[BlackGriffen]

The Miami Heral has the story:

WASHINGTON - Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.

The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers ''would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration,'' the Florida Democrat wrote.

And in Graham's book, Intelligence Matters, obtained by The Herald Saturday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Graham also revealed that Gen. Tommy Franks told him on Feb. 19, 2002, just four months after the invasion of Afghanistan, that many important resources -- including the Predator drone aircraft crucial to the search for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda leaders -- were being shifted to prepare for a war against Iraq.

Graham recalled this conversation at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa with Franks, then head of Central Command, who was ``looking troubled'':

``Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan.''

''Excuse me?'' I asked.

''Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq,'' he continued.

Graham concluded: 'Gen. Franks' mission -- which, as a good soldier, he was loyally carrying out -- was being downgraded from a war to a manhunt.''
[...]
Graham wrote that the staff of the congressional inquiry concluded that two Saudis in the San Diego area, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassan, who gave significant financial support to two hijackers, were working for the Saudi government.



Al-Bayoumi received a monthly allowance from a contractor for Saudi Civil Aviation that jumped from $465 to $3,700 in March 2000, after he helped Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhdar -- two of the Sept. 11 hijackers -- find apartments and make contacts in San Diego, just before they began pilot training.



When the staff tried to conduct interviews in that investigation, and with an FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who also helped the eventual hijackers, they were blocked by the FBI and the administration, Graham wrote.
[...]
Bush had concluded that ''a nation-state that had aided the terrorists should not be held publicly to account,'' Graham wrote. ``It was as if the president's loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America's safety.''
[...]

:shock:
Suddenly Michael Moore's criticisms of Saudi Arabia ties to the Bush family don't look so pointless.

BlackGriffen

[Agasthya]

Expect this man's credibility to be completely raped within 1 week by the "liberal media."

[BlackGriffen]

Interesting to contrast how the Bushills jump all over the, frankly irrelevant, coke allegations thread, and ignore the one the far more serious, far more pertinent allegations by a popular retiring Senator from Florida.

BG

[RAILhead]

Oh no, holy freakin crap. He's unfit to be the POTUS for sure now. I guess the questionable and unfounded rumors about Kerry negates his goals, too.

Crap.

Now whatta we going to do in November?

[OldManMac]

The truth hurts, doesn't it? Besides, shouldn't you be at your country club, complaining about your useless employees, over a bottle of the finest whatever money can buy?

[BlackGriffen]

Allegations from a named source, especially one in the public sphere, are not unfounded rumors. They may be wrong (ie lies), but that will require bringing up evidence contrary to Graham's statements to prove.

Nice try, but your post-a-tron response is a non-sequitur. You are not Bush's Assistant Press Secretary in Charge of MacNN, so you don't have to try so hard.

BG

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Allegations from a named source, especially one in the public sphere, are not unfounded rumors. They may be wrong (ie lies), but that will require bringing up evidence contrary to Graham's statements to prove.

This isn't what you said when we were discussing the Swiftvets.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This isn't what you said when we were discussing the Swiftvets.

Yes, it is. I pointed out inconsistencies between the swiftvets' testimony and the Naval record. I also pointed out inconsistencies in the swiftvets' own statements over time. That makes them wrong, or lies. That does not make them "unfounded rumors."

It's so tempting to hit you with a barb on this, Sime. I'll hold back, though, hoping that it contributes to civility here in some small way.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Yes, it is. I pointed out inconsistencies between the swiftvets' testimony and the Naval record. I also pointed out inconsistencies in the swiftvets' own statements over time. That makes them wrong, or lies. That does not make them "unfounded rumors."

It's so tempting to hit you with a barb on this, Sime. I'll hold back, though, hoping that it contributes to civility here in some small way.

BlackGriffen

I don't recall you calling on Kerry to explain his account of being in Cambodia -- even though it seems to be quite well established by now that the guy told a whopper.

On some of their accusations, I agree with you. But not that one. It is wrong to dismiss everything they said based on the fact you like the target of their campaign. If you are going to feign openmindedness on Graham's claims, let's see you take the same attitude when Bush is the target. For example, on his military records. Like Kerry, Bush has the official account on his military career.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't recall you calling on Kerry to explain his account of being in Cambodia -- even though it seems to be quite well established by now that the guy told a whopper.

On some of their accusations, I agree with you. But not that one. It is wrong to dismiss everything they said based on the fact you like the target of their campaign. If you are going to feign openmindedness on Graham's claims, let's see you take the same attitude when Bush is the target. For example, on his military records. Like Kerry, Bush has the official account on his military career.

Quit trying to change the subject.

I don't care whether Kerry was in Cambodia, especially since it may not be possible to prove a covert op like that. I supported the right of people to make the AWOL allegation, but I don't recall calling on Bush to answer the allegations (though I may have called for a release of his records). Now, though, both Bush's and Kerry's records are out, so meh.

Now, will you please stop with the off topic posts, Simey? Or is distraction the only thing you know how to do?

BlackGriffen

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by KarlG:
The truth hurts, doesn't it? Besides, shouldn't you be at your country club, complaining about your useless employees, over a bottle of the finest whatever money can buy?

Sounds like your jealousy is causing you great bitterness. Why should you care what other people have? Try some yoga, to clear your head.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by KarlG:
The truth hurts, doesn't it? Besides, shouldn't you be at your country club, complaining about your useless employees, over a bottle of the finest whatever money can buy?

Not really, no -- as far as the truth hurting. If what's being alleged is true, it's unfortunate, but that doesn't change the fact I agree with Bush's policies and directions when compared to Kerry's. Bush's positions on taxes, marriage, the military, abortion, SS, and the like all coincide with my personal opinions, thus I'm supporting him.

And no, I shouldn't be at the Club today -- it's closed since it was open on Labor Day, silly!

Further, never have I ONCE complained about any of my "useless employees" on this forum. Lastly, I don't "drink," so I won't be having a bottle of anything except for some Ozarka, maybe.

Hope this clears things up for you,
Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I don't care whether Kerry was in Cambodia, especially since it may not be possible to prove a covert op like that.

...and I don't care about the Saudi Arabia connection, especially since it may not be possible to prove there was a connection.

Maury

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
...and I don't care about the Saudi Arabia connection, especially since it may not be possible to prove there was a connection.

Maury

You don't care if Bush covered up connections between the 9/11 hijackers and the government of Saudi Arabia?

This is behavior of bush while in office. This runs contradictory to Bush's statements following 9/11 about holding government that support terrorism accountable. It also calls into question his prioritizing a war with Iraq, which had no demonstrable ties with 9/11 and no evidence of ties with Al Qaeda, if there existed evidence of direct ties between the Saudi government and the terrorists directly responsible for 9/11.

Pull you head out of the sand, man. If these allegations prove true and durable, Bush should be in some deep $hit.

BlackGriffen

[dcolton]

Thank God Liberals aren't in power. From what I have seen, liberals would much rather have seen the US begin it's war on terror against N. Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Apparantly, they would throw out all negotiation and common sense and begin hurling the bombs without any discussion. Throw out the fact that a war against N. Korea would cause millions of casualities. Throw out the fact that attacking Saudi Arabia *would* throw the world into WWIII. Throw out the fact that attacking any other nation in that region wouldn't have been too prudent. We invaded Iraq. We will have a militray presence in the region for future actions against any ME nation.

But I guess common sense isn't a prerequisite for the liberal mentality. We have done far better by keeping SA as a distant ally than invading them.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Thank God Liberals aren't in power. From what I have seen, liberals would much rather have seen the US begin it's war on terror against N. Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Apparantly, they would throw out all negotiation and common sense and begin hurling the bombs without any discussion. Throw out the fact that a war against N. Korea would cause millions of casualities. Throw out the fact that attacking Saudi Arabia *would* throw the world into WWIII. Throw out the fact that attacking any other nation in that region wouldn't have been too prudent. We invaded Iraq. We will have a militray presence in the region for future actions against any ME nation.

But I guess common sense isn't a prerequisite for the liberal mentality. We have done far better by keeping SA as a distant ally than invading them.

You are 100% correct. I am not crazy about Saudi Arabia, but it is apparent for anybody with an IQ level above the retardation level that attacking them = WW III

Liberals are apparently sicko, warmongerers that would like to throw the whole world into chaos, just as long as they can remove Bush. For the moment, Saudi Arabia is doing what we say. Same goes for Pakistan. They are both our bitches, and they better be on our side, or they know what will happen to them.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You don't care if Bush covered up connections between the 9/11 hijackers and the government of Saudi Arabia?

This is behavior of bush while in office. This runs contradictory to Bush's statements following 9/11 about holding government that support terrorism accountable. It also calls into question his prioritizing a war with Iraq, which had no demonstrable ties with 9/11 and no evidence of ties with Al Qaeda, if there existed evidence of direct ties between the Saudi government and the terrorists directly responsible for 9/11.

Pull you head out of the sand, man. If these allegations prove true and durable, Bush should be in some deep $hit.

BlackGriffen

Nah, no head in sand over here, bub. Think of the Big Picture, if you can -- that's what I do. I'm 110% behind the war in Iraq and I doubt I'll ever change that opinion because the world needed to be rid of Saddam. If Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Gore, Kerry or whoever did THE SAME THING, I'd STILL be behind it. GET OVER THE 9/11 LET'S GET BUSH MENTALITY, it's clouding your judgement.

Ahh crap, dcolten posted some stuff I was going to post, so refer to what he said above. ^

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by PacHead:
You are 100% correct. I am not crazy about Saudi Arabia, but it is apparent for anybody with an IQ level above the retardation level that attacking them = WW III

Liberals are apparently sicko, warmongerers that would like to throw the whole world into chaos, just as long as they can remove Bush. For the moment, Saudi Arabia is doing what we say. Same goes for Pakistan. They are both our bitches, and they better be on our side, or they know what will happen to them.

(I'm getting to use this image a lot lately.)

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You don't care if Bush covered up connections between the 9/11 hijackers and the government of Saudi Arabia?

I don't see anywhere in the article where such a connection is proven. It's speculated, but not proven. And if this was such a big deal - a revelation of the highest magnitude - why does Graham wait for his book to come out to provide such important informationto the nation?

And as for the Tommy Franks deal, Franks will be the first one to tell you that it is not his duty to make the decisions about where and when to go to war. Furthermore, read up on Franks's recent media travels. He calls Bush the "real deal" and supports the President in the upcoming election.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by PacHead:
You are 100% correct. I am not crazy about Saudi Arabia, but it is apparent for anybody with an IQ level above the retardation level that attacking them = WW III

Liberals are apparently sicko, warmongerers that would like to throw the whole world into chaos, just as long as they can remove Bush. For the moment, Saudi Arabia is doing what we say. Same goes for Pakistan. They are both our bitches, and they better be on our side, or they know what will happen to them.

Have you forgotten which side invaded Iraq, and now has the rest of the world upset? Hint; it was George Bush, who is definitely not a liberal! Your tough talk, about SA and Pakistan being our "bitches," and how they know what would happen to them if they weren't our "bitches," clearly shows how well versed you are. Violence always solves everything, doesn't it?

Here's something from the American Conservative web site (of course, after reading this, you'll say they're liberal also).

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_09_13/buchanan.html#

The Retreat of Empire
by Pat Buchanan
When U.S. Marines were ordered to withdraw from Fallujah last April, I titled
my column “Fallujah: High Tide of American Empire.” For the pullback meant
that America was either unwilling to take the casualties to crush the Sunni
resistance in Fallujah or unwilling to pay the price of Arab rage if they won a
bloody battle.
Whatever the motive of the generals in ceding Fallujah, it was a retreat. The
Islamic world saw it as such. Since then, fighting in the Sunni Triangle, Sadr
City, Najaf, and the Shia cities of the south has escalated.
When Baghdad fell, Gen. John Abizaid estimated the number of enemy
insurgents at about 5,000. After a year in which thousands of the enemy
have been killed or captured, estimates of the number of insurgents have
been raised to 20,000. Rumsfeld’s query has been answered: we are
creating more enemies than we are killing.
Without more American troops and more years of fighting, we will not win
this war. We can only stave off defeat.
Now President Bush has announced he is pulling 70,000 troops out of
Europe and Asia over ten years and bringing most of them home, though
some may be reassigned to Eastern Europe or Central Asia.
Why the redeployment? Because of grumbling in the ranks and on the home
front over too many tours of duty too far from home.
As has been written here before, we are not an imperial people. We do not
have the will or perseverance for empire. We have no desire to rule other
nations. Now the “white man’s burden” is beginning to weigh on our
military and imperil the re-election of a president who, at the instigation of
the neocons, has foolishly committed American power and wealth to some
enterprise called “the world democratic revolution.”
Reality has begun to intrude on the reveries of America’s elite. With the
United States now dependent on imports for over half our oil consumption,
the price has shot up to $45 and $46 a barrel. Putin’s smashing of the
Yukos oil cartel, guerrilla attacks on Iraqi pipelines, turmoil in Venezuela,
and tensions with Iran seem certain to keep it in that vicinity.
The $55.8 billion June trade deficit points to a deficit for 2004 of $670
billion, with a deficit in traded goods of over $700 billion. No nation can
sustain trade deficits of 6 percent or 7 percent of GDP.
Who is financing them? China, Japan, and the nations of East Asia who are
lending America the dollars to buy their goods, so Asia can steadily enlarge
its share of U.S. markets it is stealing from U.S. producers. Even a falling
dollar has failed to rein in these soaring deficits. We are consuming more
than ever. But less and less are the goods we consume produced in the USA.
Not only are we borrowing 6 percent of GDP to finance our trade deficit, we
are borrowing another 4 percent to finance a budget deficit estimated at
$440 billion. You cannot run an empire on borrowed money. Just ask the
cousins who bankrupted themselves fighting world wars and maintaining
the world’s largest empire until it came crashing down after 1945. We, their
creditors, inherited the estate.
But there are reasons other than economic that it makes sense to roll up the
American empire and bring the troops home. North Korea now has nuclear
weapons. U.S. forces on the DMZ are now less a deterrent to war or a spear
point to liberate North Korea than hostages against U.S. pre-emptive strikes
on Pyongyang’s nuclear facilities. And with Kim Jong Il brandishing nukes,
the day cannot be too far off when South Korea and Japan realize that their
security and immunity to nuclear blackmail require that they, too, join the
club. In a world of proliferating nuclear weapons, invading armies are less
instruments to intimidate than inviting targets. No nuclear nation ever had
its homeland invaded. If Iran, too, becomes a nuclear nation, Bush Doctrine
threats of U.S. pre-emptive strikes will ring hollow, and the mullahs know it.
The only objection to Bush’s redeployment is that he did not order all the
divisions back home now. There is nothing in Eastern Europe vital to U.S.
security. As for Central Asia and the Gulf, there is only oil and, at $45 a
barrel, everybody over there from mullahs to monarchs is happy to sell it to
us. All we need over there is a navy over the horizon to enable us to open
up the Gulf to shipping should some regime seek to shut it down.
Looking at America’s vital interests—defense of the homeland, freedom of
navigation to Europe and Asia, keeping the Gulf open, being able to retaliate
by air or sea to attacks upon us—what is the need for all these bases on
foreign soil that serve as magnets to terrorists and incitements to anti-
Americans?



Sorry to derail your thread BG, but this was so amazing I couldn't pass it up.

[BlackGriffen]

Only a fool would call for war on Saudi Arabia.

And only a fool would continue to support a regime that is using oil money from us to finance killers and teach its population to hate us.

The smart course of action would have been to start investing heavily into alternative energy sources, and place sanctions on Saudi Arabia contingent upon reform. This, of course, after or concurrent with military action in Afghanistan. Iraq never appears in the picture of how to react properly to 9/11.

Propping up dictatorial regimes, especially theocratic, regimes is the stupidest thing the US has ever done. It backfired on us in Iran, Iraq, Chile, etc. We need to kick the oil habit and leave the Saudi government to fend for itself, because we cannot afford to be continuously in a catch-22 situation over this bull$hit.

I wonder how much R&D $87 billion could have bought? How much of a health benefit would we have reaped from reduced burning of fossil fuels? How many lives would not have been squandered, and how many jobs created?

Yeah, I dislike Saudi Arabia, just like any drug addict should dislike his dealer. Kicking the oil habit, and leaving the dealer in the dust, is potentially the most important thing the U.S. can do for its future.

Bush and Cheney wouldn't dare contemplate anything that would endanger the business interests of their old colleagues in the oil industry, though. They would rather the U.S. continue to be caught in the catch-22 of an addict in order to keep their buddies rich.

BlackGriffen

[dcolton]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Only a fool would call for war on Saudi Arabia.

And only a fool would continue to support a regime that is using oil money from us to finance killers and teach its population to hate us.

The smart course of action would have been to start investing heavily into alternative energy sources, and place sanctions on Saudi Arabia contingent upon reform. This, of course, after or concurrent with military action in Afghanistan. Iraq never appears in the picture of how to react properly to 9/11.

We agree so far. Well, I bellieve Iraq was a quality move for military reasons as well as disposing of a brutal dictator.

Propping up dictatorial regimes, especially theocratic, regimes is the stupidest thing the US has ever done. It backfired on us in Iran, Iraq, Chile, etc. We need to kick the oil habit and leave the Saudi government to fend for itself, because we cannot afford to be continuously in a catch-22 situation over this bull$hit.

I think it is more (or less) of a catch 22 situation. Oil, IMO was the secondary concern. Aggressive actions towards SA would inflame the entire muslim world. We MUST work with them as an ally or risk a world war. Wouldn't you say that a cautious alignment with SA is prudent? Wouldn't you say the ability to pick and choose your battles is a superior move?
[/QUOTE]

Sh!t Gotta go. Will finish later

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I think it is more (or less) of a catch 22 situation. Oil, IMO was the secondary concern. Aggressive actions towards SA would inflame the entire muslim world. We MUST work with them as an ally or risk a world war. Wouldn't you say that a cautious alignment with SA is prudent? Wouldn't you say the ability to pick and choose your battles is a superior move?

I'm not so certain that a strictly economic retaliation (like a tariff on Saudi Oil, or on the export of drilling equipment, etc) would have provoked a war. As long as we didn't go off half cocked and bomb them, that is. If you'll recall, Al Qaeda used to use the presence of infidels in the holy land, and Arab hatred of the Saudi government, as a rallying point. If we said, "We're leaving the holy land unless you clean up your act," they'd have a hard time rallying the Islamic world around that. Especially given the good will we had before Bush started beating the Iraq drum.

Besides, do you really think that the Saudis would have stand pat? They would reform in a heartbeat rather than face economic destruction and a fall from power.

That said, how about this plan: end oil industry subsidies and shift them to R&D on alternative energy sources and infrastructures. Also, use any money collected from retaliatory tariffs on the same, paying the debt down, or a tax cut.

BlackGriffen

[tie]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I think it is more (or less) of a catch 22 situation. Oil, IMO was the secondary concern. Aggressive actions towards SA would inflame the entire muslim world. We MUST work with them as an ally or risk a world war. Wouldn't you say that a cautious alignment with SA is prudent? Wouldn't you say the ability to pick and choose your battles is a superior move?

Researching alternative energy sources is not an aggressive action that would risk a world war.

Originally posted by PacHead:
Liberals are apparently sicko, warmongerers that would like to throw the whole world into chaos, just as long as they can remove Bush. For the moment, Saudi Arabia is doing what we say.

Now the sicko, warmongering liberals are the ones who attacked Iraq. The peaceloving conservatives just want to appease countries which support terrorism and/or are nuclear weapons clearinghouses. What happened to common sense?

Originally posted by dcolton:
Thank God Liberals aren't in power. From what I have seen, liberals would much rather have seen the US begin it's war on terror against N. Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Apparantly, they would throw out all negotiation and common sense and begin hurling the bombs without any discussion. Throw out the fact that a war against N. Korea would cause millions of casualities. Throw out the fact that attacking Saudi Arabia *would* throw the world into WWIII. Throw out the fact that attacking any other nation in that region wouldn't have been too prudent. We invaded Iraq. We will have a militray presence in the region for future actions against any ME nation.

I would much rather the US begin its war on terror on Afghanistan (which it did), then follow up by concentrating on countries which support terrorism (which it did not do). Invading Iraq (which had connections to Palestinian terrorism, but not to Al Qaeda) to obtain a military presence in the region (which we had before) was stupid. What do you mean by "attacking any other nation in the region wouldn't have been too prudent"? I read this as, we attacked the nation that wasn't a threat to the US (via terrorism or other means).