Never Forgetting

Yeah, I don't understand why more people are not pissed off that the people in charge at the time used the deaths and destruction in NYC as political cover to attempt to control the world's largest oil supplies.  So many Americans drank that kool-aid.  Still drinking it.

[The ruler of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud,] who took the throne in January 2015, suffers from dementia. Generally seen wearing a puzzled look, the king has been known to wander off in the middle of conversations.

  Harpers

Trump does that, if only mentally. In fact, Trump wanders off in the middle of his OWN speech.

The Trump Administration is “desperate for Saudi money, especially infrastructure investments in the Rust Belt,” [a] former official told me. An influx of Saudi dollars could generate jobs and thus redound to Trump’s political benefit. As a cynical douceur, the Saudis, derided by Trump during his campaign as “people that kill women and treat women horribly,” joined the United Arab Emirates in pledging $100 million for a women’s-empowerment initiative spearheaded by Ivanka Trump. A joyful president took part in the traditional sword dance and then helped launch a Saudi center for “combating extremism.”

[...]

“We made and saved the U.S.A. many billions of dollars and millions of jobs,” he tweeted as he left Saudi Arabia. The White House soon trumpeted $110 billion in weapons sales and billions more in infrastructure investments, with the total purportedly rising to $350 billion.

[...]

“Mohammad bin Salman made the same pitch to the Obama people,” the former official told me. “ ‘We’re going to invest all this money here, you’re going to be our great economic partner, etc.’ Because the Trump Administration doesn’t know much about foreign affairs, they were really seduced by this.”

Yet amid the sword dances and flattery, a shadow lingered over the occasion: 9/11. After years of glacial legal progress, the momentous charge that our Saudi allies enabled and supported the most devastating act of mass murder on American soil may now be coming to a resolution.

[...]

Now, at last, we stand a chance of discovering what really happened, largely because of a court case.

In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, which grew out of a suit filed in 2002 on behalf of bereaved family members and other victims of the attacks, includes a charge of direct Saudi government involvement in 9/11.

The Saudis, though scorning the accusation, have been striving ever more desperately to prevent the case from advancing through the legal system. To that end, they have employed to date no fewer than fifteen high-powered Washington lobbying firms.

And shame on those firms.

The task is growing more urgent because the kingdom, long confident of essentially unlimited wealth, is facing money problems. Oil prices are in a slump and likely to stay there. The war in Yemen, launched in 2015 by Salman’s appointed heir, Mohammed bin Salman, drags on, costing an estimated $200 million a day, with no end in sight. To alleviate his cash-flow problems, the young prince is set on raising as much as $2 trillion by floating the state-owned oil company, Saudi Aramco, on international stock markets. That is part of the reason the 9/11 lawsuit poses such a threat — it raises the possibility that much-needed cash from the stock sale might never find its way to Riyadh. “They’re afraid they’re going to get a default judgment against them, and some of their domestic assets will be seized,” the former senior official explained to me.

[...]

A multibillion-dollar award “would certainly stop the Saudis from financing terrorism,” [one 9/11 survivor and plaintiff] told me. “That’s the whole point of this. It is all about money. If you can cut that off, that would make a serious impact on the dissemination of this rabid ideology around the world.”

[...]

There has always been evidence [of Saudi collusion in the 9/11 attacks and their support of terrorists] — in abundance.

[...]

After a mere ten months, in December 2002, the Joint Inquiry team presented its report to the CIA for declassification. The agency demanded numerous cuts, only a few of which, in Graham’s view, were justified. But one section had been censored in its entirety: a twenty-eight-page summary, written by Jacobson, of the evidence relating to Saudi government support for the hijackers. It was the only area on which the Bush White House absolutely refused to relent. “The president’s loyalty apparently lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America’s safety,” Graham told me bitterly.

Continue reading.

This Harper's report drops a reminder that Robert Mueller was head of the FBI at the time, and claims that he strongly objected to an agent investigating a lead in San Diego regarding a bureau informant's personal knowledge of one of the 9/11 hijackers. In fact, he had another informant moved to an undisclosed location "for his own safety" - probably under orders from the White House - thus avoiding other FBI agents interviewing him. That's not very encouraging in terms of what he might find in his investigation of Trump. In fact, I think it taints whatever he does eventually report. And it makes me wonder: why is Mueller so well regarded?

I wonder also about this lawsuit going forward. Will it publicize the Bush Administration's responsibilities for, during and immediately after 9/11? What happens if it uncovers irrefutable evidence of, not just Saudi, but also Bush administration criminal (including war crime) activity? What about the Obama administration's continued cover-up?

The Harper's article covers a lot of territory, including the obstacles and the fight for 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia. Have a go at it. It does a good job of condensing the unwieldy volumes of information and disinformation surrounding the events of 9/11 into its major points.

And all of this is to say nothing of the fact that the unwarranted invasion of Iraq to cover up Saudi involvement in 9/11 and to attempt to control foreign oil fields has created a never-ending war on an ever-changing stateless organization - "Terrorists" - while simultaneously restricting domestic freedom. The Washington Post has that article.