://www.itv.com/news/119348.html

I heard Michael Meacher's comments on the radio. It's a shame our politicians have to wait until they are out of government before they can raise such important questions.

As for the unanswered questions article, thanks for the good read t_f, I hope these questions are actually answered. I doubt they ever will be. The story about Saudi Arabia being involved is absolutely extraordinary.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
IF we found out that Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy actually participate together in Satanic rituals, kidnap children and murder them, would your natural tendency to support your political party give way to outrage? I'm just asking. I'm not making any accusations here.

LOL! my answer would be that I am not so enamored of my party that I am blind to being outraged by anyone who is democrat.
After all, I have the ability to discern reality and make rational judgements instead of being brainwashed by a national political party.

how about you?

I've obviously struck a nerve with you on this issue. But you have to admit (or you won't, of course) there is more support for the conjecture I made than for the one you did.

or are you backpedaling from your assessment on the Saudis now that it becomes a little too uncomfortable for you to consider?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
or are you backpedaling from your assessment on the Saudis now that it becomes a little too uncomfortable for you to consider?

No. But the things I find objectionable about the Saudi government (and its princes - same thing) don't lead to your conclusions about the US government. The things I am upset about include the subsidization of wahabbi ideology around the world, cozyness with terrorism (often disguised as charities), horrible treatment of their fellow Arabs, terrible treatment of women, and so on. But none of those things point to Washington in the way you suggest.

You suggest that people who are skeptical of these claims about the administration are somehow blinded by partisanship and unwilling to see the truth. I suggested above that some people used to say the same thing about Clinton and his supporters. Does a mere accusation equal truth that has to be credited? Another point of view is that those who are motivated by strong partisan dislike see things that really aren't there. I gave you the example of those people who think that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster. I tend to think that such theories are extreme. And I'm afraid I think these allegations about the Bushes and Saudi Arabia are equally ridiculous.

The point about my hyperbolic example about Dean and Kennedy eating babies is simply this. Just because an accusation is made does not mean that we have to be blown along by the extremism of others. We don't have to credit every wacky theory. I don't pay much attention to them mainly because I am simply disinclined to believe such similar theories from whatever quarter.

The problem is people have a tendency to believe the maxim "there is no smoke without fire." A whisper campaign can destroy a person or faith in institutions whether it is well founded, or not. That is what really worries me.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No. But the things I find objectionable about the Saudi government (and its princes - same thing) don't lead to your conclusions about the US government. The things I am upset about include the subsidization of wahabbi ideology around the world, cozyness with terrorism (often disguised as charities), horrible treatment of their fellow Arabs, terrible treatment of women, and so on. But none of those things point to Washington in the way you suggest.

You suggest that people who are skeptical of these claims about the administration are somehow blinded by partisanship and unwilling to see the truth. I suggested above that some people used to say the same thing about Clinton and his supporters. Does a mere accusation equal truth that has to be credited? Another point of view is that those who are motivated by strong partisan dislike see things that really aren't there. I gave you the example of those people who think that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster. I tend to think that such theories are extreme. And I'm afraid I think these allegations about the Bushes and Saudi Arabia are equally ridiculous.

The point about my hyperbolic example about Dean and Kennedy eating babies is simply this. Just because an accusation is made does not mean that we have to be blown along by the extremism of others. We don't have to credit every wacky theory. I don't pay much attention to them mainly because I am simply disinclined to believe such similar theories from whatever quarter.

The problem is people have a tendency to believe the maxim "there is no smoke without fire." A whisper campaign can destroy a person or faith in institutions whether it is well founded, or not. That is what really worries me.

then...(to use one of your own bizarre debate tactics)....what conclusion do YOU draw, then? if you can't draw a conclusion of your own you're not allowed to disallow mine.



seriously, though....you already agree that the Saudis are "up to no good" to use a phrase.
It is also clear that the administration is protective of the relationship of the Saudis.
If so, what conclusion do you draw, then?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

A you already agree that the Saudis are "up to no good" to use a phrase.
B It is also clear that the administration is protective of the relationship of the Saudis.
C If so, what conclusion do you draw, then?

For clarity, I have marked your statements A, B, and C.

My answers:

A: I agree.
B: There is no proof of this, only partisan speculation.
C: Because of B, and my reluctance to give credit to unsupported partisan speculation (discussed in my post above), I don't have an opinion on this speculation.

What I indicated above is that there has been other analysis of why the CIA and FBI failed to cooperate as they should. It has to do with laws and policies put in place beginning in the mid 1970s. I find that far more plausible and substantiated in the record.