Report: Clinton’s Campaign Cash is 20% Royal Saudi Money

Screen-Shot-2015-12-18-at-4.52.50-PM

CounterJihad, June 15, 2016:

A report from Jordan’s Petra News Agency quoted Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman claiming that the Saudi government was funding fully one-fifth of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President.  After a Washington DC based think tank translated and captured the report, Petra deleted the emails and stopped responding to requests for comments on the article.  Saudi-owned Al Arabiya news is now claiming that Petra was hacked, and the comments were false.  Foreign influence of US elections by financing candidates is illegal.  If the report was accurate, Zero Hedge estimates that the amount of royal Saudi money in Hillary’s coffers would be more than forty million dollars.

Was the article legitimate?  Prince Salman is on a visit to the United States right now.  Aside from that one comment, the rest of the article is quite standard diplomatic fare.  Salman’s other reported remarks were on the special relationship Saudi Arabia shares with the United States, and of the king’s enthusiastic support for Hillary Clinton as a female candidate for President.  They are not damaging remarks, in other words, but exactly the sort of ordinary things diplomats say right before a trip to visit a foreign country.  That gives credibility to the idea that this may have been a legitimate news story that accidentally revealed a major crime.

There are two more reasons to take the article seriously.  The first is that the Clinton campaign, and Democrats in general, have a long history of accepting illegal foreign money.  The Hill reported that in 1997 illegal donations from China funded an early Clinton advertising blast against the Dole campaign.  Senator Fred Thompson’s hearings the next year exposed a vast network of foreign donors who had contributed to Bill Clinton’s re-election.

By 2008 Clinton was overtaken by Barack Obama in manipulating the system to allow foreign donations.  The Obama campaign disabled credit card safety mechanisms on its online donation sites that would have identified foreign accounts.  They continued the practice in the 2012 re-election campaign against Mitt Romney, who observed the practice of demanding the security information.  The campaign was eventually fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for their misbehavior, but only after it was too late.

In preparation for the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton’s foundation has received vast sums of money from foreign powers.  A lot of this money was definitely Saudi, so if her campaign has developed a mechanism for passing money from the foundation to the campaign the claim is extremely plausible.

The second reason that the claim is plausible is that there is strong prima facie evidence that Clinton provided quid pro quo.  Saudi Arabia was one of several Middle Eastern governments who obtained greatly increased access to US military weaponry under the Clinton State Department.  Their large-scale donations to her foundation show every sign of having been persuasive in her decisions to permit them to buy advanced weapons of war.

Likewise, former Homeland Security agent Phil Haney has revealed that Clinton’s State Department personally stepped in and forced his agency to cease investigations into radical mosques, including the one linked to this weekend’s terrorist shooting in Orlando.  In fact, according to Haney, the Clinton State Department not only stopped the investigations but required Homeland Security to destroy its records of the investigation so far.

For these reasons, there is every reason to take seriously the Petra report that Saudi Arabia is enthusiastic about electing her — and funding her campaign to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.  Indeed it is without doubt she has taken very large amounts of Saudi money.  The only question is how much of it has made its way into her campaign for President.

MORE ABOUT CIVILIZATION JIHAD

5 Troubling Takeaways From The Declassified 9/11 Pages

1534157424

Center for Security Policy, by Benjamin Weingarten, July 20, 2016:

The infamous 28 previously classified pages from Congress’ joint inquiry into intelligence activities surrounding 9/11 represent far more than a symbolic reckoning with a politically controversial history of apparent Saudi duplicity that the U.S. government felt it imperative to suppress.

As we continue to be struck by jihadists at home and abroad under an at best rudderless and at worst suicidal national security and foreign policy, the report’s substance is live, relevant and beckons critical questions that ought to be demanded by our representatives and the public at large.

Why the federal government in general, and Bush and Obama administrations in particular, sought to keep such information from the public for 15 years is a worthy question, as is the question of why law enforcement did not move to arrest and prosecute or deport many of the individuals associated with the 9/11 attack that were under investigation.

Hindsight is 20/20, it is an open secret that diplomatic officials in foreign countries frequently are involved in pernicious activities like espionage and are provided with certain privileges and immunities if not legally than politically derived. Intelligence and law enforcement officials must use their discretion as to whether to move on suspects or continue monitoring them in the hopes of uncovering bigger networks and threats.

But the suspicious activities and associations of the individuals described in these 28 pages are well beyond the pale, as are many of the report’s other findings.

Here are five of the most consequential points from the 28 declassified pages, along with the critical questions we must be demanding of our government:

  1. America subordinated National Security to politicsThe first page of the report notes that “Prior to September 11th, the FBI apparently did not focus investigative resources on [redacted] Saudi nationals in the United States due to Saudi Arabia’s status as an American “ally.”Given the House of Saud’s longtime funding of and overall support for Islamic supremacist Wahhabism around the world, this admission is stunning.And it raises questions that we should be asking today.

    Does the intelligence community not focus investigative resources on Saudi nationals in America today? How about nationals from other Sunni nations in the Middle East that harbor jihadists? What about Iranian nationals, now that the Islamic Republic upon whom we have lavished over $100 billion and offered protection of their nuclear infrastructure has become ade facto ally against ISIS?

    Was the decision not to pursue Saudi nationals a conscious move to subordinate national security considerations to political ones? Is this still American policy?

    There are other revelations as well that merit grave concern and inquiry.

  2. Jihadi front group Proliferated on American soil (and they persist)

    Omar al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi intelligence officer who “provided substantial assistance” to two of the 9/11 hijackers was reportedly in contact with individuals under FBI investigation. He also communicated with others at the Holy Land Foundation, which had been under investigation for and ultimately would be charged with providing material support for Hamas as a fundraising front.The federal government today considers individuals from Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups to be legitimate law enforcement partners with whom to consult and to whom to outsource Countering Violent Extremism efforts. Glaringly, law enforcement continues to collaborate with The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)—an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case—in spite of policies to the contrary.Does law enforcement work to identify and monitor the activities of such groups? What are the standards for shutting down such groups? Does law enforcement monitor the activities of those tied to such groups and pursue investigations when merited? What specific policies and practices in place today would prevent other Omar al-Bayoumis from operating on American soil?

  3. Islamic Supremacist Mosques Proliferated on American Soil (And They Persist)

    Several times the 28 pages’ authors make reference to a mosque “widely known for its anti-Western views” that was created in 1998 with funding from the late Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdulaziz. The Culver City, CA-based King Fahad Mosque, then led by among others jihadist-supporting imam Sheikh al-Thumairy—an accredited diplomat at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles—remains open today.This raises a number of questions.If the King Fahad Mosque has not been shut down in spite of the facts described above, on what grounds would the government shut down a mosque? What, if any policies, has the federal government considered in connection with the funding of mosques and other institutions in the U.S. from regimes with ties to jihad? Does law enforcement monitor mosques for anti-Western or other subversive views today? Given exemptions for religious experts, what immigration protections are there to stop Islamic supremacist imams from entering the U.S.?It bears noting that a survey of 100 mosques in America revealed that 84.5% of such mosques had an imam recommending studying violence-positive texts. 58% of mosques invited guest imams who had been known to promote violent jihad.
  4. Jihadists believed Islamic supremacist immigration had hit critical mass over a decade ago

    Another vital section of the report concerns Osama Bassnan, an individual with extensive ties to both two of the 9/11 hijackers and the Saudi government. Page 428 reads:

    Bassnan…stated to an FBI asset that he heard that the U.S. Government had stopped approving visas for foreign students. He considered such measures to be insufficient as there are already enough Muslims in the United States to destroy the United States and make it an Islamic state within ten to fifteen years.

    Juxtapose this statement with the fact that America has admitted approximately 1.6 million immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries between 2001 and 2013, among other critical data on Islamic immigration compiled by Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz.

    While Bassnan is just one man, whether our federal government recognizes it or not, immigration is a tenet of jihad known as “Al-Hijra.” While we fret over the potential for jihadist infiltration among refugees from the Middle East today, over a decade ago Islamic supremacists were already claiming that there was a critical mass of Islamic supremacists ready, willing and able to ultimately take down America.

    Should not all future immigration policies be formulated based upon an understanding of the jihadis’ goals, strategies and tactics? Should not current homeland security policies be focused upon isolating and removing the jihadist cancer already metastasizing within?

  5. Saudi self-interest trumped all, and America was (and is) willfully blind

    One of the most significant statements in the declassified pages comes courtesy of a veteran New York FBI agent. In light of Saudi recalcitrance when it came to Islamic terrorism investigations before and after 9/11, this agent “stated that, from his point of view, the Saudis have been useless and obstructionist for years. In this agent’s opinion, the Saudis will only act when it is in their self-interest.”The report goes on to cite several examples of Saudi non-cooperation.

    What is so critical here is that the FBI agent in question identified openly and honestly the nature of the House of Saud. His description could work for practically all other regimes not only in the Middle East but throughout the world.

