Unasked questions

Let's go back to Sept. 13, 2001, and look at several scenes that were taking place simultaneously. Three thousand people had just been killed. The toxic rubble of the World
Trade Center was still ablaze. American airspace was locked down. Not even Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who were out of the country, were allowed to fly home. And a plane bearing a replacement heart for a desperately ill Seattle man was forced down short of its destination by military aircraft. Not since the days of the Wright Brothers had American skies been so empty.

But some people desperately wanted to fly out of the country. That same day, Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States and a
long-time friend of the Bush family, dropped by the White House. He and President George
W. Bush went out to the Truman Balcony for a private conversation. We do not know everything they discussed, but the Saudis themselves say that Prince Bandar was trying to orchestrate the evacuation of scores of Saudis from the United States despite the lockdown on air travel.

Meanwhile, a small plane in Tampa, Fla. took off for Lexington, Ky. According to former
Tampa cop Dan Grossi and former FBI agent Manny Perez, who were on the flight to provide
security, the passengers included three young Saudis. Given the national security crisis, both Grossi and Perez were astonished that they were allowed to take off. The flight could not have taken place without White House approval.

The plane taking off from Tampa was the first of at least eight aircraft that began flying across the country, stopping in at least 12 American cities and carrying at least 140 passengers out of the country over the next week or so. The planes included a
lavishly customized Boeing 727 airliner that was equipped with a master bedroom suite, huge flat-screen TVs, and a bathroom with gold-plated fixtures. Many of the passengers were high-ranking members of the royal House of Saud. About 24 of them were members of the bin Laden family, which owned the Saudi Binladin Group, a multibillion-dollar construction conglomerate.

All this occurred at a time when intelligence analysts knew that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, that Saudi money was one of the major forces behind Al Qaeda, and that the prime suspect -- Osama bin Laden -- was Saudi as well.

For its part, the Bush administration has erected the proverbial stone wall on the topic of the Saudi evacuation. The White House told me that it is "absolutely confident" the Sept. 13 flight from Tampa did not take place. The FBI said "unequivocally" it played no role in facilitating any flights. The Federal Aviation Administration said that the Tampa-to-Lexington flight was not in the logs and did not take place.

But they are all wrong.

How can I be sure? I have interviewed not only Dan Grossi and Manny Perez, but also
ources who helped orchestrate the flights. I tracked down photos of the interior of one
of the planes. Former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke told me, and later the 9/11
commission, about discussions in the White House that allowed the flights to begin.

Clarke says his advice was that the Saudis should be able to leave only after they had been vetted by the FBI. A basic procedure in any crime investigation is to interview friends and relatives of the primary suspect. When I talked to FBI special agents who participated in the Saudi evacuation, however, they said that they identified the
passengers boarding the flights but did not have lengthy interviews with them.

"Here you have an attack with substantial links to Saudi Arabia," says John L. Martin, a former Justice Department official who supervised investigation and prosecution of national security offenses for 18 years. "You would want to talk to people in the Saudi royal family and the Saudi government, particularly since they have pledged cooperation."

Robert Mueller had taken over at the FBI just one week before 9/11 and cannot be held responsible for the bureau's shortcomings before the attacks. But he should be asked about the departure of the Saudis. How is it possible that this could have happened? Did the White House order the evacuation -- and thereby interfere in an investigation into the murder of nearly 3,000 people?

If such interviews had taken place, investigators might have uncovered a trove of intelligence. During the summer of 2001, just a few months before 9/11, several of the bin Ladens attended the wedding of Osama's son in Afghanistan, where Osama himself was present. Carmen bin Laden, an estranged sister-in-law of the Al Qaeda leader, has said she suspects many family members have continued to aid and abet him. Could the bin Ladens have shed light on these assertions? Two relatives, Abdullah and Omar bin Laden, had been
investigated by the FBI as recently as September 2001 for their ties to the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, which has allegedly funded terrorism. The 9/11 commission should ask Mueller if they were on board. I have also obtained documents showing that Abdullah and Omar were being investigated by the FBI in September 2001. Mueller should be
asked about the status of that investigation.

The Clinton administration had attempted to crack down on the Saudi funding of Islamic
charities that funneled money to terrorists. More recently we have since had one revelation after another about Saudi royals who "inadvertently" funded terrorists. The Commission should ask Mueller if the Saudis who were allowed to leave were involved in financing terrorism. How could the FBI be sure without seriously interrogating them?

