How the saudis Fight the WOT

Status
Not open for further replies.

bountyhunter

member
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
3,421
Location
Fascist-Fornia
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/06/60minutes/main615986.shtml

Our "allies" in the WOT, Saudi Arabia, are the cowards who cover up for terror attacks within their own borders by framing and executing innocent people (out of fear of unrest amongst the segment of their population that supports Al Qaeda and Osama Bin laden). I've been saying that for months, and now the lies and cover ups (with which our administration has been an accomplice) are starting to unravel.



May 9, 2004
Saudi Justice


(CBS) Why did the Government of Saudi Arabia frame seven westerners for a series of car bombings they didn't commit?

Those car bombings, which began in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, in November 2000, killed three members of the expatriate community and severely injured several others. To Western observers, they were clearly the work of Islamic fundamentalists. But the Saudis were not about to admit that. So five Britons, a Canadian and a Belgian found themselves arrested, systematically tortured into false confessions and eventually convicted of those bombings.

Since the release of the men from a Saudi Arabian jail last summer, it's emerged that the Saudis were secretly using them as pawns in a bigger game - a game that for two of the men almost ended in a terrible death. One of those men was Dr. William Sampson, a Canadian who now lives in England.

..............

Sampson was blindfolded and driven to a closely guarded building on the outskirts of Riyadh, which is the detention center of the Mabahith - the Saudi security police. There, he was tortured into confessing that he had carried out those bombings.

“It initially started with punchings and kickings, and that progressed from beating me on the soles of my feet to being hung upside down in a position known as the chicken -- with your feet uppermost and your feet and backside exposed, readily available for beating,†says Sampson. “And between interrogation sessions, I was returned to the same cell and handcuffed to the door, so I couldn't sit down and I couldn't sleep.â€

He said that after being beating on the soles of his feet and chained to the door, he stood in agony: “There’s no way you can, I could even kneel down in that position, and so I'd be standing on my feet which were swollen, so badly swollen that they were actually exuding plasma through the skin.â€

How long did it take before he confessed? “On the night of the sixth day is when I started to confess, when I would, I couldn't take any more,†says Sampson. “At that stage, I mean, I used to pray that, I would pray during the beatings that I would black out, and I never did. And by that stage, I was actually praying that I would just die.†Sampson, however, wasn't the only one who wanted to die. One of his friends, Sandy Mitchell, who is British, was also tortured into confessing to those bombings.

At the time of his arrest, Mitchell was living in Riyadh with his Thai wife and son, and working as the chief anesthetic technician in a hospital. “As bad as the pain was, the breaking point, when I got to the extent that I would say anything to please these people, was when they said, ‘We're going to arrest your wife. She's a Thai national, we can do anything we want to her,’†says Mitchell. “And at that stage, I decided I would confess to anything. They knew we were innocent. They had to tell us what to say.â€

Mitchell and Sampson's confessions were taped and shown on Saudi TV. And the men's zombie-like appearance left western observers no doubt that they'd been forced to make these statements against their will.

...........
Who does he think planted these bombs?

“We have always said that according to our sources inside the security apparatus, Saudi security apparatus, there are small splinter groups who have the general interest similar to al Qaeda,†says al-Faghi.

As car bombs continued to explode in Riyadh and elsewhere in the kingdom, the Saudis kept up the pressure on the British Government and rounded up the usual suspects. In August 2001, three more British men were paraded on Saudi TV to confess their guilt. Meanwhile, Sampson and Mitchell were tried in secret and found guilty solely on the basis of those confessions.

Mitchell says that the same man who was doing the torturing was the prosecutor. Who represented Mitchell and Sampson? “There was no defense. I was asked, ‘Did you make that statement?’ ‘Yes, but under duress,’†says Mitchell. “’Did you make that statement, yes or no?’ â€Yes.’ That was it, trial over.â€

(Complete report at URL above)
 
Is this supposed to be news? The Saudis are fair weather friends at best. And the ruling family will never go down in history as "nice guys."

The question is, do we want their oil? Since we can't drill here in the US, they've got us by the short hairs. Hardly the Bush Admin's fault.

