AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: USA Means "Under Saudi Arabia"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
You know the issue, why Saudi Arabia, home of Islamic terrorism, home of 15 of the 19 terrorists of 9/11, home of Bin Laden that still aids him, spiritual home of the Taleban; never got touched by that demagogic "war on terror". Oil and many billions of Assets in America will buy that.

Quote:USA Means "Under Saudi Arabia"
...Thanks to the Bush Family
By Mike Hersh

Dec. 24, 2001 (APJP) -- USA now stands for "Under Saudi Arabia."

The Saudis bought both George W. Bush and his father. Ties between the Bush and bin Laden families, the Carlyle Group, and Saudi Arabia let the Riyadh regime beat America like a rented camel.

As the Boston Herald reported, "Many of the same American corporate executives who have reaped millions of dollars from arms and oil deals with the Saudi monarchy have served or currently serve at the highest levels of U.S. government, public records show."

According to the Herald, we have to worry because "Those lucrative financial relationships call into question the ability of America's political elite to make tough foreign policy decisions about the kingdom that produced Osama bin Laden and is perhaps the biggest incubator for anti-Western Islamic terrorists."

How close are Bush family ties to Saudi Arabia? "Nowhere is the revolving U.S.-Saudi money wheel more evident than within President Bush's own coterie of foreign policy advisers, starting with the president's father, George H.W. Bush," explains this Herald exposé.

Columnist Jimmy Breslin wrote: "Our government knows...that Saudi Arabians were the murderers on the planes on Sept. 11. The leader was this guy Atta, from Saudi Arabia, and he flew the plane into the north tower."

But these are just terrorists, out of favor with the Saudis...right?

Wrong!

"Listen to the tape that finally got out Friday, here is a cleric saying with exuberance that people in Saudi Arabia thought bin Laden had done a great thing, killing all those people in New York."

How does all this Saudi money in the pockets of Bush's friends and family hurt us? On the BBC Newsnight program, Greg Palast asks: "The CIA and Saudi Arabia, the Bushes and the Bin Ladens. Did their connections cause America to turn a blind eye to terrorism?"

On that program, national security expert Joe Trento answers clearly. These conflicts of interests mean: "[T]housands of Americans had to die needlessly." Peter Elsner wonders: "How can it be that the former President of the US and the current President of the US have business dealings with characters that need to be investigated?"

Citing a document marked "Secret. Case ID - 199-Eye WF 213 589," Palast explained: "Washington field office special agents were investigating [Osama Bin Laden's brother Abdullah Bin Laden, president and treasurer of WAMY - a suspected terrorist organisation]"

Palast identified "3411 Silver Maple Place [in Washington DC suburb Falls Church, Virginia as] the former home of Abdullah and another [Osama bin Laden] brother, Omar, also an FBI suspect. It's conveniently close to WAMY, [located] in the basement at 5613 Leesburg Pike. [And] a couple blocks down the road at 5913 Leesburg [Pike] where four of the hijackers that attacked New York and Washington...lived."

Trento explains, "The FBI wanted to investigate these guys. [But] they weren't permitted to. [WAMY has] connections to Osama Bin Laden's people. [And] They fit the pattern of groups that the Saudi royal family...have funded who've engaged in terrorist activity. [And] as far back as 1996 the FBI was very concerned about this organisation."

National security agents told Palast that Bush ordered them to "back off" their investigations into the bin Ladens, WAMY, and the terrorists living nearby. This Bush obsequiousness toward Saudis with alarming connections to terrorism is nothing new.

Also on the BBC, former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, Michael Springman appeared explaining: "In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants." [And] I complained bitterly at the time there." [Because] "What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits, rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the CIA."

The BBC reported "The attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 did not shake the State Department's faith in the Saudis, nor did the attack on American barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia three years later, in which 19 Americans died. FBI agents began to feel their investigation was being obstructed."

Bush concerns for Saudi sensibilities fatally compromised our national security. According to a Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune story, the Pan Am International Flight Academy reported suspicious behavior to the FBI and FAA. Some Arab nationals were lying about their background, and trying to learn to fly 747s.

According to this report, published December 21, 2001- "Besides alerting the FBI about [Zacarias] Moussaoui, the school's Phoenix office called the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) early this year about another student -- Hani Hanjour, who was believed to be the pilot of the plane that flew into the Pentagon on Sept. 11." But the Bush administration did nothing.

Look how specific the warning was: "Do you realize how serious this is?" the instructor asked an FBI agent. "This man wants training on a 747. A 747 fully loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon!" -- this quoted from briefings to Congressional offices, as reported in the Star Trib. One of the suspicious men reported to the FBI flew the jet into the Pentagon. The other is about to stand trial for terrorism.

Pan Am reported suspicions about these men to the Bush FBI and the Bush FAA. Nothing happened. It looks as if Bush ordered the investigators to "back off" because Bush's family makes millions of dollars in business dealings with the bin Ladens and other Saudis, thereby jeopardizing our national security to coddle Saudis. Again, as reported in the Star Tribune:

"An FAA representative sat in on a class to observe Hanjour, who was from Saudi Arabia." Did this Bush official report Hanjour to the FBI? No. He "discussed with school officials finding an Arabic-speaking person to help him with his English, said Oberstar and others with direct knowledge of the school's briefings." Rather than haul in this terrorist in training for questioning, the Bush FAA helped him learn to fly one of our jets into one of our buildings.

Pan Am personnel weren't as trusting as the Bush administration, and sought to alert law enforcement. The Star Trib reports: "When the instructor phoned, the FBI agent strongly urged him to pursue the matter but gave him the wrong agent to call, the sources said. The instructor made three more calls before reaching the right agent on Aug. 15, the sources said. Moussaoui was arrested the next day and held on an immigration violation." Clearly the problem was not the FBI -- at least not the local agents.

"The FBI then checked Moussaoui's name with foreign intelligence agencies, and was warned by the French intelligence service that he may have terrorist connections. But the Minneapolis agents were unable to persuade FBI lawyers in Washington, D.C., to seek a warrant." Was this because Bush ordered the FBI to drop its investigations which might embarrass Bush's Saudi bosses?

"[Minnesota Rep. Jim] Oberstar, the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said Pan Am 'acted in the public interest' with both Moussaoui and Hanjour." Too bad that concept seems alien to the oil-obsessed Bushes.

The Tribune added: "Oberstar and Minnesota Rep. Martin Sabo [House appropriations transportation subcommittee Chairman], who also was briefed by the school, praised Pan Am for its efforts to safeguard the skies and for passing federal authorities clues to possible terrorist activities before Sept. 11."

Bush, whose decisions show a pattern that lead many to think that he is more afraid of offending Saudis than of Saudis killing us, ordered government watchdogs to ignore those critical clues. Now thousands of Americans are dead.

To make matters murkier, a recent report from ABC News details the actual content "inaudible" comments on the bin Laden tape released by Bush that clearly exposes Saudis who support bin Laden and praise the 9/11 murders.

Why did the Bush administration delay releasing the bin Laden videotape, and why did their translation omit or change critical passages? "The translation [of the bin Laden video tape] commissioned by ABC News [contradicts the Bush version, and] reveals new elements that raise questions about what the [U.S.] government left out of the official version and why."

The explanation is obvious, as ABC answers their own question: "The new translation uncovers statements that could be embarrassing to the government of Saudi Arabia," and "Bin Laden's visitor, Khalid al Harbi, a Saudi dissident, claims that he was smuggled into Afghanistan by a member of Saudi Arabia's religious police."

ABC News doesn't question why the Saudi police would be helping a so-called "dissident" meet with supposed pariah bin Laden, but reports: "[On the tape, Harbi] tells bin Laden that in Saudi Arabia, several prominent clerics -- some with connections to the Saudi government -- made speeches supporting the attacks on America."

These statements are not merely embarrassing to the Saudi royal family, but evidence of top-level Saudi government support for bin Laden, even after the 9/11 attacks.

"It shows that bin Laden's support is not limited to the radical side of Islam but also among the Saudi religious establishment," says Fawaz Gerges, professor of Middle Eastern studies at Sarah Lawrence College. "And that is bad news for Saudi Arabia," reports ABC.

Our government seeming to cover up Saudi complicity is bad news for all of us.

Despite two generations of Bushes slavishly serving Saudi interests, the arrogant oil sheiks escalate their demands and flout their support of bin Laden and terror.

ABC news reports: "U.S. officials and diplomats still privately gripe about the lack of Saudi cooperation in investigating previous anti-U.S. terrorist incidents in the kingdom." Saudi state-run media and top officials lash out at "U.S. media [they consider] critical about the lack of Saudi support for the ongoing investigations."

The New York Times rang the alarm bell in an October 14, 2001 editorial called: "Reconsidering Saudi Arabia." Critically, "One of the disturbing realities clarified by last month's terror attacks is Saudi Arabia's tolerance for terrorism," The Times noted. Also: "America's deeply cynical relationship with Riyadh" includes Saudi support for "Islamic extremists," and our "muted ? objections to keep oil flowing."

On September 11, this oil soaked quid-pro-quo exploded, revealing "that the Saudi behavior was more malignant" than we'd pretended. Our blood is on Saudi hands, because "money and manpower from Saudi Arabia helped create and sustain Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization."

According to this insightful editorial: "Saudi Arabia sponsor[ed] Afghanistan's ruling Taliban movement, along with Pakistan. Saudi money, religious teachings and diplomats helped the Taliban secure and keep control of Afghanistan. The country was then used to provide sanctuary and training camps for the bin Laden network." Additionally, "The Saudi government has allowed Saudi...organizations to funnel money to Al Qaeda and its terrorist network."

Rather than rush to help remedy the catastrophic damage their policies inflicted on innocent Americans, the Saudis stonewall. "Since Sept. 11, Riyadh has refused pleas from Washington to freeze Mr. bin Laden's assets and those of his associates." Arab news services confirm these facts.

Noting that, "Of the 19 hijackers who carried out last month's attacks, at least 10 were Saudi nationals," the Times reports, "Riyadh has so far refused to cooperate fully with Washington's investigations of hijacking suspects." The Saudis supported our enemies, according to a New York Times editorial, when they "barred Washington from using Saudi air bases to launch attacks against Afghanistan."

Our so-called "allies" act more like diffident imperial overlords. According to ABC, "[Saudi leaders] are bitter about what they regard as a U.S. media campaign blaming Riyadh for tolerating or even breeding religious fanaticism, financing guerrilla and terrorist movements like bin Laden's al Qaeda, crushing zealous reformers and tolerating widespread corruption." This although the Saudis are "breeding religious fanaticism, financing guerrilla and terrorist movements like bin Laden's al Qaeda," and have for several years!

Arab sources are even more specific about Saudi resentment and lack of cooperation. The Arabic News.Com reported, "The Saudi defense minister Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz has accused Zionism of being behind the media campaign against Saudi Arabia in the US. This was expressed in statements issued on Thursday in the Saudi press." The same source reported: "Saudi Arabia has refused to comply to a US request to freeze bank accounts Washington suspects that they have links to certain terrorist groups." [sic]

Saudi officials see nothing wrong with their support for terror and their obstruction of American efforts to combat terror. They dismiss even deferential questioning of their pro-terror activities as "Zionism" in the US media.

It comes down to this: Americans want to defend themselves against terrorism. The Saudis want to continue supporting terrorists and undermining our efforts.

Just whose side is Bush on?

On BBC's Newsnight, Palast asks: "Does the Bush family also have to worry about political blow-back?" We should hope so, because, "The younger Bush made his first million 20 years ago with an oil company partly funded by Salem Bin Laden's chief US representative. [He] also received fees as director of a subsidiary of Carlyle Corporation, a little known private company which has, in just a few years of its founding, become one of Americas biggest defence contractors. His father, Bush Senior, is also a paid advisor. And what became embarrassing was the revelation that the Bin Ladens held a stake in Carlyle, sold just after September 11."

Consider this smoking gun that links Bush family financial interests to the break down in national security on 9/11. Palast reports: "I received a phone call from a high-placed member of a US intelligence agency. [Saying] under George Bush...the agencies were told to 'back off' investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents."

The Bushes, James A. "The Fixer" Baker III (who helped Bush steal the election), Dick Cheney, the Carlyle Group, and a band of Texas oil barons who backed Bush's political career have put their financial interests above our national interests for long enough.

Their big money interests clearly rest with the Saudis, not Americans.

Like his father before him, Bush placates his Saudi masters like some appointed colonial satrap or toady. He goes to any length to avoid annoying his bosses in Riyadh, whose demands and indignation escalate constantly.

This goes far beyond Bush lying under oath and helping his cronies cover up ghoulish grave robbing.

Bush can only serve one nation: the US or Saudi Arabia. He, his father, and their rich, powerful friends have to make a choice: us or them.

How can anyone not conclude, after reviewing the facts, that they have all sold their souls and our sovereignty for oil, and it is killing us?

Doesn't Bush care how many of us die?

How much American blood will Bush risk for Saudi oil? Where is the outrage? When do we stand up and demand our independence from Saudi Arabia and the Bushes? When do we start the impeachment? When do we get the United States back from the Saudis?
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20011224Hersh.html
Isn't freedom of speech wonderful? lol

Any idiot can write just about anything about anybody.
Ken
quadrat you do know you've been snookered, don't you? Hersh put together one piece of disinformation piled higher and deeper atop another, and instead of you understanding each lie as it comes, you just unknowingly accepted one lie after another and were led like a Lemming over the cliff.

Just to start (The article is too stupid to take with much serious effort) look at the line: "The Saudis bought both George W. Bush and his father. Ties between the Bush and bin Laden families, the Carlyle Group, and Saudi Arabia let the Riyadh regime beat America like a rented camel."

That came right out of the Michael Moore movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 and has been thoroughly refuted. Osama bin Laden is a pauper, cut off from his family's funds. He raises money through Jihadist mosques throughout the world. The 9/11 Commission gave The Bush administration an A for stripping bin Laden of his money. Much of that fiduciary skill came with the assist of the Saudi government. The Carlyle group is a company wrongly reported to have deep ties with former President Bush.

Newsweek Wrote:June 30 - In his new movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, film-maker Michael Moore makes the eye-popping claim that Saudi Arabian interests have given $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush. This, Moore suggests, helps explain one of the principal themes of the film: that the Bush White House has shown remarkable solicitude to the Saudi royals, even to the point of compromising the war on terror. When you and your associates get money like that, Moore says at one point in the movie, "who you gonna like? Who's your Daddy?"

But a cursory examination of the claim reveals some flaws in Moore's arithmetic - not to mention his logic. Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger's book, House of Bush, House of Saud. Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990's that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country's military and National Guard. What's the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president's father, George H.W. Bush.

Leave aside the tenuous six-degrees-of-separation nature of this "connection." The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998 - five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm. True enough, the former president was paid for one speech to Carlyle and then made an overseas trip on the firm's behalf the previous fall, right around the time BDM was sold. But Ullman insists any link between the former president's relations with Carlyle and the Saudi contracts to BDM that were awarded years earlier is entirely bogus. "The figure is inaccurate and misleading," said Ullman. "The movie clearly implies that the Saudis gave $1.4 billion to the Bushes and their friends. But most of it went to a Carlyle Group company before Bush even joined the firm. Bush had nothing to do with BDM."

PLease forget your desire to prove your misunderstanding correct when it is wrong. Start from scratch with an unbiased agenda, and you may catch up with the rest of us.
Anyone doing about 5 minutes of searching can find the US-Saudi special relationship started while FDR was still alive.

As to why we haven't attacked Saudi Arabia,probably because they haven't warred on us us or offered to help anyone else do so.

I suggest the brave atheists of Europe occupy Mecca since the Muslims seem to be occupying Europe.
Hey, Palladin...
Fascinating story...
The Brits gave the King of Saudi Arabia a Rolls Royce...to help negotiate oil drilling rights....

FDR gave the King...HIS wheelchair. (the King was crippled up too.)

The steering wheel on the rolls put the driver in the dominant position...(right hand wheel) which pissed off the King. FDR's wheelchair was considered a wonderful gift to the crippled up King.

...Aramco was born.

a trillion dollars later...for both parties...We are still friends with the royal family.
Pretty neat how humans can react...like real humans, huh?
Ken
I never heard the wheelchair story before. It was a close-kept secret that FDR was even incapacitated until shortly before he died. He was always photographed already sitting in a normal chair. The bios always said this was done not out of vanity but to project a strong image.
Quote:That came right out of the Michael Moore movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 and has been thoroughly refuted. Osama bin Laden is a pauper, cut off from his family's funds. He raises money through Jihadist mosques throughout the world. The 9/11 Commission gave The Bush administration an A for stripping bin Laden of his money. Much of that fiduciary skill came with the assist of the Saudi government. The Carlyle group is a company wrongly reported to have deep ties with former President Bush.
I know, and Santa Claus really exists. As matters of fact, Bush/America could not/did not want to prevent 9/11. Bush/America, inspite the ringing words, have not managed to catch that Bin Laden for five years after 9/11 because they don't want it. Bin Laden still has to serve his purpose.
Saudi Arabia is still the same fundamental-islamic place with the most schools and universities where you can learn everything about hate towards the west. Saudi Arabia is still the main source for terrorists, for their ideological support, and their financial support. USA does nothing to prevent that, they rather burn the billions and troopers in Irak. Which had no connection to terrorism, they were rather allies against fundamental Islam and Bin Laden. What do these facts prove? War on terror is a fraud.
Yeah Wm. I heard the story from our Saudi Joint Venture Partner while I was living there. Evidently the story is quite well remembered within the royal family, and passed on as a "wow! isn't that interesting" type story.

The Brits were already well established in the oil industry there in the Gulf, when we entered negotiations with the Saudis. We were the new kid on the block, but got the nod from the old King due to a simple respect for his traditions as we were guests in his country.

That is also why I was so successful there. I recognized a dichotomy.
On the one hand, the Saudis had an almost gleeful attitude that "Give an American enough money and they can do anything."...combined with
"Unlike the Europeans, these Americans come as guests and partners in developing our resources."
The first Gulf War, sadly, eroded some of that...perhaps a lot of that. Interestingly enough, it was the idea of our female troops helping defend Kuwait and Saudi that drove some Saudis absolutely bonkers.

(I can understand that, liberated male that I am. It would be difficult to handle my date bailing me out of a mugging by karate chopping the mugger.)
Ken