William1865
Sep 3 2003, 11:54 AM
hockeyTom
Sep 3 2003, 11:58 AM
please. Just another l.b.c. (lets blame Clinton) rehash.
gmginsfo
Sep 3 2003, 12:08 PM
Actually, I found the story interesting for its facts. Now, can Clinton help us find Saddam? With him and OJ on their respective trails, something's bound to turn up - NOT!
p2insdca
Sep 3 2003, 12:21 PM
I agree this ball has been dropped before, and since Clinton was in the White House. What amazes me is that people on the right are all too happy to quote stories that blame Clinton, but will discount stories about how the Bush Admin dropped the ball.
p2insdca
Sep 3 2003, 12:31 PM
In fact here is a great example. If this were happening under a president Gore the right would be screaming aboput how stupid this was.. Of course if there was a President Gore we wouldnt be spending 1 billon a week in Iraq and could afford to beef up the homeland protective services
http://www.msnbc.com/news/957968.asp?0cv=CB10 [ September 03, 2003, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: p2insdca ]
William1865
Sep 3 2003, 12:40 PM
Is this talking about the Immigration and Naturalization Service? I don't think they even call it that anymore. At any rate, it's a huge bureaucracy that along with the State Department couldn't keep terrorists out before 9/11 and still can't control our borders in any serious way. If you gave it an extra $20 trillion you'd probably never see a return on it. But I don't know what this has to do with the Clintonites being such wussies they couldn't even bring themselves to take on Osama bin Laden even after he destroyed one of our ships. I love how the Democrats always say the Clinton Era was a time of peace. Right...
CPT_Doom
Sep 3 2003, 01:04 PM
QUOTE
But I don't know what this has to do with the Clintonites being such wussies they couldn't even bring themselves to take on Osama bin Laden even after he destroyed one of our ships. I love how the Democrats always say the Clinton Era was a time of peace. Right...
It is amazing how good certain 20/20 hindsight is isn't it?
Exactly what is Clinton being accused of? According to the story, when the Cole was bombed (and quite frankly an attack on a military target is not as serious as an attack on a civilian target) Clinton assembled his advisors and got their opinions - and even Cohen was not in favor of retaliating. Yes that may have been a mistake, but there was nothing criminal or nefarious about it. It was an error in judgement, and one that leaders are likely to make. The important part is that they 1) admit it, and 2) deal with the consequences.
Did the American leadership underestimate the power of Bin Laden and his organization? Certainly - and that may point to the intelligence problem that some of us have been concerned about since 9/11. But more importantly the Republican leadership was just as ignorant. When exactly did Bush or any other Republican leader take on Clinton or Gore for not doing enough to combat terrorism? Exactly when did the Conservatives in America start their clarion cry for war against Al Queda - 1998, 1999, 2000? No, they began it when we all did - when we finally realized that Al Queda was a major threat - on 9/11.
And Al Queda is still operating, gaining the foothold in Iraq they
did not have before our invasion, and helping to re-establish the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now we learn (through the book promoted on the Today show this morning) that there very well may have been major players in both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that supported Al Queda financially (all of whom have mysteriously died).
The question I believe we should be asking - why hasn't Bush taken a harder line on a known enemy? Why did we waste our military resources attacking a country that had nothing to do with either Al Queda or 9/11 when we had not finished the job attacking our known enemy? Why have we not pursued the potential Saudi connections more strongly? Clinton may not have had the information he needed - Bush does not have that excuse.
PhillyFan
Sep 3 2003, 01:37 PM
QUOTE
William1865:
Is this talking about the Immigration and Naturalization Service?
Protect the borders? ummmmm, this has been tried and the minute anyone says to patrol the border of AZ and Mexico. They are labeled anti-hispanic and a racist.
PS, when did throwing money at something solve a problem? Work smarter, that might work better.
William1865
Sep 3 2003, 01:38 PM
We also had the embassy bombings in Africa and the bombing of the WTC in 1993 - all part of the peaceful Clinton Era. We bombed, what, an aspirin factory in retaliation for the Africa bombings and nothing in retaliation for the WTC bombing.
Cohen was/is a wuss, that's why he was the token Republican selected for the Clinton Administration.
William1865
Sep 3 2003, 01:46 PM
[quote]CPT_Doom:
[quote] Exactly when did the Conservatives in America start their clarion cry for war against Al Queda - 1998, 1999, 2000? No, they began it when we all did - when we finally realized that Al Queda was a major threat - on 9/11. [/quote]A few examples to answer your question, I'm sure I can find more if you like:
Conservatives Against Al Qaeda Conservatives Against Al Qaeda Conservatives Against Osama Extensive Coverage of Bin Laden by Conservatives in 2000 [ September 03, 2003, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]
sportinlife
Sep 3 2003, 02:45 PM
Perhaps both parties are making an error if they don't believe that the terrorists adjust their tactics and behavior according to the policies and personnel in charge in the USA. These terrorists are ruthless and misguided but not stupid (nor "cowardly" by the Bush administration's definition IMO). Attacking a hardened target like a warship is suicidal but may have had positive policy results in their eyes. It certainly suggests that attacking the military eventually became less useful and that this conversion happened during the Clinton era.
RazorbackTX
Sep 3 2003, 03:22 PM
716 days since the commander in chimp promised to get bin laden "dead or alive"
Good job Georgie, by the way, hows Saddam?
When all else fails
A
B
C
Always Blame Clinton
p2insdca
Sep 3 2003, 03:32 PM
William1865
My point was that if the funding was being cut to the INS or whatever they are called now, just before 9/11/03 under a Gore watch there would be hell to pay. I really think there is a dbl standard being applied.
With respect to the INS, I have a personal story to share. Last year, I renewed my Canadian passport, and went to Mexico for the weekend. Unfortunately, when coming back, I discovered that while I had my new passport with me, my old passport had my visa in it. Would you believe the computer database that the INS officers could not access any record of my last five years in the U.S., including two changes of visa status and a couple of renewals? One of the visas had even been issued by that very office, but they couldn't track it down. It occurred to me that if I had wanted to forge an I-94 (a pretty simple thing to do, if I were a well-funded terrorist), the INS officers had no way of checking whether that I-94 was legitimate. If they can't use a passport number and an SSN to find the departure number, they can't backcheck. And this is a high volume, major border crossing...I'm not talking about Eagle Pass or something. The database capabilities of the INS are pathetic. No wonder they're issuing visas to known terrorists.
While obviously (as William1865 has shown) SOME conservatives were alarmed by Al Qaeda and the Taliban (though most of those links are post-Clinton, anyway), I don't recall it being a major plank in Bush's election platform. Based on the Republican response to other Clinton military endeavors, I doubt he would have had congressional support for a war in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Hindsight is 20/20.
But supposing he had taken on the Taliban a few years ago. Is there really any reason to assume that would have prevented 9/11? So far as I know, Afghanistan wasn't an important staging post for the attacks. Weren't most of the hijackers in the U.S. for several years before the attack? Afghanistan was not critical to Al Qaeda's finances, either. The organization apparently continues to be able to stage attacks now, despite the invasion. I think better airport security, and better background checks when issuing visas would have had a better chance of preventing the tragedy than military action.
fantomas
Sep 3 2003, 08:27 PM
Look, Clinton screwed this one up. I'll say it. He wasn't afraid to go after Osama, and even signed the same sort of secret authorization that W has allowing the CIA to kill ObL, but he didn't mobilize all our forces against Al Qaeda. I tend to support Democrats, but I won't hesitate to criticize some of Clinton's failures, and his intelligence services' approaches to dealing with Al Qaeda as a global phenomenon just weren't very good. He had some successes, such as preventing what would have been a horrific bombing at LAX, and prosecuting the 1993 WTC bombers, but he should have gone after the Afghanistan training centers AND rooted out Al Qaeda on these shores as much as possible.
(None of this absolves W and Co.'s failure to listen to the Hart-Rudman recommendations or even take seriously the repeated warnings about Al Qaeda's expressed threat of crashing airplanes into buildings, which they'd tried to do in Asia, and plotted to do in France. Blame Clinton, but W also deserves blame as well. And his mess in Iraq hasn't helped.)
The real blame lies not only with the INS, but with the FBI, which according to a report just issued SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED UP on a number of obvious links from...1991!!! We then had the first inklings of an Al Qaeda plot, through Ramzi Yusef, who eventually would participate in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, when 6 people were killed and, as often is forgotten, over 1,000 injured.
BTW, why are the Taliban now launching successful attacks against US soldiers in Afghanistan? HOW are they doing this? Is Pakistan paying us lip service again? Is W going to deal with their corrupt dictator and virulently anti-American intelligence services and military? Or at least empower India to do so?
twin58
Sep 3 2003, 08:44 PM
QUOTE
CPT_Doom:
Now we learn (through the book promoted on the Today show this morning) that there very well may have been major players in both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that supported Al Queda financially (all of whom have mysteriously died).
I think the book to which you refer is
Why America Slept, by Gerald Posner.
This is swiped from today's
This Modern World:
QUOTE
Meanwhile--and you'll have to excuse the length of this post but all of these items seem intertwined to me--there's
this little bombshell from the current Time magazine describing what happened during the interrogation of terrorist Abu Zubaydah:
(Gerald) Posner elaborates in startling detail how U.S. interrogators used drugs—an unnamed \"quick-on, quick-off\" painkiller and Sodium Pentothal, the old movie truth serum—in a chemical version of reward and punishment to make Zubaydah talk. When questioning stalled, according to Posner, CIA men flew Zubaydah to an Afghan complex fitted out as a fake Saudi jail chamber, where \"two Arab-Americans, now with Special Forces,\" pretending to be Saudi inquisitors, used drugs and threats to scare him into more confessions.
Yet when Zubaydah was confronted by the false Saudis, writes Posner, \"his reaction was not fear, but utter relief.\" Happy to see them, he reeled off telephone numbers for a senior member of the royal family who would, said Zubaydah, \"tell you what to do.\" The man at the other end would be Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, a Westernized nephew of King Fahd's and a publisher better known as a racehorse owner. His horse War Emblem won the Kentucky Derby in 2002. To the amazement of the U.S., the numbers proved valid. When the fake inquisitors accused Zubaydah of lying, he responded with a 10-minute monologue laying out the Saudi-Pakistani-bin Laden triangle.
Zubaydah, writes Posner, said the Saudi connection ran through Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, the kingdom's longtime intelligence chief. Zubaydah said bin Laden \"personally\" told him of a 1991 meeting at which Turki agreed to let bin Laden leave Saudi Arabia and to provide him with secret funds as long as al-Qaeda refrained from promoting jihad in the kingdom. The Pakistani contact, high-ranking air force officer Mushaf Ali Mir, entered the equation, Zubaydah said, at a 1996 meeting in Pakistan also attended by Zubaydah. Bin Laden struck a deal with Mir, then in the military but tied closely to Islamists in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (isi), to get protection, arms and supplies for al-Qaeda. Zubaydah told interrogators bin Laden said the arrangement was \"blessed by the Saudis.\"
Zubaydah said he attended a third meeting in Kandahar in 1998 with Turki, senior isi agents and Taliban officials. There Turki promised, writes Posner, that \"more Saudi aid would flow to the Taliban, and the Saudis would never ask for bin Laden's extradition, so long as al-Qaeda kept its long-standing promise to direct fundamentalism away from the kingdom.\" In Posner's stark judgment, the Saudis \"effectively had (bin Laden) on their payroll since the start of the decade.\" Zubaydah told the interrogators that the Saudis regularly sent the funds through three royal-prince intermediaries he named.
The last eight paragraphs of the book set up a final startling development. Those three Saudi princes all perished within days of one another.
I'm still listening to the Jim Bohannon show. Now he's interviewing Peter Lance, the author of
1000 Years for Revenge.
QUOTE
1000 Years for Revenge
International Terrorism and the FBI--the Untold Story
by Peter Lance
For most Americans the true origin of the 9/11 attacks remains a mystery. But as the two jetliners hit the Twin Towers, three strangers knew exactly what had happened. FBI agent Nancy Floyd, FDNY fire marshal Ronnie Bucca, and Ramzi Yousef, the bomb-making terrorist an American judge once called \"an apostle of evil,\" had been on a collision course for years—soldiers on opposing sides of a terror war raging since the late 1980s.
Now, in 1000 Years for Revenge -- a groundbreaking investigative work that reads like an international thriller -- award-winning journalist Peter Lance reveals how the FBI missed dozens of opportunities to stop the attacks of September 11, dating back to 1989.
http://www.peterlance.com/ [ September 04, 2003, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
fantomas
Sep 3 2003, 09:10 PM
Twin, I love ya! Yes, Peter Lance is the one who laid out the missed opportunities dating back to the Bush I days.
But this Saudi-Pakistan link...I was just freestyling in my earlier post, but you know, W did make sure no one saw those 28 pages about the Saudis, and it's becoming clearer and clearer that their ties to Al Qaeda were stronger than many in the US ever thought. W's war against Iraq also was a way of diverting attention from the Saudis, who were threatened as well by Saddam. Also, didn't the bin Ladens help bail out Arbusto? Aren't they investors in the Carlyle Group, to which W's daddy is closely tied?
It's all so perverse and troubling...and who knows if we'll ever get the truth about what was and is going on?
twin58
Sep 4 2003, 12:19 AM
All in a day's work.
QUOTE
fantomas:
...and who knows if we'll ever get the truth about what was and is going on?
As long as the current government of Saudia Arabia remains intact, I doubt we'll ever get the truth. We have coddled the Saudis for decades, through both Republican and Democratic administrations. Why? Oil for one reason, Mecca for another. Think about it.
sportinlife
Sep 4 2003, 03:56 PM
Among all these conspiracy theories and cloak and dagger doings, I have only one question. When, if a point in time is identifiable, was the decision made to go after a major USA civilian target? What motivated the apparent shift from the typical attacks outside the USA's borders and/or against military targets? I think if there is an answer to this question other than that it was a natural and inevitable progression, then we will be further along in understanding how to combat these terrorists. I doubt it was just accidental.
shawnq
Sep 5 2003, 11:58 PM
At least we now know that the Bush administration let members of the Bin Laden family and other Saudi foreign nationals leave the United States in the hours after 9-11 when almost all air traffic in the US was grounded. From the NY Times:
White House Approved Departure of Saudis After Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says Dozens of people were rounded up after 9-11 only to be released months later after it was learned that they had nothing to do with 9-11, but members of the family of America's No. 1 enemy were allowed to leave when almost all Americans couldn't get a flight anywhere.
QUOTE
Top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded, a former White House adviser said today.
This used to be the stuff of conspiracy theorists.
twin58
Sep 6 2003, 06:09 PM
Seems someone at Snopes is burning the midnight oil revising the story of this episode. See Tom Tomorrow's blog.
http://www.thismodernworld.com/On the other hand, doesn't OBL have 56 brothers, sisters, half-brothers, and half-sisters all told? No idea how many cousins, nephews, nieces, etc. he must have. No doubt most have zero connection with the guy other than the name.
William1865
Sep 8 2003, 09:58 AM
Billy and the Wolf The whole rewrite of Peter and the Wolf thing is priceless.
CPT_Doom
Sep 9 2003, 12:28 PM
QUOTE
The whole rewrite of Peter and the Wolf thing is priceless.
I didn't read the whole thing, William, but what is your point? I really don't think you can lay on Clinton the notion that a lot of us have that maybe the solution to terrorism is to remove the need for the terrorists to act, not just getting the "bad guys."
As I said in the death penalty argument, all criminals start as children. The next generation of Al Queda suicide bombers is just now growing up, will we try to stop the rhetoric and training that makes them hate us, or just wait until they hate us and put them in prison or kill them? We have a choice, and I believe the administration is making the wrong decision.
But none of this has to do with Clinton's performance as President before January 2001. I asked earlier when the conservatives first started criticizing Clinton's actions with regard to Al Queda, and you provided policy pieces from after his presidency.
If Clinton was so wrong, then why did Bush not make it an issue in the 2000 campaign, when he was planning the invasion of Iraq anyway? Why didn't Congressional Republicans, who were always willing to find any reason to criticize Clinton, pushing him to act more forcefully? As I recall it, when he did launch airstrikes (and it wasn't just an aspirin factory, it was training camps as well), wasn't he accused of wagging the dog?
You can't blame Clinton for missing the point of Al Queda, the whole country did. We all thought Al Queda types were laughable enemies, because they failed so completely in the first WTC attack. We were all wrong.
William1865
Sep 9 2003, 12:38 PM
QUOTE
CPT_Doom:
QUOTE
The whole rewrite of Peter and the Wolf thing is priceless.
But none of this has to do with Clinton's performance as President before January 2001. I asked earlier when the conservatives first started criticizing Clinton's actions with regard to Al Queda, and you provided policy pieces from after his presidency.
Here is the exact question you asked: "Exactly when did the Conservatives in America start their clarion cry for war against Al Queda - 1998, 1999, 2000? No, they began it when we all did - when we finally realized that Al Queda was a major threat - on 9/11."
Two of the pieces I posted in response to this were from 2000. Two were from early 2001. All were before Sept. 11. I don't think it is all that fair of you to go changing the question now just because the answer proved you wrong.
[ September 09, 2003, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]
6iron
Sep 9 2003, 04:49 PM
Here's the BIG picture: the Bush administration has done nothing tangible to bring the supposed terrorists to justice.
Unless, of course, you consider the hundreds of lives, billions of dollars spent in vain on pursuing Osama and Saddam.
The Clinton administration may have been unwilling unwilling to get Osama, et al, but the Bush regime has been unable .
twin58
Sep 9 2003, 08:27 PM
More on the maybe/maybe not airlift of OBL's relatives and other Saudis in the aftermath of 9-11.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm
William1865
Sep 10 2003, 05:37 AM
QUOTE
6iron:
Here's the BIG picture: the Bush administration has done nothing tangible to bring the supposed terrorists to justice.
Supposed terrorists? You don't think they're really terrorists? Where do you work, Reuters? You've just confirmed what everyone thought of you.
There are so many things I could try to explain to you, but what's the point? Maybe I'll just send you some wacko private message and then refuse to explain what it means.
[ September 10, 2003, 05:38 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]
RazorbackTX
Sep 10 2003, 06:21 AM
723 days since the commander in chimp promised to get bin laden "dead or alive"
6iron
Sep 10 2003, 10:59 AM
Or maybe William1865 could just spare us the cryptic comments and right wing propaganda and stay on point? Silence = Golden.
hockeyTom
Sep 10 2003, 11:13 AM
6iron. Excellent point my friend about unwilling and unable. wink
William1865
Sep 10 2003, 11:29 AM
QUOTE
puckman1:
6iron. Excellent point my friend about unwilling and unable. wink
Homer : No matter how good you are at something there's always about a million people better than you.
Bart : Gotcha. Can't win, don't try
William1865
Sep 10 2003, 11:34 AM
QUOTE
6iron:
Or maybe William1865 could just spare us the cryptic comments and right wing propaganda and stay on point? Silence = Golden.
You can send thoughts like this to me in a private message, assuming it makes sense somehow.
fantomas
Sep 10 2003, 12:19 PM
Okay, William, so you got a private message! Sheesh! Do you have to keep repeating it? Address the sender off this thread.
To 6iron, Clinton repeatedly tried to get Osama bin Laden, but failed to do so. W. hasn't done much better; Osama just issued another videotape of him and his venomous pal Ahman Al-Zawahiri strolling up a mountain, calling for the death of American soldiers in Iraq, pronouncing the need for a Holy War in Palestine. All the usual craziness he's known for.
W did say he'd get him, that was his top priority. I guess that's fallen into the same black hole as those tons of weapons of mass destruction.
William1865
Sep 10 2003, 12:38 PM
QUOTE
fantomas:
Okay, William, so you got a private message! Sheesh! Do you have to keep repeating it? Address the sender off this thread.
I just think it's a bit - oh, I don't know - psychotic to send somebody a cryptic stalker-type private message and then not respond when they ask you for a very basic explanation of what on Earth they're talking about. Maybe one of their other personalities sent it, who knows.
6iron
Sep 10 2003, 02:22 PM
For the Record: never sent anyone a private message. Don't really have anything to share with him other than what is posted here.
William1865
Sep 10 2003, 02:32 PM
QUOTE
6iron:
For the Record: never sent anyone a private message. Don't really have anything to share with him other than what is posted here.
