Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Here' my 911 explanation theory: agree? disagree?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
Must_B_Free Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 04:30 PM
Original message
Here' my 911 explanation theory: agree? disagree?
Theme: Saddam was a threat to the Saudi/Texas oil empire.

I think a valid explanation is that this what the whole thing was about the Saudi-Texas empire managing the competition.

We're talking about Iraq, with the 2nd largest Oil reserves in the world. If Saddam got production up, he was threatening the the dominant player in that arena. It seems that he had matured from his fantasy of a military leader and realized the game was economic, not military.

The country appeared to be West embracing. He had a secular government because that was the only way to bring together infighting factions overwhich he ruled - from a neutral (read secular) ground. He did not seem to have an interest in WMDs but rather an inerest in making his country a new economic force. I thin this is why they bound him with sanctions this whole time, to prevent his entry into the markets.

Yes he was a threat, but not as a madman terrorist - as a legitimate holder of massive fossil resources. And as a market maker, but choosing the currency he would use. Notice all the Euro countries were against the invasion. They were in line for deals that would have put Iraq's oil in the Euro, further boosting it over the deflating US Dollar.

This explains why the Saudis and Texas were in bed together with the 911 plot. It was all just mutual backscratching. Saudis were strengthening their empire and the Bushes were also inceasing their power along with Shrubbies ratings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Racenut20 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. The sanctions were to limit spending on military
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
plaguepuppy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Right
Just like the invasion was to liberate the Iraqui people...

Take a look at how the sanctions were applied - the extremely draconian interpretation imposed by the US that saw almost any technology as dual use (e.g. most medical and infrastructure maintenance) and endlessly delayed essential equipment.

And how great was this Iraqui military threat to the world? How much did the people of Iraq deserve to suffer for their leaders' attempt to re-conquer a former province that was slant-drilling into their biggest oil field?

The justification may have been military but the effect of the sanctions was to inflict large-scale devastation on the Iraqui people and cripple the country's economic development. Was this the intent? It would be naieve to assume otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. Euro
The Euro was a significant incentive. With all that oil money going into Euros the US hegemony would be history (little alliteration there.) Also the Bushies, who are such consumate liars, knew Sadaam was practically powerless militarily. And none of them was going to be in harm's way in any case so what is a 40000 lost lives and 100's of billions of taxpayer money?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
shirlden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. No doubt
that is one of the top ten reasons. When you think about it there were many reasons to pop off ole Saddamy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Reasons?
So we should be willing to suppose, should we, that these guys are reasonable?


More a case I think of hell having no fury like that of a sour old bitch when scorned.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-27-03 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
6. Actually, I think the 9-11 deaths were due to embarrassment
It finally occurred to me what the right analogy for the connection between Bush minions and 9-11 is. We had a gruesome video in our safety meeting awhile back, featuring a modest chemist with a serious acid spill down the front of his pants. He ran to the lab shower, but was too embarrassed to strip out of his pants quickly and sustained burns far more serious than necessary. The moral of the story-don't let modesty override avoiding serious injury.

3000 people a two years ago essentially died of embarrassment-not theirs, but that of Bush and cronies, who blocked critical investigations before and after because they wanted to hide their financial dealings with Saudis linked to terrorist networks. Just as the excessively modest chemist chose more severe burns, Bush chose 9-11.

My archive of links--

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Yes, going back to your question about what was the greatest surprise. I agree with what Senator Shelby said the degree to which agencies were not communicating was certainly a surprise but also I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States. I am stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that to determine if other terrorists received similar support and, even more important, if the infrastructure of a foreign government assisting terrorists still exists for the current generation of terrorists who are here planning the next plots. To me that is an extremely significant issue and most of that information is classified, I think overly-classified. I believe the American people should know the extent of the challenge that we face in terms of foreign government involvement. That would motivate the government to take action.

GWEN IFILL: Are you suggesting that you are convinced that there was a state sponsor behind 9/11?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States.

GWEN IFILL: Do you think that will ever become public, which countries you're talking about?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it's relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today.

