U.S. Didn’t Target Bin Laden in 1999 Because He Was Meeting With UAE Royal Family
U.S. Didn’t Target Bin Laden in 1999 Because He Was Meeting With UAE Royal Family
Dubai World Ports is controlled by the royal family of the United Arab Emirates. Atrios notes this morning that former CIA director Tenet told the 9/11 commission that the United States did not target Bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in February 1999 because he was meeting with the UAE royal family.
Here are some more details on the incident from the 9/11 commission. Here’s Tenet’s March 24, 2004 testimony:
MR. TENET:…The third complicating factor here is, you might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process, which I’m sure entered into everybody’s calculation in all this.
More details from the 9/11 Staff Report:
On February 8, the military began to ready itself for a possible strike. The next day, national technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of Bin Ladin’s quarters could not be pinned down so precisely…According to reporting from the tribals, Bin Ladin regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis; the tribals expected him to be at the hunting camp for such a visit at least until midmorning on February 11…No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot. According to CIA and Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Ladin or close by.
Former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke expressed concern about the UAE royal family’s relationship with Bin Laden:
On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Ladin…The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem…
This information only underscores why the administration should have fully investigated the sale, as required by law, before approving it.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
George W. Bush knows that the only way he’ll ever bounce back in approval ratings is if he looks the other way while another terrorist attack occurs on US soil. Then, all he has to do is initiate an Orwellian style government coverup, sit back, and watch his approval ratings skyrocket. It’s sad that millions of Americans will actually fall for his BS.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:12 amImpeachment is looking less and less like a reasonable response to the crimes of this administration. A full war crimes tribunal and criminal prosicution would be more in order.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:14 amAnother terror attack curtousy of Bush&Co will also serve as a nice distration as it will avert the public’s attention away from all his recet and not so recent shames, failures, and acts of treason.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:14 am1999? Oh, then it’s Bill Clinton’s fault.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:20 amGeorge W. Bush knows that the only way he’ll ever bounce back in approval ratings is if he looks the other way while another terrorist attack occurs on US soil.
That, my friends, is the problem. As long as Karl Rove can suck a vote out of some issue, GWB will go along.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:23 amOh, and let’s not forget what their first words will be:
“No one ever could have imagined…..”
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:24 amWell done on compiling evidence of UAE royal family and Al-Qaida. Maybe now the mainstream media will actually do some research (maybe).
It’s interesting that the White House suddenly claims Bush didn’t know until the deal was done. Sounds like they are feeling the pressure of backlash and trying to backtrack. It won’t be long before Bush claims he was against the deal from the beginning. Who will the White House blame for this one?
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:25 amI suggest
1) Start verbally attacking your neighbors, friends, associates that support Bush with no facts about why they do. Attacking politicians and the media seems to get us no where.
2) Get a new email address, come up with some riechwing nickname and go to the blogs on the right and start off saying some BS about moonbats and then start pointing out the unRepublican things that bush does. Don’t attack republicans…just bush …and dont show how he is against America…show how he is against republicans…
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:30 amThe Misunderestimated Man
The primer on Bush’s ingorance and idiocy.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:31 amOh, and let’s not forget what their first words will be:
“No one ever could have imagined…..â€
He’s used that phrase in the two largest disasters during his term: 9/11 and Katrina.
The funny part is that people did imagine it. In fact, there were studies, presidential daily briefings, CIA warnings, levee strutural reports, etc.
So this whole “I didn’t know” act is crap. The buck stops with him.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:36 amI’m just waiting for the first neo-conservative to show their face here and defend Bush again.
Their whole argument that they trust Bush to handle this got blown out of the water today with.
1. White House admitting they didn’t know about the pending sale until after it was announced.
2. White House not knowing why a 45 waiting period on this sale that is required by law is being ignored.
3. Oh, and the UAE royal family has ties to Bin Laden.
Hey, neo-cons, still trust Bush?
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:39 am#2 – Impeachment is looking less and less like a reasonable response to the crimes of this administration. A full war crimes tribunal and criminal prosicution would be more in order.
I agree.
Now if someone could somehow understand the link between the bin Laden family and the Bush Crime Family then people might begin to see the pattern clearly.
…Carlyle has the distinction of claiming both of the presidents Bush as paid retainers. Dubya served on the board of Carlyle’s Caterair airplane food company until it went bust. The senior Bush traveled to Saudi Arabia for Carlyle in 1999. The bin Ladens were among Carlyle’s select backers…
[from: http://www.oilempire.us/bushbinladen.html ]
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:41 amDuh-OH!
Homer dumbya Simpson
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:42 amThis is the final straw that breaks the Bush Regime’s political power back! Everyone demand that Bush and Cheney be impeached immediately!
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:46 amAnd the peasants have previously revolted over far less… Yet, now they sit before their television sets in catatonic gaze, indifferent to the world beyond their own livingrooms.
I think this is still just that proverbial tip of that proverbial iceberg…
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:47 am#15 – And the peasants have previously revolted over far less… Yet, now they sit before their television sets in catatonic gaze, indifferent to the world beyond their own livingrooms.
Revolting peasants have a firm grasp of something called reality.
My concern is that American peasants have had their minds shaped into accepting perception as a substitute for reality.
Concepts of truth, law, civil rights, and Constitution are lost on people who have been made fearful of “the other”. The reality that the Bush Crime Family have dumped this nation into the toilet is still lost on the well drugged peasantry.
Perhaps reality doesn’t hurt enough yet.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:52 amPresident Clinton should have bombed the UAE prince along with Osama, but Bush Senior probably would have cussed out Bill, and James Baker would have gotten all their oil buddies to attack him too! It is the Bush clan who has ties to the UAE royal family and by association to Osama himself!
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:54 amThe selling of the ports to UAE is high treason > impeach!!!
I think this is more proof that the power elite of the U.A.E. have more connections to Bin Laden than Saddam ever did. I mean they actually met with the guy.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:57 amOfftopic, but interresting…..
Even one of the creators of the neocon theory is saying the Republicans are no longer following the idea.
“Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the best-selling book The End of History and was a member of the neoconservative project, now says that, both as a political symbol and a body of thought, it has “evolved into something I can no longer support”. He says it should be discarded on to history’s pile of discredited ideologies.”
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/220206_b_pull_it_down.htm
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:01 pmI think this makes it official beyond a doubt; The American people that will not go along with this mess of a government are the the real enemy. You and me. We are their target. We represent the biggest obstacle to the achievement their goals in the world. Prepare.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:02 pm[...] Now El Presidente wants to turn major control of six major U.S. ports over to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates, a country with known ties to Osama bin Laden, and was only one of three nations in the entire world to officially recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan’s lawful government when it was in power. Hell, he wasn’t even aware of the deal until after it was approved. Neither was the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Why was this deal approved then? I’ll give you one guess: Money. I have to give Bush credit for being 100% consistent in one aspect of his governance: Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, in the U.S. is up for sale. [...]
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:03 pm# 19 greed took over completely, and is now (asleep)behind the wheel.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:06 pmHey, Judd.
Did you guys dig this up independently, or was it based upon the e-mail I sent you?
Just askin’!
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:06 pmI see Its ok to try to bomb the second in command and 19 civilian deaths …THATS OK But dare to take outa member of a Royal Family at the same timeand its NOt
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:07 pm[...] But this story gets even stranger. Members of the UAE royal family actually prevented a lethal attack against bin Laden in ‘99 because they were meeting with the terrorist and concerns were raised about the publicity if the U.S. wiped out members of the family of a foreign head of state. [...]
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:07 pmNever mind! You got it from Atrios’ link!
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:07 pm#20, racer X, it is true.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:08 pmWe have the first truly and completely commercially produced and packaged President..
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:09 pmstarting with second rate, cheap, raw material, he has been painted over packaged, programmed, and promoted. It has artificial intelligence, comes with no manufacturers warranty, and any attempt to contact the Company gets us an endless menu of irrelevant options and disclaimers.
It is time to hang up the phone, go next door and talk to your neighbor, and then together go and talk to your fellow townsfolk, and from ther we may begin to assume responsibility for our own state of affairs.
In a healing process, things sometimes will get worse before they get better……
Not to mention:
“From 1999 through early 2001, the United States, and President Clinton personally, pressed the UAE, one of the Taliban’s only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off its ties and enforce sanctions, especially those relating to flights to and from Afghanistan.165 These efforts achieved little before 9/11.
In July 1999, UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hamdan bin Zayid threatened to break relations with the Taliban over Bin Ladin.166 The Taliban did not take him seriously, however. Bin Zayid later told an American diplomat that the UAE valued its relations with the Taliban because the Afghan radicals offered a counterbalance to “Iranian dangers” in the region, but he also noted that the UAE did not want to upset the United States.167″
Also from the 9/11 Commission report.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:09 pmThere are different kingdoms in the UAE so they’re not one homogenous royal family. That said, they still are a ‘family’ of sorts. It’d be even better if you could place either the CEO of DPW or the Sheik/ruler of Dubai on that plane:)
I believe I read they went hunting while in Afghanistan, among other things. I’d imagine they had close business relationships with OBL’s family for some time, which is probably how they came to know him. UAE is a pretty central area for transshipment etc in the Middle East.
The idea, though, that UAE foiled a plot to kill Bin Laden seems a bit off though. Bin Laden likely wouldn’t have been in the area if it weren’t for the UAE guests.
Saying they’d ‘take out half the royal family’ is equivalent to saying that the US plan was to launch an airstrike, probably a cruise missle.
If they had utilized actual human, military resources they could have sniped the tallest man in Afghanistan fairly easily with no collateral damage.
It’s the remoteness during the period – note that all CIA plans centered around cruise missles, no humans, that ultimately screwed things up. Once you launch a cruise missle, you can’t correct for timing which happened on his training camp.
The UAE is ‘run’ nominally by the President who comes from the clan from Abu Dhabi. They have pretty much decided foreign relations in the past. That is changing though as both of them are competing against each other.
I’d just as well see the DPW – which is an arm of the Dubai oil investment fund – it doesn’t ‘belong’ to the UAE as a whole at all, just Dubai – sell on the US operations.
Temasek or Maersk would probably buy them. Another option would be for DPW to create a US domiciled subsidiary includes all US interests. DPW could then list it on the NYSE.
A third option would be to sell it to a private equity firm, which would probably like the chance to do so. BTW they make money by gearing up the balance sheet with debt, paying themselves dividends with that debt, slashing the work force as much as possible – ie take on the longshoremen, and then eventually selling it on to a trade buyer or another investment firm in 3-5 years.
I’d say Dubai will probably just sell it on. They may, however, have overpaid.
One would hope that their financial advisers suggested political risk insurance which would protect them from any loss incurred on such a transaction.
It’s my personal opinion that DPW overpaid for the whole of DPW. That said, the remaining ports are still atractive and Dubai can find other similar investments.
Dubai is looking for investments with stable cashflows. They also are trying to make themselves prominent, hence a very large port operator that meets their investment criterion.
Similar assets are airports, toll roads, etc. We actually have sold both the Chicago toll road and now a couple hundred miles of road in Illinois to Macquarie, an Australian investment house. They tend to list all their entities.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:12 pm#16, I agree with you fully. The whole mass programming by television has worked a little too good. You can’t get a rise out of Americans anymore. You can steal elections, lie to go to war, claim you have no idea what is happening in a hurricane they all have been watching for 2 days, etc. People don’t want to think for themselves, reason for themselves, and they can’t bother doing anything assertive politically.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:13 pmThe Bush Administration’s circular arguments appear to be spiraling down the toilet in an ever tightening vortex.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:13 pmMichael Jackson’s new CD…
…soon to be released entitled:
“Bi*ch I Bought Your Ports: Mr. Sneddon is a Dead Man”
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:14 pm#17
GEORGE BUSH DID NOT SELL THE PORTS TO THE UAE. Even if you were to continue that belief, modifly it to the emirate of Dubai, which is a component of the UAE.
P&O, and hence their shareholders, sold the ports to DPW.
George Bush does not own the ports through the government. P&O owned the port concessions and was free to sell them on if they so wished.
Then there’s the scrutiny that the govt gives. That’s approval.
P&O’s bid, btw, was approved by UK FSA. Meaning the Brits have no problem with DPW running their ports.
Of course, the US is free to make their own decision.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:15 pmQuestion for Scotty today:
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:15 pm“Which country does the President believe has closer historical ties to al-Qaida, Iraq or the UAE?” Sit back for some first-class wriggling.
#30, James the CHicago Skyway was nto sold to them, it is leased for 99 years. In accounting terms that is effectively a sale, but in real world terms it is a lease. Also it is to an Austrailian company a country with no known ties to terrorism, no known ties to bin laden and no connection to 911, not the UAE.
By the way, Bush didn’t know, or says he didn’t know, so there is no longer the need to blindly defend this deal. Either way continues to defend it in logical terms as you desire and I will counter with the logical “none of what you say matterts because this is a company based in a ountry with known ties to terrorism”
BTW If it was me in 1999 I would have pulled the trigger and got the killer and his money supply all in one fell swoop. By today the whole incident would be forgotten and 9/11 may not have occurred.
Also it is nto quite as easy as you think it is to get a sniper into position to make the one shot. First off the guy moves continually and it takes time to infiltrate. Secondly it is not in our national character to send a man out (actually at least two as snipers need spoters) on suicide missions. Stop watching 24 and realize that this shit is not as easy as it looks on TV or in the movies.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:34 pm#34 Who cares.
They all grew up hearing the same BS that Bin Laden did which turned him and many many more into Jihadists.
Let the Australians turn over the control of their ports or airports or what ever to who ever they want from the middle east. America can and should run its own. This selling off America shit should stop and be reversed. We have plenty of people here in the USA that need those jobs.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:34 pmYou libs keep on rolling with the hysteria. Put paranoia aside for moment.
DP World is acquiring a British company. Negotiations have been going on for months. DP was vetted out by the British before the deal was presented to the Committee on Foreign Investments. DP World currently operates terminals in Germany, Australia, China, South America. The US is currently inporting from terminals and airplanes operated by DP World. Management and staff will not be overhauled.
opinionjournal:
Kristie Clemens of U.S. Customs and Border Protection elaborated that “Customs and Border Protection has the sole responsibility for the cargo processing and cargo security, incoming and outgoing. The port authority sets the guidelines for the entire port, and port operators have to follow those guidelines.”
[T]he UAE government has been among the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror. It was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. The UAE has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, and at home it has worked hard to stem terrorist financing and WMD proliferation.
Liberals are going out too far on this issue. Panicing republicans will pull back when they get a better understanding of the acquisition, letting the democrats to hang themselves again. Just like how they have lost on national security, roberts-alito, katrina, sago mine, lobby reform…yaaaaawn.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:36 pm39)
You are a traitor. Benedict Arnold.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:40 pm39)
Columbia is our #1 partner in the war of drugs.
You are an idiot.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:42 pmGood post James. Now try explaining all that in a 30 second TV politcal ad soundbite, and see if it works.
You can’t.
That’s why the Republicans are bailing out.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:44 pmThat would be Mexico, idiot.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:44 pmRed Curley Pubes,
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:45 pmIt doesn’t matter how many times we tell you or give you evidence (much of it from the right for Christ sake), Red Curley Pubes, you can’t comprehend. Did you swallow Clorox as a baby or something?
43)
Ya Mexico is really hot on the job to …what a waste of human flesh you are.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:45 pmHey Red and Karly:
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:48 pmWhich country has more documented ties to al-Qaida and the Taliban, Saddam’s Iraq or Dubai?
#39, who cares? Apparently the president cares because he has threatened to stop any blocking of this deal that he claims to now knownothing about. Rumsfeld cares because he did nto knwo about this deal until he saw it on the news this weekend, event hough it had been in the news for a week, even though the approval was cast by unanumous vote of a board that Rumsfeld sits on. What should concern you is the incompetance on display.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:51 pmso bin laden was hanging out the UAE royal family—big deal. it’s not like Dubai Ports World is a state-owned company.
oh, nevermind.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:53 pm#39 I almost forgot I got an email from Bill Frist last night (R-TN) it was a mass sending, but the tone of the email was concern and he apparently is against the deal too. So it’s not a matter of “you libs” it’s a matter of you Americans. In otherwords I have mroe concern for my country than I do for a political party/ideology or leader. America is the issue not politics.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:53 pmWhy didnt Clinton cruise missle UBL at that point? Why has there been only one comment about Clinton after this post?
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:54 pmJames, Giacomo, and Red and KP sound awfully similar, reasonable maniacs looking at the world with one eye closed, the other through an empty toilet tissue roll.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:54 pm46
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:55 pmWell, Dubai is now on board with the west and we removed Saddam and the Taliban. Things are lookinig up. I’d say we’re kicking ass.
#52 – REALLY? We have created more terrorists because of our actions, and we now have a country in Civil War.
Yeah, I would say “we’re kicking ass.” NOT!
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:59 pmI see the Bush apologists are out in force today on the TP threads dealing with the UAE buying our East Coast port operations! Karl Rove has sent smooth posters onto here, not the regular trolls like wallace and I-Right-I!
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:59 pmWell, Dubai is now on board with the west and we removed Saddam and the Taliban. Things are lookinig up. I’d say we’re kicking ass.
Yes. We are kicking some ass, allright. Our own.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:00 pm#52 – Hey, lets put child molesters in our day care centers. Hell, they know how to deal with kids and they are now on board with the rest of America.
Do you see the problem here?
Sorry for stealing your analogy D J
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:00 pmI see the Bush apologists are out in force today on the TP threads dealing with the UAE buying our East Coast port operations! Karl Rove has sent smooth posters onto here, not the regular trolls like wallace and I-Right-I!
Their time would be better spent flooding the Corner, LGF, and Free Republic rather than the left-leaning blogs.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:01 pmHey, lets put child molesters in our day care centers. Hell, they know how to deal with kids and they are now on board with the rest of America.
Let’s be be fair to the Bsuh butt-kisser. To make the analogy more appropriate, we would have to assign “reformed” child molesters to day care centers.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:03 pm#53,
I hate to inform you pumpkin, but terrorism against the west was gathering force in the 90’s. How much is more? Less than 100 men attacked us in the 90’s.
You meant to say that more terrorism is being reported.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:04 pm“You libs keep on rolling with the hysteria. Put paranoia aside for moment.”
Good to see the kult eunuchs are coming out of their basements.
““Customs and Border Protection has the sole responsibility for the cargo processing and cargo security, incoming and outgoing. The port authority sets the guidelines for the entire port, and port operators have to follow those guidelines.—
Once again a eunuch is wrong, what are the chances of that?
The custom’s yards, the staging area for containers to inspect, are under the operational aspect of the civilian concession. In addition, the security compliance of shipping companies is the responsibility of the civilian contract.
Your kult scripture, as usual, is wrong. Do some research while you are squatting eunuch.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:04 pmWell, working a blog like this is a waste of their time. They might do better to work on the 97% of the American public that think this deal STINKS!
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:05 pmHey, go ahead, repubs, work on us and work on us, til you work our last nerve. Then work on FRIST and every other republican in Congress. Then work on all the people in the country that the neo-cons have convinced that we are really in a WAR with the Islamists. Good luck to you.
50)
Because Clinton didnt have 911 as an excuse. You see the republicans have dirty ties to Saudis and UAE and the Bin Ladens…they would have raked Clinton over the coals if he had killed some of their business partners.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:05 pm52)
You are an idiot.. look it up ..your picture is right there in the dictionary…
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document042602.asp
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:07 pmIt takes this port sale for the left to finally admit that we have and ememy…
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:11 pm62-
But doesnt this show that Clinton could have averted a lot of this whole mess by doing what was right (taking out UBL) instead following of his typical “finger to the breeze” political strategy that told him he would be “raked over the coals”?
Just a thought. And just so you know Gerald, I’m definately not comfortable turning over ports to any company in the UAE. But that’s mainly because I dont think we can trust any Muslims. Yeah, sorta zenophobic huh?
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:12 pmWhy didnt Clinton cruise missle UBL at that point? Why has there been only one comment about Clinton after this post?
Comment by Chase #50
Chased,
…take a deep breath…
…think pre-9/11…
…now say calmly, “devil with the blue dress, blue dress, blue dress, devil with the blue dress on…
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:12 pm#64 – We have always known that, it’s just that we don’t see the need to go and poke sticks into a hornets nest to see them.
Thats the difference! We use our heads more time than not, where the Republicans are a mirrored version.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:15 pm“It takes this port sale for the left to finally admit that we have and ememy…”
We here are Americans eunuch, unlike you kult members. We want security for America which means not invading a Arab coutry inciting millions to join the terrorists.
Now go re-read your kult scripture and come back when you get to the verse of “Blame Clinton”.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:16 pm64)
The left has been saying long before 911 that we have an enemy. And that enemies name is religious fundamentalism. And the Bush family are partners with some of the biggest enemies America has. Maybe YOU will start to see that one of Americas enemies is in the White House and his friends in Saudi Arabia are more of the problem. AND the religious nuts in Israel stiring up constant trouble is a problem also. You just are too damn stuck on this “my team your team” thinking to get the point that the left and right in America are on the same team. If you kick the Taliban southern baptists out of your party then there would be very little in “teams” left. If the right would mind their own business when it comes to peoples religion, gayness, etc. Then the left and the right would get along just fine.
So who is the enemy? Saddam? He was against the religious fundamentalists in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Bush family has been business partners with those same people all these years. Saddam would have gladly kicked the crap out of these religious fundamentalists if we only gave him the backing.
It is YOU on the right that dont seem to understand who is the real enemy.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:18 pm65)
Being raked over the coals by people trying to impeach him over a blow job?
And as far as not trusting Muslims… I have no problem with muslims…as long as they were not brought up as children hearing that Americans are evil…Israel is evil… non muslims hate muslims… that is like trusting someone from the south before the civil rights era to be the care taker of black people.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:21 pmLibs now cry about national security when they see a politcal opportunity. But we can’t listen to their telephone calls, we can’t make life difficult for them, they have special rights, we can’t kill any bystanders where they gather…
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:23 pm71)
Wake up. You can not listen to MY phone calls …you can not listen to POLITICAL OPPONENTS PHONE CALLS …like Nixon, Chenney, etc. did.
