Senator Graham: FBI’s aggressive bedrag omkring 9/11

Uddrag fra LaRouchePAC fredags-webcast, den 29 april 2016

Senator Bob Graham fortsætter med at være meget kontant i sine beskyldninger omkring hvem der er ansvarlig for at dække over, det som han før har kaldt det "aggressive bedrag" af det amerikanske folk omkring spørgsmålet om, hvad der virkelig skete den 11 september 2001. I dette interview opfordrede Senator Graham ikke kun til frigivelsen af de 28 sider. Han opfordrede også til frigivelse af de titusinder af andre dokumentsider, der er blevet tilbageholdt fra det amerikanske folk og Kongressens efterforskere, og kaldte for en genåbning af 9/11 undersøgelsen. I dette interview gjorde Senator Graham som han har gjort før, men på en meget kontant og meget ærlig måde. Han placerede ansvaret lige uden for døren af FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), som han beskyldte, i utvetydige vendinger, for at lyve til Kongressen og engagere sig i dette "aggressive bedrag" af det amerikanske folk.

Lad mig indledningsvis læse nogle uddrag fra Senator Graham's interview. Senator Graham sagde:
”Grunden til at de 28 sider er så vigtige, er at de var konklusionen på Kongressens undersøgelse af hvordan 11te september operationen var finansieret. Hvem betalte for det? Og mens jeg ikke kan diskutere detaljerne i dette kapitel, peger det kraftigt på Saudi-Arabien.

"Hvad vi officielt ved er, at der var agenter for den saudiske regering, som støttede mindst to af de flykaprere der endte med at bo i San Diego. De blev hjulpet med økonomisk støtte, med anonymitet, med et sted at bo, med flylektioner og med beskyttelse. I et tilfælde, i over et år.

FBI har udleveret 80.000 sider [ærligt talt blev de tvunget til at udlevere MO*] til en føderal domstol, gennem en Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) sag, der involverer en undersøgelse der fandt sted i Sarasota, Florida af forholdet mellem Mohammed Atta, lederen af de 19 flykaprere og to af hans håndlangere og en fremtrædende Saudisk familie, som havde boet i Sarasota i seks år. De tog afsted to uger før 9/11 under betingelser, som blev beskrevet som presserende for at vende tilbage til Saudi-Arabien, hvilket skaber den logiske slutning, at de blev varskoet og besluttede at de ville være bedre stillede andetsteds end i Sarasota, når 9/11 indtraf."

Intervieweren spurgte da Senator Graham følgende. Hun sagde, "Tror du, at de på hinanden følgende administrationer har beskyttet den saudiske kongefamilie imod amerikanske statsborgeres interesser?”

Senator Graham svarede, "Ja. Og jeg tror, det har været mere end en tilsløring. Jeg tror, det har været det, jeg kalder aggressivt bedrag. Der er tilfælde, hvor FBI offentligt har publiceret udsagn, som jeg ved fra personlig erfaring var usande. De erklærede at de i forbindelse med Sarasota sagen havde afsluttet undersøgelsen, og at undersøgelsen havde fastslået at der ikke var nogen forbindelse mellem flykaprerne og den fremtrædende Saudiske familie, og at de havde overleveret alle disse oplysninger til både Kongressens undersøgelse og 9/11 Citizens Commissions. Jeg ved det som en kendsgerning, at ingen af disse tre udsagn er sande."

Så sagde intervieweren til ham: "Lad mig få dette på det rette, Sir. Du påstår at FBI bevidst løj om dette spørgsmål, og at der har været en tilsløring.".

Senator Graham afbrød hende, og sagde: ".. det er mere end en tilsløring. FBI misinformerede om hvad der er i deres egne registreringer i forhold til situationen i Sarasota"

Han blev spurgt: "Hvad tror du der skal gøres?"

Senator Graham svarede:. "Jeg tror, vi er nødt til at have en generel genåbning af efterforskningen af 9/11. Både Kongressens og 9/11 Kommissionens undersøgelse foregik under stramme tidsrammer, hvilket udelukkede den fuldstændige undersøgelse, der nødvendigvis må gøres, når 9/11 sagen er genåbnet."

Hr. LaRouche sagde, efter at have lyttet til dette interview, at dette er meget klart og tydeligt. Dette kan der ikke gøres indsigelser imod. Alt, hvad senator Graham sagde, var helt rigtigt.

Han sagde: "Retfærdighed skal endelig ske fyldest overfor de amerikanske borgere. Det kan ikke længere udskydes. Ingen kan sige, "Lad os bare udsætte dette, lad os udsætte dette, lad os udsætte det endnu en uge. Det skal ske nu.” Den sande historie er blevet tilsløret alt for længe”, sagde Hr. LaRouche, og han fortsatte:" Sen. Grahams udsagn om dette er klare og tydelige. Hans identifikation af FBI's aggressive bedrag er lige i øjet, og kan ikke diskuteres. Husk, at FBI juridisk er underlagt justitsministeriet, som er medlem af den udøvende magt, hvilket placerer hele denne operation lige på Obamas dørtrin. Den udøvende magt kan ikke handle uden præsidentens direkte ordrer.