I still didn't have an answer to all my questions. We knew that Clinton and the Bushes were reluctant to discomfort the Saudis by unearthing their connections to terrorists -- but what made this new president take particular care to protect the Saudis, even to the point of stymying his own intelligence agencies?

The answers kept coming back: "Carlyle" and "Arbusto." ion=current&issue=2002-11-30&id=2544

Clearly, the House of Saud has come to an arrangement with al-Qa'eda, and this arrangement involves, among other things, money. More interesting is why the administration insists on pretending otherwise. On 20 September, George W. Bush said, 'You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.'

A couple of weeks later, a small number of us began pointing out the obvious: the Saudis are with the terrorists. But the US-Saudi relationship is now so unmoored from reality that it's all but impossible to foresee how it could be tethered to anything as humdrum as the facts.

Seven of the nine biggest backers of al-Qa'eda are Saudi, and Riyadh has no intention of doing a thing about it; but the White House insists, as it did on Monday, that the Kingdom remains - all together now - 'a good partner in the war on terrorism'. Fifteen out of the 19 terrorists were Saudi, but the state department's 'visa express' programme for young Saudi males remained in place for almost a year after 11 September and, if it weren't for public outrage, Colin Powell would reintroduce it tomorrow.

The overwhelming majority - by some accounts, 80 per cent - of the detainees at Guantanamo are Saudi, but the new rules requiring fingerprinting of Arab male visitors to the US apply to Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Sudanese, Lebanese, Algerians, Tunisians, Yemenis, Bahrainis, Moroccans, Omanis, Qataris, but not Saudis. )

"(...)sources describe the financial records as 'explosive' and say the information has spurred an intense, behind-the-scenes battle between congressional leaders and the Bush administration over whether evidence highly embarrassing to the Saudi government should be publicly disclosed-especially at a time that the White House is aggressively seeking Saudi support for a possible war against Iraq. 'This is a matter of the foreign-policy interests of the United States,' said another administration official, who cited the need to prevent a rift in the U.S.-Saudi relationship."

"The leaders of a joint House-Senate Intelligence Committees investigation have vigorously pushed for the release of a classified report that lays out the evidence of the Saudi money flow. But Bush administration officials, led by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller, have adamantly refused to declassify the evidence upon which the report is based."

The administration treads gingerly in targeting institutions that could lead to the Saudi royals and influentials. In December, Sens. Bob Graham (D-Florida) and Richard C. Shelby (R-Alabama) accused the Bush administration of refusing to declassify information that showed possible Saudi Arabian financial links to terrorists because it didn't want to embarrass the Saudis and endanger its political ties. Shelby, sworn not to reveal classified material, said the information could involve "a lot of their leaders and probably even the royal family."

But now it seems that Kean might possess some unique insights of his own. Fortune Magazine reports this week that both Kean and Bush share an unusually well-placed business partner: one Khalid bin Mahfouz -- perhaps better known as "Osama bin Laden's bagman" or even "Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law."

Kean, like so many worthies, followed the revolving door out of public service into lucrative sweetheart deals and well-wadded sinecures on corporate boards. One of these, of course, is an oil company--pretty much a requirement for White House work these days. (Or as the sign says on the Oval Office door: "If your rigs ain't rockin', don't come a-knockin'!") Kean is a director of Amerada Hess, an oil giant married up to Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil in a venture to pump black gold in Azerbaijan.

(The partnership is incorporated in a secretive offshore "tax haven," natch. You can't expect a worthy like Kean to pay taxes like some grubby wage slave.)

And now the Saudis have another protector in the White House, the presidential dauphin, George W. Even though evidence continues to pile up about Saudi funding of madrassas, mosques, charities, and guest houses linked to Al Qaeda through a diffuse network of banks, companies, hawalahs, and front operations, the Bush II administration refuses to support an independent commission to look into the sordid nature of past and current funding of Al Qaeda and its allies.

