Newsweek will "debunk" F 9/11 in tomorrow's issue

[buycitgo]

I heard the author of the article on WGN radio tonight, and he mentioned two points that are definitely not true, according to him:

1) that the Saudi's flew out of the US during the flight ban. He says they didn't....he didn't mention the fact that they oviously flew to their gathering point during said grounding

2) I can't remember now, but I think it had to do with the questioning of Saudis by FBI. does Moore claim that NOBODY was interrogated? if so, that's wrong, but I recall hearing him say that only cursory questioning was done...like a half hour

this author claims that bin Laden family members (and possibly others of whom they suspected terra ties) were rigorously questioned (by people in the FBI he interviews......surprised?), but that flies in the face of everything I've read up until now.

this Ahole also showed his bias many times by saying Moore's POV was too heavy handed/obvious, and would have little/no effect on swing voters, and would only cement only already-formed, polarized opinions

one thing I read today in the Chicago Trib was that the WH has still refused to release much, if any, information, on exactly what happened regarding the flights, but the Whitewash Commission supposedly has accepted their version. Will that info be released, eventually

The Newsweek reporter clearly had an agenda--shocked?--and I'd like to know who has any current information on just exactly what the flight timeline was, WRT Saudis actually leaving the country, and how the flights were arranged

I know there's been recent controversy here regarding who arranged the flights, and at what level they were approved. If anybody has facts on that, too, it'd be appreciated, cause that seems to be quite the gray area, as well.

will see if this story is available online, but from the reporter's radio appearance, it sounds like it's going to be heavily anti-Moore.

what's Moore's war room email address?

here's ISIKOFF's debunksmanship....haven't read it yet....just found it. Isn't it swell they found someone with no axe to grind? I know he's done some interesting stories (including debunking Zarqawi's AlQaeda ties, but would you ever trust him after the "elves?")
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251769/site/newsweek/

and here's the other, snarky, biased, "review" of the overall substance/effect of the movie
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251768/site/newsweek/

EDIT: see post 13 for Newsweek "debunking"

[keithyboy]

1. It doesn't matter what they say. the film will be released, people will

see it and make up their own minds. Those with preconceived notions will keep them, those with open minds will think about what they see. It is afterall a movie. If we can be asked to accept the huge red lies of this administration, we should be able to accept anything.

[freetobegay]

2. Excuse me, but Tampa International Airport released the records

Showing that they did.

[soup]

54. link to DU discussion - TIA now verifies flight of Saudis

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=611671

and link to original St Petersburg Times article cited:

TIA now verifies flight of Saudis

The government has long denied that two days after the 9/11 attacks, the three were allowed to fly.

By JEAN HELLER, Times Staff Writer
Published June 9, 2004

TAMPA - Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left.

The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky.

The Saudis then took another flight out of the country. The two ex-officers returned to TIA a few hours later on the same plane.

For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose.
>more<
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_now_verifies_flig.shtml

[BigBigBear]

3. answers here

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/f911facts/index.php

[gristy]

4. The NY Times also reported that the Saudis were flown out after

the flight ban was over, not during. I guess that makes it ok? And is this the best they can come up with?
Moore might still be able to make an edit.

[LittleApple81]

What Michael Moore seems to be saying is that they took chartered

flights to get to the rendez-vous place to get out of the country. And chartered flights were STILL under the ban when they did it.

And the FBI questioned only 30 out of the 100+ that flew out.

[buycitgo]

12. zackly......I think I said that in header, but it's SO far up there......

I can't make the move yet

[Luminous Animal]

43. Exactly! n/t

[buycitgo]

5. I edited and linked the two Newsweek stories about the movie........

and put them in the header

going to read the Isikoff one right now

BTW, Tina Brown did a piece on the movie, and it's rerunning in a few minutes.....on CNBC

were there any threads on that?

thanks for MM site, btw

[madrchsod]

6. you must be one of the few

live people listening to wgn. as usual wgn wouldn`t put anyone on who would say anything bad about bush.they have to keep up with wls as the leader of absolutely the worst radio in any large market in the usa. also don`t forget the lovely teri o`brien will be filling in this week in different slots on wls..

[buycitgo]

10. got that right.......BUT.......I call in all the time

on that show I've talked to, let's see, Richard Berke, and told him, when he asked why I didn't get my news from the NTTimes (responding to my stating my most frequently used news sources), that I tried to get my news from places the TOLD the TRUTH, unlike his newspaper, that featured novelists like Jeff Gerth

also gave it to Ron Fournier, Joe Klein about his hatchet job on Clinton......several others, whose names escape me at the moment....Oh...Molly Ivins.....asked her if she thought Bush reminded her of a chimp (she didn't get it)

talked to Ann Coulter on Milt Rosenberg, called her a big liar, and read some of her lies from a website I'd pulled up. she told me I didn't have a sense of humor, and didn't understand hyperbole

you're right about WGN, of course, but this show (Unconventional Wisdom) at least gives voice to some alternate views of the media.

