Under Obama, the Muslim Brotherhood was in the White House and Hezbollah had a free hand.
OBAMA AND HIS SAUDIS
PAYMASTERS… Did he serve them well?
Malia,
Michelle, Barack and the College Admissions Scandal https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/03/malia-michelle-barack-and-college.html
Michelle was the next to attend Harvard, in her case Harvard
Law School. “Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good
enough for an Ivy League school,” writes Christopher Andersen in Barack and
Michelle, “Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.”
GOOGLE WHAT THE OBOMB DID FOR HIS SAUDIS
PAYMASTERS
Barack Obama’s back door, however, was unique to him. Before
prosecutors send some of the dimmer Hollywood stars to the slammer for their
dimness, they might want to ask just how much influence a Saudi billionaire
peddled to get Obama into Harvard.
“Of course,
one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry”
is because race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein
Obama was president for eight long years." MATTHEW VADUM
Barack Obama’s plot for a third term for life
A Muslim dictatorship like his crony paymasters, the 9-11
invading Saudis who have financed him for decades.
“Obama has the totalitarian impulse.
After all, he went around saying he didn't have Constitutional authority to
legalize the illegals, and then he tried anyway. The courts stopped him.”
What was Obama’s motive? Simple, he knew if he did that
for Hillary, he’d own the next President of the United States, and could blackmail
her with the truth till the end of time. It literally would have given him a
3rd and 4th term.
AP: Saudi Tycoon Used Middleman to Funnel Money to Obama’s Inaugural Celebration
8:00
(AP) — When President Barack Obama was reelected in 2012, a Saudi tycoon and his business associate sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to the U.S. to help pay for the inaugural celebration and get a picture with the president, according to court documents and an analysis of campaign finance records by The Associated Press.
U.S. election law prohibits foreign nationals from making those sorts of political contributions. But the donations Sheikh Mohammed Al Rahbani tried to send to Obama’s inaugural committee were funneled through a seasoned straw donor, the records and the AP analysis show.
That intermediary, Imaad Zuberi, agreed this month to plead guilty to making illegal campaign contributions to several American political candidates on behalf of foreign nationals. He is also set to plead guilty to concealing his work as a foreign agent as he lobbied high-level U.S. government officials.
The prosecution by the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles is the latest in a string of cases that highlight the prevalence of banned foreign money in American politics and the often lax approach campaigns take in vetting contributions.
Zuberi, a jet-setting fundraiser and venture capitalist, has raised millions of dollars for Democrats and Republicans alike over the years. Prosecutors say he has worked on behalf of several foreigners, not just Rahbani.
He served as a top fundraiser for both Obama and Hillary Clinton during their presidential runs, including stints on both of their campaign finance committees, before switching his support to President Donald Trump immediately after his 2016 victory, pumping nearly $1 million into the Republican’s inaugural committee.
Federal Election Commission records show hundreds of donations from Zuberi and his family to Republican and Democratic national committees, the presidential campaigns of Trump and Clinton, and dozens of congressional candidates across the political spectrum. Zuberi-linked donations often went to lawmakers who are influential or outspoken on foreign policy issues, like Sen. Lindsey Graham and Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Only Zuberi has been charged in the case, and prosecutors have not alleged that any campaign that received money from him was aware that at least some of his donations were financed by foreigners.
Zuberi’s case raises questions about the degree to which political committees vet donors. One campaign, not identified by name, accepted donations made in the name of one of Zuberi’s dead relatives, prosecutors said. Another political committee took donations from a person Zuberi invented.
Some donations reported by political campaigns were made in Rahbani’s and others’ names but were paid for with credit cards belonging to Zuberi or his wife, prosecutors said.
Requests for comment were sent to representatives for Graham, Clinton and Engel.
Steve Kerrigan, CEO of Obama’s 2013 inauguration committee, said it had a very thorough vetting process that included requiring donors to certify that their contributions complied with the law. He declined to comment further on the specifics of Zuberi’s donations.
As a middleman, Zuberi was deeply flawed.
Zuberi, 49, admitted in a plea agreement that only $97,500 of the $850,000 that he was supposed to deliver to the Obama inaugural committee on Rahbani’s behalf actually made it into the committee’s hands. The rest, he skimmed for himself.
Rahbani declined to comment through an assistant. Zuberi’s attorneys and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles all declined to comment.
The case shares similarities with others recently filed against people accused of channeling banned foreign donations to U.S. candidates.
Two associates of Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, pleaded not guilty Wednesday to federal charges they used foreign money to make unlawful campaign contributions to several U.S. candidates and committees.
Prosecutors said the donations orchestrated by Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman included a $325,000 contribution to a group supporting Trump’s reelection, made at a time when the pair were lobbying U.S. politicians to oust the country’s ambassador to Ukraine.
In April, a Washington political consultant was sentenced to three years of probation after admitting he made a $50,000 straw donation on behalf of a wealthy Ukrainian client who wanted tickets to Trump’s inauguration. Like Zuberi, W. Samuel Patten also was charged with to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist.
The FEC earlier this year fined a super PAC that supported Jeb Bush’s failed 2016 Republican presidential bid for accepting $1.3 million in illegal donations from Chinese nationals.
Zuberi has also been under scrutiny by federal prosecutors in New York after he donated $900,000 to Trump’s inaugural committee and $100,000 to a Republican campaign committee. Those donations occurred around the time Zuberi accompanied Qatar’s foreign minister to a meeting at Trump Tower.
Trump’s inaugural committee has not been accused of wrongdoing in connection with the money it received from Zuberi. It says it has cooperated with the federal inquiry.
Rahbani is named in the charging documents in Zuberi’s case only as “Person A,” but the AP was able to identify him through biographical details in the court filing and by matching the timing and amounts of donations mentioned in the court filing to publicly available campaign finance records.
For instance, prosecutors in court filings said “Person A” and his wife made four donations of $2,700 to “Campaign J” on Sept. 28, 2016, while one of Rahbani’s business associates donated $400 to the same campaign on that date.
FEC records indicate that Rahbani, his wife, Kate Rahbani, and one of Rahbani’s business associates made donations in those amounts on that date to Graham’s Senate campaign. Those donations, unlike others in the case, were listed in the FEC records with the Rahbanis’ names and address in London. Graham’s campaign returned some of those donations in 2017, and when doing so listed them as going to Zuberi’s address, FEC records show.