Hello, William1865 [ log out ] Outsports » My Profile » Private Message: Congratulations!
« Delete Private Message » You can not respond to this PM until the recipient replies.
Author Topic: Congratulations!
6iron
Member
Member # 1535 posted August 12, 2003 10:45 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've just confirmed what everyone thought of you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Portland, OR
William1865
Member
Member # 302 posted August 13, 2003 06:48 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that would be...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Washington, DC
All times are Pacific Time
« Delete Private Message » You can not respond to this PM until the recipient replies.
6iron
Sep 10 2003, 02:42 PM
Oooh, that really is creepy.
If this is something more than a cut and paste job by the author, then I'm assuming it was intended as a post.
But to the point: I can't imagine why someone would get their panties in a bunch about being congratulated.
fantomas
Sep 10 2003, 09:33 PM
That message is too elliptical for me. Let's stick with Billybob, Dubs, and the psycho (because truly William, political disagreements aside, I think bin Laden really does merit the epithet) Saudi Svengali (Osama, that is).
[ September 10, 2003, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
twin58
Sep 11 2003, 09:49 AM
Book Reviews QUOTE
Looking Back And Seeing The Future Of Terror
By Richard Leiby,
a staff writer in The Post's Style section
Wednesday, September 10, 2003; Page C01
1000 YEARS FOR REVENGE
International Terrorism And the FBI -- The Untold Story
By Peter Lance
ReganBooks. 539 pp. $27.95
THE MAN WHO WARNED AMERICA
The Life and Death of John O'Neill, the FBI's Embattled Counterterror Warrior
By Murray Weiss
ReganBooks. 464 pp. $25.95
WHY AMERICA SLEPT
The Failure to Prevent 9/11
By Gerald Posner
Random House. 241 pp. $24.95
Several new books spread blame for the intelligence fiascoes leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Choose your favorite culprit -- the CIA, the FBI, the INS, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush. There's plenty of political hubris and bureaucratic bungling to lay bare. But all such critiques benefit from expert hindsight and face a high hurdle: Tell us something we didn't already know, or suspect, two years after the skyjackers slammed airplanes into buildings.
Peter Lance, a former correspondent for ABC News, clears the bar with \"1000 Years for Revenge.\" So does Gerald Posner in \"Why America Slept,\" but it's a far less engaging read -- unless you proceed directly to the startling material in the final chapter.
....
\"Why America Slept\" is a solidly researched catalogue of what Posner calls \"fumbled investigations and misplaced priorities,\" but it lacks page-turning prose until the end, when he lays out a remarkable tale suggesting there could have been more Saudi Arabian complicity in the 9/11 plot than previously known.
Citing two \"government sources,\" Posner details the U.S. interrogation of Abu Zubaida, a Saudi-born al Qaeda operations chief who was wounded by gunfire during his March 2002 capture in Pakistan. By withholding pain medication, administering sodium pentothal and setting up a \"false-flag\" operation to make Zubaida think he was in a Saudi prison and certain to be executed, the CIA may have gotten more than it bargained for from the ruse.
In Posner's telling, Zubaida was actually relieved to see his \"Saudi\" inquisitors (played by two Arab American Special Forces soldiers) and gave them, from memory, the home and cell phone numbers of a senior member of the Saudi ruling family. \"He will tell you what to do,\" the terrorist told them.
The numbers, according to Posner, belonged to Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz -- better known to Americans as the owner of War Emblem, the horse that won last year's Kentucky Derby.
Zubaida also spilled secrets about alleged cooperation among bin Laden, the Saudi royals and Pakistani officials, and he claimed both countries knew the attack on America was imminent. To confirm his tale, Zubaida gave the interrogators private phone numbers for two more Saudi princes.
Within four months, all three princes met untimely ends in Saudi Arabia, in rapid succession. The horse owner died of a heart attack at 43; his cousin died in a car wreck en route to the funeral; the third, age 25, \"died of thirst\" during a trip in the summer heat.
Posner, always the measured skeptic, draws no conclusions but says he believes his sources. In any event, he is certainly saying something new.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
[ September 11, 2003, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.