Bush, the Saudis, and 9/11 (from Vanity Fair)

[paulthompson]

Here's an article from Vanity Fair in October 2003. However, at the time it came out, there was no web link to it, so I doubt many here have read it. I've finally found a web link:

"Just days after 9/11, wealthy Saudi Arabians, including members of the bin Laden family, were whisked out of the U.S. on private jets. No one will admit to clearing the flights, and the passengers weren't questioned. Did the Bush family's long relationship with the Saudis make it happen?"

http://www.wesjones.com/saudi1.htm

After the article came out, Colin Powell and others confirmed the truth of the secret flights.

Michael Moore talks about this stuff a bit in his new book, and I think the Bush-Saudi connection is going to be a big part of his next movie, Farenheit 911.

Please read the article if you haven't already.

I think this is a safe, incontrovertible angle the Demos should be pushing. Despite his bluster, Bush is actually soft on terrorism because of his cozying up to the Saudis. Some of the biggest supporters of terrorism, such as billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, aren't even wanted men because of their long business relations with Bush Jr.

[kanrok]

1. Drip.....Drip....Mutha effin' Drip....

n/t

[FDRrocks]

2. "Bush, the Saudis, and 9/11 (from Vanity Fair)"

(from Vanity Fair) I love that! Wait'll Farhenheit 9/11 comes out.

[Eric J in MN]

8. someone posted the documentary "Farenheit 911" won't be

Someone posted the documentary "Farenheit 911" won't be released until Election Day, and so it won't affect the election.

[FDRrocks]

11. But if will affect the long term...

which is what I care about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Vanity Fair

Drip, Drip, Drip... drip, music to my ears

[Military Brat]

4. It's all rhetoric, all the time, with bush

He is soft on terrorism, the roots of terrorism. He makes angry speeches, employs techniques of distraction, starts wars, but he never addresses terrorism at its roots. Why not? Because without war, what the hell do we need bush for?

I wish I had saved the link, but a recent article indicated that Perle, the chickenhawk extraordinaire, has outlined a plan which in fact includes eventual military aggression against Saudi Arabia; the last domino, as it were. It seems to me the bush** administration is doing everything a** backwards.

[FDRrocks]

5. That would be odd RE: attacking Saudi Arabia...

It has been in the back of my mind that Iraq and Afghanistan were just beating around the bush and avoiding a halt of our affair with Saudi Arabia, where much of the money for radical Terrorism seems to come from (as well as the bodies used, in the case of 9/11).

Unless Afghanistan was just a reaction that the populous seems to want, and Iraq was just an attempt to get a foothold in the area for a future attack on Saudi Arabia, I cannot see it happen.

Either way I don't support any of it.

[paulthompson]

6. Attack Saudi Arabia?

That's silly. Crazily enough, there are actually other ways of resolving foreign disputes short of attacking and conquering countries. It's interesting how widely accepted Bush's absurd preemptive doctrine has become. It's also funny how the countries people talk of invading always seem to be the ones with lots of oil.

The House of Saud is badly riven by a power struggle. Those who support terrorism and even had a role in or foreknowledge of 9/11 represent just a tiny fraction of the thousands of princes in that country. The point should be to find those people and bring them to justice instead of punishing the unwitting populace of a whole country. Saudi Arabia is extremely economically dependent on the US and is very fragile right now - if the US said cough up your terrorist supporters or face economic sanctions, they would have no choice but to do so. But the US won't ask because those people have long ties to the Bush cabal, and know too much.

[FDRrocks]

7. MY whole deal against Afghanistan...

Iraq really, and most wars about kicking the government out... It seems to me we could remove a government without a war, pretty easily.

[paulthompson]

9. I hear ya

I must say though that I fell for the Afghanistan scam, like most everyone else.

I wish I would have seen this quote before that war started:

a US official later says that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr. bin Laden was captured."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/falloftaliban/page.cfm?objectid=11427607&method=full

In other words, we didn't invade Afghanistan to get bin Laden. In fact, we hoped we wouldn't capture bin Laden and lose our excuse to conquer the country.

[FDRrocks]

10. I hear you as well! n/t

EOM

[RainDog]

16. Invasions

Afghanistan- OBL was there and Americans would demand an attack against him...me included...after 9-11. But in addition, the Taliban was being too demanding in talks with Unocal for a pipeline through the country to connect Pakistan, our unstable ally and the largest user of natural gas in the region for their economy.

Pakistan is much more difficult as a global issue. Gen. Mush. is, unfortunately, the thin barrier between Islamic radicals and nuclear weapons. He balances between a cooperation with the US and Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, which helped the Taliban in the war in Afghanistan after 9-11.

Unfortunately, the world isn't black and white, like Bush would like to draw it...and he doesn't live the way he talks, either.

With the invasion of Iraq, we had a place to put US troops, and thus withdraw from Saudi Arabia, a demand of OBL. Bush won't admit this, of course.

The best thing the Saudi princes could do would be to institute educational reform so that people in the country, especially women, get a modern education, not one filtered through the Wahabbist Muslim extremist tradition.

But the House of Saud also made a deal with their Wahabbist radicals, so they could not do this without major opposition.

But if they would institute educational reform, they could offer an alternative to religious indoctrination and could improve the lot of women in their nation. Women, apparently, are the key to understanding how democractic a nation is, or can be.

When women are educated, they tend to have fewer children. With fewer children, they participate more in larger society. These two factors, according to an interesting demographer, are indications of sustainable democracy.

So, rather than attack other countries, if we would participate in building literacy and better societies, or encourage the same via political pressure, we would be doing ourselves a great favor.

There is something called "doyle's law" which says that liberal democracies do not wage war against each other.

To really encourage democracy, again, we should encourage literacy and birth control in the hands of women.

These two factors will never fly with hawks, or their religious fundamentalist supporters.

Not only that, but by strengthenging democracy in other nations, they are empowered, and it seems that the US does not want anyone else to be able to decide their own govt, even when it is democratic...Venezuela is the current case in point.

[Q]

12. Can you imagine a Democratic president having connections...

...to terrorists and the US Media ignoring it?

- That's why I'm convinced that the US media is in on the ploy to keep Americans 'out of the loop'.

- When you put certain things together:

1. Bush family social/business relationships with Saudi/bin Landen families

2. Flying them out without questioning after 9-11

3. All references to Saudi 'edited' out of 9-11 report

- Even a really dumb investigative reporter could make a story out of this.

[SpiralHawk]

13. Doh - Calling All Investigative Reporters with a Shred of Personal

Dignity: Q has just served you up a crucial -- albeit "no-brainer" -- story.

Do yourself and the US public a favor: report the truth.

Anyone out there?

[RainDog]

14. in a strange turn

Perle just published a book, a "manifesto" which asks Bush to "come clean" about this relationship with the Saudis.

The neocons are losing the fight to wage war w/o end, at least until the election.

Interesting that they would attack Bush on this front.

Paul, do you also have a link to a Vanity Fair article from the guy who tried to help the FBI discover the i.d. of the anthrax terrorist?

I think it was in that same issue, but maybe not.

It's a MUST READ and would be a good addition to your site.

[rman]

15. so maybe there will be an investigation...

one neocon investigating another neocon, kinda like with the 9-11 investigation..
But it will look good in the eyes of the media, and thus look good in the eyes of the people.

[RainDog]

17. I think this fight is going on outside of most American's eyes

...and has been going on for a bit.

I don't imagine that Bush wants anyone to see the infighting because his administration has been so solid at stonewalling.

but since the invasion of Iraq, the neocons have been on the defensive since they botched the intelligence, and since Rummy was wrong and Gen. Shinseki (and Lugar and Gen. Zinni, etc.) were right about the amount of time and resources needed to stablize Iraq.

When Bush could not force our allies to provide troops w/o any compensation vis a vis the spoils of war, Baker was called in from the opposing Republican side...the "realpolitick" side ala Kissinger and Poppy Bush.

As Baker was going to France to negotitate debt reduction for Iraq, Bush announced an end to steel tariffs...a major contention with EU nations.

At the same time, Wolfowitz announced that no EU nations would have any reconstruction contracts in Iraq...an attempt by the neocons to undermine the Baker relativists.

Perle's manifesto comes at the time when Baker is meeting with leaders in the middle east...Perle calls for invasions of Syria and Iran and a blockade of NK...world war, in other words.

At the same time, the earthquake in Iran has opened a conciliatory moment b/t the U.S. and Iran via aid for reconstruction, rather than brute force.

Again, whether Bush is playing at "moderation" in order to win a re-election, after which time he will again let the neocons have their wars is not clear.

But even if they want their wars, they have to contend with the reality of the U.S.'s lack of economic strength to back up its military when our deficits must also be financed by the nations we are dissing via the neocons.

[paulthompson]

18. Link, and the neocons

Here's a link to the anthrax article you asked for:

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/messageanthrax.html

I actually thought it was a lousy article. He keeps flogging the idea that Steven Hatfill did it, an idea everyone has pretty much given up in the last couple of months, except for a few die hards.

But there is a very curious section in the article that points in a totally different direction. There was a letter that was sent just before the anthrax attacks began that appeared to try and frame a Dr. Assaad for the attacks. He was an Arab American who worked at USAMRIID, the most likely source of the anthrax for the attacks. The author of this article did a handwriting analysis of this letter framing Assaad, and claimed to have come up with a "perfect match" with a female USAMRIID employee.

But the FBI isn't interested in this mysterious female or the letter. Bizarre.

Regarding Perle, he and the rest of the neocons have a hard on thinking about conquering Saudi Arabia. Here's my timeline entry that best shows this:

July 10, 2002: A briefing given to a top Pentagon advisory group states, "The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader ... Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies." They are called "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent." This position still runs counter to official US policy, but the Washington Post says it "represents a point of view that has growing currency within the Bush administration." The briefing suggests that the Saudis be given an ultimatum to stop backing terrorism or face seizure of its oil fields and its financial assets invested in the United States. The group, the Defense Policy Board, is headed by Richard Perle. (Washington Post, 8/6/02) A international controversy follows the public reports of the briefing in August 2002 (see for instance, (Scotsman, 8/12/02)). In an abrupt change, the media starts calling the Saudis enemies, not allies of the US. Slate reports details of the briefing the Post failed to mention. The briefing states, "There is an 'Arabia,' but it needs not be 'Saudi'". The conclusion of the briefing: "Grand strategy for the Middle East: Iraq is the tactical pivot. Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot. Egypt the prize." (Slate, 8/7/02) Note that a similar meeting of the Defense Policy Board appears to have preceded and affected the US's decision to take a warlike stance against Iraq (see September 17, 2001 (B) and August 6, 2001 (B)).

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A47913-2002Aug5¬Found=true

The danger is, by pointing out Saudi Arabia's ties to al-Qaeda and 9/11, are we playing right into the hands of the neocons, and paving the way for an eventual takeover or coup of that country? I worry about that, but I also want to see the guilty Saudis brought to justice. The neocons don't give a rat's ass about justice or stopping terrorism, they just want the oil. They have a very explicit plan to split the country into three parts, and keep the part with the oil (what a total coincidence!).

By the way, I can never emphasize sentence this enough, the heart of the neocon plan for world domination, taken from that meeting attended by Perle, Newt Gingrich, Kissinger, Dan Quayle (!), James Woosley and many other scary people:

"Grand strategy for the Middle East: Iraq is the tactical pivot. Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot. Egypt the prize."

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2069119

[RainDog]

19. thanks for the link. The article is worthwhile to me because

the points the guy makes about Hatfill and his whereabouts any time an anthrax attack issue comes about...the conference in Britain, for instance, would also apply to any other scientist who works in this area.

And, yes, the reportage on the attempt to frame the muslim scientist is very important, it seems to me, and one that had sort of gotten lost in all the events, for me at least.

As far as the "Grand Chessboard" strategy...I do not think it is sustainable economically, even though the neocons seem to be willing to commit economic suicide for this nation in order to pursue their agenda.

In this they are just as blind as they were with their predictions about the invasion of Iraq.

The really interesting thing about all these grand plans for American Empire and world domination is that these are the same people who were so wrong about the Soviet threat.

The neocons also had their Team B in place with Bush Sr., who totally exaggerated and lied and mislead.

Now, it turns out that the "realists" were also unrealistic about the Soviet threat, and cost America untold unneccessary money and diverted assets from creating a stronger society internally.

With the invasion of Iraq, these same nuts have been at it again, and lied and misled the American public and spent untold and unneccessary money which could be spent on actual security for the U.S. in terms of both internal protections and in terms of strengthening this country by empowering people in this country rather than decimating our economy and creating a gilded age/depression-era two-tier society which greatly weakens democracy in this country.

[paulthompson]

20. strategy

I agree the neocon strategy is nuts and completely unworkable. How do they expect to conquer all these additional countries if they can't even control Iraq? But they don't seem to let reality get in the way of their fantasies, and they'll likely drag the country down in the process.

I agree that Dr. Assaad letter is extremely important, and too forgotten. Seems to me it could be the key to solving the anthrax case.

[incapsulated]

21. Yeah, whattabout that?

This has been one of the most maddening things that has happened since 9/11. That this fact, the sneaking out of the country of Bin Laden's relatives, has been known yet swept under the rug by the media is the best proof there is that they are all bought and paid for.

bin Laden was immediately blamed for the attack on 9/11 (which I do believe, btw). To have his family, possible conspirators and supporters, certainly potential witnesses, secretly snuck out of the country and from the law with the knowlege and possible assistance of our own Government, after the most deadly foriegn attack on American soil is a treasonable act. It is certainly one I would consider "newsworthy" in a so-called free society.

:grr:

 
 

[FreakinDJ]

22. it is a known fact

Bin Laudin aka 911 master mind gets much of his financial support from the Saudis.

It was in the news some months ago but quickly blamed off on some of the subordinate cabinet members