Those are just a few of several donations mentioned by prosecutors that the AP was able to match with public campaign records that listed Rahbani and people associated as the donors.
Prosecutors also described Person A as having dual citizenship in Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom, a residence in Switzerland and an American wife. In media profiles, Rahbani has talked about owning homes in London and Switzerland. His wife is an American.
The criminal case against Zuberi doesn’t explain why Rahbani would have wanted to contribute to American political campaigns.
His company SAFID — a manufacturer of air conditioning-related products — is active throughout the Middle East and says on its website that it has worked on projects financed by the Saudi government.
Rahbani, in a few past interviews, has talked about his support of Obama. He posted pictures on his website of himself and his wife standing with Obama, former Vice President Joe Biden and their spouses at a 2013 inaugural event. The website was taken down shortly after Zuberi’s plea was made public.
Prosecutors said $100,000 from Rahbani’s company meant for the inaugural committee was earmarked for “photos.”
It isn’t unusual for political fundraisers to offer photo sessions with candidates in exchange for donations and such practices are legal — although the ban on donations from foreign nationals would apply.
Zuberi, however, tried to get Rahbani and one of his business associates to donate even more money by falsely claiming they had taken too many people to a photo session with Obama and Biden and owed more money as a result, prosecutors said.
“I’m deeply concerned about foreigners trying to intervene in our elections, and I don’t think we’re doing enough to try to stop it,” FEC chairwoman Ellen Weintraub told the AP. “They don’t get a say in who we elect — or at least they’re not supposed to.”
Congress
overrides Obama veto of bill allowing 9/11 lawsuits
By
Tom Carter
On Wednesday, the US Congress overturned President Obama’s veto of
legislation that would permit victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks and
their families to sue Saudi Arabia. Declassified documents released this year
confirm the involvement of Saudi intelligence agents in the funding,
organization, and planning of the attacks—facts which were covered up for years
by the Bush and Obama administrations.
The vote, 97-1 in the Senate and 348-77 in the House of
Representatives, represents the first and only congressional override of
Obama’s presidency. Under the US Constitution, the president’s veto can be
overturned only by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress.
The Obama administration and the military and intelligence
agencies, backed by sections of the media, including the New York Times, have
vigorously denounced the legislation. Obama personally, together with Central
Intelligence Agency director John Brennan, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford among others, have all
publicly opposed the bill.
In a letter to Congress opposing the legislation, Obama warned
that the bill would “threaten to erode sovereign principles that protect the
United States, including our U.S. Armed Forces and other officials, overseas.”
In a lead editorial on Wednesday, the New York Times similarly
warned that “if the bill becomes law, other countries could adopt similar legislation
defining their own exemptions to sovereign immunity. Because no country is more
engaged in the world than the United States—with military bases, drone
operations, intelligence missions and training programs—the Obama
administration fears that Americans could be subject to legal actions abroad.”
In other words, the bill would set a precedent for families of
victims of American aggression abroad—such as the tens of thousands of victims
of “targeted killings” ordered by Obama personally—to file lawsuits against US
war criminal in their own countries’ courts.
Obama denounced the vote with unusual warmth on Wednesday. “It's
an example of why sometimes you have to do what's hard. And, frankly, I wish
Congress here had done what's hard,” Obama declared. “If you’re perceived as
voting against 9/11 families right before an election, not surprisingly, that's
a hard vote for people to take. But it would have been the right thing to do
... And it was, you know, basically a political vote.”
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave,” Sir Walter Scott famously
wrote, “When first we practice to deceive!” As the tangled web of lies
surrounding the September 11 attacks continue to unravel, one senses that the
American ruling class and its representatives do not see a clear way out of the
dilemma.
Openly torpedoing the legislation is tantamount to an admission of
guilt. Indeed, the Obama administration, the military and intelligence
agencies, and theNew York Times are publicly working to cover up a crime
perpetrated by Al Qaeda and its backers in Saudi Arabia, which in turn is an
ally of the United States. The mere fact that Obama vetoed this bill
constitutes an admission that the US government is hiding something with
respect to the September 11 attacks.
The alternative, from the standpoint of the American ruling class,
is also fraught with risks. Court proceedings initiated by the families of
September 11 victims will inevitably expose the role played by the Saudi
monarchy, an ally of both Al Qaeda and the United States, in the September 11
attacks. This, in turn, will highlight long and sordid history of American
support for Islamic fundamentalism in the
Middle East, which continues to the present day in Syria and
Libya.
Perhaps most dangerously of all, a full public accounting of
the roles of Saudi intelligence agents in the September 11 attacks
will once again raise questions about the role of the American state in the
attacks. Why did US intelligence
agencies ignore the activities of Saudi agents before the attacks,
based on Saudi Arabia’s supposed status as a US ally?
Why did the US government deliberately cover up the Saudi
connection after the fact, instead claiming that Afghanistan was a “state
sponsor of terrorism” and that Iraq was developing “weapons of mass destruction?”
Why was nobody
prosecuted?
The New York Times, for its part, simply lied about the evidence
of Saudi complicity. “The legislation is motivated by a belief among the 9/11
families that Saudi Arabia played a role in the attacks, because 15 of the 19
hijackers, who were members of Al Qaeda, were Saudis,” the editors wrote. “But
the independent American commission that investigated the attacks found no
evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials financed the
terrorists.”
In fact, at least two of the hijackers received aid from Omar
al-Bayoumi, who was identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a
Saudi intelligence agent with “ties to terrorist elements.” Some of the
hijackers were paid for work in fictitious jobs from companies affiliated with
the Saudi Defense Ministry, with which Al-Bayoumi was in close contact. The
night before the attacks, three of the hijackers stayed at the same hotel as
Saleh al-Hussayen, a prominent Saudi government official.
These and other facts were confirmed by the infamous 28-page
suppressed chapter of the 2002 report issued by the Joint Inquiry into
Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of
September 11, 2001. After 14 years of stalling, the document was finally released
to the public this summer.
Yet the New York Times continues to describe the Saudi monarchy,
the principal financier and sponsor of Islamic fundamentalist groups throughout
the world, as “a partner in combating terrorism.”
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, passed Wednesday,
is a direct reaction to these revelations of Saudi complicity in the September
11 attacks, under pressure from organizations of survivors and families of
victims. The law amends the federal judicial code to allow US courts “to hear
cases involving claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages
that occur inside the United States as a result of. .. an act of terrorism,
committed anywhere by a foreign state or official.”
