28 March 2005 - 12:47pm
At least one thing where Michael Moore was right
Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, were secretly ferried out of the country immediately after 9/11? It was asserted by Michael Moore, and it was scoffed at by conservatives ... but it was a Freedom of Information request files by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, that undearthed this:
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.
Ah, but what if the charges are true? Politics is politics, but that's no excuse for compromising our national security. Read on....
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."
...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."
[Whence: Shakespeare's Sister]
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.





















Comments
authorized the Saudi's to fly post 9.11.
Moore's film is misleading in that it was if Bush himself put OBLs family on the plane. It was Clarke, a hold-over from the Clinton administration who authorized it.
I don't believe everything Clarke says, but he did testify under oath (not that being under oath means much, a'hem) but he stated to the 9.11 commission that those authorizations "did not go higher than himself".
The FBI & the CIA had their hands tied prior to 9.11 due to the "Gorelick wall" for nearly a decade. Bush inherited incompetent & castrated organizations - no wonder there was such confusion in Dubya's first year after such an attack.
I'm not sure, but I believe that Moore made that point in the film -- that it was Clarke who said for the FBI to vet the passengers.
But the FBI didn't do it.
And there's no denying the cozy relationship not only between the USA and Saudi Arabia (which Frontline did a fabulous job exploring just a month or so ago), but also between the Bush family and the Saudi family. Follow the money.
there's also no denying that dubya is less cozy to the Saudi family than all recent presidents before him - what do you want - war?
And whose FBI on 9.11 was it? At that time, the FBI/CIA could not share info. If one branch found a suspected terrorist taking "turns only" flying lessons they couldn't tell the other branch. The FBI/CIA was set-up to fail ... and fail they did.
Moore's attempts to pin the tail on the elephant are entertaining.
Who, pray tell, set up the FBI and CIA to fail?
Who failed was the Bush Administration, who ignored red flags up and down the line, including a top-level memo titled, "Osama bin Laden determined to strike in the US," by Condi's own admission.
You say you won't trust Clarke because he's not a political appointee. To me, that's just plain silly. The man is a professional, with years of experience and expertise working for both parties, and I would believe has more interest in protecting the United States than protecting the reputation of a retired president. Really, you guys need to get over Clinton.
As for Bush not being cozy with the Saudis, well, that's very humorous. He can say what he wants because of his chummy relations with them in his "business" career.
As for war, no, I pass once again. Not that it matters. Our president needs to prove how manly he is, so our national security suffers, our economy suffers, our government programs suffer, our economy suffers. Yeah, there's an elephant in the room, and it's crapping on everything.
Goldwater must be spinning in his grave.
The two branches couldn't communicate and they couldn't hire people w/ records for undercover work because of the previous administration - it was set up to fail.
After almost 8 years of tearing down the FBI/CIA - calling Bush a failure for the FBI/CIA 9.11 bungle 8 months after Bush took office is a stretch of epic Hollywood proportions.
I don't trust Clarke because he's got a chip on his shoulder and was/is financially motivated by a smear book.
PS - I'm not an activist - I'm an engineer studying blogs & CMS tools - your web site is great!
The FBI and CIA did do their jobs. They did report the threat. The Bush administration repeatedly ignored these reports. Condi testified to that herself in her confirmation hearings for her current position.
Now they've just added another layer of beaurocracy to the whole thing. Just wonderful. And they fired the people who said Iraq was not the problem, al Qaeda is.
The separation of the CIA from FBI was done quite a few years before Clinton. In fact, the CIA was established to work outside of our borders -- and they still do. It's in their charter. Their lack of cooperation was and is institutional and cultural, not political. You can't lay that in the lap of Clinton.
And now, after being attacked by foreign nationals -- Saudis, mostly -- we turn up the heat ... on our own citizens. We treat our own citizens like criminals. Guilty until proven innocent. This is smart?
And we go gallavanting on a military advennture in Iraq -- a military campaign planned since the first week Bush was in office. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, no WMD, no capability to do much harm to its neighbors -- remember, we killed 500,000 - 1,000,000 of them in the Gulf War and had bombed the crap out of them since. Didn't matter. "Saddam Hussein is thumbing his nose at us!" Bush cried, and that's the only justification he offered that turned out to be true.
And we go behaving like terrorists ourselves, bombing entire neighborhoods and torturing prisoners. We're still doing it, too.
If anyone has a chip on his shoulder, it's Bush. If anyone is setting us up to fail, it's Bush. If you want to question motives because of finances, look no farther than our president and vice president, who made out will tens of millions from their own tax cuts.
I'm not an "activist" either. I'm just a concerned citizen who's very worried that the radical right wingers are driving this country right into the crapper. Nobody's perfect, but these people are fucking nuts!
Your site is helping my research on CMS tools.
Hate to break this to you, but ... your site has ads, sponsors, tip jars & sells shirts - outstanding opportunistic capitalism - I'm impressed.
Ummm, well, here's the bad news: you are an activist.
You made CNN ... and liked it.
With respect to this original thread: "At least one thing where Michael Moore was right" ...
** Michael Moore was right that a Bush hater was able to shuttle a bunch of Saudi elites out of the US 8 months after Bush took office on 9.11 without Bush knowing it.
** You are right there is problem with that.
** I believe I'm correct that the Bush bashing for the Saudi's flying out post 9.11 has little merit.
Even though I wasn't really. If I'm an activist, so is Jane Q Public who stands like an idiot outside of the morning show studios, waving a sign that says, "Hi Denver!"
Ahem. I rant as a professional in the media industry. I am not an activist. I am a worker bee with opinions. :p
I still think Bush totally blew it, and is still blowing it. We can't afford to be so stupid with our affairs. The world ain't gonna wait for us to get our shit together.
Thanks for all the complimens on the site.
But you are better at what you do than Jane Q - don't deny it ... there's nothing wrong with being an activist unless you are bad at it or have bad intentions.
You've got a successful site with good intentions - good job.