Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)How the Bush Administration let the Saudis off the hook for 9/11, and directed attention to Iraq [View all]
First, some initial context from the 9/11 Commission Report:Al Qaeda appears to have relied on a core group of financial facilitators who raised money from a variety of donors and other fund-raisers, primarily in the Gulf countries and particularly in Saudi Arabia. Some individual donors surely knew, and others did not, the ultimate destination of their donations. Al Qaeda and its friends took advantage of Islam's strong calls for charitable giving, zakat. These financial facilitators also appeared to rely heavily on certain imams at mosques who were willing to divert zakat donations to al Qaeda's cause.
Al Qaeda also collected money from employees of corrupt charities. It took two approaches to using charities for fund-raising. One was to rely on al Qaeda sympathizers in specific foreign branch offices of large, international charities-particularly those with lax external oversight and ineffective internal controls, such as the Saudi-based al Haramain Islamic Foundation. Smaller charities in various parts of the globe were funded by these large Gulf charities and had employees who would siphon the money to al Qaeda.
In addition, entire charities, such as the al Wafa organization, may have wittingly participated in funneling money to al Qaeda. In those cases, al Qaeda operatives controlled the entire organization, including access to bank accounts. Charities were a source of money and also provided significant cover, which enabled operatives to travel undetected under the guise of working for a humanitarian organization.
It does not appear that any government other than the Taliban financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11, although some governments may have contained al Qaeda sympathizers who turned a blind eye to al Qaeda's fundraising activities. Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding, but we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization. (This conclusion does not exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to al Qaeda.)
Still, al Qaeda found fertile fund-raising ground in Saudi Arabia, where extreme religious views are common and charitable giving was both essential to the culture and subject to very limited oversight. Al Qaeda also sought money from wealthy donors in other Gulf states.
Al Qaeda also collected money from employees of corrupt charities. It took two approaches to using charities for fund-raising. One was to rely on al Qaeda sympathizers in specific foreign branch offices of large, international charities-particularly those with lax external oversight and ineffective internal controls, such as the Saudi-based al Haramain Islamic Foundation. Smaller charities in various parts of the globe were funded by these large Gulf charities and had employees who would siphon the money to al Qaeda.
In addition, entire charities, such as the al Wafa organization, may have wittingly participated in funneling money to al Qaeda. In those cases, al Qaeda operatives controlled the entire organization, including access to bank accounts. Charities were a source of money and also provided significant cover, which enabled operatives to travel undetected under the guise of working for a humanitarian organization.
It does not appear that any government other than the Taliban financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11, although some governments may have contained al Qaeda sympathizers who turned a blind eye to al Qaeda's fundraising activities. Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding, but we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization. (This conclusion does not exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to al Qaeda.)
Still, al Qaeda found fertile fund-raising ground in Saudi Arabia, where extreme religious views are common and charitable giving was both essential to the culture and subject to very limited oversight. Al Qaeda also sought money from wealthy donors in other Gulf states.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch5.htm
Some damning links to the Saudi regime from a (long) Vanity Fair article from 2011:
snip:
Several years later, in two long conversations with Jean-Charles Brisard, author of a study on terrorist financing for a French intelligence agency, (John) ONeill was still venting his frustration. All the answers, all the clues that could enable us to dismantle Osama bin Ladens organization, he said, are in Saudi Arabia. The answers and the clues, however, remained out of reach, in part, ONeill told Brisard, because U.S. dependence on Saudi oil meant that Saudi Arabia had much more leverage on us than we have on the kingdom. And, he added, because high-ranking personalities and families in the Saudi kingdom had close ties to bin Laden.
In spite of the fact that it had almost immediately become known that 15 of those implicated in the attacks had been Saudis, President George W. Bush did not hold Saudi Arabias official representative in Washington at arms length. As early as the evening of September 13, he kept a scheduled appointment to receive Prince Bandar at the White House. The two men had known each other for years. They reportedly greeted each other with a friendly embrace, smoked cigars on the Truman Balcony, and conversed with Vice President Dick Cheney and National-Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
snip:
It would soon become evident that, far from confronting the Saudis, the Bush administration wanted rapprochement. The president would invite Crown Prince Abdullah to visit the United States, press him to come when he hesitated, andwhen he acceptedwelcome him to his Texas ranch in early 2002. Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice were there, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell and First Lady Laura Bush.
At page 396 of the Joint Inquirys report, in the final section of the body of the report, a yawning gap appears. All 28 pages of Part Four, entitled Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters, have been redacted. The pages are there, butwith the rare exception of an occasional surviving word or fragmentary, meaningless clausethey are entirely blank. The decision to censor that entire section caused a furor in 2003.
Inquiries established that, while the withholdings were technically the responsibility of the C.I.A., the agency would not have obstructed release of most of the pages. The order that they must remain secret had come from President Bush.
Inquiries established that, while the withholdings were technically the responsibility of the C.I.A., the agency would not have obstructed release of most of the pages. The order that they must remain secret had come from President Bush.
snip
Know what? I cant tell you whats in those pages, the Joint Inquirys staff director, Eleanor Hill, said. I can tell you that the chapter deals with information that our committee found in the F.B.I. and C.I.A. files that was very disturbing. It had to do with sources of foreign support for the hijackers. The focus of the material, leaks to the press soon established, had been Saudi Arabia.
There were, sources said, additional details about Bayoumi, who had helped Mihdhar and Hazmi in California, and about his associate Basnan. The censored portion of the report had stated that Anwar Aulaqi, the San Diego imam, had been a central figure in a support network for the future hijackers.
A U.S. official who had read the censored section told the Los Angeles Times that it described very direct, very specific links with Saudi officials, links that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental. The New York Times journalist Philip Shenon has written that Senator Graham and his investigators became convinced that a number of sympathetic Saudi officials, possibly within the sprawling Islamic Affairs Ministry, had known that al-Qaeda terrorists were entering the United States beginning in 2000 in preparation for some sort of attack. Graham believed the Saudi officials had directed spies operating in the United States to assist them.
Most serious of all, Newsweeks Michael Isikoff reported that the information uncovered by the investigation had drawn apparent connections between high-level Saudi princes and associates of the hijackers. Absent release of the censored pages, one can only surmise what the connections may have been.
There were, sources said, additional details about Bayoumi, who had helped Mihdhar and Hazmi in California, and about his associate Basnan. The censored portion of the report had stated that Anwar Aulaqi, the San Diego imam, had been a central figure in a support network for the future hijackers.
A U.S. official who had read the censored section told the Los Angeles Times that it described very direct, very specific links with Saudi officials, links that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental. The New York Times journalist Philip Shenon has written that Senator Graham and his investigators became convinced that a number of sympathetic Saudi officials, possibly within the sprawling Islamic Affairs Ministry, had known that al-Qaeda terrorists were entering the United States beginning in 2000 in preparation for some sort of attack. Graham believed the Saudi officials had directed spies operating in the United States to assist them.
Most serious of all, Newsweeks Michael Isikoff reported that the information uncovered by the investigation had drawn apparent connections between high-level Saudi princes and associates of the hijackers. Absent release of the censored pages, one can only surmise what the connections may have been.
The coup de grace: Blaming it on Iraq:
In the 18 months before the invasion, however, the Bush administration had persistently seeded the notion that there was an Iraqi connection to 9/11. While never alleging a direct Iraqi role, President Bush had linked Saddam Husseins name to that of Osama bin Laden. Vice President Cheney had gone further, suggesting repeatedly that there had been Iraqi involvement in the attacks.
Polls suggest that the publicity about Iraqs supposed involvement affected the degree to which the U.S. public came to view Iraq as an enemy deserving retribution. Before the invasion, a Pew Research poll found that 57 percent of those polled believed Hussein had helped the 9/11 terrorists. Forty-four percent of respondents to a Knight-Ridder poll had gained the impression that most or some of the hijackers had been Iraqi. In fact, none were. In the wake of the invasion, a Washington Post poll found that 69 percent of Americans believed it likely that Saddam Hussein had been personally involved in 9/11.
None of the speculative leads suggesting an Iraqi link to the attacks proved out. We went back 10 years, said Michael Scheuer, who looked into the matter at the request of director Tenet. We examined about 20,000 documents, probably something along the lines of 75,000 pages of information, and there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/08/9-11-2011-201108
And the rest is - as they say - "history".
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
36 replies, 4213 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (76)
ReplyReply to this post
36 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How the Bush Administration let the Saudis off the hook for 9/11, and directed attention to Iraq [View all]
YoungDemCA
May 2015
OP
As soon as I heard 15 Saudis were involved, that's all it took for me to know. My thought
brewens
May 2015
#4
To Lying Fox News watchers killing one Muslim is as good as killing another Muslim.
Enthusiast
May 2015
#17
I heard Prince Bandar bin Sultan, while ambassador to the United States, had given money
tclambert
May 2015
#8
There were reports in European papers about the same linkage to sympathetic Saudi Princes.
Ford_Prefect
May 2015
#10
And how some Democrats were fooled by Dubya's wily charms and smooth talking
Fumesucker
May 2015
#14