Although the bill nowhere names Saudi Arabia, the Saudi government
has threatened massive retaliation, including by moving $750 billion in
assets out of the country before they can be seized in American legal
proceedings. This reaction alone confirms the monarchy’s guilt.
During Wednesday’s session, many of the statements on the floor of
the Senate were nervous and apprehensive. Casting his vote in favor of the
bill, Republican Senator Bob Corker declared, “I have tremendous concerns about
the sovereign immunity procedures that would be set in place by the countries
as a result of this vote.” More than one legislator noted that if the bill had
unintended consequences, it would be modified or repealed.
The anxious comments of legislators and the crisscrossing
denunciations within the ruling elite reflect the significance of this
controversy for the entire American political establishment. For 15 years, the
American population has been relentlessly told that the events of September 11,
2001 “changed everything,” warranting the elimination of democratic rights, the
militarization of the police, renditions, torture, assassinations, totalitarian
levels of spying, death and destruction across the Middle East, and trillions
of dollars of expenditures.
The collapse of the official version of that day’s events shows
that American politics for 15 years has been based on a lie.
Johannes Eisele / AFP Getty
12 Jul 20193
3:48
Everything
former vice president Joe Biden said about President Donald Trump’s foreign
policy speech on Thursday actually applies to the policy that Biden carried out
together with former President Barack Obama — and not Trump.
In his speech, at City University of New York, Biden called
Trump an “extreme” threat to the country’s national security. No one has yet
taken Biden to task for describing the sitting commander-in-chief in such
alarmist terms.
But that wasn’t even the most bizarre aspect of Biden’s speech.
He said the main problem in Trump’s foreign policy was … Charlottesville,
Virginia. Biden went on to recite a version of the debunked “very fine people”
hoax, claiming that Trump had drawn a “moral equivalence between those who
promoted hate and those who opposed it.” That, he said, was a threat to
America’s mission of standing for democratic values in the world.
But in fact, Trump
specifically condemned the neo-Nazis
in Charlottesville on multiple occasions. The entire premise of Biden’s speech
was a lie.
Biden went on to claim that Trump’s foreign policy rejects
democratic values and favors the rise of authoritarianism worldwide. He cited
Trump’s warmth to Russian president Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator
Kim Jong-un. And he claimed that Trump has undermined America’s alliances with
democracies in favor of flattery from dictators.
Apparently Biden forgot that Obama literally bowed to the Saudi
king; that he abandoned the pro-democracy protests during the Green Revolution
in Iran; that he pushed for a “reset” with Russia and abandoned our Czech and
Polish allies on missile defense; that he promised Putin he would be even more
“flexible” after he won re-election; that he tried to normalize relations with
the Cuban dictatorship without securing any democratic reforms there; that he
gave the store away to the communist dictatorship in China; and that he
abandoned Israel, a betrayal in which Biden himself played a direct and
shameful role, condemning Israel for building apartments in a Jewish neighborhood
of Jerusalem.
Trump praises dictators as a negotiating tactic; Obama praised
them because he, too, thought America was a problem.
One of the few times the Obama administration embraced
democratic change was during the Arab Spring, when “democracy” meant the rise
of the Muslim Brotherhood — which had no interest in freedom, only in power.
In 2008, the Obama campaign cast Biden as a foreign policy guru,
though he had been wrong on almost every foreign policy issue in his career. On
Thursday, he mostly ignored his own record.
Astonishingly, Biden claimed credit
for Trump’s success in crushing the so-called “Islamic State,” saying he worked
with Obama “to craft the military and diplomatic campaign that ultimately
defeated ISIS.” In fact, Biden was complicit in the rise of ISIS. He was
Obama’s point man on Iraq when the U.S. suddenly pulled out of the country,
leaving a vacuum that ISIS filled. He did not object when Obama called the
terror group “junior varsity.”
Biden offered nothing new in terms
of solutions to current foreign policy challenges. He claimed that the Iran
nuclear deal had been a success — on the very day Iran was reportedto have been
cheating all along. He said the U.S. should re-enter the deal once Iran did,
offering no idea how to ensure that it did so. On North Korea, Biden promised
he would “empower our negotiators,” whatever that means.
He said that he would get “tough”
with China, which Trump is already doing (and which Biden previously suggested he
would not do). And
on immigration, he ridiculed the very idea
of borders — literally: “I respect no borders.”
And this is the best Democrats have on foreign
policy.
Joel B. Pollak
is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social
Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard. He is a
winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the
co-author of How
Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from
Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Loophole
Used by 9/11 Hijackers Still Open with 6 Million Visa Overstays in U.S.
11 Sep 2019424
2:34
There are at least six million illegal aliens who arrived in the United
States the same way seven of the 9/11 Islamic terrorist hijackers came to the
country: by overstaying a visa.
All nineteen 9/11 terrorists — who murdered nearly 3,000
Americans and injured more than 6,000 others in 2001 — arrived in the U.S.
legally, with 16 obtaining tourist visas and three others obtaining business
and tourist visas.
In total,
seven of the 19 terrorists overstayed their visas at some
point either before the 9/11 attacks or at the time of the attacks and were supposed
to be deported, but never were.
Those terrorists who overstayed their visas include:
- Hani Hasan Hanjour from Saudi Arabia
- Nawaf al-Hamzi from Saudi Arabia
- Mohamed Atta from Egypt
- Satam al-Suqami from Saudi Arabia
- Waleed al-Shehri from Saudi Arabia
- Marwan al-Shehhi from the United Arab Emirates
- Ahmed al-Ghamdi from Saudi Arabia
Eighteen
years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the loophole where legal immigrants
become illegal aliens after overstaying their visas remains fully open, with at
least 4.5 to six million foreign nationals living in the U.S. who should
have been deported after their visas expired, according to Pew Research
Center.
In total, there are roughly 11 to 22 million illegal aliens
living in the U.S. at any given moment, and more than 1.2 million foreign
nationals are legally admitted to the country every year — like all 19
terrorists were.
Foreign
nationals arriving on temporary visas continue to go largely untracked by the
federal government despite The
9/11 Commission Report pleading with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to
implement a nationwide biometric entry-exit system, which would identify legal
immigrants who have overstayed their visas and help in deporting them.
As of March,
there were more than 415,000 illegal aliens in the U.S. who had overstayed their visas. This
includes more than 300,000 illegal aliens who arrived in the U.S. from
countries that are not part of the Visa Waiver Program, which allows certain
nationals to come to the country for up to 90 days without obtaining a visa. In
total, 20 foreign countries have visa overstay rates that exceed ten percent.
DID WE LEARN ANYTHING FROM 9/11?
Or are we still sleeping?
September 11,
2019
Daniel Greenfield,
a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an
investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic
terrorism.
Two things happened in
2001.
Islamic terrorists
carried out their most successful attack on America with the murder of 2,977
people. And the number of immigrants obtaining permanent residency passed a
million for the first time in a decade. Before 2001, a million plus was a
streak that might linger for a few years before falling back.
These days it’s the new
normal. Aside from one blip, we’ve been riding the million plus train for over
a decade. The resistance to that trend is currently the one thing we seem to
have learned from 9/11.
After decades of being
massacred by terrorists who have come here as tourists, refugees and
immigrants, we are finally trying to close the door on travelers from Islamic
terrorist states.
And it only took 16
years.
That’s because learning
nothing from the past has been our specialty.
"A flag bearing a
crescent and star flies from a flagpole in front of the World Trade Center,
next to a Christmas tree and a menorah,” The New
York Times reported in 1997.
Four years earlier,
Muslim terrorists had bombed the World Trade Center in an unsuccessful effort
to bring down the towers. Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh at the center of
the terror plot, had urged, “We . . . have been
ordered with terrorism because we must prepare what power we can to terrorize
the enemy of Allah and your enemy. The Koran says ‘to strike terror.’”
Mohammed T. Mehdi, the
Muslim activist responsible for the flag of Islam flying at what would become
Ground Zero, had been an adviser to Rahman. The U.S. Attorney’s Office had listed
Mehdi as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the blind terror sheikh.
And nevertheless, the flag flew.
Imam Sirraj Wahhaj, an unindicted
co-conspirator in the bombing, who had testified as a character witness for
Rahman, had already become the first Muslim cleric to present an invocation
prayer to the House of Representatives. He was introduced by Rep. Nick Rahall
who had proposed the idea. The invocation included a Koranic curse
aimed at Christians and Jews.
That same year,
President George H.W. Bush had taped his own Eid message for Muslims.
In 1996, Hillary Clinton
inaugurated the first Eid event at the White House. Capitol Hill politicos held
their own Iftar event that year. Regular Islamic prayers began to be held on
Capitol Hill in 1998. The State Department hosted its first Iftar event in
1999. So did the Pentagon. All of this is still going on.
Not only haven’t things
gotten better since then, they’ve gotten much worse.
The height of our
counterterrorism efforts took place after September 11 with Operation Green
Quest. That was our last serious effort at cracking the infrastructure of
Islamist terrorism in this country. These days counterterrorism mainly consists
of informants and undercover operatives catching lone ISIS supporters before
they carry out an attack. Going beyond that was unacceptable even before Obama.
Under Obama, the Muslim
Brotherhood was in the White House and Hezbollah had a free hand.
The War on Terror also
reached its height in the creative and relentless attacks on Al Qaeda and the
Taliban after 9/11. But, before long, that campaign degenerated into
nation-building, endless legal proceedings for captured terrorists in the Bush
era, and feeding thousands of soldiers into a meat-grinder with restrictive
rules of engagement and negotiations with the Taliban in the Obama era.
By 2003, our response to
Islamic terrorism had reached its peak. It’s been downhill from there.
It took 4 years for the
lessons of the World Trade Center bombing to be so thoroughly forgotten that an
unindicted co-conspirator was able to get the flag of Islam flown at the site
of the twin skyscrapers.
It took even less time
for the lessons of 9/11 to fly away leaving behind hollow memorials.
After Qari Yasin, a top
Al Qaeda terrorist, whose terror plots had killed U.S. Air Force Maj. Rodolfo
I. Rodriguez and Navy Cryptologic Technician Third Class Petty Officer Matthew
J. O’Bryant, was taken out in an airstrike, there was no mention of the fallen
American military personnel killed by his attacks.
Instead Secretary of
Defense Jim Mattis, the point man for the tough bombing campaign against ISIS,
declared, "The death of Qari Yasin is evidence that terrorists who defame
Islam and deliberately target innocent people will not escape justice."
That was in 2017.
20 years after the flag
of Islam flew at the World Trade Center, we were no longer killing Islamic
terrorists to avenge our dead or even to defend ourselves, but to punish those
who “defame Islam.”
Meanwhile, Kris Bauman,
who had argued that, “the Obama
Administration must find creative (but legal) ways to include Hamas in a
solution” held down the position of Senior Director for Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian
and Egyptian Affairs from 2017 to 2018 until John Bolton took over the National
Security Council. These days, Bauman heads the Eisenhower Center at the Air
Force Academy.
The problem is
structural.
Our national security
infrastructure and our entire strategic apparatus is run by people who think
like Mattis and Bauman. It’s run by them under Democrat and Republican
administrations. Their views represent the consensus that terrorism can’t be
defeated, it can only be defused or appeased.
There’s been some debate
over whether we should be negotiating with the Taliban.
We’ve been officially
negotiating with the Taliban since at least 2013. That’s a long time to be
holding talks when there’s nothing to actually talk about. We will eventually
withdraw from Afghanistan. The Taliban will eventually take over Afghanistan.
What then is there to talk to the Taliban about?
And yet our foreign
policy apparatus insists that we can’t pull out until we get the Taliban to
commit to respecting Afghanistan’s constitution. Why do we care about the
Afghan constitution anyway? Did thousands of Americans really die in
Afghanistan to uphold a constitution that upholds Islamic law?
Or did we begin this war
to avenge our dead and to punish the perpetrators and their allies?
The debate over
interventionism and appeasement has left September 11 behind. The
interventionists insist that we have an obligation to spread democracy and the
appeasers claim that we’re warmongers
Neither side likes this
country very much. And neither side cares about what happened on this day.
If we are to have a
meaningful strategy, it has to begin on a fall Tuesday. It has to start in the
cockpit of one of the hijacked planes. It has to start with a prayer from a
terrorist and from one of his victims.
“In the name of Allah,
the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate,” a terrorist declares on the Flight
93 cockpit recording. That’s followed by the sounds of the terrorists
assaulting a passenger.
“Please don’t hurt me,”
he pleads. “Oh God.”
Flight 93 is a reminder
that we are a brave and courageous people. But that we have to wake up first.
