Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org
A stunning news-report at Politico on November 12th, titled “The Attacks Will Be Spectacular,” reveals
that the then CIA Director George Tenet, and his anti-terror chief
Cofer Black, say that they had told the White House this, but that the
response coming back to them was “We’re not quite ready to consider
this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.” As Politoco’s reporter,
Chris Whipple, then explains: “(Translation: they did not want a paper
trail to show that they’d been warned.)”
It can’t get much more damning than that.
Bush knew it was going to happen but did nothing to stop it. He didn’t
even try to. In other words: His only actual concern at the time was for
it to be done in such a way that his prior knowledge of it wouldn’t be
provable — that his participation in it, his consciously allowing it to
happen, would be deniable. He insisted on that deniability. He has
consistently followed through with it.
Whipple then writes:
That morning of July 10, the head of
the agency’s Al Qaeda unit, Richard Blee, burst into Black’s office.
“And he says, ‘Chief, this is it. Roof’s fallen in,’” recounts Black.
“The information that we had compiled was absolutely compelling. It was
multiple-sourced. And it was sort of the last straw.” Black and his
deputy rushed to the director’s office to brief Tenet. All agreed an
urgent meeting at the White House was needed.
This meeting was held in the White House.
But it was with Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s National Security Advisor and
close friend, not with Bush himself — deniability was Bush’s obsession,
and, doing things this way would preserve it; if word of this meeting
would ever get out, then Rice would be the only person with explaining
to do. Deniability would be preserved; she was protecting the President,
from accountability for allowing the attack — whenever it would
come. Even an urgent matter like this didn’t draw Bush’s attendance, to
speak with Tenet and Black and question them about this urgent matter.
Black and Tenet were stunned by her
response. Black told Politico, “To me it remains incomprehensible still.
I mean, how is it that you could warn senior people so many times and
nothing actually happened? It’s kind of like The Twilight Zone.”
However, when the White House had said
“We don’t want the clock to start ticking,” the answer to that mystery
was already clear, and both Black and Tenet were intelligent people;
they knew what the explanation was, but they also knew they’d be in
danger if they were to say it publicly: The White House was planning to
assert something like “We didn’t know it was coming,” once it had come.
And, of course, that is precisely what the White House did say. And it
continues to say: Bush’s successor has no interest in denying it, and
President Obama even perpetrates his own lies upon the public, such as
by his saying that the
21 August 2013 sarin gas attack in Syria was done by Bashar al-Assad’s
forces, instead of by forces that Obama supplied — and knew had actually
done it — and such as his saying that the overthrow of
Ukraine’s democratically elected (but, like virtually all of recent
Ukrainian leaders, corrupt) President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014
was a democratic revolution there, instead of the American coup that it was, which his own Administration had started organizing in the Spring of 2013.
George W. Bush comes from an oil family, and this was an oil-based operation. Another of Bush’s buddies was “Bandar Bush”,
Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud, the Saudi royal who was at the time
the Kingdom’s Ambassador in Washington, but who, subsequently became the
Saud family’s chief international strategist. Wikipedia, for example,
notes of him that, “After tensions with Qatar over supplying rebel
groups [to take down Assad in Syria], Saudi Arabia (under Bandar’s
leadership of its Syria policy) switched its efforts from Turkey to
Jordan in 2012, using its financial leverage over Jordan to develop
training facilities there, with Bandar sending his half-brother and
deputy Salman bin Sultan to oversee them.”
President Obama continues protecting George W. Bush, and protecting the Saud family from being pursued for its being
the world’s chief financial backer of jihadists (“terrorists”), by
Obama’s keeping incommunicado in a federal prison the man who had served
Osama bin Laden throughout as the bookkeeper for Al Qaeda and as the
bagman who traveled especially to the Sunni homeland Saudi Arabia, but
also to other Sunni Arabic kingdoms, collecting loads of cash
multimillion-dollar donations for Al Qaeda’s cause of global jihad —cash
from, among other people, Prince Bandar bin Sultan himself. The
bookkeeper/bagman said that they paid their fighters high salaries.
Those were at least as much mercenaries as they were jihadists. The
bookkeeper/bagman also said, “without the money of the — of the Saudi
you will have nothing.” The bookkeeper’s/bagman’s testimony
became required in a court case that had been filed by 9/11 family
members, and even the U.S. President wasn’t able to prevent it, or else
was subtly signaling the Saudi King that the U.S. is the boss and can
bring him down, if Obama should decide to do that. Only with the
continued cooperation of the American press now would the secret of the
funding of the interntional jihad movement remain a secret.
But the U.S. aristocracy certainly don’t
want the President whom they own to do that; after all, the Sauds have
always been extremely profitable for them. As Thalif Deen of Inter Press
Service reported on 9 November 2015,
“The biggest single arms deal – up to 60 billion dollars worth of
weapons to Saudi Arabia — has been described as the largest in U.S.
history. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the
nonpartisan investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, about $40 billion
in arms transfers was authorised to the six Gulf countries between 2005
and 2009, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE as the largest recipients.” The
Sauds were buying more than all the other Sunni royal families together,
even more than the Thanis, who control Qatar. Those two, and UAE,
all being Sunni fundamentalist dictatorships, have contributed the most
to bringing down the secular Shiite leader of Syria, Bashar al-Assad.
America’s aristocracy also benefits by the Saud family’s long history of
assisting the U.S. aristocracy in its long-held dream of taking control
of Russia.
On 9 October 2001, just after 9/11, The New York Times quoted Bandar Bush:
“Bin Laden used to come to us when
America, underline, America, through the C.I.A. and Saudi Arabia, were
helping our brother mujahedeen in Afghanistan, to get rid of the
communist secularist Soviet Union forces,” Prince Bandar said. “Osama
bin Laden came and said `Thank you. Thank you for bringing the Americans
to help us.’ “
Though communism is over, the secularism
in Russia’s government isn’t, and Russia has increasingly become a major
competitor to the fundamentalist Sunni oil dictators, competing in
international oil and gas markets (especially the European market); so,
the jihadist dictatorships, and the United States, share common cause in
replacing the government of Russia, for the mutual benefit of all of
those nations’ aristocracies.
And, besides, the investors in Lockheed
Martin and other Pentagon contractors are greatly profiting from selling
the weaponry etc. to do this job. The U.S. President is their best
salesman. President Obama’s National Security Strategy 2015 thus points the finger of blame at Russia for 17 of the 18 times it employs the term “aggression.” That’s
Obama’s assignment for the U.S. ‘Defense’ Department and they would
never participate in aggression; and, so, too, the term “aggression” is
never applied there to the U.S. itself. For example, our bombing of
Libya to get rid of Muammar Gaddafi, an ally of Russia, was purely
defensive, entirely in keeping with the traditions of the U.S. ‘Defense’
Department.
Here’s something else that Bandar Bush said there:
He acknowledged that the root of some
of the rage in radical Islamic circles is economic, and that human
rights was a luxury some Arab states cannot afford. “We want the right
to eat for a lot of people. Let’s first finish that. Then we get to all
your fantasies in America,” he said.
The Saudi
King is the world’s wealthiest person, by far: he owns the Saudi
government, which owns Saudi Aramco, which has oil reserves of 260
million barrels, which at $40/barrel, is, alone, a trillion dollars; and
that’s just for starters. And it doesn’t include the purely private wealth of people such as Prince Bandar, or of Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al Saud —
the latter of whom is among the top stockholders both in Rupert
Murdoch’s News Corp. and in Citigroup (and in other large corporations).
So, with that trillionaire King and those billionaire Princes, “human
rights is a luxury Saudi Arabia cannot afford.”
And here’s something else that Bandar Bush said there:
“In a Western democracy, you lose
touch with your people, you lose elections,” Prince Bandar said. “In a
monarchy, you lose your head.”
So: the reason why Bush’s (and much of
the rest of the U.S. aristocracy’s) buddy, Prince Bandar, doesn’t want
democracy in Saudi Arabia, is that it’s a monarchy and each of the
royals might therefore lose his head if his country were to become
democratic. They want “the right to eat for a lot of people” in their
Kingdom, but not “all your fantasies in America.” They need to build
their own palaces instead. After they’ve had enough of that (which will
be never), the Sauds will allow in ‘their’ country “human rights.”
This also is a reason why each one of the
royals needs to pay heavily into the funds that the Saudi clerics — the
most-fundamentalist of the clergies in any majority-Muslim country —
designate as being holy, such as jihadist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS,
which aim to spread their religion throughout the world. This reason
had its origin in the
deal in the year 1744, that the fanatical anti-Shia cleric Muhammad ibn
Abd al Wahhab and the ambitious gang-leader Muhammad ibn Saud (the
founder of Saudi Arabia) made, which established simultaneously the
Saudi-Wahhabist nation and the Wahhabist sect of Islam, which is
joined-at-the-head with Saud’s descendants. This deal was the
most clearly and accurately described in the 1992
U.S.-Library-of-Congress-published book by Helen Chapin Metz, Saudi Arabia: A Country Study (and the highlighting of a sentence here is by me, not by Metz):
Lacking political support in Huraymila [where he lived], Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab returned to Uyaynah [the town of his birth]
where he won over some local leaders. Uyaynah, however, was close to Al
Hufuf, one of the Twelver Shia centers in eastern Arabia, and its
leaders were understandably alarmed at the anti-Shia tone of the
Wahhabi message. Partly as a result of their influence, Muhammad ibn Abd
al Wahhab was obliged to leave Uyaynah, and headed for Ad Diriyah. He
had earlier made contact with [and won over to his hatred of Shiia] Muhammad ibn Saud, the leader in Ad Diriyah at the time, and two of [Saud’s] brothers had accompanied [Saud] when he [in accord with Wahhab’s hate-Shiia teachings] destroyed tomb shrines [which were holy to Shiia] around Uyaynah.
Accordingly, when Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab arrived in Ad Diriyah, the Al Saud was ready to support him. In
1744 Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab swore a
traditional Muslim oath in which they promised to work together to
establish a state run according to Islamic principles. Until
that time the Al Saud had been accepted as conventional tribal leaders
whose rule was based on longstanding but vaguely defined authority.
Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab offered the
Al Saud a clearly defined religious mission to which to contribute
their leadership and upon which they might base their political
authority. This sense of religious purpose remained evident in the
political ideology of Saudi Arabia in the 1990s.
Muhammad ibn Saud began by leading
armies into Najdi towns and villages to eradicate various popular and
Shia practices. The movement helped to rally the towns and tribes of
Najd to the Al Saud-Wahhabi standard. By 1765 Muhammad ibn Saud’s forces
had established Wahhabism — and with it the Al Saud political authority
— over most of Najd.
So: Saudi Arabia was founded upon hatred
of Shiia Muslims, and it was founded upon a deal that was made in 1744
between a Shiia-hating fundamentalist Sunni cleric Wahhab and a ruthless
gang-leader Saud, in which deal the clergy would grant the Sauds holy
legitimacy from the Quran; and, for their part of the deal, the Sauds
would finance the spread of Wahhab’s fanatical anti-Shiia sect.
Whereas the U.S. aristocracy want to
conquer Russia, more than anything else, the Saudi aristocracy want to
conquer Iran, more than anything else.
Here is how Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal al-Saud was quoted on this matter on 27 October 2015 in Kuwait’s newspaper Al Qabas:
The whole Middle-East dispute is
tantamount to life and death for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from my
vantage point, and I know that Iranians seek to unseat the Saudi regime
by playing the Palestinian card, hence to foil their plots Saudi Arabia
and Israel must bolster their relations and form a united front to
stymie Tehran’s ambitious agenda.
The enemy, to Saudi aristocrats, isn’t
Israel; it is Iran. They hate Iranians even more than they hate
Russians. In fact, Talal also said there: “I will side with the Jewish
nation and its democratic aspirations in case of outbreak of a
Palestinian Intifada (uprising).” Israelis hated Iranians as much as
Iranians hated Israelis; and Prince Talal was welcoming Israelis aboard
his mission to destroy Iran. So: both the Sauds and Israel are on the
same side.
George W. Bush continued America’s war
against Russia. On 29 March 2004, he proudly brought into the
anti-Russian military club, NATO, 7 new members, all of which had
previously been allied together with Russia in the U.S.S.R. and its
NATO-mirror group, the Warsaw Pact. These 7 are: Bulgaria, Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
Barack Obama continued that anti-Russia policy, on 1 April 2009, by adding Albania, and Croatia, and then by perpetrating a coup in Ukraine which turned that country rabidly anti-Russian and
eager to join NATO. Obama also had the pro-Russian Libyan Muammar
Gaddafi killed, and the pro-Russian Syrian Bashar al-Assad invaded by
jihadists who are armed by the royal families of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The friend of the Arabic royal families,
Osama bin Laden, was ultimately sacrificed to the greater goal of the
U.S.-Saudi alliance, which has been to eliminate the pro-Russian secular
leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and to provide (via 9/11, etc.) the
public hysteria that has successfully enabled dictatorial laws to be
passed in the United States Congress, and, increasingly throughout the
rest of the U.S.-Saudi Empire.
Furthermore, the U.S. military industries
have recovered from their stock-market slumps prior to 9/11, largely
because of the success of the fear-Russia campaign, and of the increases
in terrorism and the resulting public hysteria that enables a
‘democratic’ country to invade and invade so as to kill the jihadist
fighters that ‘our friends’ the Sauds and other Sunni Arabic royal
families actually finance.
The Saudis became extremely angry at
Barack Obama for his negotiating seriously with the Iranians. For the
U.S. aristocracy, the target to be destroyed isn’t Iran, but Russia.
Obama represents the American aristocracy, not the Saudi aristocracy.
Regarding that priority, the U.S. and Saudi aristocracies part ways.
This has been a very productive alliance.
Perhaps, when George W. Bush surprised and even shocked his CIA by
sending them the message, “We’re not quite ready to consider this. We
don’t want the clock to start ticking,” he had already personally and
privately discussed with his buddy Bandar Bush, how they might achieve
the most important objectives of both the U.S. and Saudi aristocracies;
and this was the plan that they mutually arrived at, well before the CIA
had any knowledge of it. This seems to be the likeliest explanation of
Bush’s puzzling response there, back on 10 July 2001.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment