Posted on 02/11/2015 6:08:03 AM PST by HomerBohn
The United States invaded the wrong country when it attacked Iraq. Saudi Arabia, not former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, financed the terrorists and aided and abetted the slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11.
We have always known that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. That was just a coincidence, proclaimed Washington. But the evidence old and new is stacking up that Saudi Arabia, at the top levels of government, provided aid for that assault.
The 9/11 Commission reported that while all traffic over the United States was halted in the days following 9/11, six chartered flights with 142 people aboard, mostly Saudis, left the United States with FBI escorts between Sept. 14, 2001 and Sept. 24, 2001. It was reported by The Saint Petersburg Times in 2004 that at least one other flight with three men, perhaps members of the Saudi royal family, were also ushered out of the United States with bodyguards during that period.
It all seems too incredible to be true. It would mean our government has been lying to the American people for well over a decade.
That can’t happen, can it? That would mean that twice in the past half century, back-to-back presidents convinced the nation to fight in an insurgent war that cost of thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. It would mean that presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have acted just as presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon did with regard to fighting wars where the benefactor was America’s military-industrial establishment.
According to Global Research in September 2013, the United States will have spent between $4 and $6 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government in 2013 reported that roughly 20 percent of the total amount added to the U.S. national debt between 2001 and 2012 was a result of Bush and Obama’s wars. The report added that in 2013 U.S. had already paid $260 billion in interest on the war debt and future interest payments alone could be trillions of dollars.
The war spending was based on lies by the Bush administration about Iraq processing weapons of mass destruction and the strong insinuation that Saddam conspired with al-Qaida on the 9/11 attack. And while millions of Americans still believe this is true, perhaps assuaging their guilt over that war, a 2004 House of Representatives committee found 237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by Bush and those in his administration, notably Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. In all, the administration was said to have lied in 125 separate appearances, which included 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, written statements, and two congressional testimonies.
According to the House committee, at least 61 separate statements “misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda.” In 2006, a separate Senate investigation agreed. In 2009, Cheney admitted, “I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Saddam] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true.”
Eventually it turned out not to be true? That’s because it was all a pack of lies from the very start told because the real truth is unthinkable. Those in the highest levels of government in Saudi Arabia — America’s staunchest ally in Islam — provided financial and perhaps even logistical aid to al-Qaida in carrying out 9/11.
Last week, lawyers representing the families of the 9/11 victims in a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia announced they have new evidence that agents of that government “directly and knowingly” aided the hijackers. It includes sworn testimony from the 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui.
Moussaoui, who is serving a life sentence in a maximum-security prison in Florence, Colorado, claims that there was a plot by al-Qaida to shoot down Air Force One and assassinate President Bill Clinton that was assisted by a top Saudi Embassy employee. And he says there were direct dealings between senior Saudi officials and bin Laden. The rants of a crazy man, insists the Saudi embassy in Washington.
Bob Graham, co-chairman of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, said he believes “there was a direct line” between some 9/11 terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia.
Why in the world would two presidents cover up the most horrific attack on American civilians? I can give you two reasons: oil and money. First, Saudi Arabia has the largest reserves of conventional oil in the world, which it can pump at about the same cost as bottled water. Second, Saudi investors hold $250 billion in U.S. Treasuries and another $100 billion in U.S. stocks and bonds.
Those reasons might explain Bush’s cover-up. Obama may have more personal ones for protecting the country that holds two of Islam’s most holy sites, The Sacred Mosque in Mecca and the Mosque of the Prophet in Medina.
This may sound outlandish, but so are some of the things Obama has said regarding Islam, including his speech last week at the National Prayer Breakfast:
And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. Michelle and I returned from India — an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity — but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs — acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation.
Yes, Mr. President, and let’s not forget about the evil inside Ancient Rome.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal had the best response to Obama’s history lecture:
We will be happy to keep an eye out for runaway Christians, but it would be nice if he would face the reality of the situation today. The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today.
They aren’t the only ones.
This has been going on for at least the last half century.
It was a couple of years ago that I finally said to myself, “if someone could prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, who was reasponsible for 9/11, I’d guess it would probably be proven that Saudi Arabia was behind it. Ignore the proclamations about blame, friends, enemies and just look at raw facts. It points to them. It really did from the beginning.
But so what? Where does that leave you in 2002?
Looks like Prince Al Waleed bin Talal bin Abdulazziz got his money’s worth. Their agent has been a wrecking ball used against the U.S. for the last 6 years...
Further examination of the invasion of Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein will prove that it was another of America’s colossal misjudgments.
Saddam kept Iraq AND surrounding nations in check. Iran shook in their shoes as Iraqi planes bombed Tehran on a regular basis. Removing Saddam was a tragic mistake that this nation and all of Western Europe will continue to suffer as a result. This is not to mention the entire middle east which has exploded in violent turmoil.
Bushes I and II paved the way for today’s calamity, but the phony psychopath happily marches on leading with his behind.
Saudi Arabia has always been the culprit.
Oil prices went down. King dies, Obama cancels previous travel and visiting plans to India, rushes to Saudi Arabia to meet new king. Oil prices on the rise. Obama did not use his pen when he was there but certainly his phone when he was back in the White House. America is a stool pigeon for this Muslim country and our leader is at fault.
In a previous more enlightened age, the Saudi attack on 9/11 would have been all the excuse we would have needed to invade Saudi Arabia and seize their oil fields.
“Remember the Maine”
The Saudis also dump huge amounts of cash into universities to pump up the moehammedan lies. They pay off protection money to the most radical Islamists to go everywhere else and leave the Royals alone.
They buy politicians cheap — remember ABSCAM? I am convinced they support the “Green” movement in order to stop oil production everywhere else.
Speaking of enforcing the no-fly zones, it was the presence of "infidels" in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War in support of Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch that was the specific motivation of Osama bin Laden to launch the attacks on 9/11.
Were the 9/11 attackers mostly Saudi? Yes. Was the funding mostly from Saudis? Yes. Was 9/11 supported by the Saudi government? No.
Question...I thought it started with the Clintons as they loved China and the Saudis...or is my memory incorrect????
We are protecting the Saudis because, guess who built the oil wells in Arabia, you guessed it we did.
Also the Saudi royal who was at the finish line and burned in the Boston Marathon bombing, had been labeled by one branch of the US government as a potential terrorist and then was visited in the hospital by the Big Zero's wife, should confirm that our current president is in their pocket.
As to Bush, well, since so many of the 9 11 terrorists on the plane were Saudi citizens and since we dropped everything immediately after that and then even spent millions along with the lives of some of our troops to draw a red line in the sand after Iraq invaded the Saudi little neighbor of Kuwait the Bush allegiance to the Saudi masters should also be obvious.
They did it to keep oil pegged to the American dollar - it’s what’s holding up our entire currency.
A 4,000-page court filing on Feb. 3 by lawyers for the 9/11 families, is putting a renewed spotlight on the role of Saudi Arabia in sponsoring the 9/11 attacks, and is increasing the pressure for release of the censored 28 pages from the Congressional Joint Inquiry.
Starting Tuesday evening, coverage of the explosive filings spread from the New York Times and CNN through the news media internationally and domestically. Importantly, the filings contained affidavits from two former 9/11 Commissioners, and from former Senate Intelligence Commission chairman Bob Graham, debunking Saudi claims that they were exonerated by the 9/11 Commission, and with 9/11 Commission member John Lehman calling for release of the 28 pages.
In 2013-14, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia & Herzegovina (SHC), were reinstated as defendants by actions of the U.S. Appeals Court in New York and the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Kingdom and the SHC are now desperately trying to get themselves dismissed again. A blockbuster pleading filed last September, states that the success of the 9/11 attacks “was made possible by the lavish sponsorship al Qaeda received from its material sponsors, including the Kingdom and SHC, over more than a decade leading up to September 11, 2001.” It not only contains detailed evidence of how Saudi-sponsored “charities” financed Al-Qaeda in the years leading up the 9/11 attacks, but it also describes — in detail — how Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz al Saud (now King Salman), was put in charge of the SHC and how he personally directed the arming and financing of al-Qaeda during the 1990s.
One of the exhibits attached to Monday’s filing, is a copy of the “Matrix of Threat Indicators” used by the U.S. military at Guantanamo. According to an affidavit by attorney Sean Carter, one of the lawyers for the 9/11 families, The Matrix of Threat Indicators identifies the ‘Saudi High Commission for Relief’ as one of the organizations within a list of ‘terrorist and terrorist support entities’ and indicates that ‘through associations with these groups and organizations, a detainee may have provided support to al-Qaeda or the Taliban, or engaged in hostilities against U.S. or Coalition forces. A number of other exhibits also deal with the role of the Salman-run SHC in financing and arming Al-Qaeda.
Share this video to build support for H.Res.14 to declassify the 28 pages.
Leading the news coverage of Monday’s filing, is the more than one hundred pages of sworn testimony by would-be hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui, describing how wealthy Saudis and members of the Saudi royal family provided financial support to him and other terrorists in the late 1990s.
Although Moussaoui was declared mentally-ill by his own lawyers in his 2006 trial in Alexandria, Va., and his public behavior was wild and erratic, nonetheless 9/11 families’ attorney Sean Carter told the New York Times that his impression during the taking of Moussaoui’s deposition was that Moussaoui “was of completely sound mind — focused and thoughtful.”
Among those named by Moussaoui in his deposition were former Saudi intelligence head Prince Turki bin-Faisal and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. who has previously been identified as providing support to the San Diego hijackers, and whom Executive Intelligence Review put in the center of the British-Saudi Al Yamamah terrorist-funding slush fund.
Whatever the ultimate value of Moussaoui’s testimony turns out to be, the furor surrounding it is shining a bright light on the already-established, highly-credible mountains of evidence of Saudi sponsorship of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and is giving added momentum to the demands for release of the 28 pages.
Thanks for your post. Interesting and informative.
I always wanted to know what where in those 28 pages myself.
That’s supposed to be “were” not “where”. A duh to me!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.