NOTE: I have not even proofread this sucker yet, because its just too damn late to even check for spelling errors, but I'm proud of my research and I want to share it with the world as soon as possible. I WILL be making spelling/grammatical errors and will be tweaking it for clarity sometime in the future. Thank you.

When a kid grabs a purse from an old lady and runs down the street and police sees it happening what happens next? They chase the kid down and tell him to stop. If he does not stop they will use force to stop him. If he resists that force they can use even greater force against him and if the officers lives are threatened they can kill the theif.

When a corporation hires kids to steal money from old ladies over the telephone and the government sees it happening what happens next? They tell the corporations to stop. If they do not stop they will simply tell them to stop again, probably threatning financial sanctions. If they resist them being told to stop they will fine the corporation or sanction them. If they resist that then they can use the police to shut down the phsyical operations of the corporation. If the corporation hires people to physically resist the shutdown of the operations, those people can be killed.

The people who threaten the police get killed and the executives will serve jail time. Now what about the *investors* of this corporation? What about any of the ones who *knew* what this company was doing, but didn't care? What happens to them? I suppose their stock price goes down or they may lose money, but if they weren't the ones who actually made these calls, then they are untouchable (assuming we can't prove that they didn't know what was going on--by now these guys are so far removed from the actual crime that its very hard to prove a case against them). While little old ladies die because they can't or think they can no longer afford to pay for something that helps them live because of the money that was stolen from them, these investors are sitting on the pool deck, smoking cigars paid for by that money.

This last example is basically what has happened with Al Queda. Lets look at Al Queda as if it were a corporation. Al Queda kills people, thousands of people. What do we do? We go to the country that they are headquarted in and try to stop them. Who stands in our way, but The Taliban (the people who the corporation hires to physically resist the shutdown of operations). The Taliban are killed/attacked. Al Queda leaders like Osama bin Laden (the executives) are either killed in action if they choose to fight or if they don't resist they are thrown in jail (or in Bin Laden's case he is no longer considered important according to the president). And what about the investors? The ones who made it all possible? Well it turns out that most of these investors were Saudi Arabians and not only that but some of the most important investors were also Saudi Arabian, and not only THAT but members of the Saudi Arabian government were investors as well. (see footnote). Now, Saudi Arabia is a country of incredible military and financial strategic importance. It also turns out that the people in charge of stopping these investors happen to have very close ties with the government of Saudi Arabia and also happen to have huge, billion dollar financial connections between them. You can see that we are sortof in a bind when it comes to doing anything meaningful to these investors or the saudi government.

And just what did the Saudi Government do after it was revealed that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi? As the press was uncovering Al Queda's financial web and all of the Saudis caught up in it. Well, just like any reeling corporation, Saudi Arabia hired a bigshot public relations firm to improve their image!!

We dropped bombs on Afghanistan and invaded Iraq all in the name of stopping terrorism, yet we have not fired a single shot in Saudi Arabia. We have frozen accounts when we can, we have even arrested those who invested in terrorism when we had access to them. But unlike the dead footsoldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the dead or captured Al Queda "executives", the investors by and large are sitting on the pool deck, smoking cigars whose ashes might as well be the ashes from fires of 9/11. Ashes of the burned and incinerated innocents.

I am angry. I am angry because America spits on the face of the petty theif but glamorizes the corporate theif. And it makes me sick to my stomach to think that this is happening to 9/11! There was so much hate for Bin Laden and Al Queda and the terorrists. So much hate. I am right there, I hate them too! I look forward to the day that Bin Laden dies or is captured. I've been looking forward to that day since I first learned his name. Sometime after 9/11 I remember people staring to buzz about the "9/11 report". You can read the mostly unclassified version, thanks to the power of the internet (god bless it) here:http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html. I highly recommend you atleast download that report and search for the word "Saudi" a few times to see what it says. If anything its worth having around because it says TOP SECRET all over it (the words top secret have been crossed out since its release, but its still cool!) This report, and NOT the 9/11 commision, has been the only investigation into the 9/11 attacks. What? You thought the 9/11 commission was investigating the attacks? I did too, but in reality their purpose is to figure out how to PREVENT 9/11 from happening again, not determine who financially backed Al Queda.

Despite the fact that people who had seen the report before its release called the report "explosive" and said that it would serve to redirect the publics attention to 9/11 (see this article for example) I can barely remember its release. Can you? I just remember there was a big to do about 28 missing pages in the report, and that my dad said the pages probably said bad things about Saudi Arabia. I remember thinking then, wow well we don't want to piss off the Saudis, they are a key ally in the middle east! Apparently I missed the reports that Saudi Arabia refused to allow U.S. planes to use its bases during the war with Iraq. Somehow my thoughts were, we shouldn't say anything bad about Saudi Arabia because otherwise we'll lose our bases in their country that we really need to help fight terrorists in the middle east. How clueless was I!?

And then I read the book excerpt from House of Bush, House of Saud and covered it extensively on my weblog.All I could say then was:

"DOH!! ... The article basically indicates that the Saudis simultaneously wined and dined us, and got really close to bush's family and administration (over many many years), yet they knew about an attack coming up and were cooperating with the taliban and al-queda (however it spelled damnit). We let some people who could have given us important information, who should have been spending time rotting in Camp X-ray instead of flying home in planes described like this one: ... Augh, we let them slip through our fingers... that whole experience is best described at the end of the article: ... Bah."

I remember being upset that the bin Ladens and Saudi royal family had been allowed to leave, and I remember being upset that they had made these flights out of the country secret. But I don't recall taking it any farther then that. I was like oh well they are over there now. Its not like we had Osama in our hands and then let him go or anything.

But I'm so mad at myself, I did the EXACT SAME THING that I've always thought was unjust and unfair-- I didn't look at the investors the same way that I looked at the executives or the people at the front line! I had definetly cursed those who had financed 9/11, I had plenty of hate for them, but I stumbled mentally when I had to put two and two together, I mean, these were the same Saudis whom I thought were an important ally of the US, one to protect and not lose, ones we fought to protect from invasion by Saddam Hussein in 1991. Somehow when the idea of Saudi Arabia being responsible on ANY LEVEL for 9/11 could jutt not take seed in my mind. But after watching Fahrenheit 9/11, all the pieces of the puzzle over the past 3 years have finally been put together in the right order to see the picture, and it wasn't until tonight that I finally figured out what has been on the tip of my toungue this whole time, what I've been so angry at George Bush and especially the mouthpieces of those who support him, the Rush's, the O'reilly's, the townhall.com's.

First off, I hate that people have been trying to justify the war in Iraq by saying that Iraq is responsible for 9/11. Right now there is absolutely NO PROOF that he had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. But for the sake of argument I'll allow for the small possibility that Saddam may have somehow also contributed, despite the fact that the 9/11 commission has determined that Iraq played no role in 9/11. If these people are calling for war agaisnt Iraq because they are responsible for 9/11, where are the calls for war against Saudi Arabia? By calling for war in Iraq because they caused 9/11 while simultaneously NOT calling for war against Saudi Arabia or saying we need to get Bin Laden still, these people are descecrating the memory of all those who died in 9/11. And THIS is what has been eating at my this whole time, and I didn't realize it. I didn't realize that I was assosciating these MONSTERS with Bush and that my animosity for his supporters affected my image of him so much. And now I hate to bring this up, but one of my favorite bumper stickers says, "God save me from your followers."-- and its true. The religious zealots and evangalists have turned me off to organized religion, regardless of what organized religion has actually done!

But my image of Bush wasn't just tarnished by his supporters, another major issue that I drew on and was all hot and bothered about (and discussed in this weblog before), was this quote regarding bin Laden:

"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care."

Reading that at the time made me so upset, so angry-- this is a guy who we need to bring to Justice, this is a guy STILL makes threats against the united states and inspires Terror. This is the guy who is Responsible for 9/11. And.. we don't care?? Except.. wait. In Fahrenheit 9/11 (upon further review), the quote wasn't that, it was actually something else!

"Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you"

Its so funny because when I watched the movie, I must have heard him saying that quote and in my head I THOUGHT about the quote that I had already read, and after the fact I came out thinking he actually said "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care." which is actually stronger and more upsetting then the later quote. But wait, theres more-- as I notice this descrepancy I start to google up both quotes to find sources. I had atleast seen the video of the later quote, but I need a newspaper article or something talking about it, I mean, this was big news to me, wouldn't it be big news to someone else, and didn't I read the first quote in the news somewhere anyways? Despite 553 different webpages using this quote, I while I didn't look at all 553 of them, I couldn't find one that cited that quote to any news article, but I did find an opinion column detailing Bush's (not Kerry's) flip flops that did atleast USE that quote. So I wrote the author explaining my quest for the source of this quote. Predictably the other quote did not have as many webpages using it in Google with only 23 different web pages using that quote. I'm attributing that to the fact that the former quote was put on a list of Bush flip-flops at the height of the republican anti-kerry flip-flop campaign and this list of bush flip-flops probably got emailed around the internet and ended up on several web pages, while the later quote never got that treatment.

While searching for the origin of the first quote I did actually manage to find ONE site that cited a source, This site used the "I really don't care" quote and cited The Center for American Progress. But whats funny is that source the first site cited didn't use the same quote! The second site used the "I just don't spend that much time on him" quote. And finally, for that second quote, the second site cited this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313 -8.html. The whitehouse itself. AHhhh finally, an answer!

The second webpage cited a press conference called by Bush that just happened to occur on the same day that the first quote has been attributed to, March 13th, 2002. So now I'm thinking that the first "I don't care quote" is either fabricated or was said off camera after the conference, perhaps a reporter somewhere got to talk to Bush one on one right after the press conference and asked him to clarify what he had said and then just quoted him in an article or something. By the way I did happen to find one webpage that alluded to where they found out about the first quote-- they said it was during "a television interview on 13 March 2002." At this point the only television "interview" we know about that Bush gave that day was the press conference, and I've read the transcript, its simply not there.

And speaking of fabrictions, Moore's quote from Bush was not only taken out of context, but it was also very SNEAKILY edited! See if you can read along while you watch this video clip of the movie I put together for ya here. (You may need the XVID CODEC to watch this short clip).

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.

Thats right, he overlayed Bush saying "Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized." while showing footage of bin Laden and then just before switching back to bush, tacking on "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you" just as the video cuts to Bush talking. This gives the impression that Bush said both the first and the last part as if it were a single sentence since the audio bridges so perfectly. EVIL! EVIL I say! But he DID warn us!

So now that I've read the quote in context (and I was so sure I understood the context of that quote), and after finding semi-encouraging news that we haven't given up looking for him, I feel much better now. But see what I mean?

I wish that all my problems with Bush could be explained away so cut and dry. But they haven't been so far.

And now, to put to rest any doubts you may have had about Iraq versus Saudi Arabia and 9/11 Remember that report on who was responsible for 9/11? You know, this one?. Well considering that Iraq will show up in the report automatically since bin Laden's chief complaint against us was that we were in holy cities while we defended Saudi Arabia from Iraq, and that Saudi Arabia will atleast figure because of the same reasons, we are bound to find a certain number of mentions of the word "iraq", "iraqi", "iraqis", "saudi", "saudis" and "saudi arabia" Well guess what, I counted. Heres the numbers. Read 'em and weep! (matching whole word only, ie iraqi counts one time, Iraq counts another time)

Iraq: 14 occurances
Iraqi: 6 occurances
Iraqis: 2 occoruances
Saudi: 34 occurances [excluding occurances in "saudi arabia"]
Saudis: 12 occurances
Saudi Arabia: 48 occurances

I've examined every one of those Iraq references, and the only one that has anything to do with Al Queda is this:

"1999 - 24 Jun. Eight Iraqis tied to al-Qaida arrested in Amman based on tip"

But when I examine the Saudi occurneces I am bombarded with stuff like this:

According to a U. S. Government official, it was clear from about 1996 that the Saudi Government would not cooperate with the United States on matters relating to Usama Bin Ladin. **REDACTED**, reemphasized the lack of Saudi cooperation and stated that there was little prospect of future cooperation regarding Bin Ladin. **REDACTED** told the Joint Inquiry that he believed the U.S. Government's hope of eventually obtaining Saudi cooperation was unrealistic because Saudi assistance to the U.S. Government on this matter is contrary to Saudi national interests.

Hmm, cooperating witht he US government regarding Bin Ladin is contrary to Saudi national interests?? HMM

The Treasury Department General Counsel testified at the July 23, 2002 hearing about the lack of Saudi cooperation: There is an almost intuitive sense, however, that things are not being volunteered. So I want to fully inform you about it, that we have to ask and we have to seek and we have to strive. I will give you one-and-a-half examples. The first is, after some period, the Saudis have agreed to the designation of a man named Julaydin, who is notoriously involved in all of this; and his designation will be public within the next 10 days. They came forward to us two weeks ago and said, okay, we think we should go forward with the designation and a freeze order against Mr. Julaydin. We asked, what do you have on him? Because they certainly know what we have on him, because we shared it as we tried to convince them that they ought to join us. The answer back was, nothing new. . . . . . . . I think that taxes credulity, or there is another motive we are not being told.

"or there is another movive we are not being told." Ohhh really? HMM

A number of U. S. Government officials complained to the Joint Inquiry about a lack of Saudi cooperation in terrorism investigations both before and after the September 11 attacks.**REDACTED**. A high-level U. S. Government officer cited greater Saudi cooperation when asked how the September 11 attacks might have been prevented. In May 2001, the U.S. Government became aware that an individual in Saudi Arabia was in contact with a senior al-Qa'ida operative and was most likely aware of an upcoming al- Qa'ida operation.

So uhm. We are saying that greater Saudi cooperation could have prevented the September 11th attacks. Lemme back up a few pages so you can understand what they meant by "greater Saudi cooperation"

A U. S. Government official testified to the Joint Inquiry on this issue *REDACTED* as follows: *REDACTED* For the most part it was a very troubled relationship where the Saudis were not providing us quickly or very vigorously with response to it. Sometimes they did, many times they didn't. It was just very slow in coming.

Those bastards. They KNEW something was going to happen and they dragged their feet.

Former National Security Advisor Berger noted in a statement to the Joint Inquiry that "In fact, there was a concerted military, economic, and diplomatic pressure on the Afghanistan and the Taliban…." Mr. Berger also explained that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were pressed to cut support for the Taliban and that covert and military measures were taken to disrupt al-Qa'ida activities in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the [page 127] Joint Inquiry found that none of these actions were effective in hindering terrorist training or al-Qa'ida's ability to operate from Afghanistan.

Oh yeah, THE SAUDIS WERE SUPPORTING THE TALIBAN. WTF. And whats this about Pakistan? Hey isn't bin Laden hiding out there right now supposedly?

The handling agent said in Joint Inquiry interviews that none of the information provided by the informant about the hijackers before September 11 raised concerns. The fact that the two individuals were Saudi was not a concern before September 11 because Saudi Arabia was considered an ally. The FBI confirmed this in its written response.

We were all fooled by them.

During the counterterrorism inquiry, the FBI discovered that al-Bayoumi had been in contact with several persons who were under FBI investigation *REDACTED* Despite the fact that he was a student, al-Bayoumi had access to seemingly unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia. For example, an FBI source identified al-Bayoumi as the person who delivered $400,000 from Saudi Arabia for the Kurdish mosque in San Diego. One of the FBI's best sources in San Diego informed the FBI that he thought that al-Bayoumi must be an intelligence officer for Saudi Arabia or another foreign power.

Funding from Saudi Arabia. Hmm. Where have I heard that before. Seemed like an intelligence officer for Saudi Arabia? Hmm you don't say.

The failure of several of the terrorist hijackers, including the ringleader, Mohammed Atta, to completely fill out their applications provided ample reason for denying the visas. Only one of the 15 terrorists who were from Saudi Arabia provided an actual address; the rest listed only general locations, such as "California," "New York," "Hotel D.C." and "Hotel."29 Only three of the 15 provided the name and street address of present employer or school as required on the application. Only one of these applications had additional documentation or explanatory notes provided by a consular officer that addressed any discrepancy or problem with the original application.

It was the official position of the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs for over a year, that 13 of the 15 terrorists from Saudi Arabia had been personally interviewed and that there was nothing in their visa applications or in the interviews that should have prevented issuance of their visas. According to the GAO, however, only two of the Saudi applicants were actually interviewed, and all 19 hijackers had substantial omissions and inconsistencies on their visa applications that should have raised concerns about why they wanted visas.

The GAO reported that these applicants were presumed to be eligible based upon pre-9/11 internal State Department policies that stressed that all applicants from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were to be considered "good cases" and, therefore, exempt from interviews. Moreover, the GAO noted that applicants from these two countries were not required to "complete their applications or [provide] supporting documentation."30 Why was this so? The pervasiveness in Saudi Arabia of Wahhabism, a radical, anti-American variant of Islam, was well-known before 9/11. The JIS should have inquired why the country of Saudi Arabia was given such preferential treatment by the State Department and whether the intelligence agencies were complicit in the policy.

Country of Saudi Arabia receiving preferential treatment. HMMMM. (btw I took that quote out of order because it really is setting up the bombshell below):

We repeat: If our own laws regarding the issuance of visas had been followed by the State Department, most of the hijackers would not have been able to obtain visas, and 9/11 would not have happened. Because the entire culture of the State Department is geared toward facilitating smooth relations with foreign governments, State Department personnel have tended to ignore the potential effect of their practices on national security.

Oh you don't say, if we weren't so busy pandering to Saudi Arabia 911 COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED!?!?!?! where have I heard this before!? And seriously, you guys found out that 911 COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED. That it "would not have happened" if it wasn't for preferential treatment to Saudi Arabia? This in ADDITION to saying that A high-level U. S. Government officer said that greater Saudi cooperation could ALSO have prevented 9/11??? Why didn't I remember that??!?? Why wasn't this big headlines in the press? I guess I'll have to make my own headlines here:

Preferential Treatment to Saudis Caused 9/11

Additionally, lack of Saudi cooperation cited for being unable to prevent 9/11. Film at 11.

Saudi Arabia's motto should be: "You can't touch us, your troops merely being here to PROTECT US during the Gulf War spurred the jihadist movement and Osama Bin Laden's Al Queda and 9/11... just imagine what would happen if you actually INVADED US. Now, watch us finance terrorism and kill more innocent people"

In closing I'd like to remind everyone of the stated facts (as discussed before on several occasions) that HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED that Bush and his family are incredibly close to the bin Ladens and the Saudi Royal family. To the point that the ambassador to the US from Saudi Arabia was given the nickname of Bandar Bush because they consider these guys family. Its fair to say that of the multiple sources I've read that have written and investigated these connections, that these sources had an agenda and probably skewed the facts to fit that agenda. But the problem is that I have not, myself, seen Bush come out and say anything about these relationships, nor has he disputed them. I just wish that his relationships could have been used and leveraged to get that Saudi cooperation that the 9/11 report says could have prevented 9/11, and I wish he could have leveraged that Saudi relationship to make them understand that we cannot give them preferential treatment, preferential treatment, the 9/11 report says, that without which, 9/11 would never have happened.

(1) In the wake of news that two Saudis living in San Diego, California may have helped two of the 9/11 hijackers (see November 22, 2002), reports surface that the US has a secret, short list of wealthy individuals who are the key financiers of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The Washington Post claims there are nine names on the list: seven Saudi, plus one from Egypt and one from Pakistan. [Washington Post, 11/26/02] ABC News claims the list consists of 12 names, all Saudis, and says they were financing al-Qaeda through accounts in Cyprus, Switzerland and Malaysia, among other countries. [ABC, 11/25/02] They also claim the Saudi government has a copy of the list. US officials privately say all the people listed have close personal and business ties with the Saudi royal family. [ABC, 11/26/02] A secret report to the United Nations by French investigator Jean-Charles Brisard names seven prominent Saudi financiers of terror; the number matches the seven Saudis mentioned in the Post article, though it's not known if all the names are the same. The Saudis mentioned by Brisard are: Khalid bin Mahfouz (see for instance 1988 and April 1999); Yassin al-Qadi (see October 1998, October 12, 2001, and December 5, 2002); Saleh Abdullah Kamel (see June 1998 (D)); Abdullah Suleiman al-Rajhi; Adel Abdul Jalil Batterjee; Mohammed Hussein al-Amoudi (see August 13, 1996, Early December 2001 (B), and November 22, 2002 (B)); and Wa'el Hamza Julaidan (who has had his assets frozen by the US [State Department, 9/6/02]). Brisard says al-Qaeda has received between $300 million and $500 million over the last 10 years from wealthy businessmen and bankers. He claims that the combined fortunes of these men equal about 20% of Saudi Arabia's GDP (gross domestic product). [Los Angeles Times, 12/24/02, UN report, 12/19/02 or here] It is also reported that a National Security Council task force recommends the US demand that Saudi Arabia crack down on terrorist financiers within 90 days of receiving evidence of misdeeds and if they don't, the US should take unilateral action to bring the suspects to justice. [Washington Post, 11/26/02] However, the US denies this, calling Saudi Arabia a "good partner in the war on terrorism." [Washington Post, 11/25/02] Press Secretary Ari Fleischer says: "I think the fact that many of the hijackers came from that nation [Saudi Arabia] cannot and should not be read as an indictment of the country." [Radio Free Europe, 11/27/02] More than 600 relatives (later rising to over 2,500 out of 10,000 eligible [Newsweek, 9/13/02]) of victims of the September 11 attacks file a 15-count, $1 trillion lawsuit against various parties they accuse of financing al-Qaeda and Afghanistan's former Taliban regime. The defendants include the Binladin Group (the company run by Osama bin Laden's family), seven international banks, eight Islamic foundations and charities, individual terrorist financiers, three Saudi princes, and the government of Sudan. [CNN, 8/15/02, Washington Post, 8/16/02] Individuals named include Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan (see June 1998 (D), August 2001 (G), and August 31, 2001), former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal (see July 1998, August 31, 2001, and October 18, 2002), Yassin al-Qadi (see October 12, 2001), and Khalid bin Mahfouz (see 1988, August 13, 1996, April 1999, December 4, 2001 (B) and Early December 2001 (B)). [AP, 8/15/02, MSNBC, 8/25/02] "The attorneys and investigators were able to obtain, through French intelligence, the translation of a secretly recorded meeting between representatives of bin Laden and three Saudi princes in which they sought to pay him hush money to keep him from attacking their enterprises in Saudi Arabia." [CNN, 8/15/02] The plaintiffs also accused the US Government of failing to pursue such institutions thoroughly enough because of lucrative oil interests. [BBC, 8/15/02] Ron Motley, the lead lawyer in the suit, says the case is being aided by intelligence services from France and four other foreign governments, but no help has come from the Justice Department. [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 8/16/02] The plaintiffs acknowledge the chance of ever winning any money is slim, but hope the lawsuit will help bring to light the role of Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 attacks. [BBC, 8/15/02] A number of rich Saudis respond by threatening to withdraw hundreds of billions of dollars in US investments if the lawsuit goes forward. [Telegraph, 8/20/02] Saudi businesses withdraw more than $100 billion from the US in response to the suit (see August 20, 2002), and the US government later threatens to block or limit the suit (see November 1, 2002).

Current Mood: Staying up like this is not good for my health. AIEEE
Current Music: Devo - Beautiful World

Permalink - Blogger Backlinks - Technorati - Del.icio.us

Post Reply