It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Bush Saved His Saudi Friends

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   
You are so partisan and your argument so weak that your only response was to attack the source of the story despite the fact that it very accurately quotes what Clarke told the 9/11 commission with respect to this very topic. Hmmmm... Very weak indeed. Like I said before, I realize that the truth here interferes with your hyper-partisan hatred and vitriol for all things conservative, but you shouldn't let your hate cause you ignorance. Don't like this source? How about these...

p070.ezboard.com...
www.cnsnews.com...
www.saudi-us-relations.org...


There's plenty more. I know, I know... sometimes the truth hurts, especially when it pisses all over you and your hate parade. But if you ever want to be taken seriously, you have to be aware of the facts, Jack!




posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   
urmm...

kozmo, from your last link cited:

When Roemer asked Clarke during the commission's March hearing, "Who gave the final approval, then, to say, 'Yes, you're clear to go, it's all right with the United States government,'" Clarke seemed to suggest it came from the White House.

"I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all these decisions that we were making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference," Clarke testified. "I was making or coordinating a lot of the decisions on 9-11 in 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. The two - since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House chief of staff's office."


-koji K.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Man, you're killin' me.


You're callin' me partisan and blah blah blah.. And you're using NewsMax as a source?
I stand by what I said. And for the record, Richard Clark isn't exactly who you think he is. Look into why he was fired from the state department back in the days of Reagan. Maybe then we can have a decent discussion.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Any way you slice it, it wasn't Bush. Clarke authorized it, I don't care who proposed it... and it still wasn't Bush... it was either State or Chiefs of Staff. What's the point with the fine details? You guys proposed that this was all Bush and I have shown you in half a dozen different ways that you are wrong and you still can't accept it. Fine, it's pretty sad, but fine by me. I was simply trying to help you deny ignorance. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You can continue to believe your fairy tale if you'd like... or the truth... the call is yours.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
urmm...

kozmo, from your last link cited:

When Roemer asked Clarke during the commission's March hearing, "Who gave the final approval, then, to say, 'Yes, you're clear to go, it's all right with the United States government,'" Clarke seemed to suggest it came from the White House.

"I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all these decisions that we were making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference," Clarke testified. "I was making or coordinating a lot of the decisions on 9-11 in 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. The two - since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House chief of staff's office."


You're damn Skippy, Koji. Clarke was told by the White House to let them fly. He said he didn't understand why they were allowed to fly out before being at least interviewed.



[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Man, you're killin' me.


You're callin' me partisan and blah blah blah.. And you're using NewsMax as a source?
I stand by what I said. And for the record, Richard Clark isn't exactly who you think he is. Look into why he was fired from the state department back in the days of Reagan. Maybe then we can have a decent discussion.


I don't really care who Richard Clark is. The whole point of my post was to demonstrate to you guys that your theory about Bush ushering the Bin Ladens out of the US is bogus. I've done that and you still can't accept the truth. I'm sorry for you. I will let you return to your little fantasy world. Have a nice day.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
'the harming of the family'? do you know what you're talking about? these people were millionaires. they had their own security. it's doubtful that they would be harmed by the 'anti-saudi riots' (which never occured) sitting in the waldorf-astoria presidential suite.

Never underestimate the power of an enraged American mob.



do you honestly think 'paying for extra security' would be condemned *more* than letting them all fly back to saudi? i highly doubt after 9/11 anyone could be faulted for paying for extra security.

You don't think the average american would be upset that we were spending american tax dollars to protect relatives of the man who had mastermineded the 9/11 attacks? Please, they would be calling for the immediate removal of the security and to deport the family.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by koji_K
'the harming of the family'? do you know what you're talking about? these people were millionaires. they had their own security. it's doubtful that they would be harmed by the 'anti-saudi riots' (which never occured) sitting in the waldorf-astoria presidential suite.

Never underestimate the power of an enraged American mob.



do you honestly think 'paying for extra security' would be condemned *more* than letting them all fly back to saudi? i highly doubt after 9/11 anyone could be faulted for paying for extra security.

You don't think the average american would be upset that we were spending american tax dollars to protect relatives of the man who had mastermineded the 9/11 attacks? Please, they would be calling for the immediate removal of the security and to deport the family.


i think the average american would understand, if it was explained that the saudis were not allowed to leave the country. any protection they would be provided (if any) would serve a dual purpose: to protect them, and also to keep them from leaving the country until a reasonable chance to investigate/question the relevant people has been given.

-koji K.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join