    One wonders, does U.S. foreign policy start from the first principle of identifying the nature of such regimes, as well as non-state actors with whom they may or may not be allied?

I would submit that self-evidently our national security and foreign policies do not recognize the comprehensive nature of the jihadist threat, Sunni and Shia, state and non-state, violent and civilizational, as has been reflected in numerous examples from the revelations of the recent Senate Judiciary Committee “willful blindness” hearing, to the redaction of the Orlando jihadist transcript, to the purging of documents that identify the very nature of the jihadist threat on American soil from law enforcement offices.

Given the perilous state of America’s national security and foreign policy today with respect to a global jihadist enemy that we fail to even call by its name, it is readily apparent that while we may have identified failures in connection with 9/11, we have not adequately answered the question as to what we must do to prevent such failures in the future.

The declassified 28 pages provide another opportunity for us to ask the necessary questions and seek out answers that may mean the difference between life and death for our nation.

Also see:

28 Pages Tie ‘Moderate’ Muslim Brotherhood To 9/11

1

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, July 19, 2016:

Washington has assumed the Muslim Brotherhood is, as President Obama’s intelligence czar put it, a nonviolent group “largely secular” in nature.  It has even invited Brotherhood figures into Muslim outreach powwows at both ends of Pennsylvania. But the newly declassified 28 pages detailing Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks casts serious doubt on the assumption that the Brotherhood is a benign organization.

In fact, the now-largely uncensored section of the congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11 reveals that U.S.-stationed Saudi intelligence officers who aided the hijackers in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks were in contact with senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, suggesting the Saudi-funded Brotherhood was part of the support network for the hijackers and involved in the 9/11 conspiracy.

For example consider page 416 of the Joint Inquiry report, a page that until last week had been completely blacked out for 14 years.  This page states that Saudi intelligence agent Omar al-Bayoumi, who assisted two of the Saudi hijackers with financing, housing and flight schools, was at the same time associating with several leaders of a Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas charitable front known as the Holy Land Foundation.

“The FBI determined that al-Bayoumi was in contact with several individuals under FBI investigation and with the Holy Land Foundation, which has been under investigation as a fundraising front for Hamas,” the report said. The Justice Department said the Holy Land Foundation was also a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the parent of Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group.  The connection was later proven in Federal court.

Federal investigative sources tell CounterJihad that one of the Holy Land Foundation contacts was Mohammad el-Mezain, who in 2009 was convicted of providing material support to Hamas suicide bombers and other terrorists in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorist-financing case in US history. Bayoumi met with El-Mezain in San Diego, where he was handling two of the Saudi hijackers who went on to attack the Pentagon. Before his arrest, El-Mezain headed Holy Land Foundation’s San Diego office and also served as a leader in a local mosque attended by the hijackers.

El-Mezain, a hardcore Muslim Brother now serving out a 15-year federal prison sentence on Terminal Island in Los Angeles, was also in contact at the time with al-Qaida cleric Anwar Awlaki.  Awlaki, later killed in a US drone strike, privately counseled the hijackers on martyrdom and jihad at a small, non-descript Saudi-funded mosque in San Diego, and later at a Saudi-built mosque in Falls Church, Va., where the hijackers followed him.

I have obtained Saudi Embassy travel itinerary showing Awlaki and El-Mezain acted together as tour guides on Saudi pilgrimages to Mecca.

The pair also once lived in the same small Colorado apartment complex together. Federal investigators tell me El-Mezain likely met Awlaki (aka Aulaqi) in Fort Collins, Colo., around 1990, when the two were neighbors and attended the same local mosque. Authorities have traced El-Mezain’s address at the time to 500 West Prospect Rd. in Fort Collins. Awlaki also listed an address then at 500 West Prospect Rd. El-Mezain occupied Apt. 19C, while Awlaki rented Apt. 23L.

El-Mezain also happens to have been a major fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Washington-based Hamas front group that claims to be a “civil-rights organization.” The Justice Department implicated CAIR and its founder in the Holy Land Foundation case as unindicted co-conspirators, while identifying CAIR as a US front for the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian branch Hamas.

El-Mezain co-founded the Holy Land Foundation with Hamas terrorist Ghassan Elashi, who was also a founding CAIR director. Elashi is serving a 65-year prison term for funneling more than $12 million to Hamas suicide bombers and other Palestinian terrorist leaders. El-Mezain and Elashi are both related to fugitive Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook.

Elashi attended a secret Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 with Nihad Awad, the current executive director of CAIR, whom both the FBI and NSA have investigated and monitored for alleged terrorist activities. The next year, CAIR was formed.

CAIR is mentioned by name in secret Brotherhood documents as part of a 1994 agenda of a secret US “committee” to support Hamas — the smoking gun linking CAIR directly to the Hamas network inside America.  Those documents are reproduced in the appendix of Muslim Mafia:  Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America.

Does this tie CAIR into 9/11 along with the Holy Land Foundation? According to Muslim Mafia, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad once hosted the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, now a convicted al-Qaida-tied terrorist, at his apartment in Santa Clara, California.  Ahmad also helped raise money for al-Qaida kingpin Ayman al-Zawahiri through his Santa Clara mosque, which was founded by senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders. Before the 9/11 attacks, Bayoumi and another Saudi intelligence officer who handled the hijackers in San Diego, Osama Bassnan, were investigated for ties to the Blind Sheik and who hosted a party for him. It’s not immediately known if Ahmad also attended that party, or if he had any contacts with the 9/11 hijackers or their Saudi handlers.

Attempts to reach Ahmad and Awad for comment were unsuccessful.

The nexus between the Saudis, the 9/11 hijackers and the Muslim Brotherhood runs even deeper.

Sources tell me that a still-redacted section of the Joint Inquiry report reveals that El-Mezain was also linked to 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui “through a member of the Muslim Brotherhood,” who attempted to post bond for Moussaoui’s roommate. Moussaoui recently testified in a deposition that he got help and funding directly from Saudi royals during his stay in America.

There’s yet another direct tie between al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood: the former head of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s shura council was one of al-Qaida’s top fundraisers in America, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. Abdurahman Alamoudi, who infiltrated both the Clinton and Bush administrations, is now serving 23 years in federal prison for plotting terrorism.

In 1996, Alamoudi — who founded the Boston Marathon bombers’ mosque — told a Muslim audience in Illinois: “Either we do it now or we do it after a hundred years, but this country will become a Muslim country.”

As the White House and Homeland Security continue to conduct outreach with Muslim Brotherhood front groups, declassification of 9/11 investigative documents reveal that these very same groups may have played a role alongside several Saudi government conspirators in the 9/11 attacks. They also reveal that the hijackers got help obtaining housing and IDs, along with other support, while attending several Muslim Brotherhood-controlled mosques in California, Arizona, Florida, Virginia and other states.

This terrorist support network is still in place inside America.

Also see:

28 Pages Suggest Huma-Connected Group Funded Terrorism

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Breitbart, by Lee Stranahan, July 15, 2016:

The declassified “28 Pages” released by Congress Friday afternoon concerning 9/11, terror funding, and Saudi Arabia contains a bombshell piece of information: The World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) is specifically named as having connections to terror funding and support for a number of worldwide terror groups.

As Breitbart News has reported exclusively, the “Abedin family business” is an academic group called the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs that is based in the London offices of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth and its parent organization, the Muslim World League.

Huma Abedin, born in the United States but raised in Saudi Arabia, has worked closely with Hillary Clinton since 1996 and is now Hillary Clinton’s closest aide and the vice-chairwoman of her presidential campaign. Abedin, who is married to disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, is also at the heart of the Clinton email scandal.

Page 24 of the 28 Pages report discusses Osama bin Laden’s half-brother and says in part:

According to the FBI. Abdullah Bin Ladin has a number of connections to terrorist organizations. He is the President and Director of the World Arab Muslim Youth Association (WAMY) and the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Science in America. Both organizations are local branches of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

According to the FBI, there is reason to believe that WAMY is “closely associated with the funding and financing of international terrorist activities and in the past has provided logistical support to individuals wishing to to fight in the Afghan War.” In 1998, the CIA published a paper characterizing WAMY as a NGO that provides funding. logistical support and training with possible connections to the Arab Afghans network, Hamas, Algerian extremists and Philippine militants.

Although the 28 Pages make no mention of Abedin at all, the information in the 28 Pages lays out a timeline of events during the planning and execution of the 9/11 terror attack that shows that, at all times, Huma Abedin was working for both Hillary Clinton and the WAMY organization the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs.

In the past, all efforts to vet or ask basic questions about Abedin have been shut down by the mainstream media and politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Republican Sen. John McCain and Democrat Congressman Keith Ellison.

A footnote on page 24 of the 28 Pages is inconclusive but doesn’t rule out the possibility that WAMY’s senior leadership may have supported terrorism.

