White House Approved Departure of Saudis After Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says

New York Times ^ | September 4, 2003 | By ERIC LICHTBLAU

[Atlas Sneezed]

Is this for real?

(NYT requires registration. User name: annoying003, PW: annoying)

[expatpat]

I think you can still use hildebeast/isaliar as username/password on a variety of sources

[Damocles]

Yikes! This could be ugly...

Why is it the Saudi's keep popping up around this terrorism thing? And why the heck were we so quick about shipping out relatives of Bin Laden.

The "it's for their safety" angle doesn't feel right.

Hmmmm.....

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The White House needs to supply answers.

[AdamSelene235]

"Our friends" murdered 3000 Americans and then were allowed to purchase the chairman of the 911 investigation.

Apparently Americans will tolerate anything.

[jriemer]

Richard Clark was the former White House cybersecurity czar. What position he would be in to permit Saudis to leave the country immediately after the 911 attacks is questionable. The imporant thing to keep in mind is that he is an ex-White House staffer and the currently employed WH personel operate under a virtual cone of silence.

White House cybersecurity czar Richard Clarke to retire - JANUARY 27, 2003

[concerned about politics]

They had nothing to hold them on, and yes, they could have been targets.
If the WH had not let them leave, we could have been forced into WWIII within days. It would have started a HUGE Holy war.
I wish they were in prison myself.

[Cindy]

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001: "ATTACK ON AMERICA!" (Updated Daily.)
http://www.truthusa.com/911.html

[truthandlife]

This is the kind of stuff I think the Democrats are holding close to the vest. When the '04 election comes around, expect a lot of this stuff to pop up. The Democrats are already sounding the drumbeat that Bush cannot be trusted. I think they will start dropping this stuff along the way.

[Ramius]

Sorry... I still don't see the story here. So some Saudis who had no known ties to terrorists... left the country. So what?

[GovernmentShrinker]

It wasn't for their safety. It was for the continued cooperation of certain elements of the Saudi government. The Saudi government is severely internally conflicted, inlcuding everything from Islamic extremists to the guys responsible for the separate airport for the royals and their guests -- at that airport, alcohol flows freely and women can dress in Western clothes. The alternative, if we don't help support the current Saudi government arrangement, is very likely a coup by Islamic extremists. Yes, the extremists already exert significant influence on the Saudi government. No, they don't have anything like control of it. And no, it would not be an improvement for the U.S. and the rest of the civilized world, if the aforementioned coup actually happened. Just picture al-Qaeda having unfettered access to the bulk of the world's oil supply and all the cash it generates -- the WTC attack would pale by comparison to what they could do with such resources. It's really best to protect the status quo until such time as a real opportunity for improvement presents itself.

[cksharks]

some of my kinfolks who we have (openly disowned) just like osamas relatives have been accused of all sorts of things. Should I be held responsible for their actions? Just wondering.

[cksharks]

some of my kinfolks who we have (openly disowned) just like osamas relatives have been accused of all sorts of things. Should I be held responsible for their actions? Just wondering.

[SauronOfMordor]

The point was, at the time they made special arraingements to let them go, the FBI COULD NOT have been certain that these people WERE NOT material witnesses having valuable knowledge of Osama's activities. The Administration bowed to pressure from the Saudi govt

[AdamSelene235]

And no, it would not be an improvement for the U.S. and the rest of the civilized world, if the aforementioned coup actually happened. Just picture al-Qaeda having unfettered access to the bulk of the world's oil supply and all the cash it generates

It would be an improvement. We would then have a reason to invade and kill them.

Ex-CIA agent Robert Baer estimates the Saudi's have funnelled 500 million to Al Queda in the last 10 years.

Furthermore, they have purchased nuclear weapons for unstable Islamic Pakistan. Don't you think they got a little something in return?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

This is a non-issue. Not every Saudi is a terrorist.

If a drunken embassador from Peru runs you over in his big, black Mercedes, you're going to the hospital and he's getting hauled back to Lima.

[JDGreen123]

Good point. You all probably remember the famous photo of Osama & his siblings on vacation in Europe - 1971.

Some very nice looking Sisters that I would have loved to meet!!!! The Bin Laden family has been compared to the Rockefellers of Saudi Arabia. If you do any business in Saudi Arabia, there likely is a Bin Laden involved in the deal. They have one goofy brother who went wacko. No blame on them unless they are shown to be supporting his efforts. The move was to protect their safety from vengeful Americans and to keep ties with the Royal Family.

I guess you cannot blame Luke Skywalker for his Dad being Darth Vader. We all stand on our own regardless of family connections. The Bush family and friends have had numerous business deals with the Bin Ladens. I am sure the desperate Dems will try to make hay out of this however.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You really think the FBI/CIA/Bush didn't know the location of every mercury filling in the mouths of each Saudi on that plane?

[mabelkitty]

I think DUers should focus on internal squabling and not linking from their website to Free Republic.

Be Gone Disruptor!!

[Mo1]

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, seized on Mr. Clarke's comments to call on the White House to conduct an investigation into the hasty departures of about 140 Saudis from the United States in the days after the attacks.

Gee Senator Schummer .. Nice to see you comment about the Bin Laden family.

Just wondering if you and the NYT will comment and ask for investigations for the 12 times that Bill Clinton turned a blind eye getting Bin Laden himself??

Will You and the NYT ask Bill Clinton why he FAILED as a leader of this country by failing to stop Bin Laden himself???

When are you and the NYT going to ask Bill & Hellary Clinton .. WHAT DID THEY KNOW AND WHEN DID THEY KNOW IT???

If Senator Schummer and the NYT REALLY cared .. they would ask these questions ...

That is if they aren't aren't afraid to