Did the Saudis Finance 911? Is this news story getting any traction?

[greenman3610]

It seems to me that this is a worthy news story - backed up by democratic and republican reps, and a highly respected Senator.

[90-percent]

1. Opps

Tom forgot Paul Jay's last name, referring to an awesome Real News Network interview Paul did recently with Sen. Bob Graham.

-90% Jimmy

[JDPriestly]

15. I love Thom Hartmann, but also, I don't think the Washington Post is owned by Murdoch. I think

the New York Post may be a Murdoch paper.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-10-01/business/42568774_1_jeff-bezos-washington-post-co-katharine-graham

And wasn't Bob Graham a Democrat?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Graham

[WCGreen]

2. This could have really been a plan to get the US to do something about Saddam

[BlueStreak]

4. If so, they would not have cooked this up on their own

Remember that by November, 2000 (2 months before taking office) Cheney and Bush were openly talking about invading Iraq and getting lots of push-back.

If your were Dick Cheney, and were part of a gang that had done things like Iran-Contra in the past, and you wanted to whip up support for an invasion of Iraq, what would you do?

And if you were evil enough to think about an attack on our own people, who you gonna call?

Let us not forget that nearly all the 911 attackers were Saudis.

[JDPriestly]

16. Who stood to gain from our invasion of Iraq? Why, Saudi Arabia, of course.

Who would have gained had we tried to invade Iran? Saudi Arabia once again. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the rivals. Different religions, regional conflicts, etc.

[BlueStreak]

18. Yes, of course. But are we to believe that ...

Saudi Arabia came up with this brilliant plan to kill thousands of Americans in a horrible terrorist attack on one of their greatest allies. And they figured that the US response would not be retaliation against Saudi Arabia, but would actually be an attack of Saud's enemies?

That would make no sense whatsoever. If Saud was indeed involved in organizing and funding this attack, the only scenario that makes sense is that Saud was in alliance with friends inside the US government, with the intention to use that attack as a pretext for attacking Saud's enemies, which happen to be mostly the same as Israel's enemies.

This is the OBVIOUS implication of these charges. Why is everybody afraid to state the obvious?

[JDPriestly]

20. Your theory is a possibility, but that is all it is.

My post was a theory, a possibility, no more, no less.

But we don't find out the truth unless we try. And forming theories, some false, some true, is one way to try to find out the truth. I wouldn't say that is the obvious implication of those charges, but is one implication, one possible implication.

[BlueStreak]

27. Can you think of any motive that would drive Saudi Arabia

to, entirely on their own, conspire and fund an attack on one of their strongest allies resulting in thousands of deaths.

Please give me a line of reasoning where independent action by Saudi Arabia, with no complicity from people in the American government, makes any sense at all.

[pjt7]

22. 2

"If Saud was indeed involved in organizing and funding this attack, the only scenario that makes sense is that Saud was in alliance with friends inside the US government, with the intention to use that attack as a pretext for attacking Saud's enemies, which happen to be mostly the same as Israel's enemies.

This is the OBVIOUS implication of these charges. Why is everybody afraid to state the obvious?"

I'm not & this is the truth.

I think people want Saudi's to be exposed first & then see what happens.

[BlueStreak]

28. I agree. It certainly makes sense to squeeze out the answers from Saud

I'm just saying that if this claims are true, the implications are profound and inescapable. The Saudi government would not have done this on their own. Perhaps rogue elements inside Saudi Arabia might have done that, so it is important to find out how close to the top this rises.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. If that were the case

I wouldn't expect 28 pages of redacted info to exist at all. Let alone the human that originally compiled whatever information is on those pages.

I am intensely curious to discover exactly what is in those documents. Obviously whatever it is, is Not Good(TM) for our relationship with Saudi Arabia.

[BlueStreak]

3. What was Saudi Arabia's motive?

The implication, or at least the tone, of that article is that Saudi acted on its own account AGAINST the USA. That is certainly possible. And if so, I'd like to understand why they thought that was in their national interest.

The other possibility is that, as in many, many other cases, the Saudis took actions IN COOPERATION with the US, or at least in cooperation with people or interests they want to please in America. This would be the normal pattern, and should be the starting point for any explorations, IMHO.

Look at http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2013/12/16/Syria-rebels-could-benefit-from-Saudi-buy-of-15000-anti-tank-missiles/UPI-63081387211981/
This is very typical of the US/Saudi relationship. Saudi Arabia often does things at the request of the US in order to keep our fingerprints off it.

I understand how Saudi Arabia would have a motive to help buttress a reactionary, hard-line, right-wing, Saudi-friendly government in the USA, especially considering that part of that deal would include the invasion of Iraq and elimination of Saddam Hussein. I get that. That motive is rational, albeit evil. I don't get any motive for them independently funding a terror attack on the USA.

[Eleanors38]

5. Again, Sen. Graham of Florida is a Democrat. And probably knows

Every aspect of Saudi involvement.

[ancianita]

6. It's newsworthy, but nine pieces of evidence aren't enough to prosecute a case. What is the

international response supposed to be. Is the ICC supposed to indict Bush for aiding and abetting terrorists, being a material witness after the fact, obstructing justice, betraying his oath to protect and defend the Constitution?? That would make him a traitor. I thought that's the Dept. of Justice's job, but it has utterly failed to do its job because presidents club allows immunity for previous presidents' crimes.

The Hague is only used when people of a country show that their own judicial system fails to provide justice. I'm not sure that we've tried to do that. But if we succeed, and take both Bush and the Saudis to The Hague, their religious satellites will take the US there for terrorist attacks on their countries.

Even if these prosecutions might help heal international wounds, I believe that elites and their legal teams are too lazy to do this much work.

Knowing all these facts won't make the adjudication process dependable, trustworthy or committed.

[Ace Acme]

8. Why not just declassify the report and see what's in it, and worry about prosecution later? nt

[ancianita]

12. That, too. But it would make all the current players look bad to do nothing when they know the

public -- especially the families of dead Iraqi soldiers -- would be outraged. It's what we need but the simple solutions are never the first tried. To much evil to be covered up. This is all because of believer wars. Greed and believer wars are the bane of this planet.

[ancianita]

14. It's been twelve years later. I think that's later enough as it is.

[Ace Acme]

7. Declassify the documents. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Democracy requires transparency.

After Ambassador Prince "Bandar Bush" left the USA, he was succeeded by Ambassador Prince Turki al Faisal.

According to the conservative French newspaper Le Figaro, Prince Turki met with Osama bin Laden two months before 9/11 at the American Hospital in Dubai.

[pjt7]

9. Get the Saudi Gov criminals

in sunshine.

if Justice is still being obstructed here, lets see those pages leaked.

[KansDem]

10. Of course the Saudis financed 9/11

When they wanted Saddam out of Kuwait in 1990-91, they called on George HW Bush to send in American troops. 1,143 Americans died.

The Saudis didn't want to sacrifice their own sons. Why is this so difficult for Americans to understand?

[Ace Acme]

19. The Kuwait war was more complicated than that.

GHWB badly needed a war to counteract his perceived "wimp factor" before the 1991 election. The neocons also wanted another military victory to add to the glories of the conquering of Grenada and Panama and make war palatable to the American public, ending the anti-war attitudes of the prevailing "Vietnam Syndrome".

Ambassador April Glaspie gave Saddam a green light to invade Kuwait, telling him the USA had no interest in his border disputes.

There was testimony in Congress from a tearful 15-year-old who claimed that as a volunteer in a Kuwaiti hospital she had seen Iraqi troops grab 312 babies out of incubators and put them on the floor and take the incubators. It turned out that she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador, she had been coached in her tale by the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, and the story was a lie.
http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

In the runup to the ground war, the Russians were trying to broker a peace deal which would give the Iraqis 6 weeks to pull out of Kuwait. Colin Powell and General Schwartzkopf drafted a counter-proposal that would give the Iraqis a week--enough time to withdraw their troops, but they'd have to leave their heavy equipment and supplies behind in Kuwait. "The President's problem was how to say no to Gorbachev without appearing to throw away a chance for peace," Powell wrote.

Powell didn't even present Schwartzkopf's realistic plan to Bush. Instead Powell presented an impossible plan demanding a 2-day withdrawal. That made the ground war inevitable. Tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and almost 400 U.S. soldiers will killed.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/020603a.html

[maddiemom]

11. So glad this story is getting SOME traction. I saw one or two references to the

N.Y. Post articles on liberal websites, then watched the Paul Jay interview with Graham. After that, pretty much zilch. I was surprised by my reaction: it was that I was NOT surprised.

[ancianita]

13. It's getting attention. It's not getting traction. Nothing's going to happen. Too many richies would

go down with this one.

[CJCRANE]

21. Could take a leaf out of Mandela's book...

and form a Truth and Reconciliation Committee.

[Ace Acme]

23. Sen. Leahy proposed a "Truth Commission" when Pres. Obama first took office

Last edited Wed Dec 18, 2013, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Apparently the subject areas were to be:

*the politicization of prosecution in the Justice Department
*the wiretapping of U.S. citizens
*the flawed intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq
*the use of torture at Guantanamo and so-called black sites abroad

The September 11th Advocates felt that this was the wrong approach, that Sen. Leahy should use the his authority as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to conduct investigations, and that his oath to support the Constitution gave him the responsibility to use his powers to ensure "that those who govern also abide by the rule of law."

The Advocates said that a Truth Commission modeled, as Sen. Leahy proposed, on the 9/11 Commission would inevitably share the 9/11 Commission's flawed process of predetermined narratives and a pre-existing intention to hold no one accountable. "Holding no one accountable was more important than uncovering and disclosing the truth," they said.

"The days of no fault government must end," they said. "Where there is clear criminal activity, people must be prosecuted. . . . We do not need another meaningless commission resulting in no accountability at the taxpayers’ expense. Show all Americans that you have the courage to uphold the law, bring accountability to those who abuse their positions of power and prevent such abuses from happening again.

"The November 2008 elections proved that Americans want the rule of law restored for those in Washington who are elected to represent us. You, Senator Leahy, are in the position to lead the way and work toward the change we were promised."

http://911blogger.com/node/19520

It's quite an eloquent statement. I would vote for any one of those women over just about anybody. Of course, as we all know, Sen. Leahy pursued neither the Truth Commission nor Judiciary Committee investigations. I'll suppose that we can safely assume that someone who had more power than he had told him what's what.

[ancianita]

24. Look further to where it got SA. There's still segregation. Whites are behind electrified barbed

wire. I visited South Africa with an old ANC friend a few years ago, and Johannesburg for whites is a prison. A little taste of what they have cost themselves,even with Truth and Reconciliation.

Governance and industry are diminished, and SA is still an economic engine of the southern half of the continent, but not what it was. The politics has to get beyond tribal, so we'll see.

[ancianita]

25. Just can't go for that. In a society of equals and rule of law, all those guilty should be jailed.

This was a FOREIGN power buying out our prez as an elite traitor to his oath of office. Bush sold us out as president and finished what his father did as an oilman in the ME.

[wildbilln864]

26. k & r! eom.