According to the FBI’s November 8th, 2002 response, although several officials in WAMY support Al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups, the intelligence is insufficient to show whether the organization as whole and its senior leadership support terrorism.

Although the footnote makes it clear that the depth of WAMY’s full support for terrorism wasn’t fully known in 2003, the matter is clearly a subject that should have been both investigated and discussed, especially given the connection between New York Senator Clinton, and one of her top aides at the time, to the group.

Further, it’s very clear that WAMY supports the Wahhabist strain of Islam that is both the state religion of Saudi Arabia and is behind nearly every terrorist group today, including al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and the Taliban.

As Breitbart News previously reported exclusively, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she even admitted that Saudi Arabia was using the Muslim World League and WAMY to fund terrorism, writing in a 2009 memo:

Saudi Arabia has enacted important reforms to criminalize terrorist financing and restrict the overseas flow of funds from Saudi-based charities. However, these restrictions fail to include &multilateral organizations such as the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), Muslim World League (MWL) and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY.) Intelligence suggests that these groups continue to send money overseas and, at times, fund extremism overseas.

For decades, the Saudis have spent millions of dollars promoting Wahabbism through organizations like WAMY, its parent the Muslim World League, and other “charities” that promote Da’wa or Islamic evangelism throughout the world via activities such as building mosques.

The mainstream media has either ignored these clear connections between Huma Abedin and Saudi NGOs or, worse, smeared the people making the charges, most notably the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

Further, the fact that the Bush administration’s compliance with the Saudi’s request to bury the information that is damaging to The Kingdom raises new questions of what influence the Saudis has on President Bush.

Breitbart News reported exclusively that just a month after 9/11, Newsweek claimed that the Muslim World League — the parent organization of WAMY with connections to Huma Abedin — was removed from a list of terror funders under pressure from Saudi Arabia.

The 28 Pages were available to members of Congress to read, although only under the right security conditions.

It is not known whether Sec. Clinton, then the Senator for New York, ever read the 28 Pages.

DEVELOPING…

***

Also see:

Yes, the Saudi government helped the 9/11 terrorists

Photo: Getty Images

Photo: Getty Images

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, July 15, 2016:

Now we know why the missing 28 pages on 9/11 were kept under lock and key for 15 years: They show the hijackers got help across America from Saudi diplomats and spies in the run-up to the attacks. Because of the coverup, a Saudi terror support network may still be in place inside the United States.

A CIA memorandum dated July 2, 2002, stated unequivocally that the connections found between the hijackers, the Saudi embassy in Washington and Saudi consulate in Los Angeles are “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government.”

“Numerous” FBI files also fingered two Saudi government employees who assisted the 9/11 hijackers as “Saudi intelligence officers,” the newly declassified documents reveal.

Though much is still redacted, they also show the Saudi government’s ties to the hijackers and other al Qaeda suspects were so extensive that the FBI’s Washington field office created a special squad to investigate the Saudi angle.

But this special focus on Saudi Arabia occurred belatedly, only after the 9/11 attacks, “due to Saudi Arabia’s status as an American ‘ally.’ ” Astoundingly, investigative resources were not dedicated to Saudi involvement in financing and supporting terrorism prior to 9/11.

The explosive information was locked up in a top-secret, highly secured room in the basement of the US Capitol for the past 15 years, ostensibly to protect the Kingdom from embarrassment. (The Post helped get the declassification ball rolling with the December 2013 piece, “Inside the Saudi 9/11 coverup.”)

That means for 15 years, 9/11 victims and their families have been denied by their own government critical evidence they’ve sought to sue the Saudi government for responsibility in the death of their loved ones.

It also means Washington has misled the American people about foreign sponsorship of 9/11. For 15 years, we’ve been told that al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors. We were led to believe that 15 Saudi nationals who barely spoke English received no help while in America; that they operated in isolation, like visitors from outer space.

It was all a monstrous lie.

FBI files show Saudi agent Omar al-Bayoumi provided “substantial assistance” to Saudi hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000. Hazmi was the leader of the cell that attacked the Pentagon, while Mihdhar was one of that cell’s muscle hijackers. The two even stayed at Bayoumi’s apartment, working out in his gym.

At the same time he was aiding the hijackers, Bayoumi was getting large salary increases from a Saudi defense front company tied to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, where he worked as a ghost employee. Another alleged Saudi intelligence officer who handled the hijackers, Osama Bassnan, worked closely with Bayoumi.

According to a CIA memo, cited by the now-uncensored 28-page section of the 9/11 report, “Bassnan reportedly received funding and possibly a fake passport from Saudi government officials.”

More alarming, “he and his wife have received financial support from the Saudi ambassador to the United States and his wife.” That would be Prince Bandar, who was promoted to Saudi intelligence minister after 9/11.

The same report says Bassnan, described as a “supporter of Osama bin Laden,” also got “a significant amount of cash” from another “member of the Saudi Royal Family.”

FBI documents and a CIA memo further indicate that the hijackers had contact with Shayk Fahad al-Thumairy, then a Saudi consular official in Los Angeles. Records show the accredited Saudi diplomat had dozens of phone conversations and at least one meeting with Bayoumi in advance of the hijackers’ arrival.

But wait, the Saudi-9/11 conspiracy gets even worse.

A Saudi interior ministry official stayed at the same hotel in Herndon, Va., with Hazmi and other Pentagon cell hijackers on the night before they hijacked the plane that departed that fateful Sept. 11, 2001, morning from nearby Dulles airport. FBI agents felt Saleh al-Hussayen lied about not meeting with or even knowing the hijackers, but when they tried to re-interview him, it was too late — he had been spirited out of the country along with dozens of other Saudi VIP suspects at Bandar’s request, and with the White House’s permission.

Speaking of Bandar, it turns out that an unlisted phone number connected to the good prince’s Aspen chalet was found in the phone book of senior al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaida when he was captured in Pakistan in 2002. Zubaida also just happened to have a contact number for Bandar’s bodyguard at the Saudi Embassy.

Mind you, these stomach-turning revelations are gleaned from merely summaries of FBI case files and CIA memos. There is much rawer intel that remains classified about the Saudi government’s role in 9/11.

The treachery may still be worse than we know. And it may be ongoing. As the 28 pages warn: “Saudi government officials in the United States may have other ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.”

Sperry is author of “INFILTRATION: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington,” which exposes the Saudi terror support network in America.

A Saudi Morals Enforcer Called for a More Liberal Islam. Then the Death Threats Began.

Saudi women stand on the opposite side of the hallway from men at the American Express World Luxury Expo in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in March. An argument that much of what Saudis practiced as religion was in fact Arabian cultural practices that had been mixed up with Islam has drawn a sharp backlash. (Sergey Ponomarev/The New York Times)

Saudi women stand on the opposite side of the hallway from men at the American Express World Luxury Expo in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in March. An argument that much of what Saudis practiced as religion was in fact Arabian cultural practices that had been mixed up with Islam has drawn a sharp backlash. (Sergey Ponomarev/The New York Times)

New York Times, by Ben Hubbard, July 10, 2016:

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia — For most of his adult life,  worked among the bearded enforcers of Saudi Arabia. He was a dedicated employee of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice — known abroad as the religious police — serving with the front-line troops protecting the Islamic kingdom from Westernization, secularism and anything but the most conservative Islamic practices.

Some of that resembled ordinary police work: busting drug dealers and bootleggers in a country where alcohol is banned. But the men of “The Commission,” as Saudis call it, spent most of their time maintaining the puritanical public norms that set Saudi Arabia apart not only from the West, but from most of the Muslim world.

A key offense was ikhtilat, or unauthorized mixing between men and women. The kingdom’s clerics warn that it could lead to fornication, adultery, broken homes, children born of unmarried couples and full-blown societal collapse.

For years, al-Ghamdi stuck with the program and was eventually put in charge of the commission for the region of Mecca, Islam’s holiest city. Then he had a reckoning and began to question the rules. So he turned to the Quran and the stories of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions, considered the exemplars of Islamic conduct. What he found was striking and life altering: There had been plenty of mixing among the first generation of Muslims, and no one had seemed to mind.

So he spoke out. In articles and television appearances, he argued that much of what Saudis practiced as religion was in fact Arabian cultural practices that had been mixed up with their faith.

There was no need to close shops for prayer, he said, nor to bar women from driving, as Saudi Arabia does. At the time of the Prophet, women rode around on camels, which he said was far more provocative than veiled women piloting SUVs.

He even said women had to cover only their faces if they chose to. And to demonstrate the depth of his own conviction, al-Ghamdi went on television with his wife, Jawahir, who smiled to the camera, her face bare and adorned with a dusting of makeup.

It was like a bomb inside the kingdom’s religious establishment, threatening the social order that granted prominence to the sheikhs and made them the arbiters of right and wrong in all aspects of life. He threatened their control.

Al-Ghamdi’s colleagues at work refused to speak to him. Angry calls poured into his cellphone and anonymous death threats hit him on Twitter. Prominent sheikhs took to the airwaves to denounce him as an ignorant upstart who should be punished, tried — and even tortured.

