« Christmas 2012 | Main | The Fiscal Cliff – just a thought (updated 31dec12) »

27 December 2012



Yes, 9/11 was an act of terror. So was the turning of Israeli schoolchildren into red goo by suicide bombers spurred by large cash payments by Iraq to their families. And the continued killing of Kurds every chance the Iraqis got.

Again, those are rhetorical linkages to terrorism that *DON'T* assert Iraq was in any way involved in 9/11.

Then there was Vlad Putin's two separate messages to Bush II that Russian spies had two separate leads that Iraq was planning on financing new acts of terror on US soil. Imagine Bush's place in history had that happened despite being told directly.

Russ Steele

Here is the real issue in these discussions about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the liberal are unable to accept this simple fact.

“As practiced in every country of the world, Islam is a totalitarian ideology that openly advocates intolerance, death for non-believers, and relegates women to the status of cattle. Islam, at least as now practiced, is a violent and intolerant totalitarian ideology, and an enemy of freedom.” This from a career diplomat that has been assigned to posts in Islamic countries.

The attacks on the US were attacks by Islam, “a totalitarian ideology that openly advocates intolerance and death for non-believers,” seeking to destroy freedom anywhere it exists, starting with the Great Satan. It is taught in every muslim school that the US is the Great Satan that needs to be exterminated.

Until the liberals posting here can get past this simple fact, we will have to continue to suffer through their apologies for a totalitarian ideology. Islam is Good. Bush was Bad!

Ken Jones

Russ it appears you copied the opinion, not fact, from a blog the DiploMad 2.0. Try something other than a skewed opinion next time. Liberals accept facts, not highly biased and charged opinions.
And as Daniel Patrick Moynihan stated "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts".

George Rebane

RussS 407pm - That does happen to be what is taught in Muslim countries by their own declaration. Infidels of all stripe are enemies of God, none being greater than the US.

The liberals' no-thought response, found throughout these pages, is 'Well, that's only some Muslims. Most Muslims are not terrorists. Are you willing to proscribe all Muslims for the extreme behaviors of a few?'

The problem here is that the imputed moderate Muslims have never launched a public relations campaign to denounce their murderous brethren and make clear their own difference from the ragheads. Holding an obscure news conference once or twice does not cut it while tens of thousands are murdered every year.

For a more rational approach that includes the notion of (gasp!) stereotyping, revisit these -

George Rebane

KenJ 439pm - Your denouncement of the messenger in order to negate the message seems to be a continuum of liberal logic. The hatred of Islam toward the west can be discounted only if you pay no attention to what they are teaching their kids, showing on their TV, and demonstrating with their public actions. There are moderate Muslims who want Islam to co-exist with the west, but they must also include in such efforts a strong warning of Islam's aggregate intentions. One of these is Dr Michael Youssef, PhD who authored 'Blindsided - The Radical Islamic Conquest' (2012). His warning to us is dire, but by no means unique.

Michael Anderson

This is the guy who helps me understand all of these things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Klemperer

But not this nonsense: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/09/1053088/-An-open-letter-to-the-people-who-hate-Obama-more-than-they-love-America?detail=email#

..or the Forbes nonsense, or from the other guy you cited. Once again, the sky is not falling.

Paul Emery

George, Gregory, Russ

The bottom line is we invaded a sovereign nation (Iraq) that posed no imminent threat to this country. It is their country thousands of miles away from our national boundaries. Sure they were shooting at us. It's because we were there. Time to come home. We were enforcing a UN resolution without their involvement. So I guess you guys support the UN when it's convenient to our Imperialistic greed. Let's use American troops to enforce Agenda 21 under the same justification.

Saddam was the least radical Islamic leader of them all. He was just a regional thug that we supported with billions when it was convenient for us. On the other hand Bush bought a first class ticket for his Saudi oil pals to whisk them home when thousands were stranded at airports unable to get home after 9-11. The Saudi Puntas were far more involved with the roots of 9-11 than Saddam.

Paul Emery

Oh yeah

" TAMPA - Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left.

The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky.

The Saudis then took another flight out of the country. The two ex-officers returned to TIA a few hours later on the same plane.

For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose.......



Paul, that sovereign country had been patrolled by US and British aircraft for years under UN auspices as part of the cease fire monitoring and attempts at stemming massacres of the Kurds. They weren't your usual sovereign country as we were already technically in a state of war before the war started.

Iraq also on occasion shot at the aircraft, getting return fire, or illuminated them with radar which was also cause for them getting return fire.

Sorry, I'd love for it to have been as cut and dried as you want it to be, but it wasn't. The "containment" was a constant military operation. They were in violation of all the UN mandates that were a condition of the cease fire; the Security Council might have done something about it were it not for the Oil for Palaces kickbacks that were being sloshed about in the Security Council states that were the holdouts. It's a shame that WMDs were the only justification people remember, but any one of the other three or four reasons given at the time were legally sufficient, and the Baathists were given a chance to prove the WMDs were gone forever. They made their choice.

Oil for Palaces was a bigger fraud than Enron, even Kofi Annan's (UN Chair) son got some of the action.


Oh, yeah, indeed.

Here's what Snopes says about those "secret flights" claims. False.


Paul, you really need to get over that Bush Derangement Syndrome; it's continuing to blind you.

Paul Emery

Gregory 01 January 2013 at 11:21 AM

"They were in violation of all the UN mandates that were a condition of the cease fire"

You sure do embrace the UN when it's convenient. Other times it's part of Marx's plan for world government.

Come on Gregory. You can't possibly believe that the 9/11 commission was anything but a whitewash. And the snopes thing. Did you actually read it? Just look at what you embrace. Three days after the devastation of 9-11 Bin Ladens family is allowed to fly back home with only a whisper of an investigation based on interviews with minor FBI cops.


" The Saudis asked the Tampa Police Department to escort the flight, but the department handed off the assignment to Dan Grossi, a former member of the force, Unger said. Grossi recruited Manuel Perez, a retired FBI agent, to accompany him. Both described the flight to Unger as somewhat surreal.

"They got the approval somewhere," Perez is quoted as telling Unger. "It must have come from the highest levels of government."

Divine intervention from the House of Bush.

from http://www.salon.com/2004/03/12/unger_2/

"How much money has flowed from the House of Saud to the Bush family and its friends and allies over the years? No one will ever know -- but the number is at least $1.477 billion."


"You sure do embrace the UN when it's convenient. Other times it's part of Marx's plan for world government"

A pure fabrication on your part, Paul.

Regarding the secret flights you cling to, I've seen serious interviews of Richard Clarke (you remember, he's the guy who was raising the alarm about bin Laden long before it was fashionable) and he was CLEAR that he made the approvals for all those flights, with no interference from above. And they were as the snopes piece reports.

Give it up.

Michael Anderson

GG, Clarke gave approval for those flights because it was part of the end game of a long history of the House of Saud and the Bush family working the Middle East. The flights happened, and the American gov't complicity with terrorists in the Middle East was finally exposed. Unfortunately, the Iraq War sent our nation spinning off into another black hole, and here we are. Suggesting that anything GWB did during his presidency was good for this nation is wrong. WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

Now, here's how this works. History is not just a static indicator, there are real people who move and shape the impressions of history upon the body politic. I would like to suggest--and I think Paul E. might support me on this--that there are more people dedicated to making sure the historical record tracks the negatives of the GWB presidency than the Obama presidency.

Once again, demographics shape the nation, and the angry old white guy is an increasing outlier. Bummer city for us old angry white guys...

Paul Emery


And in your opinion the millions and possibly billions of business deals between the two families had no influence on the exodus the Saudis ?

As for Richard Clarke I believe you are in error about him being the decider in allowing them to fly

This is from the 911 hearings. Clark answers questions from Commission member Tim Roemer.

"The request came to me and I refused to approve it."

"Part A is where do we go in this difficult relationship? And part B is to further look at the difficulty here. You made a decision after 9/11 to, I think — and I’d like to ask you more about this — to allow a plane of Saudis to fly out of the country. And when most other planes were grounded, this plane flew from the United States back to Saudi Arabia. I’d like to know why you made that decision, who was on this plane, and if the FBI ever had the opportunity to interview those people.

RICHARD CLARKE: You’re absolutely right that the Saudi Arabian government did not cooperate with us significantly in the fight against terrorism prior to 9/11. Indeed, it didn’t really cooperate until after bombs blew up in Riyadh.

Now, as to this controversy about the Saudi evacuation aircraft, let me tell you everything I know, which is that in the days following 9/11 — whether it was on 9/12 or 9/15, I can’t tell you — we were in a constant crisis management meeting that had started the morning of 9/11 and ran for days on end. We were making lots of decisions, but we were coordinating them with all the agencies through the video teleconference procedure.

CLARKE: Someone — and I wish I could tell you, but I don’t know who — someone brought to that group a proposal that we authorize a request from the Saudi embassy. The Saudi embassy had apparently said that they feared for the lives of Saudi citizens because they thought there would be retribution against Saudis in the United States as it became obvious to Americans that this attack was essentially done by Saudis, and that there were even Saudi citizens in the United States who were part of the bin Laden family, which is a very large family, very large family.

The Saudi embassy therefore asked for these people to be evacuated; the same sort of thing that we do all the time in similar crises, evacuating Americans.

The request came to me and I refused to approve it. I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it — or not.

I spoke with at that time the number two person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue.

The FBI then approved — after some period of time, and I can’t tell you how long — approved the flight.

Now, what degree of review the FBI did of those names, I cannot tell you. How many people there are on the plane, I cannot tell you.

But I have asked since: Were there any individuals on that flight that in retrospect the FBI wishes they could have interviewed in this country. And the answer I’ve been given is no, that there was no one who left on that flight who the FBI now wants to interview.

ROEMER: Despite the fact that we don’t know if Dale Watson interviewed them in the first place.

CLARKE: I don’t think they were ever interviewed in this country.

ROEMER: So they were not interviewed here. We have all their names. We don’t know if there has been any follow up to interview those people that were here and flown out of the country.

CLARKE: The last time I asked that question, I was informed that the FBI still had no desire to interview any of these people.

ROEMER: Would you have a desire to interview some of these people that...

CLARKE: I don’t know who they are......



Golly Paul, googling this random phrase from your material quoted from, shall we say, an activist source: "You’re absolutely right that the Saudi Arabian government did not cooperate with us significantly in the fight against terrorism prior to 9/11.",
Only two pages of results came back and they were all activist sites similar to 'democracynow', leading me to suspect it might not be an accurate transcript traceable to reality. Do you have a better source?

Michael Anderson

Paul E.,

There is no doubt that a number of conspiracies took place during the Bush II administration. Both early on, and then during the second term. The only reason these were not actionable is because Bush II was more like Bill Clinton and much less like Dick Nixon. IMHO, the main reason Nixon was impeached and forced to resign was due to his incredible unlikeability. Bush II was likeable, just like Bill Clinton.

Reagan was also popular, which protected him, and kept him from being impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors as outlined in the Iran-Contra hearings.

Obama has done virtually nothing that would require hearings, and yet some on the right suggest that this president should be shackled and chained, sent to the Hague and enclosed in a steel cage, and then found guilty of multiple crimes that violate international law.

A bunch of hogwash, for sure.


Ken Jones

KenJ 439pm - Your denouncement of the messenger in order to negate the message seems to be a continuum of liberal logic.

George yes I denounce any message that comes across as pure opinion not rooted in facts or evidence. The logic is I don’t accept bias opinion. Not too hard to follow George. I would suggest instead of calling a highly biased blog opinion piece as the "message" try real facts. If this is the best you or Russ can offer I suggest you have set the bar for this blog at the gutter. But this is your blog so you get to decide the level or BS you put out and accept.

Todd Juvinall

George, I think the liberals olny believe their own facts (and opinions) and not others. I would be interested on Jones facts on Benghazi.

Paul Emery

Gregory January 2013 at 10:15 PM

Weak deflection Gregory

The quote was taken word for word from Clarke's testimony which you can listen to here. It's there word for word Go to this link.


Since Clarke is one of your sources. What is your view of his opinion that Bush did not emphasize the war on terror after taking office?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's former counterterrorism chief testified Wednesday that the administration did not consider terrorism an urgent priority before the September 11, 2001, attacks, despite his repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden's terror network.

"I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue," Richard Clarke told a commission investigating the September 11 attacks."


George Rebane

KenJ 817am - the statement about Islam in RussS's 407pm was anything but unfounded opinion as anyone who has witnessed the news of, say, the last 20 years can attest. Your calling it 'opinion' is beyond the pale of reasonable discussion and well calibrates your abilities for profitable discourse with fellow.

I certainly hope that it is not some threat of bodily harm that forces you to comment on these pages.

Todd Juvinall

{aulE, do you still think there was a fellow on the grassy knoll?


Paul, I'll take your word for the word-for-word claim, but since there was no "war on terror" before Bush took office, why aren't you on Clinton's case for not starting one in the first place? How would the Pauls of the world have reacted had Bush II started cracking down on foreign born Muslims in the US? Or started searching everyone wanting to fly commercially in the US?

Read the Clarke testimony more carefully; most is clearly framed by him as hearsay and as far as I can tell none of the first person statements conflict with the Snopes summary.

Paul Emery


And you believe that the billion dollar business history between the Bush and Saudi families had no possible bearing on the decision ?


Paul 9:30

Why do you ask? Nothing I've written suggests it didn't.

Ken Jones

George it is my belief that a blog page with various opinions does not necessarily align with facts. I have no issue with rational discussion and your dismissal is hardly worth noting. I have no fear of any harm from anyone either. That paranoia seems to resonate with many conservatives.

George Rebane

KenJ 1015am - You're a hard man to communicate with since your facts come from a universe different from the one I live in, and your reasoning does not comport with mine (see 'Liberal Mind' category for an expansion of this issue). My only concern about your safety is that, given your views about RR and the conversations that go on here, why would you subject yourself to such punishment when not under some threat for worse.

Paul Emery


Perhaps then we can agree that there was some kind of divine intervention that expedited the Saudi flights since it's entirely consistent to do favors for business colleagues. No one else got that kind of red carpet treatment but the Saudis in their scamper home. How else can it be explained? Here's more from Clarke at the 9-11 hearings on the subject. It is inconceivable that the clearance did not come from the highest levels of the White House. Proof is in the pudding.

CLARKE: I believe, after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all of these decisions we were making in those hours, which was the Interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference.

I was making or coordinating a lot of decisions on 9/11 and the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don’t know. Since you pressed me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State, or the White House Chief of Staff’s Office. But I don’t know.


Paul, please note there is NO confirmation in Clarke's testimony that a flight actually took place. Parse the words, he was talking about making the PROPOSAL, not that there was a CLEARANCE or a flight before the date discussed at Snopes.

Your chosen words:"And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this *PROPOSAL* [my caps-gg] to me, but I don’t know."

I have never thought multibillionaire heads of kleptocratic authoritarian states and their extended families didn't come before guys with Piper Cherokees trying to get to work. It's axiomatic. It also doesn't excuse conspiracy theorists from hallucinating all sorts of behavior just because they expect it would be true.

Paul Emery


Are you contending there is a doubt the flight of the Saudis took place-yes or no. You're playing with words here for some reason.


It isn't "playing with words", Paul, it's demanding some logic from you.

Help me here. Snopes has an account that I find much more plausible than the intimations by democracynow! and friends. Please, a logical, step by step where you think Clarke's, or anyone else's, actual words under oath, in context, undercut the Snopes version.

I know these things have been resonating in the echo chambers for years, but the flat earth context didn't gain credibility with time, either.


And let's get back to this one before you let it pass again..."since there was no "war on terror" before Bush took office, why aren't you on Clinton's case for not starting one in the first place? How would the Pauls of the world have reacted had Bush II started cracking down on foreign born Muslims in the US? Or started searching everyone wanting to fly commercially in the US?"

Paul, you really can't have it both ways.

Paul Emery

If you view the video clip you'll find that with the exception of the brief introduction the transcript is word for word off the testimony at the hearings which is much more direct than the Snopes summary. Snopes does regurgitate the committee summary accurately which arrives at the conclusion you state. I suppose you believe in the findings of the Warren Commission as well.

If you are satisfied that there was no preferential treatment given to those in flight that's a respectable position as is mine that is based on a general distrust of government whitewashing efforts that go way back as any casual look at history will document.

By the way, thanks for the respectable conversation.

I'll get back to your last post in a couple of hours

02 January 2013 at 03:23 PM


Sorry you couldn't reciprocate the respect, Paul, your snark is noted.

The WORDS literally out of Clark's mouth (assuming you're correct) do not conflict with the Snopes account. If you think differently, why not try to stay on the subject and actually point out the actual factual conflict? Write it up and challenge Snopes while you're at it.

And it isn't about "no preferential treatment". Many got preferential treatment when limited commercial and general aviation was restarted. The flights weren't "secret" and took place after limited flights all across the country were beginning to be allowed. I didn't get to fly for a few weeks.

Imagine if some American expatriate had performed a terrorist act in Europe, shutting down their private and commercial aviation, and the Obama girls were grounded in Switzerland during yet another ski vacation. Would you expect them to be allowed to fly home the day that flights were beginning to fly, or should they wait another few weeks while some politician could decide if they could trump up some sham reason to blame them, too, or at least make things especially difficult?

"Yes" to letting them get home? That's what I thought.

Paul Emery


I have no problem with the Snopes account of it's summary of the 911 commission that indeed does conclude there was no wrongdoing at the time. If you chose to believe in the conclusion and believe it was a through and unbiased look and honest conclusion that's all you need and there is no need to look further. I side with Ron Paul's view on the 911 report.

"When asked if he would support the 9/11 victim’s family members whose questions were never answered by the 9/11 Commission Report, in their demand for a new independent 9/11 investigation, Ron Paul, R-Tex., replied “Yes, I support more investigation, because, I think the ineptness was probably hidden, because there was a tremendous amount of ineptness. That’s generally what government investigations do, they hide the inefficiencies and ineptness of government officials.”




Wanting more investigation because of a general distrust is different than wanting one because of specific information that shows it to be false.

Many if not most of the folks ranting over the secret flights seem to be 9/11 truthers who make birthers seem eerily rational. There also seems to be a basic misunderstanding as to what was happening with aviation in the aftermath of 9/11 and how they phased operations back in, not to mention basic ignorance about how aviation is structured.

I finished up my instrument rating after 9/11 because instrument traffic was allowed long before VFR traffic was, and professionally operated private aircraft (like the intercontinental bizjets the House of Saud operate, not to mention those of the Larry Ellisons of the world) are that much more easily controlled and inspected. So they went first. Surprised or enraged? No. A $25 million asset that is used daily should get more attention than a $25 thousand asset that is used weekly. A fact of life. And guess what? The scheduled air transports did get the most attention and priority.

Paul Emery

AS promised

Gregory 02 January 2013 at 03:23 PM

I think a more appropriate response would be to examine the roots of Islamic terrorism as directed towards our national boundaries and question why we were defenseless to stop a determined and resourceful enemy who had been planning for a long time to attack our shores. The ineptness of American Intelligence certainly extended throughout the Clinton reign and had they been known would have required increased security. How that security would have been fulfilled is what you must would have been referring to when you ask what my reaction to a "crackdown "since there was no "war on terror" before Bush took office, why aren't you on Clinton's case for not starting one in the first place? How would the Pauls of the world have reacted had Bush II started cracking down on foreign born Muslims in the US? Or started searching everyone wanting to fly commercially in the US?"

How the Pauls of the world would have reacted would have depended on the necessity of action, something that was not expressed by either Clinton or Bush.

Both Clinton and Bush were asleep at the wheel while the enemy landed our our shores and planned their attack.

Then there were the "neocons" who were licking their chops wanting for a war with the middle East and expressed that desire publicly. Members of the The Project for a New American Century, the Neocon think tank, included Rumsfeldt, Cheney Wolfowitz and many other high level Bush appointees. They spoke of a "fortuitous Pearl Harbor type of event to wake up this country. It may well be that the"fortituous event" they visioned was 911 and they were willing to lower our guard waiting for the Islamic Terrorists to throw the first punch. My uncle is a Pearl Harbor survivor and thoroughly believes we had all the intelligence we needed to prevent Pearl Harbor but sat on it waiting for Japan to strike first.

From Ron Pauls The Truth About Neoconservatism.

" Neocons – anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East – clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.

Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999): “…of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.”

Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event” that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.”

Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but that this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling, is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.


Paul, be honest. You'd have squealed like a stuck pig if Bush II had started a "war on terror" before an attack made it imperative.

Clarke has a theory that Tenet (the *Clinton* appointed Head Spook) was delaying, trying to turn one or more of the known terrorists in the US, but he's not gotten much traction, possibly because it ain't so.

Paul Emery

By the way, Michael Ledeen was Carl Roves foreign policy adviser before the war in Iraq.

The comments to this entry are closed.