That is because this trail ultimately leads directly to the palaces,
mosques, and office suites of Riyadh, Jeddah, Medina, and Mecca. But the trail does not stop there. When one considers the alleged involvement of wealthy Saudi billionaires like Khalid bin Mahfouz with some of G. W. Bush's past ventures like Arbusto and Harken Energy and the more recent involvement of Bin Mahfouz and Mohammed Hussein al Amoudi with Delta Oil/Nimir, a partner of UNOCAL in the trans-Afghan natural gas pipeline, the true nature of Bush's double game with the Saudis becomes very apparent.

These banking records reveal that the Saudis have directly contributed money to groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad for the purpose of strapping bombs on to young people and have them blow themselves up on busses, restaurants, and marketplaces throughout Israel. Another group that enjoyed the largesse of the Saudis was an Al Qaeda cell found to be operating in the West Bank. What is more galling is the fact that some of the Saudi checks to the terrorists were routed through the Saudi American Bank and one of its corporate parents, Citigroup. Incidentally, Saudi American Bank is the bank of choice for Bush's Texas ranch guest, Saudi Prince Bandar. But as with Enron cover up, it is doubtful that the Bush administration will conduct any meaningful investigation of the role of U.S. banks in financing criminal activity.


In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. These were, essentially, people who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained bitterly at the time there. I returned to the US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the Inspector General's office. I was met with silence.

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. They would then be returned to Afghanistan to fight against the then-Soviets.

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. Would you be surprised to find out that FBI agents are a bit frustrated that they can't be looking into some Saudi connections?

German authorities investigating a Moroccan man on trial on charges that he was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States say there is evidence that he had contact with a Saudi diplomat as well as the leaders of an extremist group in Saudi Arabia.

But despite their requests for help following up on these leads, German officials said, responses had not been forthcoming from U.S. or Saudi authorities.

In Washington, a Justice Department spokesman named called questions about the German authorities' requests "too sensitive" for comment.

After the arrest of Mounir el-Motassadeq in Hamburg last year, police found the business card of an official in the Saudi Embassy in Berlin in his apartment. Prosecutors say they also found records of numerous calls to Saudi Arabia, which have since been traced to members of an extremist group in Riyadh called Dar al-Assima al-Nahr. Cell phone numbers of the group's leaders were found on Motassadeq's computer.

Prosecutors say that the first of these calls was made in December 2000, around the same time that the Sept. 11 suicide pilots began their flight training in the United States.

Amid reports in the days after the September 11 attacks that two of the hijackers, Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi received flight training at Florida's Pensacola Naval Air Station, a new dot has been connected which may shed more light on past revelations that 9/11 terrorists learned to fly at secure United States military bases.

Royal Saudi Air Force Major Ambarak S. Alghamdi had continued to remain in his position as a Pensacola Naval Air Station flight instructor after the 9/11 attacks, notwithstanding his Saudi Government ties - and that most of the terrorists were Saudis.

U. S. military officials gave the F.B.I. information that during the nineties, five of the highjackers were trained at secure U.S. military installations. Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmad Alnami, and Ahmed Alghamdi all listed their address at the Pensacola Naval Station. A high-ranking Pentagon official said another of the hijackers may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama. The fifth man may have received language instruction at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. Both were former Saudi Air Force pilots who had come to the United States, according to the Pentagon source. Why were they there?

At the peak of his deal-making activities, in the nineteen-seventies, the Saudi-born businessman Adnan Khashoggi brokered billions of dollars in arms and aircraft sales for the Saudi royal family, earning hundreds of millions in commissions and fees. Though never convicted of wrongdoing, he was repeatedly involved in disputes with federal prosecutors and with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and in recent years he has been in litigation in Thailand and Los Angeles, among other places, concerning allegations of stock manipulation and fraud. During the Reagan Administration, Khashoggi was one of the middlemen between Oliver North, in the White House, and the mullahs in Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal.

Perle's hostility to the politics of the Saudi government did not stop him from meeting with potential Saudi investors for Trireme. Khashoggi and Zuhair told me that they understood that one of Trireme's objectives was to seek the help of influential Saudis to win homeland-security contracts with the Saudi royal family for the businesses it financed. The profits for such contracts could be substantial. Saudi Arabia has spent nearly a billion dollars to survey and demarcate its eight-hundred-and-fifty-mile border with Yemen, and the second stage of that process will require billions more. Trireme apparently turned to Adnan Khashoggi for help.

