NC Media Watch

A quest for reason and accuracy in letters to the editor, guest editorials and other issues of interest to the citizens of Western Nevada County.

Friday, August 26, 2005

Bush attackers gets it wrong again

Syd M. Hall, gets it’s it wrong again in "Time for an attack?", August 26, 2005
And, please recall that on the day after 9/11, when all planes were grounded, the only exception was the flight that took members of the bin Lauden family back to Iraq. Look it up, if you've forgotten.
Yes look it up, and read the 9/11 Commission report pages 329 and 330, and pages 556 through 558 footnotes.

In summary:

1) Every flight carrying Bin Laden family members occurred after US air space reopened on 9/13/2001.

2) Nobody at White House above the level of Richard Clark participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi Nationals, including bin Laden members.

3) At Richard Clark's request, the FBI approved the departure of each and every Saudi National. The FBI knew who these people were and that they were not involved in terrorism.

4) Nothing has been learned to connect any bin Laden members on the flight to the 9/11 attacks in any way.

Click here for a private e-mail comment. For public comment select comments below.


Blogger Frederic Christie said...

Yes, and the 9/11 Commission also says that even several months after Afghanistan's invasion, as Noam Chomsky notes in Hegemony or Survival, there was no evidence to link Osama to the 9/11 hijackers beside that which was presupposed in the first place.

However, those who argue that Bush had some direct involvement also say that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash, so to cite evidence that your interlocutors impugn with no new reason to give it credibility is, well, bad argumentation.

As Moore cites in Dude, Where's My Country?, there's an article on September 20 in the Boston Globe as well as three other articles outlining the emergency escape that, in fact, occured BEFORE the air space was opened. Moore cites FBI officials who were blocked from interviews. The "FBI" didn't know these people, Bush knew these people, and the dictat was to ignore that they were family of the man reputed to have controlled the hijackers and might have had vital evidence.

Sun Aug 28, 01:06:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Russ Steele said...


I would not use Moore as a reliable source, or Chomsky for that matter.

Check out his by Senator Fritx Hollings, it seems that the Arab news media saw a connection.

Sun Aug 28, 08:29:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Frederic Christie said...

al-Jazeera does see quite a bit that the Westerners don't. However, it's not a propaganda network, as Americans routinely imply, because even American diplomats agree that they get a far fairer shake in al-Jazeera than they do (often) on national TV or Arab state press.

You may note, Russ, that unless that article didn't actually appear in the Boston Globe and the other articles didn't appear, the fact that you don't think Michael Moore (or Chomsky) to be reliable sources has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this argument. I think Moore, while a little polemical and often a little cavalier, has very good data and research. Chomsky's arguments are impeccably chosen - those who ask him questions on the Sustainers forum . In any respect, how the hell would you know if Chomsky is a good source? By your own admission, you only learned of him about a week ago. And yet you read some arguments that Horowitz quoted without the documentary evidence and decide, hey, not only is he not credible, he's not credible on ALL matters? Come on, Russ. If you want to have sourcing debates, try better than this. Try actually picking up a book by Chomsky and checking up on one or two footnotes. I have, and it's incredible what he cuts out because it is tangential to his argument and he can't verify it. His arguments could be even stronger than they are, but he chooses very carefully what to say, a very rare thing in American politics.

I'll spare you the "coincidences" that lead many to believe that Bush/the CIA/the Mossad/the Illuminati/whoever the bad guy de jour is orchestrated or had foreknowledge or similar of the 9/11 attacks. Just recognize that, even if one does not assume that Bush actually let 3000 people die, there is a background of US ineptitude, lack of concern for its citizens, and murky background deals and playing that makes these claims plausible.

Fri Sep 09, 09:37:00 AM PDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home