BCE and the Saudis

[FORD]

When congressional investigators issued their report on 9/11… there were 28 pages missing. 28 pages of evidence that the Saudi government funded the terrorists who killed nearly 3000 Americans.

The Facts:

"Senior officials of Saudi Arabia have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to charitable groups and other organizations that may have helped finance the September 2001 attacks, a still-classified section of a Congressional report on the hijackings says, according to people who have read it. The 28-page section of the report was deleted from the nearly 900-page declassified version released on Thursday by a joint committee of the House and Senate intelligence committees. The chapter focuses on the role foreign governments played in the hijackings, but centers almost entirely on Saudi Arabia, the people who saw the section said.
[Source: New York Times, 7/26/03]

"Well, what they did is we submitted a report which had a 27-page section on this issue of the Saudi connections to terrorists. Guess what part of the report was totally censored? That's it."
[Source: Sen. Bob Graham, ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, on CNN's "Inside Politics," 9/8/04]

"Americans, plainly, have misgivings about the Saudi kingdom, doubts that only grew when the Bush Administration, led by a President cozier than most to Riyadh, blacked out 28 pages dealing with Saudi Arabia from Congress's official report on Sept. 11, producing the smell of a cover-up of complicity in the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history."
[Source: Time, 9/15/03, http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030915/ ]

"Most recently, in July, the administration asked Congress to withhold 28 pages of its official report on 9/11. According to news reports, the classified section charges that there were ties between the hijackers and two Saudis, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassnan, who had financial relationships with members of the Saudi government."
[Source: Craig Unger, Vanity Fair, 10/03]

"The Saudis continue to coddle the terrorists in their midst. They support them financially. They export Wahhabism around the world. The result: radicalized warriors bent on our destruction. Equally distressing is the Bush administration's willingness to turn a blind eye to the threat. When Congress released its official 9/11 report, 28 pages dealing with the Saudis were blacked out."
[Source: Editorial, Daily News (New York), 9/11/03]

"They're [Republican and Democratic senators are] right; the White House should release the 28 pages that were blacked out in the 900-page report, or at least some of them, ending the controversy and giving the Saudis a chance to defend themselves against cries of a cover-up of Saudi complicity in the attacks… Americans are overdue for answers to the questions that the pages apparently address -- whether dollars intended to support religious and charitable activities in Saudi Arabia ended up funding terrorism, and whether it was more than a stunning coincidence that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. The Bush administration has a troubling habit of cloaking information that should be made public. In any case, fear of embarrassment is not a justifiable reason to classify documents, especially when their content can help explain how terrorists came to kill 3,000 Americans."
[Source: editorial, Wichita (KS) Eagle, 7/31/03]

"In our final report of the House/Senate joint inquiry into 9/11, we had a 27-page section of the report which laid out in detail this Saudi connection through al-Bayoumi and others to the terrorists. All of that was censored by the president."
[Source: Sen. Bob Graham, CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," 9/9/04]

"Significant portions of virtually every section of the report had been censored. I agreed that several of the censored areas were redacted for the right national security reasons. However, there was one area that did not need to be kept secret, and it was the one area where the White House simply refused to relent. This was, not surprisingly, the section of the report that related to the Saudi government and the assistance that government gave to some and possibly all of the September 11 terrorists. This section had been redacted in its entirety, all twenty-seven pages."
[Source: "Intelligence Matters," by Sen. Bob Graham, released 2004]

"The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document."
[Source: Los Angeles Times, 8/2/03]

[FORD]

Evidence kept secret under orders from George Bush.

The Facts:

"President Bush refused to declassify portions of a congressional report exploring possible links between the Saudi government and the Sept. 11 terrorists."
[Source: Chicago Tribune, 7/30/03]

"An FBI official said Tuesday that most of the information in the report's section on foreign support for terrorists was classified at the request of the White House, not intelligence agencies."
[Source: "Bush won't disclose parts of report," Chicago Tribune, 7/30/03]

"The Bush administration's refusal to allow the committee to disclose the contents of the chapter has stirred resentment in Congress, where some lawmakers have said the administration's desire to protect the ruling Saudi family had prevented the American public from learning crucial facts about the attacks."
[Source: New York Times, 7/26/03]

"President Bush refused Tuesday to make public classified material in a congressional report that alleges possible links between the government of Saudi Arabia and some of the 9/11 hijackers."
[Source: "Bush refuses to disclose Saudi items in 9/11 report," USA Today, 7/30/03]

-----------------------------
Was it to protect his Saudi friends?