Tim
 
Is this supposed to be news? The Saudis are fair weather friends at best. And the ruling family will never go down in history as "nice guys."
It's not news to me because I've known for over a year about the fact that the saudi government has a deal with the devil to avoid unrest in their country... where they cover up Al Qaeda attacks within their own borders and execute innocent people for those crimes to cover up AQ's invovlvement. It goes back at least as far as the Khobar Towers murders where 19 US citizens were killed and about 500 injured.

The point of this post is just in hopes that maybe a few other people will see the light. And demand some answers from the "leader of God" who has said he will have zero tolerance on terrorists while the reality is, he is grabbing his ankles for the country that is the mother of terrorism.

I want to live long enough to see him answer for his culpability in the murders of US citizens.... by covering for the country that is bankrolling the group that is still killing our soldiers every day in Iraq.

But, I'm not holding my breath. As you pointed out, the US addiction to foreign oil ensures that the Bush admin will keep the lid on the truth for as long as they can.
 
I think the important question is not what the Saudis did four years ago but more along the lines of what are they doing now? It looks to me like they have released the people they wrongfully detained and judging by the bombings/cooperation with the U.S. and Britain, they have also received a pretty big wake-up call about dealing with extremists.

I've been saying that for months, and now the lies and cover ups (with which our administration has been an accomplice) are starting to unravel.

Your story starts in November 2002. Did you mean "our administrations"?

I understand you don't care for the Saudis, bountyhunter. I am not particularly enamoured of their royalty's willingness to cut soul-selling deals with the Wahabists either; but they do possess one of the largest known reserves of oil in the world. So how would you handle Saudi Arabia differently than our current policy?
 
I want to live long enough to see him answer for his culpability in the murders of US citizens.... by covering for the country that is bankrolling the group that is still killing our soldiers every day in Iraq.

Can you show me an example of where President Bush has covered up any of the Saudi government's acts? Can you show me where he or his administration denounced these men as guilty instead of working for their freedom?
 
.
Can you show me an example of where President Bush has covered up any of the Saudi government's acts?
Sure can.

About nine months ago a classified report was prepared on terrorism for the senate intelligence committee and some of it's contents were leaked (by an actual patriot). The final report had 33 pages censored out and the missing pages detailed the saudi support and funding of Al Qaeda which has gone on for over ten years.... and some of those 33 pages were what was leaked to the press.

When the content was leaked (and the press reported that it was not flattering to the saudis) the saudi ambassador arrived in washington the next day demanding an apology... and delivering the message:

PLUG THE LEAK

Bush did a public statement backing the saudis and saying how they were our buddies in fighting terror. That line of BS is still being peddled today, even though our own intel services have "followed the money" that feeds Al qaeda right back to wealthy saudis and members of their royal family.


Can you show me where he or his administration denounced these men as guilty instead of working for their freedom?
I'm not sure what men you mean. If you are referring to the men the saudis framed in this particular incident written up in the 60 Minutes report, most were British. Tony Blair had to personally go to SA and beg them to pardon the men (which they did) and a deal was struck for their release. Clearly, part of the deal was to not publicize the frame up because the British are still not talking much about it.... although the kidnapping and framing of British subjects should have been cause for outrage from their government.
 
Something doesn't add up here. The Saudis did support the Taliban and the Afghan rebels before that, but why would they support Al Queda? OBL and the Royals are mortal enemies. Sure, the Saudis support other radical Islamic groups, but they sure as heck wouldn't fund OBL. Why would they if he is dedicated to their downfall? The guy doesn't need money anyway. He's well beyond "rich."

I'd like to see the links to this report.

We don't have any allies in the MidEast. I would love to see us stick our thumb in OPEC's greedy eye but since drilling for oil on US turf is some sort of sin, we are stuck.

Anyone who trusts the Saudis is a fool.

Tim
 
Your story starts in November 2002. Did you mean "our administrations"?
You lost me on that one. We have had the same administration since january 2001 unless you know something I don't.

It's true that the Khobar Towers murders (also certainly Al Qaeda's work) back in 1996 happened under Clinton. he also grabbed his ankles and let the saudis dictate to our FBI, who would get to go to SA, what they would be allowed to see, etc. They were never even allowed to interview the suspects the Saudi's tortured into confessing. At last report, the FBI still listed the Khobar Towers case as unsolved.

So, I agree that Bush is not the first US presidnet to bend over for the saudis. But he is the first one to cover up their wholesale torture and killing of innocent people to cover up the fact they are in bed with terrorist groups.... an appeasement they make to keep peace in their own land (at our expense).

I understand you don't care for the Saudis, bountyhunter. I am not particularly enamoured of their royalty's willingness to cut soul-selling deals with the Wahabists either; but they do possess one of the largest known reserves of oil in the world. So how would you handle Saudi Arabia differently than our current policy?
A ggod question, and the key word is RESPECT. When your leaders keep bending over, you don't get much respect.

In 1990 when Hussein rolled into Kuwait and the saudis got nervous about their northern border, I would have made them beg for our troops. We sent more than 500,000 troops over in operation desert Shield. I would have struck an "oil for guns" deal with them.... and if they don't like it, no more F-16's, no more saudi pilots attending our top gun flight school, no more US forces bailing their sorry butts out. They would have seen the light five minutes after Hussein crossed into their territory.

Instead, we went over there and took out the trash and the saudis never even paid their share of the cost for desert Storm. Then they threw us off the bases we used to defend them and kicked us out now that we had permanently removed the threat. I'd leave the entire region and let it burn down. Let's see the Saudis throwing oil at the Islamic fighters like Al Qaeda and hezbollah who will be burning their country down when we are gone.

You are correct. I don't care for the saudis. They use us like a rented mule. Most of their citizens privately or openly cheered for 9/11. The only thing they want from us is our dollars and our protection. If I ws in charge, things would change real fast.... they would whine about yankee imperialism, but honestly: how could we be any more hated in that region? We might as well start playing hardball with them.
 
bountyhunter, stay "on message" with this one. Don't get side tracked. This is one area that I'll back you up on. The Saudi royal family is in dire need of a serious ass kicking and have been for some time. There are a few members of that rather large family that might be worth saving, but not if you have to keep the rest. This is Bush's greatest weakness when it comes to foreign policy. I don't know what the deal is with the Bush family and the Saudis, but it certainly isn't in our best interest if you ask me. They have far too much control over our economy (and therefore our political system) to be trusted. These jokers could bring our economy to its knees in a real big hurry. I'm sure the threat of that is what keeps us walking on eggshells around them. I think it's time we called their bluff. Better to do it now, while we're strong, than to wait until we can't afford to call them on it. A major attack, followed by Saudi oil price gouging, and we'll all be too busy fighting each other here to worry about them over there.
 
Something doesn't add up here. The Saudis did support the Taliban and the Afghan rebels before that, but why would they support Al Queda? OBL and the Royals are mortal enemies.
The official Saudi government does not like Al Qaeda, but they fear them. OBL has a major following in SA (estimated 40% of their population). The royal family only wants to live in luxury with no problems. However, there are members of the royal family who fund AQ (it's protection money).

After the Mujahadeen disposed of the soviets in Afghanistan, OBL came back to Saudi Arabia with the fighters who had fought with him and that was what created Al Qaeda. OBL had always said he would overthrow the SA government, and tried to do that: and the saudis arrested him and locked him up. Fearing popular revolt and uprising (like happened in Iran) they kicked OBl out of their country. he went to Sudan and started launching terrorist attacks. So to answer your question:

The saudis don't really "support" Al Qaeda as in believe in their cause, they simply cover up for them because they are afraid. And since the saudis really don't give a crap about American or Europeans being killed, they hold to the agreement as long as the targets AQ hits inside SA are against US and Europeans... and that's who are targeted, as well as saudis who are doing business with them. I don't know whether their royal family gives AQ money happily or from fear, but it comes out the same.

But the bottom line is that to "dispose" of these crimes requires that the saudis frame and torture some poor schmuck into confessing so they have somebody to execute.
 
bountyhunter, stay "on message" with this one. Don't get side tracked..
OK. As far as I know, my message on this hasn't changed for as long as I can remember.

The Saudi royal family is in dire need of a serious ass kicking and have been for some time..
That's the message.

This is Bush's greatest weakness when it comes to foreign policy.
Not really. Nobody cares. I have seen this material in articles in Time and Newsweek and nobody gives a crap. Look at the internet news sites today after last nights featured story on 60 Minutes: big fat zero. That's why I printed it in a thread, nobody seems to be hearing about it. It seems really important to me.....?
They have far too much control over our economy (and therefore our political system) to be trusted. .
Amen.
I think it's time we called their bluff. .
Which is why I said it's time to start playing hardball.
 
Some related information

Claim: Secret flights whisked bin Laden family members out of the U.S. over the objection of the FBI two days after the September 11 attacks, while a general ban on air travel was still in effect, and before the FBI had any opportunity to question them.

Status: Multiple — see below
  • In the two days immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly within the country during a general ban on air travel: True.
…
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm

Also, remember that at least 8 of the hijackers were Saudi nationals.
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm
 
bountyhunter, instead of giving me your interpretation of the missing documents that were censored; how about a link to the documents?

Just a note on Internet debate; but you must realize by now that I interpret the same information you find inflammatory much differently than you do. It is much easier to discount someone's unsourced interpretation of things than to present the documents and let them form their own opinion. As an added bonus, people in general are more likely to strongly support an opinion they form on their own vs. one that is fed to them.

As to the Saudis owning us, I don't see it. It is a symbiotic relationship. We would certainly have issues without the Saudis providing oil; but they would also have issues without our technical expertise to defend their nation, drill its oil, etc.

I'd leave the entire region and let it burn down.

Might as well set your own house on fire while you're at it; because that type of chaos in the world's largest oil producing region, even if it didn't spill over into neighboring countries, would certainly have the same effect.
 
I'd like to see the links to this report.

I lost all my old bookmarks when the other browser dies. This is the first one I saw when I did a search.


http://www.iht.com/articles/104626.html

White House won't declassify Saudi material in 9/11 report
David Johnston and Douglas Jehl/NYT The New York Times Wednesday, July 30, 2003

WASHINGTON President George W. Bush has refused to declassify a 28-page chapter of a congressional report on the Sept. 11 attacks. He said that disclosure of the deleted section, which centers on allegations of Saudi Arabia's role in financing the hijackings, "would help the enemy" and compromise the administration's global war against terror.
.
The report was denounced by the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, as an "outrage" that "wrongly and morbidly" accused Saudi Arabia of complicity in the attacks. But at a news conference, Bush said the chapter should remain secret. "I absolutely have no qualms at all, because there's an ongoing investigation into the 9-11 attacks, and we don't want to compromise that investigation," he said. "If people are being investigated, it doesn't make sense for us to let them know who they are." ///
.
Senator Bob Graham, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, and was co-chairman of a congressional committee that issued the report on intelligence lapses prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, said that the Bush administration "went beyond national security" to keep the chapter secret.Asked what information the chapter contained, Graham refused to comment on whether it was about Saudi Arabia, but he said, "In my judgment there is compelling evidence that a foreign government provided direct support through officials and agents of that government to some of the Sept. 11 hijackers." Graham asserted that almost all of the chapter could be released without damaging U.S. intelligence interests.He charged that the Bush administration was trying to protect foreign governments, hide the lapses of American intelligence agencies and prevent the public from having a fuller account of role played by other countries.
.
Invoking the provisions of a seldom-used Senate resolution, Graham said that he had asked the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, a Republican, and its highest ranking Democrat, Senator John D. Rockefeller 4th, to start a process that would permit the declassification of information if the Senate voted to release it, even over the objections of the Bush administration.
.
/////////.



http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm

The Bush-Saudi Connection
By Michelle Mairesse


//////
Islamic fundamentalists like Osama bin Laden make their appeals to the nation or community of believers, not to any particular nation state, although the rich and powerful among the Muslims have founded Western-style businesses and formed corporations both inside and outside the boundaries of their native countries. Because Osama himself is a scion of a rich Saudi family with wide-ranging business interests throughout the world, the split Saudi personality is most evident in him and the bin Laden clan. Osama, who calls America "The Great Satan," has done business with the infidel Americans whenever it suited him.

Throughout the eighties, when the United States assisted the Saudis in a giant military buildup of airfields, ports, and bases throughout the kingdom, many of the contracts were awarded to the largest construction company in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Binladen Group, founded by Osama bin Laden’s father. At the same time, the United States trained and armed troops in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. The United States and Saudi Arabia spent about $40 billion on the war in Afghanistan, recruiting, supplying, and training nearly 100,000 radical mujahideen from forty Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, and Afghanistan itself. Among the recruits were Osama bin Laden and his followers. (2)

Jihad

The Wahhabi Taliban in Afghanistan had the blessings of the Saudi royal family and of The Big Three--the bin Laden family, the al Ahmoudi family, and the Mahfouz family--the richest clans in that medieval kingdom. (Khalid bin Mahfouz is bin Laden’s brother-in-law). The desert oligarchs profited from world-wide investments as well as sleazy banking schemes such as the infamous Bank of Credit and Commerce International.


Salem bin Laden, Osama’s brother, has conducted all his American affairs through James Bath, a Houston crony of the Bush family. Bath’s former business partner Bill White testified in court that Bath had been a liaison for the C.I.A. In 1979 Bath invested $50,000 in Arbusto, George W. Bush’s first business venture. Rumor had it that Bath was acting as Salem bin Laden’s representative. "In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests." (4)


//////////
In 1991, Osama bin Laden and a band of Afghan veterans agitated in Sudan for a holy war against the enemies of Islam. In 1992, he claimed responsibility for the attack on American soldiers in Yemen, and again for attacks in Somalia in 1993. He was mum about the terrorist truck bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the explosion that killed six people and injured more than a thousand, but investigators knew bin Laden had donated heavily to the religious "charity" that financed the bombing operation.

Spiked Investigations


In February 1995, when he was appointed chief of the F.B.I.'s counter-terrorism section in Washington, John O’Neill immediately assembled and coordinated a team to capture Ramzi Yousef, who was en route from Pakistan to Afghanistan. Yousef was strongly suspected of planning and directing the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

In three days, the kingpin of the World Trade Center bombing was in custody, and O’Neill went on to accumulate damning evidence against the 1993 World Trade bombers that led to their conviction in American courts. For the next six years, John O’Neill tirelessly investigated terrorist strikes against Americans and American interests in Saudi Arabia, East Africa, and Yemen, often encountering American officials’ roadblocks on the way. Even in 1996, after Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl turned himself in at the American Embassy in Eritrea and divulged details of bin Laden’s and al Qaeda’s organization and operations, the State Department refused to list al Qaeda as a terrorist organization.

In February 1998, bin Laden assembled a number of terrorist groups, including Islamic Jihad, and issued a fierce fatwa calling for the deaths of all Americans. On August 7, 1998, 226 people died in the simultaneous bombing of American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. Investigators blamed bin Laden for the attacks. On August 20, 1998, President Clinton amended Executive Order 12947 to add Osama bin Laden and his key associates to the list of terrorists, thus blocking their US assets--including property and bank accounts--and prohibiting all U.S. financial transactions with them. The United States conducted a missile attack against bin Laden's facilities in Afghanistan.



On October 12, 2000, two suicide bombers ignited their boatload of explosives next to the USS Cole, an American destroyer refueling in Aden, off the coast of Yemen. The blast killed seventeen sailors and wounded thirty-nine others. O’Neill and his crack investigating team were dispatched to Yemen and hit a stone wall. He had hoped satellite intercepts of phone calls between an al Qaeda operative in Aden and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan would lead him to the mastermind of the Cole attack, but the American ambassador and the Yemeni officials blocked the investigation at every turn.

O’Neill resigned from the F.B.I. in July 2001 and signed on as security chief for the World Trade Center in September. He died in the WTC attack on September 11, 2001.

///////// After 9/11, investigators of the Islamic charities discovered overwhelming evidence that Saudis at all levels worked in tandem with the terrorists. David Kaplin reports, “At the Saudi High Commission in Bosnia, which coordinated local aid among Saudi charities, police found before-and-after photos of the World Trade Center, files on pesticides and crop dusters, and information on how to counterfeit State Department badges. At Manila's international airport, authorities stopped Agus Dwikarna, an al Haramain representative based in Indonesia. In his suitcase were C4 explosives.†The interlocking charities make it difficult to follow the money trail. “Many share directors, office space, and cash flow. For two years, investigators have followed the money to offshore trusts and obscure charities which, according to court records, they believe are tied to Hamas, al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups.†(US News and World Report, December 15, 2003).


The White House official line is that the Bin Ladens are above suspicion --apart from Osama, the black sheep, who they say hijacked the family name. That's fortunate for the Bush family and the Saudi royal household, whose links with the Bin Ladens could otherwise prove embarrassing. But Newsnight has obtained evidence that the FBI was on the trail of other members of the Bin Laden family for links to terrorist organisations before and after September 11th." (11)

/////"Citing ‘their people and a lot of their leaders and probably even the royal family,’ Shelby said: ‘I believe [the Saudis] cannot support so-called charities that support terrorism on a big scale, and then pretend that they're our friends or our allies.