In an undated handout photo, Ahmed Qassim al-Ghamdi and his wife, Jawahir, appear on TV. (Handout via The New York Times)

In an undated handout photo, Ahmed Qassim al-Ghamdi and his wife, Jawahir, appear on TV. (Handout via The New York Times)

For the Western visitor, Saudi Arabia is a baffling mix of modern urbanism, desert culture and the never-ending effort to adhere to a rigid interpretation of scriptures that are more than 1,000 years old. It is a kingdom flooded with oil wealth, skyscrapers, SUVs and shopping malls, where questions about how to invest money and interact with non-Muslims are answered with quotes from the Quran or stories about the Prophet Muhammad.

The primacy of Islam in Saudi life has led to a huge religious sphere that extends beyond the state’s official clerics. Public life is filled with celebrity sheikhs whose moves, comments and conflicts Saudis track just as Americans follow Hollywood actors. In the kingdom’s hyperwired society, they compete for followers on Twitter, Facebook and Snapchat. The grand mufti, the state’s highest religious official, has a regular television show, too.

For Saudis, trying to navigate what is permitted, “halal,” and what is not, “haram,” can be challenging. So they turn to clerics for fatwas, or nonbinding religious rulings. While some may get a lot of attention — as when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran called for killing author Salman Rushdie — most concern the details of religious practice.

Al-Ghamdi, 51, said the world of sheikhs, fatwas and the meticulous application of religion to everything had defined his life.

But that world — his world — had frozen him out.

As a new member of the commission in Jiddah, al-Ghamdi had felt that he found a job that was consistent with his religious convictions. Over the course of a few years, he transferred to Mecca and cycled through different positions.

But he developed reservations about how the force worked. His colleagues’ religious zeal sometimes led them to overreact, breaking into people’s homes or humiliating detainees.

“Let’s say someone drank alcohol,” he said. “That does not represent an attack on the religion, but they exaggerated in how they treated people.”

In 2005, the head of the commission for the Mecca region died and al-Ghamdi was promoted. It was a big job, with some 90 stations throughout a large, diverse area containing Islam’s holiest sites. He did his best to keep up, while worrying that the commission’s focus was misguided.

Read more

After Mideast, will the Saudi-Wahhabi nexus destabilize East Asia?

on JUNE 15, 2016 in

Southeast Asia’s youths are getting radicalized as Saudi Arabia is pouring money for the spread Wahhabism, a fundamental Sunni school of Islam, in the region. If the U.S. is serious about counter-terrorism, it should break the Saudi-Wahhabi nexus by dismantling the religious-industrial complex of Saudi-funded mosques and madrassas that serve as jihad factories producing suicide bombers from Africa to Europe and now Asia.      

Professor Brahma Chellaney from India’s Center for Policy Research has sound advice for the next American president regarding US militarized approach to fighting terrorism.

In a December 2015 article entitled “Saudi Arabia’s Phony War on Terror”, Chellaney pointed to the Wahhabi ideology, “a messianic, jihad-extolling form of Sunni fundamentalism” as the root cause of global terrorism.

He warned that unless expansion of Wahhabism is arrested, the global war on terror is ineffective. ‘No matter how many bombs the US and its allies drop, the Saudi-financed madrassas will continue to indoctrinate tomorrow’s jihadists.[1]

After two years of bombing campaign, Pentagon officials reveal US is now running out of bombs to drop on Islamic State (IS).[2] And the Saudi-Wahhabi nexus continues to indoctrinate new jihadists — now in East Asia.

Southeast Asia next jihadi battleground

 In May, Malaysia shocked the world when Prime Minister Najib Razak’s government threw its support behind hudud, the 7th century shaira law that includes amputations and stonings, threatening the hitherto democratic and multi-ethnic country.[3] Razak received a $681 million gift from Saudi Arabia in April.[4]

Calling it the “Saudization of Southeast Asia”, retired Malaysian diplomat Dennis Ignatius back in March 2015 had warned the Saudi-Wahhabi nexus “is the greatest single threat to peace and stability in the world today.”[5]

Ignatius noted how over the years, Riyadh built up a significant cadre of Wahhabi-trained academics, preachers and teachers across the region. They act as “lobby groups agitating for greater Islamization, demanding the imposition of Shaira law, pushing for stricter controls of other faiths, and working behind the scenes to influence official policy and shape pubic opinion.”

As a result, this “culture of intolerance, hate and violence” that permeates so much of the Middle East is now manifesting in Southeast Asia, with young Muslims from Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Philippines gravitating to Syrian jihad.  In the face of Saudi-sponsored proliferation of extremism, Ignatius predicts Southeast Asia would be the next jihadi battleground.

Indeed Jakarta has already suffered IS and Al Qaeda attacks, and various Wahhabi sect jihadi groups now plague Southeast Asia.[6]

Will US continue to shelter the Saudi-Wahhabi nexus?

 Ironically, the Saudi-Wahhabi nexus is enabled and shielded by the US security umbrella with Washington purporting to be a leader of global counter-terrorism efforts.

However, from the Asian perspective, Wahhabism is the root cause of terrorism in the West and now in Asia. With Washington’s support for the Saudi-Wahhabi nexus being partly accountable for this scourge, it has severely downgraded the legitimacy of US as a leader in counter-terrorism.[7]

Read more

Saudis Kept Two Terror Groups Off US List

lv8acl62cacrtwgmaa60And Hillary Clinton adjutant Huma Abedin has ties to both of them.

Front Page Magazine, by Matthew Vadum, June 20, 2016

The Saudi Arabian government apparently had so much clout with previous U.S. administrations that they refused to designate as terrorist organizations two terror-funding Islamofascist groups linked to Huma Abedin, now the vice-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Abedin is joined at the hip to Hillary. She is to Mrs. Clinton what Valerie Jarrett is to President Obama.

That two deadly terrorist groups avoided proper scrutiny for years is a chilling reminder of how close Mrs. Clinton’s political network is to the brutal Muslim Brotherhood, possibly the Left’s favorite Islamist operation. It also underlines the extent to which Islamist enemies of the United States have infiltrated the American political establishment. And it takes on added importance now that polls show the pathologically dishonest Alinskyite radical who wrote the communitarian manifesto It Takes A Village has a significant lead over presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Sifting through archived media reports, Breitbart’s Lee Stranahan discovered it was known in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks that the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) and its parent entity the Muslim World League (MWL), both of which are directly funded by Saudi authorities, were financial backers of al-Qaeda.

“The Saudis have probably done more to penetrate Al Qaeda than any other foreign intelligence service, but Al Qaeda in turn has penetrated the Saudi regime,” Newsweek reported the month after 9/11.

Although the IIRO, whose website calls the group the International Islamic Relief Organization of Saudi Arabia (IIROSA), and MWL “have been used by bin Laden to finance his operations,” they were “left off the list of groups sanctioned by the United States last week, U.S. officials hinted … in order to avoid embarrassing the Saudi government.”

The League acknowledges on its website that it is “engaged in propagating the religion of Islam” and “elucidating its principles and tenets.” It also engages in strategic lying, known in the Islamic world as taqiyya. The League “is well known for rejecting all acts of violence and promoting dialogue with the people of other cultures,” its website claims, adding that it does “not intend to undermine, dominate or practice hegemony over anyone else.”

It claims on the site that it has “external centers,” “external offices,” and “Islamic centers” in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Congo, Denmark, Egypt, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Jordan, Malaysia, Mozambique, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, United Kingdom, and other countries.

IIRO describes itself as “a charity organization emanating from the Muslim World League.”

Its annual report from 2011/2012 indicates that “thousands of mosques have been built with an average of one mosque a day” and that it has “1,222 staff” worldwide. Under its “Holy Qur’an and Da’wa Program” it has “8,044 male and female students memorizing Qur’an and learning Islamic studies in 306 centres and Qur’an circles.” IIRO has “304 Qur’an teachers and supervisors” in “these centres in 29 countries around the world” and sponsors “338 Islamic preachers” in those 29 countries.

Clinton protégé and campaign vice-chairman Huma Abedin, her parents, and her siblings all have intimate ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim World League has reportedly taken in more than $1.3 billion since 1962 from the Saudi government to promote Wahhabism. The League, warns Andrew C. McCarthy, is the Brotherhood’s “principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.”

Read more

Kyle Shideler discusses Saudi role in 9/11 and Obama’s new liaison to the Muslim-American community

882707322

Center For Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, June 1, 2016:

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Welcome back. We’re joined by Kyle Shideler, my colleague at the Center for Security Policy where he directs our Threat Information office. Really a go-to resource on the challenges that we’re facing from the jihad, both of the violent kind and the civilisation kind, among others. Kyle is an expert in these matters. He previously served as a director of research and communications at the highly esteemed Endowment for Middle East Truth. And has been a contributing author to, among other things, its books, Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace. Kyle, welcome back. It’s good to have you with us.