And to wake up, we have
to understand what it is we’re facing. On September 11, 2001, hundreds,
thousands, tens of thousands, and eventually millions of Americans were forced
to wake up.
Some died. Most went
back to sleep. And some still remember.
9/11 was neither a
beginning nor an ending. The war we are in has gone on for over a thousand
years. It might go on for another thousand making a mockery of the appeasers
who lecture about “endless war.”
Wars go on for as long
as one side is willing to fight them. The nightmarish reality is that the other
side is willing to fight forever. That is a truth too troubling for most people
to come to terms with.
But until we understand that,
we will have learned absolutely nothing from September 11, 2001.
This is not WW2. It’s
not the Cold War. It’s a clash of civilizations. Technology, jet planes and the
internet, have allowed our civilizations to overlap each other. War is the
inevitable result.
Immigration, not bullets
and bombs, is the main weapon of a clash not between armies, but civilizations.
16 years later, we have
only begun, not to fight, but to defend ourselves against a clash of
civilizations.
Were
the Saudis Behind 9/11?
1. On September 9, 2017, Paul Sperry of the New York Post dropped
the biggest headline hint so far that, Yes, the Saudis plotted, trained,
funded, ordered, and covered up the assault on America on 9/11.
The headline does
not come out and actually say that
the Saudis committed the greatest anti-American civilian atrocity 16 years ago.
It just says that "the Saudis allegedly funded a "dry run" of
the 9/11/01 attack two years before it was actually executed. But by now we
know so much supportive evidence that we might as well tell the whole truth.
Two years before the airliner attacks, the Saudi Embassy paid for
two Saudi nationals, living undercover in the US as students, to fly from
Phoenix to Washington “in a dry run for the 9/11 attacks,” alleges the amended
complaint filed on behalf of the families of some 1,400 victims who died in the
terrorist attacks 16 years ago."
Well, if you're a bank robber, and you go through a "dry
run" of the robbery two years before actually committing it, and
"somebody" then carries out the outrageous crime, chances are that
the dry runners and the perps are the same.
We have plenty of evidence of Saudi guilt for 9/11. We know that
the 17 Wahhabi (Saudi-indoctrinated) terrorists killed civilian cabin personnel
and pilots in those four "American" and "United" airplanes,
slitting their throats with utility knives, according to the ancient Koranic
war command, "you shall cut them at the neck."
We have seen plenty of actual beheadings on ISIS videos, and we
know that the Wahhabi priesthood in Saudi Arabia has endorsed ISIS for its
Nazilike murders, rapes, kidnappings, and sadistic treatment of innocent
children, women, and men wherever ISIS operate. It is vital for Americans to
understand that the war theology of "ISIS," "Al Qaida,"
"Al Nusrah", "Al Qaida in the Maghreb," on and on, are all
the same. The hierarchy that runs it from the Sunni Gulf States is the same,
the methodology is the same, the utter inhuman cruelty of killing innocents is
the same, the religious rationale is the same, on and on and on.
However, it should be understood that the Shi'ites of Iran run a
separate chain of command, with separate murderers, etc. We have two fanatical
enemies, both based in the war verses of the Koran, but they hate each
other to death. Donald Trump has just exploited that split between mass
murderers hailing from Sunni Islam, and the mass murderers coming from Shi'te
Islam. Trump is now in a formal alliance with the Saudis (and Israelis, and
other Sunni Gulf States) against Iran, the Shiite head of the monster.
During WW I the British brought the Saudis to power in order to
drive out the Ottoman Turks. British agent "Lawrence of Arabia" (T.E.
Lawrence) convinced the Arab speakers of the Arabia desert to rebel against the
Turks, supplying them with British arms and advice.
Lawrence
of Arabia described the exact tribal war activities we see today in ISIS,
including male rape. The Brits then brought the Saudi tribe to power.
Saudi Arabia is always on the edge of collapse, because it is not
a modern nation, but a desert tribal federation.
The war theology of desert Islam has been well-described by now,
in excellent, scholarly sources freely available on the web.
In human tribal history, war theologies are not unusual. Japanese
State Shinto, which led to WW II, was based on Bushido a debased version
of the Samurai code. The Teutonic Knights were a similar war cult that
eventually led to Bismarck's Prussia, which then forced the unification of
the German-speaking provinces in the 19th century in a single, top-down
controlled Reich. Hitler's war started as a revenge for losing World War I.
Hitler came to power by peddling the "stab-in-the-back" myth to
explain Austro-Hungarian defeat in WWI.
Human tribal warfare is very common, as shown by anthropologist
Napoleon Chagnon, based on his field work with the Yanamamo of South America.
In human tribal history, up to 30% of adult males die in intergroup violence.
So war cults and martyrdom cults are part of human history. The Kim dynasty in
North Korea has always prepared for and encouraged war. Today, the Iranian
Muslims (Shi'a) constantly chant, "Death to America! Death to
Israel!" Terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizb’allah also raise their
children to kill any designated enemy, preferably through martyrdom. Successful
killer-martyrs are promised life eternal in Heaven, with all the virgins and
all that.
American liberals keep telling the world that such things could
not exist, because people are fundamentally good. They are utterly ignorant,
and "none so blind as will not see."
What happened on 9/11?
The attackers commandeered civilian passenger planes, and
suicidally flew them into the Twin Towers in Manhattan; a third passenger plane
was flown into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and a fourth airplane crashed
when its passengers heroically rebelled against the throat-cutting murderers
and crashed in Pennsylvania. These assaults count as the biggest enemy attack
on American civilians in history. In the Geneva
Conventions, the politically
motivated murder of civilians is treated even more seriously than surprise
attacks on members of the military in uniform.
These are the most likely hypotheses based on the evidence. But
we will not know the full truth until the 28 censored pages from the 9/11
Report are published. The U.S. media, which evidently colluded in the greatest
national security coverup, must now tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. If any media outlet fails to cover this, American
patriots must simply boycott them and their owners and sponsors. This is a
question of national life or death.
2. Who did the coverup?
When the 9/11 attacks took place, none of our presidents, nor our
enormous Deep Government, nor any major news outlets told the truth.
As a result, even today, most Americans know little, except that
fake "Islamophobia" is a terrible thing. Americans need to learn the
truth and we must know the truth to understand that Jihad War that was launched
against us on that second Day of Infamy. No nation can protect itself against
future dangers if it only learns lies about previous acts of national
aggression.
3. Who ran the coverup and why?
The 9/11 attack was covered up.
a. 9/11/ was not the first attack by Al Qaida and
its militant networks against the Twin Towers. There was an amazingly similar
truck bomb attack in 1993 by the same network, and some of the perps were
caught and sentenced to jail terms.
Andrew McCarthy of the National Review was the
federal prosecutor in that case, and has written extensively about it. McCarthy
has been one of the truth-tellers in a time of shameful lies and
coverups.
Bill and Hillary Clinton knew about the failed truck-bomb attack
on the Twin Towers in 1993. We know that Bill was offered Bin Laden's head on a
platter by four different Arab regimes, in secret, and that he refused four
times. There is no question that the Clintons knew about the danger ahead of
time, and utterly failed to pursue Bin Laden's AQ network when there was still
time to knock them out. That abject cowardice is interpreted in war theologies
like desert Islam as a plain and obvious sign of weakness, and it always
increases the chance of more attacks. This is elementary logic about
hyperaggressive regimes.
Instead of revealing and mobilizing American public opinion
against a clear and obvious danger, the Clintons made money off it. The fact
that Huma Abedin has become Hillary's closest friend and assistant over the
last 20 years, and that Huma comes from a Muslim Brotherhood family that runs a
"charity" in the UK to promote Jihad, makes Huma, Hillary, and Bill
criminally liable. They owe the American People an explanation, and instead,
they have been taking tens of millions of dollars from known Jihad
sources.
We do not know whether Bush-Cheney knew about the danger of attack
ahead of time, but it seems unlikely. The assault happened early in the Bush II
administration, possibly before they were warned.
We have to understand that after 9/11, every major intelligence
agency in the world must have known who the perps were.
Former UCMC Commandant Jim Mattis has often said "There is
always treachery." It is a basic rule of war in his lifelong teachings.
The fact that Mattis is now SecDec shows where Trump is moving -- against
Jihad, finally, after decades of Democrat and RINO betrayal of the American
people in their greatest danger.
If you do not believe we are in very great danger today, consider
that Kim III now has ICBMs and nuclear weapons, and that Kim always works in
collusion with Iranian Jihad. North Korea is thought to have gotten its latest
mass murdering toy with cooperation from Tehran. Although Pakistan, which also
follows a Jihadist war theology, is another candidate.
On the honorable side, Admiral James Lyon (USN, Ret) has been
publicly warning against the Jihad being obviously waged against the U.S. (and
other "Christian" countries) by Jihad, both the Sunni and Shi'ite
imperial aggressors. I believe Adm. Lyons risked his life to expose the truth,
the last time at the Press Club in Washington, DC.
I believe that Donald Trump guessed or knew the truth, as an
international businessman, with his own intelligence sources. When Trump ran
for office, the Deep State freaked out, in fear of exposure, along with the
mass media, which also understood what was going on. The Democrats, the mass
media, and the Deep State are basically one.
The Obama Administration was clearly penetrated by pro-Jihad,
anti-American forces from the beginning. Obama all but publicly endorsed the
Jihad against America. The flagrant use of an Arabic name, instead of his given
name Barry Soetoro, is only one little sign. Another is the
"disguised" Shahada ring he has worn ever since his trip to Pakistan
as a college student with his Pakistani roommate. The Shahada is the oath of
loyalty to Islam. Deception is a major war tactic in Islam. Yet a third sign of
Obama's Jihad loyalties is his symbolically vital visit to a Muslim Mosque in
the waning days of his presidency; the mosque had a prominent sign (shown in
the New York Times) that "nothing is achieved without struggle." (The
Arabic word for "struggle" is Jihad.) The Obama years constantly
played in Muslim Jihadist hints, knowing that most Americans are utterly
ignorant about all that. It is part of Obama's personality disorders.
Valerie Jarrett (Obama's "alter ego") was brought up in
Iranian-style Islam (Shi'ite). She sold out U.S. and Western safety to Iran in
the infamous nuclear agreement.
OIL, OIL, OIL.
The Saudis controlled OPEC, the oil cartel. That gave them
worldwide price control, a sword hanging over the heads of all modern nations.
Jimmy Carter's Arab oil embargo showed how much power the desert tribes of
Arabia had. That is probably why they took the risk of assaulting the United
States, and then serially Britain, France, Spain, on and on.
Please note a few bottom lines:
1. The U.S. was betrayed over and over and over again by our
political class, by our Deep State, and by our media oligopoly.
I think the Bushes are patriots, but they also have major oil
connections.
2. Donald Trump has been brilliant, and he certainly comes across
as a genuine patriot. That is why the corrupt Deep State, and the even more
corrupt Democrats and media, hate Trump. But slowly, slowly, the truth has been
emerging in the Trump campaign, and then in the first Trump year. Without American
leadership against evil, the world is full of cowards and traitors.
3. Saudi Arabia has now lost control of the price of oil. Trump's
vigorous opening up of U.S. energy has made a huge difference, because now we
have the biggest clout over the world price. That was a very deliberate move,
previously sabotaged by environmental fanatics who were probably bought off by
both kinds of Muslim oil regimes.
So yes, oil was a big part of the picture, but with the advent of
shale exploitation around the world, plus the American resurgence in domestic
energy production, we now have the upper hand.
Who are our Real Enemies?
A
good novel allows readers to learn and question, a gateway to world events.
Such is the case with Vince Flynn’s Enemy Of The State by
Kyle Mills. Flynn warned Americans on the dangers of Islamic terrorism in his
first CIA operative Mitch Rapp book, Transfer of Power, published
in 1999. This was two years before 9/11. Fast-forward eighteen years and Rapp
books still discuss the dangers of jihadists. Mills took the torch from the
late Vince Flynn, and has written a gripping novel about the Saudi involvement
with terrorism. This is where fiction blends with reality.
Mills
noted, “I thought about the redacted section from the 9/11 report that possibly
showed the Saudi involvement. After reading the book people will understand I
am not a big fan of the Saudis. Historically we have overlooked a lot of what
they do in order to keep alive our strategic relationship. They not only
support terrorism, but the schools that teach it. There is not much civil
liberties and human rights there. I always wanted to see them slapped down and
I enjoyed watching Mitch do it.”
It
is rumored that this portion of the report details contacts between Saudi
officials and some of the September 11 hijackers, checks from Saudi royals to
operatives in contact with the hijackers, and the discovery of a telephone
number in an Al Qaeda militant’s phone book that was traced to a corporation
managing an Aspen Colorado, home of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the Saudi ambassador
to Washington. The document is harsh in its criticism of Saudi efforts to
undermine American attempts to dismantle Al Qaeda in the years before the
September 11 attacks. Moreover, it portrays the F.B.I as generally in the dark
about the maneuverings of Saudi officials inside the United States during that
period.
In Enemy
of The State, the CIA operative Mitch Rapp is quoted, “How many times
are we going to have to go through this with them? We let them off the hook for
the most deadly terrorist attack in US history and now here we go again.” It
sure seemed that way when President Obama bowed before the Saudi King Abdullah
at the opening of the G20 meeting in London in 2009.
Even
President Trump seemed to be softening on his view of the Saudis. His speech in
Saudi Arabia this May called them friends and allowed them to buy a
$110-million-dollar defense purchase. This is a far cry when during the 2016
campaign he called on them to provide troops and funds to fight ISIS.
A
powerful quote in the book shows the two sides of the Saudi regime, “It was a
country with sufficient resources to provide prosperous lives for its citizens
and to be a force of good throughout the region. Instead, these resources had
been used to enrich a handful of monarchs and to promote the cycle of violence
and misery that the Middle East was currently mired in.”
On
the one hand it appears that they are now committed to fighting terrorism.
Isobel Coleman, a Saudi expert for the Council on Foreign Relations, felt they
had a change of heart. She noted, “For a long time the Saudi state encouraged
Saudi men to fight Jihad. It was a heroic thing to do. The Saudis had a
profound change after they had to deal with internal terrorism.”
During the May speech, President Trump announced
Saudi cooperation to fight terrorism, “Muslim nations must be willing to take
on the burden if we are going to defeat terrorism and send its wicked ideology
into oblivion. The first task in this joint effort is for your nations to deny
all territory to the foot soldiers of evil. Every country in the region has an
absolute duty to ensure that terrorists find no sanctuary on their soil… I am
proud to announce that the nations here today will be signing an agreement to
prevent the financing of terrorism called the Terrorist Financing Targeting
Center, co-chaired by the United States and Saudi Arabia, and joined by every
member of the Gulf Cooperation Council.”
Yet,
on the other hand, Saudi Arabia is still denying any involvement in the
September 11th attacks even though fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were
Saudis. They even threatened to sell off $750 billion in U.S. assets if
Congress passes legislation allowing them to be sued for the Sept. 11, 2001
terrorist attacks, a move that could destabilize the U.S. dollar.
Bob
Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida, says ISIS "is a product
of Saudi ideals, Saudi money, and Saudi organizational support." Graham
went on to say that ISIS represents a form of Wahhabi ideology, in which the
monarchy has lost control. He believes it is a cancer that now threatens the
kingdom, and that in order to stop ISIS the ideology must be dried up at the
source.
Nina
Shea, director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom, wrote,
”The Saudi government has given over its textbooks to the clerical Wahhabi
extremists that it partners with to maintain control of the country.” She
explained, each year, these textbooks speak of direct religious hatred,
violence and indoctrinate a war mentality. Yet, their role in advancing
Islamist extremist ideology has not been taken seriously as a U.S. national
security concern. Since 9/11, regardless of which party is in power, the State
Department has barely raised the issue and at times has even worked to cover up
their toxic content.
As
President Trump stated, "Muslim nations must be willing to take on
terrorism and send its wicked ideology into oblivion… Terrorists do not worship
God, they worship death.” Enemy Of The State shows how important it is for the
U.S. to make sure the Saudis continue to hold up their end of the relationship
by not promoting hatred against the West and stamping out the supporters of
terrorism. In a sense the book is a reminder to Americans that September 11th
should never be forgotten.
The author writes for American Thinker. She
has done book reviews, author interviews, and has written a number of national
security, political, and foreign policy articles.
US Attorney General Barr invokes “state secrets” to cover up Saudi
involvement in 9/11
Last week, it was
revealed that the Trump administration has taken extraordinary steps to
continue the 18-year cover-up of Saudi government involvement in the September
11, 2001 terror attacks.
On Thursday, September
12, one day after the 18th anniversary of the attacks on New York and
Washington that killed nearly 3,000 people, a federal court filing revealed
that Attorney General William Barr has asserted the "state secrets"
privilege to block the release of an FBI report detailing extensive relations
between some of the 19 hijackers and Saudi government officials. Victims of the
attacks and their families are pushing for access to the 2007 report as part of
a lawsuit against the Saudi government launched in 2003 charging the despotic
monarchy with coordinating the mass killings.
Barr declared there was
a “reasonable danger” that releasing the report would “risk significant harm to
national security.”
The court filing also
revealed that the FBI has agreed to turn over to the families’ lawyers the name
of a Saudi individual that is redacted in a four-page summary of the FBI report
released in 2012. The summary lays out evidence concerning three Saudis who
provided money and otherwise assisted two of the hijackers in California in
finding housing, obtaining driver’s licenses and other matters.
Government
investigations have established that the two people who are named in the FBI
summary, Fahad al-Thumairy, a former Saudi consulate official, and Omar
al-Bayoumi, suspected by the FBI of being a Saudi intelligence officer, were
working in coordination with the Saudi regime. The third person, whose name is
redacted, is described in the FBI summary as having assigned the other two to
assist the hijackers.
Lawyers for the
families last year subpoenaed the FBI for an unredacted copy of the summary
based on the contention that the third person was a senior Saudi official. But
as part of the court filing, citing the “exceptional nature of the case,” the
FBI issued a protective seal to prevent the name of the third Saudi from
becoming public. The agency also refused to provide any of the other
information requested by the families.
An FBI official said
the agency was shielding the name to protect classified information related to
“ongoing investigations” and to protect its “sources and methods.”
In fact, the
extraordinary measures taken to conceal the role of the Saudi regime in the
9/11 attacks are driven by the need of US imperialism to maintain its
reactionary alliance with the Saudi sheiks and continue the false cover story
on 9/11 that has served as an ideological pillar for aggression in the Middle
East and the buildup of a police-state infrastructure within the US, carried
out in the name of fighting a “war on terror.”
The Saudi monarchy has
been a key ally of the United States in the Middle East for 70 years, and since
9/11 it has become, alongside Israel, Washington’s most important partner in
the region. It has played a central role in the bloody wars for regime change
in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, which have killed more than a
million people and destroyed entire societies. It is also the world’s biggest
purchaser of US arms.
Its intelligence
agencies have long worked in the closest collaboration with the CIA and the
FBI. The exposure of Saudi complicity in 9/11 immediately implicates sections
of the US intelligence establishment in facilitating, it not actively aiding,
the terror attacks, and sheds light on the multiple unanswered questions about
how 19 men, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals, could carry out such a complex
operation.
The 9/11 attacks were
eagerly seized upon by the George W. Bush administration, with the support of
the Democratic Party and media allies such as the New York Times,
to implement longstanding plans to wage aggressive war in the Middle East.
The cover-up of Saudi
involvement has been carried out over three administrations, Democratic and
Republican alike. It began within hours of the attacks themselves. Eight days
after the attacks, at least 13 relatives of Osama bin Laden, accompanied by
bodyguards and associates, were allowed to secretly leave the US on a chartered
flight. One of the passengers, a nephew of the supposed number one on
Washington’s “most wanted” list, had been linked by the FBI to a suspected
terrorist organization.
The US association with
bin Laden went back decades. Under the CIA’s Operation Cyclone, conducted
between 1979 and 1989, the US and Saudi Arabia provided $40 billion worth of
financial aid and weapons to the mujahedeen “freedom fighters” waging war
against Soviet forces in Afghanistan, an operation in which then-US ally bin
Laden played a key role. The proxy war in Afghanistan was pivotal in the later
creation of Al Qaeda.
In July of 2016, the US
government released to the public a 28-page section, suppressed for 14 years,
of a joint congressional inquiry into 9/11. The 28-page chapter dealt with the
role of the Saudi government and contained abundant and damning evidence of
extensive Saudi support for the 9/11 hijackers in the period leading up to the
attacks.
Among its revelations
were:
▪ Two of the Saudi
hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, lived for a time in Los Angeles
and San Diego in 2000, where they obtained pilot training. They were given
money and lodgings by Omar al-Bayoumi, who worked closely with an emir at the
Saudi Defense Ministry. Both were under CIA surveillance while attending an Al
Qaeda planning meeting in 2000 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and placed on a “watch
list” for FBI monitoring if they came to the United States. Nonetheless they
were allowed to enter the US on January 15, 2000.
▪ Al-Bayoumi “received
support from a Saudi company affiliated with the Saudi Ministry of Defense,”
drawing a paycheck for a no-show job. The company also had ties to Osama bin
Laden. His allowances jumped almost tenfold after the arrival of al-Hazmi and
al-Mihdhar. Al-Bayoumi had found an apartment for the two, which they shared
with an informant for the San Diego FBI, advancing them a deposit on the first
month’s rent.
▪ Al-Bayoumi’s wife
received a $1,200 a month stipend from the wife of Prince Bandar, then the
Saudi ambassador to the US and later head of Saudi intelligence. The wife of
his associate, Osama Bassnan, identified by the FBI as a supporter of bin
Laden, received $2,000 a month from Bandar’s wife.
▪ Three of the
hijackers stayed at the same Virginia hotel as Saleh al-Hussayen, a Saudi
Interior Ministry official, the night before the attacks.
Despite such evidence,
and much more, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission appointed by George W. Bush
concluded that there was no conclusive evidence that “senior” Saudi officials
played a role in the 9/11 attacks. When the 28-page section of the
congressional report was released in 2016, Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan,
denounced all suggestions of Saudi involvement as baseless.
However, former
Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission, said,
“There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the
hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government.”
Former Democratic
Senator Robert Graham, cochair of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into the 9/11
attacks, said that there was “a pervasive pattern of covering up the role of
Saudi Arabia in 9/11 by all of the agencies of the federal government, which
have access to information that might illuminate Saudi Arabia’s role in 9/11.”
In the lawsuit filed by
the families of the victims, he filed an affidavit that stated, “I am convinced
that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who
carried out the Sept. 11 attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia.”
It is significant, but
not surprising, that the corporate media has given only the most perfunctory
and muted coverage to the moves by the Trump administration to once again
suppress the role of the Saudi regime in 9/11, and the Democrats have been
completely silent.
One should compare this
response to damning evidence of Saudi culpability and US cover-up in relation
to an event that took nearly 3,000 lives to the hysteria of the anti-Russia
witch hunt led by the Democratic Party, the New York Times and
the bulk of the media, based on completely unsubstantiated charges.
Sen. Rand Paul: Sanctions Against Saudi Arabia Don’t Go Far Enough
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) (Screenshot)
(CNSNews.com) – Sanctions against the Saudi government aren’t enough
punishment for the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Sen. Rand Paul
(R-Ky.) told “Fox News Sunday.”
The senator said for one thing, Saudi Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, often
referred to as MBS, must be replaced.
“I think the Saudis are an authoritarian government. They are directed
from the top down, and you don't have people just going off and doing things on
their own. I feel certain that the crown prince was involved and that he
directed this, and that's why I think we cannot continue to have relations with
him,” Paul said.
“So, I think he is going to have to be replaced, frankly, but I think
that sanctions don't go far enough. I think we need to look at the arm sale,
because this is not just about this journalist being killed, it's about the war
in Yemen where tens of thousands of civilians are being killed,” he said.
“It's about them spreading hatred of Christians and Jews and Hindus
throughout the world. I mean, thousands and thousands madrassas teaching
radical violence against the West. The Saudis have not acted as our friend and
they need to change their behavior,” Paul added.
When asked whether he believed the Saudis’ account of what happened to
Khashoggi, Paul said, “Absolutely not. I think it's insulting to anyone who's
analyzing this with any kind of intelligent background to think that, oh, a
fist fight led to a dismemberment with a bone saw.
“So, no, but I think we should put this brazen attack, this brazen
murder in context with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has basically over the decades
been the largest state sponsor of radical Islam and violent jihad. They sponsor
thousands of madrassas that teach hatred of Christians and Jews and Hindus
around the world. So, this isn't the first instance. This is just another in
the line of long instances of Saudi insults to the civilized world,” he said.
Paul said “it stretches credulity to believe the crown prince wasn't
involved in this,” and he thinks “that's the way they're going to write this
off.”
“And people in Saudi Arabia ought to be aware when you were told what
to do, you go and do it, and then they will execute you and put all the blame
on someone else. There's no way 15 people were sent from Saudi Arabia to Turkey
to kill a dissident without the approval of the crown prince. And that's why I
say we have to be stronger than just saying, oh, we are going to sanction a few
of these people and pretend like we're doing something,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment