Was Dean correct about bringing to light the 9-11 Saudi tip?

[Sean Reynolds]

Poll question: Was Dean correct about bringing to light the 9-11 Saudi tip?

Was watching MSNBC and heard more attacks on Dean about this remark. He was also attacked by other Democrats. So, was he right?

[dajabr]

1. Hell yeah! Even this RWinger is scratching his head over B*sh/Saudis

--excerpted--

By any objective measure, Saudi Arabia falls under the Bush Doctrine of a country that harbors, supports and finances terrorism.

Yet President Bush and members of his Cabinet, along with his ever-trusting father, continue to give the Saudi royal family the benefit of the doubt, insisting it is still America's "friend," even after it refused to help protect Americans living under its care in the face of credible and specific terrorist threats, essentially leaving bin Laden a key under the mat at those fire-bombed American apartments.

Our friend? No, it's your friend, Mr. President.

The Bushes are on a first-name basis with the Saudi elite. They've done business together, they've dined together, they've even vacationed together in places like Spain. Prince Bandar, for instance, is so close to the family, he's nicknamed "Bandar Bush." His wife, the hijackers' silent sugarmama, attended Barbara Bush's 75th birthday bash in Kennebunkport a few years back. Bandar and ailing Saudi King Fahd have given more than $1 million in cash and gold to former President Bush's library at Texas A&M University.

As principals at the Carlyle Group, a powerful investment firm here, both the former president and long-time family crony James Baker III have made business pilgrimages to Saudi Arabia in recent years to visit members of the royal family – and also members of the wealthy bin Laden family. Baker has even flown on Saudi Binladen Group jets.

Baker's Houston-based law firm is now representing Prince Sultan, the big IIRO donor, who is being sued by 9-11 families.

More: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32642

[Skittles]

2. YES HE IS RIGHT

the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia yet we bomb Afghanistan and Iraq and NO ONE ASKS WHY????? HISTORY IS GOING TO ASK WHY.

[mermaid]

8. History Needn't Ask Why

History already KNOWS why...and so do most of us. for those who don't, I'll spell it out: O-I-L

[blm]

20. What's he right about Skittles?

He said he DOESN'T BELIEVE THE THEORY.

WTF is he right about?

[polpilot]

40. Hell yeah he was right. Skittles beats M & M's all day long.

Dean '04...

[Octafish]

3. Dean should've kept it up. Instead, he dropped 9-11 like a hot potato.

As soon as the pro-Bush McPress readied the whacko conspiracy nut label, Dean dropped the line of attack on Bush. Gee. People were starting to perk up and ask WTF did Bush know, really. So, just when Bush was starting to shrivel under the thought of having to answer for 9-11, Dean backs off.

[last1standing]

4. Could that have anything to do with your candidate's attacks?

http://www1.dailycamera.com/bdc/nation_world_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2420_2536177,00.html

If you're going to attack Dean, or anyone else, at least make sure your candidate isn't part of the problem first.

[Octafish]

6. Kerry is on to the BFEE since 1984. Where was Dean?

LMFAO. Kerry is the solution. As if Dean has ever done ANYTHING at all to stop the BFEE. No, unlike Dean's all-talk, all the time character, John Kerry has fought against the Bush Organized Crime Family. Kerry helped expose the BFEE, a virtual who's who and what's what of international terror, government corruption, money laundering, Saudi petrodollars and drug trafficking. Before you cut down my horse, you should read and learn a bit. From:

The Outlaw Bank: BCCI

by Jonathan Beaty & S.C. Gwynne:

THE BIG SLEEP

EXCERPT...

Though BCCI had retained a high-powered legal team to look after its interests in Washington, two of its most active lobbyists were Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and his aide Michael Pillsbury. Both made important approaches to Washington officials as part of BCCI's attempt to remove itself from further scrutiny following its plea of guilty to the charges in Tampa.

In late 1989 Pillsbury and prominent BCCI shareholder Mohammed Hammoud visited Swaleh Naqvi in London to offer Hatch's help. This was an unusual team. Pillsbury was the former deputy under secretary for defense credited with initiating the effort to obtain Stinger missiles for the Afghan Mujahedin. Hammoud was a longtime acquaintance of Hatch who had purchased Clifford's and Altman's stock in the Naqvi-engineered deal that brought the two men millions in profits.

After the plea bargain was announced, Pillsbury was able to arrange a meeting between Hatch and BCCI lawyer Ray Banoun, during which, Banoun told The New York Times, Hatch called a Justice Department official to lobby on behalf of BCCI. The result of Hatch's contact with BCCI's lawyers was a speech drafted by Barcella, Wechsler, and Altman and delivered by Orrin Hatch on February 22, 1990, on the Senate floor. It was a ringing denunciation of Kerry and others who had criticized the Justice Department and the plea agreement.

Soon thereafter, Hatch received a warm letter from Swaleh Naqvi, who through Altman had simultaneously recruited Holland & Knight in Miami, who cited Hatch's speech to pressure Florida banking authorities into allowing the bank to stay open. Two weeks after the speech Hatch called Naqvi again, this time to encourage him to make a $10 million loan to Hatch's friend and business partner Monzer Hourani, a Lebanese immigrant from Houston, Texas....

CONTINUED...

http://www.the-catbird-seat.net/BCCI.htm

[dajabr]

7. Should be: "on to the BFEE between 1984 - 2000" (nt)

[last1standing]

9. Why not just explain Kerry's attacks?

Instead you post an obscure article on a different subject. Kerry is no superhero out to rid the world of the BFEE. If he was, he would either have done it by now or have been killed.

Can you just answer my question, or will I get another example of Kerry beating back Nazis singlehandedly?

[blm]

23. Kerry's attack was on Dean's stupidity and flakiness

because he didn't have back up for his accusational 'theory' just a shoot from the lip banter that he said to impress his base and then backed off and said he didn't believe it. Oh yeah...that was really beneficial to broaching the subject.

[last1standing]

26. That's not true. Read post #25.

n/t

[blm]

28. Dean made a dumb remark that he had no intention of backing up.

Your earlier post does not address that.

[last1standing]

29. Dean stated in the first interview that he did not believe the theory.

So there was nothing to back up. My earlier post does state that.

Look, I'm not saying Kerry is a bad person or even a bad candidate. He'd make a very good president, but he has not run a very good campaign this time. Maybe in 2012 he can try again if he doesn't pick up steam this time. I'm not trying to bash him, I was responding to inaccurate information that puts my candidate in a bad light. Dean is also a good candidate, one I agree with more than Kerry. But I'm not trying to say he's right 100% of the time and Kerry is wrong. They agree 95% on the issues anyway. But I don't think Kerry can beat bush* this time around. His message is good, but his delivery hasn't been. I think Dean can so I'm supporting him regardless of "nuances" of IWR or anyone's portrayal of him as an angry bufoon.

And the real point I have been trying to make is that a Kerry supporter should not criticize Dean for dropping the Saudi issue when it was Kerry who attacked him for saying it. That is not a good post to tie a horse to.

[Capn Sunshine]

43. Either get the exact quote you're referring to, or explain

how " I've heard a lot of theories about that " in answer to a question about the Bush stalling the 9-11 investigation is dumb.

[worldgonekrazy]

32. Oh is that why he voted for their illegal war?

Gee, sure is an interesting way to go after the BFEE. Don't worry though, I am sure Kerry has something up his sleeve somewhere that only he knows about and the rest of us ought to just trust him blindly.

[stickdog]

5. Considering that Kerry propped up Bush to slam Dean, I'd say

you are being hypocritical.

[blm]

24. Dean propped up Bush to slam Kerry.

First on Tora Bora when Russert asked him about it, and then again when Kerry made his regime change remark, Dean acted like that was beyond the pale and said HE wouldn't have said that.

Hypocrisy thy name is ......

[stickdog]

38. blm. No Dem should ever prop up Bush to bash another Dem. (nt)

[blm]

41. Kerry didn't prop up Bush, Dean did on MTP

and you reward him with your support.

[HFishbine]

14. Kerry keeps talking about it though. (n/t)

[nancyharris]

10. I am much more interested

in how Governor Dean intends to conduct his foreign relations with Saudi Arabia (a country that provides the majority of our imported Middle Eastern oil yet gave birth to the majority of the 9/11 terrorists) than any rumors he might wish to spread.

Does Governor Dean support the Saudi Royal family? Will he come to their aid if fundamentalist unrest threatens their hold on Saudi Arabia? How does he plan to deal with OPEC? For that matter, does he support Iraq joining OPEC? More substance than style from Governor Dean would be informative.

[last1standing]

11. Substance? Don't you know that has no place in an election?

Really, I'd like to hear Dean explain the same things. In fact I'd like to see detailed plans from all of them, including bush*.

[newyawker99]

12. Hi nancyharris!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[bearfartinthewoods]

13. yup...it's fine to blast bush but how about some plans of his own?

push the saudis too hard and 3.00 a gallon oil? how will the governor walk that fine line.

so much we don't know, howard....

[polpilot]

15. 'Substance' would make the others wonder what the hell we're up to!!!

We could interject a little truth and disclosure and that would screw 'em up bad but then we'd be playing 'Romper Room' not politics. Polotics 101-First you win...then you pull out the hidden agenda.

Dean '04...

[blm]

16. Dean already said he DOESN'T believe it so it HURT more than helped.

It just made a mockery of it. Why in the world would ANYONE think Dean did a good thing here by bringing it up and then say he didn't believe it?

[stickdog]

18. Meanwhile, Kerry said that just broaching the subject proves

you are deranged!

But I'm sure that when he said that it helped somehow.

Right?

[blm]

19. You are excusing Dean for saying he doesn't believe it?

Kerry knows you don't come forward without proof.

Kerry attacked Bush on 9-11 for his cozy relationship with the Saudis and for allowing the Bin Laden family to leave right after 9-11. Kerry also mentioned that if BCCI had been handled with HIS recommendations we wouldn't have seen a 9-11.

Kerry handled it SMART. Dean acted like a shoot from the lip MORON with no basis in realistic prosecution of thought or interest in honesty. Typical opportunist who is forced to backtrack when he's proven the fool.

[last1standing]

21. I saw that interview.

And what Dean said was not shooting from the lip or improper in any way. He merely said that bush's* secrecy was the cause of conspiracy theories such as the one stated.

I agree, Kerry is a very smart senator. As such, he should have known the damage his attack on Dean's comments would have on the Democratic nominee in the GE. This is not the first time Kerry has used distortion to hurt Dean at the expense of our party, but then he's not alone, he's right beside Gephardt and Lieberman.

[blm]

22. Dean said he doesn't believe a theory he offered.

There is no excuse for offering something you're not willing to back up.

Kerry has every right to go after Dean and he shouldn't have waited so long to do it. Dean LIED about Kerry saying he was Bushlite and that Kerry supported Bush's taxcut, marched next to a sign that said Bush = Kerry, Dean doesn't care that Kerry's support for IWR was not much different than Dean's support of Biden-Lugar, yet he insults his audiences when he reduces the entire argument to prowar and antiwar.

Dean is a LIAR and Kerry is not.

[last1standing]

25. That's a ridiculous statement.

Sorry, but it really is. You're saying that Dean can't offer an example of a theory because he doesn't believe it himself? That just doesn't make sense.

Also, there were differences between Biden-Lugar and IWR. Dean stated several times that if after going to the UN, they could not get unfettered access to inspect Iraq, and only IF the UN then did nothing about it, THEN we would have justification to act unilaterally. We DID get unfettered access through the UN, but bush* acted anyway with the support of IWR which did not have the same safeties as Biden-Lugar. Dean did not lie. Kerry and Dean have a different philosophy on pre-emptive war and that is one of the things being discussed in this primary season.

On another note, I have always respected your posts and your beliefs. I hope once the nominating process is complete I see them again.

[blm]

27. The SAME measure Dean attacked the others for was in Biden-Lugar.

He said Bush was given the power to make determination for use of force, and the B_L had the SAME measure with only a letter to Congress stating that need.

Dean took THAT sliver of difference and declared himself antiwar while exaggerating the IWR as a "blank check" and you all know it. You just don't care that Dean that dean used such a serious nuanced issue and bullshitted his way into a partisan wedge....that's supporting demagoguery.

[last1standing]

31. Not quite accurate.

Sorry for taking so long on this response. I wanted to find some backup.

http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/Files/RL31596.pdf

"The proposals likely to be considered also vary widely in their binding sections.
H.J.Res. 114/S.J.Res. 46 would grant broad authority to the President to “use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate...against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” The Biden-Lugar proposal
requires that any military action taken against Iraq be to enforce U.N. Security
Council resolution 687 (calling for the dismantlement of Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction and ballistic missile program), or to defend the United States or its allies
against Iraq’s use of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile program.
Biden-Lugar, furthermore, requires that the President consult with congressional
leadership prior to engaging U.S. military force, and that certain conditions have been
met. Biden-Lugar requires the President to prepare follow-up reports on plans to
reconstruct Iraq, economically and politically, following the use of force. Finally, the
Levin proposal focuses almost entirely on working through the United Nations. It
would authorize the use of U.S. military force, but only pursuant to a new U.N.
Security Council resolution, and only after consultation with congressional
leadership."

There's more than a "sliver of difference" there and it shows that Biden-Lugar would have required not only consultation with congress before using force, it would have limited the excuses for going to war and would have required accountablity to congress, all of which is missing from H.J Res 114 (IWR) which gave "broad authority to the President to 'use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate...against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.'"

I don't consider that just demagoguery. Do you?

[blm]

34. Based on Bush's determination...that part was the same

and that was the part that Dean demagogued. All Bush had to do in B-L was send a letter to Congress saying he made the determination force was needed.

Dean took a SLIVER of difference and demagogued it into a two by four to bludgeon the others who supported a resolution.

Reducing a nuanced issue into black and white is demagoguery. He took out ALL nuance of position, including his own, and reduced the argument to prowar and antiwar. That makes him a demagogue willing to lie to glorify himself. How many of his rantings did he explain the slight differences bwtween IWR and B-L and how many of his rantings accused the others of giving Bush the authority to determine use of force?

[last1standing]

36. Then we will just have to disagree.

Because I don't see these as minor differences at all. I see safeties in Biden-Lugar that have been completely erased in IWR. If you think he is a demagogue after my last post, then I won't be able to change your mind. I hope you'll extend me the courtesy of not thinking I'm a demagogue for thinking the differences striking.

[stickdog]

39. Kerry sold his soul to make his candidacy more viable.

It backfired and now he has to mortgage his house just to stay in the race long enough to get his ass kicked in NH.

When Saddan's statue was coming down, Dean was speaking out against the war while Kerry was lying low -- betting that Dean's candidacy would be crushed by mindless jingoism.

If Kerry hadn't betrayed us all so badly, I'd feel sorry for him.

As it is, I just feel sorry for you.

Kerry's been on life support for 2 months now. You need to learn to let go.

[blm]

42. the lies of the Dean campaign will never change history.

NO lie will withstand the scrutiny of history, so tough on Dean and all who support and excuse those lies.

[last1standing]

44. I've been polite about exposing your distortions all day.

And you want to be "tough on Dean and all who support and excuse those lies"? You used to be a good poster here, but now you're so drawn into a failed campaign, you've gone delusional. Kerry lies to you and all you here is music, I guess.

You've lost all credibility today.

[Scott Lee]

45. You have the patience of Job

Something far beyond my capabilities. Good on ya.

[worldgonekrazy]

33. Maybe Dean is trying to discredit the Saudi link

Because he knows who the real perpetrator was. Any guesses?

[blm]

35. Maybe Dean is in COVERMYOWNASS mode.

Don't give that procorporate whore who gave sweetheart deals to BFEE loyalists and pushed to deregulate electricity as governor ANY credit for being on any side other than his own.

Koch brothers are BFEE and Dean won't release any of the papers on the deal he provided them turning over Vermont's utilitiy to them.

[last1standing]

37. This kind of post is sad.

All politicians deal with repubs, there's no choice. I've responded in the past that in the end the entire Koch deal was settle equitably.

Dean's was a good govenor and would make a good president. Why try to savage him?

[farmbo]

17. This may be the only way to cut into Bush's support on 'security'

...our candidate (whomever)is going to encounter a Rovian buzz saw of 9/11 Bush 'warm & fuzzies' on Bush's 'bold, decisive leadership' after 9/11.

If anyone can strip away that veneer and expose Bush as a bumbling pro-Saudi, duffus who ignored clear warnings, the Dems can win. On the other hand,if our candidate plays the 'hail to the chief' routine; showing admiration for Bush at War, while suggesting that we tinker with his other policies, we will lose.

Its that simple.

[SayitAintSo]

30. Remember Cyntha McKinney ?

sums it up ...