The United States is occupying a country – Iraq – that had nothing to do with the attacks, while...

[NNN0LHI]

...while Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, “the real powers behind 9/11,” are honored allies receiving billions in U.S. funding, Schultheis says.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20080627-1129-bookreview-huntingbinladen.html

Tale of botched terror war marred by errors

By Andrew Welsh-Huggins
ASSOCIATED PRESS

11:29 a.m. June 27, 2008

“Hunting Bin Laden” (Skyhorse Publishing. 229 pages. $24.95), by Rob Schultheis: Veteran war correspondent Rob Schultheis draws a line in the sand early in his new book, “Hunting Bin Laden.”

“There's never been a stranger war than the one America has been waging since the events on 9/11,” he writes.

The United States is occupying a country – Iraq – that had nothing to do with the attacks, while Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, “the real powers behind 9/11,” are honored allies receiving billions in U.S. funding, Schultheis says.

One army officer he knew in Iraq put it this way: “It's as if on December 8, 1941, we declared war on Brazil, Iceland, and New Zealand, and announced that Japan, Germany, and Italy were our closest allies in the conflict.”

[LBJDemocrat]

1. bin Laden is not a friend of Saudi Arabia

Nor was he one of Saddam Hussein. But bin Laden declared war on Saudi Arabia.

"One army officer he knew in Iraq put it this way: “It's as if on December 8, 1941, we declared war on Brazil, Iceland, and New Zealand, and announced that Japan, Germany, and Italy were our closest allies in the conflict.”"

The first part of the statement is more or less correct. The second isn't.

[bluerum]

2. The first part is history - the second part is anology.

[RC]

3. But that is basically what we did do.

So the second part still stands.

[LBJDemocrat]

4. No.

The US is allied with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Neither of those countries is an ally of the Jihadists. Yes; they sponsored some jihadist groups in the 1970s; but they are currently fighting Islamic rebel groups.

[Bandit]

7. fifteen of the nineteen terrorist on 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia

They grew up there and went to school there and were indoctrinated there.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

8. Neither of those countries is an ally of the Jihadists

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x192618


There has been a bit of confusion about the allegations that Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence chief, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, ordered Saeed Sheikh to send $100,000 to Mohammed Atta.

Somehow, many bloggers and posters have confused the dates of these alleged transactions and the sources of the allegations. For some reason many people have begun to write that the wire transfer occurred just before the 9/11 attacks, in August 2001 -- an allegation that doesn't make sense if we also believe that Mohammed Atta tried to return excess funds to his backers around the same time.

The original reporting, however, claimed that Saeed Sheikh wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 in the summer of 2000, not the summer of 2001. This makes much more sense, if the allegation is that Atta used funds from Saeed Sheikh to organize and carry out the 9/11 attacks.

Paul Thompson's timeline establishes the date of the transfers as the summer of 2000. The source of the allegation was that the phone records from the phone company used by Sheikh, including a record of Sheikh's repeated phone calls to Ahmad around the same time Sheikh wired money to Atta:

In 2002, French author Bernard-Henri Levy is presented evidence by government officials in New Delhi, India, that Saeed Sheikh makes repeated calls to ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed during the summer of 2000. Later, Levy gets unofficial confirmation from sources in Washington regarding these calls that the information he was given in India is correct. He notes that someone in the United Arab Emirates using a variety of aliases sends Mohamed Atta slightly over $100,000 between June and September of this year (see June 29, 2000-September 18, 2000 and (July-August 2000)), and the timing of these phone calls and the money transfers may have been the source of news reports that Mahmood Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send $100,000 to Mohamed Atta (see October 7, 2001). However, he also notes that there is evidence of Sheikh sending Atta $100,000 in August 2001 (see Early August 2001), so the reports could refer to that, or both $100,000 transfers could involve Mahmood Ahmed, Saeed Sheikh, and Mohamed Atta.

[pretzel4gore]

6. there's no bin laden, no al ciado...but bush? yep

bush can't even wipe his own arse. period. where did the stricken goofball come from? george wallace begat goldwater begat nixon begat regan begat bush, with clintoon the pause that refreshes...
let's not get tied up in samintocks...simonticks? seemonyucks! whatever....

[CJCRANE]

9. Bin Laden is a tool...

Or more accurately "al-Qaeda" is a geo-strategic tool used by Bushco (it doesn't matter what the individual motivations of the jihadis are, they are used for a larger purpose than they realize, one which is antithetical to their stated goals).

[polichick]

5. imo here's the reason Bush has let Bin Laden go...

http://www.amazon.com/House-Bush-Saud-Relationship-Dynasties/dp/074325337X

[kentuck]

10. It's insanity.

is the only conclusion I can come to...

[stillcool]

11. Defying logic?

Russia 8,500 (plus 11,000 stockpiled)
United States 7,000 (plus 3,000 stockpiled)
China 420
France 350
UK 200
Israel 75-200
India 45-95
Pakistan 30-50

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=26078
First Published 2008-05-24

The Saudi Exception

In a move that defies all logic, Mr. Bush has offered Saudi Arabia nuclear technology. Given the Kingdom’s past attempts to gain access to nuclear weapons and its record on human rights violations, either his sanity is questionable or his motives, says Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich.

“There is nothing more dangerous than a resourceful idiot.” - Scott Adams.

Is Mr. Bush the idiot who attempts to be resourceful at the expense of world citizenry?

The Bush White House with its democratic war doctrine has threatened world peace and by using coercion and threat of war is bent on depriving Iran of civilian nuclear technology, even though Iran has not violated the NPT. Yet, in a move that defies all logic, Mr. Bush has offered Saudi Arabia nuclear technology. Given the Kingdom’s past attempts to gain access to nuclear weapons and its record on human rights violations, either his sanity is questionable or his motives.

2008-06-12
Congress bills to limit US, Saudi Arabia nuke trade

Washington (Platts)--12Jun2008

Resolutions introduced Thursday in the US House of Representatives and the Senate seek to restrict US nuclear power cooperation with Saudi Arabia and instead encourage the development of solar power there.

Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Senator Charles Schumer of New York -- both Democrats -- introduced the resolutions to overturn President Bush's support last month of building new nuclear power in Saudi Arabia, even though the country is home to the largest oil reserves in
the world. Furthermore, they said that the country should be developing solar
power at a massive scale, given its extremely sunny climate.

Markey worried that handing over such sensitive knowledge to Saudi Arabia would aid in "fueling a nascent nuclear arms race in the Middle East" since many believe Iran wants to develop a nuclear weapon despite professing that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes like generating electricity.

"A potential Saudi nuclear power program is just as suspicious," he said."Saudi Arabia feels threatened by the rise of Iran and they want to guarantee that Saudi Arabia too can play the nuclear game."
http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/News/6900271.xml?S=printer&p=Nuclear/News&sub=Nuclear