Ethvert forsøg på varigt at fortsætte som nu," sagde Hr. LaRouche, "er en krænkelse af de amerikanske borgeres forfatningsmæssige rettigheder, og det i interessen af det der beviseligt er en fjendtlig fremmed magt, helt op til det punkt af hvad man kan sige nærmer sig forræderi. Faren er 3. verdenskrig, hvilket ville betyde ødelæggelse af ikke kun USA, men hele verden. Der går ikke en dag uden at der forekommer en provokation, et eller andet sted i verden af Obama mod både Rusland og Kina, der hver vil kunne tænde lunten til 3. verdenskrig. Vi kan ikke vente, vi kan ikke udsætte det. Vi kan ikke sige, 'Åh, bare et par uger mere, blot et par måneder mere.' 3. verdenskrig er på vores dørtrin, og 3. verdenskrig ville betyde ødelæggelsen af menneskeheden.

"Våbenhvilen i Syrien nærmer sig opløsningspunktet. Saudi-Arabien og Tyrkiets rolle i dette er klar og udgør en meget indlysende pointe, at det strategiske momentum, der er nødvendigt gennem de-klassificeringen af de 28 sider, ville forhindre denne krig. Dette viser dig blot et eksempel – et meget umiddelbart eksempel – men det er blot ét eksempel på den strategiske nødvendighed af at frigive de 28 sider og blotlægge saudierne og deres partnere i det britiske monarki for hvad de er og hvad de gjorde i tilfældet med 9/11 forbrydelsen"

* MO: Modus Operandi – måde at agere på




Obamas CIA direktør til New York:
Glem alt om retfærdighed for angrebene 11. september

Obama-administrationens beslutning søndag om at kritisere Kongressens rapport om 11. september og dens 28 siders sektion om Saudi Arabiens medvirken i anslagene, kan få en omgående boomerang-effekt mod Obama selv. Spørgsmålet om meddelagtighed i uhyrlige terrorforbrydelser er involveret; og ligeså er spørgsmålet om at forhindre Obamas britiske/saudiske krigspolitik i at udløse global termonuklear krig.

Obama har – ligesom hans forgænger George W. Bush – holdt disse 28 sider hemmelige i otte år mere, og arrogant ignoreret og modsat sig et ønske fra ofrene og de overlevende fra 11. september, om at få dem frigivet.
CIA direktør John Brennans fremtræden i ”Møde med Pressen” søndag, hvor han hævdede at bevismaterialet i de 28 sider er usandt, og modsatte sig at frigive dem, optrapper Obamas forræderiske dækken over Saudi Arabiens forbrydelser d. 11. september.
I næsten en måned, efter tidligere senator Bob Graham i programmet ”60 minutter” påviste hvor isoleret det Hvide Hus er i at lægge skjul på bevismaterialet – idet man bruger FBI til at intimidere dem, der indsamler og undersøger det – har der været en større debat i de politiske institutioner og medier overalt i USA.
Men spørgsmålet er blevet virkeligt varmt i New York City, hvor Lyndon LaRouches “Manhattan Projekt” har mobiliseret en by, hvis befolkning stadig ønsker retfærdighed ved at få sandheden om 11.september offentliggjort.
Frigivelse af de 28 sider og andet skjult dokumentarisk bevismateriale om 11. september kunne tillige i en bredere forstand slippe retfærdigheden løs. Det kunne betyde retsforfølgelse af Obama og Bush for forsætlig undertrykkelse af beviserne for, hvem der virkeligt myrdede 3000 amerikanere, og skræmte millioner af andre til at indvillige i katastrofale krige og vidtstrakte nye FBI beføjelser.
Da CIA direktør Brennan i søndags sagde “Nej”, burde de forskellige balloner, som det Hvide Hus har sendt op vedrørende review af de 28 sider med henblik på ”snarlig” frigivelse, være punkteret. Sandheden vil ikke komme ud på denne måde, med retfærdighed til følge. Obama må fjernes fra embedet, ved en rigsretssag, med henblik på yderligere retsforfølgelse ved domstolene for forræderi. Det er hvad LaRouches ”Manhatten Projekt” mobiliserer for, og på den måde kan der sættes en stopper for hemmeligholdelsen af de 28 sider af Kongressens undersøgelse, sammen med Saudiernes straffrihed for deres forbrydelser.
Men det giver os også chancen for retfærdighed i en endnu bredere forstand: Forbrydelserne inkluderer (fortsat) at starte krige for at erstatte stabile regeringer med kaos, og (fortsat) – til denne dag – at støtte islamistiske jihadgrupper. Særligt siden attentatet på den Libyske leder Gadaffi i 2011 har det stået klart for os, at målet i sidste instans for disse krige er Rusland og Kina.
Ultimativt har planlæggerne været den britiske imperialistiske finansmagt, der søger at destruere Kina/Indien/Rusland–alternativet til dets kollaps. Obama og Saudierne har udført arbejdet.
Obama har optrappet provokationenerne til krig med Rusland, Kina eller begge, en krig, der kun kan være termonuklear og total. At tvinge ham ud nu standser kursen mod krigskonfrontation, der kun kan ende med destruktion af civilisationerne.
Deltag i mobiliseringen for retfærdigheden.




