[Destro]

From your link: Yes, a couple of flights arranged by the Saudi government did collect a number of Osama bin Laden's America-based relatives and whisk them to Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, but this departure didn't take place during the FAA-imposed ban on air travel in the US. The two flights in question took wing on September 18 and 19, days after the ban on air travel was lifted.

Thanks! The flights during the FAA ban is the false part but not the other part it seems.

[mattdono]

Well, frankly, I think that you (or anyone) putting any stock into this article is a fool. This article is LACED with references that are quite purposeful. Let's take a look at it.

Ok, topic (first) sentence:
THE United States allowed members of Osama bin Laden’s family to jet out of the US in the immediate aftermath of September 11, even as American airspace was closed.

As we have concluded, this is UTTERLY false. Now, before we go any further, don't you think that it is quite purposeful that the first sentence --the sentence that is supposed to grab the reader's attention-- is provably false.

Ok, next paragraph...
Former White House counter-terrorism tsar Richard Clarke said the Bush administration sanctioned the repatriation of about 140 high-ranking Saudi Arabians, including relatives of the al-Qaida chief.

I have highlighted the words that the press wants to string together. Do you see what they are doing? Another reporter, or inept reader, will be able to chop this sentence further out of context using the convenient ellipses ("...") and brackets. BTW, ellipses are supposed to be used ONLY when the rest of the sentence doesn't explain things further (see the whore bag of an op-ed writer Maureen Dowd; she is famous for it). Brackets are supposed to be used to add context.

With some grammatical "trickeration", someone, somewhere, will be able to write, "...the Bush administration sanctioned the repatriation of...[Osama bin Laden] the al-Qaida chief." And, before you say that is ridiculous, look back Michael Moore's comments; that is precisely what he is implying and saying: that the Bush administration is in cahoots with bin Laden himself.

Also, as with the first paragraph, they place an independent clause at the end of the paragraph, which is specifically used to add emphasis to the dependent clause. It is a classic way to "twist" a sentence or amplify the point being.

About half way through the story
The plane is believed to have landed in ten US cities picking up passengers, including Los Angeles, Washington DC, Boston and Houston. At the time, access to US airspace was restricted and required special government approval.

Again, totally false.

A few more paragraphs later...
Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the US who is said to have organised the exodus, met President George Bush on September 13, 2001, two days after the terror attacks. It is not known if they discussed the repatriation plan.

Not only does this paragraph contradict the assertions that he FBI and/or the US government arranged this flight ("the Saudi ambassador to the US who is said to have organised the exodus"), but the last sentence is another gross example of implication of cahoots. "It is not know if they discussed the repariation plan". This clearly implies some formality that President Bush formally was concerned about repariating Saudis, and worse there was a "plan".

Nothing about this story adds new information. Worse yet, it recycles the same old urban legends.