[quote=dude]

MikeB,

If you had committed a crime much less drastic than the 911 tragedy, and were in hiding I can guarantee that the FBI would be all over your family trying to find out where you were.  But......... If you are a Bin Laden, you've got special priveleges.

Wow, Dude, you may never, never be able to overcome this one  

The 9/11 Commission attempted to deflect the charge that Saudi nationals were afforded special treatment by deceptively implying that all flights were allowed to resume on September 13th, when in fact private aircraft remained grounded until the 14th.

In March of 2005 more details about the Saudi flights surfaced as a result of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Justice Department. Although the heavily redacted FBI documents apparently do not directly contradict the carefully worded denials of the Commission Report, they reveal the existance of previously undisclosed flights, and that the FBI provided escorts for some of the departing Saudis. The documents show:

According to one report, a Saudi prince in the Las Vegas group "thanked the FBI for their assistance." The FBI interviewed some of the departing Saudis and failed to interview others. Director of investigations for Judicial Watch Christopher J. Farrell stated that the interviews "look like they were courtesy chats, without the time that would have been needed for thorough debriefings." 3

OK mikeB

Oh BTW MISTER INFORMED......

Michael Moore did not manufacture the above True Story.  Ever heard of The New York Times or maybe The Tampa Tribune????

Oh and here is the Stake in the heart of the Vampire

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=386 69

Read it and weep.

[quote=dude]

Oh BTW MISTER INFORMED......

Michael Moore did not manufacture the above True Story.  Ever heard of The New York Times or maybe The Tampa Tribune????

[/quote]

Please tell me you're kidding using that wack-job source "911research.org". Seriously, you're joking, right?

Now, just where's the link to the NY Time or the Tampa Tribune that says Clarke and the 9/11 Commission lied and that they did it to cover for Bush?

[quote=dude]

Oh and here is the Stake in the heart of the Vampire

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=386 69

Read it and weep.

[/quote]

Hmm, Clarke took responsibility. Something MOORE didn't tell you when he created the "Bush helped bin Laden's family" myth.

Just where's the contradiction in Clarke's claim?

[quote=dude]

The 9/11 Commission attempted to deflect the charge that Saudi nationals..." [/quote]

Hmmm, so the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission AND RICHARD CLARKE lied? And Bush got them to do this?

I'm sure you have some supporting evidence, right? Where's that link?

BTW, you DO know your source website claims that 9/11 was an "inside job" with Bush behind it and every agency imaginable, including the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission is in on it, right?

You DO know these moonbats say the planes that flew into the twin towers were remote controlled and that the towers fell not from the impact and fires, but because explosives were planted in advance, right?

And you're aware the same people say that the Pentagon was hit by a truck bomb, not a plane, right?

Are you sure you want to rely on these loons as your source?

As far as 911 research is concerned, it was the first hit on a search for the subject.  I certainly haven't used them for research and don't necessarily agree with the assertions you quoted concerning their position.

What I will say is that American media is one of the most convoluted and narrow sources for news around.  I've had the opportunity to live abroad and develop many international friendships and it's amazing to me what slips by American media.  Based on my own experiences I can understand why there are conspiracy theorists out there.  It's really eye openning to see news on the same subject from 4 different countries and even more chilling when you read multiple different news items and see a consistent pattern of shallow reporting by U.S. reporters.

Also,  you used the 911 commision report as your basis to claim that the whole Saudi issue was a myth. 

My point was to show you how mislead you were on the subject. Based on the proof I provided someone of good character would have said

"Oh wow, maybe I should have an open mind that the info I get is incomplete (which the 911 report was), maybe there is something more to it?" 

But it's obvious you are more interested in defending your point regardless of whether it's accurate or not. 

[quote=dude]

As far as 911 research is concerned, it was the first hit on a search for the subject.  I certainly haven't used them for research and don't necessarily agree with the assertions you quoted concerning their position.

[/quote]

Then provide another. Thus far you've fallen flat in your attempt to repeddle Moore's lies about bin Laden's family.

[quote=dude]

Also,  you used the 911 commision report as your basis to claim that the whole Saudi issue was a myth. 

[/quote]

Yeah, and? What's the problem with me using a bi-partisan source (not to mention Clarke himself) to prove Moore's myth to be a lie?

[quote=dude]

My point was to show you how mislead you were on the subject. Based on the proof I provided someone of good character would have said .."

[/quote]

The problem is you recycled Moore's lies, long disproved. You provided nothing but a loon website's ramblings to rebutt me.

[quote=dude]

But it's obvious you are more interested in defending your point regardless of whether it's accurate or not. 

[/quote]

Wow, how weird is that? You provided nothing. Your original claim about Moore's myth was a lay-up to disprove since one of Bush's strongest critics, a guy Moore himself used as a source elsewhere in his laughable crockumentary, said it wasn't true.

LMAO - You guys crack me up.

All I'm saying is that Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are the same.  Neither one reports 'news' and if that is where you are getting your talking points then you are going to be awfully sad when the truth hits you in the face.

Not sure I understood what wasn't understood about the Iraqi report to the United Nations that was delivered in February of 2003, but it was considered the impetus for war when Hussein declared in that report that he was not manufacturing weapons of a chemical, nuclear or biological ilk.  Immediately the Bush government dismissed it and it has now been shown to have been pretty accurate.  Hussein did not have them and said so...so we blasted him.  Right or wrong, that is what happened.

The report to the UN was what caused Bush to put off going to war slightly earlier which he would have liked to do because of weather conditions in Iraq.  We put off going until that report was received and evaluated - although we apparently evaluated with blinders on.

I don't believe that to be a partisan statement, but if you take it so, then so be it. 

[quote=go_rascals]

Not sure I understood what wasn't understood about the Iraqi report to the United Nations that was delivered in February of 2003, but it was considered the impetus for war when Hussein declared in that report that he was not manufacturing weapons of a chemical, nuclear or biological ilk. 

[/quote]

Pure fiction. Saddam wasn't to "report" anything, he was to allow the UN to conduct free and open inspections. He didn't.

Saddam daily sent planes over the 32 parallel. I was there and we had to scramble. He broke UN resolutions 14 times. There is a ton of evidance relating him to funding terrorism in Isreal (20k per marter) and he killed about a million muslims. What more did we freaking need to kick his ass?

Oh yeah his thugs raped and mamed 10's of thousands of women. They lit the oil well fires and drained the marsh lands in the west. He sent missles into Isreal, Saudi, Kuwait and Iran. To this day Britian and Nigear state "Saddam sent people to buy uranium". He had the chemicals and used them on his own people. He played a game with the world and we steped on his head like a grape. The libs like Kerry wanted to be more sensative.

Moore is a big fat piece of sh.. He is a liar and his movie on 9/11 was 90% BS. He has an agenda and hates GW. Rush at least bases his information on facts on hand not pathetic myths.

The longest FORUM ever continues.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=go_rascals]

Not sure I understood what wasn't understood about the Iraqi report to the United Nations that was delivered in February of 2003, but it was considered the impetus for war when Hussein declared in that report that he was not manufacturing weapons of a chemical, nuclear or biological ilk. 

[/quote]

Pure fiction. Saddam wasn't to "report" anything, he was to allow the UN to conduct free and open inspections. He didn't.

[/quote] [/quote]

You know, I seriously considered just letting this rest as perhaps someone's bad memory but I decided that in the interest of making sure we don't lose sight of history to go ahead and rebut this. 

UN Resolution 1441, passed in November of 2002 was a key piece in the lead up to the war.  It's primary requirement was the delivery of a report of weapons of mass destruction to be delivered to the UN by December 8, 2002.  

In early December, Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The UN and the US said that this failed to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents.

For the next two months political hacks went all out on television explaining to America how Iraq had failed to comply with 1441.  Indeed in the final days, Bush declared that 1441 had given him the right to make the strike (There was much debate on this matter from countries who did not believe it did).

Go ahead...look it up...in this case the truth is there for anyone to find.  but I find it hard to believe anyone would state that I was guilty of fiction on this.

North Korea stated they have no nuclear ambitions to Albright. Iran is now saying the same. Well Saddam was playing a game for 12 years. Now he plays president in a 8x8 cell.

[quote=go_rascals] 

UN Resolution 1441, passed in November of 2002 was a key piece in the lead up to the war.  It's primary requirement was the delivery of a report of weapons of mass destruction to be delivered to the UN by December 8, 2002.  

In early December, Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The UN and the US said that this failed to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents.

[/quote]

Saddam had 12 years to allow for free and complete inspections. He refused to comply. When Bush pushed the UN of an authorization for "serious consequences" Saddam staged a document dump that NO ONE, including Hans Blix, found to complete or definitive. He continued to fail to convincingly account for WMDs that we knew he had possessed at one point. He answer was essentially, “my dog ate it, now, drop the sanctions”.

Now, you may be a solid member of the "we should have trusted Saddam" camp, but you're pretty much alone there.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

                                                  -- Ronald Reagan

62,000,000 voted for BUSH. 60,000,000 voted for Michael Moore Myths. Know that Bush is out in 3 years and Chenny is not running. Smile for once after all we are killing terrorists and no bombs in America!

[quote=7GOD63]

Saddam daily sent planes over the 32 parallel. I was there and we had to scramble. He broke UN resolutions 14 times. There is a ton of evidance relating him to funding terrorism in Isreal (20k per marter) and he killed about a million muslims. What more did we freaking need to kick his ass?

Oh yeah his thugs raped and mamed 10's of thousands of women. They lit the oil well fires and drained the marsh lands in the west. He sent missles into Isreal, Saudi, Kuwait and Iran. To this day Britian and Nigear state "Saddam sent people to buy uranium". He had the chemicals and used them on his own people. He played a game with the world and we steped on his head like a grape. The libs like Kerry wanted to be more sensative.

Moore is a big fat piece of sh.. He is a liar and his movie on 9/11 was 90% BS. He has an agenda and hates GW. Rush at least bases his information on facts on hand not pathetic myths.

The longest FORUM ever continues.

[/quote]

Why Iraq and not North Korea or Iran?  Iraq may pay martyrs for targeting Israeli's, but where's the connection to 911?  Also, it was not a lie that high level Saudi's including Bin Laden family members were allowed to leave the country while there was a freeze on travel, who knows why it was allowed to happen.

The main point I was trying to get across is that the news in this country is very narrow and misses a lot of important details.