KYLE SHIDELER:

It’s a pleasure to be here, Frank.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Let me ask you about Saudi Arabia. It’s been getting a lot of attention, much of it critical of late, as you know, in particular in connection with the possible declassification at long last of twenty-eight pages of a congressional report looking into its involvement as an official government operation in the 9-11 attacks. Kyle Shideler, you know a lot about the Saudis. Give us a sense of the likelihood that the Saudis were doing such a thing.

KYLE SHIDELER:

Well, the Saudis were almost certainly – they had some level of involvement. What exactly that is remains to be seen. And obviously, if we were able to access these twenty-eight pages, these classified pages, we would know a lot more. What we do know, of course, is that the Saudis, for a long time, played a role in the sort of support and finance function of organisations which then supported al-Qaeda. We’re talking about organisations like the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, which was the sort of Wahbabist organisation that the Saudis used to fund mosques and fund Islamist organisations which then, in turn, funnelled money to al-Qaeda. So the Saudis played a most key role in creating the infrastructure which then undergirds all of what al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups were able to accomplish.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

We’re visiting with Kyle Shideler of the Threat Information office he directs at the Center for Security Policy. And Kyle, you were just touching on an incredibly important point, it seems to me, and that is that what the Saudis have been doing for a long time, whether it’s through this so-called WAMY, the World Association of Muslim Youth, or organisations like the North American Islamic Trust, has been building mosques which in turn create, as you say, a kind of support network for jihadists of the violent stripe as well as the sort of pre-violent kind, as I call it, the civilisation kind. How do they do that? I mean, what is the funding mechanism and what are the orders of magnitude of what they’ve put into this enterprise?

KYLE SHIDELER:

Well, we’re talking about billions and billions of dollars. They do it through a variety of different ways. Obviously, they have a sort of international structure, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, and other groups like that, which are moving money around to various other Islamic entities which then are, in turn, controlling and building the mosques. You mentioned the North American Islamic Trust, which is a good example of that. The North American Islamic Trust is an organisation of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. We know that because of documents that were submitted at the Holy Land Foundation trial. But it’s real job is to hold the deed to US mosques. And so that then enables them, that is the Muslim Brotherhood and other Saudi-supported radicals, to use those mosques for their recruitment for their indoctrination of people who will come to be jihadists. By moving them through stages of indoctrination and recruitment. And so that’s what we saw in the lead up to 9-11. We saw individuals like, for example, Anwar al-Awlaki who worked out of dar al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church. And individuals like this still, to this day, play a very key role in recruiting and indoctrinating individuals to jihad terrorism.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

When you see what the Brotherhood has been doing, Kyle, it’s unmistakable that it’s about jihad, of course, but what does that tell us, what’s the relationship between the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood, obviously the supporting of their activities is going on, but I had thought at one point that the Saudis had actually declared the Brotherhood a terrorist organisation, had they not?

KYLE SHIDELER:

Well, they had. The on-again, off-again relationship between the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood is one of these things that, as Westerners, we’re perhaps often befuddled by. Prior to 9-11 and certainly prior to the takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudis had largely used the Brothers as part of a transmission chain for the moving of this money and this radical material, shariah-adherent material, around the world. But following the takeover in Egypt, the Saudis became very concerned that they themselves would become a target. This is the sort of relationship that the Saudis have always had with Islamists. It’s because despite their own support for these causes abroad, they are not interested in seeing those same forces turned back on them and risking their control of the Arabian peninsula.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

It’s kind of, I guess, a protection racket. They wind up supporting these guys with the condition that they wage their jihad someplace else, not in the kingdom. Let me ask you about one of the most prominent Muslim Brothers that we know about, Kyle, a fellow by the name of Jamal Barzinji. Give us a sense of his background and his involvement with the, well, with the Brotherhood for sure, but also perhaps with the Saudis.

KYLE SHIDELER:

Well, Barzinji passed away in September of last year, but during his time in America, he was the co-founder of the International Institute of Islamic Thought located in Fairfax, Virginia, and it’s a very prominent Muslim Brotherhood think tank. They really kind of provide some of the intellectual backbone for the civilisation jihad project that the Muslim Brotherhood carries out in the United States. In fact, one of their – they introduced the term civilizational battle to talk about this idea of a conflict between civilisations at the ideological rather than at the military level. Additionally, Barzinji was the founder or one of the founding members of the Muslim Students Association which was the first Muslim Brotherhood organisation in the United States. He was the general manager of the North American Islamic Trust. He was a member of the shura council of the Islamic Society of North America. And he was a director of the SAFA Group, which was a network of charities and companies in northern Virginia that was raided by federal authorities for funding Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. He was also a member of a number of other Brotherhood organisations as well.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Yeah, so this is quite a pedigree. What do you make, Kyle Shideler of the Threat Information office, then of the fact that the White House, which has been quite embracing of Muslim Brotherhood operatives and organisations here and abroad for some time now, has decided to pick, of all people, Jamal Barzinji’s grandson, Zaki, to be its head of public outreach to this Muslim community?

KYLE SHIDELER:

Well, you might say to yourself perhaps the son didn’t follow in the footsteps of the father. Which would, one, indicate to me that you don’t understand the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood because it is very much a family enterprise, but you would also need to know that Zaki Barzinji was himself the former president of the Muslim Youth of North America, which is another Brotherhood-oriented organisation that was named in the explanatory memorandum of the Brotherhood when it was found in that house of that Hamas operative in Virginia and entered into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial. So this is an individual who was a leader of a group, a named group, that the government is well aware is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and yet he is being selected to represent the US government to Muslim-Americans in this country. And that sends a terrible message. But it has been a message that the Obama White House has sent uninterrupted since he took office in 2009.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

It’s nonetheless staggering. Kyle Shideler, we thank you so much for the work that you do birddogging these various organisations and their influence operations, their subversion, their civilisation jihad here in the United States as well as elsewhere around the world. Keep it up my good friend and come back to us again very soon. Next up, we’ll be speaking with Gordon Chang, who will talk about the latest North Korean missile launch and president Obama’s appalling visit to Hiroshima. Right after this.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Also see:

Saudis Not Happy With US on Iran

ISAUDThe two leading supporters of international jihad are increasingly at odds.

BY CounterJihad · @CounterjihadUS | April 26, 2016

Abdulrahman Al-Rashed, a leading Saudi journalist and confidante of the royal family, wrote that US President Barack Obama’s recent visit had done nothing to mend the rift between America and the Saudis.  In the wake of the Iran deal, Saudi Arabia has noticed that the US continues to pander to the Islamic Republic of Iran.  However, Iran has done nothing but escalate its violations of the terms of the deal.  Meanwhile, he pointed out, the Obama administration’s regional policies have led to chaos.

Since the signing of the deal with Iran, the White House failed to give the other camp security guarantees that would alleviate the dangers that the deal ushered in.  Meanwhile, Iran has pursued its efforts to take over the region…. Obama’s hands-off approach has failed – it led to anarchy and to the rise of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

It is true that Obama’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq led to the collapse of that country into civil war, and the rise of the Islamic State.  It is also true that his failure to enforce his “red line” in Syria led to the massive refugee crisis, the resurgence of al Qaeda, and — combined with the Iran deal — a tightening of Iran’s grip on the Levant.  His deal with Iran has been historically negative in its fallout.

However, Saudi Arabia is no innocent.  With Iran, it leads the world in sharia-law brutality.  A diplomatic cable signed by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton points out that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”  The Saudi government officially opposes terrorist groups, though its approach to captured terrorists is often quite genteel given that it frequently beheads people for such offenses as “sorcery.”  The money that flows out of the state through Kuwait and other Sunni states provides the most significant contribution to terrorists such as al Qaeda.

Watching these two powers fall into an oil war with each other is not entirely displeasing.  The truth is that neither power is reliable.  They are enemies of each other, but that does not make either our friend.

Also see:

First, Let’s Get the Facts on Saudis and Iranian Involvement in 9/11

911 rubbleNational Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy — April 23, 2016

The 9/11 attacks were not civil torts. They were acts of war. It is important to keep that fact in the front of our minds as we press for long-overdue disclosure of evidence linking the Saudi Arabian government to the mass murder of nearly 3,000 Americans, to say nothing of the even more overdue investigation of Iran’s contributory role — an investigation that should have been in high gear immediately after the planes struck their targets.

Over the years in these pages, we have catalogued the damage done to national security by regarding international terrorism as a mere law-enforcement problem — the 1990s Clinton counterterrorism paradigm that President Obama has gradually reinstated. We haven’t much considered, though, another problem with thinking about violent jihadism as a litigation matter: It leads us to lose perspective about who was attacked, and why.

Much as our hearts ache for the victims whose lives were lost, and for the families whose lives were ripped apart, 9/11 was not principally an attack on the victims and their families. It was an attack on the United States of America. It was a stealth combat operation against the American people, all of us, by foreign enemies who had quite publicly declared war on our nation. Those killed and wounded are more accurately thought of as casualties than as victims.

