" House of Bush, House of Saud begins with a politically explosive question: How is it that two days after 9/11, when U.S. air traffic was tightly restricted, 140 Saudis, many immediate kin to Osama Bin Laden, were permitted to leave the country without being questioned by U.S. intelligence
Claim: _ Secret flights whisked bin Laden family members out of the U.S. over the objection of the FBI two days after the September 11 attacks, while a general ban on air travel was still in effect, and before the FBI had any opportunity to question them.
Status: _ Multiple ? see below
In the two days immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly within the country during a general ban on air travel: _ True.
During that same period the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly out of the U.S.: _ False.
The flights carrying bin Laden family members out of the U.S took place over the objections of the FBI: _ False.
The FBI was denied any opportunity to question departing bin Laden family members: _ False.
Hit the link for the details. So are we done with this lie now? Do I have to go over the "US gave $40 million to the Taliban" one again?
You should read the book Scott, the analysis of flights is more in depth. Did the FBI question the bin Ladens? Yes, but not in as much depth as they would have liked. The point is, that at a time when no Americans were allowed to fly in private planes, family members of the perpetrator of a horrific crime were aloowed to fly freely. Very odd.
Part of Mr. Moore's statement has since been proved to be correct ? during the ban on air travel, some Saudis (including members of the bin Laden family) were transported by air to assembly points in the U.S. in preparation for their leaving the country. In an earlier version of this article, I ranted and raved about his avowing bin Laden flights had taken place while no one was allowed to fly. Yet some did, at least within the U.S.
Yea that was the first bullet point Bunge. The other part of Moore's statement has been shown to be a lie. But Moore being a liar is not new information.
Claim: _ Secret flights whisked bin Laden family members out of the U.S. over the objection of the FBI two days after the September 11 attacks, while a general ban on air travel was still in effect, and before the FBI had any opportunity to question them.
Status: _ Multiple ? see below
In the two days immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly within the country during a general ban on air travel: _ True.
During that same period the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly out of the U.S.: _ False.
The flights carrying bin Laden family members out of the U.S took place over the objections of the FBI: _ False.
The FBI was denied any opportunity to question departing bin Laden family members: _ False.
Hit the link for the details. So are we done with this lie now? Do I have to go over the "US gave $40 million to the Taliban" one again?
Look. Everything you stated here is correct. Know why? Its in Unger's book and footnotes.
I am in total agreement that that quote is merely written that way to sell it. Its what many publishers do to grab the attention of the potential readers out there. I honestly jumped ahead to the chapters on 9|11 because of that quote (I know that the Bushes have been in bed with the Saudis for decades).
My assumption is that what time or what airspace has nothing to do with it. We allowed these people to leave the country without being thoroughly interviewed and screened for anything involving these attacks. One especially, Prince Ahmed bin Salman. During an interesting interrigation of an Al Qaeda operative...he said that Ahmed served as an intermediary between Al Qaeda and the House of Saud and knew in advance that Al Qaeda would attack on 9|11. Not long afterward, the prince died mysteriously in Saudi Arabia of a heart attack at the age of 43...
But instead...you pull this quote from my recommendation and spin the thread into another dimension. Something all politicians/media/royal pains in the asses have a knack of doing.
So. Stay on the original topic (Hatfield's book) and stop spinning...
And of course after I finish both books I'd be happy to continue. Right now I thought a recommendation from myself to billbobsky on the other book here was in order. You took that and spun it off into another direction. Any thoughts on Hatfield's book instead. Too beneath you?
I am in total agreement that that quote is merely written that way to sell it. Its what many publishers do to grab the attention of the potential readers out there. I honestly jumped ahead to the chapters on 9|11 because of that quote (I know that the Bushes have been in bed with the Saudis for decades).
the problem is that if you use a misleading quote to sell a book, and you push it via a misleading quote, people are going to attack it, and rightly so.
the problem is that if you use a misleading quote to sell a book, and you push it via a misleading quote, people are going to attack it, and rightly so.
Most writers DON'T write these. The publisher does. To sell books. The truth is in the reading of the book. And the truth is there. We let them leave without any intensive screening.
Enough. Has anyone read Hatfield's book here? I'd be interested in what you have to say about it.
We allowed these people to leave the country without being thoroughly interviewed and screened for anything involving these attacks. One especially, Prince Ahmed bin Salman.
Exactly, this is the real point, not the straw arguments that Scott has created in order to "rebut". I have read Hatfield's book and found it to be very well researched and the questions it raises to be cogent. I recommend reading the book to anyone who wants to look at the issue in depth. Why were foreign nationals given more freedom in using our own airspace than Americans, at a time when we were unsure if more attacks were coming or not? In a time of crisis, our government took bold steps to ensure the safety of the relatives of a terrorist. Why?
Exactly, this is the real point, not the straw arguments that Scott has created in order to "rebut". I have read Hatfield's book and found it to be very well researched and the questions it raises to be cogent. I recommend reading the book to anyone who wants to look at the issue in depth. Why were foreign nationals given more freedom in using our own airspace than Americans, at a time when we were unsure if more attacks were coming or not? In a time of crisis, our government took bold steps to ensure the safety of the relatives of a terrorist. Why?
while the above is the important part, scott's rebuttal to the more.... superficial issue of dates and times was solid, objective, facts based(given what we know), and from reliable sources(snopes gets a big + in my book) not really much to argue there. \
of course, Scott's manner of presenting it was in very poor form.
My information comes from a reputable site that references NYT, Boston Globe, Vanity Fair, Tampa Tribune, AP, Independent, CBSnews.com and some others.
You rebutted a jacket blurb as if that formed the substance of the argument. Read the book, then rebut its points. As I said, the book is well researched and argued.
I'm not making you a devil - but my point is that an innacurate advertising blurb does not represent the contents of a book. The book raises very valid points about the loyalties of those in the Bush administration. Whose safety were they most concerned with after 9/11? Apparently, the bin Ladens.
Comments
" House of Bush, House of Saud begins with a politically explosive question: How is it that two days after 9/11, when U.S. air traffic was tightly restricted, 140 Saudis, many immediate kin to Osama Bin Laden, were permitted to leave the country without being questioned by U.S. intelligence
Here's the truth.
From Snopes.com
Claim: _ Secret flights whisked bin Laden family members out of the U.S. over the objection of the FBI two days after the September 11 attacks, while a general ban on air travel was still in effect, and before the FBI had any opportunity to question them.
Status: _ Multiple ? see below
Hit the link for the details. So are we done with this lie now? Do I have to go over the "US gave $40 million to the Taliban" one again?
This isn't even the main point of these books...
Originally posted by Scott
Here's the truth.
Originally posted by snopes.com
Part of Mr. Moore's statement has since been proved to be correct ? during the ban on air travel, some Saudis (including members of the bin Laden family) were transported by air to assembly points in the U.S. in preparation for their leaving the country. In an earlier version of this article, I ranted and raved about his avowing bin Laden flights had taken place while no one was allowed to fly. Yet some did, at least within the U.S.
Originally posted by Scott
Here's the claim from Artman's source.
Here's the truth.
From Snopes.com
Claim: _ Secret flights whisked bin Laden family members out of the U.S. over the objection of the FBI two days after the September 11 attacks, while a general ban on air travel was still in effect, and before the FBI had any opportunity to question them.
Status: _ Multiple ? see below
In the two days immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly within the country during a general ban on air travel: _ True.
During that same period the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly out of the U.S.: _ False.
The flights carrying bin Laden family members out of the U.S took place over the objections of the FBI: _ False.
The FBI was denied any opportunity to question departing bin Laden family members: _ False.
Hit the link for the details. So are we done with this lie now? Do I have to go over the "US gave $40 million to the Taliban" one again?
Look. Everything you stated here is correct. Know why? Its in Unger's book and footnotes.
I am in total agreement that that quote is merely written that way to sell it. Its what many publishers do to grab the attention of the potential readers out there. I honestly jumped ahead to the chapters on 9|11 because of that quote (I know that the Bushes have been in bed with the Saudis for decades).
My assumption is that what time or what airspace has nothing to do with it. We allowed these people to leave the country without being thoroughly interviewed and screened for anything involving these attacks. One especially, Prince Ahmed bin Salman. During an interesting interrigation of an Al Qaeda operative...he said that Ahmed served as an intermediary between Al Qaeda and the House of Saud and knew in advance that Al Qaeda would attack on 9|11. Not long afterward, the prince died mysteriously in Saudi Arabia of a heart attack at the age of 43...
But instead...you pull this quote from my recommendation and spin the thread into another dimension. Something all politicians/media/royal pains in the asses have a knack of doing.
So. Stay on the original topic (Hatfield's book) and stop spinning...
And of course after I finish both books I'd be happy to continue. Right now I thought a recommendation from myself to billbobsky on the other book here was in order. You took that and spun it off into another direction. Any thoughts on Hatfield's book instead. Too beneath you?
I am in total agreement that that quote is merely written that way to sell it. Its what many publishers do to grab the attention of the potential readers out there. I honestly jumped ahead to the chapters on 9|11 because of that quote (I know that the Bushes have been in bed with the Saudis for decades).
the problem is that if you use a misleading quote to sell a book, and you push it via a misleading quote, people are going to attack it, and rightly so.
Originally posted by alcimedes
the problem is that if you use a misleading quote to sell a book, and you push it via a misleading quote, people are going to attack it, and rightly so.
Yes, rightly so...
Goes both ways.
<yoda>Cuthroat business, publishing is...</yoda>
Most writers DON'T write these. The publisher does. To sell books. The truth is in the reading of the book. And the truth is there. We let them leave without any intensive screening.
Enough. Has anyone read Hatfield's book here? I'd be interested in what you have to say about it.
We allowed these people to leave the country without being thoroughly interviewed and screened for anything involving these attacks. One especially, Prince Ahmed bin Salman.
Exactly, this is the real point, not the straw arguments that Scott has created in order to "rebut". I have read Hatfield's book and found it to be very well researched and the questions it raises to be cogent. I recommend reading the book to anyone who wants to look at the issue in depth. Why were foreign nationals given more freedom in using our own airspace than Americans, at a time when we were unsure if more attacks were coming or not? In a time of crisis, our government took bold steps to ensure the safety of the relatives of a terrorist. Why?
Originally posted by Rick1138
Exactly, this is the real point, not the straw arguments that Scott has created in order to "rebut". I have read Hatfield's book and found it to be very well researched and the questions it raises to be cogent. I recommend reading the book to anyone who wants to look at the issue in depth. Why were foreign nationals given more freedom in using our own airspace than Americans, at a time when we were unsure if more attacks were coming or not? In a time of crisis, our government took bold steps to ensure the safety of the relatives of a terrorist. Why?
while the above is the important part, scott's rebuttal to the more.... superficial issue of dates and times was solid, objective, facts based(given what we know), and from reliable sources(snopes gets a big + in my book) not really much to argue there.
of course, Scott's manner of presenting it was in very poor form.
Originally posted by Scott
My information comes from a reputable site that references NYT, Boston Globe, Vanity Fair, Tampa Tribune, AP, Independent, CBSnews.com and some others.
snopes.com?
Originally posted by Rick1138
Exactly, this is the real point, not the straw arguments that Scott has created in order to "rebut". ...
What? What "straw arguments"? I did not post the false statement. I've merely corrected it. Yet I'm the bad guy?
Originally posted by Scott
The above statement from the book is wrong. You can't make a devil out of me for it.
the devil is in the details, isn't it scott?