Two billionaire Saudi families scrutinized by authorities for possible financial ties to Osama bin Laden's terrorist network continue to engage in major oil deals with leading U.S. corporations.

These business relationships persist despite evidence that members of the two Saudi families - headed by patriarchs Khalid bin Mahfouz and Mohammed Hussein Al-Amoudi - have had ties to Islamic charities and companies linked financially to bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization.

So far, bin Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi, who have denied any involvement with bin Laden, have been left untouched by the U. S. Treasury Department, which has frozen the assets of 150 individuals, companies and charities suspected of financing terrorism.

The Administration's apparently deliberate omission of key mid-Eastern banks in these two countries from post 9-11 investigations suggests clearly that the principal financial institutions of the countries where Harken did business have something to hide which the Bush Administration does not want to see the light of day - especially as potentially explosive Enron investigations gather steam.

Bush seems to be less concerned with national security--the only legitimate reason for censorship--and more concerned with not providing lawmakers and journalists information that might lead them to a sobering question: What if the "Saudi ties" are in reality homegrown?

If Saudi ties find their knot in the U.S. then all current questions must be changed. No longer do we ask why the Saudi information is still classified, but which Saudi ties can be traced back to the United States? And who forced the classification? Who are these suspects President Bush is so scared to have mentioned?

Maybe they haven't been blacked out in the 9/11 Report, but "somewhere" else?

The links between the House of Bush and the House of Saud are deep, overlapping and notoriously opaque: the Saudi investment in the Carlyle Group, the private equity firm whose rainmakers include George Bush Senior; the Saudi bankrolling of Poppy's presidential library; the lucrative contracts the Saudis doled out to Halliburton when Dick Cheney was at the company's helm. The main law firm retained by the Saudis to defend them against the 9-11 families is Baker Botts -- as in James Baker, the Bush family consigliere. And, of course, there's oil, the black glue connecting all these dots.

In short, the Bushies have profited mightily from a relationship with a foreign government that can be indirectly, perhaps even directly, implicated in the September 11 attacks and other terrorist incidents and that has been the driving force behind a worldwide jihad.

Zubaydah, under torture (yes, we know, Americans never torture people--and they don't launch unprovoked wars of aggression, either), gave up names, dates, even telephone numbers of al Qaeda's enablers in the Saudi royal family and Pakistani military. True, the wily terrorist operative might have been lying. But shortly after Zubaydah spilled these red-hot beans, all three Saudi princes he had named turned up dead--within a single week, in June 2002. One died in a car crash, one reportedly had a heart attack, and the third wealthy prince somehow "died of thirst" in the Saudi desert. The following week, the top Pakistani official fingered by Zubaydah was also killed, along with his family, when his airplane suddenly fell out of a clear blue sky. Of course, this could just be coincidence--after all, planes fall, cars crash, hearts fail and multimillionaires die of thirst in the desert every day, right? Still, it looks as if Zub's canary-like warbling might have struck a nerve somewhere out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MikeS Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-03 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Embarrassment, but not the way you think...
So there we were, protecting Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States from the evil intentions, and very real conventional threat, of Saddam Hussein. Quite literally, half of our Air Force and Navy had spent their entire careers either deployed to the Gulf, preparing to go, or repairing after having returned. For almost eleven years, our forces were involved in a quasi-war, defending the no-fly zones, bombing, supporting sanctions that punished the Iraqi people, but not Saddam. In return, we made ourselves the targets of fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.

Comes 9/11 and, surprise, the terrorists who did it were largely supported by funds from the very country where we had stationed most of our forces, though the Saudi government officially condemned such terrorism. So, we go after the terrorist nest in Afghanistan and, lo and behold, find that the Saudis forbid the use of their bases in the effort, going so far as preventing our aircraft from even overflying Saudi airspace. This forces us to find bases in "the Stans," former Soviet territories, now independent. The supply lines are long and the conditions severe, but we press on and topple the Taliban. Still, much remains to be done and we find ourselves still handcuffed by our promises to the Saudis - where most of the Air Force and Navy are still postured against Saddam. What to do, what to do?

