I am so glad someone else mentioned this, I thought to myself that I had to have misheard it, there's no way even this administration could stoop this low.
One other little tidbit from the interview: the administration spent $700M on preparations for Iraq that was appropriated for Afghanistan. I am pretty sure, if this is true (and let's be honest, if the first is true, this is petty larceny by comparison), then that's a violation of the constitution. Monies appropriated by Congress for a specific purpose cannot be diverted from that purpose without their approval.
If this happened, well this administration never ceases to amaze me, I guess you have to give credit to them for creativity.
I don't see any violation of election law (or other law) here. Other countries are allowed to set their own trade policies regardless of their impact on our country. If Saudi Arabia wants to help Bush, it should be able to lower its oil prices. If Spain wants to cut off trade with the United States to hurt the US economy and help Kerry, Spain has every right to do that too.
That statement is quite literally insane. Unless, as must be the case, you are trolling.
Bush let Bandar and bin Laden's family violate the no-fly orders after 9-11 to leave the country without FBI questioning, though it has since been discovered that Bandar's wife was funding several members of the hijacking team. Bush informed Bandar of his final commitment to invade Iraq before he even informed his own Sec. of State. Saudi Arabia acted as a go between to provide the weapons, training and funds from Reagan that created the Taliban. Saudi Arabia has funded the entire wahabist movement that radicalized Islam world-wide.
Now Bandar promises to manipulate world oil markets to influence US elections.
Shrugging shoulders over that isn't a difference of opinion, it's simple intellectual dishonesty.
I wish the conspiracy theorists would get their information right:
(From http://www.spinsanity.org/post.h...3_archive.html)
Scheer's July 29 column also claimed that the Bush administration "[allowed] members of the large Bin Laden family who were in this country to be spirited home on their government's aircraft before they could be questioned" after Sept. 11. However, this myth (popularized by filmmaker/author Michael Moore) has been debunked by the urban legends website Snopes.com, which shows that "nearly every news account of these flights mentions that the FBI questioned the departing Saudis, grounded their planes, and supervised their departures." National Review's Byron York and others have argued that the questioning -- which took place "at the airport as they were about to leave," according to an FBI spokesman -- may not have been sufficient. But the Bin Ladens were questioned, directly contradicting Scheer's claim.
It is unacceptable for a major national columnist to repeatedly make factually inaccurate claims. Yet Robert Scheer continues to create and disseminate falsehoods by basing his columns on incomplete or untrue reports when accurate information is available. He needs to stop.
Update 9/7 9:57 PM EST: Several readers have contacted me to ask if recent reports based on a new Vanity Fair article by Craig Unger prove that Moore or Scheer were right. Here is the current status of this issue. Based on Unger's claims, it appears that Moore was correct in his statement (which I did not address in this post) that the bin Ladens were allowed to fly within the country while commercial and civil aviation was grounded. However, contrary to some claims, they were not allowed to leave until flights were resumed, which Unger made clear during a Sept. 4 interview on CNN. As for the alleged lack of questioning by the FBI, the evidence generally indicates that, while most or all family members were at least identified, had their passports checked by FBI agents and briefly questioned, serious questioning or interrogations do not appear to have taken place. The issue turns on the specifics of those conversations, which at this time appear to have included at least some questioning, though accounts of the matter differ. Scheer and Moore's assertion that no questioning took place is unproven at best, and contradicts much available evidence. (Note: Snopes.com has updated their article on the matter, which I linked to in the original post, to address this new information.)
You've got to be kidding me?
Conspiracy theory? Bullshit.
http://www.news-press.com/news/
l...404jaybook.html
You're not much up on actually watching the news, I guess. The flight manifests were also released last week. The FBI testimony on this issue has been that no, they did not have the opportunity to question the passengers. They were allowed to look at lists of the passengers, that's it. This was all over the news for the past month.
Chartered flights were still grounded, Ayn. Unger's account stand unassailed.
Been out of contact or something?
This rightwinger's take:
-- Bush can sleep with Bandar for all I care if he can get gas prices reduced to thirty five cents a gallon. That aint bribery, that's just good diplomacy.
-- From what I understand, Congress gave money to Centcom. Centcom covers the Middle East. Centcom used the money on its presence in the Middle East. Then of course there's the President's role as commander-in-chief. Congress has the right to overall oversight, not to micromanage every itsy-bitsy little thing.
-- I don't see how the Woodward book is so scandalous. So the Bushies drew up war plans. Big deal. They'd be reckless to contemplate going to war without thinking about the options and getting things ready.
Ron,
I hope I never hear anything from you about free markets being good. Bush and the Saudis collude to manipulate the oil market for Bush's political gain, and you don't care. What will it take for you to see anything wrong with Bush? Video of a pantless George with a girl Scout? Jeeesh.
The big deal about Bush cutting a deal to keep gas prices high until it is politically expedient is that he has betrayed the good of the country explicitely to cut a deal with a terrorist supporting country to back his reelection. The big deal is that he has been doing favors for them that may very well be treasonous, literally.
If by virtue of favors from a sitting President of the US, anyone who funded the 9-11 attacks has escaped justice, who but the most cynical of traitors would applaud? For $.35 a gallon... that's a hell of a price to put on democracy.
The big deal about the war is that they lied about the decision, lied about the rationale, lied about the preparations, lied about the tactics, lied about the reconstruction, lied about the "benefits", lied about the cost, and are still lying about the future, and in doing so not only betrayed the fundamental core of democracy by taking the country to war under false pretences, but also literally violated the law of perjury by lying directly to Congress.
In addition, of course Congress has the right to micromanage every expenditure. What Constitution is it you think our government follows?
Larger issue - why not use this opportunity to get more hybrids/alternative energy stuff going?
WF
"Law of perjury"--this applies to statements under oath.
What evidence is there that Bush cut a deal to keep prices high until the election? Do you think that Bush benefits from the high price now? I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia--I don't think we can trust the country and I don't like the fact that the Bush family is close to the Saudis. But the fact that the Saudis have suggested altering their trade policies to help the United States economy? Every trade deal is politically motivated. Clinton entered into NAFTA because he thought it would help the economy, and thus, his political career. Some people think NAFTA was a bad deal--but does that mean that Clinton sold out the United States economy in some illegal way--that he betrayed our nation--that he did something unethical? No.
law,
What you seem to fail to grasp is timing. If they Saudi's manipulate the oil prices to help Bush Get elected they would not do so unless promises were made. Thus, laws were broken. Proving such is another story.
Hopefully this will put this to rest.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...ion/whbriefing/
The suggestion that the Saudi government and the Bush administration struck a deal to lower U.S. gasoline prices before the 2004 election seemed like one of the more explosive allegations made by Bob Woodward in his new book and media blitz.
But Woodward explained yesterday that he never said there was any secret deal. And he never said the Saudis' plans were explicitly linked to an effort to reelect Bush.
. . .
As CNN reports: "The charge that Saudi Arabia made a secret pact with President Bush to lower gasoline prices in time to help him in the November presidential election was denied Monday by the White House, the Saudi ambassador to the United States -- and even by journalist Bob Woodward, who raised the specter of such a quid pro quo in a book released Monday.
"'I don't say there's a secret deal or any collaboration on this,' Woodward told CNN's 'Larry King Live' Monday. 'What I say in the book is that the Saudis . . . hoped to keep oil prices low during the period before the election, because of its impact on the economy. That's what I say.'
. . .
"KING: The story that Mr. Woodward has about the promise to lower the oil prices by the election. Your government has denied has.
"WOODWARD: That's not my story. What I say in the book is that the Saudis, and maybe you looked at this section of the book, Ambassador, that the Saudis hoped to keep oil prices low during the period for -- before the election, because of its impact on the economy. That's what I say.
"BIN SULTAN: I think the way that Bob said it now is accurate. We hoped that the oil prices will stay low, because that's good for America's economy, but more important, it's good for our economy and the international economy, and this is not -- nothing unusual. President Clinton asked us to keep the prices down in the year 2000. In fact, I can go back to 1979, President Carter asked us to keep the prices down to avoid the malaise. So yes, it's in our interests and in America's interests to keep the prices down.
"KING: Do you want President Bush. . . .
"BIN SULTAN: But that was not a deal.
"KING: Do you want President Bush to be reelected?
"BIN SULTAN: We always want any president who is in office to be reelected, Larry, but that is the American choice. This is not our call. This is the American people's call."
Commenting by HaloScan
