Is Bush to blame for 9/11?

Is Bush to blame for 9/11?
By Mike Hersh, Apr 6, 2004

I wrote this more than two years ago, and stand by every word.

The Bush White House is trying block investigations into the 9-11 terror attacks. Democrats demand public investigations, but Bush and Cheney are desperate to prevent this. Here's why: The Saudis hired several current and former top Bush administration officials. These officials looked the other way - or worse - before and after the Saudi-sponsored terrorist attacks.

Saudi $millions compromised the patriotism of top current and former Bush officials including George Walker Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, James A. Baker III, and many others who work or worked in both Bush administrations. Ties between the Bush and bin Laden families, the Carlyle Group and top Saudi officials let the Oil Royals beat the US like a rented camel.

How close are Bush family ties to Saudi Arabia? "Nowhere is the revolving U.S.-Saudi money wheel more evident than within President Bush's own coterie of foreign policy advisers, starting with the president's father, George H. W. Bush," according to the Boston Herald.
Jimmy Breslin says, "Our government knows ... that Saudi Arabians were the murderers on the planes on Sept. 11. The leader was this guy Atta, from Saudi Arabia, and he flew the plane into the north tower." Breslin concludes, "It's All About Oil."

Does all this Saudi oil money in the pockets of Bush's friends and family hurt us? The Boston Herald reports: "Those lucrative financial relationships call into question the ability of America's political elite to make tough foreign policy decisions about the kingdom that produced Osama bin Laden and is perhaps the biggest incubator for anti-Western Islamic terrorists."

Greg Palast examined "The CIA and Saudi Arabia, the Bushes and the Bin Ladens" on the BBC Newsnight program and asked, Did their connections cause America to turn a blind eye to terrorism?" Palast identified Washington, DC suburb Falls Church, Virginia as a nest of bin Laden terrorists.

FBI documents obtained by the Guardian shown on BBC Newsnight and show that they sought to investigate two of Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington and a Muslim organization, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth," also known as WAMY.

National security agents confirmed that Bush ordered them to "back off" their investigations into the bin Ladens, WAMY, and other terrorists living nearby. Bush obsequiousness toward Saudis with alarming connections to terrorism is nothing new.

Citing a document marked Secret. Case ID - 199-Eye WF 213 589, Palast explained Washington field office special agents were investigating Osama Bin Laden's brother Abdullah Bin Laden and WAMY -- a suspected terrorist organization -- but Bush ordered them to "back off."

The Pan Am International Flight Academy reported suspicious behavior, and outlined the specific threat to the Bush FBI and FAA. The Bush administration spiked the warnings. Now they're denying they were warned with enough specificity.

According to a Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune story published December 21, 2001: "Besides alerting the FBI about [indicted terrorist Zacarias] Moussaoui, the school's Phoenix office called the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) early this year about another student -- Hani Hanjour, who was believed to be the pilot of the plane that flew into the Pentagon on Sept. 11."

Look how specific the warning was over a month before the 9/11 attacks: "Do you realize how serious this is?" the instructor asked an FBI agent. "This man wants training on a 747. A 747 fully loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon!" - this quoted from briefings to Congressional offices, as reported in the Star Trib. One of the suspicious men reported to the FBI flew the jet into the Pentagon. The other is about to stand trial for terrorism.

Pan Am reported suspicions about these men to the Bush FBI and the Bush FAA. Nothing happened. It looks as if Bush ordered the investigators to "back off" because Bush's family makes millions of dollars in business dealings with the bin Ladens and other Saudis, thereby jeopardizing our national security to coddle Saudis. Again, as reported in the Star Tribune:

"An FAA representative sat in on a class to observe Hanjour, who was from Saudi Arabia." Did this Bush official report Hanjour to the FBI? No. He "discussed with school officials finding an Arabic-speaking person to help him with his English, said Minnesota Representative Oberstar and others with direct knowledge of the school's briefings."

Rather than haul in this terrorist in training for questioning, the Bush FAA helped him learn to fly one of our jets into one of our buildings. Pan Am personnel weren't as trusting as the Bush administration, and sought to alert law enforcement.

The Star Trib reports: "When the instructor phoned, the FBI agent strongly urged him to pursue the matter but gave him the wrong agent to call, the sources said. The instructor made three more calls before reaching the right agent on August 15, the sources said. Moussaoui was arrested the next day and held on an immigration violation."

Despite these specific warnings, the Bush administration blocked FBI and other investigations into terror suspects including brothers of Osama bin Laden, operating in the very shadow of the Pentagon!

Palast and David Pallister wrote in the London, UK-based Guardian newspaper, on November 7, 2001, "US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But agents complain that their hands were tied."

Bush concerns for Saudi sensibilities fatally compromised our national security. Pan Am reported suspicions about these men to the Bush FBI and the Bush FAA. Because Bush's family makes $millions in business with the bin Ladens and other Saudis, Bush ordered the investigators to "back off," jeopardizing our national security to coddle Saudis.

The pattern of deception and secrecy began months ago. Why did the Bush administration delay releasing the bin Laden videotape, and why did their translation omit or change critical passages?

ABC News doesn't question why the Saudi police would help a so-called "dissident" meet with a supposed pariah bin Laden, but reports that on the tape, Harbi "tells bin Laden that in Saudi Arabia, several prominent clerics -- some with connections to the Saudi government -- made speeches supporting the attacks on America."

Despite two generations of Bushes slavishly serving Saudi interests, the arrogant oil sheiks escalate their demands and flout their support of bin Laden and terror. Saudi state-run media and top officials lash out at "U.S. media [they consider] critical about the lack of Saudi support for the ongoing investigations." Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah micromanages the Bush Middle East policy.

The New York Times rang the alarm bell in an October 14, 2001 editorial called "Reconsidering Saudi Arabia." Our blood is on Saudi hands, because "money and manpower from Saudi Arabia helped create and sustain Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization."

According to this insightful editorial, "Saudi Arabia sponsor[ed] Afghanistan's ruling Taliban movement, along with Pakistan. Also, "The Saudi government has allowed Saudi [pro-terror] organizations to funnel money to Al Qaeda and its terrorist network."

The Saudis supported our enemies when they "barred Washington from using Saudi air bases to launch attacks against Afghanistan." The Arabic News.Com reported, "The Saudi defense minister Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz has accused Zionism of being behind the media campaign against Saudi Arabia in the US. Whose side is Bush on?

Of course Bush's Saudi masters oppress their women, and never allow their people the right to vote - just like the Taliban the Saudis supported. The Bush administration helped a few dozen bin Laden relatives flee the US the same time they were trying to obscure their family ties to the Bushes.

Here's the smoking gun that links Bush family financial interests to the breakdown in national security on 9/11: Palast reports, "I received a phone call from a high-placed member of a US intelligence agency [who said] under George Bush the agencies were told to 'back off' investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents."

The Bushes, James A. Baker III - the fixer who helped Bush steal the election - Dick Cheney, the Carlyle Group, and the band of Texas oil barons who have backed Bush's political career wanted a pipeline built through Afghanistan. Like his father before him, Bush placates his Saudi masters like some appointed colonial satrap.

Saudis led the terrorist attacks on 9/11, but rather than directing our anger at them, Bush attacked Afghanistan -- the poorest, weakest nation in the region. He said this was to bring back bin Laden - "dead or alive" - but recently Bush said that's no longer a priority. If it ever was. Then why did we attack Afghanistan?

The BBC and other international media report many of Bush's top campaign contributors have been trying to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. They negotiated with the Taliban for years. When talks broke down, the Bush administration stepped in threatening to carpet bomb Afghanistan if the Taliban blocked the deal.

This doesn't explain why our administration is still taking orders from the Saudis. Bush can only serve one nation: the US or Saudi Arabia. How much American blood will Bush risk for Saudi oil? The Bush people are "either with us or against us." The Saudis are not "with us." Which side are the Bushes on?

Official Arab sources are even more specific about lack of Saudi cooperation with our efforts to combat terrorism. The Arabic News.Com reported, "The Saudi defense minister Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz has accused Zionism of being behind the media campaign against Saudi Arabia in the US."

The same source reported: "Saudi Arabia has refused to comply with a US request to freeze bank accounts Washington suspects that they have links to certain terrorist groups." [sic] Saudi officials see nothing wrong with their support for terror and their obstruction of American efforts to combat terror. They dismiss even deferential questioning of their pro-terror activities as "Zionism" in the US media.

As usual, Bush's mouthpieces are trying to blame President Clinton for these security lapses. This ignores the facts. The Clinton Administration took strong and certain steps to protect us from terrorism. As the Washington Post reported, President Clinton threatened the Taliban with sure retribution:

"Assistant Secretary of State Michael A. Sheehan, the department's counterterrorism coordinator, delivered the new message directly to the Taliban. He telephoned Foreign Minister Ahmed Waqil and read him a formal declaration known as a demarche. 'If bin Laden or any of the organizations affiliated with him attacks the United States or United States interests,' he told Waqil, 'we will hold you, the leadership of the Taliban, personally accountable. Do you understand what I am saying? This is from the highest level of my government.'"

President Clinton held a loaded gun to back up his ultimatum. Again, according to the Washington Post: "The Clinton administration ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order."

President Clinton had two nuclear submarines aimed at the Taliban, and he told them so. Clinton was poised to fire missiles at any location where our agents spotted bin Laden. Bush ordered those submarines to stand down.

Bush coddled the Taliban because his father and friends were trying to build a pipeline through Taliban territory. President Clinton didn't put a pipeline over protecting our people. He read the riot act to the Taliban. He directly threatened to counterattack them if bin Laden attacked us.
Other Republicans are complicit in selling out our security for greedy gain. Al Gore led a commission to improve air security in the US, but the Republican Congress blocked this. Gore stressed action against bin Laden in his 2000 Campaign Platform. He would have continued Clinton / Gore policies holding the Taliban accountable while pursuing Al Queda.

From the 2000 Democratic Platform: "Battling Terrorism. Whether terrorism is sponsored by a foreign nation or inspired by a single fanatic individual, such as Osama Bin Laden, Forward Engagement requires trying to disrupt terrorist networks, even before they are ready to attack.

"We must improve coordination internationally and domestically to share intelligence and develop operational plans. We must continue the comprehensive approach that has resulted in the development of a national counter-terrorism strategy involving all arms and levels of our government.

"We must continue to target terrorist finances, break up support cells, and disrupt training. And we must close avenues of cyber-attack by improving the security of the Internet and the computers upon which our digital economy exists.

"As President, Al Gore will tolerate no attack against American interests at home or abroad: terrorists must know that if they attack America, we will never forget. We will scour the world to hunt them down and bring them to justice."

Like Bill Clinton, Al Gore would have done all he could to prevent the attacks. W. Bush cannot say that. Al Gore would not have sold out our security to Saudi Arabia as Bush did. Bush lifted the Clinton / Gore protections. He reversed these policies. Our enemies saw Bush's weakness as their opening and attacked. Bush is to blame for 9/11. That's what Bush is trying to hide from the American people.

CBS News, The Washington Post and Newsweek report Bush wants all inquiry into 9-11 limited to the House and Senate intelligence committees which keep their proceedings secret. On May 16, 2002, CBS Evening News quoted Senate Leader Tom Daschle stating that Cheney repeatedly pressured him to keep quiet about 9-11.

Daschle refuses to bow to the pressure, saying: "Intelligence is just a piece of it. People need to know what happened." Bush rejected this answer, and had Vice President Richard Cheney threaten Sen. Daschle to keep quiet. "Press the issue, Cheney implied, and you risk being accused of interfering with the [war on terrorism]."

Senator Robert Torricelli also wants a broad and public inquiry: "We do not meet our responsibilities to the American people if we do not take an honest look at the federal government and all of its agencies and let the country know what went wrong."

Bush ordered our national security agents to "back off" the bin Laden terrorists. A former CIA agent appeared BBC TV saying: "We were just told, 'You get caught spying on the Saudis or looking into their affairs, and you will lose your head!'"