Den britiske faktor i 11. september og al efterfølgende global terror

Mens verdens medier fokuserer opmærksomheden på Saudi Arabiens hånd bag angrebene d. 11. september – og al efterfølgende jihad-terror jorden rundt – og præsident Barack Obamas dække over disse forbrydelser, skal de egentlige ophavsmænd til dette massedrabs-program ikke findes i Riyadh eller det Hvide Hus, men i London. Det er aldeles passende og korrekt, at den britiske agent, og nøglefigur i at dække over 11. september Barack Obama, styrer direkte fra Riyadh til London senere i denne uge for, endnu engang, at hylde den britiske Dronning.

Saudi-Arabien har altid været den britiske Krones ejendom, tilbage til Lawrence af Arabiens tid, og den oprindelige generation af Huset Saud og Wahhabi-gejstligheden. Faktisk daterer britisk kontrol over de Persiske Golfemirater sig tilbage til det britiske Østindiske Kompagnis velmagtsdage i det attende og nittende århundrede. Men dette britiskkontrollerede partnerskab med de saudiske kongelige blev sat på langt mere formel og aktiv fod i 1985, da Prins Bandar bin-Sultan, en selverklæret britisk agent, sluttede Al-Yamamah handlen med Margaret Thatcher, og derved etablerede olie-for-våben tuskhandels-systemet, under hvilket hundreder af milliarder af dollars blev afsondret til britiske offshore finansielle fristeder – til finansiering af terrorisme, kup og snigmord jorden over.

Det er denne del af 11. september, der indtil nu har manglet fra den, nu på høje tid, offentlige opstand over hemmeligholdelsen af de 28 sider fra den originale fælles Kongresundersøgelse af 11. september. Hvor fik den saudiske USA-ambassadør prins ”Bandar Bush” pengene fra til at finansiere de to ledende 11. september flykaprere i San Diego? Fra Al Yamamah kontoen i Bank of England, der gik til hans personlige bankkonto i Riggs National Bank i Washington. Det var hans del af Al Yamamah-rovet, minimum $2 milliarder.

Uden beskyttelse fra Londonistan ville der ikke være et Saudisk kongedømme, ingen infrastruktur til jihad-terrorisme, ingen global stof-epidemi og ingen trussel om global udryddelseskrig.

Helt tilbage fra før de faktiske 11. september angreb, som Lyndon LaRouche overværede på live-TV mens han gav et interview til den populære radiovært fra Utah Jack Stockwell, advarede LaRouche om en truende Rigsdagsbrand, iscenesat under Bush-Cheney administrationen for at drive USA hen imod en diktaturstat. I december 2000 havde Executive Intelligence Review formelt begæret, at det amerikanske State Department satte Storbritannien på listen over statssponsorer af terrorisme. Dokumentet angav detaljeret snesevis af formelle klager fra regeringer rundt om i verden imod Londons husly til, og finansiering af, terrorister og voldelige separatister.

Der var rigeligt med lejlighed til at stoppe masse-blodsudgydelserne inklusiv 11. september ved at tage fat på menneskehedens virkelige fjende – det britiske Imperium. Undladelsen af at gøre dette i den nylige fortid har bragt os i det graverende øjeblik af krise, hvor et desperate og bankerot britisk Imperium er parat til at sprænge verden i luften, hellere end at afstå dets magt. Nu er øjeblikket inde til at slå den saudiske terrormaskine, sammen med det britiske Imperium, der i virkeligheden kører showet, ud. Bryd dækket over 11. september, og tag Obama ned sammen med anglo-saudierne. Det er muligvis menneskehedens sidste og bedste chance for overlevelse.




LaRouchePAC-fredagswebcast den 22. april 2016:
Om de britiske og saudi-arabiske forbindelser bag terrorangrebet den 11. september 2001

I takt med at presset fortsat vokser på Obama for at frigive de 28 sider om d. 11. september, inklusiv at tidligere senator Bob Graham i denne uge har skrevet en ledende artikel, hvori han undsiger det "aggressive bedrag", som to på hinanden følgende administrationer har forøvet mod det amerikanske folk, begynder vi i aften kl. 8 pm. (eastern time) vores webudsendelse med en særlig video-erklæring fra Lyndon LaRouche personligt. Han hævder en afgørende britisk skyld i komplottet, hvorefter Jeffrey Steinberg indtager podiet for i detaljer at udlægge sine eksklusive undersøgelser i disse britisk-saudiske forbindelser. Jeff Steinberg diskuterer også implikationerne af det nyligt frigivne 47-siders dokument forfattet af undersøgerne i 11. september Kommissionen, i hvilken de forslog en efterforskning af den rolle, som agenturer indenfor den amerikanske regering spillede i at dække over den saudiske rolle i angrebene, men som de blev blokeret i at foretage.

Engelsk udskrift.

As the pressure continues to increase on Obama to release the 28 pages on 9/11, including former Senator Bob Graham authoring an editorial this week in which he denounces the "aggressive deception" which two consecutive administrations have perpetrated against the American people, we begin our webcast tonight at 8 pm eastern witha special video statement from Lyndon LaRouche personally in which he asserts the British culpability in the plot, after which Jeffrey Steinberg takes the podium to lay out in detail his exclusive research into these British-Saudi connections. Jeff Steinberg also discusses the implications of a newly released 47-page document authored by researchers on the 9/11 Commission in which they proposed to investigate the role that agencies within the US government played in covering up for the Saudi role in the attacks, but were blocked from doing so.

'JASTA' Act Passed in 2012, and Obama Signed It — Against Iran

TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, my name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome all of you to our weekly broadcast here from larouchepac.com. You're watching the Friday evening webcast for April 22nd, 2016. I'm joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg, from Executive Intelligence Review. And the two of us had a meeting with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, and I think that the presentation that Jeff gives tonight will be a very significant presentation, elaborating on some remarks that Mr. LaRouche had to say just yesterday on the question of the story behind and beyondthe 28 pages.

Now, as those of you who are watching this broadcast tonight probably know, we are living in a truly momentous period of history. Over the last two weeks, since the "60 Minutes" episode which elaborated the story of the so-called "28 pages," the redacted chapter of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry report into 9/11, that has been classified by both the Bush and the Obama administrations; since that broadcast, there has been an unrelenting stream of media coverage of this story, in almost all of the major national press in the United States, and also internationally, in Europe and elsewhere. There has also been a relentless attack, directly, on Obama, by name, for his refusal to declassify these 28 pages, despite the promises that he has given to the 9/11 families; and also for his open and explicit opposition to the lawsuit that families have waged against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as the bill that they have introduced into the United States Senate, the Justice Against State Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which would allow those victims to sue the state-sponsors of the 9/11 attacks.

Now, as you know, on the LaRouche PAC website, we have been covering this story for years, very closely. We've been following the efforts of Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC), Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-MA), and Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) in the House of Representatives, who have introduced a bill, now over two years ago, House Resolution 14 (H.R.14), which was previously House Resolution 428, calling on Obama to declassify the 28 pages; and they've worked very closely with former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL). Bob Graham was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time of the 9/11 attacks, and was co-chairman of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry report.

Bob Graham has been very vocal, for years, in calling for the 28 pages to be released. I had the pleasure of interviewing him at an event in Florida in November of 2014, and at that time, he was very clear that if the 28 pages had not been classified and suppressed, you would not be seeing the threat of terrorism that we're facing today from al-Qaeda and from ISIS, both of which have received direct funding from individuals connected with the Saudi regime.

Bob Graham wrote a very clear and very blunt op-ed that was published in the Florida newspaper TCPalm, which was titled, "28 Pages: How Our Government Has Used Deceit To Withhold Truth From the American People." This op-ed was published on Wednesday, to be timed directly in coincidence with President Obama's landing in Riyadh, to hold a joint bilateral summit with King Salman of Saudi Arabia. In this op-ed, Senator Graham is perhaps more explicit than he has ever been. He said, "This was not just a cover-up." The suppression of the 28 pages and other evidence linking the Saudis to 9/11 was the result of what he calls "an aggressive deception." He says, "Your government has purposely used deceit to withhold the truth." The reason for this deceit, he says, "is to protect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from its complicity in the murder of 2,977 Americans. On April 15, the New York Timesreported: 'Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.'" That is obviously a blackmail threat against the United States, and that's what they said publicly; one can only wonder what the Saudis were threatening behind closed doors.

What Senator Graham goes on to say in this op-ed is: "If that is not sufficient to get your blood boiling, read on: [the New York Timeswrites] 'The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill's passage.'"

Now, Senator Graham elaborates that there have been multiple forms of what he calls this "aggressive deceit"; not only the suppression of the 28 pages. He said the 28 pages would disclose the sources of funding for the attack on 9/11; this has been under review for declassification for three years, which was three times the amount of time that it took to research, author and publish, the original Congressional Inquiry report which was 838 pages long! He said, secondly, "The 28 pages are the most iconic, but not the only, evidence to be withheld from the report of the congressional inquiry. The report is pocked by hundreds of specific redactions."

