OBAMA
HAS SABOTAGED OUR BORDERS TO EASE ILLEGALS OVER THEM, INTO OUR JOBS AND TO VOTE
FOR LA RAZA DEMS!
HE HAS
CONTINUED THE SQUALID POLITICS OF THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY – CARLYLE GROUP (SEE
BOOK: House of Bush – House of Saud), AND ETHICALLY SQUALID HILLARY BILLARY’S
KISSING UP TO THE FILTHY SAUDIS SO THEY CAN FILL THEIR POCKETS FULL OF THE
MONEY THE SAUDIS BLEED US FOR WITH BIG SAUDIS OIL, WHICH ALSO FUNDS
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM!
THE BUSH CRIME
FAMILY, i.e., think BUSH-SAUDI CARYLE GROUP, BILLARY-HILLARY LIBRARY AND BARACK
OBAMA HAVE ALL BEEN IN BED WITH THE FILTHY SAUDIS THAT INVADED US 9-11.
BILLARY-HILLARY HAVE
TAKEN A MASSIVE FORTUNE FROM ALL THE MUSLIM DICTATORS THAT THEY HAVE SIPHONED
OFF TO THE BILLARY LIBRARY. IN PARTICULAR THEY'VE FILLED UP ON DIRTY SAUDI
MONEY DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS ILLEGAL FOR PEOPLE OF JEWISH OR CHRISTIAN
FAITH TO BUILD CHURCHES IN SAUDIS LAND!
IT WAS NOT THE IRAQIS
THAT INVADED US 9-11. IT WAS THE SAUDIS! THE BUSH FAMILY HAS INVADED IRAQ ON
BEHALF OF THEIR SAUDIS PARTNERS TWICE!
IF THE SAUDIS HAVE
THEIR WAY, THEIR BOY OBAMA, AND HILLS WILL INVADE IRAN, WHICH ALONG WITH THE
IRAQIS, ARE SAUDIS ENEMIES.
THE SAUDIS LOVE THEIR
AMERICAN DUPES, THE CLOWNS THAT HAVE RUN THIS NATION INTO THE GROUND, IN PART
FOR BIG BUSH SAUDIS OIL ALONG WITHE BUSH SAUDIS CARLYLE GROUP.
EVEN THE BUSH CRIME
FAMILY HAS NOT DONE AS MUCH FOR THE SAUDIS INVADERS AS BARACK OBAMA! WE ALL
CRINGED WHEN OBAMA KNELT AND KISSED THE HEM OF THE ROYAL LARDBUCKET DICTATOR OF
SAUDIS LAND!
BARACK OBAMA, WHO IS
NOTHING MORE THAN BUSH'S THIRD TERM, MADE IT ILLEGAL FOR AMERICANS TO SUE THE
SAUDIS INVADERS! HE'S KISSED UP THE SAUDI ASS, WAITING FOR THE SAUDI DICTATORS'
MONEY FOR HIS LIBRARY LIKE BUSH AND HIS FAMILY AND HILLARY BILLARY.
THERE ARE ONLY A
DOZEN PEOPLE THAT HAVE MADE VAST FOTUNES BETRAYING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON
BEHALF OF MUSLIM DICTATORS!
*
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Television
* President Obama spends the day in Saudi Arabia ahead
of what the White House says will be a major speech in Egypt
tomorrow on U.S.-Muslim relations. Critics say the president
should not be delivering this speech in Egypt... which is led
by one of the country’s longest serving autocrats ever. That’s
the subject of our face off debate tonight.
Television
* President Obama spends the day in Saudi Arabia ahead
of what the White House says will be a major speech in Egypt
tomorrow on U.S.-Muslim relations. Critics say the president
should not be delivering this speech in Egypt... which is led
by one of the country’s longest serving autocrats ever. That’s
the subject of our face off debate tonight.
Obama
accused of siding with Saudi princes and against 9/11 family members
9/11 families say Obama is bowing to Saudi interests
The
group 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorismreleased a statement
last night in response to the U.S. Solicitor General’s decision against
supporting their request to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court (Thomas E.
Burnett, Sr., et al. v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp., et al.,
Case No. 03-CV-9849 (RCC) In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, MDL
1570)
The
group believes that the case would bankrupt and cripple terrorist funding
around the world, preventing future attacks.
The statement accuses the Obama Administration of siding with“…a group of Saudi princes and against the right of American citizens -- 9/11 family members -- to have our day in court. Let there be no doubt: The filing was political in nature and stands as a betrayal of everyone who lost a loved one or was injured on September 11, 2001.”
The
group believes; “The Administration's filing mocks our system of justice and
strikes a blow against the public's right to know the facts about who financed
and supported the murder of 3,000 innocent people. It undermines our fight
against terrorism and suggests a green light to terrorist sympathizers the
world over that they can send money to al Qaeda without having to worry that
they will be held accountable in the U.S. Courts for the atrocities that
result.”
The
statement continues, calling the Administration’s decision unprincipled and
political; “The Administration apparently gave less weight to the principles of
justice, transparency, accountability and security, which our case embodies,
and more weight to political concerns and pleadings of a foreign government on
the behalf of a handful of members of its monarchy and others who stand accused
of financing the attacks that murdered our loved ones. Sadly, although the
Administration's obviously politically based filing is merely informational and
in no way binding on the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court were to follow it,
these people will avoid being held accountable not because they are innocent, but
because they are royalty.”
The statement concludes:
“The
Administration's filing is all the more troubling in that it expressly
acknowledges that the courts below applied incorrect legal standards in
dismissing the Saudi defendants, but nonetheless argues that the case -- one
that seeks to account for the terrorist attacks against America and the murder
of our family members -- does not warrant the Supreme Court's time. Contrary to
the view expressed by the Obama Administration in the solicitor general's
filing, the victims of the September 11th attack deserve to have their claims
decided under accurate legal standards.
For all of these reasons, we urge the Supreme Court to reject the solicitor general's politically-premised filing, along with its wrongheaded priorities, accept our petition, and grant us our fundamentally American right to have our day in Court.”
The
statement was released by 9/11 family members Mike Low, Father of Sara
Elizabeth Low, AA Flight 11; Bill Doyle, Father of Joseph M. Doyle, WTC North
Tower; Tom & Beverly Burnett, Sr., Parents of Thomas E. Burnett, Jr., UA
Flight 93; and Terry Strada, Wife of Thomas Strada, WTC North Tower on Behalf
of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism.
*
IN BED WITH THE
SAUDIS INVADERS
Ex-White House
counter-terror chief charges CIA shielded 9/11 hijackers
By Bill Van Auken
13 August 2011
13 August 2011
The former chief
White House counterterrorism adviser in both the Clinton and George W. Bush
administrations charges in a recently released interview that the CIA
deliberately concealed the presence in the United States of two Saudi members
of Al Qaeda who subsequently participated in the September 11, 2001 terror
attacks.
“There was a high
level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share that information,”
Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism “czar” said in the October 2009
interview that was released this week by the makers of an upcoming documentary
entitled “Who is Richard Blee?” Blee is a CIA officer who headed the agency’s
Osama bin Laden unit in the period leading up to 9/11.
Asked at how high a
level such a decision would have been made, Clarke responded, “I would think it
would have to be made by the director,” referring to then-CIA Director George
Tenet.
Tenet has responded
to the charges in a joint statement issued with Blee and Cofer Black, the
former head of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, who went on to become a top
official at Blackwater and other private intelligence/security companies. They
called Clarke’s charges “reckless and profoundly wrong.” They went on to claim
that they had been exonerated of any wrongdoing exhaustively by the 9/11
Commission, the Congressional Joint Inquiry and the CIA Inspector General’s
report.
All of these probes
served essentially to whitewash the role of government agencies in the 9/11
events. Referring to their own participation in these investigations, the three
former CIA officials wrote, “We testified under oath about what we did, what we
knew and what we didn’t know. We stand by that testimony.”
According to the documentary
makers, when informed of the statement, Clarke said that he maintained the
positions expressed in the 2009 interview.
In that interview,
Clarke, asked if he had questioned Tenet and the other top CIA officials about
the concealed information, responded, “They got away with it. They’re not going
to tell you even if you waterboarded them.”
The CIA had been
following the two Al Qaeda operatives—Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar—as
early as 1999. The first of the 9/11 hijackers to enter the US, they were
ultimately identified as two of those aboard American Airlines Flight 77, which
crashed into the Pentagon on September 11.
Working together with
Malaysian intelligence, the CIA monitored their activities and videotaped them
when they attended a 2000 planning meeting of Al Qaeda and other Islamist
terrorist groups in Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian capital.
They subsequently
flew to Thailand, where the CIA claimed it had lost track of them, and then
boarded a flight to the US, arriving in Los Angeles on January 15, 2000.
While the CIA was
aware that one of the two Al Qaeda members had obtained a US visa, it made no
attempt to alert the FBI or the US State Department in order to have their
names placed on a“terrorist watch list” so that they could be apprehended or at
put under surveillance upon entry into the US.
In the 13-minute
videotaped interview posted by the makers of the upcoming documentary on their
web site, secrecykills.com, Clarke suggests that the CIA shielded the Al Qaeda
members from the scrutiny of other agencies because its aim was to “flip” them,
recruiting them as informants inside the terrorist group. He describes this
theory as “the only conceivable reason that I’ve been able to come up with” as
to why the CIA would fail to inform the FBI or even the White House about their
presence inside the US.
He noted that, had
the FBI learned of the presence of the two Saudis inside the US, they would
have come under its jurisdiction, interfering with the supposed CIA plans to
recruit and run them as its own “assets.” Clarke further speculated that the
agency worked through Saudi intelligence as a means of circumventing the legal
restrictions on CIA operations inside the US.
Clarke dismissed
Tenet’s claims that he was unaware of the intelligence on the two Al Qaeda
operatives. “George Tenet followed all the information about Al Qaeda in
microscopic detail,” he said in the interview. “He read raw intelligence
reports before analysts in counterterrorism did, and he would pick up the phone
and call me at 7:30 in the morning to talk about them.”
Clarke said that
while he had originally thought that the failure to alert other agencies about
al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar had been a case of “one lonely CIA analyst” failing to
recognize the importance of the information, he now knows that “No, fifty, 5-0,
CIA personnel knew about this. Among the fifty people in CIA who knew these
guys were in the country was the CIA director.”
He further charged
that his not being made aware of this intelligence could only be the result of
a direct order to stop the information from reaching the White House. “Unless
someone intervened to stop the normal automatic distribution [of intelligence
files], I would automatically get it.”
“For me to this day,”
he added, “it is inexplicable why, when I had every other detail about
everything related to terrorism, that the director didn’t tell me, that the
director of the counterterrorism center didn’t tell me, that the other 48
people inside CIA that knew about it never mentioned it to me or anyone in my
staff in a period of over 12 months … We therefore conclude that there was a
high-level decision inside CIA ordering people not to share that information.”
As damning as his
conclusions are, Clarke’s theory may be, in fact, one of the more “charitable”
explanations of the CIA’s silence on the presence of the two Al Qaeda members
in California.
The two enjoyed
high-level protection from the moment of their arrival in early 2000. They were
met at the airport by one Omar al-Bayoumi, an employee of the Saudi civil
aviation authority, who US investigators concluded was an agent of Saudi
intelligence. According to press reports, they received thousands of dollars in
funding funneled to them by Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi
ambassador in Washington and a close confidante of the Bush family.
The two were able to
live openly in the US, using credit cards in their names, with one of them even
having a listing in the telephone directory. And they took flight lessons.
Between their initial
entry in January 2000 and September 11, 2001, al-Mihdhar was able to fly out of
the country and back in again with no difficulty. Al-Hazmi, meanwhile, was able
to renew his visa.
Shortly after their
arrival, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar moved into the San Diego, California home of
Abdusssatar Shaikh, who was a paid informant of the FBI, charged with
monitoring activities of Islamist groups in the area. The FBI subsequently
attempted to conceal the close relation formed by its informant with the
hijackers. When a joint congressional committee attempted to subpoena Shaikh,
the FBI flatly refused, saying that the Bush administration would not allow it.
Former Florida
Democratic Senator Bob Graham, who was chairman and then ranking minority member
of the Senate intelligence panel, wrote in his book Intelligence Matters
of this unprecedented defiance of a congressional subpoena: “We were seeing in
writing what we had suspected for some time: the White House was directing a
cover-up.”
In the film
interview, Clarke also points to two key meetings held in the run-up to 9/11.
The first was a meeting sought by CIA Director Tenet, with then national
security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, in which Tenet and CIA
counterterrorism director Black warned that Al Qaeda was preparing an attack on
US interests, possibly in the US itself.
Clarke noted that in
the course of this meeting the two failed to provide the “most persuasive
information you’ve got,” i.e., they “never once mentioned that already two Al
Qaeda terrorists known to be involved in the Kuala Lumpur planning session had
entered the United States.”
He also cited a
September 4, 2001,“principals” meeting of senior officials involved in national
security in which, once again, there was no mention by the CIA director of the
two known Al Qaeda operatives within the US, even though by this time
lower-level FBI officials had been informed. Clarke said that there was one
obvious reason for the silence. If it had been reported, it would have raised
sharp questions as to how long the CIA had known about the two and why they had
not reported it earlier. It would have triggered an immediate investigation
into “malfeasance and misfeasance” by the US intelligence agency, he said.
Had the information
been provided even at that date, just a week before the terror attacks, the
former counterterrorism advisor said, the two Al Qaeda members would have been
arrested and the 9/11 plot likely disrupted. “There’s no doubt in my mind, even
with only a week left,” Clarke said. “They were using credit cards in their own
names. They were staying in the Charles Hotel in Harvard Square, for heaven’s
sake … those guys would have been arrested within 24 hours.”
Whatever the validity
of Clarke’s theory about the CIA trying to recruit al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, the
eruption of a bitter controversy between the former White House
counterterrorism adviser and the former CIA director and other senior agency
officials only underscores that, nearly a full decade after the attacks, there
has been no genuine independent investigation of the terrible events of 9/11.
Moreover, not a single US official has been held responsible for what
ostensibly stands as the most catastrophic intelligence failure in American
history.
This determined
cover-up, begun by the Bush administration and continued under Obama, poses the
most critical unanswered question. Was 9/11 the result of disastrous and
potentially criminal miscalculations by those at the top of the CIA, or was it
the outcome of a conscious decision by elements within the US state to allow a
terrorist attack to take place on American soil with the aim of creating a
pretext for implementing long-prepared plans to launch wars of aggression
abroad and sweeping attacks on democratic rights at home?
*
OBAMA WILL ALWAYS SERVICE THE STATUS
QUO! BANKSTERS DONORS, WALL ST. PILLAGERS, MUSLIM DICTATORS, LA RAZA OPEN
BORDERS FOR DEPRESSED WAGES!
*
The US-backed monarchy has arrested
scores of its opponents in recent months, charging them as “terrorists.”
Political opponents have been subjected to savage torture to force them to sign
false confessions. Opposition web sites, newsletters and publications have been
shut down by the regime.
*
HOW
MUCH HAS THE HILLARY BILLARY LIBRARY TAKEN FROM SAUDI ROYAL WAHHABI TERRORIST?
MILLIONS!!!
HOW MUCH HAS BIG BUSH SAUDIS CARLYLE OIL TAKEN FROM SAUDIS ROYAL
WAHHABI TERRORIST?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
HOW MANY WARS AGAINST SAUDIS ROYAL WAHHABI TERRORIST ENEMIES,
i.e., SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS BUSH, HILLARY-BILLARY- OBAMA WAGED?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
HOW MUCH LOOT DOES OBAMA EXPECT FOR KISSING SAUDI ROYAL WAHHABI
TERRORISTS’ ASS FOR HIS LIBRARY?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
ISN’T IT TIME WE CLIMBED OUT OF BED WITH MUSLIMS FASCIST
TERRORIST DICTATORS?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
DON’T EXPECT OBAMA TO! HE AND HILLARY ARE BANKROLLING THE AFGHAN
DRUG ADDICT PRESIDENT, WHILE HE PROTECT THE SAUDIS WAHHABIST ASSES FROM SADDAM!
*
No comments:
Post a Comment