(April 12, 2009)

LaRouche on BAE & 9/11

Freeman: We got a text message from one of our contacts on Capitol Hill, who said that she was saddened, when you compared that cute little monkey to George Bush. She likes animals.

Okay, as one might expect, we have a lot of questions about BAE, and I will pick out some of them, and kind of group others together. We also have a lot of questions from people here, and I will get to them, but I just want to get to some of the institutional questions first.

This is a question from a Democratic member of the U.S. Senate. He says, "Mr. LaRouche. The British press coverage of the current BAE story obviously is a reflection of some kind of faction fight within British leading circles. My question to you is, what are the sides in this fight, and given that it is a faction fight, why is it not reflected in the press here? Why has it not emerged as a story in the U.S.?"

LaRouche: I think that the relevant scoundrels in the British Isles will probably do something horrible to Dick Cheney, not because they don't like what he was trying to do, but because he failed to do it. The very question is a very significant question. Here you have exposure of the fact that the long-standing ambassador from Saudi Arabia to the United States, was a key figure in taking graft to the tune of about $2 billion, among other things, principally while an ambassador. And that he was also a British agent, functioning under the mask of being something else. So, the question is why and how was the secret kept? There was no real secret about this! You see, this has been known.

Let me be very blunt without saying too much. This is the question, as I indicated today, which has been on my mind, and the mind of a great many other people, since before 9/11. As I said earlier today, this was the question in my mind when I made a public statement, a broadcast statement from here in the United States, prior to the actual inauguration of George W. Bush in 2001, that the economic situation, the pattern of the economic situation is such, that we must expect within the reasonably near future, that someone will try to do to the United States, what Hermann Göring did to make Hitler a dictator in Germany. And I saw that happen on Sept. 11, 2001. I saw it. That is not only my thought. That has been the thought of many people.

How was it done to us? It was known, for example, that most of the dead bodies that showed up, as of evidentiary significance, in the wake of 9/11, were of Saudi or related provenance. Somebody set that operation up! Now, al-Qaeda? Does that help us? No, it doesn't. Al-Qaeda was an asset. Again, he [Osama bin Laden]'s a Saudi. He was an asset of George H.W. Bush and the British, in the operations in organizing the Afghanistan War of the 1980s. Osama bin Laden is a key figure, who was recruited by these guys, out of the Saudis, to lead that operation. Al-Qaeda is a product of that operation! It's an operation which was British-American sponsored, and Saudi-sponsored. The dead bodies which were draped upon the doorsteps, as evidence in the wake of the bombing of 9/11, were largely of this provenance. And the question has been in the mind of everyone, since that time, knowing how this thing works: Wow! What's the evidence? Well, you've got ten prisoners dead. It's hard to get 'em to talk after they're dead!

So that's what the issue is here. The issue is that, therefore, do you think that there has not been a big effort to put a lid on a story as big as this has been, inside the U.S. press? Do you think that this story was not available, and its significance was not apparent—at least to some degree—to every leading press in the United States—-television, print? Why didn't they report it? It happened! And did this not involve money? Does not everyone know, that to run an operation like 9/11 was run, it takes many billions of dollars? It takes complicity of a government, or one or two governments? That this is a coup, an attempt coup d'état, in the same way that Hermann Göring set fire to the Reichstag in order to make Hitler a dictator? Wasn't there an effort on the evening of Sept. 11th, in the evening discussions, to ram through legislation, or ram through orders, which would establish a dictatorship in the United States, that didn't quite succeed—almost succeeded but not quite? And, have we not been run and dominated by this ever since then, by the apparatus which was put into effect on the pretext of 9/11? Don't you think that everybody who is cognizant in the United States, at every position of power, has not had these thoughts, repeatedly, persistently, over these intervening years? Do you not think that everybody who saw the evidence as it's come out now, who is in an appropriate position of power to understand how these things are done, has not had these thoughts? Do you not think that they were terrified, to death practically, of being involved in exposing this?

All right now, on the British side: On the British side, there is an angle. I don't know the answer in terms of having inside information of that type, but inside information of another type. I've been around for a long time, as some of you know. I've got about as much mileage as most people have. So therefore, I have as much experience as most people have, and I've been a target myself a number of times, and know how these things work. So, there is a crowd which I know in Britain. The same crowd which is opposed to the global warming swindle of Al Gore and company, which is the same as the Hitler program of eugenics. And these people have been the leaders inside the United Kingdom, in organizing things such as you saw on television, this Channel 4 in London, on scientific exposure of global warming as a swindle. It's a complete fraud! There is no scientific evidence which corresponds to any of this! It's all one big damn lie! And only stupid and wishful people believe it.

So, some people in London, and I know their types—and in Scotland also (the kilt was invented before toilet paper!). The Scots are a very practical people, you know. They're practical people in the sense that they are British, and they're patriotically British. But they also consider, is this a good idea, or is this a lousy idea, or is this a terrible thing to do, which we shouldn't do? Is this in the interests of our nation, such as it is? And their answer is no!

Now, it's very clear. People who oppose this BAE thing in Britain, are very clear, and it generally overlaps the same people. Against the BAE swindle, against this stuff, and against the global warming swindle. The same people! And their concern is, they think about the future. Because obviously, anybody in the United States who says global warming, blah blah blah: They're not thinking about the future of the United States. Because, if you do the things that are proposed under the global warming thing, you're going to destroy the United States. You're going to destroy the planet. You're going to cause more death than the planet has ever seen before! And you're coming up with that as a political idea? The kind of idea that can only come from people like Al Gore. It's a gory idea!

The British system is an evil system. It's an empire. But you have people who live within it, who have not abandoned all other human qualities, simply because they have the defect of being British. And they react—well, look, I've got a lot of British ancestors, you know. The greater part, apart from this French ancestry by way of Quebec, most of them come from Lancashire, from the time of the Norman conquest and things like that. One part has been in this country since about the time of the first half of the 17th Century, in New England and so on. Another part came over in the middle of the 19th Century. So, I've got hordes of ancestors, hordes of relatives of British Isles progeny. And also some Irish, too, I'll have you know! They snuck in by way of Maine.

But anyway, the point is, you have people who are human beings, who happen to be in a bad culture, as most of our ancestors of European provenance, came from bad cultures. We came here to build a good culture, but we came from bad cultures, or defective cultures, and so give the lads in Britain a chance. They're fighting on these issues for the right thing, and probably for the right reasons, and if they had not done this and made this fuss, if they had not acted with the BBC and the Guardian as they did, we would probably not have been able to break this story, even though the story was there all along. So they broke the story, we—myself, my friends—were smart enough to understand this thing, so we did our job. But we were doing our job, and no one in the Congress seemed to know a damn thing about this thing. The biggest story in recent times, the biggest scandal, and they didn't seem to know a damned thing about it. So, suddenly, with CNN three days ago, and some other things, suddenly the thing has broken.

Now, what this means is, that Cheney is in deep kimchee! First of all, because one of Cheney's functions was to be a control agent, to control the United States for London, under his wife's direction! His wife is practically a British imperial agent. He too. So now, his role has been depreciated greatly. He has failed to put the lid on the story. The story is now out. Cheney is in deep kimchee, and those who don't want to impeach Cheney are also in deep kimchee too.

Prince Bandar and 9/11

By Jeffrey Steinberg

From EIR, June 29, 2007

Between April 1998 and May 2002, some $51-73,000 in checks and cashier's checks were provided by the Saudi Ambassador to the United States and his wife to two families in southern California, who in turn bankrolled at least two of the 9/11 hijackers. The story was investigated by the 9/11 Commission, but never fully resolved, and remains, to this day, one of the key unanswered questions concerning the backing for the worst terrorist attack ever to occur on U.S. soil.

According to numerous news accounts and the records of the 9/11 Commission, in April 1998, a Saudi national named Osama Basnan wrote to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C., seeking help for his wife, Majeda Dweikat, who needed surgery for a thyroid condition. Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador, wrote a check for $15,000 to Basnan. Beginning in December 1999, Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar, began sending regular monthly cashier checks to Majeda Dweikat, in amounts ranging from $2,000 to $3,500. Many of these checks were signed over to Manal Bajadr, the wife of Omar al-Bayoumi, another Saudi living in the San Diego area.

Around New Year's Day 2000, two other Saudi nationals, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, arrived at Los Angeles International Airport, where they were greeted by al-Bayoumi, provided with cash, and outfitted with an apartment, Social Security ID cards, and other financial assistance. Al-Bayoumi helped the two Saudi men to enrolled in flight schools in Florida. Two months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, al-Bayoumi moved to England, and shortly after that, he disappeared altogether. But before his disappearance, and within days of the 9/11 attacks, agents of New Scotland Yard, working in conjunction with the FBI, raided his apartment in England and found papers hidden beneath the floorboards, according to Newsweek magazine, that had the phone numbers of several officials at the Saudi Embassy in Washington. Al-Bayoumi was suspected by the Arab community in the San Diego area of being an agent of Saudi intelligence, which kept tabs on Saudi residents in the area, particularly Saudi students attending college in southern California.

Sources have told EIR researchers that Basnan was also long suspected of being an agent for Saudi Arabia's foreign intelligence service. According to the sources, Basnan was arrested for drug possession in southern California and the Saudi government intervened to get the charges dropped; Basnan also befriended Alhazmi and Almihdhar prior to their deaths on American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon. At one point, the Basnans, the al-Bayoumis, and the two 9/11 hijackers all lived at the Parkwood Apartments in San Diego.

Prince Bandar and Princess Haifa denied they played any role in financing the 9/11 hijackers, and claimed that they were merely providing charitable assistance to the Saudi community in the United States. The two co-chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, Robert Graham (D-Fla.) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), accused the FBI of failing to fully pursue this "9/11 money trail." Sources told EIR that the FBI refused to allow the committee to interview the FBI investigators who had probed the Basnan and al-Bayoumi links.

While Congressional and law enforcement sources insist to EIR investigators that all available leads were pursued and no compelling evidence of Saudi involvement in 9/11 was established, other U.S. intelligence sources maintain that many fruitful areas of investigation simply reached dead-ends before any final conclusions could be drawn. And these sources report that some of the Al-Yamamah funds, including some funds that passed through the Riggs Bank accounts in Washington, financed a migration of Muslim Brotherhood members to the United States, throughout the 1980s and 1990s. That hardly constitutes a smoking gun, these sources emphasize, but raises serious unanswered questions, particularly in light of the fact that the official staff reports of the 9/11 Commission featured a detailed debriefing of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the purported mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, who admitted that he had been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood since he was 16 years old.