And then he says, thirdly, "Investigations at locales where the hijackers lived and plotted prior to the attacks also have been classified. One of those involves Mohamed Atta, the leader of the hijackers, and two of his henchmen who are alleged to have collaborated with a prominent Saudi family who lived in Sarasota for six years before abruptly departing for Saudi Arabia two weeks before 9/11."

Senator Graham says, "The FBI publicly described its Sarasota investigation as complete, and said it found no connection between the hijackers and the family. Later, responding to a Freedom of Information lawsuit, the FBI released an investigative report that said the family had 'many connections' to individuals tied to the terrorist attacks. The FBI for two years has aggressively resisted releasing that report," Graham says. [emphasis added] And this is part of a much bigger story, that goes beyond just the 28 pages per se.

Now, Senator Graham concludes that op-ed by saying there are three reasons why the 28 pages must be released: One is justice for the families; two is national security, and he said: The fact that Saudis, and their "blatant attempts to avoid liability as co-conspirators in the crime of 9/11, and the U.S. government's acquiescence by refusing to release information (and opposition to reforming laws that would hold collaborators in murder to account) has been a clear signal to the Kingdom that it is immune from U.S. sanctions. With that impunity," Senator Graham says, "it continues to finance terrorists and fund mosques and schools used to indoctrinate the next generation of terrorists in intolerance and jihad."

And then finally, he said, this is an issue of democracy. "The American government is founded on the consent of the governed. To give that consent, the people must know what the government is doing in its name. Distrust in government is reflected in the speeches of today's presidential candidates" he said. "The public's sometimes angry response is fueled by a sense of betrayal and deceit."

Now, Mr. LaRouche was asked a question from our institutional source this week, this is our regular institutional question, and it's very brief, but it's obviously directly on this subject-matter. The question reads as follows: "Mr. LaRouche, there has been an overwhelming enthusiasm to release the 28 pages lately. What is your advice to the Obama administration, in regards to the 28 pages?"

Now, we produced a short video which includes the audio of Mr. LaRouche's remarks on this subject. We're going to play that video for you now; it's about five minutes in length, and then immediately after that video, I'm going to ask Jeff Steinberg to come to the podium to elaborate some of the points that Mr. LaRouche asserts in this statement.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: [via audio file] I was watching those two planes which were carrying the victims, and carried them to death. I was an eyewitness to the press. We knew that they were being carried, as victims, inside the planes, in the two planes in succession, and obviously the passengers all died.

But that operation, on that occasion, which I witnessed from beginning to end in my first contact with it, defines the actual issue which has to be addressed.

Now of course, I also knew what the background was. The way this thing was set into motion was with the Bush family. Now, the Bush family was actually a key part, of setting this thing into motion; they may not have intended to do that, because they're too stupid to know what they're doing. See, the Bush family was involved in its own little warfare operation, so there was a spillover from the Bush administration as such, into this particular operation. The whole operation was twofold: One, was British-Saudi operation. Now the person who was directing the thing from inside the United States, had been trained by the British system. Bandar was a key figure operating inside the United States. Bandar was directly overseeing the launching of this operation.

And what they were doing, was they were shipping petroleum as a real money-making operation, just with the oil trade, by the British, shared with the Saudis; and this thing was done for harmful purposes in many ways, and was a key part of control of what the United States was doing in petroleum; because the thing was a fraud — a fraud committed by Her Majesty. Her Majesty was guilty: period. Queen Elizabeth was the author of this operation. She was the only person who was qualified to authorize this operation.

The attack on Manhattan was done under the cover of the British system. And the Saudis were a subordinate aspect of the British system as a whole. Her Majesty was the author, of this monster. And the Saudis were simply stooges. The Saudis have been stooges from the beginning of the 20th century. That's the essential story. Everything has to be focused on that: The fact that is was thedeliberate mass murder of American citizens. And not only that, but adirect attack on the United States!

The key thing is that the British and the Saudis are the same thing, since that time. And all these facts are really known, on the record. The Saudis are guilty and the British are guilty, because the Saudis and the British are part of the same agency. What the Saudis do, what the British do, won't be the same thing. The fact is that the Saudi Kingdom is not a real government — it's an empire; it's an imperial institution. It has no formal responsibility to anything except the Kingdom of the Saudis, and the British! They are the same thing!

OGDEN: Now, as you can see displayed on the screen, we have a short advertisement for a much longer feature documentary that was published, actually several years back by LaRouche PAC Television, which was called "Beyond the 28 Pages: 9/11 Ten Years Later,".

Jeffrey Steinberg was interviewed as part of that production, and obviously has been very intimately familiar with many of the facts that are presented in that documentary and which were alluded to by Mr. LaRouche in the statement that you just heard. So I'm going to invite Jeff Steinberg to come to the podium to elaborate this, in a little bit more detail.

JEFFREY STEINBERG:  Thank you, Matt.  Well I think it's important to recognize that the fundamental point that Mr. LaRouche just made in answering the institutional question for this week, is that the story of 9/11 is incomplete if we simply stop with the now obvious, transparently evident role that high-ranking figures within the Saudi royal family and within the Saudi government played in the 9/11 attacks. Both before the attacks, as the attacks were happening, and in the cover-up that followed. What's crucial to understand is that the Saudis do nothing without full support and approval coming from the highest levels of the British monarchy; all the way up to the Queen herself, and to the Royal Consort, Prince Philip.  The fact of the matter is that, going back centuries, back to the time of the heyday of the British East India Company, the entire Persian Gulf region was a British colony, a British Protectorate. For centuries, every one of the so-called nations — really tribal collections — along the Persian Gulf, whether it was Bahrain, or the UAE, or Qatar, or Oman, or Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait; all of those countries existed in name only. All of them had treaty agreements where their foreign and defense policy was run out of London. It was a vital feature for the functioning of the British East India Company to have a way station en route to India and on to China. So, at the beginning of the 20th Century, when people like Lawrence of Arabia forged the establishment of the House of Saud as a marriage between a tribal family and the Wahabi fundamentalist clergy of that area; it's always been a British game, it's always been tightly under the thumb of the British.  And that carries through even more so in the present modern period.

Mr. LaRouche mentioned Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who for years was the Saudi ambassador here in the United States; before that, he was the Saudi military attaché in Washington. And he was widely referred to as "Prince Bandar Bush", because of his close relationship with the Bush family — starting with father George HW Bush, and continuing even more so under George W Bush — was notoriously close. But above all else, Prince Bandar was a British agent. He was trained at British military schools; his official, authorized biography was written by one of his school chums from British military school. And in 1985, Bandar negotiated what came to be a critical feature of the Anglo-Saudi arrangement — the Al-Yamamah deal; this was ostensibly a barter arrangement in which the Saudis paid in oil for British military equipment — fighter planes, radar systems, training, supplies, all of that.

And in carefully investigating that program, what we discovered was that the amount of oil that the Saudis delivered to the British in payment for about $40 billion of military hardware, was orders of magnitude greater.  The oil for the Saudis was cheap; it was under $5 a barrel to pull it out of the ground and load it onto a supertanker. But once British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell took control over that oil, they sold it on the spot market at phenomenal mark-ups. From 1985 until the scandal first broke in 2007, more than $100 billion in excess funds were accrued after paying for the British military equipment and after generous bribes to many British and Saudi officials. Hundreds of billions of dollars were sequestered in offshore bank accounts; and those funds represented the biggest slush fund in the world for carrying out destabilizations of governments, terrorist activities, and assassinations. Prince Bandar, not being the brightest guy on the planet, openly boasted about this special relationship, and said that while Al-Yamamah was a traditional barter arrangement — oil for weapons — it was in fact something much more. It was a reflection of the marriage of the British and Saudi monarchies; and the fact that these monarchies could operate outside of any parliamentary or Congressional scrutiny; and could carry out black operations anywhere in the world that they chose to do it.

Now, officially, Prince Bandar received a $2 billion commission for arranging the Al-Yamamah deal; and those funds have been traced.  They went from accounts of the Bank of England, accounts from the British Ministry of Defense that oversaw the Al-Yamamah arrangement; and they went from there into the bank accounts in Riggs National Bank in Washington DC, the private accounts of Prince Bandar bin Sultan.  Among the documentation contained in the 28 pages that Presidents Bush and Obama have kept from the American people, is evidence, paper trails of funds that were sent directly from Bandar's and his wife's personal bank account into the hands of two Saudi intelligence agents who were the handlers of the original two 9/11 hijackers who arrived in the United States at the beginning of the year 2000.

So, the British hand in 9/11 is unmistakable. If those 28 pages were to be opened up, it would not only confirm that the British and the Saudi royal families were together engaged in setting up and financing the 9/11 attacks; but would open up an array of other questions about follow-on terrorist operations that have occurred on a global scale. All told, hundreds of billions of dollars laundered offshore —probably in places like Panama, as well as the Cayman Islands, the Isles of Jersey off the coast of England — have gone into countless operations like the 9/11 attacks themselves.