The Facts:

"In his new book, [Sen. and Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee Bob] Graham claims the president coddled the Saudis... Graham was furious when the White House blacked out 28 pages of the inquiry's final report that dealt with purported Saudi links to the 9/11 plot. Graham says much of the deleted evidence centered around the activities of a mysterious Saudi then living in San Diego named Omar al-Bayoumi, whom Graham calls a Saudi government "spy." Al-Bayoumi befriended two of the key 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, when they first arrived in the country."
[Source: Newsweek, 9/13/04]

Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CBS's "Face the Nation" that the report was edited to "protect the Saudis."
[Source: Chicago Tribune, 7/30/03]

[Face the Nation Host Bob] SCHIEFFER: We knew a lot about that. It may have been worse now, the report suggests, than maybe we knew before. But so much of the comment now is about what's not in the report. Many people are saying that, in effect, there was almost the administration or the CIA or somebody, by refusing to declassify some of the information about what was obviously Saudi Arabia--it's referred to in the report as a foreign country--was almost a cover-up. Do you think more of that report should have been put out and made public?

Sen. ROBERTS: Well, I think so. I--I was unhappy with the amount of material that was redacted. That's the fancy word for saying, 'We're not going to release it.'..

SCHIEFFER: But, OK, let me just--to just--to kind of clear this up, let me go back to talking about the report. What we're talking about are you hear all of these reports about how people in Saudi Arabia, maybe some high up in the royal family, were aiding and abetting the terrorists. That was redacted, or information about that was excised. Do you think that was done to protect the Saudi royal family?

Sen. ROBERTS: I'm not sure that if it was done to protect them. There was obvious Saudi involvement. I would go so far to say that after the attack on Riyadh, there was a wake-up call. That was their 9/11 call. And they have a choice to make. They have a choice whether they are going to participate and become full partners in the war against terrorism or where they're going to allow extremist groups to bankroll terrorism with their full knowledge.

SCHIEFFER: OK.

Sen. ROBERTS: And so with the attack on Riyadh and with a better understanding with the Saudis, I think there's sort of a new start, if you will, but, yes, part of that was redacted to protect the Saudis.

SCHIEFFER: And--and do you agree with Senator Shelby, who said today this ought to be made public?

Sen. ROBERTS: Oh, I think at some--at some future date it will be made public. I was upset with the process, and I was upset with the amount of material that was redacted.
[Source: Sen. Pat Roberts on CBS "Face the Nation," 7/29/03]

"The Bush Administration's refusal to declassify a 28-page section of the congressional 9/11 report dealing with Saudi Arabia has touched off a round of allegations -- most notably, that the secrecy protects Saudi sensibilities, not American security. The charges are not coming only from Democrats keen to criticize the administration. "My judgment is 95 percent of that information could be declassified," said Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), a former ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on Sunday. Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" why the material isn't public, Mr. Shelby said, "I think it might be embarrassing to some international relations." The committee's current chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), told CBS's "Face the Nation" that he "was unhappy with the amount of material that was redacted," or left out, of the public version of the report. And after initially saying he was "not sure" whether the redactions were meant to protect the Saudi royal family, he agreed that "part of that was redacted to protect the Saudis.""
[Source: editorial, Washington Post, 7/30/03]

[FORD]

was Bush helping Jim Baker - a top advisor whose law firm is defending the Saudis in a lawsuit brought by the victims' families.

The Facts:

"Meanwhile, on defense, former Secretary of State James Baker's law firm, Baker Botts, has been retained to represent Prince Sultan, the Saudi defense minister, who is one of several senior Saudis named, along with Islamic charities and international banks, in a class-action suit filed this year on behalf of the victims of 9/11. The suit alleges in part that the defendants provided funds or other support to Al Qaeda."
[Source: National Journal, 12/7/02]

"James Baker, whom Bush recently sent abroad seeking help to reduce Iraq's debt, is still a senior counselor for the Carlyle Group, and Baker's Houston-based law firm, Baker Botts, is representing the Saudi defense minister in Motley's [plaintiff's council in class-action suit in connection with September 11th attacks] case."
[Source: New York Times, 3/14/04]

"…the client list of the Houston law firm of Baker Botts includes Saudi insurance companies, the Saudi American Bank, and members of the House of Saud itself, which Baker Botts is defending in the $1-trillion lawsuit filed by the families of the victims of 9/11."
[Source: Craig Under, "House of Bush, House of Saud," p. 295]

Baker has been advising the current President Bush.

The Facts:

He was recruited by Bush to help with Iraqi debt relief: "U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday named former secretary of state James Baker, a long-time family friend, as a presidential envoy to help slash Iraq's foreign debt, estimated at up to $128 billion (U.S.)."
[Source: Cox News Service, 12/6/03]

He is Bush's top adviser for the debates: ""The debates will provide an opportunity for President Bush and Sen. Kerry to have a serious discussion about the important issues to be decided in this election," said former Secretary of State James Baker III, Bush's lead negotiator, and attorney Vernon Jordan, Kerry's top negotiator."
[Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 9/21/04]

Headline: "Baker to Lead Bush Debate Negotiation Team"

"Veteran Republican and longtime Bush family confidant James Baker is in line for a new post assisting President Bush. A source tells CNN's Candy Crowley that Baker has agreed to lead the Bush campaign's debate negotiations team."
[Source: The Frontrunner, 9/1/04, and CNN's Inside Politics, 8/31/04]

[FORD]

The Saudis and the war on terror



FACT: There is evidence that the Saudi Arabian government has provided millions of dollars to Al Qaeda. This evidence were laid out in the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.

"The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document."
[Source: Los Angeles Times, 8/3/03]

"Senior officials of Saudi Arabia have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to charitable groups and other organizations that may have helped finance the September 2001 attacks, a still-classified section of a Congressional report on the hijackings says, according to people who have read it. The 28-page section of the report was deleted from the nearly 900-page declassified version released on Thursday by a joint committee of the House and Senate intelligence committees. The chapter focuses on the role foreign governments played in the hijackings, but centers almost entirely on Saudi Arabia, the people who saw the section said.
[Source: New York Times, 7/26/03]

FACT: Saudi Arabia has not fully cooperated with the FBI and CIA.

"In the two years since 9-11, the Saudis have been an obstacle, not an ally, in the battle against Islamic terrorism…. they've shown little inclination to stanch the flow of money from so-called charity organizations to al-Qaeda and other militant groups, and they've kept cooperation with the FBI and the CIA to a minimum."
[Source: American Prospect, October 2003]

FACT: Greater Saudi cooperation could have helped prevent 9/11.

"A high-level U.S. government officer cited greater Saudi cooperation when asked how the Sept. 11 attacks might have been prevented," according to the report."
[Source: Chicago Tribune, 7/30/03]

FACT: Republican Sen. Arlen Specter says that Saudi Arabia has been funneling money to terrorists - and doesn't understand why nothing's being done to fix that.

""When the question is raised about why we haven't clamped down on the Saudis for their support of terrorism, it's very hard to answer … it may be that we are concerned that the Saudi government could be unstable and could be overthrown like Iran was if the leadership in Saudi Arabia is questioned. I don't know of any good reason why we tolerate it, when we lose thousands of Americans on 9/11 and 14 [sic] of the 19 terrorists were Saudis, and when you have them spending $4 billion a year allegedly to charities with a lot of the money being funneled to terrorists … I think its high time we crack down, with economic sanctions or criminal sanctions where they aid and abet terrorists who murder American citizens."
[Source: Specter conference call with reporters on 8/1/03]

FACT: Sen. Specter also believes that the 28 censored pages should be released.

"Q: Without giving away national security secrets, can you say what you think were on the blank 24 [sic] pages?
"A: I believe that the information related to Saudi Arabia and their funding of terrorism, and this is something which I've been concerned about for a long time since I chaired the intelligence committee in the 104th Congress when we had Khobar Towers. I went to Saudi Arabia and investigated the scene and I talked to the Crown Prince and wanted to know why we weren't permitted to question the people who were held in confinement and didn't get an answer. The leader of the Saudi government was very evasive, I said so at the time and I've repeated it. … I think that we ought to protect sources and methods and not compromise pending investigations, but to the extent that information can be released identifying Saudi Arabia, we ought to do it."
[Source: Specter conference call with reporters on 8/1/03]

FACT: 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean says the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia "has got to change."