This is why it is so unfortunate that the drive to get public accountability for the attacks has been intertwined with the effort to get financial compensation for the families by way of civil lawsuits against complicit nations.

Don’t get me wrong: All of us should demand that state sponsors of terrorism be made to pay dearly for their atrocities – although, for reasons I’ll get to in a bit, legislation permitting victims to sue is a counterproductive way to go about this. But for all the incalculable pain and suffering inflicted on our fallen fellow Americans and their families, the laudable desire to see them awarded hefty money damages is, at best, a secondary priority.

The national security of the United States demands that we endeavor to understand why and how the 9/11 attacks happened as well as what kind of relations we should have, all these years later, with nations that were culpable.

In just the last few days, as Tom Joscelyn reports, the Obama administration has transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Riyadh nine more hardcore anti-American Yemeni detainees – notwithstanding that al-Qaeda’s most capable franchise (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) has alarmingly expanded its safe haven in Yemen. Meanwhile, we learn in a jaw-dropping Wall Street Journal dispatch, the administration has announced that it will purchase from Iran tons of heavy water (used in developing plutonium bombs). In one fell swoop, Obama thus cures yet another Iranian violation of his vaunted nuclear deal (so soon after Iran tested ballistic missiles festooned with vows to destroy Israel); subsidizes Iran’s nuclear program; legitimizes Iran’s heavy-water production (i.e., its plutonium R&D) by encouraging other nations to engage in similar commerce; and apparently structures an infusion of multi-millions of American dollars into a country he promised Congress would continue to be precluded from access to our economy.

I know, I know: Obama is incorrigible. There is no American national-security interest that would be allowed to take precedence over his legacy hunt. He is determined to be remembered by the global Left – the only audience that matters – as the president who shut down Bush’s Gitmo gulag; and if Congress won’t cooperate by transferring anti-American jihadists to stateside prisons, then he will simply empty Gitmo by transferring the jihadists back to the jihad. And we have seen time and again that he is desperate to sustain his historic “achievement” in striking the Iran nuclear deal, no matter how often Tehran humiliates him.

Nevertheless, we will have a new president soon (albeit not soon enough). That president will have to decide the nature of our relations with the Saudis and Iranians. Assuming that, unlike Obama, the next president figures there should be a rational connection between how we engage a country and how much it threatens our interests, the facts about Saudi and Iranian complicity in the anti-American jihad must be known. More to the point, the American people are entitled to be able to weigh those facts in choosing the next commander-in-chief.

As I outlined last week, there is extensive evidence of complicity by high levels of the Saudi government in the 9/11 attacks. There is, moreover, compelling evidence of Iranian complicity.

Iran had an alliance with al-Qaeda beginning in the early 1990s. It principally included training by Hezbollah (the Beirut-based terrorist faction created and controlled by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) and such joint ventures as the 1996 Khobar Towers attack, in which 19 U.S. airmen were killed (and the FBI’s investigation of which was obstructed by the Saudi government). Toward the conclusion of its probe (and thus without time to investigate the matter fully), the 9/11 Commission learned that Iran had provided critical assistance to the suicide hijackers by allowing them to transit through Iran and Lebanon as they moved from obtaining travel documents in Saudi Arabia (Saudi passports and U.S. visas) to training for the attacks in al-Qaeda’s Afghan safe havens.

Indeed, we now know that Iran’s assistance was overseen by none less than Imad Mugniyah, the now-deceased Hezbollah master terrorist who spent much of his life killing Americans, most notoriously in the Beirut marine-barracks bombing in 1983, and almost certainly at Khobar Towers. In October 2000, Mugniyah went to Saudi Arabia to “coordinate activities” (as the 9/11 Commission put it) with the suicide hijackers. (See 9/11 Commission Report at page 240, as well as affidavits of former CIA officers and a 9/11 Commission staffer, here and here). Thereafter, Mugniyah and other senior Hezbollah members accompanied the “muscle hijackers” on flights through Iran and Lebanon.

By enabling the hijackers to cross through these countries without having their passports stamped – an Iranian or Lebanese stamp being a telltale sign of potential terrorist training – Iran made it much more likely that the jihadists’ applications for Saudi passports and U.S. visas would be approved, as they were. That is why, on the topic of potential Iranian complicity in the plot, the 9/11 Commission wrote, “We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.”

The plea has fallen on deaf ears. In fact, thanks to Obama’s Iranian nuclear deal, our government is no longer content to be willfully blind; it is knowingly and materially supporting Tehran’s terror promotion, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

Will we ever get accountability?

The prospects are not promising at the moment. As noted above, legislation has been proposed by Senators John Cornyn (R., Texas) and Chuck Schumer (D, N.Y.) to allow 9/11 families to sue the Saudis. Unfortunately, this Cornyn-Schumer bill has gotten itself tied to the effort to get disclosure of the 28 pages on Saudi complicity in 9/11 from Congress’s 2002 report.

The Saudi government has threatened to destabilize the U.S. economy by dumping up to $780 billion in dollar-denominated assets if the kingdom is made liable to suit. They are probably bluffing. It is doubtful that they actually hold assets in that amount, and even if they sold off whatever they have, they are likely exaggerating the amount of havoc it would wreak. Still, the threat has given Obama the fig leaf he needs not only to threaten a veto of the legislation but to continue suppressing the long-sought 28 pages.

The two issues must be de-linked. The development of a truly definitive public accounting of the nations and terrorist organizations that colluded in acts of war against the United States should have nothing to do with whether the 9/11 families are given a legal basis to sue foreign sovereigns. Even if the two things were necessarily connected – and they’re not – it would be the legislation, not publication of the 28 pages, that should be dropped.

Civil lawsuits by victims are no more a serious response to wartime aggression than are grand-jury indictments. A great nation does not react to acts of war by issuing court process. Furthermore, permitting such lawsuits (a) encourages other nations to subject the United States to lawsuits for legitimate actions taken in our national defense; and (b) consigns the conduct of the most delicate foreign-policy matters to the vagaries of litigation presided over by the judiciary – the branch of government that lacks constitutional responsibility, political accountability, and institutional competence for managing international affairs and national security.

Of course our government should pressure rogue regimes to compensate victims of terrorism. The political branches of government that are actually responsible for foreign affairs should demand that any nation complicit in the 9/11 attacks provide a fund for the families. It is feckless, however, to punt that job to the courts. Unlike the president and Congress, judges are powerless to enforce their writs against, or otherwise credibly threaten, hostile foreign sovereigns.

That, however, is the least of our problems. First, we need to find out exactly what happened in the lead-up to and aftermath of 9/11. (Post-9/11, Iran harbored al-Qaeda as the terror network fled invading U.S. forces.) Then, we need to define our engagement with Saudi Arabia and Iran in accordance with what they have done and who they actually are – not who Obama and the bipartisan foreign-policy establishment fantasize they could become.

So let’s get the facts . . . finally.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor at National Review.

RELEASE THOSE 28 PAGES NOW

With Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, April 2002 (Wikimedia Commons)

With Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, April 2002 (Wikimedia Commons)

The American Spectator, By 4.21.16

President Obama made his fourth trip to Saudi Arabia Wednesday, ostensibly to “clear the air” in an attempt to repair the damaged relationship with the Kingdom brought about by what many will regard as his administration’s mistakes — cozying up to the Islamic Republic of Iran, for example, and embracing the Arab Spring which toppled the Saudi ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

But perhaps the biggest mistake Obama has made with regard to the Saudis is the one they’ll likely thank him for; namely, opposing — and threatening to veto — a bill authored by Sens. John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer which would declassify 28 pages of a 2002 bicameral congressional report on the 9/11 terrorist attacks and open the door for civil litigation against foreign governments involved in material support for that terrorist conspiracy.

The latter aspect of the bill can be debatable. There is a school of thought that says that if Congress passes and Obama signs legislation stripping sovereign immunity from foreign governments even for atrocities they’ve committed like 9/11, it’s akin to opening a Pandora’s box of potential unintended consequences. Doing so could open the American government up to suits for things like drone strikes that created collateral damage, or even to suit by Americans for failure to prevent a 9/11. A certain degree of circumspection and reticence to embrace a potentially dangerous new legal regime where sovereign immunity is concerned is reasonable, which is why John Bolton has expressed reservations about the bill.

But as to the former aspect? Release those pages immediately. It’s been 14 years without the transparency the American people deserve surrounding the deadliest enemy attack on our soil in the history of the Republic, and we deserve better.

Of all the things the American people can rightly condemn the administration of George W. Bush for, the redaction of the 28 pages might be the most egregious. The Bush administration, and Bush himself, had lots of personal friendships with the Saudi government and key players in it, and those friendships certainly colored American policy during those years. The 9/11 commission and the congressional investigation into the attacks of that day both found a great deal of evidence that it wasn’t some crazy coincidence that 15 of the 19 hijackers of those planes happened to be Saudis. Material support for them, the network of assistance they made use of to move about the country, attend flight schools, find housing and acclimate into American society while preparing to attack us came from other Saudis living in this country, some of whom were unquestionably connected to that nation’s regime.

We know from unredacted material in those 9/11 reports, for example, that there was a great deal of support given to two of the hijackers, a pair of Saudis named Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar, while they lived in San Diego before the attacks. The “San Diego cell” was provided with cash, assistance with lodging and other help (like finding an apartment, putting down a deposit, opening a bank account and introducing them to a support network at a local mosque in San Diego) after arriving in the country by a shadowy figure named Omar al-Bayoumi, reportedly a Saudi intelligence agent, and Fahad al-Thumairi, a jihadist cleric at the King Fahd mosque in Los Angeles and Saudi consular official.

Bayoumi left the country abruptly, shortly before 9/11. So did another Saudi, Abdulazziz al-Hijji, an oil executive with Saudi Aramco who abandoned a posh Sarasota, Florida home owned by his father-in-law — an advisor to Prince Fahd bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud, nephew of then-King Fahd. Al-Hijji also abandoned three cars, a full house of expensive furniture, closets full of clothes, and even a refrigerator full of food when he and his family vanished. Subsequent investigations connected al-Hijji to 9/11 hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, whose cars were spotted by archived security footage within the gated community al-Hijji inhabited after the deed was done. Al-Hijji, who denied any connection to the hijacking and denounced it as a “crime against all humankind,” later turned up in London as an executive with Aramco, the Saudi national oil company.

Yes, but the Saudi government relies on a key passage from the 9/11 Commission Report which says, “We have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.” Emphasis mine.

Nobody thinks the Saudi government was stupid enough to make material support for the 9/11 hijackers explicit government policy. It wouldn’t have worked that way. Thus there is no exoneration in that passage at all. In fact, 9/11 Commission member and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman told 60 Minutes earlier this year that those 28 pages contain information that would greatly color American perception of a Saudi role in the attacks. Though the exchange with Steve Kroft was rather suspiciously left to an online segment of the news report not broadcast on CBS air, when Lehman was asked if the 28 pages include specific names, his answer was “Yes. The average intelligent watcher of 60 Minutes would recognize them instantly.”

We could get into a semantic discussion of who a senior Saudi official might be. Ambassadors aren’t policy-makers per se, for example, so would one qualify as a “senior official”? How about the wife or brother of one? And shouldn’t the American people get to judge?

Rep. Thomas Massie, the libertarian-leaning Republican congressman from Kentucky, has seen the 28 pages. Massie’s reaction was enough in itself to argue the American people deserve to see them. “I had to stop every couple pages,” Massie said, “and… try to rearrange my understanding of history. It challenges you to rethink everything.”

But naturally, getting things rethought in Washington, D.C. is nearly impossible. And in this case we can probably drop the “nearly.” While the bill has bipartisan support and is quite popular, Obama says he’ll veto it. Lindsey Graham has put a hold on it. Mitch McConnell won’t say he supports it even though Harry Reid says he does. Paul Ryan isn’t quite running away from it, but he sure isn’t running toward it, either.

And meanwhile the Saudis, who are quite skilled in lots of things but conveying the impression of innocence surely isn’t one of them, have responded to the bill by (1) buying up every D.C. lobbying firm imaginable, including the ones containing former Mississippi governor and RNC chairman Haley Barbour, high-priced Washington lawyer Bob Bennett,Democrat super-lobbyist Tony Podesta, brother of the Clintons’ chief political hatchet man, and lots of others, and (2) threatening to unload some $750 billion in assets held in the U.S., including Treasury debt and real estate, on the theory that they’d have to liquidate that property before having it seized to pay judgments from American kangaroo courts seeking vengeance for 9/11.

As an aside, it’s somewhat amusing that Tony Podesta would be pocketing big money in an attempt to keep the Saudis’ secrets surrounding 9/11 secret when his brother is so often quoted as selling the openness with which Hillary Clinton will grace the American people on other government information surrounding encounters with aliens from outer space. He’s saying the American people can handle the truth about UFOs; his brother says, thanks to a check from Riyadh, that we can’t handle the truth about the Saudis.

It’s not illegal for the Saudis to hire lobbyists, but the rich and nefarious buying up of influence with both parties inside the Beltway to push things contrary to good policy and the desire of the majority is precisely why the American people have had it with the political class. Fourteen years of those redacted 28 pages, which represent a cover-up of why and how 9/11 really happened by both Republican Bush and Democrat Obama, serve as a perfect avatar for bipartisan decline and disgrace.

As Cornyn, the author of the bill, rightly says, it’s time to let the chips fall where they may. Release those pages and let’s build a diplomatic relationship with the Saudis based on truth for a change.

Also see:

EXCLUSIVE- A Buried Envelope & Buried Questions: Your First Look Inside Declassified Document 17

Tour of Al Janadriyah Ranch

Tour of Al Janadriyah Ranch

Clare Lopez posted this article on her facebook page with this comment:

Fascinating account of evidence, some known, some not-so-much, about Saudi involvement in 9/11 attacks (in addition to collaborating w/Iran to put a mark in hijackers’ ppts so Iranian border guards wouldn’t stamp them as they traveled in & out – see www.iran911case.com, Exhibit #4; in addition to Riyadh allowing Iran-directed Hizballah terror operative Imad Mughniyeh to recruit hijackers in Saudi Arabia in Oct 2000 – see 9/11 Commission Report, pg. 240; in addition to the ‘Golden Chain’ including wealthy Saudis who were allowed to funds AQ & UBL pre-9/11…etc.

***

9/11 Commission Work Plan Reveals FBI Found al Qaeda Member’s U.S. Pilot Certificate Inside Envelope of Saudi Embassy in D.C.

Investigators Sought to Examine Possible Political Influence on Examination of Saudi Government, Royal Family Links

28pages.org, By Brian P. McGlinchey, April 19, 2016:

As President Obama prepares to visit Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, his administration is under increasing pressure to declassify 28 pages that, according to many who’ve read them, illustrate financial links between the Saudi government and the 9/11 hijackers.

Meanwhile, a far lesser-known document from the files of the 9/11 Commission—written by the same principal authors as the 28 pages and declassified last summer without publicity and without media analysis—indicates investigators proposed exploring to what extent “political, economic and other considerations” affected U.S. government investigations of links between Saudi Arabia and 9/11.

Drafted by Dana Lesemann and Michael Jacobson as a set of work plans for their specific parts of the 9/11 Commission investigation, the 47-page document also provides an overview of individuals of most interest to investigators pursuing a Saudi connection to the 2001 attack that killed nearly 3,000 people.

Included in that overview is a previously unpublicized declaration that, after the capture of alleged al-Qaeda operative Ghassan al-Sharbi in Pakistan, the FBI discovered a cache of documents he had buried nearby. Among them: al-Sharbi’s U.S. pilot certificate inside an envelope of the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C.

Declassified in July 2015 under the authority of the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) pursuant to a Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) appeal, the document is the seventeenth of 29 released under ISCAP appeal 2012-48, which focuses on FBI files related to 9/11. One of two documents in the series identified as “Saudi Notes,” we’ll refer to it as “Document 17.”

Dated June 6, 2003, Document 17 was written by Lesemann and Jacobson in their capacity as staff investigators for the 9/11 Commission, and was addressed to 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow, Deputy Executive Director Chris Kojm and General Counsel Dan Marcus.

Commission Investigators Posed Two Questions That Linger Today

Lesemann and Jacobson had previously worked together on the 2002 joint congressional 9/11 intelligence inquiry and authored the classified, 28-page chapter on foreign government financing of the attacks. Document 17 outlines how the two investigators proposed to extend their earlier research. The plans include many questions Lesemann and Jacobson felt the investigation should answer.

Two of those questions seem strikingly relevant today, as a declassification review of just 28 pages said to implicate Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 attacks has inexplicably taken three times as long as the entire joint inquiry that produced them, and while a growing number of current and former officials who are familiar with the pages emphatically assert there’s no national security risk in their release.

Lesemann and Jacobson, already veterans of investigating 9/11 with the congressional inquiry, asked:

Document 17 Two Questions

They are two questions Lesemann wouldn’t be permitted to answer: Zelikow fired her first. Her termination had an apparent Saudi aspect of its own: Impatient with Zelikow’s neglect of her repeated requests for access to the 28 pages, she circumvented him to gain access on her own. When Zelikow discovered it, he promptly dismissed her.

Organizationally set apart from dozens of other questions as among the more important, overarching lines of inquiry for their particular avenue of the commission’s work, the significance of the questions’ presence in Document 17 is amplified by the absence of corresponding answers in the commission’s final report.

At some point—perhaps after Lesemann’s determined interest in Saudi links to 9/11 led to her dismissal—someone apparently determined a public study of those questions was beyond the scope of work.