So, while many people are quite clear on why it is that President George W Bush would order the suppression of the 28 pages, because of his notorious close relationship with Prince Bandar and the Saudis; many people scratch their heads and say, "Well, why would President Obama — particularly after he promised the families that he would declassify the 28 pages; why would President Obama continue with the cover-up?" It's not for Obama a matter of the Saudis; for Obama it goes to the next higher level in this whole story, which is namely, the British. Obama, from the beginning of his political career, has been sponsored by the British. It's not surprising that this week President Obama made a trip to Saudi Arabia; he was there Wednesday and Thursday. He met with King Salman of Saudi Arabia; and on Thursday, he met with all of the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. From there, he has now flown on to London, where he will be holding a private audience with the Queen. Obama has been a slavish loyalist of the British Empire, of the British monarchy, since the moment he came into office as President. So, Obama's hand in the cover-up, the shameless continuing cover-up of what happened on 9/11, is all about protecting the British side of this story. Were those 28 pages to be opened up, the minute that one began looking at the role of Prince Bandar, it would become absolutely obvious that there is a major British side to this story.

Now of course, when you talk about the British monarchy, if you roll the clock back just a few years before the September 11, 2001 attacks; remember that there was an intensive investigation over a number of years into the fact that the British monarchy was unquestionably behind the murder of Princess Diana. It was a revenge killing because she represented forces that were completely disgusted with the way that the House of Windsor, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip, Prince Charles operated. So, you have a British monarchy that has blood on its hands going back a very long time; and most recently with the top-down ordered assassination of Princess Diana. It should come as no surprise that that same British apparatus is up to its eyeballs on global terrorism.

Now in point of fact, in late 2000, Executive Intelligence Review filed a formal request with the US State Department that they consider placing Great Britain on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. People may remember at that time, there was a wave of terrorism going on around the globe. In 1997, you had the Egyptian Islamic Jihad group carry out an attack against a group of Japanese tourists at Luxor; and the Egyptian government at that time, provided detailed evidence that the terror plot had been organized, financed, and controlled by Egyptian terrorist networks that were living in Britain under the protection of the British monarchy.

Several years later, the Russian government filed a series of formal diplomatic demarches because they had evidence that the British government was facilitating the recruitment of Chechen terrorists who would be allowed to travel to Afghanistan from Britain to be trained by al-Qaeda and then safely routed into Chechnya to become part of the separatist terrorist networks that were fighting against the Russian government. There was detailed evidence that was included in that EIR profile; and unfortunately needless to say, the State Department sat on it, did nothing; and so, we had 2001. And we had many subsequent terrorist events that followed from that.

So, the bottom line here, is that now that there is intensive momentum demanding the declassification of those 28 pages, what is really required is a complete, de novo, top-down investigation into the 9/11 actions; and into all of the subsequent terrorist actions that have followed and have been the work of the same Anglo-Saudi apparatus. Once those 28 pages are made public, once the American people — led by the families of those 2,997 people killed by 9/11 — have the chance to thoroughly read through and digest the content of those pages; then the whole can of worms, the whole British-Saudi empire structure has to be brought down. Has to be subject to the kind of rigorous criminal prosecution that is warranted; and that means as well, that both President Bush and President Obama have to be brought to criminal task for their role in both facilitating and covering this up.

As Mr. LaRouche said in his brief comments to colleagues yesterday, that you just saw in that 5-minute video, he was on the scene; he was giving a live interview to Utah radio broadcaster Jack Stockwell. He had the TV on in his study; and he saw in real-time, the planes crashing into the two World Trade Center towers. He was one of the few people — perhaps the only person outside of those who committed the crime — on Earth who understood the full strategic implications of it the moment that the attack occurred. LaRouche had warned at the beginning of 2001, once he saw the character of the Bush/Cheney administration, that this was the kind of regime that would look for the first opportunity to carry out a Reichstag fire in order to go for dictatorship. And he understood that it was the Anglo-Saudi apparatus that represented the capability for carrying out just such a heinous crime with those particular intentions. He made very clear in that real-time interview with Jack Stockwell, that the entire blame was going to immediately be placed on al-Qaeda; but he said to the extent that al-Qaeda had anything to do with it, it's a bit part. It's a minor element of something much bigger that goes much higher; and goes up to the British-Saudi apparatus that we've been discussing here.

So, members of Congress who have read those 28 pages — and by now, there's well over 100 members who have done that; they've all come away with the same conclusion. That these documents must be made public; and furthermore, that they completely alter how you understand the history of the last several decades. So, take that as just a glimmer of an indication of what the implications are. Regardless of what's contained in the 28 pages per se, it's the implications of the findings in those 28 pages; and the can of worms that's opened up that leads all the way up to the British monarchy.  And you realize that the fight to get these 28 pages released to the public is a fight for the very survival of mankind going forward from this day. The British Empire today is bankrupt; they're desperate. They're not just desperate to cover up the 28 pages and the whole 9/11 story and the Al-Yamamah story; they're desperate because they're on the edge of losing their power. And they will, if the opportunity presents itself, create the conditions using these kinds of capabilities, to start a world war. So, the stakes are enormous; and the answer is very straightforward. Release the 28 pages; and on the basis of that, re-open from the top down a complete and thorough investigation. Starting with the British and Saudi monarchies and working down from there. We owe it to the families that suffered through 9/11; we owe it to the American people; and we owe it to mankind.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. One thing I would just mention in relation with some of what Jeff just went through in detail, is that some of these connections are not unknown to people who are familiar with this investigation. In fact, Senator Bob Graham himself, while denied from including this in his nonfiction book, Intelligence Matters; in his fiction book — which he said himself he had to publish, because it was the only way he could get the truth in written form. In his fiction book, his novel Keys to the Kingdom, Senator Bob Graham includes a lot of references to exactly the kinds of things that Jeff just went through. The role of BAE; the Al-Yamamah deal; the offshore tax havens; the Cayman Islands; the fact that Tony Blair intervened to shut down the investigation into the connection between the British BAE Systems and the Saudis. So, in fact, these are the lines of inquiry that anybody who is serious — and the people who are familiar with this case — wish would be pursued; because they know exactly how big this can of worms really is.