If we simply pull out, Saddam is still in power, a potential problem in the area. Anyway, he's a prick, nasty to his own people and also, we think, still dabbling in WMD. Besides, we're still getting blamed for those damned UN sanctions, which mostly hurt the Iraqi people.

The solution? Simple - take out Saddam. The bastard deserves it, anyway, and, if successful, we can separate ourselves from the Saudis. On comes Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. We quickly defeat Saddam's forces (perhaps too quickly, largely because they ran away), and find ourselves in a nasty, little (hopefully temporary) guerilla war.

But notice what else has happened. Saddam is no longer a threat in the area. The UN sanctions have ended. The no-fly zones no longer exist. Significantly, we have been able to pull most of the Navy out of the area and today there is not one US aircraft or soldier stationed in Saudi Arabia. We closed our last base in Saudi Arabia last month. And has anyone noticed how little complaint we've heard from Iran?

Of course, this is a really high stakes game. Everything depends on our ability to restore order in Iraq and set up some kind of non-hostile government. The Administration must show solid progress by this time next year or they are in trouble. But we no longer owe the Saudis anything and are now free to root out terrorists where we find them.

Hey, it's a theory, anyway.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-03 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Just said NO
The question of who pays for U.S. forces in the Middle East is also a factor, the sources said.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain pay the full cost of the forces stationed on their soil. But they only pay about one-third of the cost of U.S. forces at sea, while Oman and the UAE refused to fund offshore costs at all.

The Americans have benefited tremendously from Saudi oil largesse. For years Saudi Arabia helped to finance the US budget deficit by buying American treasury bills and bonds. Members of the Saudi royal family have donated generously to American causes and charities: in 1985 Fahd donated US$1 million to first lady Nancy Reagans "Just Say No" anti-drugs campaign; in 1989 he gave $1 million to a literacy campaign launched by first lady Barbara Bush.
Saudi Arabia has also been the American armament-industrys best customer. It has been active in the US Foreign Military Sales programme since the 1950s, acquiring combat vehicles, naval vessels, small arms, jet-fighters, AWACS reconnaissance aircraft, advanced electronics and other equipment. Saudi Arabia pays higher fees than other countries for its soldiers, sailors and airmen to be trained at military facilities throughout the US. During the 1990s the Saudis spent an estimated $170 billion on military equipment, and last summer they awarded contracts worth some $50 billion to develop the countrys gas production facilities. American companies were the beneficiaries of almost all these sales and contracts. Riyadh has recently made public its decision to spend $2.6 billion to upgrade its fleet of ageing F-15 S "Eagle" fighter aircraft.
Members of the House of Saud have also benefited personally from these sales and contracts. Foreign contractors usually pay a 5 percent "commission" to Saudi officials, often members of the royal family. Saudis who have become rich from the countrys oil wealth have mostly invested their fortunes in the West. According to Chas W Freeman, former US ambassador to Riyadh, some 100,000 Saudis own houses or flats in the US (Washington Post, February 11, 2002).
Saudi money has supported US policy goals and covert operations in many places, from Afghanistan to Nicaragua. In the 1980s the Saudis contributed more than $30 million to the Contras in Nicaragua. They contributed $10 million to an electoral campaign of the Christian Democratic Party (Italy) to enable it to defeat the Communist Party. The Saudis also financed a CIA plot to assassinate Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah by a car-bomb in Beirut. The car exploded on March 8, 1985, killing 80 people and wounding two hundred; Ayatullah Fadlallah escaped unharmed.
At various times of oil shortage and rising prices, the Saudis have generally agreed to increase production and press fellow-members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to limit production cuts. When oil prices rose sharply after the Islamic Revolution in Iran (1979), Saudi Arabia and the UAE, arrested this rise by maintaining marker prices $2 per barrel below those of Iran and other radical OPEC producers.
It is unlikely that recent criticisms from US officials and the American media indicate a real desire on Washingtons part to abandon or weaken the House of Saud. If the House of Saud collapses, there is no guarantee that the regime that takes over is going to be as acquiescent to Washingtons demands as the Saudis still are.

The Saudis have repeatedly used their surplus production capacity to stabilize the international oil market. They used it to break the OPEC embargo (but not before they had enriched themselves by tens of billions of dollars), in 1974. They used it again during the protracted Iran-Iraq war, to keep oil flowing to the industrialized West. They used it during the Gulf War, in 1990-1991; with help from a couple of other Gulf states, they produced an extra five million barrels a day, making up for the loss of Iraqi and Kuwait oil.

And they used it again on September 12, 2001. Less than twenty-four hours after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Saudis decided to send nine million barrels of oil to the United States over the next two weeks. The result was that the United States experienced only a slight inflation spike in the wake of the most devastating terrorist attack in history. Had that same surplus capacity been taken out of play with twenty pounds of Semtex, all bets would have been off. The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve can support the domestic market for only about seventy days.
(and that was BEFORE the Black Water fiasco)
And if Saudi Arabia's contribution to the world's oil supply were cut off, crude petroleum could quite realistically rise from around $40 a barrel today to as much as $150 a barrel. It wouldn't take long for other economic and social calamities to follow.

Are you afraid what the results might be of cooperating with the United States?

No, because we never, nothing in our relationship with the United States or any other country will be done at the expense of the interests of our people. ...
My point is, therefore, as I told you, we always keep an eye on our constituency. And how many times have we been attacked in your press or by your politicians or... You know why we're attacked? Not because we're bad to our people, but because we will not do what they think is good, from their view. Hey, I don't have to please people downtown Washington, but I must always take into account Saudi people. ... /

Just to make sure that no one upsets the workings of this system, perhaps by meddling in internal Saudi affairs, Saudi Arabia now keeps possibly as much as a trillion dollars on deposit in U.S. banks--an agreement worked out in the early eighties by the Reagan Administration, in an effort to get the Saudis to offset U.S. government budget deficits. The Saudis hold another trillion dollars or so in the U.S. stock market. This gives them a remarkable degree of leverage in Washington. If they were suddenly to withdraw all their holdings in this country, the effect, though perhaps not as catastrophic as having a major source of oil shut down, would still be devastating.
(Robert Baer served for twenty-one years with the CIA, primarily as a field officer in the Middle East. He resigned from the agency in 1997 and was awarded its Career Intelligence Medal in 1998. This article is adapted from the forthcoming book Sleeping With the Devil (Crown Publishers), to be published in June.)

The British daily Financial Times said Wednesday that the Saudis withdrew some 200 billion dollars of their assets placed in the USA because of fears that the Bush administration will freeze them.
The paper added that the value of the withdrawn sums constitute a large part of the total Saudi investments in the USA estimated between 400- 600 billion dollars.

Saudi Arabia has declared it's freedom from the USA.
That is why it is currently being demonized.

Saddam was only ever an excuse to have soldiers monitoring that nation from within. He had CIA ties, remember.
Iraq is the tactical pivot.
Saudi Arabia is the strategic pivot.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration sought to assure Saudi Arabia Tuesday that it is still a close U.S. ally despite a private analyst's report warning of threats posed by the desert kingdom.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Defense Advisory Board -- a panel that advises the Pentagon on defense policy -- hosted an analyst from the Rand Corporation who portrayed Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United States.
Rand analyst Laurent Murawiec told the panel that the Saudis support and finance terrorism, the newspaper reported. He recommended that the United States seize Saudi oil fields and freeze its assets in the United States unless it halts this support, the Post reported. /

"Like any other Faustian bargain, it comes time to pay up," he said. "Unless the Saudis change this, then I believe they will meet the fate of the Shah of Iran."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dancing_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-03 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. The only way this guerilla war will be temporary...
Is if we just get the hell out of there soon and accept that the Government and people of Iraq will be hostile to our attempted colonization, but a few generations down the road they'll forgive us like we forgave the British.

We're paying a hell of a lot more for this interminable guerilla war and greeed-driven occupation than we ever did for just terrorizing and "containing" Iraq. And now most of the world recognizes that the whole "war on terrorism" is just a greedy farce of the Bush Administration...and 9/11 was a pretext only they could decide would happen.

3 out of the 3 top best sellers in Germany today demonstrate how 9/11 was an inside job of the Bush Administration. And this is one of our closest allies! In other countries, the majority of the people don't need a book to be told that Bush is the biggest and most ruthlessly terrorizing threat in this situation. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MikeS Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-03 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Here's my bet...
Theories about GWOT or 9/11 notwithstanding, saying, "Let's get out soon," is gonna be tougher said then done. No matter which Dem wins the nomination and the White House, we'll still be faced with faced with trying to contrive some kind of orderly withdrawal. Even Dennis Kucinich's plan to immediately transfer all control to the United Nations will be difficult. The logistics of the plan alone will be pretty dicey. First, they'll have to decide on some kind of UN-led command structure (under whom? The French? Germans? Indians?), then they'll have to rely on US assets to deploy and sustain whatever force they put in - no one else has the capability for force projection and sustainment that the US has. Almost every UN deployment relies on the US for such things.

The alternative, of course, is simply withdrawing without any UN replacement, leaving whatever Iraqi government in place to fend for itself. While the US is busy training a new Iraqi army and police force, who knows what kind of shape it will be in next year?

I wouldn't count on Bush to pull out - he's committed now. And any Democrat in the White House won't want to be saddled (however unfairly) with the, "Who Lost Iraq?" bullshit that would be sure to follow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MikeS Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-03 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Shucks,
Obviously, I meant "easier said than done."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. Clinton pulled out of Somalia
and even though some recliner-jockeys are upset,
Clinton was WELCOMED when he toured Africa because he was widely seen as having put an end to genocide.

It does NOT appear that this is a popular war.,2763,1015711,00....

A White House spokesman said Bush has not attended any memorials or funerals for soldiers killed in action during his presidency as his predecessors had done, although he has met with families of fallen soldiers and has marked the loss of soldiers in Memorial Day and Sept. 11, 2001, remembrances.

Neither the troops nor the nation want to be engaged in conflict in Iraq.

US Soldiers to America:
''Bring Us Home Now! Were dying for oil and corporate greed!''
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3 in a 5 part series:

At Fort Stewart, Georgia, where Bush staged one of his post-invasion appearances, using returning troops as a prop, approximately 600 wounded and injured reservists are being denied prompt medical care and housed under disgraceful conditions in World War II-era cinderblock barracks that lack running water or air-conditioning. Wounded soldiers are forced to walk 30 yardsin many cases on crutchesto a bug-infested communal latrine. They are obliged to buy their own toilet paper.
After several of the reservists revealed these conditions to the media, some 400 of the wounded men and women were lined up in formation Tuesday morning to be reprimanded by senior officers, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported Wednesday. They said wed be doing more cleaning up, more work, and to keep our mouths shut, Sgt. Dennis Stewart, a Terre Haute, Indiana firefighter told the newspaper.

Therefore, I really do believe that whosoever gets the US the EFF out of Iraq will be seen as the next candidate for beatification.
As for an orderly withdrawl, that would still make sense if the US was in away concerned about what the rest of the world - or the UN - thinks.
But the US does not appear to be bothered by world opinion and SO WHAT if they leave Iraq in a mess just as long as they leave?
Once they are gone Iraq will just have to muddle along as best it can.

The "problematic" departure you present has been cited in every single instance when a colonial power was under pressure to give up its colony.
"The savages can't rule themselves," is the classic argument advanced by the coalition partner Britain which frequently refers to iself as being "great." /
There is NOTHING wrong with a popularly elected government actually obeying the mandate of its recognized constitution, and the US Constitution expressly forbids the creation, subjugation or perpetration of colonies.
I neither know nor care what the Patriot Act, aka PNAC MAnifesto, says on the subject. But I can tell you one thing for sure:
The USA will relinquish control of Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-03 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
7. You know that theory about why Baghdad fell so quickly?
If the rumors of a deal with SH's regime are true, that would explain why there was so little reistance to the U.S. invasion, and why Saddam "can't" be found.

