Al Qaeda vs. Saudi Arabia and the US

[noise]

If al Qaeda was truly a US and Saudi enemy then why were al Qaeda operatives protected from arrest? Why would Saudi agents (in San Diego) support al Qaeda operatives? Why would CIA officials obstruct the Cole investigation? Why should we believe the Saudi royal family truly feared Bin Laden and felt it necessary to bribe him so he would attack outside Saudi Arabia?

[LARED]

1. I would suggest you read

"The Looming Tower" Lawrence's book devotes many pages to your question.

[noise]

2. I read the book

Wright wasn't able to find out what the CIA was doing. Bamford wasn't able to either when he was researching the Shadow Factory. The turf battle excuse isn't acceptable because Tenet and Black cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim they were desperate to convince the White House of the threat level while they were withholding intel at the same time.

Do you find the narrative credible in relation to the Saudi royal family being intimidated by Osama bin Laden?

[LARED]

3. Gee do you think maybe

Tenet and or Black are covering their butts. If true this does not mean the US government planned 9/11.

[noise]

4. We have unacceptable contradictions

Premise #1: Al Qaeda is an enemy of the US and Saudi Arabia.

Reality: Officials linked to the Saudi government supported alHazmi and alMihdhar in San Diego. Also, the White House, CIA, FBI and NSA all failed to act on intel (i.e. arrest known al Qaeda operatives already implicated in the Cole attack) despite the fact that the public was told the intel community and the White House were aware of the high threat level in the lead up to 9/11.

Tenet and Black haven't explained their contradictory conduct. Instead, Tenet walks around with a huge chip on his shoulder when watered down reports like the CIA IG executive summary are released. Black goes around claiming there was nothing CIA could have done differently and besides the funding just wasn't there.

Premise #2: The threat posed by al Qaeda justifies the use of police state CT tactics.

Reality: The officials who failed to follow standard procedure before 9/11 were the very same people claiming they needed police state powers to prevent terrorist attacks. The overwhelming secrecy and propaganda have helped these officials sell the public on the illegal CT programs.

[LARED]

5. Let me ask a question

Do you think all "officials linked to the Saudi government" are in fact supportive of the Saudi government?

[noise]

6. No

Is it possible Omar al-Bayoumi, Osama Bassnan and Fahad al Thumairy were acting on their own? Perhaps. Is it likely? No.

[JackRiddler]

7. Stop making sense.

No, see, you're not allowed any ambiguities about things you cannot know. You see above how LARED just knows why Tenet and Black acted the ways they did, even though it makes no sense, wasn't really investigated, and none of us get to be inside their heads? Why demand to know, when you can just pick whatever version of the supposed internal motives makes you happiest?

[noise]

8. I've been reading the torture apologist articles

Administration officials and some MSM journalists tell us:

1. Torture worked and Obama is endangering the country with his rejection of torture.

2. Torture was legal and besides it wasn't torture.

3. Prosecuting officials who ordered the torture or those who did the torturing is outrageous. One, it was legal. Two, it wasn't torture. Three, it prevented terrorist attacks. Four, article II trumps all. Five, torture was a good faith policy.

Why don't any of the people who make these authoritarian arguments ever consider Bush's conduct in relation to Saudi Arabia and 9/11, before and after the attacks? Bush acted like he was on the Saudi payroll yet we are to believe his police state power grab was in good faith?

[LARED]

9. Wow, JackRiddler

Where did I say I knew why Tenet and Black acted as they did? I merely state they maybe are CYA's as a reason they acted as they did.

It rather ironic your complaining about someone picking whatever version of events make them happiest, as that is a virtual hallmark of the CT'er

[JackRiddler]

10. I think you're spelling wow backwards.

"I merely state they maybe are CYA's as a reason they acted as they did." Is this possible explanation for the irreconcilable contradictions in their behaviors (as described by noise) a reason to call off suspicion and declare the case closed? No.

Otherwise: Blah blah CT blah blah.