Means 'Under Saudi Arabia'
by Mike Hersh
You may think this is the United States of America. It's
not. Now USA now means "Under Saudi Arabia." The Saudis bought
both George W. Bush and his father. Ties between the Bush
and bin Laden families, the Carlyle Group and Saudi Arabia
let the Riyadh regime beat America like a rented camel.
As the Boston Herald reported, "Many of the same American
corporate executives who have reaped millions of dollars from
arms and oil deals with the Saudi monarchy have served or
currently serve at the highest levels of U.S. government,
public records show."
According to the Herald, we have to worry because, "Those
lucrative financial relationships call into question the ability
of America's political elite to make tough foreign policy
decisions about the kingdom that produced Osama bin Laden
and is perhaps the biggest incubator for anti-Western Islamic
How close are Bush family ties to Saudi Arabia? "Nowhere
is the revolving U.S.-Saudi money wheel more evident than
within President Bush's own coterie of foreign policy advisers,
starting with the president's father, George H.W. Bush," explains
this Herald expose'.
Columnist Jimmy Breslin wrote: "Our government knows . that
Saudi Arabians were the murderers on the planes on Sept. 11.
The leader was this guy Atta, from Saudi Arabia, and he flew
the plane into the north tower." But these are just terrorists,
out of favor with the Saudis, right? Wrong. "Listen to the
tape that finally got out Friday, here is a cleric saying
with exuberance that people in Saudi Arabia thought bin Laden
had done a great thing, killing all those people in New York."
How does all this Saudi money in the pockets of Bush's friends
and family hurt us? On the BBC Newsnight program, Greg Palast
asks: "The CIA and Saudi Arabia, the Bushes and the Bin Ladens.
Did their connections cause America to turn a blind eye to
On that program, National security expert Joe Trento answers
clearly. These conflicts of interests mean: "[T]housands of
Americans had to die needlessly." Peter Elsner wonders: "How
can it be that the former President of the US and the current
President of the US have business dealings with characters
that need to be investigated?"
Citing a document marked "'Secret'. Case ID - 199-Eye WF
213 589," Palast explained: "Washington field office special
agents were investigating [Osama Bin Laden's brother Abdullah
Bin Laden, president and treasurer of WAMY - a suspected terrorist
Palast identified "3411 Silver Maple Place" in Washington
DC suburb Falls Church, Virginia as "the former home of Abdullah
and another [Osama bin Laden] brother, Omar, also an FBI suspect.
It's conveniently close to WAMY, [located] in the basement
at 5613 Leesburg Pike. [And] a couple blocks down the road
at 5913 Leesburg [Pike] where four of the hijackers that attacked
New York and Washington ... lived."
Trento explains, "The FBI wanted to investigate these guys.
[But] they weren't permitted to. [WAMY has] connections to
Osama Bin Laden's people. [And] They fit the pattern of groups
that the Saudi royal family . have funded who've engaged in
terrorist activity. [A]s far back as 1996 the FBI was very
concerned about this organisation...."
National security agents told Palast that Bush ordered them
to "back off" their investigations into the bin Ladens, WAMY,
and the terrorists living nearby. This Bush obsequiousness
toward Saudis with alarming connections to terrorism is nothing
Also on the BBC, former head of the American visa bureau
in Jeddah, Michael Springman appeared explaining: "In Saudi
Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept officials
to issue visas to unqualified applicants." [And] I complained
bitterly at the time there." [Because] "What I was protesting
was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits, rounded up by
Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the CIA."
The BBC reported "The attack on the World Trade Center in
1993 did not shake the State Department's faith in the Saudis,
nor did the attack on American barracks at Khobar Towers in
Saudi Arabia three years later, in which 19 Americans died.
FBI agents began to feel their investigation was being obstructed."
Bush concerns for Saudi sensibilities fatally compromised
our national security. According to a Minneapolis-St. Paul
Star Tribune story the Pan Am International Flight Academy
reported suspicious behavior to the FBI and FAA. Some Arab
nationals were lying about their background, and trying to
learn to fly 747s.
According to this report, published December 21, 2001, "Besides
alerting the FBI about [Zacarias] Moussaoui, the school's
Phoenix office called the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) early this year about another student -- Hani Hanjour,
who was believed to be the pilot of the plane that flew into
the Pentagon on Sept. 11." But the Bush administration did
Look how specific the warning was: "Do you realize how serious
this is?" the instructor asked an FBI agent. "This man wants
training on a 747. A 747 fully loaded with fuel could be used
as a weapon!" this quoted from briefings to Congressional
offices, as reported in the Star Trib. One of the suspicious
men reported to the FBI flew the jet into the Pentagon. The
other is about to stand trial for terrorism.
Pan Am reported suspicions about these men to the Bush FBI
and the Bush FAA. Because Bush's family makes $millions in
business with the bin Ladens and other Saudis, Bush ordered
the investigators to "back off," jeopardizing our national
security to coddle Saudis. Again, as reported in the Star
"[Minnesota Rep. Jim] Oberstar, the ranking Democrat on the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said Pan
Am 'acted in the public interest' with both Moussaoui and
Hanjour." Too bad that concept is alien to the oil obsessed
Bushes, who sold out thousands of American lives to appease
"An FAA representative sat in on a class to observe Hanjour,
who was from Saudi Arabia." Did this Bush official report
Hanjour to the FBI? No. He "discussed with school officials
finding an Arabic-speaking person to help him with his English,
said Oberstar and others with direct knowledge of the school's
briefings." Rather than haul in this terrorist in training
for questioning, the Bush FAA helped him learn to fly one
of our jets into one of our buildings..
Pan Am personnel weren't as trusting as the Bush administration,
and sought to alert law enforcement. The Star Trib reports:
"When the instructor phoned, the FBI agent strongly urged
him to pursue the matter but gave him the wrong agent to call,
the sources said. The instructor made three more calls before
reaching the right agent on Aug. 15, the sources said. Moussaoui
was arrested the next day and held on an immigration violation."
Clearly the problem was not the FBI, at least not the local
"The FBI then checked Moussaoui's name with foreign intelligence
agencies, and was warned by the French intelligence service
that he may have terrorist connections. But the Minneapolis
agents were unable to persuade FBI lawyers in Washington,
D.C., to seek a warrant." Was this because Bush ordered the
FBI to drop its investigations which might embarrass Bush's
The Tribune added: "Oberstar and Minnesota Rep. Martin Sabo
[House appropriations transportation subcommittee Chairman],
who also was briefed by the school, praised Pan Am for its
efforts to safeguard the skies and for passing federal authorities
clues to possible terrorist activities before Sept. 11."
Bush - more afraid of us offending Saudis than of Saudis
killing us - ordered our watchdogs to ignore those critical
clues. Now thousands of us are dead. Reports from ABC News
prove Bush even doctored the bin Laden tapes to avoid embarrassing
the Saudis who support bin Laden, and praised the 9/11 murders.
Why did the Bush administration delay releasing the bin Laden
videotape, and why did their translation omit or change critical
passages? "The translation [of the bin Laden video tape] commissioned
by ABC News [contradicts the Bush version, and] reveals new
elements that raise questions about what the [U.S.] government
left out of the official version and why."
The explanation is obvious, as ABC answers their own question:
"The new translation uncovers statements that could be embarrassing
to the government of Saudi Arabia," and "Bin Laden's visitor,
Khalid al Harbi, a Saudi dissident, claims that he was smuggled
into Afghanistan by a member of Saudi Arabia's religious police."
ABC News doesn't question why the Saudi police would be helping
a so called "dissident" meet with supposed pariah bin Laden,
but reports: "[On the tape, Harbi] tells bin Laden that in
Saudi Arabia, several prominent clerics - some with connections
to the Saudi government - made speeches supporting the attacks
These statements are not merely embarrassing to the Saudi
royal family. This is evidence of top-level Saudi government
support for bin Laden, even after the 9/11 attacks.
"It shows that bin Laden's support is not limited to the
radical side of Islam but also among the Saudi religious establishment,"
says Fawaz Gerges, professor of Middle Eastern studies at
Sarah Lawrence College. "And that is bad news for Saudi Arabia,"
reports ABC. Our government covering up Saudi complicity is
bad news for all of us.
Despite two generations of Bushes slavishly serving Saudi
interests, the arrogant oil sheiks escalate their demands
and flout their support of bin Laden and terror.
ABC news reports: "U.S. officials and diplomats still privately
gripe about the lack of Saudi cooperation in investigating
previous anti-U.S. terrorist incidents in the kingdom." Saudi
state-run media and top officials lash out at "U.S. media
[they consider] critical about the lack of Saudi support for
the ongoing investigations."
The New York Times rang the alarm bell in an October 14,
2001 editorial called: "Reconsidering Saudi Arabia." Critically,
"One of the disturbing realities clarified by last month's
terror attacks is Saudi Arabia's tolerance for terrorism,"
The Times noted. Also: "America's deeply cynical relationship
with Riyadh" includes Saudi support for "Islamic extremists,"
and our "muted . objections to keep oil flowing."
On September 11, this oil-soaked quid-pro-quo exploded, revealing
"that the Saudi behavior was more malignant" than we'd pretended.
Our blood is on Saudi hands, because "money and manpower from
Saudi Arabia helped create and sustain Osama bin Laden's terrorist
According to this insightful editorial: "Saudi Arabia sponsor[ed]
Afghanistan's ruling Taliban movement, along with Pakistan.
Saudi money, religious teachings and diplomats helped the
Taliban secure and keep control of Afghanistan. The country
was then used to provide sanctuary and training camps for
the bin Laden network." Also, "The Saudi government has allowed
Saudi . organizations to funnel money to Al Qaeda and its
Rather than rush to help remedy the catastrophic damage their
policies inflicted on innocent Americans, the Saudis stonewall.
"Since Sept. 11, Riyadh has refused pleas from Washington
to freeze Mr. bin Laden's assets and those of his associates."
Arab news services confirm these facts.
Noting that, "Of the 19 hijackers who carried out last month's
attacks, at least 10 were Saudi nationals," the Times reports,
"Riyadh has so far refused to cooperate fully with Washington's
investigations of hijacking suspects." The Saudis supported
our enemies when they "barred Washington from using Saudi
air bases to launch attacks against Afghanistan." Above from
NY Times Editorial.
Our so-called "allies" act more like diffident imperial overlords.
According to ABC, "[Saudi leaders] are bitter about what they
regard as a U.S. media campaign blaming Riyadh for tolerating
or even breeding religious fanaticism, financing guerrilla
and terrorist movements like bin Laden's al Qaeda, crushing
zealous reformers and tolerating widespread corruption." This
although the Saudis are "breeding religious fanaticism, financing
guerrilla and terrorist movements like bin Laden's al Qaeda,"
and have for several years!
Arab sources are even more specific about Saudi resentment
and lack of cooperation. The Arabic News.Com reported, "The
Saudi defense minister Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz has accused Zionism
of being behind the media campaign against Saudi Arabia in
the US. This was expressed in statements issued on Thursday
in the Saudi press." The same source reported: "Saudi Arabia
has refused to comply to a US request to freeze bank accounts
Washington suspects that they have links to certain terrorist
Saudi officials see nothing wrong with their support for
terror and their obstruction of American efforts to combat
terror. They dismiss even deferential questioning of their
pro-terror activities as "Zionism" in the US media. It comes
down to this: Americans want to defend ourselves against terrorism.
The Saudis want to keep supporting terrorists and undermining
our efforts. Who's side is Bush on?
On BBC's Newsnight, Palast asks: "Does the Bush family also
have to worry about political blow-back?" We should hope so,
because, "The younger Bush made his first million 20 years
ago with an oil company partly funded by Salem Bin Laden's
chief US representative. [He] also received fees as director
of a subsidiary of Carlyle Corporation, a little known private
company which has, in just a few years of its founding, become
one of Americas biggest defence contractors. His father, Bush
Senior, is also a paid advisor. And what became embarrassing
was the revelation that the Bin Ladens held a stake in Carlyle,
sold just after September 11."
Here's the smoking gun that links Bush family financial interests
to the break down in national security on 9/11: Palast reports:
"I received a phone call from a high-placed member of a US
intelligence agency. [Saying] under George Bush the agencies
were told to 'back off' investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi
royals, and that angered agents."
The Bushes, James A. Baker III the fixer who helped Bush
steal the election, Dick Cheney, the Carlyle Group, and the
band of Texas oil barons who have backed Bush's political
career have put their financial interests above our national
interests long enough. Their big money interests clearly rest
with the Saudis, not Americans.
Like his father before him, Bush placates his Saudi masters
like some appointed colonial satrap or toady. He goes to any
length to avoid annoying his bosses in Riyadh, whose demands
and indignation escalate constantly.
This goes far beyond Bush lying under oath and helping his
cronies cover up ghoulish grave robbing. Bush can only serve
one nation: the US or Saudi Arabia. He and his father and
their rich, powerful friends have to make a choice: us or
them. They have sold our soul and sovereignty for oil, and
it is killing us! This has to stop.
Doesn't Bush care how many of us die? How much American blood
will Bush risk for Saudi oil? Where is the outrage? When do
we stand up and demand our independence from Saudi Arabia
and the Bushes, who behave more like colonial governors than
elected leaders? When do we start the impeachment? When do
we get the United States back from under the Saudis?
to articles referenced above:
Advisers Cashed in on Saudi Gravy Train
Published on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 in the Boston Herald
Breslin: Diagnosis: It's All About Oil
News | NEWSNIGHT | Greg Palest report transcript - 6/11/2001
flight trainer wouldn't let unease about Moussaoui rest
Missing Subtleties. Bin Laden Translation Omitted Sections
"One of the disturbing realities clarified by last month's
terror attacks is Saudi Arabia's tolerance for terrorism."
Arabia-USA, Politics, 12/22/2001
"Saudi Arabia: Zionism is behind the American campaign"
Arabia-USA, Politics, 11/28/2001
Saudi Arabia abstains from freezing certain bank accounts
Palast: FBI and US spy agents say Bush spiked bin Laden probes
Watch: Bush Oil Deal With Murky Ties To Saudi Financiers
had denied Minneapolis FBI request on suspected terrorist