Why were the Saudis allowed to fly and leave the country when everyone else was grounded?

[Octafish]

I don't believe this question has been answered: Why were the Saudis allowed to fly and leave the country when everyone else was grounded?

Why were the Saudis allowed to fly members of the royal family and others -- including members of bin Laden's family -- out of the country immediately after the attacks?



It seems incredible to me that Bush ordered the FBI to give them the green light to leave the United States, as there wasn't sufficient time to investigate these people for possible involvment in the attacks.

What happened? Why were the Saudis allowed to leave? Where they ever cleared?

I think this is an important part of the story. What say you?

[noise]

1. Like everything else related to 9/11

it's confusing.

The debunkers will say: "Oh yeah. Sure thing pal. They KNEW in advance but remained in the US so they could be whisked out by their pal George W. Yeah. Nothing suspicious about that. Great game plan. Brilliant in fact."

I wonder why al Qaeda operatives received kid gloves treatment from US intel even after the '98 embassy bombings and the '00 USS Cole bombing. If al Qaeda was a true threat as claimed by FBI and CIA then why were al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar free to roam the US from 1/00 through 8/01? It's the sickest contradiction in the government's 9/11 narrative. We were told that the Saudi government ID'ed these two men as dangerous al Qaeda operatives and told the US government. We were also told the "system was blinking red" in the months leading up to 9/11. Yet the CIA and FBI UBLU didn't tell the Cole investigators about these two al Qaeda operatives. Why not?

Joe Trento quoted sources who claimed they were GID operatives in his book Unsafe at any Altitude. Is it true? Who knows. This theory does make sense of the bizarre indifference of US intel yet raises key questions. Why would US intel be expected to trust GID operatives illegally operating on US soil, especially AFTER two successful al Qaeda attacks? Who told US intel to withold information about these two operatives from the Cole investigators?

[Octafish]

4. Perhaps the Gov can say the two were operating ''for our side'' in regards to Al Qaeda?

It was before we knew there'd be hijackers. Sort of handy spies to keep track of other spies. They were even reported to be getting money from Saudi government through Prince Bandar Bush's princess wife. The thing is, if they were spies working undercover, they would've already said so. Instead, they're ID'd as hijackers.

Here's what the great DUer lala rawraw wrote: FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission report

Why they were allowed to run free after being surveilled coming into the country? Yours is an excellent and most important question, noise.

[rschop]

43. Why the CIA withheld information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from the FBI Cole bombing investigators

The CIA and FBI HQ found out that both Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US on August 22, 2001, and even knew they were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands. Yet the CIA and FBI HQ deliberately withheld this information from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing.

But the CIA had been deliberately hiding the names Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI Cole bombing investigators since the Cole bombing had taken place. When Walid Bin Attash, the mastermind of the Cole bombing, had been identified from a photograph of him taken at the al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000, and the CIA also had photos of Mihdhar and Hazmi at the same meeting they knew, that these three long time al Qaeda terrorists had been part of the planning of the Cole bombing that had taken place at this meeting. The CIA also knew if the FBI Cole bombing investigators ever became aware of this information, it would expose the CIA culpability in allowing these attacks to have taken place. Just after Bin Attash had been identified at Kuala Lumpur the CIA started a massive wide ranging criminal conspiracy to hide this information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators.

There is direct evidence of the involvement in this conspiracy of Cofer Black, George Tenet, John Gannon, and the CIA Yemen station, the CIA Pakistan Station, the CIA Bin Laden unit with Richard Blee as its Chief, and Tom Wilshire, Deputy Chief of the Bin Laden unit. Wilshire had even been moved over to be Deputy Chief of the ITOS unit at the FBI in mid-May 2001 by Black and Tenet, with the concurrence of Freeh and Rolince, in order to find out what the FBI Cole criminal investigators had found out about the Kuala Lumpur meeting, and if they had found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at that meeting with Walid bin Attash actually planning the bombing of the USS Cole.

It is clear from the DE 939 “Substitution for the testimony of John”, aka Tom Wilshire, entered into the Moussaoui trial, that Wilshire in his July 23, 2001 email back to his CTC managers, Richard Blee, Chief of the Bin Laden unit, Cofer Black, head of the CIA CTC unit, and Director of the CIA George Tenet, clearly stated that Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack.

Wilshire had already indicated, according to the DOJ IG report, in his July 5, 2001 email to his CTC managers that he thought at this point in time, that the people at Kuala Lumpur meeting were connected to the warnings the CIA and FBI had been receiving about a huge al Qaeda attack since April 2001.

It is also clear from document, DE 939, that Wilshire had been forbidden twice from giving this information to the FBI criminal investigators, by his CTC managers at the CIA on July 13, 2001, and again on July 23, 2001.

So it is clear the instructions to hide the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the names Khalid al-Mihdhar, and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI criminal investigators came from the very top of the CIA management at the very same time, that they were holding urgent meetings in the White House with Rice and Clarke, on July 10, 2001, and with Ashcroft and Rumsfeld on July 17, 2001 warning them a huge attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans.

According to Bob Woodward’s book, State of Denial, Tenet and Black had already held a meeting with Richard Blee and other CIA managers earlier in July to ask where they all thought the massive al Qaeda attack they were being warned about would take place. The room went silent when Richard Blee stated, “They are coming here!”

On August 22, 2001, less than one month after Wilshire’s July 23, 2001 email to his CTC mangers on Mihdhar, FBI IOS Agent Margaret Gillespie at the CIA Bin Laden unit found out from the INS that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US and took this information to FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and CIA officer Tom Wilshire. Note on July 24, 2001 Gillespie had already found the CIR on Mihdhar’s travels to Kuala Lumpur and his US multi-entry visa that specified New York City as his destination, written up by FBI IOS Agent Doug Miller at the CIA Bin Laden unit on January 5, 2000. This CIR that had written on the bottom; “Blocked by order of the Deputy Chief” (of the bin Laden unit, Tom Wilshire).

Wilshire and Corsi started to put together the EC to start an investigation of Mihdhar on August 22, 2001. Document DE 469 from the Moussaoui trial is the actual EC written up by FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi, that connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi not only to the east Africa bombings, but also to the Cole bombing.

When FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, supervisor of the FBI Cole bombing investigators in New York, accidentally got Corsi’s EC to start an intelligence investigation of Mihdhar on August 28, 2001 he called Corsi to demand that the criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi go to his FBI Cole investigating team. Corsi told him that he could not investigate Mihdhar and Hazmi due to the restrictions on NSA information going to FBI criminal investigators.

But it is clear from DE 448, the release from the NSA to Corsi, that the NSA had already approved FBI Agent Dina Corsi to pass the NSA information on Mihdhar and Hazmi and the fact they attended the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting to the FBI criminal investigators in New York, on August 27, 2001 in a release that was sent to Corsi on August 28, 2001. The release even listed the recipients as “The FBI criminal Cole bombing investigators in New York”, Steve Bongardt and his team.

Page 306 of the DOJ IG report says:

Bongardt received the EC, Corsi’s EC, on August 28. Shortly thereafter, Bongardt, Corsi, and Rod Middleton, (Corsi’s boss), engaged in a conference call to discuss whether the case should be opened as a criminal instead of an intelligence investigation. Corsi told the OIG that the information on Mihdhar was received through intelligence channels and, because of restrictions on using intelligence information, could not be provided directly to the criminal agents working the Cole investigation. Rod Middleton told the OIG he had concurred with Corsi’s assessment that the matter should be an intelligence investigation.

Corsi with Rod Middleton’s concurrence ordered Bongardt to not have anything to do with any investigation of Mihdhar and to destroy any and all information that he had on Mihdhar. She later tells him, as described in the September 20, 2002 public hearings for the Joint Inquiry of 9/11, that if one piece of paper ever surfaced at the FBI with his name and Mihdhar’s name, he was through as an FBI Agent at the FBI.

Since Bongardt did not see any connection between the NSA information to any FISA warrant, he asked Corsi on August 28, 2001 to get a legal ruling from the NSLU, the legal unit at FBI HQ on this issue, to see if he and his team could take part in the investigation and search for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

On August 29, 2001, Corsi tells Bongardt that the NSLU attorney had ruled that Bongardt and his team could have no part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Email, from FBI Special Agent Steve Bongardt back to Dina Corsi, 908/29 8:38 AM said:

Dina- where is "the wall" defined? Isn't it dealing with FISA information"? I think everyone is still confusing this issue. I know we discussed this issue ad nasuseum but "the wall" concept grew out of the fear that FISA would be obtained as opposed to a Title III.

Bongardt even told Corsi when she told him that he could take part in the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, “why do you think they are in the US, do you think they are going to f**king Disney Land!” It is clear that Bongardt knew immediately when he found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US that these long time al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack!

Sherry Sabol is the NSLU attorney that Corsi had contacted and from Sabol’s testimony to DOJ IG investigators, on November 7, 2002, it is clear that Sabol had ruled in fact just the opposite from what Corsi had told FBI Agent Bongardt. Sabol had ruled that Bongardt and his team could be part of any investigation and search for of Mihdhar since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant.

Sabol told Corsi said if she was still confused she, (Corsi) could go and get a ruling from the NSA, unaware Corsi had already obtained approval from the NSA to transfer the NSA information over to the FBI two days earlier on August 27, 2001. See testimony of Sherry Sabol, 9/11 Commission report p 538, footnote 81.

On August 30, 2001 the photograph of Walid Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000 was sent by the CIA to Rod Middleton, Corsi’s supervisor. So on this date, Middleton has photographic proof that Mihdhar and Hazmi, who also had been photographed at this meeting, were at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing.

The DOJ IG report had stated that on August 22, 2001, FBI Agent Dina Corsi was already aware that the CIA had this photograph of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur and even knew that the CIA had been deliberately keeping this photograph and the fact that Bin Attash had been at this Kuala Lumpur meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi planning the Cole bombing, secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators in New York and their supervisor FBI Agent Steve Bongardt. This information clearly meant that the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi should have gone to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team, since this was the photographic proof that both Mihdhar and Hazmi, known to be long time al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east Africa bombings, had also taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing.

And yet in spite of this information and the fact that on August 28, 2001 Middleton, had been on the phone call with Corsi and Bongardt, shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, Middleton never called Bongardt back to undo the damage he had done in shutting down this investigation earlier.

The CIA working with these FBI HQ agents had not only criminally withheld critical information from the Cole bombing investigators in a massive criminal conspiracy, but had then shut down Bongardt’s investigation when Bongardt accidentally found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and knew these al Qaeda terrorists were here only in order to take part in another horrific al Qaeda terrorists attack.

It is now clear that the CIA working with FBI HQ agents they had subjugated had intentionally shut down the only FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, prior to the attacks on 9/11 that could have prevented these attacks from taking place. Since shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi was deliberate, it is all but impossible to believe that when the CIA and FBI HQ shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that they all, including the senior managers at the CIA and even the FBI who were directing the actions of Wilshire, Corsi and Middleton, did not know that thousands of Americans were going to perish as a direct result of their actions.

[rschop]

45. Who told US intel to withold information about these two operatives from the Cole investigators?

The following is the answer to your question; “Who told US intel to withhold information about these two operatives from the Cole investigators?”

It was former CIA Bin Laden unit deputy chief, Tom Wilshire’s mangers on July 13, 2001 and July 23, 2001 that forbid Wilshire from transferring the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi and the meeting in Kuala Lumpur where they planned the Cole bombing with Bin Attash to the FBI Cole bombing investigators. These CIA managers were CIA Bin Laden Chief Richard Blee, his boss, CIA CTC manager Cofer Black and the head of the CIA George Tenet

When Wilshire was told by Margaret Gillespie on August 22, 2001, that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, Gillespie was given permission to have the CIA Bin Laden unit to issue a worldwide alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi on August 23, 2001.

This alert went to CIA Bin Laden Chief Blee, to his boss, CIA CTC manager Black and to the head of the CIA Tenet. By this time Tenet had already found out about Moussaoui, and when Tenet had a 6 hour meeting with President Bush the next day, on August 24, 2001, in Crawford Texas, Tenet already knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans and that Moussaoui had been already arrested because the FBI thought he was an al Qaeda terrorists trying to learn how to fly a B747 in order to take part in an aircraft hijacking that would target the World Trade Center Towers.

So what did Tenet tell Bush on August 24, 2001? That is the 64 dollar question.

[LARED]

2. I read the link to the Times article and nowhere

does it indicate Bush ordered the FBI to do anything. Why do you imply that's what was said?

[Octafish]

6. You are right, LARED. It doesn’t say that.

No where do the articles say Bush ordered the FBI to let the planes go.

Richard Clarke indicated he wasn’t sure who gave the green light, adding, when pressed, that he believed it might have been someone from either the State Department or the Office of the White House Chief of Staff who sent authorization.

9/11 Hearings: Clarke Details Controversial Post-Sept. 11 Saudi Flight

Democracy Now!
March 25, 2004

EXCERPT...

CLARKE: I believe, after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all of these decisions we were making in those hours, which was the Interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference.

I was making or coordinating a lot of decisions on 9/11 and the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don’t know. Since you pressed me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State, or the White House Chief of Staff’s Office. But I don’t know.

SOURCE: http://www.democracynow.org/2004/3/25/9_11_hearings_clarke_details_controversial

Not that there are many people who would have that authority, wouldn’t you say? Perhaps the Secretary of State, the “VP” or the pretzeldent.

Seeing how nobody got fired or anything, it’s safe to assume someone followed Bush’s orders in allowing the Saudis, including bin Ladens, to fly home.

Do you know if there are documents authorizing the Family Fly? What has Bush said about the Family Fly?

With all sincerity, I am interested in learning more about September 11. It's a good bet you and most everyone in this forum knows a lot more than I do about this subject. So, I ask.

[LARED]

10. Clark also said

CLARKE: I was aware, for some time, that there were members of the bin Laden family living in the United States.

And, let’s see, in open session I can say that I was very well aware of the members of the bin Laden family and what they were doing in the United States. And the FBI was extraordinarily well aware of what they were doing in the United States. And I was informed by the FBI that none of the members of the bin Laden family, this large clan, were doing anything in this country that was illegal or that raised their suspicions.

All I see are people that were afraid they were in a dangerous position, chartered airplanes to fly to SA after flight restrictions were lifted.

Big deal.

[SDuderstadt]

3. Another 9/11 myth...

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

[Octafish]

7. That's Snopes from 2005

That's the final word on the Family Flight? It seems we've learned a lot more since then. F'r instance:

FBI Documents Confirm Bush Allowed Saudis To Escape After 9/11...Press Remains Silent by Dave Gibson, American Chronicle, April 20,2008.

What's Snopes say about the ties between the bin Laden and Bush families? Does it mention James R. Bath?

[SDuderstadt]

8. What's missing from Gibson's account, Octafish?

That's right...he never once links to any of the actual FBI documents. So, essentially what we have here is Gibson's take on what the documents say and what they mean. I despise Bush, but Gibson does not present a smoking gun here.

[go west young man]

9. Nice catch.

Here's the link to the actual Judicial Watch page on the issue. http://www.judicialwatch.org/September_11_2006_SaudiFlight.shtml

Page 143 of the FBI Saudi flight documents seems very interesting. The FBI definently conducted a shoddy haphazard case as can be seen by reading the 224 page PDF File. Considering 9/11 was the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. ever the entire PDF file seems like it was a bit of a joke to the agents conducting the case review.

Now try this article to see who owned the planes. http://www.madcowprod.com/02272008.html
Scroll down the page and find these nuggets:

With hundreds of air charter companies and airliners to choose from, the Saudis chose a company that owns “Worship Ministries” and Christian Network, Inc., turning to Paxson Communications, a “Christian broadcaster” which owned the plane, to make its corporate jet available to spirit the Saudi princes and their entourage out of the U.S. six days after 9/11.


The 9/11 Commission's addendum on the Saudi flights names the owners of the other airplanes involved, but neglects to mention that Saudi Royals escaped on a plane belonging to a Christian broadcaster.

Two others of the six flights scrutinized by the 9/11 Commission were flown by air contractors known to be involved in CIA renditions on planes whose flight logs recorded trips to Guantanamo Bay, where the CIA’s detention facility was doing brisk business.

Two of the six, in other words, were CIA planes.


Here's a link to Du'er Ingins Journal on the subject that includes the 9/11 report on the subject. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/ingin/33

Page 30 and beyond describe the 9/11 Commissions summation. There are many questions left unanswered and quite a lot of shoddy police work going on. In many cases people weren't even interviewed. Even a fellow with the same last name as one of the alleged hijackers was not interviewed. The 9/11 commission did no follow up on this individual.

[SDuderstadt]

11. Why do some progressives turn to RW writers as sources?

Here's a link to Gibson's articles on American Chronicle. He is pro death penalty, anti gun control, longs for the Reagan era, thinks that Ron Paul was censored, is a global warming denier, among other things.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/authors/view/2641

[go west young man]

12. Your point has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Progressive or Conservative. The Judicial Watch data is the same. Hell Judicial Watch mainly leans right but it still went after the Saudi flight data.

[whatchamacallit]

13. Discredit, discredit, discredit

All the while ignoring the fact that the guys who authored the official story are the biggest Right Wingers of all.

[go west young man]

19. You might want to read my post 9.

[vincent_vega_lives]

30. authored the official story

Interesting you should think there was a single source for everything that happened that day. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses, reporters, journalists and officials that were directly involved in and then investigated what happened that day.

But I guess you don't get out much?

[procopia]

60. Eyewitnesses, reporters, etc didn't name the perpetrators...

George W. Bush did that, on the night of 9/11, he wrote in his diary about the "Pearl Harbor" event, and "We think it's Osama bin Laden."

[SDuderstadt]

14. ''who cares what the source is as long as it says what we want hear?''

or something like that, right?

[go west young man]

18. Once again the info can be corroborated at the Judicial Watch

website. Link Here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/September_11_2006_SaudiFlight.shtml

You do understand that Judicial Watch took the government to court to force the release of documents in regards to the Saudi flights don't you?
Or does your progressive :sarcasm: brain not allow you to understand that point?

At that page is the 224 page PDF file of the documents the government was forced by court order to release. I would encourage you to read all 224 pages before commenting any further and making yourself look ignorant. Otherwise Will Ackerman will be dissapointed in you.

[SDuderstadt]

20. If you're implying I'm not a progressive....

I'll match my credentials against yours anyday, pal.

BTW, you realize that the FBI docs contradict the subject line of the OP, right? The OP claims that the Saudis were allowed to leave BEFORE everyone else was allowed to fly, but the restriction was lifted on 9/13 which, happens to coincide with the first date most of the Saudis were allowed to leave (others left even later) with the exception of one Saudi who left on the 11th. That flight departed out of Atlanta, so it's reasonable to assume it was already over the ocean by the time the attacks were initiated. Sorry, dude.

[go west young man]

25. Right back at ya. You might want to reread your own post #11.

When it comes to assumption your ahead of the game. In regards to the flight, the OP may be a bit off but the fact remains the FBI made a mockery of the investigation. They let the entire Bin Laden/Saudi clan leave the country without a real investigation after the most serious terrorist attack on US soil ever. The FBI didn't even interview everybody on the flights. Read the 224 page PDF and tell us that the investigations they conducted were thorough. Considering that these days we are waterboarding folks it's amazing that we managed to let the Saudis just fly out of the country between the 13th and 24th of September 2001. That sure was nice of us!

[Bolo Boffin]

22. But that doesn't say the Saudis were flying when everyone else was grounded.

Why would you present a link that doesn't back up your OP's claim and pretend that it does, Octafish?

[Ohio Joe]

5. I say no

Bush did not order the FBI to let them leave, Richard Clarke gave the OK after the FBI cleared them to leave. They did not leave while no one else was allowed to fly. Some left on 9/14 when flights had resumed (well, commercial flights, not charters). The family members left on 9/20.

[jberryhill]

21. "They did not leave while no one else was allowed to fly."

That is somewhat beside the point. They were allowed to fly domestically when no one else was.

[Ohio Joe]

23. The title of the OP is besides the point?

How strange.

[jberryhill]

26. No, the title is incorrect...

Since they left the country after the flight ban ended.

Nonetheless, it is odd they were allowed to fly, and no doubt reflects the strong connections of the Saudis to the Bush admin.

[Ohio Joe]

27. That there are Saudi/Bush ties, I have no doubt

The Saudis have many ties to US politicians on both US political sides, I find it... disturbing. However, since Richard Clarke freely admits he gave the order for them to fly, even after he was no longer friends with the Bush regime, I do not feel this is an item that supports Saudi/Bush ties. I also feel it has little, if any, meaning to anything.

[jberryhill]

28. "I also feel it has little, if any, meaning to anything."

Maybe.

Prince Bandar was in Washington, and the notion of a few well-connected and well-heeled Saudis getting VIP attention and a quick look-see doesn't seem like damning evidence of much. As a matter of optics, it was not well advised.

What it does drive home, though, is the uncomfortable closeness of the Bush administration and the Saudis, which combined with W's own monumental personal gullibity was never a recipe for anything good. I like the way that it was put in Fahrenheit 911 as him sitting there wondering, "Who screwed me?"

But I believe that W remains ignorant of how well he was played not only by the Saudis, but by others.

[hoi_polloi]

15. Because the Saudis, Bushes and MOSSAD are protecting each other

Because it makes them MONEY $$$$$$$$$$

[NowHearThis]

16. I hope you didn't just set yourself up for (unfair) accusations...

of being an antisemitic Holocaust Denier. The Untruther brigade usually hit the alert button in unison if they think it will get
a post deleted when it contains nearly any word that mentions or implies anything having to do with the only democracy (sic) in the M.E.

[LARED]

17. Is there any limit to your baeless assertions?

Can you provide any links or facts to back up even one assertion you have made since you reappeared?

Is there anything other than baldfaced declarations that you know it all and have declared the final word. Anything?

[NowHearThis]

24. So you think he's on safe grounds. That's good to know. It ...

would be unfortunate if his voice were to be silenced. We can at least agree on that, right?

[snooper2]

31. Still waiting on what you do for a living...

waiting...

[AZCat]

32. Now we must wait forever...

for poor NowHearThis has shuffled off his digital coil.

[SDuderstadt]

33. I sorta miss...

the little feller.

[able1]

29. Isn't the answer fairly obvious?

The Bush administration obviously felt that none of those people were involved w/any kind wrongdoing and therefore didn't
deserve to be subject of the harassment that would surely occur if they were forbidden to leave. The Saudis are allies
and a major source of the energy needed to run our economy.

[KDLarsen]

34. You'd think so..

But when it comes to truthers, things are a bit different...

[Octafish]

36. The Bush and bin Laden families were BUSINESS PARTNERS.

"Money trumps peace." -- George W Bush, Feb. 14, 2007

The Bush-Bin Laden Connection

Feds Looked Into G.W. Bush-Bin Laden Connection In '92.

Part One -- Bush Said Friend's Arbusto Investment Was His Own, Not Saudi Money. Friend "Declined To Comment For The Record."

(Houston Chronicle. June 4, 1992) Federal authorities are investigating the activities of a Houston businessman -- a past investor in companies controlled by a son of President Bush -- who has been accused of illegally representing Saudi interests in the United States.

SNIP...

White contends the documents indicate that the Saudis were using Bath and their huge financial resources to influence U.S. policy. Such representation by Bath would require that he be registered as a foreign agent with the U.S. Department of Justice.

In general, people required by law to be registered are those who represent a foreign entity seeking to influence governmental action or policy. An Annapolis graduate and former Navy fighter pilot,White, 46, claims that Bath and the judicial system, under the veil of national security, have blackballed him professionally and financially because he has refused to keep quiet about what he regards as a conspiracy to secretly funnel Saudi dollars to the United States.

White became entangled in a series of lawsuits and countersuits with Bath , who for some six years has prevailed in the courts. White says the legal action has financially devasted him and Venturcorp Inc., the real estate development company in which he and Bath were partners.

"In sworn depositions, Bath said he represented four prominent Saudis as a trustee and that he would use his name on their investments. In return, he said, he would receive a 5 percent interest in their deals. Tax documents and personal financial records show that Bath personally had a 5 percent interest in Arbusto '79 Ltd., and Arbusto '80 Ltd., limited partnerships controlled by George W. Bush, President Bush's eldest son. Arbusto means bush in Spanish. Bath invested $50,000 in the limited partnerships, according to the documents. There is no
available evidence to show whether the money came from Saudi interests.

"George W. Bush's company, Bush Exploration Co., general partner in the limited partnerships, went through several mergers, eventually evolving into Harken Energy Corp., a suburban Dallas-based company. Bush, known informally as George Jr., is a shareholder and director of Harken, which has been granted lucrative offshore drilling rights off the coast of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf. One of the top shareholders of Harken, a public company, is Saudi businessman Abdullah Taha Bakhsh. Bush said that to his knowledge, Bath 's investment was from personal funds, and no Saudi money was invested
in Arbusto .

CONTINUED...

http://www.meta-religion.com/Secret_societies/Conspiracies/George_Bush/bush-bin_laden_connection.htm

And, yes, we certainly do need the oil.

[Mist]

35. The short answer--The Bush family has been close to the Saudis for decades. nt

[Octafish]

37. Take Gulf War 1 -- Spectrum 7 / HARKEN get sweetheart deal to drill offshore in Bahrain.

Neat, considering Spectrum 7 / HARKEN never drilled offshore before. The story:

The Family That Preys Together

From Issue No. 41, Covert Action Quarterly , Summer, 1992
by Jack Colhoun

GEORGE JR.'S BCCI CONNECTION

"This is an incredible deal, unbelievable for this small company," energy analyst Charles Strain told Forbes magazine, describing the oil production sharing agreement the Harken Energy Corporation signed in January 1990 with Bahrain.

Under the terms of the deal, Harken was given the exclusive right to explore for gas and oil off the shores of the Gulf island nation. If gas or oil were found in waters near two of the world's largest gas and oil fields, Harken would have exclusive marketing and transportation rights for the energy resources. Truly an "incredible deal" for a company that had never drilled an offshore well.

Strain failed to point out, however, the one fact that puts the Harken deal in focus: George Bush, Jr., the eldest son of George and Barbara Bush of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC, is a member of Harken's board of directors, a consultant, and a stockholder in the Texas-based company. In light of this connection, the deal makes more sense. The involvement of Junior-George Walker Bush's childhood nickname-with Harken is a walking conflict of interest. His relationship to President Bush, rather than any business acumen, made him a valuable asset for Harken, the Republican Party benefactors, Middle East oil sheikhs and covert operators who played a part in Harken's Bahrain deal.

In fact, Junior's track record as an oilman is pretty dismal. He began his career in Midland, Texas, in the mid-1970s when he founded Arbusto Energy, Inc. When oil prices dropped in the early 1980s, Arbusto fell upon hard times. Junior was only rescued from business failure when his company was purchased by Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation, a small oil firm owned by William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds. As part of the September 1984 deal, Bush became Spectrum 7's president and was given a 13.6 percent share in the company's stock. Oil prices stayed low and within two years, Spectrum 7 was in trouble.

In the six months before Spectrum 7 was acquired by Harken in 1986, it had lost $400,000. In the buyout deal, George "Jr." and his partners were given more than $2 million worth of Harken stock for the 180-well operation. Made a director and hired as a "consultant" to Harken, Junior received another $600,000 of Harken stock, and has been paid between $42,000 and $120,000 a year since 1986.

CONTINUED...

http://www.williambowles.info/bush/preys.htm

Don't miss the forest because of a big tree or two: The brouhaha over what-happened-on-9-11 serves to cover up the longtime bin-Laden-Bush connection.

[jberryhill]

44. Are you implying that the Bush Family may have been involved in the oil business?

Because that's certainly one way to have connections with all sorts of Saudis.

[BeFree]

46. Shoot

The sonofabitch kissed the damned Saudi Sheik.

Like peas in a pod, the bastards. And Bush fucked us over, but good.

[SDuderstadt]

47. It's 2010, BeFree....

isn't it time to let go of your Bush Derangement Syndrome and start supporting Obamaco? If you'd take a deep breath and quit the histrionics, there's a relative chance Bush could be held accouuntable for his crimes, but it isn't going to happen because of you boring anyone within earshot with "Bushco", dude.

Why don't you do us all a favor and try to get beyond most of your sentences consisting of a noun, a verb and "Bushco"?

[BeFree]

51. One one hand...

...it is nice to have a big fan, but on the other the obsession is a bit much.

[SDuderstadt]

52. Responding to your stupid posts...

hardly makes me your "fan", dude. I should have known that you would, once again, misrepresent my words to suit your purposes.

The only "obsession" I have is with your near-constant intellectual dishonesty, dude. I invite you to, once more, renounce your dirty tricks.

[BeFree]

53. Gawd

You really think that I think you are my fan? I am just toying with you, dudue.

[SDuderstadt]

54. Well, then, say what you mean instead of...

"toying" with people. You seem to be admitting you're not here for serious, respectful debate, dude. Many of us would appreciate it if you'd concentrate on serious, respectful debate and less on "toying" with people. You might want to ask yourself why you wind up at odds with so many members here. Just a thought, dude.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

57. Then why do other posters complain about you twisting what they said...

dude? And why call people juvenile names?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[igetalong]

38. Garth Brooks knows exactly why. The bin Ladens...

"have friends in high places".

[SDuderstadt]

39. Actually, the words to Brooks' song are...

"I've got friends in LOW places"...funny how you can't even manage to get THAT right...

[igetalong]

40. Okay. I stand corrected, but it does sound better to say they've

got friends in HIGH places.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Right...why let a little thing like accuracy get in your way? n/t

[KDLarsen]

42. That headline pretty much sums up the 9/11 twoof movement.. n/t

[procopia]

49. What does "I stand corrected" mean to you? nt

[SDuderstadt]

50. What does the word, "but"...

mean to you and why did you leave out the rest of the sentence after the word, "but"? Because that's what I was responding to. You also might want to look at igetalong's profile.

Bonus question: what does "why don't you mind your own business" mean to you?

[procopia]

56. Your point was conceded, "but" you couldn't resist the snark...

and apparently, "mind your own business" means one thing for you, and something different for everyone else.

[SDuderstadt]

58. Try to follow here...

the poster said they stood corrected, then went on to say but it sounds better (wrong). I decried their lack of concern about accuracy. You ignored that to butt in. Don't you have anything better to do?

[procopia]

61. The poster's subjective opinion was "wrong"?

Who made you the arbitrator of what sounds best? Subjective statements can't be right or wrong. It's like saying red is a prettier color than blue.

[SDuderstadt]

62. Like I said...

accuracy doesn't seem to mater much to "truthers".

If you're bound and determined to pick a fight; why don't you go have one by yourself?

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

65. Yeah....just call us "conspiracy truth deniers"...

so much easier than actually answering tough questions and providing evidence of your goofy CT bullshit.

Thanks for pointing out my typo.

[procopia]

64. There is no such thing as an "accurate" subjective opinion

There's no need for a fight, just admit you were wrong.

[SDuderstadt]

66. Jesus...the poster was arguing for misquoting Brooks...

because it "sounds better", thus my observation. Go fight with yourself. A misquotation is not a "subjective opinion".

[procopia]

67. Poster stands corrected, didn't argue...

The misquotation was not his opinion; this was:

"...it does sound better to say they've got friends in HIGH places," which has nothing to do with accuracy; it's purely subjective.

How can the poster--who stood corrected--be letting accuracy stand in his way? Your "observation" makes no sense.

[SDuderstadt]

68. I stand by what I said....

and you can fight all by yourself.

[procopia]

69. You can't explain how it makes sense, but you will stand by it regardless

Typical.

[SDuderstadt]

70. No one fucking cares...

Procopia. Like I said, if you're trying to pick a fight, go have it by yourself.

[procopia]

71. That's why you've responded 7 times...

You can stop responding any time.

[SDuderstadt]

72. So can you.....duh n/t

[procopia]

48. That, too. nt