"And our relationship with Saudi Arabia has got to change. Our relationship in the past with Saudi Arabia, to be very blunt, as I understand it, has been oil. That's been our relationship with Saudi Arabia. We're allies of the royal family. They ensure us enough oil. And that's sort of been the relationship.

"That can't be the relationship anymore. We've got to continue to work with the royal family, no question about it, but we've got to work with the royal family to bring some changes in that country. And it seems that they are now recognizing that their way of life for the royal families and the leaders of Saudi Arabia is under attack. And these Islamic militants would like to overthrow them just as much as they'd like to injure us at the moment.

"So they are, of necessity, our allies. And they also realize the need for change within their own borders. We've got to work with them on that. We've got to help them on that. And we've got to work with them instituting the changes that are possible and then try to push and shove a little bit and get a few more changes to the system, because if Saudi Arabia -- I mean, we identified those three countries -- Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan -- because if any one of them went the wrong direction, we would have a world of trouble on the international stage and in the terrorist problem. So, yes, the relationship with Saudi Arabia has to change, must change."
[Source: Hearing of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, "Towards a Paradigm for Homeland Security Information Sharing," 8/17/04]

FACT: According to experts, Saudi Arabia has been a reluctant ally in the war on terror.

"U.S. business and political leaders are so wedded to preserving the gilded American-Saudi marriage that officials in Washington D.C. continue to give the oil-rich Gulf monarchy a wide berth, despite mounting evidence of support in Saudi Arabia for Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, some experts say. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Saudi Arabia has been a reluctant ally, refusing to let the U.S. use Saudi bases as staging areas for military operations in Afghanistan. The Saudis have also balked at freezing the assets of organizations linked to bin Laden and international terrorism, some of which are Saudi-run."
[Source: Boston Herald, 12/10/01]

FACT: Republican Sen. Richard Shelby said there should be more investigation into Saudi financing of the 9/11 attacks.

"Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the committee's senior Republican, said he believed "there is a lot to the story - a lot more than a mere denial." Shelby, in an interview, said U.S. authorities should pursue whether the royal family financed terrorists "either directly or indirectly.""
[Source: AP, 12/4/02]

[FORD]

The Bushes and the Saudis



FACT: The Saudis have invested tens of millions in Bush business ventures:

"Union Bank of Switzerland, which ordinarily didn't invest in small U.S. firms, would make an exception, giving Harken $25 million in exchange for a stock interest… [subsequently] a real-estate magnate from Jedda, Saudi Arabia… bought most of Union Bank's Harken shares. He was Abdullah Bakhsh."
[Source: Wall Street Journal, 12/6/91]

"In 1987, a Swiss bank linked to BCCI and a Saudi investor bailed out Harken Energy, where George W. Bush was a director, with $25 million in financing."
[Source: Craig Unger, "House of Bush, House of Saud," excerpted in Salon.com, 3/12/04]

"… according to founding partner David Rubenstein, the Saudis invested at least $80 million in the Carlyle group. With the exception of the bin Laden family, who extricated themselves from Carlyle not long after 9/11, Carlyle declined to disclose who the investors were. But other sources say that Prince Bandar, several other Saudi royals, and Abdulrahman and Sultan bin Mahfouz were prominent investors and that it was an explicit policy of the House of Saud to encourage Saudi investment in Carlyle."
[Source: "House of Bush, House of Saud," by Craig Unger, p. 296. A footnote attributed to the above excerpt cites an interview with Carlyle partner David Rubenstein as the source.]

George H.W. Bush was a consultant to Carlyle from 1993 through 2003, and was a board member from 1998 through 2003:

"George Bush senior… [occupied] a position as consultant to Carlyle for the ten years ending October 2003."
[Source: Le Monde, 4/29/04]

"Most important of all, the long, lucrative Bush-Baker relationship with the Carlyle Group began in 1990, and started to flourish in 1993…."
[Source: Craig Unger letter to Newsweek, 7/1/04]

According to Carlyle, Bush joined the board in 1998: "former president Bush didn't join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998…"
[Source: Newsweek, 6/30/04] Bush left the position in October 2003.

"How much money has flowed from the House of Saud to the Bush family and its friends and allies over the years? No one will ever know -- but the number is at least $1.477 billion."
[Source: Salon.com, http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/03/12/unger_2/index_np.html ]

FACT: Bush Sr. visited the Bin Ladens in Saudi Arabia:

"The family's high-level connections were longstanding and well-known: The former president visited the Binladen family in Saudi Arabia in 1998 and 2000."
[Source: Austin American Statesman, 11/9/01]

FACT: Prince Bandar threw George Bush Sr. a party.

In 1985, Bandar threw a lavish party for Bush, who never forgot the courtesy, and always had time for the Saudi Ambassador.
[Source: The New Yorker, 3/24/03]

FACT: The Saudis and Bush daughter Dorothy shared Thanksgiving - bringing the families together as family.

"But a smaller moment may have cemented the bond between the elder Bush and Bandar. When George and Barbara Bush visited the troops in Saudi Arabia during the Thanksgiving holiday in 1990, Bush called Bandar, who was in Saudi Arabia at the time. Bandar went to the private quarters in the royal palace where the Bushes were staying. Bush had tears in his eyes, and Bandar, worried, asked what had happened. Bush explained that Dorothy, their recently divorced daughter, was alone at the White House with her children. They had called her from the airplane and learned that Bandar's wife, Haifa, had invited Doro and her children to spend Thanksgiving with her. ("I don't have parents now," Haifa told me. "The Bushes are like my mother and father. I know if ever I needed anything I could go to them.")"
[Source: The New Yorker, 3/24/03]

FACT: Rich Saudis bailed out George W when his oil company went bust… "…in the 1980s, when oil prices were dropping, investors with close ties to the Saudi royal family bailed out a tiny Texas oil company, Harken Energy, when one of its directors was George W. Bush, now the president."
[Source: Atlanta Journal Constitution/Cox Newspapers, 5/2/04]

See more on this in the timeline of Bush in the oil business.

FACT: Even Republican operatives say the Bush relationship with the House of Saud is "unprecedented."

"[The] Bush dynasty's many decades of entanglement and money-hunting in the Middle East have created a major conflict of interest that deserves to be part of the 2004 political debate. No previous presidency has had anything remotely similar. Not one."
[Source: former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips in Los Angeles Times, 1/11/04]

FACT: The White House briefed Saudi Arabia's Prince Bandar on plans to attack Iraq even before briefing Colin Powell.

Powell was informed of the decision to go to war after Prince Bandar, in a 12 minute meeting with President Bush: "He told Condi Rice initially, and then he told Rumsfeld, and then he told Karl Rove. Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador, learned on a Saturday.

They then called Powell in on Monday, two days later, this Jan. 13, 2003 , two months before the war started -- 12-minute meeting, one of the most fascinating meetings in the Oval Office in a long time. And Powell said... the president said, "I've decided it looks like war."

And Powell said, "are you sure?" Questioned him a little bit: "You will be owning this place; are you fully aware of the consequences?" And then the president said, "I want you with me. Will you be with me?"

And Powell, who had resisted war, but felt also that this was a decision to be made by the commander in chief, said, "I'll be with you." And then the president said, "time to put your war uniform on." Powell left that meeting saying to himself, "he's going to do it." It was a momentous meeting for Powell.
[Source: PBS, Bob Woodward, 4/21/04, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/woodward_4-21.html ]

FACT: Saudi Prince Bandar was briefed on the classified war plan for Iraq

"Sitting on the edge of the table, [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard] Myers took out a large map labeled TOP SECRET NOFORN. The NOFORN meant NO FOREIGN – classified material not to be seen by any foreign national. …"

"Staring intently at the 2-by-3 foot Top Secret map, Bandar, a former Saudi fighter pilot, asked a few questions about air operations. Could he have a copy of the large map so that he could brief the crown prince? he asked.

"Above my pay grade," Myers said.

