Like everyone else in the United States, the group stood transfixed as the events of September 11 unfolded. Present were former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci, former secretary of state James Baker III, and representatives of the bin Laden family. This was not some underground presidential bunker or Central Intelligence Agency interrogation room. It was the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C., the plush setting for the annual investor conference of one of the most powerful, well-connected, and secretive companies in the world: the Carlyle Group. And since September 11, this little-known company has become unexpectedly important.
I'm not comfortable with the Bush Administration and its stand on 9/11:
The administration’s stand has infuriated the two members of Congress who oversaw the report—Democratic Sen. Bob Graham and Republican Rep. Porter Goss. The two are now preparing a letter of complaint to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Graham is “increasingly frustrated” by the administration’s “unwillingness to release what he regards as important information the public should have about 9-11,” a spokesman said. In Graham’s view, the Bush administration isn’t protecting legitimate issues of national security but information that could be a political “embarrassment,” the aide said. Graham, who last year served as Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, recently told NEWSWEEK: “There has been a cover-up of this."
Graham’s stand may not be terribly surprising, given that the Florida Democrat is running for president and is seeking to use the issue himself politically. But he has found a strong ally in House Intelligence Committee Chairman Goss, a staunch Republican (and former CIA officer) who in the past has consistently defended the administration’s handling of 9-11 issues and is considered especially close to Cheney.
“I find this process horrendously frustrating,” Goss said in an interview. He was particularly piqued that the administration was refusing to declassify material that top intelligence officials had already testified about. “Senior intelligence officials said things in public hearings that they [administration officials] don’t want us to put in the report,” said Goss. “That’s not something I can rationally accept without further public explanation.”
I've already stated my disgust with James Baker for representing the Saudis in a trillion dollar lawsuit brought by victims of 9/11. You may remember that as Secretary of State Mr Baker protected companies that helped Iraq build both conventional and non-conventional weapons:
The IAEA and the U.N. Special Commission have both informed the Committee that they have compiled a list of companies, including numerous U.S. firms, that may have supplied Iraq with the technology and know-how necessary to develop conventional and nonconventional weapons. Both have stated that they are not authorized to provide the Committee with the names of these companies.
While the IAEA and the U.N. Commission did state that the `lists' are available to U.N. member countries, they informed the Committee that the United States Mission to the U.N. has not formally requested copies of the lists.
Why has the State Department failed to formally request a copy of the IAEA and U.N. Special Commission lists of U.S. companies that may have provided Iraq with the technology and know-how to develop weapons of mass destruction?
Then we have James Baker "Attack Iraq":
Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century describes how America is facing the biggest energy crisis in its history. It targets Saddam as a threat to American interests because of his control of Iraqi oilfields and recommends the use of 'military intervention' as a means to fix the US energy crisis.
The report is linked to a veritable who's who of US hawks, oilmen and corporate bigwigs. It was commissioned by James Baker, the former US Secretary of State under George Bush Snr, and submitted to Vice-President Dick Cheney in April 2001 -- a full five months before September 11. Yet it advocates a policy of using military force against an enemy such as Iraq to secure US access to, and control of, Middle Eastern oil fields.
Why would Mr Bush and Mr Cheney do all in their power to block a 9/11 investigation?
But that is older news than this:
Officials of the blue ribbon commission set up to investigate the Sept. 11 terror attacks will be questioned at its meeting Thursday about a decision to let the U.S. government screen materials before releasing them to commission members.
One commissioner, and representatives of the families of the 3,000 killed in the attacks, are concerned that Justice Department officials were allowed to review transcripts of congressional testimony, before deciding whether commissioners should see them.
"There's no entity that should be going through the basic material that the commission is to review and filtering it to decide if or when we should be able to see it," commission member and former Democratic Indiana Congressman Tim Roemer told United Press International. "By statute we are entitled to that information."
Now did you know that Thomas Keans, former governor of New Jersey and member of the Council of Foreign Relations; the fellow tapped to head up the impartial blue ribbon 9/11 investigative commission, has busyness ties to Osama Bin Ladins brother-in-law? A tie he shares with Mr Bush.
Two of Kean's Hess-Delta business partners--Mohammed Hussein al Amoudi and Khalid bin Mahfouz--have been under investigation as far back as 1999 for suspected ties to Al Qaeda (Boston Herald, 12/11/2001). Both men have numerous overlapping oil interests in Saudi Arabia, one of which is Delta. Both men are accused by name in a $1 trillion lawsuit, filed on behalf of families of the victims of September 11, as alleged financiers of Al Qaeda.
Khalid bin Mahfouz, head of Saudi Arabia's powerful National Commercial Bank, has led a storied and very public career in fraud. He was implicated in the BCCI banking scandal during the early 1990s, when the Bank of Commerce and Credit International robbed depositors of $10 billion. He eventually paid a $225 million settlement to escape prosecution. In the mid-1990s, he was caught in a citizenship-for-sale scandal, in which he courted investors for business ventures in Ireland, in exchange for Irish passports and huge tax exemptions.
Shortly thereafter, it appears that bin Mahfouz made the jump from white-collar criminal into terrorist sugar daddy. In 1999, he was reportedly placed under house arrest by the Saudi government on suspicion of supporting terrorism. An audit of his National Commerce Bank discovered that $2 billion dollars had gone missing, and US and Saudi officials feared it was funneled to Al Qaeda via numerous charity fronts. One of the "charities" to which bin Mahfouz may have "contributed" heavily, the Advice and Reformation Committee, was founded by Osama bin Laden himself and financed the 1998 African embassy bombings. US officials also suspect bin Mahfouz to be financially linked to the USS Cole attack, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and numerous failed terrorist actions. Bin Mahfouz's son was on the board of the Sudanese chapter of Blessed Relief, a charity whose assets were frozen by the Treasury Department in October 2001 for suspected terrorist links. (Ottawa Citizen, 9/29/2001)
As a final note, bin Mahfouz also happens to be Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law. According to Senate testimony given by former CIA director James Woolsey, bin Mahfouz's younger sister is one of bin Laden's many brides. (New York Times, 11/12/2001)
One may wonder how Tom Kean has, thus far, been able to avoid such scrutiny. He hasn't entirely; Michel Chussodovsky, an economics professor at the University of Ottawa, recently wrote an extensive exposé of Kean's connections at globalresearch.ca, and a number of other alternative news sources have already published articles on the subject. But the mainstream media refuses to pick up the story, possibly because questions about Kean's connections to bin Mahfouz ultimately lead to questions about President Bush's connections to him as well.
In 1979, when Bush started up Arbusto Energy in Houston, one of his investors was James Bath, the US business representative of Salem bin Laden--brother of Osama. Though it has yet to be proven, many suspect Bath's $50,000 investment came directly from Salem. Following bin Laden's death in 1988, his Houston-based interests were absorbed by Khalid bin Mahfouz. As a result, Bush soon found himself in hot water during the BCCI scandal, when investigations into the bank's finances revealed that many of the indicted BCCI executives invested heavily in Harken Energy (a reincarnation of Arbusto). Bush denied any knowledge of the BCCI investment, though this answer appears to be disingenuous at best. Bin Mahfouz, a BCCI principal, was implicated in the collective fraud, though not directly connected to Bush's company.
Saudi Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz is a defendent in the 9/11 suit brought by the victims of the Saudi Terrorists. Mr Baker is working against our fellow citizens. You tell me, is that Patriotic? In a court of law everyone deserves good representation, but Baker is a former US government official. Presently a business partner with President Bush 1 (the one chosen by voters). It just seems wrong.
What do you think?
Interested in 9/11? Look here there is much food for thought.