NO ONE has special rights. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. How you treat THEM reflects what kind of person YOU are.
If you on the right were not such big pussies you would have teamed up with the democrats and did a WWII on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Instead you went for the low hanging fruit in Iraq. What pussies. I am sure glad FDR and the democrats went for the throat in WWII.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:25 pm70 –
I think impeaching him over getting a blow job in the oval office was a good thing. Imagine if you got caught getting a BJ from one of your underlings at your job – your ass would be canned faster than you could say “define sex”.
Would those people have had a field day? Sure. But in the end UBL would have been smouldering on the desert floor outside Kandahar and that would have been a net win for the US.
I dont trust Muslims because they hate me, my lifestyle, the shit I like to do, all that. After watching the response to those lame-ass cartoons, I’m convinced that the “moderate Muslim” is a media myth. Either they are already fundamentalists or they are one little flare up form becoming such.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:25 pm73)
I have met muslims here in America… they are in almost every town in America. They didnt riot. The dont HATE you. They love America and the semi peace we have in our day to day lives. You are talking RACISM. I am talking common sense.
As far as me being fired for a BJ… I am not the president. And my BJ sure as HELL would not be brought onto the FLOOR OF THE U.S. CONGRESS. That was an embaresment for CONGRESS and America FAR MORE than it was for Clinton. What pathetic little ass sniffers we looked like when that was going on. Britney Spears government at its greatest.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:29 pmChase do you think Ben Franklin would have given an empassioned plea to impeach George Washington for ANYTHING that happened in his private life?
Why not?
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:31 pm74 –
American Muslims dont hate me because they are Americans too – they get to enjoy the same freedoms. But in the middle east and southeast asia where life sucks balls and is stuck somewhere in the 1800s (usually because of Islamic tyrants who derive their authority from the Koran), those fuckers hate me. So fuck them.
And yeah, it was embarrassing to us. I like Clinton, probably more than GWB. But he’s a sleeze ball through and through. What he did was inappropriate, reprehensible and ultimately “fireable”. If a lineworker at GM got a BJ on the assembly floor, he would be fired (save the union) or if the CFO was getting a hummer in the conference room – he would be in deeeep shit. Be honest about THAT.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:34 pmGerald Gibson, who would want to listen to your phone calls? NOBODY. Idiot.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:35 pmI am unsure if anyone has noted this, but this is not simply a company in the UAE it is a company owned by the UAE. That would be another country, one known with ties to terrorists, owning at a minimum free access to our ports.
So this is not simply a foreign company, but a foreign country.
And it scares the hell out of me that our so called commander in chief had no knowledge of this decision.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:35 pm#40,
GO to Foxnews.com and check out the poll on this issue, the conserves overwhelmingly are against it also.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:37 pm76)
Clinton having sex in the Oval Office was not something to be proud of. But shit like that is not any of my business and neither is it yours unless he was right in the middle as the ambassador from Russia walked in… THEN it would be a job issue.
As far as the muslims in the middle east etc you are right. They dont have a seperation of church and state and so they have no clue that they can run their own affairs without religious nutcases trying to legislate what they do in their own private lives. They have NO clue that America is about freedom FROM religious control. Instead of killing them how about setting an example and exposing their religious leaders? Why let our religious Taliban in America wage war against them which only reenforces what their religious leaders tell them about America? America doesnt go around the world killing people because we hate muslims. But that is what they are told by their leaders and that is what our religious nuts show them every day.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:40 pm#77 Who’d want to listen to Quakers, war protest moms, animal rights advocates, high school environmentalists,jounalists etc. etc.?
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:40 pm#53,
Typical mentality, reduce the solutions to solving a problem by “kicking ass”.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:40 pm#69
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:41 pmI’ve seen you quote the Bible Gerald.. Are you a fundamentalist? If you could get over the fact that the right has morals and values, and the left would quit falsely impugning the right, we could get along just fine.
77)
Religious nuts would. Just like they would burn women alive for having funny looking bumps on their face. Just like they would put people in an Iron Maiden because they said they dont think killing jews is good in the eyes of god.
And if my name was Ed Kennedy then they would listen. And dont say they wouldnt because YOU republicans CHEATED and did exactly that when Nixon was in office. And the people that Nixon did it with are in office right now.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:42 pm83)
Believing in JESUS is not a fundamentalist thing. The right does not have a lock on morality. They SAY they are protectors of LIFE… but ONLY when it is a political issue for them. They do not campaign against the death penality. They do not campaign against war. They only give lip service to their beliefs. This is EXACTLY what Jesus was upset about in his time. Religious “pious” people telling others how to live their lives and even sending them to the Romans to be crusified when they themselves dont live by those same standards.
I would believe what the fundamentalists had to say about life if THEY were the peaceniks that always fought against killing …but instead I grew up among them seeing them as the two faced hypocrits that they are.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:47 pmUmm 73 many of your own country men hate the very same things you say the muslums hate. Maybe even you are a member of the christian taliban and hate a great many of our freedoms. We know you hate the right to free speech because polcital opponants are labeld traitors, not patriots as the founders would label them. You most likely hate the right to privacy. You have also stated that you don’t like the 4th amendment anymore and that probable cause is BS (otherwise why support the warrentless, proabble cause less wire, lack of accountability ease dropping program). You and your ilk are more like those you hate (muslums) than you realise.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:52 pmAntagonist
You are a kult member, as such your loyalty is to the kult. So, don’t ask for us to “all just get along”. Your kult loyalty makes you un-American.
By the way eunuch respond to my #60 post:
The custom’s yards, the staging area for containers to inspect, are under the operational aspect of the civilian concession. In addition, the security compliance of shipping companies is the responsibility of the civilian contract.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:05 pm“I’ve seen you quote the Bible Gerald.. Are you a fundamentalist? If you could get over the fact that the right has morals and values, and the left would quit falsely impugning the right, we could get along just fine.
Comment by Antagonist — February 22, 2006 @ 1:41 pm”
Sweetie, I don’t question your values, I question your understanding or execution of them. For instance we supposedly hated torture when Saddam did it, yet Rightwing partisans seem to have no moral qualms with torturing when they do it. This is similar all through the partisan apologists such as yourself. You say you have values, yet the evidence of you living by those values seems quite sparse. Would you care to explain what moral values you possess and live by exactly? Inquiring minds want to know pumpkin.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:09 pm#87
It’s spelled c-u-l-t cult, and no I’m not a cult member. You on the other hand are a presumptuous dolt.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:16 pm#88
If I wanted to get hit on by another guy, I’d go to a gay bar. Save your sweet-talk for your pals on the left.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:19 pmMR. TENET:…The third complicating factor here is, you might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process, which I’m sure entered into everybody’s calculation in all this.
Bush calls that Collateral Damage when ot lands on the House of Innocent people.
Bush has helped to Kill around 180,000 people for this one man Called OSAMA, Yet Mr Tenet suddenly finds his Heartstrings?
What a bunch of hooey.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:29 pmThe Royal Family is just people isnt it?
Why should they be placed above other Lives?
Is their Blood more Valuable Mr Tenet?
Is their Life not Life Mr Tenet?
Is this what you Call NOBLE Mr. Tenet?
TO kill innocent citizens you call that Noble?
To Kill Innocent Royals to get Saddam wouldnt that be Noble Mr Tenet?
Or would that just Be Collateral Damage?
We have some seriously sick puppies running around the White House.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:32 pmSome timeline:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911timeline2pg
Longer:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg
Extremely long:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
9/11 suited the PNAC people perfectly:
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:47 pmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1036571,00.html
I would believe what the fundamentalists had to say about life if THEY were the peaceniks that always fought against killing …but instead I grew up among them seeing them as the two faced hypocrits that they are.
Comment by Gerald Gibson
In other words if the fundamentalist doesn’t have the same understanding of the Bible as you then they are two faced hypocrites and not Christian?
Are you a Christian Gerald? If so, what in your opinion makes you a Christian? If you are not them where do you find the courage and resources to explain Christianity to someone else?
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:58 pmjesus christ did not preach hate,he taught tolerance.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:36 pmright between the i’s always preaches hate.therefore he has no idea what the new testament say’s.he just listens to the pastors and follow what they say.that is why he is narrow-minded and cannot think for himself.when was the last time you read the bible iri?
#5
George W. Bush knows that the only way he’ll ever bounce back in approval ratings is if he looks the other way while another terrorist attack occurs on US soil.
That, my friends, is the problem. As long as Karl Rove can suck a vote out of some issue, GWB will go along.
Comment by Flamethrower — February 22, 2006 @ 11:23 am
Your post above
As long as Karl Rove can suck ………………………. GWB will go along.
My cut and paste job, LOL,
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:58 pmjesus christ did not preach hate,he taught tolerance.
right between the i’s always preaches hate.therefore he has no idea what the new testament say’s.he just listens to the pastors and follow what they say.that is why he is narrow-minded and cannot think for himself.when was the last time you read the bible iri?
Comment by bud
JESUS CHRIST HAS ZERO TOLERANCE FOR LOSERS. If you don’t believe me read the Old Testament. Our Lord kicked ass prior to His becoming man. If you don’t believe me read the New Testament, Our Lord had more to say about losers who are going to hell than He did about winners going to heaven. If you don’t believe me read Our Lord’s Revelation to John at the end of the book. The gentle, tolerant, loving Jesus is going to slaughter 2/3 of the population of the earth (all tolerant non violent losers like yourself) Now, you gots to ax yourself; why would an all loving gentle, meek and mild Jesus say one thing and do another? Answer: He wouldn’t. God does not contradict Himself, therefore Sir, you have read it wrong. But that’s OK because that’s one reason I’m here. Somebody has to straighten you losers out before you have to meet the Man.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:03 pmGeorge W. Bush knows that the only way he’ll ever bounce back in approval ratings is if he looks the other way while another terrorist attack occurs on US soil.
That, my friends, is the problem. As long as Karl Rove can suck a vote out of some issue, GWB will go along.
Comment by Flamethrower — February 22, 2006 @ 11:23 am
Karl has set a trap for the Donks. The Donks have walked right in and locked the door behind themselves. Now it’s the Donks that are intolerant racist Islamophobic thugs. I give Dean, Kerry, Kennedy and the rest of the Donk Squad a week before they are screaming that we have to attack Iran before it’s too late.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:10 pmAmericans are just puppets dancing on a string…and we all know who the puppet masters are.Wont be too long before you hand in our stetson for a turban!
Dance ..Dance your life Awaaaayyyy
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:18 pm[...] These are very sound arguments and ones I find very persuasive, but after digging into the issue more I think the whole affair is more complicated than it seems. ThinkProgress has some great stuff on this issue as well. First, it seems as though our great ally, the UAE, may have been meeting with Bin Laden as late as 1999. Certainly the UAE has been a great ally of late but we have to be incredibly suspect of the any goverment that has been willing to take any meetings with Bin Laden in the last 10 years. By 1999 it was well known in the international community that Bin Laden was no good. This hardly qualifies the UAE as above the fray of Middle Eastern countries that put up blinders when dealing with known terrorists and it certainly doesn’t seem to support the idea that the UAE is an ally we can count on without question. Again, this doesn’t put the UAE in bed with terrorists but it cetainly should have us pause and question whether the country’s latest stand is on terrorism has more to do with money than a firm disagreement with ideology. [...]
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:37 pmI don’t get it! Arab countries are such a risk that we should not ask any questions when our citizens have their phone calls to them wire tapped, but handing over the ports to them is perfectly OK?
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:41 pmto be a christian is to believe that jesus christ is our savior.jesus is my savior and personal friend.he dosen’t think i’m a loser.why do you?god will judge us not you,so read the bible iri.you might of read it before but i don’t think you understood it.because your argument seems to be a little ignorant and closeminded.
In other words if the fundamentalist doesn’t have the same understanding of the Bible as you then they are two faced hypocrites and not Christian?
read your own words and then tell me who knows what they are talking about.the bible does not say what you said to me.i beleive the bible can talk all it wants and you can interpret it anyway you want,but to be a true christian you must know jesus personaly and believe he loves you no matter what.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:51 pmAbout the port-deal scandal. Let us refer back to one of Mr Moore’s basic theories in “9/11″: That the Bush family’s daddy is the Arabs, that the senior Bush has motives to find favors for the Arabs, and that the senior Bush has a direct connection to the White House. Sure seems to me that we should be looking at prosecuting everyone involved in this influence peddling.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:12 pmbut to be a true christian you must know jesus personaly and believe he loves you no matter what.
Comment by bud
Well that’s real sweet but it’s wrong. Jesus doesn’t love you no matter what. For example He does not love little liberal whiners and dissemblers. He doesn’t love people who vote for baby killers and homosexuals, that would be the Democratic Party. Let’s put it this way Bud, if you should die before the next election where you can vote for a God Fearing America loving Republican you will go to hell…unless….you get on your knees right now and tell Jesus Christ you are sorry for voting for that heathen baby killing traitor named John Kerry and that you’ll never vote Democratic again. If you do that you’ll have a chance. But the fact is you can’t love Jesus and be a Left Wing Walking Dead Loser too. It’s just not possible and you can tell your mom I said so.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:21 pmI don’t get it! Arab countries are such a risk that we should not ask any questions when our citizens have their phone calls to them wire tapped, but handing over the ports to them is perfectly OK?
Comment by Bert
I don’t get it. You don’t want the NSA tapping phone calls to Arab terrorists but you do mind if those same Arabs operate our ports?
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:25 pmJust like how they have lost on national security,
Open borders, selling port operations WHAT security? roberts-alito,
katrina,
I’d say the victums of Katrima lost, or do you think Katrina was a republican hurricane?
sago mine,
The miners in the mine…remember…..(and you yawn)
lobby reform…
Can you say DeLay, Frist, Scanlan, Cunningham, Doolittle, Santaurm, Abrarmoff, Blackwell, Ney, Weld, Fletcher, Reed,
yaaaaawn. Come november your yaaaaaaawn will be a scream…(see Edvard Munch)
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:29 pmI-R-I
What is there for me to say? You have totally discredited yourself without me having to say a word. Thanks for making it easy on me.
For example He does not love little liberal whiners
Where in the New Testament does it say that? Ya I-R-I I would be sooo embaressed to be you right now.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:47 pmI-R-I
Of course I have a problem with an administration who obtains illegal / warrantless wire taps on its citizens, and then can be so BOLD as to expect people to then go along with selling our ports to a country with known ties to Binladen. No one but Americans should be operating our ports. So what’s your response to post #35? I don’t see how Bush supporters can be so brainwashed by anything thrown at them. I didn’t agree when Clinton wanted to give control of Panama Canal to a Chinese Co, but I guess that’s the difference in the parties — we have some free thinkers among us.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:33 pmPort insecurity…
What Vice President Cheney did to Harry Whittington, President Bush is doing to himself. But this time, no one is coming to the shooter’s defense. The administration built on being strong on national security is poised to transfer six ports…
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:40 pmYour correct,killing babys is wrong.We need to raise them to the age of at least 18 so republicans can send them over and kill around 50,000 moms,kids,babys ect.Plus get killed making sure Bush and company get the oil.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:43 pm#110
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:57 pmBrilliant analogy Richard. Why don’t we just call all U.S. casualties abortions–that way the left would be ok with it.
Hmmmm,
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:03 pmIs it alright to advocate the killing of muslims?
Is it alright to advocate the killing of jews?
Is it alright to advocate the killing of americans?
Is it alright to advocate killing?
Is it?
I-R-I I would be sooo embaressed to be you right now.
Comment by Gerald Gibson
Don’t worry Gerald, hell would freeze over before you could be like me.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:40 pmIRI,
Who died and made you god? Who are you to say what god or Jesus will do? All you have is a book that was written by men that is so full of contradictions. Why is it that you can condemn gays, but say nothing about the menustrating women that the bible says should be stoned. You are nothing but a hypocrite and deep down in your heart you know it. That is what your god or Jesus is going to look at, your heart. So my friend, just from your words, your god is going to fuck you.
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:48 pmIRI, you are a flaming moron. FOAD
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:34 amBush and Cheney think average Americans are too stupid to understand the sleazy deals they make with cronies in the Middle East! The Bush family have close ties to the Saudi Royal family, as well as to the rulers of the UAE/Dubai!
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:04 amI am reading this stuff and laughing my butt off!! Not because I disagree because I agree with most of the comments but have enough sense to know that idiocy is entertaining but intelligent statements are the best of arguments. The guys on top of the research need to be commended for their hard work! If we stick to the issues the Bloggers will research our data and it may lead them to big discoveries that will prove that this administration is going to ruin America as we use to know it! As mad as I am, I understand the basics of propaganda and I can tell you that there are axperts in full spin mode out of Washington. I believe some of them are right here pretending to be left wing liberal fanatics as to continue to perpetuate the “Left Wing Looney Theory”!! If you think someone is one of these imposters call them to task and challenge them to be pertinant to the issues. They will sadly reveal themselves because they will not confront the issues intelligently.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:40 amHeres some troubling truth from solid sources,
‘DP WORLD’ is the new name for the company based on a merger between ‘Dubai world’ and “Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation (o & p)”
Now, about the merger P&O’s chairman John Parker said the company’s directors have unanimously backed the DP World’s offer. The board will recommend the 520 pence-a-share offer to the shareholders Monday.
His name is actualy “Sir John Parker” as you can see from his profile on his profile at The P & O website
Sir John Parker is also chariman of Firth Rixson, as mentioned at the carlyle group websitewhich primarily owns Firth Rixon.
Theres a saying…”I can only give you the key, but you have to walk through the door”…
The truth is, thats just a mysterious way of saying…Ive got too much sh*t to do to have the time to explain it all, you need to figure the rest out for yourself.
-=P=-.v001
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:29 amand The Save the Funk Revolution!
pimpmysight.com/v1.html
All you have is a book that was written by men that is so full of contradictions. Why is it that you can condemn gays, but say nothing about the menustrating women that the bible says should be stoned.
Comment by FU Father Eisenman
You can’t be a Jew you’re too stupid.
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:16 amI would think the groups that said Fahrenheit 9/11 was untrue and made up must now be shaking their heads saying “Wow that stuff really did happenâ€
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:42 amReading some of the posts I find it so interesting when some on the right just can’t accept that Bush is making an insane mistake here. They can’t give one reason why this is not blatant corruption or even one good thing he has done as president. Instead they throw their own religious and abortion beliefs making you ungodly, not worthy of having an opinion. I don’t understand the anti abortion people who cant accept that Bush has done nothing to stop one single abortion. Millions upon millions have been aborted since he has been your president. He only shows support for your cause and others when it involves a vote for his party. Why is he so fast to say we will help rebuild the Mosque in Iraq but not the same offer to rebuild a single church in New Orleans or the ones destroyed in Alabama?
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:22 pm#121 – Amen Brother
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:10 pmSounds like it’s time for a Boston Tea Party like situation!
I have know for some years that a situation like this was going to accure due to are failing economey.
I had always thought if this situation where to accure,
are “President” would step in an make sure this kind of deal would have an investigation that would seek to out all answers of Nation Security and Nation Sovernty. The lack of investigation-which is manditory by law-, the hard stance from the President to move the sale forward, and the strange ties between all the people involved.
Sounds more and more like the banks are really running/ruining things on our small little planet.
I think we should take our country back from these shady business men. What ever means, to match the ends of the deceivers.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:44 pm1. We are talking about a sale by one company of its assets to another company. It isn’t a sale by the U.S. to a foreign country. It’s a shame that concept goes over the head of many posters here.
2. Having a company from a Middle Eastern Country manage any infrastructure in the U.S. is disquieting. Taking a position that no Arab company can do significant business in the U.S. might be just the wedge issue bin Ladin needs to overthrough some of our allies and gain control over our oil supply.
3. It is possible that having ports managed by companies who are under the microscope could lead to safer ports.
February 25th, 2006 at 8:38 pmPURE FACT!, George Bush senior was a senior advisor during his term for The carlyle group (a huge investment firm) Sir john parker is the chairman of P&O (The company dubai bought/merged with) Sir John Parker was also (might still be, or at least owns some for of vested interest in the company) chairman of Firth Rixson. Firth Rixson is owned by Carlyle group. The point is… Just like cheney possibly still profiting from haliburton military/government contracts… The connections from the bush’s to the carlyle group and carlyle group to Sir John Parker, Has to at the least make even the sleepiest of sheeple open their eyes enough to see… THERE ARE IMMENSE PROFITS WITH EVEN BIGGER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST!
March 1st, 2006 at 4:43 am[...] The ties between the UAE and Bin Laden are well established. We were told that the Clinton administration hesitated to “take out” Bin Laden because there was a chance that they would harm members of the UAE ruling family who were visiting with Bin Laden at the time. Why would they be visiting him? Hmmm… Then connect all the dots between the Bush and Bin Laden families, and between the CIA and Bin Laden, and between the Bush family and the UAE, and what you are left with is a picture that is starting to become clear through the fog. It is highly possible, ane even probable that the UAE is somehow connected to the events of 9/11 by either direct involvement or by their silence. It could be that their role to refrain from disclaiming any portions of the official story. After all, if they were really as involved as we have been told, don’t you think they would have been a more logical target for our war on terror than Iraq? In fact, the UAE is guilty of most of the crimes of which the US accused Iraq: human rights violations, political oppression, direct ties to Al Qaeda, direct ties to the Taliban, funding of the 9/11 hijackers (according to legend), and involvement in illegal nuclear proliferation. Then again, the US is guilty of those things too! [...]
March 3rd, 2006 at 5:40 pmIt never ceases to amaze me how paranoid and anti American the liberals in this country are. They should all go live in Europe which is almost completely Islamicised. Then at least they would have something to really be worried about. What ever happened to unity after 9/11?
April 12th, 2006 at 3:06 pm[...] a nation that impeded our ability to take out Osama Bin Laden because half its royal family was chillin’ with the terrorist mastemind himself. We attacked Iraq because one of the 9/11 terrorists allegedly met with an Iraqi security [...]
March 28th, 2007 at 9:48 pm[...] a nation that impeded our ability to take out Osama Bin Laden because half its royal family was chillin’ with the terrorist mastemind himself. We attacked Iraq because one of the 9/11 terrorists allegedly met with an Iraqi security [...]
March 28th, 2007 at 9:54 pm