"‘As we get into the money trail, it might be embarrassing, but the American people need to know; the victims and their families need to know,’ he added. Shelby and Graham said avoiding embarrassment and maintaining good relations with Saudi Arabia are not legitimate reasons to withhold information from the public.

"‘The question is,’ Graham said after the news conference, ‘will we get [the information declassified] in 30 years when the archives are open, or will we get it in time, before the next attack?’" (13)


Doubtless one of the connections the senators referred to was the Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar, Saudi ambassador to the United States for the last twenty years, the longest serving ambassador in Washington. Princess Haifa had been making monthly transfers, $130,000 in all, from her Washington bank account to a needy woman who relayed some of the checks to her husband and another man who assisted and funded the two hijackers who were based in San Diego. (14)

"The money moved into the family’s bank account beginning in early 2000, just a few months after hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi arrived in Los Angeles from an Al Qaeda planning summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, according to the sources. Within days of the terrorists’ arrival in the United States, Al Bayoumi befriended the two men who would eventually hijack American Flight 77, throwing them a welcoming party in San Diego and guaranteeing their lease on an apartment next door to his own. Al Bayoumi also paid $1,500 to cover the first two months of rent for Al Midhar and Alhazmi, although officials said it is possible that the hijackers later repaid the money." (15)


/////There is irrefutable evidence that highly-placed Saudis aided and supported the terrorists who murdered over 3000 American citizens on September 11, 2001. Yet George Bush persists in protecting and colluding with those who sponsor terrorists. Is this not an an act of treason?





http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/6377990.htm


Posted on Thu, Jul. 24, 2003
Saudi Arabia Criticized in 9/11 Report
JOHN J. LUMPKIN
Associated Press


WASHINGTON - Some senior U.S. officials involved in the hunt for al-Qaida criticized Saudi Arabia's lack of cooperation in counterterrorism efforts, according to the report of congressional inquiry into the 2001 terrorist attacks. But the unclassified version of the report sheds no light on questions about whether the Saudi Arabian government provided support to some of the hijackers.

The Saudi ambassador to the United States angrily denied any government ties to the hijackers in a statement issued Thursday. He also said the kingdom is supporting efforts against Osama bin Laden's organization. In the report, several unidentified U.S. government officials complained of a lack of Saudi cooperation.

"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 related to Osama bin Laden," the report says. Only the Treasury Department's general counsel is identified among the critics. However, former FBI Director Louis Freeh testified that the FBI forged an "effective working relationship" with the Saudis after the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing.

The Bush administration has recently praised Saudi efforts to wrap up al-Qaida operatives following the May bombings of housing compounds in Riyadh. The report also says there is some evidence of "foreign support for some of the Sept. 11 hijackers while they were in the United States," but the pages of the report that identifies the sources have not been declassified.

Some officials involved in the inquiry said they pushed for additional declassification, but the Bush administration refused.

"I remain deeply disturbed by the amount of material that has been censored from this report," said Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee during the inquiry. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla. and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he thought the report was properly redacted but that more information should properly be released later.

The Saudi ambassador called suggestions of Saudi support for the hijackers "malicious and blatantly false." "Cooperation between our two countries in fighting terrorism is excellent in all areas and has never been greater," said Prince Bandar bin Sultan in a statement issued Thursday. "It is disappointing that despite everything we are doing, outrageous charges continue. They are not based in fact and only serve to denigrate Saudi Arabia, which is exactly what bin Laden wanted to accomplish."

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, leading some in the United States to complain the kingdom was a stronghold for extremists tied to al-Qaida. The kingdom also faces complaints that some Saudis gave money to charities that helped finance Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida group.

The questioning grew louder late last year with the disclosure that money donated by Bandar's wife may have wound up with Saudi students suspected of aiding two of the hijackers. The Saudis say that Princess Haifa al-Faisal donated the money to pay the medical bills of a Saudi woman living in the United States and that she didn't know the woman's husband turned over some of the money to others. The White House has accepted the explanation.



http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/4585991.htm?1c

Posted on Sat, Nov. 23, 2002





U.S. Backs FBI's Saudi Arabia Probe

KEN GUGGENHEIM

Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The White House on Saturday defended the FBI's handling of a diplomatically sensitive investigation into reports that Saudi Arabia provided money that helped support two of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

A spokesman for the Saudi embassy said the allegations that the wife of the Saudi ambassador supported terrorists are "untrue and irresponsible." Nail al-Jubeir, the spokesman, said Princess Haifa al-Faisal is fully cooperating with the FBI. "She wants her name cleared," al-Jubeir said.

In its defense of the FBI, the Bush administration also denied another contention of some lawmakers - that the bureau has not done enough to examine fully the financing of the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi citizens.

Questions about the investigation could become troublesome for the Bush administration, which is seeking the Saudis' help for a possible military campaign against their neighbor, Iraq. Saudi Arabia has been noncommittal, torn between its friendship with the United States and anti-war sentiment among the Arabs.

Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, which are conducting a joint inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks, expressed misgivings about the FBI investigation. Lawmakers believe the bureau has not examined vigorously the prospect that the Saudi government might have given money to two men who provided financial help to hijackers Khalif al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.


http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm
 
As an added bonus, people in general are more likely to strongly support an opinion they form on their own vs. one that is fed to them.
That's why I keep wasting so much time posting information. I still haven't given up all hope that people will form an opinion and dump the one that the Bush administration has been feeding them.
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd leave the entire region and let it burn down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Might as well set your own house on fire while you're at it; because that type of chaos in the world's largest oil producing region, even if it didn't spill over into neighboring countries, would certainly have the same effect.:
There would be some growing pains in the transition region, but what eventually emerged would be worth it. The USA has been taking it for too long for oil.
 
To hell with the Saudis. They don't even have an army, do they? Every time they try to make us bend over for oil, we should backhand them a few times. They're no better than Iran or Syria in my book.
 
Oh my gosh!

I agree with bountyhunter!


************************************************************
"You are correct. I don't care for the saudis. They use us like a rented mule. Most of their citizens privately or openly cheered for 9/11. The only thing they want from us is our dollars and our protection. If I ws in charge, things would change real fast.... they would whine about yankee imperialism, but honestly: how could we be any more hated in that region? We might as well start playing hardball with them."
************************************************************

The Saudi are paper tigers.

The U.S. refuses to 'discipline' them.

Would the Kerry folks change anything?

Nope.:scrutiny:

So what political remedy would you advocate, bountyhunter?
 
Some Remedies:

So what political remedy would you advocate, bountyhunter?
Here is a good place to start:

1) Have the sheeple get mad and start pushing back on our government. Send Bush the message we are on to the game with the saudis and that we are not going to stand for it. he says he's a man of God.... let's put the fear of God into him and make him understand his continued employment hinges on him drawing a line in the sand with them.

2) same thing with the congress. Send letters and make believers out of them: it's time we laid down the law to the sand brigade and made them understand they need us more than we need them.

3) wean the country off the oil addiction. Easy to do, but you need to get a government that is not run by Texas oil men who were put in office with oil money. Here are a few ways to better spend the tax money:

a) incentives to buy fuel efficient vehicles. Tax rebates on people who own fuel efficient cars. Think of how many hybrids and fuel efficient vehicles you could buy with the 300 BILLION we have already spent on this useless war.

b) rebates to people who fork out the extra money for hybrid vehicles. 300 BILLION works out to $1000 rebate for every man, woman, and child in this country, about $3000 per licensed driver. I'd sure rather spend the money here.

c) federal money to states for "congestion relief" on commute corridors to raise tha average commute speed from .001 mph to maybe 20 mph.... where the car actually uses the gas to move forward.

4) New foreign policy: oil for guns, oil for fighter planes, oil for protection, oil for food, oil for anything they need from us.

They don't like it? Let them eat oil.
 
The "moderate" :rolleyes: royal family is not going to be able to hold on to power indefinitely. The threat from inside comes from the younger generation-grumbling in the ranks about the oppressive nature of their religious rule. Outside, radical islamofascism that cares not about selling oil to the west, presents another very real danger. If OBL or his clones are able to take Saudi Arabia militarily, the U.S., as well as the rest of the western world, would be forced to act in national security interests.

I think that is the most likely scenario. Whatever happens in the meantime and whether George Bush is buddies with the Saudis bothers me not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top