In addition, I have obtained passenger lists for four of the Saudi evacuation flights.
(The documents can be seen at my website, www.houseofbush.com.) Out of several dozen
names on those lists, the most astonishing is that of the late Prince Ahmed bin Salman.
A prominent figure in the Saudi royal family, Prince Ahmed is best known in this country

as the owner of War Emblem, winner of the 2002 Kentucky Derby. But his name is of interest for another reason. As reported last year by Gerald Posner in "Why America Slept," Prince Ahmed not only had alleged ties to Al Qaeda, but may also have known in advance that there would be attacks on 9/11. According to Posner, Abu Zubaydah, an Al
Qaeda operative who was part of Osama bin Laden's inner circle and was captured in 2002,
made these assertions when he was interrogated by the CIA. The commission should ask
Mueller about Zubaydah's interrogation. They should also ask whether the FBI interrogated
Prince Ahmed before his departure.

But Prince Ahmed will never be able to answer any questions because not long after the CIA interrogation, he died of a heart attack at the age of 43. Yet we do know that he was on one of the flights.

That leaves the question of the White House's participation in expediting the departure of so many Saudis who may have been able to shed light on the greatest crime in American history.

Is it possible that the long relationship between President Bush's family and the House of Saud led Bush to turn a blind eye to the Saudi role in Islamic fundamentalist terrorism? Rather than aggressively seeking justice for the victims of 9/11, did the
president instead authorize the departure of rich Saudi royals without even subjecting them to interrogation?

That may be the most difficult question of all for the commission to tackle. If the commission dares to confront this issue, it will undoubtedly be accused of politicizing the most important national security investigations in American history -- in an election year, no less. If it does not, it risks something far worse -- the betrayal of the
thousands who lost their lives that day, and of the living who want answers.

Craig Unger, the former editor of Boston Magazine, is the author of "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties" (Scribner, March 2004).

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

http://www.boston.com/news/messageboards/ideas/041104/

Food & Drink? Whoops, sorry.

The fact is, the Bush clan and the Saudi Faad family (as well as the bin Laden family) are very chummy and go back at least 50 years together.

Personally, I believe George "aWol" Bush's allegiance is not to the American people -- far from it (we are seen as nuisances,) but to a small group of global elites which include the Faads and the bin Ladens.

Therefore, Bush abdicated the Oath of Office he was sworn to take that cold, dark January day after he won his lawsuit and was handed the keys to the White House by 5 banana Republicans in black robes on the SCOTUS.

This epoch will be viewed one day by historians as the darkest in the history of the republic.

Major flaw #1 in the conspiracy theory:

"Statement of U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta

Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta has ordered the
national airspace system re-opened to commercial aviation,
effective at 11 a.m. Eastern time Thursday."

http://www.faa.gov/apa/pr/pr.cfm?id=1407

Airspace was NOT "locked down" after 11am on Sept 13th. But then that negates most of the rest of the conspiracy theory so I'm sure the author "overlooked" that minor little detail.

This smacks of the conspiracy theory put forth by a radical House Democrat early in Ronald Reagan's first term. Rep Henry Gonzales (D) spoke in special orders night after night accusing then Vice President George Bush (the elder) of stealing and flying a stealth fighter plane to Paris to meet with the Iranians to arrange release of the American embassy hostages. According to Gonzales, the plan was to be sure the release was done immediately after the inaugeration so that Jimmy Carter would not get any credit for it.

As ludicrous as this was, Gonzales was never rebuked for his tirades but they remain a part of the Congressional Record.

"As ludicrous as this was, Gonzales was never rebuked for his tirades but they remain a part of the Congressional Record." foxfyre

The claims are factual and they stand. However, the correction lies in Poppy Bush's mode of transport to broker the deal with the Iranians. It's highly unlikely he had to "steal" an airplane -- he was flown to Teheran on Airforce Two.

Such details are only "ludicrous" to radical, right-wingnuts like yourself who bristle when the dirtiest details of GOP administrations become know to the public.
[/color]

Gee Titus, you mean Jimmy Carter loaned Airforce II to George Bush so he could goto Tehran to release the hostages? I sure didn't know that and I'm amazed.

(Please, PLEASE tell me that you're only 12.)

Thank you, Fishin, I'll have to look into that. I will be greatly annoyed if it comes down to another
"he said/he said", though, or if this guy is lying so blatantly.
But I gotta tell you, we still sent those people off without a thorough investigation, whether flights were allowed or not, and that disturbs me more than whether or not they received special treatment to get out.
Meanwhile, men still rot in Cuba, who in some cases may have even less suspicious activity than those "airlifted" Saudis.
Foxfyre,
I've never heard the theory of what plane went where with whom, but I have never questioned the truth of the big picture in that situation.
Hi Titus!

Only 12?
The only 12 remark is why I rarely debate with Right Wingers. When they can't debate, they start with the personal insults.

Even if flights were allowed it does not negate the fact that these people were flown out. Why were they flown out and why weren't they questioned? In any criminal cases the families are usually questioned.

Perhaps. You may recall however that our very own Boston Globe ran stories within hours of the 9/11 attacks about the Bin Laden relatives that lived right here in Cambridge and the number of death threats they had gotten in the aftermath. How many of those relatives do you think would still be alive if they hadn't gotten the heck out of here? The one that did stay behind had police protection surrounding his house for months and he still avoids mentioning his own name in public.

I'd suspect that anyone in any type of law enforcement already had their hands full and would be more than grateful for not having to deal with playing body guard to the 2 dozen or so Bin Laden family members that were in the US on 9/11. Of course, that presumes that the previous administrations had been monitoring those family members while they were here over the previous decade (or longer) and knew whether or not they had any contact with Osama or not all along. If they already knew there really wasn't much point in questioning them was there?

Titus writes:


I am rebuked for saying "Please tell me you are only 12" when

No rebuke for Titus's insult however. The double standard here never ceases to amaze me, but it's okay. I will apologize for a momentary slip into liberal-speak and remind myself that intelligent reasonable people make their point without insulting the other person or their opinion.

My point remains. The carefully crafted undertones of innuendo that there is something sinister and nefarious and sneaky about the incident cited is what I most deplore about partisan writing. It is in my mind unethical and feeds the appetite for those who want to believe it.

It is not unusual to remove people from the line of fire for numerous reasons. The only reason Israel is not involved in the Iraqi conflict--they would LOVE to be--is at our request as their presence there would be inflammatory. Same for Turkish troops who offered to come--the Kurds didn't want them there so they stayed home and are helping in other ways.

My uncle was the pilot who flew Batista out of Cuba as the U.S. backed Fidel Castro regime took over there. Bastista was a ruthless dictator and the U.S. erroneously thought Castro would be better. Was there anything sinister about flying Bastista out of harms way? Did it imply we were somehow in cahoots with his regime? No. It was purely an act of expediency for an orderly transition and to get the job done.

If we did in fact help transport some Saudis out of harms way, it could mean no more than these people were friendly toward the U.S. We certainly did not need the Saudis against us as we took on Saddam.

"We certainly did not need the Saudis against us as we took on Saddam."
Think about your sentence, there!
BinLaden is Saudi as were most of the hijackers, and Saddam wasn't involved in the hijackings!
Your thinking, with that statement, is ludicrous!

"You may recall however that our very own Boston Globe ran stories within hours of the 9/11 attacks about the Bin Laden relatives that lived right here in Cambridge and the number of death threats they had gotten in the aftermath"
Yes, I do recall that, and I actually even worried for them, BUT, as many a republican has said, emotions are not the basis for judgement! Common sense would indicate that you might want to investigate!
I know an elderly woman whose son was arrested for porn. She is in poor health. That doesn't stop FOX News from periodically popping by her house to get information from her. Funny what our priorities are! We wanna know all about what she thinks of her sons misdeeds, but we're not concerned about the family members of a terrorist and what they might think or perhaps, know!

"I'd suspect that anyone in any type of law enforcement already had their hands full"
Honestly! That's good enough for you? We managed to spare some people to sit around Guatanamo Bay for ages and ages monitoring people for lesser reasons than being related to the most lethal terrorist ever to attack the USA! They could have been brought somewhere and kept in comfort while spending at least a few days being interrogated. Letting them go, just like that, made us look like huge chumps.
And I know quite a few people who were out of state or country at the time of the attacks, who were unable to get flights back for well over a week. Their safety and comfort level wasn't a big concern. Of course, the world still respected us at that time.