 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
These reports couldn't possibly be leaked to public without the consent of this administration. They are playing a game with Saudis: by releasing these reports, American public is incensed, Saudis are put on pressure, and should the Saudis not cooperate better, our government will have all the support of the population to go after them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Templar
|
 |
People's Republic of the East Village
Oct 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
Here's the article from the New Republic (emphasis added):
DAILY EXPRESS
28 Pages
by John B. Judis & Spencer Ackerman
Printer friendly
Only at TNR Online | Post date 08.01.03 E-mail this article
Since the joint congressional committee investigating September 11 issued a censored version of its report on July 24, there's been considerable speculation about the 28 pages blanked out from the section entitled "Certain Sensitive National Security Matters." The section cites "specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers," which most commentators have interpreted to mean Saudi contributions to Al Qaeda-linked charities. But an official who has read the report tells The New Republic that the support described in the report goes well beyond that: It involves connections between the hijacking plot and the very top levels of the Saudi royal family. "There's a lot more in the 28 pages than money. Everyone's chasing the charities," says this official. "They should be chasing direct links to high levels of the Saudi government. We're not talking about rogue elements. We're talking about a coordinated network that reaches right from the hijackers to multiple places in the Saudi government."
This week, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal flew to Washington for a hastily convened meeting with President Bush. Faisal publicly demanded that the 28 pages be declassified, but he had to have known in advance, and welcomed the fact, that his request would be denied--ostensibly friendly nations don't normally send their foreign ministers to meetings halfway around the world to be surprised. For his part, Bush has insisted that revealing the 28 pages would compromise "sources and methods that would make it harder for us to win the war on terror." But the chairman and vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time of the joint inquiry, Florida Democrat Bob Graham and Alabama Republican Richard Shelby, rejected that argument, contending that perhaps only 5 percent of the 28 pages would compromise national security if made public. Graham and Shelby are leading a drive in Congress to force the government to declassify the documents. While the new chairman and vice-chairman of the committee, Kansas Republican and Bush loyalist Pat Roberts and West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller, have yet to endorse Graham and Shelby's request, Kansas Republican Sam Brownback and New York Senator Charles Schumer have begun gathering signatures demanding declassification.
The Bush administration has, of course, good reason for not wanting to ruffle the Saudis by declassifying the 28 pages. Saudi Arabia sits atop 25 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and, through its dominant position in OPEC, essentially controls the global energy market. In addition to stabilizing world oil prices--most recently during the run-up to the war with Iraq--the Saudis also directly subsidize American consumers by offering oil at lower prices to the United States. In a 2002 article for Foreign Affairs, petroleum experts Edward Morse and James Richard estimated the subsidy at $620 million a year. It's probably much larger now, given recent trends in oil prices and the volume of oil imports. A serious conflict with the Saudis could not only disrupt an already turbulent Middle East, but could halt the economic recovery here and perhaps even precipitate a global downturn.
The Bush administration has insisted, again and again, that the war on terror is its first priority. In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz argued, "The battle to secure the peace in Iraq is now the central battle in the global war on terror." Wolfowitz says this presumably because he still believes that Saddam Hussein's regime had close ties with Al Qaeda. But it's looking more and more like the principal theater in the war on terror lies elsewhere. The official who read the 28 pages tells The New Republic, "If the people in the administration trying to link Iraq to Al Qaeda had one-one-thousandth of the stuff that the 28 pages has linking a foreign government to Al Qaeda, they would have been in good shape." He adds: "If the 28 pages were to be made public, I have no question that the entire relationship with Saudi Arabia would change overnight."
John B. Judis is a senior editor at TNR. Spencer Ackerman is an assistant editor at TNR.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gopher
|
|
I eat my own poop
Dec 1999
time: 00:30
|
|
From todays New York Times, quite shocking:
Report on 9/11 Suggests a Role by Saudi Spies
By JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON
quote:
WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 — The classified part of a Congressional report on the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, says that two Saudi citizens who had at least indirect links with two hijackers were probably Saudi intelligence agents and may have reported to Saudi government officials, according to people who have seen the report.
These findings, according to several people who have read the report, help to explain why the classified part of the report has become so politically charged, causing strains between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Senior Saudi officials have denied any links between their government and the attacks and have asked that the section be declassified, but President Bush has refused.
People familiar with the report and who spoke on condition of not being named said that the two Saudi citizens, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassnan, operated in a complex web of financial relationships with officials of the Saudi government. The sections that focus on them draw connections between the two men, two hijackers, and Saudi officials.
The report urges further investigation of the two men and their contacts with the hijackers, because of unresolved questions about their relationship and whether they had any involvement in the 9/11 plot.
The edited 28-page section of the report, produced by a joint panel of the House and Senate intelligence committees, also says that a Muslim cleric in San Diego was a central figure in a support network that aided the same two hijackers. Most connections drawn in the report between the men, Saudi intelligence and the attacks are circumstantial, several people who have read the report said.
The unclassified parts of the report also suggest a connection between Mr. al-Bayoumi and Saudi intelligence. The report says that "one of the F.B.I.'s best sources in San Diego informed the F.B.I. that he thought that al-Bayoumi must be an intelligence officer." The report also says that "despite the fact that he was a student, al-Bayoumi had access to seemingly unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia."
The joint inquiry's investigation of Mr. al-Bayoumi and Mr. Bassnan centered on their activities three years ago when they were living in San Diego. The report concluded that the two men were crucial to understanding the events leading up to the plot, largely because of Mr. al-Bayoumi's extensive contacts with two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, after they settled in San Diego in early 2000. There is no definitive evidence that Mr. Bassnan knew the hijackers, but the report describes him as a close associate of Mr. al-Bayoumi.
One unresolved issue in the classified part of the report concerned Mr. Bassnan's visit to Houston after the attacks. While Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah met with President Bush, Mr. Bassnan met with a Saudi in his entourage, according to the report. It is not known what they discussed.
In San Diego, Mr. al-Bayoumi was employed by a contractor to the Saudi civil aviation authority, and received payments authorized by a Saudi official. But Congressional officials believe he was a "ghost employee" of the contractor who did no actual work. The payments authorized by the Saudi official increased significantly after Mr. al-Bayoumi came in contact with the two hijackers in early 2000, the classified part of the report states.
According to the unclassified parts of the report, Mr. al-Bayoumi first befriended Mr. al-Mihdhar and Mr. al-Hazmi in January 2000 when they arrived in Los Angeles from Bangkok, after attending a meeting in Malaysia with other operatives of al Qaeda. The two men stayed in Mr. al-Bayoumi's apartment for several days. He helped them find their own apartment, paid their first month's rent and security deposit, and threw a party to help them get settled in the local Arabic community.
Law enforcement officials have said, though, that Mr. Almidhar repaid Mr. al-Bayoumi and added that there was no evidence Mr. al-Bayoumi or Mr. Bassnan ever provided any other money to Mr. Almidhar or Mr. Hazmi. That point, the officials said, helps to explain why Mr. al-Bayoumi has not been accused of any crime, like providing material support to terrorists.
Law enforcement officials have played down the significance of the connection between Mr. al-Bayoumi and the two hijackers, saying there is no evidence that Mr. al-Bayoumi knew of the 9/11 plot. They dismissed the tone of the report, which they say portrays the possible links between the plot and Saudi Arabian officials as clearer and more direct than is actually known.
F.B.I. and C.I.A. officials have also said that they are not certain why Mr. al-Bayoumi was in San Diego, and that they are not certain of his exact relationship with the Saudi government. Some officials said that even if he was not a professional Saudi intelligence officer, he may have had some informal role. It is possible, they believe, that he was assigned to monitor the activities of Saudi students and other expatriates in the United States.
Investigators said that the role of the Muslim cleric who the report says served as a "spiritual adviser" to the two hijackers is central to an understanding of what happened in San Diego. The cleric is not named in the declassified section of the report, but officials identified him as Anwar Aulaqi. He is said to have held meetings with the two hijackers, and when he moved to Falls Church, Va., in 2001, the two hijackers moved as well and began to attend the mosque with which the cleric was now associated. Officials said that the report made clear that the cleric's role needs to be investigated further.
Today, 46 Democratic senators asked that the deleted material be released, saying the national security issues Mr. Bush cited as the reason the material was classified could be addressed by careful editing. Republicans, including Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, a former Intelligence Committee chairman, have also called for its release.
Several Congressional officials familiar with the report say that only a small part of the classified section dealing with the specifics of F.B.I. counterintelligence and counterterrorism activities should remain classified. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said, "Keeping this material classified only strengthens the theory that some in the U.S. government are hellbent on covering up for the Saudis."
National Security Council officials are leading an interagency delegation to Saudi Arabia this weekend to discuss with Saudi officials investigations into the financing of terrorism. The Americans may also ask Saudi permission to interview Mr. al-Bayoumi, who is reportedly now in Saudi Arabia, officials said.
After 9/11, Mr. al-Bayoumi was briefly interviewed in Britain, but has never returned to the United States to face in-depth questioning.
|
Summary: The opening paragraph says it all.
Regime change in Saudi Arabia?
"You're either with us or them, or Haliburton"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
**** Saudi Arabia. This is really nothing new to us.. but I guess someone is finally picking it up more. I think it's good, we need to chase them down.
It's full of fundies, with money too, they torture western press guys (just saw a documentary, very interesting).. the royal family is just playing good guys, but the public hates them, and it's just a matter of time when they lose power. |
Um, this IS new in terms of establishing a real link between the Saudi government and September 11th. Before, it was mere speculation and the thought it was wealthy Saudis acting independently. But if the government really was involved, this is going to put massive pressure on the Bush administration.
Take down Saudi Arabia? Not likely. First, our forces are already spread thin and have their hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan. Diverting the necessary military resources to "regime change" in SA will mean exposing us on all sorts of fronts, including North Korea. Second, the Muslim world sat by and tolerated Afghanistan, they bristled at but accepted Iraq, but SA would be a whole different story. It would be the straw that broke the camel's back, since the premonitions of American attempts at ME hegemony would be seen to be coming true.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
One of the "justifications" of this war was that by taking out Saddam Hussein, we would no longer need troops in SA, thus removing one of Al Qaeda's claims (US in Holyland). The likelyhood that we wil invade SA (and actually put US forces in the Holy Cities) lies somewhere between zip and cilch. Besides, whom would we put in charge? The Sau's are relaitve moderates in SA.
Then there are the economic implications: the second any tensions between the US and SA came to fore, oil jumps $10 a barrel..the longer they go, the higher that number. Whoops, so much third quarter eocnomic recovery...and perhaps Bush precidency. Oh, and wait, the Sauds are one of the biggest buyers of US weapons (which of course means they have better stuff than Iraq): so congressmna, your district has 3000 jobs with weapon's contractors, but if we loose the SA account, that's 2000 less jobs in your district....
Too much has been invested in the US-SA allience for it to simply die away as some people here fantasize.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:30
|
|
Boris, uh oh, the joke's on me. Yaeh, I read the posts wrong, that Saudi Arabia has been caught of having lots of terrorists and they won't do anything about it.
So yes, this is new as in if there are real evidence.
I say let's take them out. First of all, 'you're either with us, or against us' and they have clearly showed that they are against. Now, we have more reasons to invade Saudi Arabia than whole lots of other troubled countries. This is the real case here, and I think even sissie euros won't raise their voices so hard than in the case of Iraq.
Now, if we want to fight terrorism, and do what we preach, then we must go and take them out.
I think attacking SA is not so big of a problem as attacking Iran for example would be. Or Syria. It would show that W is fair and does what he says. If not, it only will make it seem like he takes out troubled places that suits him, meaning it's not really a war on terrorism, but a good excuse to pursue other agendas.
So I think we should bring it on to SA soon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
As I've stated before, all we have to do to take down Saudi is...nothing.
By nothing, I mean no bases, no arms sales, no oil trade.
We're already moving the bases. |
Oil is Oil, someone will buy Saudi Oil if not the US. Besides, sitting on the biggets amount of Oil, the Sauds get to dictate prices..they can last out any US admin., if they decide to push prices up to $45 a barrel by cutting production.
And Arms dealers in this country are unlikely to care to lose their biggest market, speically when other states could sell to SA anyhow.
nd again, who takes over..the Saudi Moderates? Yeah, right.........
Welcome to the wonderfull world of unintended consequences and grey zones.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003 11:36
That which I mentioned.
|