[nolabels]

25. "featured novelists"

hehe

[Nite Owl]

7. On Letterman the other night

Moore said that he would have everything documented on his web site when the movie is released. He said everything is backed up.

[Miss Authoritiva]

9. Now if only Cheney would do that too.

Cheney keeps asserting Iraq-al Qaeda links/ties/connections but never provides any proof. I wish he would set up a website with documentation. Wouldn't it be nice if we held the president and vice-president to the same standards as a documentary filmmaker?

[AP]

8. Tonight the local fox affiliate: "why you SHOULDN'T see F911"

Oh come on.

[Scairp]

55. OMG, they really said that?!

I wonder, what city do you live in?

[buycitgo]

11. Chris Hitchens excoriating Moore on Tina Brown now

Richard Johnson (page 6, New York Post?) also on

the director of that Friedman's movie also on

some other guy, who's defending him

[Stephanie]

14. Screw them all - We tried to get more tickets for next Friday

I already bought four for the 7:30 show next Friday (NYC) and my friend tried to get more but it is SOLD OUT. When have you ever heard of a movie selling out a week in advance? SCREW these lying whores. LET them TRY to shut Moore up. They CAN'T do it. It's TOO LATE.

I was really surprised in my building elevator the other day - really nice, bright, liberal neighbor, looking forward to seeing F9/11. Wondered if I'd seen Letterman. I said, yeah, but I already knew most of that stuff. He said "Really?" He had no idea about the bin Laden flights, about Carlyle group, etc., etc. How is that possible? Because he subscribes to the NEW YORK TIMES. He gets his news from CNN. He's so well-informed he doesn't know a goddamned THING.

[buycitgo]

13. flights out of US

from the Isikoff link

Saudi flights out of the United States.

The movie claims that in the days after 9/11, when airspace was shut down, the White House approved special charter flights so that prominent Saudis—including members of the bin Laden family—could leave the country. Author Craig Unger appears, claiming that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI. Not true, according to a recent report from the 9/11 panel.

The report confirms that six chartered airplanes flew 142 mostly Saudi nationals out of the country, including one carrying members of the bin Laden family. But the flights didn't begin until Sept. 14—after airspace reopened. Moreover, the report states the Saudi flights were screened by the FBI, and 22 of the 26 people on the bin Laden flight were interviewed. None had any links to terrorism

OK...WHAT flights? didn't the flighs--plural--all take place within the US, gathering Saudis to a specific place, from which the ALL left the country at tge same time? didn't those flights begin almost immediately after the 11th?

What does Unger have to say about their calling him mistaken? any way to get ahold of HIM?

then, about the questioning, Isikoff says NOTHING about what happened during those "interrogations". I can just imagine how deeply-diggin they were, if none lasted more than half an hour

[JDPriestly]

31. As for the interviews by the FBI

I remember reading that the FBI was satisfied that it knew all IT needed to know about the exiting Saudis. But, unless the FBI releases its interview transcripts and information on its investigations on the Saudis that left before 9/11, we will never know whether they really knew what they should have known before allowing the Saudis to leave. Unlikely, of course, that they will release that information during our lifetimes.

It is my understanding that once the Saudi nationals flew to Europe and then on to Saudi Arabia they could no longer be reached by the FBI. Sorry, I don't have the precise citation, however, I believe I read that the Saudi government did not even allow the U.S. to interview the families of the terrorists. Richard Clarke discusses the lack of cooperation of the Saudi government, especially prior to 9/11, on pages 192-195 and 1-2 and 13 of "Against All Enemies."

[T Bone]

15. Craig Unger says that several were flown Tampa to Lexington

at around 4 p.m. on the 13th of September. Accompanied by Manny Perez and a guy named Grossi. This was reported in the Tampa paper in October. Only US paper that ever reported it too.

Unger's book is House of Bush House of Saud.
Pages 8-16 contain a lot of info on this. Other pages are noted as well in the index. "They got the approval (to fly) somewhere, it must have been from the highest levels of government." said Perez.
Grossi said: "I was told it wouild take White House approval, so I did not think it was going to happen." But it did. The three were Saudis, and one told Grossi his father and uncle were friends with Bush Sr. and the President Bush.

They flew to Blue Grass Airport in lexington and there on the tarmac was a 747 with Arabic writing on the fuselage. Grossi assumed that was the plane to take the men out the US along with other Saudis in Kentucky at the time to buy race horses.

Unger's book is a good source for a lot the Bush-Saudi_bin Laden connections.

[buycitgo]

19. I know.......I've read a longer excerpt from what you post.......thanks!

that's what I'm talking about

it was here, and it went into detail WRT the Saudi shiek, in particular, and his ties to shady figures

question is, DOES Unger say they flew out of the country before or after the flight ban, cause that's what Isikoff claims Moore says in the movie

If that's TRUE, he needs to correct that point, and clarify the bit about the interrogations, cause he needs to be a HUNDRED percent accurate, or they'll tear him apart

did you read the Isikoff article? cause those two points are the only ones he catches Moore on

theres' a DU link below.....going to that one now.

did you check that?

[2Design]

16. six chartered flights out

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/orl-asecoiabinladen19061904jun19,1,3239045.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1821697

[buycitgo]

17. Anybody read the Isikioff article yet? what an ASS hole!

here's the title, which is party of the body of story

"Moore's movie will make waves. But it's a fine line between fact and fanaticism. Deconstructing 'Fahrenheit 9/11'"

NOTE: NOWHERE in the very BRIEF article (cause there's almost NOTHING to refute?) is there any allegation of conspiracy-mongering on Moore's fault.....you'd have to make the implicit connection yourself

next.....there are only two other points Isikoff attempts to deconstruct......and guess what?

he says they're ACCURATE: one is about the 7 minutes, and his beef apparently lies with the fact that dumbo is "uncertain about what to do". WOW!!!!!!!! what a terrible thing to say, and, considering he sits there for seven minutes, isn't it OBVIOUS that he is, at that point, the one Moore presents, clueless?

the second point is about bin Laden/Bush connections, and he, again says nothing to dispute the facts presented in the movie, indeed sighting a book which corroborates Moore's claims

and that's IT for the entire article. aside from the snarky intro, he only "refutes" the flight ban story, without giving it proper context, AND without making it clear that they WERE flying around to gathering points before they left the country. why didn't you mention THAT, elf-boy? Oh, I forgot.....you work for Newsweek.

[Stephanie]

20. Probably did his reporting by calling up Lucianne Goldberg and asking her

Isikoff knows some awfully nice people.

[Scairp]

56. I read it too

Not much of an article if you ask me. He hasn't "debunked" anything that I can see.

[Stephanie]

18. Clarke's testimony before 9/11 Commission

link

ROEMER: We will certainly be looking to people in future hearings for their recommendations in a host of different areas. So I hope that you might think through this area a little bit more and be available to us. Mr. Clarke, let me ask you some difficult questions for you to get at the complexity of our relationship with the Saudis. One the one hand, I think there's a great deal of unanimity that the Saudis were not doing everything they could before 9/11 to help us in a host of different areas; 15 of the 19 hijackers came from there. We had trouble tracking some of the financing for terrorist operations. But we still have too many of the madrassas and the teachings of hatred of Christians and Jews and others coming out of some of these madrassas. We need to broaden and deepen this relationship. I will ask you a part A and a part B. Part A is where do we go in this difficult relationship? And part B is to further look at the difficulty here. You made a decision after 9/11 to, I think -- and I'd like to ask you more about this -- to allow a plane of Saudis to fly out of the country. And when most other planes were grounded, this plane flew from the United States back to Saudi Arabia. I'd like to know why you made that decision, who was on this plane, and if the FBI ever had the opportunity to interview those people.

CLARKE: You're absolutely right that the Saudi Arabian government did not cooperate with us significantly in the fight against terrorism prior to 9/11. Indeed, it didn't really cooperate until after bombs blew up in Riyadh. Now, as to this controversy about the Saudi evacuation aircraft, let me tell you everything I know, which is that in the days following 9/11 -- whether it was on 9/12 or 9/15, I can't tell you -- we were in a constant crisis management meeting that had started the morning of 9/11 and ran for days on end. We were making lots of decisions, but we were coordinating them with all the agencies through the video teleconference procedure.

CLARKE: Someone -- and I wish I could tell you, but I don't know who -- someone brought to that group a proposal that we authorize a request from the Saudi embassy. The Saudi embassy had apparently said that they feared for the lives of Saudi citizens because they thought there would be retribution against Saudis in the United States as it became obvious to Americans that this attack was essentially done by Saudis, and that there were even Saudi citizens in the United States who were part of the bin Laden family, which is a very large family, very large family. The Saudi embassy therefore asked for these people to be evacuated; the same sort of thing that we do all the time in similar crises, evacuating Americans. The request came to me and I refused to approve it. I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it -- or not. I spoke with at that time the number two person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved -- after some period of time, and I can't tell you how long -- approved the flight. Now, what degree of review the FBI did of those names, I cannot tell you. How many people there are on the plane, I cannot tell you. But I have asked since: Were there any individuals on that flight that in retrospect the FBI wishes they could have interviewed in this country. And the answer I've been given is no, that there was no one who left on that flight who the FBI now wants to interview.

ROEMER: Despite the fact that we don't know if Dale Watson interviewed them in the first place.

CLARKE: I don't think they were ever interviewed in this country.

ROEMER: So they were not interviewed here. We have all their names. We don't know if there has been any follow up to interview those people that were here and flown out of the country.

CLARKE: The last time I asked that question, I was informed that the FBI still had no desire to interview any of these people.

ROEMER: Would you have a desire to interview some of these people that...

CLARKE: I don't know who they are.

ROEMER: We don't know who they are...

CLARKE: I don't know who they are. The FBI knew who they were because they...

ROEMER: Given your confidence in your statements on the FBI, what's your level of comfort with this?

CLARKE: Well, I will tell you in particular about the ones that get the most attention here in the press, and they are members of the bin Laden family.


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. And I believe the FBI had very good information and good sources of information on what the members of the bin Laden family were doing.

ROEMER: I've been very impressed with your memory, sitting through all these interviews the 9/11 commission has conducted with you. I press you, again, to try to recall how this request originated. Who might have passed this on to you at the White House situation room? Or who might have originated that request for the United States government to fly out -- how many people in this plane?

CLARKE: I don't know.

ROEMER: We don't know how many people were on a plane that flew out of this country. Who gave the final approval, then, to say yes, you're clear to go, it's all right with the United States government to go to Saudi Arabia?

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.

ROEMER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. KEAN: Senator Gorton?

GORTON: One more question on that subject. When the approvals were finally made and when the flight left, was the flight embargo still in effect? Or was that over; were we flying once again?

CLARKE: No, sir. No, Senator. The reason that a decision was needed was because the flight embargo, the grounding, was still in effect.

[left is right]

21. didn't Clark say something similar to the 911 commission?

[Stephanie]

22. Clarke: Reason decision was needed was b/c flight embargo still in effect.

GORTON: One more question on that subject. When the approvals were finally made and when the flight left, was the flight embargo still in effect? Or was that over; were we flying once again?

CLARKE: No, sir. No, Senator. The reason that a decision was needed was because the flight embargo, the grounding, was still in effect.

[buycitgo]

23. check the above link to testimony

sorta, but two things jump off the page in that testimont:

one) Clarke and Roemer don't mention the flights upon which the Saudis gather for, the apparently ONE flight which takes them out of the country

two) Clarke DIRECTLY contradicts Isikoff and those moveamericaforwardintothepast.com cretes.

so, who are we to believe?

still open, though, is what sort of interrogation was done.

I've read there was NONE (don't remember where.....this was long before Moore), that they were assiduously questioned, and that the interviews lasted only a half hour, or less, and that, at MOST, fifty were questioned (maybe 20, maybe, 30, maybe 40).

contrast that to the, how many, a few THOUSAND Islamists, Arabs, etc., who were swooped up, held incommunicado for months (years?) with NO EVIDENCE whatsoever, cause we didn't want to leave any stone unturned?

and they don't even QUESTION a HUNDRED of these people who, at very least, might have connections to Saudis who've given MILLIONS to AlQaeda and other terra groups, through those alleged charities?

give me a huge fuckin' break here, people.

does Moore make that sort of comparison in his movie? haven't heard if he did, but how much more obvious could it be?

[buycitgo]

26. so it would be incumbent upon Mr. Elfikoff to explain

the contradiction between primary sources, quoting the report as saying six planes flew people out of the country, where Clarke mentions one in his TESTIMONY

are those six planes the ones upon which they initially flew to a debarkation point (Boston, IIRC)

there's a big contradiction here between Isikoff's reading of the report and the linked testimony here.

wonder if Moore knows about this, and will have time to deal with it......he clearly won't before the premiere, but he should be armed with Clarke's TESTIMONY, which should carry more weight than the report, a mere distillation of evidence, testimony, etc.

will he make that distinction?

wonder if it's worth it to send this thread to his site......can't hurt

[nolabels]

28. Why do we need a break , isn't it all ready broken

I think that part of the interview sums it up very nice (surely Mike has this little nuanced gimmick in the film). Even Clarke blurts it out in this part of the statement so well

The Saudi embassy had apparently said that they feared for the lives of Saudi citizens because they thought there would be retribution against Saudis in the United States as it became obvious to Americans that this attack was essentially done by Saudis, and that there were even Saudi citizens in the United States who were part of the bin Laden family, which is a very large family

So thats why the US military attacked Afghanistan, because it was essentially done by Saudis :crazy:

[buycitgo]

30. very good point, especially about Americans going after Saudis

who DID the Americans go after in the THREE DAYS following the attack?

three days? give me a break.....there were some attacks, but the ones I remember hearing about had to do with Sikhs, more than arabs, or even, especially Saudis. Were ANY Saudis attacked in the immediate aftermath? how does one differentiate a Saudi in America from other arabs/semites, huh?

that was SUCH a lame excuse, particularly since they were probably all (OK, almost all) wealthy, insulated from the hoi polloi, and, as such, not subject to random retribution

Also, if they'd gathered them all together in the same place, isn't it obfvious that they'd be safe there, and there'd be NO reason to rush them out of the country before taking time for some leisurely interrogation of at least those most likely to have some sort of connection, no matter how tenuous, to the events of 911. unless, of course, there was an ulterior motive for getting them out of the country as fast as they possibly could

again, think about the fact of the gigantic dragnet on ALL the other, less fortunate, "suspects," who didn't have Saudi connections

this stinks as bad as Lucianne Goldberg's ASS; or breath, for that matter

[nolabels]

57. Maybe that first invasion including" massacre in Afghanistan"

Was more of a set up for destabilizing / clean up operation for the prior operations that took place in Afghanistan. The people or groups they killed and got rid of must have first on the list for some reason. The spooks, NSA, CIA or what ever just couldn't declare war them, but they obviously needed them gone for several reasons. Think about how that would of worked.

We are told this supposed master mind Bin Laden set the whole 9/11 attack thing up. I say that is more than impossible, he may have been the patsy on which to have the part of it set by him, but mostly I believe otherwise. M. Moore made stated that obvious conclusion there was no way them flight school boys were able to fly them two planes so exactly into the WTC towers. This means outside help in the least. Who would benefit and what could they gain, what was the goal?

Must of been several reasons for 9/11 just postulation of one more

http://www.democracynow.org/afghanfilm.shtml

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror/Massacre.asp
Afghan massacre haunts Pentagon
By Luke Harding in Dasht-i-Leili
September 14, 2002
The Guardian

The dead are not hard to find. Turn left into the desert after the town of Shiberghan and they lie all around - some in shallow graves, others protruding from the sand.

The clothes they wore are still there: decaying black turbans, charred shoes, a prayer cap, even a set of rusted car keys. In the nine months since they were buried the sun has bleached their bones white. But the jaws, femurs and ribs scattered across the desert are unmistakably human. We found teeth, thick black human hair and bits of skull.

There are a few clues to the prisoners' final moments: the site is littered with spent bullets. There are thick jackets lying above ground, which would have seemed useful to their owners last November, during the freezing desert nights.

Nobody knows exactly how many Taliban prisoners were secretly interred in this mass grave, a short distance from the main road. But there is now substantial evidence that the worst atrocity of last year's war in Afghanistan took place here; most controversially, during an operation masterminded by US special forces.

A 10-minute drive away is Shiberghan prison, where about 800 Taliban fighters who surrendered late last November at the town of Kunduz are held. The Afghan warlord General Abdul Rashid Dostum controls the prison; his mansion is nearby.
(snip)

[JDPriestly]

24. I believe they flew out on September 13.

Generally, on September 13, scheduled flights were allowed from more and more airports. But private filghts were a special problem and not yet generally allowed. Richard Clarke discusses this in his book, Against All Enemies at pages 28-29.

Eric Alterman and Mark Green write, in The Book on Bush, at pages 239-240:

In a bizarre event that still remains to be explained, members of the bin Laden family, under FBI supervision, were spirited out of the country on a private charter plane when aiports reopened three days after the September 11 attacks. These flights, via Texas and Washington, D.C., took place before the nation's national air ban had been lifted. According to a report in the "Tampa Tribune," on September 13, a Learjet left Tampa, Florida, carrying a Saudi Arabian prince, the son of the Saudi defense minister Prince Sultan, as well as the son of a Saudi army commander. It flew to Lexington, Kentucky, where the Saudis own racehorses, and its passengers were transferred to a private 747 out of the country. Top White House officials personally approved these extraordinary flights, even though these were exactly the kinds of people who might be able to provide the FBI with valuable information about bin Laden and his operations. But once they were back in Saudi Arabia, they were no longer available for questioning. Why the Bush administration allowed this operation to take place remains a mystery, as the administration continues to deny that it ever took place.

See also Jack Huberman, The Bush-Hater’s Handbook, 277; Craig Unger, “After 9/11: the Saudis Who Slipped Away,” The Los Angeles Times, April 11, 2004, M5; Greg Miller, “Sept. 11 Commission Debunks a Few Myths, Clarifies Claims,” The Los Angeles Times, April 26, 1994, A16; Margie Burns, “Why Were Saudi Passengers Flown Out of the Country After 9/11?,” Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel, April 9, 2004, http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/040904SaudiCIA.shtml.

For "bin Laden family spirited out of the country three days after September 11," Alterman cites to Patricia E. Tyler, "Fearing Harm, Bin Laden Kin Fled from U.S." New York Times. September 30, 2001, and for "Tampa Tribune report," to Kathy Steele, "Phantom Flight from Florida, Tampa Tribune, October 5, 2001.

[buycitgo]

27. thanks for that.....so can we be sure that it was ONE plane

that took them all out of the country, and not SIX?

and what about Boston? anybody know about that?

your post makes it sound as if they all left from Kentucky--if there was only one plane. Or was it just the ones that flew from Florida?

and what IS the Bush admin's current position on that?

it would be interesting to see a chronology of quotes dealing with this

if they've kept up their claim that it didn't happen, why?

and if they're admitting it, why did they deny it then?

and, most IMPORTANTLY, where the FUCK has the media been on this topic????????????????????????????

sorry....stupidest question one could axe around here

[demgrrrll]

29. One of my relatives lives in Lexington Ky. I have seen Saudi planes at

the airport. I was told that they have horse farms? or horse investments. Alysheba the 1987 Derby winner was A Saudi investment, I think. Interesting.

[JDPriestly]

32. I'm not sure how many planes really did leave.

The quotes I gave refer to one plane. I have also heard that there were others -- one leaving from Boston with the bin Ladens from that area. Remember that bin Laden's brother was in a meeting in Washington, D.C. that was attended by George H.W. Bush on the morning of 9/11. I believe he left the country with the other Saudis, but I am not certain.

The Saudis came from all over. Unless they flew on commercial airlines, they were given permission to fly in private planes. They probably felt very uncomfortable in the U.S. I remember that one of the women on the plane told the stewardess that she was very upset about the events of 9/11. The stewardess said something like, Oh, it's not your fault, and the woman replied, to the effect that: But bin Laden's my brother.

Richard Clarke commented that the U.S. would also ask to have its citizens flown out of a foreign country under similar circumstances. Frankly, I'd like to know of a country that would allow relatives of a U.S. citizen who had just killed 3,000 of the citizens of the foreign country to leave the foreign country within a couple of days of the murders. I doubt that such a place exists. I suspect that most countries would keep relatives of a murderer until the murderer was apprehended, or would get assurances from the U.S. that the relatives could be interviewed in the U.S. and extradited if necessary after returning to the U.S.


Am I making sense?

[Luminous Animal]

33. Fuck Newsweek

Flood them and the rest of MMs "debunkers with this...

"June 20th, 2004
What Fahrenheit 9/11 Says About the Saudi Flights Out of the Country After September 11

WHAT THE FILM SAYS:

Sen. Byron Dorgan: We had some airplanes authorized at the highest levels of our government to fly to pick up Osama Bin Laden's family members and others from Saudi Arabia and transport them out of this country.

Narration: It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.

 

Additionally, in an interview with author Craig Unger, the film makes reference to the fact that these individuals were briefly interviewed before they were allowed to leave.



WHY WE SAY IT:

1. THE FLIGHTS - WHO GOT OUT WHEN

The facts stated in Fahrenheit 9/11 are well documented and are based entirely on the findings contained in the 9/11 commission draft report, which states, "After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin." National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12

Unfortunately, some news organizations have misinterpreted what the film says. Some have said Fahrenheit 9/11 alleges that these flights out of the country took place when commercial airplanes were still grounded. The film does not say this. The film states clearly that these flights left after September 13 (the day the FAA began to slowly lift the ban on air traffic).

2. WHO APPROVED THESE FLIGHTS AND WHY

We really do not know why it was so necessary for the White House to allow the quick exodus of these Saudi and bin Ladens out of the country, and "the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged," according to a June 20, 2004, article by Phil Shenon in the New York Times.

We do know who asked for help in getting Saudis out of the country - the Saudi government. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12 The film also includes a television interview with Saudi Prince Bandar, confirming this as well.

Former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has testified that he approved these flights, stating that "it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House." Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.

3. DID THESE INDIVIDUALS GET SPECIAL TREATMENT BY LAW ENFOCEMENT?

Yes, according to Jack Cloonan, a former senior agent on the joint FBI-CIA Al-Qaeda task force, who is interviewed in Fahrenheit 9/11. Cloonan raises questions about the type of investigation to which these individuals were subjected, finding it highly unusual that in light of the seriousness of the attack on 9/11, bin Laden family members were allowed to leave the country and escape without anyone getting their statements on record in any kind of formal proceeding, and with little more than a brief interview.

Most Saudis who left were not interviewed at all by the FBI. In fact, of the 142 Saudis on these flights, only 30 were interviewed. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12

The film puts this in perspective. Imagine President Clinton facilitating the exit of members of the McVeigh out of the country following the Oklahoma City bombing. Or compare this treatment to the hundreds of people detained following the 9/11 attacks who were held without charges for months on end, who had no relationship to Osama bin Laden.

The question, which has never been answered, is what was the rush in getting these individuals out of the country? As Cloonan says, ""If I had to inconvenience a member of the bin Laden family with a subpoena or a Grand Jury, do you think I'd lose any sleep over it? Not for a minute Mike... ou got a lawyer? Fine. Counselor? Fine. Mr. Bin Laden, this is why I'm asking you, it's not because I think that you're anything. I just want to ask you the questions that I would anybody."

4. ADDITIONAL FACTS NOT REPORTED IN FAHRENHEIT 9/11 THAT SUPPORT THE FILM'S THESIS

First, the US Customs and Border Protection document released by the Department of Homeland Security under the FOIA, Feb 24, 2004 lists 162 Saudi Nationals who flew out of the country between 9.11.2001 and 9.15.2001.

Second, even though Fahrenheit does not make the allegation, on June 9, 2004, news reports confirmed that, "Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left. The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky. The Saudis then took another flight out of the country."

Moreover, "For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose... The terrorism panel, better known as the 9/11 Commission, said in April that it knew of six chartered flights with 142 people aboard, mostly Saudis, that left the United States between Sept. 14 and 24, 2001. But it has said nothing about the Tampa flightÉ The 9/11 Commission, which has said the flights out of the United States were handled appropriately by the FBI, appears concerned with the handling of the Tampa flight.

"Most of the aircraft allowed to fly in U.S. airspace on Sept. 13 were empty airliners being ferried from the airports where they made quick landings on Sept. 11. The reopening of the airspace included paid charter flights, but not private, nonrevenue flights." Jean Heller, TIA now verifies flight of Saudis; The government has long denied that two days after the 9/11 attacks, the three were allowed to fly.
St. Petersburg Times, June 9, 2004 "

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/f911facts/index.php

[buycitgo]

34. Gee, thanks, Luminous!!! that answered about all my questions

should have gone there

one thing I'm still unsure of, though, is at what point (September 13?) did all these flights take place the ushered the Saudis around the country?

and how many of them occurred while the flight ban was in effect

finally........you are SO right about FFFFFFFing the F out of Newsweek, as these responses make it CLEAR that Isikoff is doing someone else's bidding with his references to the flight ban

unless, of course, edits were made to the movie after Isikoff saw it.

the reporter creep who was on WGN said Newsweek had their own screening (or, at least, they all attened one.....can't remember when it was, of if he said when), so edits may have occurred since they saw it.....let's be fair to those who would be the most unfair

Moore has said that they're still editing, to get everything correct, so this might have been one of the things they're working on, cause I'm reasonably certain the movie DID say that nobody was interviewed, and that some people, at least, got out of here before the ban was lifted.....anyone else recall that?

hope so

[Luminous Animal]

37. Slight of hand

Newsweek and the rest (see This Week with G. Stephanopoulos) are playing slight of hand) trying to confuse us with flights that took place within the country during the empargo and flights that went out of the country after the embargo. They are also trying to confuse us with the number of bin Laden family members who were questioned with the total amount of Saudi's who were allowed to leave the country without being questioned.

Newsweek saw the same movie that those at Cannes saw. There has been no subsequent editing in regards to the Saudi flights. That is why we all need to respond to Newsweek's erroneous claims with Mike's facts now.

[demgrrrll]

35. I frequently go with my gut feelings and my feelings are that Newsweek

and the pundits can flail away but at this juncture the truth will out. I am making allowances for those hard core * supporters who will never be able to look anywhere but straight ahead.

[buycitgo]

36. I agree, sort of, but you KNOW that they're going to seize on anything

they can that's disputable, and hammer and hammer and hammer til they can do to the film what they did to Clarke.....recall that a large majority was made to think he was just out flacking his book, as opposed to responding as a patriotic American. this took a couple of weeks of the most heinous propaganda, but it worked

just as the the nearly 100 million dollar smear campaign against Kerry was so successful in driving his negatives from 27% to the mid forties, after they started in on him. I just heard some smeally pug shill say this a day or two ago (just the part about the negatives)

the reason they're going all out against Moore is TO KEEP people from seeing the movie at all. you're right about the idea that, if they see it, they're going to buy it, unless they're already bushdrones, in which case I can't imagine them going in the first place

so their campaign is twofold: first, the above bit about discouraging viewers

second, and more important, I think, is getting theathers themselves not to show it

that reminds me, in story I read today, some clearly rightwing theater chain owner, Carmike, or something, says HE's not going to show it. he's very influential, as he's got hundreds of theaters, ALL in cities with less than a 100K population.

sounded like quite the jagoff

might be ripe for an informational campaign

[Luminous Animal]

40. Informational campaign

Mike's got a war room that is prepared to issue immediate responses to "lies" in F911. Every time you see something that is supposed to debunk the film, go to his site and get the facts.

He is fighting mad and thoroughly prepared.

[Moderator]

51. Luminous Animal

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.

DU Moderator

[maggrwaggr]

38. GE owns Newsweek. GE expects to make "billions" from Iraq war

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=4642&fcategory_desc=Economy

[jackstraw45]

45. WRONG. Our friend the WASHINGTON POST owns Newsweek....what a shock.

Glad I canceled my Newsweek subscription last month. Such tools.

http://www.washpostco.com/company-profile.htm

[nolabels]

53. Try this also

The search works okay on it
http://www.cjr.org/tools/
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/



Below don't look like sliced bread but at least it could be a start
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/3/comment.asp
COMMENT
Missing Pieces
The Campaign Conversation Ignores Media Ownership

A scenario: Senator John Kerry is nominated for president at the Democratic convention in Boston in July. He wins the White House in November — as a number of national polls, at this moment, indicate is possible. Michael Powell resigns as the Bush-appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission — a routine departure as part of the transition. Kerry appoints Michael Copps, the senior Democratic commissioner on the FCC, and a logical choice, as chairman. Kerry then chooses a Democrat to fill the seat left empty by Powell, bringing the commission to full strength and resulting in a three-to-two Democratic majority.

What does that scenario imply for the crucial list of media issues before the FCC and Congress? First of all, Copps has been the most outspoken opponent and tireless adversary of Powell’s efforts to loosen rules that permit the sources of information to collect in fewer and fewer hands. As chairman, Copps — more so than his predecessor — would give precedence to the public’s interests over those of giant media corporations. He would work toward reimposing some of the media ownership rules that the Powell commission dismantled. He’d doubtless take a cold-eyed look at the proposed merger of Comcast and Disney, and ventilate the ways in which ABC News — the Peter Jennings newscast, Nightline, 20/20, Primetime Thursday — might suffer in the embrace of so gigantic a media behemoth. And he’d surely seek to impose on TV broadcasters public-interest obligations — news, community service, free airtime for office-seekers — in return for their exploitation of new digital spectrum they’ve been handed free of charge.
(snip)

[buycitgo]

39. just went to carmike.com, and they ARE showing it

interesting, as the article I read today said they weren't, and the interview was with Mike somebody who owns them

they're in 45 states, and you can find out if it's in your area by clicking here, specifically

sounds like a good site to contact, and let them know you appreciate their showing it, if, indeed they are at all their spots. hope so

http://www.carmike.com/

[rumguy]

41. fuckin' newsweek repuke puff piece

:puffpiece:

[buycitgo]

42. funny guy, rum!

liked the "puff piece" review

SNORTED when I saw who did it

gut vun!

[buycitgo]

44. Unger's site has some very interesting links on it

http://www.houseofbush.com/index.php


his NYTimes Oped piece, for one, which needs updating, per his own site....more on that in a minute:

House of Bush, House of Saud begins with a single question: How is it that two days after September 11, 2001, even as American air traffic was tightly restricted, a Saudi billionaire socialized in the White House with President George W. Bush as 140 Saudi citizens, many immediate kin to Osama Bin Laden, were permitted to return to their country? A potential treasure trove of intelligence was allowed to flee the country--including an alleged al-Qaeda intermediary who was said to have foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

Why did the FBI facilitate this evacuation, and why didn't the agency question the people on the planes? Why did Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of most of the hijackers, receive exclusive and preferential treatment from the White House even as the World Trade Center continued to burn?

funny the media aren't talking at all about the highlighted section, in the above quote, isn't it? wonder why

THREE HUNDRED or more Saudis got out, maybe here.....too tired to enlarge docs there

here are links to NYT/s book review, and subsequent LTTE from Unger imbroglio

http://www.houseofbush.com/nytimes_letter.php


http://tristero.blogspot.com/2004_05_09_tristero_archive.html#108464617571328547

[jackstraw45]

46. Washington Post (Iraq apologists) owns Newsweek..are you surprised?

They've been covering their butts for over a year over Iraq.

[buycitgo]

47. here's snopes.com, as of March 31, in which he APOLOGIZES

to Moore, for being mistaken in skewering him earlier

he also quotes Dale Watson, who was apparently in charge of the FBI's end of the questioning, and a friend of Richard Clarke

he's ALSO one of the two FBI intimidators of Sibel Edmonds, according to her, the other being Robert Mueller himself

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm

he also quotes Watson as saying this:

Dale Watson, the FBI's former head of counter-terrorism, said that, while the bureau identified the Saudis who were on the plane, "they were not subject to serious interrogations."

Tyler, Patrick E. "Fearing Harm, Bin Laden Kin Fled from U.S."
The New York Times. 30 September 2001 (p. A1).

SO HOW COME YOU MISSED THAT, ISIPRICK?

and look how OLD that reference is

[serryjw]

48. Lots more proof it is the truth!

http://new.globalfreepress.com/911/03/09/03/194214.shtml

[buycitgo]

49. thanks.........that link is in another thread, discussing Richard Clarke's

testimony, subsequent statement, as well as Watson's role.

there's going to be lots of contention about the accuracy of certain assertions in the movie

if you checked that snopes link, you'll see what I mean.....there's plenty of confusing, contradictory evidence/testimony.

[Cat Atomic]

50. Damn- conservatives sure are intent on discrediting this thing.

I assume that means it's got at least an ounce of truth in it.

[mmonk]

52. Tell them all

that this administration has kept detainees without charge or access to lawyers on mere suspicions while they aided the family of the individual that created the worst act of terrorism on US soil in history in leaving the country and without any prolonged detention. Maybe that will make them think if they still have any capable means of doing so.