Zelikow’s appointment over the commission was controversial, given his previous friendship with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and the fact he’d served on the Bush administration’s transition team. That history and, once appointed, his ongoing contacts with Bush political advisor Karl Rove, led some to question whether he was willing or able to achieve the high level of impartiality so essential to his role.

The Bush administration’s lack of cooperation with Saudi-related 9/11 inquiries is well-documented. According to Philip Shenon’s book, The Commission:

(Commission member and former Secretary of the Navy John) Lehman was struck by the determination of the Bush White House to try to hide any evidence of the relationship between the Saudis and al Qaeda. “They were refusing to declassify anything having to do with Saudi Arabia,” Lehman said. “Anything having to do with the Saudis, for some reason, it had this very special sensitivity.” He raised the Saudi issue repeatedly with Andy Card. “I used to go over to see Andy, and I met with Rumsfeld three or four times, mainly to say, ‘What are you guys doing? This stonewalling is so counterproductive.”

The Bush family has a multi-generational relationship with the Saudi royal family, with ties that are both deeply personal and deeply financial. Prince Bandar bin Sultan was the Saudi ambassador to the United States on 9/11, and is considered a personal friend of George W. Bush.

With many investigatory leads pointing toward the Saudi embassy in Washington, some feel Bandar merits thorough investigation—or that he may even be directly implicated in the 28 pages that Bush controversially redacted.

Saturday, appearing on Michael Smerconish’s CNN program to discuss a Saudi threat to divest itself of some $750 billion in U.S. Treasury securities if Congress passes a law clearing a path for 9/11 victims’ lawsuit against the kingdom, former Senator Bob Graham said, “I believe that there is material in the 28 pages and the volume of other documents that would indicate that there was a connection at the highest levels between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the 19 hijackers.”

Asked by 60 Minutes if the 28 pages name names, commission member Lehman replied, “Yes. The average intelligent watcher of 60 Minutes would recognize them instantly.”

(If you watched the impactful prime time 60 Minutes segment on the 28 pages that aired last week and don’t remember Lehman’s intriguing statement, it’s because 60 Minutes oddly relegated perhaps their most newsworthy quote of all to this web extra.) There are many more examples of the U.S. government’s thwarting of Saudi-related inquiries, both outside and inside the work of the 9/11 Commission.

A Buried Flight Certificate

The FBI’s 2002 discovery of a U.S. pilot certificate or “flight certificate” inside a Saudi embassy envelope was news to Graham, who co-chaired the joint congressional inquiry that produced the 28 pages. 

al-sharbi-excerpt-document-17“That’s very interesting. That’s a very intriguing and close connection to the Saudi embassy,” said Graham, who has been championing the declassification of the 28 pages and a perhaps hundreds of thousands of pages of other documents since 2003.  

Since people often re-use envelopes and citizens of any country may have legitimatereasons for correspondence with the embassies of their government in foreign countries they live in, the Saudi embassy envelope isn’t by itself conclusive of anything. 28Pages.org couldn’t find any other history of the FBI’s find or of the government’s evaluation of its significance.

Al-Sharbi is one of 80 remaining detainees at Guantanamo Bay. His public record includes his graduation from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, reported association with other al-Qaeda members and alleged attendance at training camps in Afghanistan.

He is also among the individuals identified in FBI agent Kenneth Williams’ July 2001 electronic communication, sometimes called the “Phoenix EC” or “Phoenix Memo.” With it, Williams attempted—unsuccessfully—to alert the rest of the bureau about suspicions that Middle Eastern extremists were attending flight schools with ill intent, and to recommend a nationwide investigation of the phenomenon.

While those aspects of al-Sharbi’s story have been widely discussed, the FBI’s reported discovery of his flight certificate inside a Saudi embassy envelope buried in Pakistan has not.

Read more

Help Release the 28 Pages: Use Our Guide to Call Congress Today

Knowledge is power: Share this post on social media

Follow 28Pages.org on Facebook and Twitter

Also see:

Saudis deliver snub to Obama amid tensions over Iran, Syria

 President Barack Obama and Saudi Arabia's King Salman walk together to a meeting at Erga Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, April 20, 2016. The President begins a six day trip to strategize with his counterparts in Saudi Arabia, England and Germany on a broad range of issues with efforts to rein in the Islamic State group being the common denominator in all three stops. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)


President Barack Obama and Saudi Arabia’s King Salman walk together to a meeting at Erga Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, April 20, 2016. The President begins a six day trip to strategize with his counterparts in Saudi Arabia, England and Germany on a broad range of issues with efforts to rein in the Islamic State group being the common denominator in all three stops. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Washington Times, by Dave Boyer, April 20, 2016:

Saudi Arabian officials delivered a snub to President Obama Wednesday as he arrived in Riyadh to reassure the anxious ally about his nuclear deal with Iran and to seek more cooperation in the fight against Islamist extremists in Syria and Iraq.

Stepping off of Air Force One at the airport in the Saudi capital, Mr. Obama was greeted not by King Salman but by a lower-ranking royal, Prince Faisal bin Bandar Al Saud, the governor of Riyadh. Ahead of the president’s arrival, Saudi state television showed the king personally greeting senior officials from other Gulf nations arriving at an air base.

Unlike some previous visits, Mr. Obama’s arrival was not shown live on Saudi state television, either.

Mustafa Alani, a security analyst at the Gulf Research Center, said the Saudi decision not to send a high-level delegation to greet Mr. Obama was unusual and intended to send a clear message that they have little faith in him.

“He will find a leadership that’s not ready to believe him,” Mr. Alani said. “The Saudis had disagreements with previous presidents. Here you have deep distrust that the president won’t deliver anything.”

Most of the Gulf Arab monarchies have in private been sorely disappointed by Mr. Obama’s presidency, regarding it as a period in which the U.S. has pulled back from the region, giving more space to their arch rival Iran to expand its influence.

Middle East analysts said Mr. Obama, who angered the Saudis in a recent interview by saying they should “share” the region with Iran, is unlikely to get much cooperation from Gulf leaders who are waiting for the lame-duck president to leave office.

“There is a recognition that it is the end of Obama’s presidency and that there is not going to be a big reversal in his worldview or certainly his views toward the Gulf states,” said Muath al Wari, a national security specialist at the progressive Center for American Progress.

James Jay Carafano, a national security analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the looming change in administrations will make it more difficult for Mr. Obama to secure commitments from Gulf leaders for more contributions to the fight against the Islamic State and al Qaeda.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty in the region about ‘what next’? What next from President Trump? What next from President Cruz? What next from President Clinton?” Mr. Carafano said. “It’s very difficult for these people to sit down and divine what comes next.”

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain are participating in the regional summit on Thursday. In addition to the Islamic State, the talks are also expected to address the Saudi-led military campaign against Shiite rebels and their allies in neighboring Yemen.

Concerns about Islamic State extremists were also on the agenda for Mr. Obama’s meeting late Wednesday in Riyadh with Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and a key Emirati leader, the White House said.

In his meeting with the king, Mr. Obama “underscored the importance of accelerating the campaign against” the Islamic State and of stabilizing areas in Iraq liberated from the militants, the White House said. They also discussed “the challenges posed by Iran’s provocative activities in the region” and agreed on the need for an “inclusive” approach to de-escalate regional sectarian conflicts.

Mr. Obama further raised concerns about human rights and “noted their importance to the United States,” the White House said.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and CIA Director John Brennan were among the U.S. officials accompanying Mr. Obama. Mr. Carter, meeting with defense ministers from the Gulf nations Wednesday, pressed them to provide more economic and political support to Iraq in a preview of themes Mr. Obama was expected to emphasize.

The president’s visit also came amid renewed tensions over Saudi Arabia’s possible role in the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Obama, under pressure from 9/11 families to support a bill that would allow them to sue the Saudi government, greeted the king warmly upon his arrival at the ornate Erga Palace, adorned with portraits of Saudi leaders and crystal chandeliers.

“The American people send their greetings, and we are very grateful for your hospitality,” Mr. Obama told the king.

King Salman told Mr. Obama, “Thank you Mr. President, and feeling is mutual between us and the American people.”

The Saudis are threatening to sell off $750 billion in U.S. assets if the bill allowing victims of terrorism to sue foreign governments becomes law.

The White House has threatened to veto the legislation, authored by Sens. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, and John Cornyn, Texas Republican. Mr. Obama said it would open the door for foreigners to sue U.S. diplomats and military personnel, as well as exposing U.S. taxpayers to similar lawsuits.

Rep. Vern Buchanan, Florida Republican, said he was disappointed by the president’s veto threat. He said the truth about possible Saudi support for the 9/11 terrorists needs to come out.

“It’s disgraceful that victims’ families cannot get into court to prove what senior intelligence officials believe to be true,” Mr. Buchanan said. “Our government should never put Saudi Arabia’s interests ahead of the American people.”

***

Also see: