Posted on 02/13/2016 4:37:06 PM PST by PJBankard
Well said.
What you’re saying is simply a false rumor. The 9/11 commission report debunked it 100%.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp
In their final report, the commission noted:
Three questions have arisen with respect to the departure of Saudi nationals from the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11: (1) Did any flights of Saudi nationals take place before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001? (2) Was there any political intervention to facilitate the departure of Saudi nationals? (3) Did the FBI screen Saudi nationals thoroughly before their departure?
First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.
Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of [National Security Council official] Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals ... The President and Vice President told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media. None of the officials we interviewed recalled any intervention or direction on this matter from any political appointee.
Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United State on charter flights. The Saudi government was advised of and agree to the FBI’s requirements that passengers be identified and checked against various databases before the flights departed. The Federal Aviation Administration representative working in the FBI operations center made sure that the FBI was aware of the flights of Saudi nationals and was able to screen the passengers before they were allowed to depart.
The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.
But Cruz’s response put a lie to what Rubio said, also what did it matter if Cruz didn’t speak spanish, I’m sure he had someone translate Rubio’s univision speech. Bad debate move by Rubio.
Germany was pretty bad last century. Japan too and they even had jihadist-style suicide attacks as part of their repertoire. The democracy promotion idea certainly has hit stumbling blocks in the Middle East. But it was a reasonable thing to try in the Bush era.
WTH kind of nonsense it that? Put the bottle away. You’ve taken one too many swigs.
Terrible for Rubio to suggest that he didn’t want English speakers to hear what he said on Univision in Spanish. Unfortunately that requires the audience to think two levels down because it wasn’t explicitly pointed out by Cruz or anyone else. If Cruz had said, “So you were hoping English-speakers didn’t hear what you said on Univision?” it would’ve been a more devastating blow.
I enjoyed your 2770. Thank you.
To your credit... that's been PROVEN several times.
Here you go. This FBI document was obtained by Judicial Watch. You can read it yourself.
Yes President Bush allowed the Bin Laden family to escape by plane when all other flights were grounded.
The reason it LEAKED OUT was because a lot of good patriots in the Alphabet Agencies were P*ssed off that Bush let the family of the man who killed over 3,000 people go.
They did not even investigate them to find OBL.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/Saudi%20Docs%202.pdf
You have friends?
There you go - just add that to the stack. I’d like to know what GWB was preoccupied with from Jan through Sep 2001 that kept him oblivious or indifferent to both the history and the ongoing stream of OBL / AQ threats. Just what “business” was more important than this nation’s security? All the intel was at his fingertips - including the stuff Clinton was given on OBL.
>Only a trumpster 8th grader would say that someone who didn’t vote actually 1/2 voted for someone. Idiots....
I am not a ‘trumpster’, I am a voter, and I am an American.
When I started hearing this talk from many here back in 2012 stating if their candidate wasn’t chosen or if Romney was the nominee, they would stay home and not vote, was precisely the time I began to know that we would be stuck with another long four years of the divider in chief. I was horrified that millions of people sat on their hands and did nothing to prevent it. That election should have been won against a failed _resident. What folks here are pointing out to you is, we CAN’T have a Hillary OR Bernie OR a Biden this election. Please act like an American and VOTE your conscience, but sitting on your hands is totally shameful.
I am against abortion, but I noticed some trying to misquote Trump on the Planned Parenthood question by leaving out the entire sentence and cutting and pasting only a partial part of the entire sentencr.
And, I noticed ISIS has been mention several times in this debate in some threads where, even though Trump clearly said “NOT for abortion”, Trump is being framed as an abortionists, because he said there are some things the agency does have a role in outside of abortion, yet suddenly that is the same as Trump saying “I support ISIS” or something since PP is the same as ISIS, both murderers.
But the problem is, ISIS is also against abortion. So actually, regarding abortion, ISIS does not agree with Planned Parenthood. At least not for Muslim women. Muslim women need to have lots of children, many Muslim offspring, to increase the Muslim population and boys and men for the Islamic State armies and terrorists.
Let’s just put aside other roles such as women’s health checks or screenings, or birth defect prevention and the correlation between drug abuse and the health of the unborn, which is what such an agency as PP should actually be focusing on and NOT abortion, let us just look at abortion.
Should young girls raped by ISIS terrorists and impregnated be allowed to have an abortion? Or let us say young Nigerian girls raped by Boko Haram? Should they be allowed to have an abortion?
I am just asking. Or should they NOT be allowed?
There are reports that ISIS has had sex slaves to have forced abortions. Of course, to ISIS, these non-Muslim sex slaves are not considered as anything more than slaves. They also kill them, what to speak of forced abortion.
But did you know that in the Islamic State, for their Muslim women, that abortion is condemned, abortion is illegal for Muslim women in the Islamic State. ISIS wants Muslim children. To be their armies.
Teaching evolution is also illegal in the Islamic State.
So actually, ISIS shares the same stance against abortion and evolution for the Muslim women of the Islamic State as perhaps some members here in the US have for their women regarding abortion. Or, in some cases, even about teaching evolution.
So should we compare those in the US who, like ISIS, are AGAINST abortion for their citizens as being the same as ISIS because those in the US share the same values regarding abortion for their women as ISIS? Both are against abortion for their women, right? So they are the same? ISIS and here in the US? Same shared values regarding abortion. ISIS feels very strongly about this. Like some here in the US.
Both agree. Or is throwing out comparisons sometimes a stretch? Maybe sometimes?
“Saddam needed taking out ...”
Did Saddam Hussein blow up the WTC in 1993?
Did Saddam Hussein blow up the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998?
Did Saddam attack the USS Cole in June 2001
Did Saddam Hussein attack us on September 11, 2001?
Did Saddam hijack 4 civilian airliners and turn them into guided missiles?
Did Saddam crash 4 jetliners into the WTC, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field?
Did Saddam Hussein kill over 3000 Americans and injure hundreds of others?
So, pre-emptive wars are appealing to you - as long as it is the U.S. doing the attacking, eh?
Suppose Russia or North Korea or China decides to opt in with that strategy? Is that OK too?
I’m sure they each believe that somebody needs a “taking out.”
One of these times, the stupid neo-con nation builders are going to get us into WW III - and then neither you nor I will be able to have this argument,, b/c we’ll be just a glowing cinder.
Did you even read what you posted???? Read the Executive Summary, I may have missed it but don’t see what your alleging
Seen it already. You’re just confirming what I already said. That article was a year and 4 months after the invasion began. Trump is being misleading when he claims he was “against going into Iraq.” Everyone thinks that means he said that before we went in, but he didn’t. I think by this time many were criticizing the war. But nobody but the hardcore leftists were against going in at the time.
Trump coming to Atlanta day after SC primary.
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/02/14/scoop-donald-trump-to-atlanta-on-feb-21/
Figures, you post crap, then try to deflect when called on it. But it’s what i’ve come to expect from your post’s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.