When Representative Cynthia McKinney asked "Why then does the administration remain steadfast in its opposition to an investigation into the biggest terrorism attack in history?" the White House sent its attack dogs to ridicule McKinney.

Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer laughed: "The congresswoman must be running for the hall of fame of the Grassy Knoll Society." Now Fleischer is denying Bush had specific warnings about the 9/11 attacks. We know that's just not true.

The Bush administration is trying to lean on and laugh off our elected officials who demand answers. We're not laughing. The terrorist attacks were a massive, tragic failure. Our Defense Department failed to protect its home, the Pentagon itself. We cannot afford secrecy over security.

People are debating about the 9/11 terrorist attacks which killed 1000s of people, and changed life as we know it forever. Some say Bush's FBI and CIA knew the attacks were coming, and let it happen anyway.

I personally do not believe these theories, however, because these are the most serious accusations imaginable, we must investigate them. It doesn't matter whether or not we think they're true. We have to dispel even the specter of doubt and prevent what will look like a cover up.

I can't settle that issue here. We need a serious, public, in-depth investigation to do that, but this much I know. Whether or not the FBI and / or CIA knew about the attacks ahead of time, the Bush "national security" team allowed the biggest attack on the US since the war of 1812. At best, Bush is at fault for the attacks because of fatally poor judgment and gross recklessness.

The buck stops there.

Bush's decisions left us wide open, in effect encouraged the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. President Clinton had 2 nuclear submarines aimed at the Taliban, and he told them so. Clinton was poised to fire missiles at any location where our agents spotted bin Laden. Bush ordered those submarines to stand down.

Bush coddled the Taliban, apparently because his father and friends were trying to build a pipeline through Taliban territory. President Clinton didn't put a pipeline over protecting our people. He read the riot act to the Taliban. He directly threatened to counterattack them if bin Laden attacked us.

Al Gore would have kept us safe. Gore led a commission to improve air security in the US. He stressed action against bin Laden in his 2000 Campaign Platform. He would have continued Clinton / Gore policies holding the Taliban accountable while pursuing Al Queda. Like Bill Clinton, Al Gore would have prevented the attacks.

Bush lifted the Clinton / Gore protections. He reversed these policies. Our enemies saw Bush's weakness and softness as their opening and attacked. Bush is to blame for 9/11.

More Reasons Al Gore Should Be President

Other than the fact Al Gore won the election, carrying the USA and the state of Florida, Al Gore is far more qualified than AWOL Bush, and he might have prevented the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Al Gore led a commission which would have greatly increased air safety, if not blocked by Republicans in Congress. Al Gore would not have sold out our security to Saudi Arabia as Bush did.

Unlike Bush, Democrats and Al Gore considered protecting American lives against Osama bin Laden important enough to put that in their Campaign Platform. It seems Al Gore and Democrats deserve credit as Bush speech writers.

AWOL Bush's "born again" concern for our lives and fighting terror includes plagiarizing the Democratic platform, but little else. He thinks he's keeping us safe by rounding up innocent Americans, and bombing Afghans for terror his Saudi friends sponsored and committed.

From the 2000 Democratic Platform
http://www.democrats.org/issues/platform/platform.html

Osama Bin Laden Mentioned in the excerpt below:

"Battling Terrorism. Whether terrorism is sponsored by a foreign nation or inspired by a single fanatic individual, such as Osama Bin Laden, Forward Engagement requires trying to disrupt terrorist networks, even before they are ready to attack.

"We must improve coordination internationally and domestically to share intelligence and develop operational plans. We must continue the comprehensive approach that has resulted in the development of a national counter- terrorism strategy involving all arms and levels of our government.

"We must continue to target terrorist finances, break up support cells, and disrupt training. And we must close avenues of cyber- attack by improving the security of the Internet and the computers upon which our digital economy exists.

"As President, Al Gore will tolerate no attack against American interests at home or abroad: terrorists must know that if they attack America, we will never forget. We will scour the world to hunt them down and bring them to justice."

Bush is to blame for 9/11. Bill Clinton and Al Gore anticipated trouble from bin Laden, and took steps which had kept us safe until Bush reversed those policies. Bush even ordered the FBI and CIA to "back off" bin Laden terrorists operating in the US!

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/attack22.ram

Bush's incompetent coddling of the Saudi terrorists and the Taliban left us wide open. This weakness encouraged the attacks. Bottom line: Bush is to blame for 9/11.

We demand investigations into links between the Bush and bin Laden families, Bush's father and former US officials in the Carlyle Group, the Saudi Royal family, and other conflicts of interest. Bush is blocking such an investigation.

Did $millions of Saudi money in Bush's pocket influence him to order US intelligence agents to "back off" terrorists?

Did conflicts of interest cause 1000s of American deaths? We deserve a complete answer. If the facts substantiate our concerns, let the impeachment begin.

Sources (note: some or all may have been "scrubbed")

Cable News Network: Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes, 1/29/02
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/index.html

MSNBC/Newsweek Magazine: The Battle Back Home, 02/04/02.
http://www.pulsarnet.com/Sept11/694812.asp

The Boston Herald: Bush Advisers Cashed in on Saudi Gravy Train, 12/11/01
http://commondreams.org/headlines01/1211-05.htm

Jimmy Breslin: Diagnosis: It's All About Oil, 12/23/01
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=4647&mode=nested

BBC News | NEWSNIGHT: Greg Palest report transcript, 6/11/2001
news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1645000/1645527.stm

The Guardian (London, UK): FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated, 11/7/01
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00.html

Minneapolis - St. Paul Star Tribune: Eagan flight trainer wouldn't let unease about Moussaoui rest, 12/21/01
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/913687.html

ABC News: Tape Missing Subtleties. Bin Laden Translation Omitted Sections, 12/20/01
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/WorldNewsTonight/OBLtape_missing011220.html

New York Times: Reconsidering Saudi Arabia, 10/14/01
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/opinion/14SUN1.html

Arabic News: Saudi Arabia: Zionism is behind the American campaign, 12/22/2001
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/011222/2001122210.html
Arabic News: Saudi Arabia abstains from freezing certain bank accounts, 11/28/2001
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/011128/2001112806.html
The Guardian: FBI and US spy agents say Bush spiked bin Laden probes, 11/7/01
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=103&row=0

Bush Watch: Bush Oil Deal With Murky Ties To Saudi Financiers
CHRONOLOGY: The Bushes And The Carlyle Group, 1/10/00
http://www.bushwatch.org/bushcarlyle.htm/

Asia Times: Pipelineistan: War against terrorism? Not really. Reminder: it's all about oil, 1/25/02
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA25Ag01.html

Asia Times: Pipelineistan: The games nations play, 1/26/02
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA26Ag01.html

BBC News: World: West Asia Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline, 12/4/97
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/west_asia/newsid_37000/37021.stm
The Washington Post: Clinton Launched Broad Effort to Get bin Laden
Broad Effort Launched After '98 Attacks, 12/19/01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62725-2001Dec18.html

American Politics Journal: USA Means Under Saudi Arabia, 12/24/01
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20011224Hersh.html

2000 Democratic Platform
http://www.democrats.org/issues/platform/platform.html

The Washington Post: Bush Seeks To Restrict Hill Probes Of Sept. 11, 1/30/02.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59376-2002Jan30?language=printer

The Guardian (London): FBI AND US SPY AGENTS SAY BUSH SPIKED BIN LADEN PROBES BEFORE 11 SEPTEMBER, 11/07/01
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=103&row=1

BBC Newsnight: DID BUSH TURN A BLIND EYE TO TERRORISM? 11/06/01
Transcript: http://gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=104
Video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/attack22.ram

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: McKinney's statement today on her comments, the administration, 4/12/02
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/0402/12mckinneytext.html

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: McKinney draws fire for Bush remarks, 4/13/02.
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/0402/13mckinney.html

© Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 by MikeHersh.com and identified authors. MikeHersh.com invites you to broadcast any material at this site, provided you identify the source as MikeHersh.com. All print, Internet, email and other summaries, excerpts or other written reproductions must include this blurb and a link to http://www.MikeHersh.com.