"We’ll give you all the information you want," Rumsfeld said. As for the map he added, "I’d rather not give it to you, but you can take notes if you want."
[Plan of Attack, 264-265]

FACT: Sen. John McCain has called this briefing "unusual" and said he'd like to know more.

Republican Sen. John McCain (D-AZ) says Bandar Briefing was unusual. "The only one I'm curious about is a briefing to Bandar. I don't understand that and I'd like to know a little more about it ... because I've never heard of foreigners being given privileged intelligence information, no matter how close an ally they were, before other members of the administration were. And so I`d just like to know a little more about it. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. I just think it's unusual"
["Hardball," MSNBC, 4/20/04]

FACT: Prince Bandar and the Saudis have promised to manipulate oil prices to help Bush's reelection.

"The ripple effect [of a possible war] in the U.S. economy could be gigantic … Saudi oil policy could be the saving grace. According to Prince Bandar, the Saudis hoped to fine-tune oil prices over 10 months to prime the economy for 2004. What was key, Bandar knew, were the economic conditions before a presidential election, not at the moment of the election."
[Source: Bob Woodward, "Plan of Attack," p. 324]

[ELVIS]

Who's gonna read through all that crap ??

[DrMaddVibe]

OMG

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Who's gonna read through all that crap ??

Possibly someone who gives a shit about their country?

[ODShowtime]

I was just gonna say Ford, none of our republican friends have the interest or attention span to read through all these FACTS.

You've helped me immensely though. Many arguements I make I can now just reference this thread! You're the man!

[ODShowtime]

When the bush family has such material economis ties to a foriegn country, how can they ever hope to put the US citizen's interests first?

What do WE pay him? Like 200K a year? That probably covers his diet coke bill.

[FORD]

Well, maybe not diet coke.... ;)

[ODShowtime]

I like to throw in little subliminal cues sometimes. coke coke coke

[DrMaddVibe]

Does ANYONE see the bullshit it the original post? I'm not discounting Saudi involvement in 9-11. I believe that that country sponsers terrorism as much as Iraq! When we're through there we should stop in and pay a little visit on our way back.

The rest of those comments slapped together to frame an editorial were disjointed and utterly false. Manipulating oil? For whom? Been to the pumps lately? Where's all the free oil we "stole"? If GW is back room dealing with them then he's getting the raw end of the deal! It could cost him his job...if you're going to believe that kinda thing!

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Does ANYONE see the bullshit it the original post? Manipulating oil? For whom? Been to the pumps lately? Where's all the free oil we "stole"?

Mostly sitting in the refineries since the "insurgents" keep blowing up the god damn pipelines every day.

[DrMaddVibe]

Where did you find this out? I know about the pipelines, but I'm referencing the refinery statement.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Who's gonna read through all that crap ??

Certainly not you Lock-Step, Jack-booted Bushies.

Your own "leader" can't get his facts straight, why should you be expected to?

How's that brown shirt fitting these days?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Where did you find this out? I know about the pipelines, but I'm referencing the refinery statement.

Well, you know, it's sitting where ever the hell oil sits when it can't be pumped to tanker distribution points.

My point was that elements in Iraq are trying to preclude us from getting the oil to the marketplace.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by FORD
The Facts:


There's an oxymoron right there. ;)

[Sgt Schultz]

I read the whole thing.

One has to make great leaps from snippets to editorials to make the conclusion that FORD wants us to believe - that the "BCE" and the Saudi Government were in cahoots and funded the 9/11 attacks - OR - even if the "BCE" didn't plan and actually carry out the 9/11 attacks that they covered the actual perpetrators - the Saudi Govt - and covered the Saudi Govt.'s butt afterwards.

One need only take off the conspiracy / hate / blind rage glasses to see the logic in all of this.

The Saudi "Royal Family" is HUGE and fabulously rich. It's a suprise to no one that $$ from them has ended up funding terrorists. I'm sure the redacted parts the Graham is wetting his pants about do talk about some Saudi funding - we all know most of the hijackers were Saudi - but so what.

Saudi Arabia IS still a HUGE ally in the Mid East. It's nothign more than that and has nothing to do with Bush being buds with them becasue of oil. What does Graham want us to do - invade and topple the Saud Royal Family? THis is just stupid.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Well, you know, it's sitting where ever the hell oil sits when it can't be pumped to tanker distribution points.

My point was that elements in Iraq are trying to preclude us from getting the oil to the marketplace.


So by stating that, it's another subliminal "fact"? I'm not buying it. The Bush administration has been on the record many times that the oil belongs to the Iraqi people...not us.

[FORD]

You contradict yourself. In one post you claim a war against "Islamofascists" and here you refer to the source of "Islamofascism" as a "huge ally".

There is no disputing the fact that Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi, or that 15 of his 19 employees were on 9-11-01 (assuming the BCE cover story is true).

There is no disputing the fact that Wahabi Islam originates from Saudi Arabia.


So then, how the Hell can you consider them a "huge ally" without contradicting yourself?

Reality is that TWO things are driving this so called "war on terra" and if one is "Islamofascism" then the other must be "Judeofascism". The two countries most responsible for all the bullshit going on in the Middle East are still considered "allies" of the US while excuses are made to invade every other country in the region. Likud Zionism and Wahabi Islam are both corrupt fascist ideologies as is Dominionist "Christianity".

I'm beginning to understand what drives people to atheism with all these fascists claiming to speak for God.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
So by stating that, it's another subliminal "fact"? I'm not buying it. The Bush administration has been on the record many times that the oil belongs to the Iraqi people...not us.


Dr., I'm not trying to argue with you about the ownership of the oil. I was merely stating that whoever is selling Iraqi oil is having a hard time. That was more of an informative post than a debating post.

For the record though, I don't give a shit about what Bush&Friends was on the record saying. One way or another, the oil of Iraq is slated to provide profits to various petro-chemical corporations that are friendly to Bush&Friends. Hopefully the Iraqi people will get a cut too. It would be nice to see them funding some of their own reconstrution.

[DrMaddVibe]

Friendly to Bush & Friends...even though he went bankrupt in the same business...riiii-gggght!

It's quite apparent that you too have an "axe" to grind. Hard to take what you say at face value when in one post it's "coke,coke coke" and the other it's "Mostly sitting in the refineries". Both have no proof to substantiate their claims. You could state that you have a 5' dick or that I'm a coward and it would hold as much relevance as the posts I've quoted you on. How you can claim them as true or believe them is beyond me, but I CAN provide evidence to the fact about the Bush administration stating that it's Iraqi oil.

[Sgt Schultz]

There's no denying that Wahabbism, Islamofascism is a huge problem in a LOT of places including within countires we are allies with - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt etc. etc. That being said, we have to take into account if the governments of these countries are supportive of violent Islamofascism and exporting it to wage war against the U.S (Syria, Iran) - OR - are these governments actively fighting against it. Unfortunately we can't live in a perfect world when it comes to our allies (hello France!). Pragmatism plays a big part in it of course.

It's impossible for the U.S. to invade each of these countries, topple the govt., set up an apparatus of ushering in democratic elections, and fundamentally changing their society. You may think that's hypocritical but I just think it's realistic.

We're heavily involved in two countries right now, which is plenty. The left, the same people who criticize what is being done in Afghanistan and Iraq, are the same ones who then ask "Well, what about Iran, and Syria, and Saudi Arabia and Norht Korea? Huh, huh??"

One thing at a time. The U.S. didn't need to invade and capture every Japanese stronghold in the Pacific, we chose only those that were vital and bypassed the others. I think we have to think along similar lines here.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz

One thing at a time. The U.S. didn't need to invade and capture every Japanese stronghold in the Pacific, we chose only those that were vital and bypassed the others. I think we have to think along similar lines here.

You can't make that comparison. Japan attacked the United States of America, and in partnership with Germany, was pursuing a global fascist agenda. Afghanistan & Iraq did not attack the United States, nor was there any real threat of them doing so, which is the same for Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc. And this time, it is the BCE & PNAC who are seeking global fascism :(

[DrMaddVibe]

Thanks for confirming what I had suspected about you Ford...you have to squat when you pee.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
I read the whole thing.