The details of the above may be different, but if the basic fact is true (that there was an "understanding" between the U.S. and Saddam...or elements of the Revolutionary Guard/Iraqi military), that makes it even more plausible that the U.S. was somehow involved in 9-11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-03 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Hummm
It seems possible and even likely to me that the US and elements of the SH's regime had an 'understanding', but why would that make it more plausible that the US was involved in 9/11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-03 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Another example in the long history of Gov't involvement in conspiracies
People who are open-minded, but find it hard to believe that their own government would do things like cut deals with our enemies...might not be aware of things like Reagan's Iran Contra Conspiracy (trading arms for hostages, with our enemies...or even that there is good reason to believe that Poppy Bush helped steal the 1980 election via another conspiracy with an enemy country). Once people become knowledgeable about more of these kinds of things, they're more likely to question the whole Official 9-11 Story. They'll begin to see just how implausible it is to maintain that some weirdo in a cave, who has bad enough kidneys that he requires on-going dialysis, could possibly have plotted, planned, and carried out the events of 9-11...and our great and dear leader, Commander Bunnypants, with all the resources and assets of our considerably fat intelligence agencies at his behest, and we can't "find " him? Or the Anthrax sender. Or, Saddam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-03 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Maybe I misunderstand your point but to me
having an 'understanding' with elements of SH's regime during or prior to the war seems like a good military strategy rather than a conspiracy.

Of course the possibility that SH is still loose because of this presents a problem. Perhaps it was worth the risk of losing him to gain an advantage in the field.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-03 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. You can rationalize anything
Using your Official PR logic, 9-11 wasn't a U.S. supported conspiracy; it was a "good military strategy" that made it possible to galvanize the public in support of starting more wars, invading countries, stealing their assets, and transferring more of the public's wealth to the upper classes, and corporate sponsors of politicians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-03 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
15.  "I could be bounded in a nutshell,
and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams."

(Hamlet: Act II, Scene II)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-03 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. my take
i dont think there is any giant conspiracy with the US not being able to find osama or sadaam. i think instead it is incompetance on the part of our leadership and the military. and i dont think many could argue with incompetance at the top, namely shrub.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-10-03 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. It would depend
on what you mean by "involved" and what you'd mean by "US".

Would that be "US" as in "us" or as in "them"?


I put it down to nostalgia.


One upon a time the good guys would ride around in white hats while the bad guys all wore black hats. How easy it was; and how impossible then to comprehend the full complexity beyond the limitations of your PC pixels.

Cry "conspiracy" as much as they may, the cavalry aint coming.

:kick: :argh:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-03 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #14
26. US as in..
United States

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
16. Eyewitness Accounts of 9-11 are worthless: read this
The latest example of why eyewitness accounts of an event are unreliable
is the incident involving Roy Horn and "Montecore" (the 600 pound tiger).

Eyewitnesses who were only a few feet or a few yards away from the incident have given wildly varying accounts of what they saw.

Some say Roy was mauled, some thought what happened was part of their act, some said the tiger was actually trying to save Roy, and some didn't realize the tiger may have been distracted by a woman in the audience. Those are just some of the things said by people who claimed to have witnessed the recent tragedy that has left Mr. Horn hospitalized in Las Vegas.

So, the next time some defender of the Official Story Conspiracy tries to use selected eyewitness testimony to sway you to the Official Version Story; just say: "Remember Montecore". Eyewitness accounts are worthless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-03 05:20 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. So
it was a 600 pound tiger that hit the Pentagon, is that what you're getting at?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-03 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. How much do you weigh?
So, you're a real tiger. Is that what you're getting at?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-03 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-03 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. I weigh
all the evidence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-03 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. It was a 98 pound weakling blasted from a British circus cannon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jan 18th 2018, 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC