Time to get the lobby money out of D.C.

[mesue]

That's easy enough to say in retrospect, hindsight being 20/20 but try putting yourself back before we invaded Iraq. Here's some of the most prominent democrats' statements, that should give you some help



"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
~Al Gore
September 23, 2002

"Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein."
~John Kerry (D - MA)on Larry King Live
December 14, 2001

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."
~Ted Kennedy (D - MA)
September 27, 2002

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
~Nancy Pelosi (D - CA)
December 16, 1998

~"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
~John Edwards (D - NC)
October 10, 2002

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs."
~Bob Graham (D - FL)
December 5, 2001

"We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons"
~Robert Byrd (D - WV)

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members . It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
~Hillary Clinton (D - NY)
October 10, 2002

I won't even touch on Bill Clinton's statements, even the ones that he continues to this day to make, defending the president's decision to invade Iraq.

Thank you, you just showed that Clinton had the good sense even in the face of some evidence that he was smart enough to recognize that it was not enough to go invading a sovereign country, so sorry Bush did not have that much sense.

 

[mesue]

Again, what "lies" did Bush tell?

Oh please, you have got to be kidding. Here are three and I did not even have think about it or do much research to find them.
What about the one about firing the person in his administration who was involved in the outing of Plame?

What about saying we do not torture in an interview recently but yet threatened to veto a bill (first ever veto) if they did not drop the anti-torture amendments added? He also said this while his VP is lobbying congress for the right to torture.

What about that yellow cake, refined uranium from Niger, now this one is particularly telling since it was checked out and debunked one year before Bush repeated it to us in his state of the union address. The Bush folks are saying that they did not know it was not correct and was just bad intelligence but its a little hard to believe knowing it was a proven to be a lie by US intelligence a whole year before we heard it from him.
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,463779,00.html

 

[cnredd]

Oh please, you have got to be kidding. Here are three and I did not even have think about it or do much research to find them.
What about the one about firing the person in his administration who was involved in the outing of Plame?

Reread Fitzgerald's indictments...NOT ONE is for outing Plame...You are wishing for a firing based on hearsay and rumor...the investigation isn't over, and all facts relating have not been made public, so there is no concrete evidence as to future indictments AND no one has been convicted of anything...Until then, no firing is warranted...

What about saying we do not torture in an interview recently but yet threatened to veto a bill (first ever veto) if they did not drop the anti-torture amendments added? He also said this while his VP is lobbying congress for the right to torture.

The issue is whether or not certain events warrant the term "torture"...They range anywhere from the definite example of torture (beating with sticks and hoses) to the disputable(making someone sleep on a hard floor with the AC turned to 35% with no blankets...this, I deem "laughable", not torture)...Some people want ALL things deemed "torture", which will make interrogations completely toothless, which may stop the attempt to save lives in the long term...

What about that yellow cake, refined uranium from Niger, now this one is particularly telling since it was checked out and debunked one year before Bush repeated it to us in his state of the union address. The Bush folks are saying that they did not know it was not correct and was just bad intelligence but its a little hard to believe knowing it was a proven to be a lie by US intelligence a whole year before we heard it from him.
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,463779,00.html

What you are referring to is one instance...which was already been debunked...Bush didn't lie...

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

July 26, 2004
Modified: August 23, 2004

* A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
* A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
* Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
* Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Notice the second bolded words?...Bush was NOT citing the documents that were later found to be forged...

If ten people tell me that the Eagles won last week, but I find out later that one of then just made it up, that one person's "testimony" should be discounted, but not ALL of them...

Not everything has been declassified...There could be 1, 5, or 50 other reasons(OK...probably not 50) why Bush stated what he did during the State of the Union in 2003...

So now we refer back to the original question...

Again, what "lies" did Bush tell?

 

[The Real McCoy]

Thanks cnredd, I have a great deal of respect for your intelligence and ability to provide solid supporting evidence that most (including myself) fall short of.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Thank you, you just showed that Clinton had the good sense even in the face of some evidence that he was smart enough to recognize that it was not enough to go invading a sovereign country, so sorry Bush did not have that much sense.

Thank you for completely dodging my point which I perceive to be an admission, on your part, that I'm right. :2wave:

 

[LaMidRighter]

Yeah right that mountain of evidence and where are those WMD's?

Syria. (probably)

 

[LaMidRighter]

The last thing we need are campaign finance laws that restrict free speech but don't improve our democracy.

Campaign finance laws will ALWAYS benefit the incumbents, and that's the last thing we need right now. They're the ones who write the campaign finance laws. Also, if all the candidates in a race have an equal amount of money and none of them have any horrible scandals, chances are the one with the best name-recognition will win (usually the incumbent).

Good point. I'd like to add though that instead of "campaign finance" laws we should target the lobby groups themselves, we don't really punish them as much as the individual representing them, there should exist an easy way to revoke non-profit status for those who violate ethical conduct. As well, I'd like to see special interest groups dissolved, I firmly believe that constitutional groups such as the NRA, ACLU(even though I don't agree with most of their stances), the NAACP(ditto), etc. those that protect the BOR especially should be the only ones with access to the process IMO.

There will always be a certain amount of money in politics, but one way to minimize this is to minimize the ability of government officials to grant favors to its supporters. For example, if we had a flat corporate tax with no loopholes (or no corporate tax at all), corporations would no longer have their primary motive for donating huge sums of money to candidates.

I completely agree, the tax structure is probably the biggest coruption instigator we face as a people today.

 

[mesue]

Thank you for completely dodging my point which I perceive to be an admission, on your part, that I'm right. :2wave:

Hardly, the fact is no matter what any of them said during the Clinton Administration it was not enough to go invading a soverign country over and as evidence of that I present to you the fact that during the Clinton Administration he did not start a war with Iraq, he maintained the sanctions against Iraq. So using quotes made by the former Clinton Administration does not excuse Bush's actions.

Since you love quotes so much, here are a few.
http://www.mintruth.com/wiki/index.php?Bush Quotes

 

[mesue]

Syria. (probably)

That is not a fact its a guess, I mean really someone could say they were on Mars and it would have the same amount of credibility.

 

[mesue]

Reread Fitzgerald's indictments...NOT ONE is for outing Plame...You are wishing for a firing based on hearsay and rumor...the investigation isn't over, and all facts relating have not been made public, so there is no concrete evidence as to future indictments AND no one has been convicted of anything...Until then, no firing is warranted...

The issue is whether or not certain events warrant the term "torture"...They range anywhere from the definite example of torture (beating with sticks and hoses) to the disputable(making someone sleep on a hard floor with the AC turned to 35% with no blankets...this, I deem "laughable", not torture)...Some people want ALL things deemed "torture", which will make interrogations completely toothless, which may stop the attempt to save lives in the long term...

What you are referring to is one instance...which was already been debunked...Bush didn't lie...

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

July 26, 2004
Modified: August 23, 2004

* A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
* A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
* Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
* Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Notice the second bolded words?...Bush was NOT citing the documents that were later found to be forged...

If ten people tell me that the Eagles won last week, but I find out later that one of then just made it up, that one person's "testimony" should be discounted, but not ALL of them...

Not everything has been declassified...There could be 1, 5, or 50 other reasons(OK...probably not 50) why Bush stated what he did during the State of the Union in 2003...

So now we refer back to the original question...

I really don't care about the indictments, in relation ot this thread. I did not even mention the indictment, what I said was that Bush had promised to fire anyone in his administration who outed a CIA agent. He did not say after they were indicted or even found guilty, he said he would fire anyone involved in the outing of a CIA agent. Karl Rove has admitted to being involved, has admitted to talking to reporters and outing her identity to them. Bush's original statement about firing someone did not involve indictment at all. If you don't trust this quote look it up at whitehouse.gov

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/11/161729/546
(During a White House Press Briefing on September 30, 2003 President Bush said the following in response to a question regarding the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity, "... if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." When asked at a post G-8 Summit News Conference on June 10, 2004 if he stood by his statement that he would fire whoever was responsible for the leak, Bush said, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.")


On the torture issue, I'm not going to debate with you on what is torture, unless you want to start a thread on that, then I will be happy to do so. The issue is whether Bush lied when he said we do not torture. While saying that he was threatening to veto a bill if it has an anti-torture amendment in it. He has a VP lobbying for the right to torture. There are international laws on what is considered torture and it would seem the Bush Administration wants the legal right to do more than those laws agree to. I supposed this lie might be a matter of perspective. But it definitely is saying one thing and actually seeking to do another. IMO thats a lie.

The issue of the yellow cake and 16 words in his state of the union address. This had been debunked as not being true for a full year before Bush said it, add that to the fixing intelligence line in the downing street memo and it would seem that Bush lied. You might choose to believe it was just bad intelligence, but I don't. Again this one is also a matter of perspective. And again IMO Bush lied. And like it or not, polls reveal most Americans no longer trust this Presdient to tell them the truth. I certainly don't.

 

[LaMidRighter]

That is not a fact its a guess, I mean really someone could say they were on Mars and it would have the same amount of credibility.

It's actually a very common guess, in fact, many of our troops on the ground not only share that guess, they say it is the one that makes the most sense.

 

[debate_junkie]

Good point. I'd like to add though that instead of "campaign finance" laws we should target the lobby groups themselves, we don't really punish them as much as the individual representing them, there should exist an easy way to revoke non-profit status for those who violate ethical conduct. As well, I'd like to see special interest groups dissolved, I firmly believe that constitutional groups such as the NRA, ACLU(even though I don't agree with most of their stances), the NAACP(ditto), etc. those that protect the BOR especially should be the only ones with access to the process IMO.

I completely agree, the tax structure is probably the biggest coruption instigator we face as a people today.

Though these ideas are outstanding, there's one huge problem. There is no one in Washington, at least knowledgeable to me, that is willing to send their cash cow's packing. I find on this issue my thoughts going back to the movie "Coming to America". Yes, I know it's Hollywood, and alot was fabricated for comedic value, but there's the crux of the issue right there. Eddie Murphy set out for the "big con" and he succeeded because he learned to play the game. Money attracts them, money keeps them, and they get rich off the backs of the schlubs they are supposed to be representing, all the while, nothing ever gets done because the PAC's are throwing greenbacks from every side.

 

[tryreading]

Syria. (probably)

That is not good enough.

But, if you're 'reasonably' sure, do you think we would be justified in invading Syria?

I mean, we thought they were in Iraq, probably. Maybe. Iraq once had them. Probably they still have them. Maybe. We think they do. Let's invade them and see.

 

[Stinger]

I didn't say DeLay tried to cover up anything. I was responding to the previous post that dismisses charges against him of laundering money used for political influence as "trumped up", even though it appears what he did was against Texas state law.

Well no it doesn't. In fact there is little if any evidence of anything at all. The so called list of candidates was a lie, it never existed and Earl had to go to through three jury's and the last one being a desperate move to get an indictment that doesn't even charge him with anything. So yes a reasonable mind could conclude that this is a trumped up charge.

me>> The administration did what it should have done, expose the lie it had nothing to do with a payback, that's the kind of stuff Democrats engage in notRepublicans.

Where did I say the administration couldn't defend itself? What I said was that the party of "morals and values, honor and integrity" is in a position where at least one indictment has been handed out to a high-ranking official for involvement in the cover-up of what appears to be political payback with more indictments likely to follow

Well which is it? Rightfully defending themselves against phoney charges or "political payback"? And as far as indictments, maybe we have no idea but it again it appears to be if any are issued they would not be for the core issue.

, and the Repubicans dismiss it as nothing. If you truly have morals and values, it's wrong regardless of which party does it. So don't try to sell yourself as being above it if you only consider it wrong when people outside of your party commit these crimes.

It's not my party, I'm not a Republican so you can refrain from trying to paint me a motive. What is dismissed is the core issue. Why are we this far down the road when there doesn't appear to have been a core issue here. That being said if Libby committed perjury during the investigation he has big problems. And if he did it was incredibly stupid of him to do so since there was nothing to cover up.

When you commit perjury and are indicted during the investigation, that's a coverup.

Well OK but usually the term "a coverup" is used to describe a conspiricy not an individual act.

The same way Clinton was trying to coverup his acts when he was indicted.

OK if you say so based on the above.

How can you possibly say that Clinton was a disgrace for being indicted for lying under oath, but then say there was no coverup and "it was perfectly legal" when Libby get indicted for perjury?

Well I don't really say that. If Libby knowingly lied under oath for the purpose of obstructing justice then he should be charged with a crime.

I'm not saying it's not a serious matter or that Clinton shouldn't have been prosecuted. Where did I ever say that? What I said was that you cry about what Clinton did

O don't "cry" about what Clinton did, I was saddened at how the Democrat party and the left in general prostituted itself in his defense.

and then trivialize all the misdeeds of the Republican party.

Well the Republican Party hasn't done anything criminal that I know of and i certainly haven't trivialized what Libby may or may not face.

And believe it or not, there is a difference in scale. Perjury during a sexual harrassment suit is much less serious than selling weapons illegally to Iran.

I have no idea what selling weapons has to do with anything here and miss the comparison but you do make the fatal error saying that since A is more serious than B that lessens the seriousness of B. And a President lying under oath and engaging in a plot to obstruct justice and then lying about it before a federal grand jury is VERY serious. And why do you try to trivialize it because it is a sexual harassment lawsuit? Don't you take such matters seriously?

You're trying to equate all things illegal.

I've done nothing of the sort.

"By your logic a person who shoplifts is the same as the person commits a murder. I mean, they're both illegal right?"

Where do you get that idea? By your logic the person who shop lifts should recieve no punishment because someone else committed a murder.

The discussion is about how the Republican party sets itself up as morally superior party with integrity and values.

I don't think they have done anything of the sort but I do believe the Democrat party desperately tries to find anything they can to smear the Republicans in order to level the playing field.

To me the political influence lobby money has over the Republican party is much worse than perjury.

And it's no more than the money the lobbiest spend on the Democrats, where do you get the idea the the Democrats are all boy and girl scouts. Do you know which prominent Democrat Senator whose campaign finance manager is currently under indictment is? I bet you don't because the mainstream media is too bias's to report it.

When your energy policy is determined by oil executives,

I have no reason to believe it was "determined" by oil executives but it certainly makes sense to discuss national energy policy with them, who would you suggest Ben & Jerry?

that's worse than trying to save your skin when you hit on a woman by dropping your pants, she refuses, and you apologize and leave.

Well one has nothing to do with the other even as you paint the former. But that being said you're OK with employers who call workers off the job into their offices and drop their pants and grope them? And where did you get the idea he appoligized? He reminder her he knew her direct boss personally (you know a littel "If you say anything about this....."

Paula Jones never was reprimanded, never lost her job, never had any reprecussion from Clinton for his actions.

Oh and that makes it all OK.

But that has nothing to do with his perjury and obstruction of justice along with his persuading a very young and naive girl to commit a felony on his behalf and he was willing to betray her and tried to concoct a scheme where he would get off and she would be painted as the liar. What a guy.

Do you not understand that it's a question of scale?

Sure, and do you not understand that doesn't mitigate the severity of what Clinton did.

I use torture as an example as to the scale of Republican misdeeds that are dismissed as unimportant while they perseverate about Clinton's perjury.

Well then as long as there are Republicans let's just shut down the justice system.

To you that's a sound economy? I cringe that you laugh at how this economy has been handled.

Do you really think a president "handles" the economy? What do you think Bush has done "wrong" with the economy?

Clearly you missed the point entirely. Let me boil it down for you.
1) Republicans set themselves up as morally superior, more honorable, with a higher level integrity.

No Democrats spin that in a silly attempt to justify their own misdeeds.

2) Both parties are full of liars and crooks,

but the scale of what the Republicans do is much larger. Not all wrongs are equal.

No they are about equal except on the lying part. The Democrats have that by a long shot.

3) I want to support government conservatism, but the Republican party has demonstrated itself to be extremely hypocritical and is conservative in name only. I am forced to support the Democrats at this point as the lesser of two evils.

I somehow doubt that.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Hardly, the fact is no matter what any of them said during the Clinton Administration it was not enough to go invading a soverign country over and as evidence of that I present to you the fact that during the Clinton Administration he did not start a war with Iraq, he maintained the sanctions against Iraq. So using quotes made by the former Clinton Administration does not excuse Bush's actions.

Since you love quotes so much, here are a few.
http://www.mintruth.com/wiki/index.php?Bush Quotes

The Clinton administration didn't start a war with bin Laden either despite being repeatedly attacked by him. Clinton continued appeasements and look where that got us.

 

[stsburns]

Huh? Another republican taking bribes? Say it isn't so! What happened to their "Contract with America"? I thought that they were going to be so much more honest than the democrats in Congress had been prior to 1994.

Guess not. Bwhahahhahahhhaa

Democrats are the same. Politics aren't a one way street!

 

[mesue]

The Clinton administration didn't start a war with bin Laden either despite being repeatedly attacked by him. Clinton continued appeasements and look where that got us.

Clinton got a lot of them, look it up, many of the ones responsible for terrorists attacks were captured and tried. There are terrorist in 65 countries, do you think we should invade them all? I fully supported Bush going into Afghanistan but not Iraq. And the reason is simple we went after Bin laden and stopped his regime in Afghanistan but there was no reason to invade Iraq, we were in no danger from Iraq. And we still have not gotten Bin Laden.

BTW what do you think of the decision to allow all the members of the Bin Laden familiy that were in the US when 911 happened, to get on a private jet and leave without being questioned at all?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Clinton got a lot of them, look it up, many of the ones responsible for terrorists attacks were captured and tried. There are terrorist in 65 countries, do you think we should invade them all?

First of all, I have never seen anything about Clinton getting most of the attacking terrorists, but he basically did nothing in retrospect considering I remember about 5 major acts of agression during his term from Islamic militants, this is just what I remember of course.

I fully supported Bush going into Afghanistan but not Iraq. And the reason is simple we went after Bin laden and stopped his regime in Afghanistan but there was no reason to invade Iraq, we were in no danger from Iraq.

The Taliban was not affiliated with Al-Quaida, they were a sympathetic nation and most of the planning came from that area, Iraq could have easily been a hiding place when Afghanistan fell and they had a much larger army than the Taliban, much better equipped as well.

And we still have not gotten Bin Laden.

Getting him would be nice, but the war wouldn't stop at that point, terrorists will continue past his capture or death, the ideology must be crushed, not just a single person. We have to weaken or destroy as many terrorists as we can, but we also have to do something to make the lifestsyle of terrorism less attractive to the region.

BTW what do you think of the decision to allow all the members of the Bin Laden familiy that were in the US when 911 happened, to get on a private jet and leave without being questioned at all?

The Bin Laden family parted ways with Osama years ago, they were not affiliated with Al-Quaida either and were not a threat, in fact, they needed to be taken out of our boundaries for their own safety. Of course, Micheal Moore naturally had a nice innuendo in that piece of trash he put out that would suggest otherwise.

 

[The Real McCoy]

BTW what do you think of the decision to allow all the members of the Bin Laden familiy that were in the US when 911 happened, to get on a private jet and leave without being questioned at all?

Please, spare me the Farenheit 9/11 rhetoric. First of all, Osama bin Laden was an outcast in his family and secondly, the bin Laden's WERE profiled before they were allowed to leave on the 13th.

 

[mesue]

Please, spare me the Farenheit 9/11 rhetoric. First of all, Osama bin Laden was an outcast in his family and secondly, the bin Laden's WERE profiled before they were allowed to leave on the 13th.

So being that they were relatives of the most wanted murderer in the United States they were allowed to leave without being questioned at all. No one is saying we should torture them but they should have been questioned. Yes it would have been an inconvenience for them, but what would have been wrong with questioning them at the airport or elsewhere? We could have met their safety needs during the time they were questioned and then they could have left if they were not detained.