One has to make great leaps from snippets to editorials to make the conclusion that FORD wants us to believe - that the "BCE" and the Saudi Government were in cahoots and funded the 9/11 attacks - OR - even if the "BCE" didn't plan and actually carry out the 9/11 attacks that they covered the actual perpetrators - the Saudi Govt - and covered the Saudi Govt.'s butt afterwards.



Thank you...

I didn't need to read it...

I have been listening to FORD's spew for years...

I could have written it...

:rolleyes:

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Friendly to Bush & Friends...even though he went bankrupt in the same business...riiii-gggght!

It's quite apparent that you too have an "axe" to grind. Hard to take what you say at face value when in one post it's "coke,coke coke" and the other it's "Mostly sitting in the refineries". Both have no proof to substantiate their claims. You could state that you have a 5' dick or that I'm a coward and it would hold as much relevance as the posts I've quoted you on. How you can claim them as true or believe them is beyond me, but I CAN provide evidence to the fact about the Bush administration stating that it's Iraqi oil.

Good for you pal. I'm glad to know you have mastered the cut ane paste feature. Go and fucking looking up pipeline attacks in Iraq and see how many happen on a daily basis. Then think about how they stretch through long, unguarded sections of the desert and realize how hard it is to defend the system from guerilla attack. Once you're done with that, ponder the strategic significance of halting oil shipments and why some factions would benefit from that.

I don't care where it sits, I don't care who owns it or profits from it; there are different sources and shit. I stand by my statements that the Iraqi's are having a hard time getting a lot of their oil to market. Is that really the type of statement that needs fact checking? Let alone someone acting like it's a god damn conspiracy theory? Pick your fights better because this is just lame.

[DrMaddVibe]

You've not mentioned one thing that I didn't already know. It's Iraqi oil, in THEIR country, in THEIR pipes, pipes THEY blow up, and that THEY don't secure. THEY don't understand that it will provide them Freedom because there was some semblance of government there siphoning off money into personal bank accounts and denying them access to it!

When confronted that you were talking out of the sides of your mouth you move to a more centerist position. "I don't care" is a far different statement than "Bush & Freinds" are going to profit. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Seeing as this is a chatboard it's hard to get inflection and tone so you have to rely on reading the message and previous statements to provide background for beliefs and understandings.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
You've not mentioned one thing that I didn't already know. It's Iraqi oil, in THEIR country, in THEIR pipes, pipes THEY blow up, and that THEY don't secure. THEY don't understand that it will provide them Freedom because there was some semblance of government there siphoning off money into personal bank accounts and denying them access to it!

When confronted that you were talking out of the sides of your mouth you move to a more centerist position. "I don't care" is a far different statement than "Bush & Freinds" are going to profit. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Seeing as this is a chatboard it's hard to get inflection and tone so you have to rely on reading the message and previous statements to provide background for beliefs and understandings.

But Bush& Friends ARE going to profit in some way. Every time oil is bought, sold, or even transported there is a good chance they profit. There are very few of us on this forum (I don't know if I'm even included) who could hope to understand the complicated web of international finance involved in the petro-chemical industry.

Even if a faction of the Iraqis own the oil and sell it to the American oil companies, opening up the Iraqi market reduced the price for oil. Since Bush&Friends are in the business of selling oil, and the goddamn price isn't declining, they are taking in a bigger profit margin. That's pretty basic economic theory. Sorry I don't have my old textbook with me for the site.

My taking something from memory and not being able to footnote it is different than talking out of the side of my mouth. I think we fundamentally agree on this topic, but it seems to me you are just trying to get some points by contradicting me. Referencing your post above, if you truly are trying to engage me and not just agitate me, fine, let's continue the discourse.

Bottom line Bush strategy: make the Iraqi's think they are benefiting from the oil. Some obviously are not, or they wouldn't be bombing the pipelines, right?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
You've not mentioned one thing that I didn't already know. It's Iraqi oil, in THEIR country, in THEIR pipes, pipes THEY blow up, and that THEY don't secure. THEY don't understand that it will provide them Freedom because there was some semblance of government there siphoning off money into personal bank accounts and denying them access to it!

I think the real issue with the oil in Iraq is that only Iraqis who are buddy buddy with the US are able to benefit from the oil. Other disenfranchised factions are pissed about that.

[DrMaddVibe]

What faction might that be...the Kerry faction?