Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BBC Newsnight, Greg Palast 11/6/2001: Somebody Has Been Sitting on the FBI (Original Post) nationalize the fed Apr 2016 OP
The 1% Take Care Of Themselves - The American Public - 99% - Be Damned cantbeserious Apr 2016 #1
K&R 2naSalit Apr 2016 #2
Thanks for posting this. JDPriestly Apr 2016 #3
It has to be top down. It has to be Obama. roguevalley Apr 2016 #4
it absolutely is and... wildbilln864 Apr 2016 #7
K/R 840high Apr 2016 #5
k & freaking r! thanks for posting this! n/t wildbilln864 Apr 2016 #6
what links? zebonaut Apr 2016 #8
Kissing cousins of Cleopatra and the Welch Illuminati DhhD Apr 2016 #9
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #10

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
3. Thanks for posting this.
Mon Apr 11, 2016, 02:11 AM
Apr 2016

According to the book, The Price of Loyalty which is an account of the experience of Bush II's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Laura Bush attended a gala event hosted by the then Saudi Arabian ambassador, Bandar bin Sultan to the US not so long after 9/11.

I was not surprised that Laura Bush attended the event, but I was surprised that O'Neill thought it important enough to include in his memoir.

Why did the story of her attendance at that event surprise me? Because I think that Laura Bush must have attended many, many gala events while First Lady. That she attended an event was not surprising.

So why did O'Neill include the fact that she attended that event in his book? Was it because it was memorable because of the mourning and her partying was inappropriate at that time? Maybe because so many of the hijackers were Saudis? Maybe because Bin Laden was a Saudi? Or was it because he wanted readers in the future to know that it happened or maybe because he knew something about the ambassador that may be interesting to the readers once the full story of 9/11 is known to us?

I have wondered about that since I read O'Neill's book. It's just a kind of a tiny bit of evidence that doesn't fit into any particular theory or story for me. But I wonder if in fact it will fit somewhere once there is more information known to us all.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»BBC Newsnight, Greg Palas...