See here is where I have a problem anyone of us would have been questioned no matter how many times we said our relative was disowned. But these people are filthy rich and friends of the Bush's and his entire family, so they get preferential treatment and that is perfectly ok with you. This was a matter of National Security and if these people were incovenienced a little bit, big deal. Leave Moore's movie out of this, that is not the issue. Its a known fact the flights took place and these people were not questioned and they should have been.

 

[KCConservative]

BTW what do you think of the decision to allow all the members of the Bin Laden familiy that were in the US when 911 happened, to get on a private jet and leave without being questioned at all?

Somebody's been listening to Michael Moore. :roll:

 

[mesue]

Somebody's been listening to Michael Moore. :roll:

Gosh you are so witty!
I guess I missed the part where Moore was so powerful that he has The New York Times writing about it, OOOOh maybe I been listening to them or maybe the 911 commission holding hearings on it, or the Senate asking about it. You people act like if Moore says it then it has absolutely no validity. I know you did not hear about it on Fox so it can't be true, right. The flights happened, it is a fact, look it up. Here is the problem I keep finding with people who support Bush, if they don't like the source it can't be true or its the liberal media. What you really don't seem to get or understand is that facts are facts no matter who reports them.
http://www.hillnews.com/news/051804/binladen.aspx
an excerpt from the website

Last month, the Sept. 11 commission released a statement declaring that six chartered flights that rushed the Saudi citizens out of the country were handled properly by the Bush administration.

The New York Times has reported that bin Laden family members were driven or flown under FBI supervision to a secret meeting in Texas and then to Washington, from where they left the country when airports were allowed to open Sept. 14, 2001.
Overall, close to 140 Saudis left the U.S. days after the attacks, even though 15 of the 19 terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks were Saudi Arabian.

 

[The Real McCoy]

So being that they were relatives of the most wanted murderer in the United States they were allowed to leave without being questioned at all. No one is saying we should torture them but they should have been questioned. Yes it would have been an inconvenience for them, but what would have been wrong with questioning them at the airport or elsewhere? We could have met their safety needs during the time they were questioned and then they could have left if they were not detained.

See here is where I have a problem anyone of us would have been questioned no matter how many times we said our relative was disowned. But these people are filthy rich and friends of the Bush's and his entire family, so they get preferential treatment and that is perfectly ok with you. This was a matter of National Security and if these people were incovenienced a little bit, big deal. Leave Moore's movie out of this, that is not the issue. Its a known fact the flights took place and these people were not questioned and they should have been.

WHY DID THEY NEED TO BE QUESTIONED?? Simply because they were realated to Osama? They were profiled and there was no evidence whatsoever they had anything to do with him (other than genetically).

 

[mesue]

WHY DID THEY NEED TO BE QUESTIONED?? Simply because they were realated to Osama? They were profiled and there was no evidence whatsoever they had anything to do with him (other than genetically).

Do you really think that if your brother or nephew had committed such a crime that the FBI would not be breathing down your neck, whether there was a rumor of you disowning him or not, (they would say that was just your cover for not getting questioned, oh my what a thought, could someone actually lie about such a thing?) especially if you were leaving the country. What do you mean they were profiled? They showed their passports and left, thats all. Why do you feel these people should have received preferential treatment over you or any other American? Why do you have such a problem with their being questioned? You continually say they knew nothing, how do you know that, no one questioned them about what they knew?

 

[The Real McCoy]

What do you mean they were profiled? They showed their passports and left, thats all.

Do you honestly believe the government simply let them go without doing some sort of background check? Do a little research about bin Laden's family, including his father and mother (along with his father's dozen or so other wives) It's all public knowledge.... and what questions do you feel the FBI should have asked them?


[QUOTE-mesue]Why do you feel these people should have received preferential treatment over you or any other American?[/QUOTE]

Because other Americans are not of Saudi Arabian descent and don't carry the name of bin Laden.