Breaking: MC Morning News: The MOST damning 911 info against Bush to date

from PolMach Forums
http://www.madcowmorningnews.com/GnG/ShaikhII.html
http://www.madcowmorningnews.com/GnG/Shaikh.html

It is 100% all quotes from mainstream news articles and it is astounding.

Hopsicker has uncovered perhaps the most damning piece of evidence yet concerning the Saudi spy ring in San Diego and Bush's hand in suppressing it.

To break down just one piece of what we are talking about:

1) The 2 hijackers in SD lived with an FBI informant for many months in 2000.
2) The hijackers were introduced to FBI informant by a known Saudi Spy. The Spy and the informant have acknowledged being 'friends'. The Spy had been previously investigated by the FBI in 1998, who used the word 'jihadist' in there report to describe him.
3) The Saudi spy 'worked' for the Saudi Civil Aviation Authority subsidiary in San Diego.
4) The President of the Saudi Civil Aviation Authority is Mohammed al-Salmi.
5) The subsidiary attempted to fire the Saudi Agent on several occasions, but M. al-Salmi interceded and demanded the Saudi agent be kept on and his contract should be 'renewed as soon as possible' and that this was 'extremely urgent'.
6) It just so happens that another 20-something Saudi was staying at the home of the FBI informant with the hijackers.
7) This Saudi's name is Yazeed al-Salmi.
8) Yazeed al-Salmi is the nephew of the President of the Saudi Civil Aviation Authority, Mohammed al-Salmi.
9) The San Diego subsidiary of the Saudi Aviation Authority was under investigation for supporting al-Qaeda BEFORE 9-11.
10) oh yeah, the FBI informants handler, guess what he happened to be investigating at the time the hijackers were living with his informant?? He 'had been monitoring a flow of Saudi Arabian money that wound up in the hands of two of the 9/11 hijackers.' according to US News. The Saudi spy was giving the hijackers the money.


So the FBI informant and the Saudi spy where friends. The FBI informant housed the 2 hijackers and the the nephew of the boss of the Saudi Spy, all at once. The FBI informant's handler is investigating the money that the Saudi spy is giving to the hijackers.

Well then, this conclusively shows that the FBI knew what was going on.
If after reading Hopsicker's article you disagree with the above conclusion, please explain why.

Now there is no room to wonder why Bush demanded the FBI "restrain" and "obfuscate" the FBI's post 911 investigation.
If allowed to proceed, it would show the FBI knew exactly what was going on, if not outright housing the hijackers.

peace
politics
5,104 views 22 replies
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
Sorry was not clear about the breaking news. This article was published on Oct. 8, 2004.

Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Breaking: MC Morning News: The MOST damning 911 info against Bush to date

By: grandg
Posted: Saturday, October 09, 2004
Message Board: Politics
http://www.madcowmorningnews.com/GnG/ShaikhII.html
http://www.madcowmorningnews.com/GnG/Shaikh.html

It is 100% all quotes from mainstream news articles and it is astounding.

Hopsicker has uncovered perhaps the most damning piece of evidence yet concerning the Saudi spy ring in San Diego and Bush's hand in suppressing it.

To break down just one piece of what we are talking about:

1) The 2 hijackers in SD lived with an FBI informant for many months in 2000.
2) The hijackers were introduced to FBI informant by a known Saudi Spy. The Spy and the informant have acknowledged being 'friends'. The Spy had been previously investigated by the FBI in 1998, who used the word 'jihadist' in there report to describe him.
3) The Saudi spy 'worked' for the Saudi Civil Aviation Authority subsidiary in San Diego.
4) The President of the Saudi Civil Aviation Authority is Mohammed al-Salmi.
5) The subsidiary attempted to fire the Saudi Agent on several occasions, but M. al-Salmi interceded and demanded the Saudi agent be kept on and his contract should be 'renewed as soon as possible' and that this was 'extremely urgent'.
6) It just so happens that another 20-something Saudi was staying at the home of the FBI informant with the hijackers.
7) This Saudi's name is Yazeed al-Salmi.
8) Yazeed al-Salmi is the nephew of the President of the Saudi Civil Aviation Authority, Mohammed al-Salmi.
9) The San Diego subsidiary of the Saudi Aviation Authority was under investigation for supporting al-Qaeda BEFORE 9-11.
10) oh yeah, the FBI informants handler, guess what he happened to be investigating at the time the hijackers were living with his informant?? He 'had been monitoring a flow of Saudi Arabian money that wound up in the hands of two of the 9/11 hijackers.' according to US News. The Saudi spy was giving the hijackers the money.


So the FBI informant and the Saudi spy where friends. The FBI informant housed the 2 hijackers and the the nephew of the boss of the Saudi Spy, all at once. The FBI informant's handler is investigating the money that the Saudi spy is giving to the hijackers.

Well then, this conclusively shows that the FBI knew what was going on.
If after reading Hopsicker's article you disagree with the above conclusion, please explain why.

Now there is no room to wonder why Bush demanded the FBI "restrain" and "obfuscate" the FBI's post 911 investigation.
If allowed to proceed, it would show the FBI knew exactly what was going on, if not outright housing the hijackers.

peace


To start and finish with... having lived in San Diego for the last 20 years. I would not trust spit that came from the SD Tribune MOST especially when it comes to GW Bush.. They are about as "left" as you can get without going over the out field fence
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
Hey there San Diego.

First off, regardles of the SD tribunes political leanings, we must look at when this story was written. Just weeks after 911. No one was saying anything about Bush's involvement in the coverup or with the Saudis. The article simply documented what happened and what the FBI's statements were. To say that they wrote this article that early on with malicious intent is speculative to say the least.

Also the SD Tribune articles are not alone, with a little bit of research you would come across multiple sources which corroborate the facts stated. It must be a covert attack by all newspapers on President Bush by your logic.

I encourage you to do some serious research into this matter. Forget Bob Graham's ill-timed book, this information has been out t here for 3 years now. Check it out.

peace
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
Check out chapter 7 of the 911 Commission Report and the notes are also valuable. If you just cross out the doublespeak, you can learn a little about the plot.
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
it is interesting how facts about 9-11 are called partisan. when in fact both parties are actively burying the facts.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
Who was the FBI Director and who appointed him/her to that position?

- GX
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
there was an interim FBI Dir. at the time. Obviously the president appoints and the senate confirms. However, Congress and especially the senate intel committee, in their oversight role, would have the same info available to the FBI Dir in their intel briefings.
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
So it is President Bush's fault for the oversight role failure of the Senate and House intel committees?

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/directors/directmain.htm - Directors Then and Now, seems like Freeh may have dropped the ball.

- GX
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
Ah, no.

However It is Bush's fault for directing the FBI to "restrain" and "obfuscate" their 911 investigation into the San Diego cell.

Did you read the article at:
Link

???

The article confirms that high ranking officals of the Saudi Govt were deeply and directly entrenched in the operation and support of the San DIego terror cell which harbored the hijackers for over 1 YEAR.

It is blatantly obvious even to those of us who do not have access to Govt Intel reports, that the San Diego cell were terrorists, yet every member of the cell is walking around, free as a bird because of Bush's orders. If the Pres of the US ordered a complete and thorough investigation, every member of the cell would be on death row. Therefore, Bush is the reason these KNOWN terrorists and accomplices to 1000s of murders are free. This is not conjecture, it is irrefutably on the public record as fact.
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
Seriously this is conspiracy theory level stuff, if it were not and was 100% true the Senate would be acting on it, would they not?

Considering the Demicans loathe President Bush with a passion right now.

- GX
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
I must ask again, did you read the article? If so, it is not me saying these things. It is the New York Times, Wash Post, LA Times, the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 911, the 911 Commission report, Newsweek, Copley News Service, the WSJ, and similar outlets which are considered the most credible of all sources in existence. If you dont believe the articles from these sources, what do you believe?

What you are saying would be the biggest conspiracy of all time. Essentially, for your previous statement to be correct there would have to be mass collussion between these major media outlets to tell these lies (as you are postulating) about 911. If you dont believe the article at: http://www.madcowprod.com/GnG/ShaikhII.html, check the original sources. I did and they are 100% corrrectly quoted.

And this is not just Bush's ass, if you read what the FBI's Sibel Edmonds has to say. Her claims have been all comfirmed by Sen. Chuck Grassley, who is one of the only Senators who has some respect for truth.

To quote the Independent (UK), probably THE #1 most repsected newspaper in the world:
"while working in the FBI's Washington headquarters, she saw information proving senior officials knew of al-Qaida plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes."
"'I Saw Papers That Show US Knew al-Qa'ida Would Attack Cities With Airplanes' -sibel edmonds
Another from the Baltimore Chronicle:
"If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up." -sibel edmonds


She has stated her facts under oath, so if she was lying she would be up on federal felony charges. But she is probably a big fat liar, just like the Independent which wrote the article about her 'situation.'
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
Once again I will reiterate that if it is as serious as it appears the Senate and House Demicans will nail President Bush to the wall.

- GX
The Anti-Republicrat Anti-Demican Libertarian
Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top
Reason why I take it with a grain of salt, because on the right it shows Clinton to blame Example [LINK], left shows it is Bush, but I put all the blame on the man who sent them, Usama Bin Laden, who is more likely than not DEAD, oh well.

- GX
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
grim wrote:
Reason why I take it with a grain of salt, because on the right it shows Clinton to blame Example [LINK], left shows it is Bush, but I put all the blame on the man who sent them, Usama Bin Laden, who is more likely than not DEAD, oh well.
-----------------

Finally a statement I can agree with. I also heavily blame Usama bin Laden, but UBL has many friends in the highest of places

However, I cannot agree with your overwhelming faith in Congress to do the right thing. You dont like dems or repubs, for what reason? More than likely because u cant trust them as far as you can throw them.

So answer this since you are expecting the 'demicans' to go get Bush if he played anyrole in 911 or its coverup: Why would one party destroy the other, for the sake of itself? They would not, and have never. Without the other party, the other is screwed.

Why do you think every major US based company supports both candidates??? if there were 3, 4, 5 major parties, that would be much, much more difficult to lobby for what business wants.

The perpetution of the 2 party system supercedes all party lines.

Dems will never accuse a Repub of complicity in 9-11 and vice versa, look at Cynthia McKinney (not that i support her, i dont know much about her) she was just asking questions about 9-11 if i recall, and she was ran out of Congress by her OWN party. Now she is appears to be banished from the Dems.

So basically you are saying that unless congress indicts Bush for capital murder, Nothing that you read about 911 in the WSJ is accurate.

It appears that you dont like partisan politics, but you are falling prey to their tactics. Dems bring out Ted Kennedy or Pelosi to bash the Reps and Hastert or whatever hick from the south to bash the Dems. You bring out the clowns to distract. Then none of the Repub followers listen when Kennedy bashes repubs and none of the Dem followers pay attention when Hastert is ripping them. This way people only hear the bad about the other party and blockout all the bad about their party.

When in reality both parties are committing massive wrongdoings of all manner, and 1/2 will believe their side is good and the other half will belive they are good, which is just fine with the 2 parties.

It is 100% awful.

Dont fall victim to the trap. The trap of thinking that there are actual differences among these parties. They are one and the same, whcih you kind of hint at. So why if they are one party (which you appear to call 'demicans') would you ever presume they they would try and take each other down and out? Just look at Bush and Kerry, Skull and Bones brother's and distant cousins running against each other. Now do you really think they are going to sell out their country club buddies just so you, I and all the American people can have a real investigation and prosecution regarding 911. I think not.

But you do, because you stated that if these 911 facts were really as serious as they appear, that the demicans would 'nail' Bush.'

So you wait on that, and continue the plague of ignorance that has infected our country for decades. but I cannot ignore facts stated by the most reputable media sources in the world, without ANY retractions, and under threat of gigantic slander/libel lawsuits if the facts are in any way not accurate.

Hook Line and Sinker. They got you bigtime.

But they got everyone else, so hey if you cant beat em, join em right?

Wrong.
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
Sure I will play your game. How am I falling for a trap that I have no control over, and trying to get control over by fully supporting the Libertarian Party, hmmm? If this stuff was so true their are watchdog groups, like Judicial Watch, and others who would be all over this shoving it in the faces of both sides. So if Badnarik and the rest of LP or independent watchdog groups are not attacking than leads me to believe that not even they believe this stuff wholeheartedly, after all you keep saying everyone knows about, right?

You have no control over of how somebody is trapping you into spreading possible disinformation on a subject, right?

I think this all boils down to one agent's fault after all did he report to his superiors on the situation? Did he hold information back from his superiors? Are his superiors for this punishing him?

Ignorance my ass, if you can change this situation than by all means be my guest, your theory will not hold water with the American public, JUST BEING REALISTIC in the end for me.

After all one should be a REALIST before one goes out and fights the ignorant, right?

There are some things money can't buy and 'elimination of ignorance' is one of them.

History cannot be changed and this conjucture of it is Bush's fault is the same just like the ATF and FBI taking the blame for the Murrah Building in OKC.

- GX
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
Very good sources prior to this point to the following:
* Saudi Arabia contributed money to the terrorists. It is not clear what Saudi Arabia's intentions were, but a cautious person would attribute their actions to a failed effort to buy moles in a terrorist organization, rather than to support terrorism.
* The two men stayed in the home of a San Diego man who was a paid informant of the FBI
* The FBI flatly denied the Congressional investigation access to that FBI informant, so it is entirely speculative what the FBI's role was, what the Clinton administration role's was, and what the Bush administration role's was. The Bush administration has unarguably kept this as secrective as possible, but it is not clear why.

Those of us who deeply distrust President Bush jump to the conclusion that the Bush-Saudi connection is involved. Those who trust President Bush jump to the assumption that it is in the country's interest to keep the matter silent. However, there is almost not question as to the basic background facts, and, in my opinion, they are likely to be enlightening in the long run, but unlikely to come clear in time for the objective to use the matter as a way to judge this administration.

If you want to put the matter in perspective, there is a very good article in the most recent New York Review of Books about Saudi Arabia and a variety of recent books on the subject -- the article certainly not written for the purpose of building up or tearing down President Bush -- which mentions this matter as a sidelight to a larger discussion of Saudi matters. This will bring you a lot closer to the truth than just guessing who would or would not speak out on these matters, for partisan purposes.
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
No one is saying Bush did 9-11. But the head of the Senate Intel COmmittee said theatt he "obfuscated" the FBIs investigation.

And Ben, come on. First you want me to read a book review article. What? As if that is reliable.

Sorry fellas, but I will go with what the NY Times and Wash Post are writing instead of what you are both theorizing.

The facts are out there. You can live in a fantasy world where all of the newspapers in 2001 were out to frame Bush, but that is not the reason the facts about 9-11 made the major newspapers. The facts made the paper because they are facts. period. There was absolutely no incentive to for reporters to hate on Bush in late 2001 when the articles were written, in fact his approval rating was like 95%.

And it doesnt matter if the FBI blocked the Cong. 911 Inquiry from interviewing the informant. They got to interview his FBI handler and everyone else involved, they knew exactly what was going on. Entirely speculative my ass! Once again, YOU are saying it is speculative... the New York Times is saying it is fact.

Where are you getting your facts? Better yet, where do you get the logic to jump to these false conclusions?

Not that it matters what the FBI or Congress would or would not divulge, because the information is still out there, be it from quality investigating by reporters or direct statements from those involved in the investigation.

I dont see how you cant comprehend this.

By your logic, the only way to determine what happened is to wait for the FBI too issue formal public statements on their role.

Well, i got news for you. That will never happen.

That is why we rely on objective reporting, instead of statements by the parties involved. This is evidence 101. A statement is impeachable if its author has a stake in the subject matter.

Keep living in a fantasy world, maybe you two should start your own newspaper.
Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top
No one is saying Bush did 9-11. But the head of the Senate Intel COmmittee said theatt he "obfuscated" the FBIs investigation.


Come on post some links or show some Empirical proof that Bush 'obfuscated' the FBI's investigation, how about that?

Also how is the top guy responsible for a mistake of a lowest guy, especially when the lowest guy was working before Bush took office in Jan. 2001?

Even if Bush 'obfuscated' the investigation, it would have been after the fact so Bush is not responsible for stuff AFTER the Fact, or should he be according to your logic?

Come on, if you are going to nail him, nail him on something tangible and truthful.

- GX
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sorry fellas, but I will go with what the NY Times and Wash Post are writing instead of what you are both theorizing.


The facts are out there. You can live in a fantasy world where all of the newspapers in 2001 were out to frame Bush, but that is not the reason the facts about 9-11 made the major newspapers. The facts made the paper because they are facts. period. There was absolutely no incentive to for reporters to hate on Bush in late 2001 when the articles were written, in fact his approval rating was like 95%.


That is why we rely on objective reporting, instead of statements by the parties involved. This is evidence 101. A statement is impeachable if its author has a stake in the subject matter.

Keep living in a fantasy world, maybe you two should start your own newspaper.


If you think for one minute that you will get objective reporting from the Times OR the Washington Post, then YOU are the one living in a fantasy world! Yes they will give you facts, but ONLY the facts that they deem pertinent! In other words about 1/2- 2/3 of what is actually going on.
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
"... What on earth Saudi officials were up to when they helped fund the San Diego sojourn of two of the future hijackers, and why the Bush administration has tried to conceal this episode. This fact, uncovered by the joint House-Seante intelligence committee's September 11 investigation, but later deemed classified by the administration, is at the heart of concerns about Saudi Arabia voiced by Bob Graham, the teiring Senate committee chair, in his new book Intelligence Matters. Graham reveals that a suspected Saudi agent 'helped' the two Saudi immigrants to settle in San Diego with gifts that may have amounted to $40,000. Just as disturbingly, he shows that one of the two happened to share accommodation with a paid informant for the FBI, who apparently never noticed anything suspicious. (The FBI refused point-blank to let the legislators question their informant.)

Yet Graham's book raises more questions than it answers. Proof of direct Saudi funding would clearly be explosive, but it is not clear that the Saudis had any better idea of the beneficiaries of their largesse were up to than did the FBI... The Sauids did, after much prodding, let the FBI question their San Diego agent, but the Feds are not telling what he said. In the end, Senator Graham's revelations are, like Unger's, damning with regard to the American government's incompetence and fear of disclosure, but inconclusive regarding the Saudi government's malign intent." -- Max Rodenbeck "Unloved in Arabia"

None of this is new, but I think Rodenbeck does a good job of summing up what is known, and far and away the most likely accounting of the "truth" as it will be understood by nonpartisan historians years down the road.

It is my sense that Democrats don't like it because they want the truth to be more damning and Republicans reject it because they want it to be less damning, but the relatively scholarly books on the subject are quite a bit more reliable than newspaper stories.