Don Roley said:
When you know that what you say is not the whole truth, that there is evidence that blows your theory out of the water and you fail to even mention it, that is lies and deception.
Assuming, of course, that Moore even says what you accuse him of. Which you don't really know, do you?
Don Roley said:
Of course Bush, Carter, Clinton had ties with the house of Saud. So what is wrong with that since it is part of their job to deal with other nations heads? So why is Moore making such big deal about pictures taken with Bush, but not letting the world know that every president has had such pictures taken.
This is such a tedious argument that it's finally time to deal with it. Carter and Clinton may have had *diplomatic* ties with the House of Saud, but they did not have *financial* ties.
In 1978, GW Bush founded an oil company named Arbusto 78. This company received investments exceeding $1 million from Salem bin Laden (older brother to Osama) and Khalid bin Mahfouz (brother-in-law to Osama bin Laden, member of the most powerful banking family in Saudi Arabia, a bank which backs the Saudi royal family) through Jim Bath, the bin Laden's American financial representative.
The Bush/Saudi ties were extensive enough by 1986 that Jim White, a former business partner of Jim Bath, claims he was offered large payoffs to avoid mentioning them.
In 1987, future president GW Bush's oil ventures had failed, and were folded into Harken Energy, a company which received a $25+ million dollar investment from Middle Eastern concern BCCI, due mostly to Bush's influence with the Saudis. Khalid bin Mahfouz is CEO of BCCI. BCCI was later discovered to be a *massive* criminal enterprise, involved in Iran-Contra, petty larceny, the Medellin drug cartel, and supporter of Saddam Hussein, Abu Nidal, and Manuel Noriega. bin Mahfouz was fined $225 million dollars.
In 1992, once out of office, George HW Bush joins the Carlyle Group, and helps strengthen the firms ties to the Saudi royal family *using his connections*. Bush even visits the bin Laden family compound. The bin Ladens invest in Carlyle. Carlyle even buys a company that trains the Saudi royal palace guard.
Khalid bin Mahfouz later serves as a representative of the Saudi royals to al-Qaeda when an agreement is made that al-Qaeda will not attack Saudi royal interests.
On September 11, 2001, HW Bush is in a meeting with the Carlyle Group; a meeting that is also attended by a brother of bin Laden. Two days later, the bin Ladens are flown out of the US.
Now, will you at least concede that the links between the Bushes and the Sauds are more than simple US-Saudi diplomatic relationships? I don't really know what Moore said about the bin Laden escape flight, but I'm willing to believe that these issues made him more willing to question the official story.
See the Canadian Broadcasting Company report:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html
That report is backed up by the resources listed here:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/resources.html
Don Roley said:
We should never have agreed to things like Kosovo with our troops stretched as thing as they were.
One could certainly make the same argument about the invasion of Iraq.
Don Roley said:
Here is the facts, the best, independent investigations into the matter say that the US never had any dealings with the Taliban or Bin Laden.
First, while we may not have formed the Taliban or train bin Laden directly, we *did* precipitate the conflict in Afghanistan (under the Carter administration). We *did* provide weapons and training to the mujahedeen, many of whom later joined the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Moreover, we did have dealings with the Taliban. US oil firm Unocal was extremely interested in a pipeline project to bring resources out of Uzbekistan through Afghanistan, and provided educational and material resources to the Taliban in order to further this project. The CIA even believed that, should the Taliban gain control of the entire country, that a US-Saudi-like relationship could be formed.