Now, the 28 pages may not have been declassified yet; however, one very important document that was declassified recently — and has only now begun to receive media attention, starting with an exclusive report and analysis by Brian McGlinchey, who is the editor of the very important website 28pages.org. This is a document which was a 47-page draft document which was written by two researchers who were working on the 9/11 Commission; this was the independent blue-ribbon panel their own extensive report into 9/11. But these two researchers, who are named Dana Lesemann and Michael Jacobson, had both been formerly employed by the Congressional Joint Inquiry Committee. And in this 47-page document, they lay out what was going to be their own working plans for their follow-up research on the spcific lines of research which they had been engaged in during their role in the Congressional investigation. One of the items which they cite in this document — and Jeff will elaborate this more — is the fact that an alleged al-Qaeda operative, a person named Ghassan al-Sharbi who had trained for flight lessons in Arizona prior to 9/11, and who was captured in Pakistan subsequently; was discovered to have buried a cache of documents near to his person at the location where he was hiding, which included al-Sharbi's US pilot certificate which was inside of an envelope from the Saudi embassy in Washington DC.

Senator Bob Graham, who was not informed of this fact during the time that this investigation was going on, but later learned about it after this declassification; said in response, "That's very interesting.  That's a very intriguing and close connection to the Saudi embassy."  The second item which is of extraordinary interest in this 47-page research document, are the two questions which these two researchers intended to pursue.  The first question was:  How aggressively has the US government investigated possible ties between the Saudi government and/or royal family and the September 11 attacks?  And number two:  To what extent have the US government's efforts to investigate possible between the Saudi government and/or royal family and the September 11 attacks been affected by political, economic, or other considerations?

Now, what's very telling is that when Dana Lesemann attempted to go back and access the 28 pages which she herself was instrumental in researching and writing, first she was denied and blocked access to them; and then when she circumvented those denials, she was fired.  She was dismissed from the 9/11 Commission investigation.  So, I think that just demonstrates in a very illustrative way just one example of what Bob Graham described as the "aggressive deception" that has been undertaken in this case; that's what he said in the op-ed which I cited at the beginning of this broadcast tonight.  He said, "Your government has purposely used deceit to withhold the truth."  And that is not the only case.

One thing I would like to Jeff to just elaborate a little bit more on, is the entire story of the Sarasota cell, and the very significant work that investigative journalist Dan Christianson has done of theFlorida Bulldog, in tracking down 80,000 pages of FBI documents that linked Mohammed Atta and other members of the Sarasota cell to people connected with the Saudi royal family and the Saudi government. Documents which the FBI withheld from Bob Graham at the time of the Congressional investigation; did not tell him existed. They impeded that investigation and stonewalled on, until an FOIA lawsuit forced them to at least hand them over to a judge. And the review of those documents still has not been completed.

So, I would like to ask Jeff to come to the podium and elaborate a little bit more on the further implications of this "aggressive deception" — not just a cover-up — that has been committed by the US government in this regard.

STEINBERG: The 28 pages are a critical piece of this story, because that was the final product; it was the work product after a year of investigation by the Joint Congressional Inquiry. And that 28-page chapter that took up the question of foreign support and funding for the 9/11 hijackers, represented the most solid and corroborated evidence that the investigators were able to compile in the face of massive obstruction. It's not just simply that President Bush, when he reviewed the final 800-page report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry, simply ordered the suppression of the 28-page chapter. Every step along the way, during both the period of the investigation by the Joint Congressional Commission and the later 9/11 Commission, was impeded top down from the White House; and particularly from the highest levels of the FBI. This is not mere speculation. In the recent period — just over the course of the last year — many of the documents that were work-products of the Joint Committee and the 9/11 Commission which were classified, have now been reviewed and declassified.

For those of you who don't know some of the inner workings of Washington, there is a board which is located at the National Archive, called the Interagency Security Clearance Appeals Panel — referred to as ISCAP. And they are the final authority; they're kind of a Supreme Court with respect to questions about what documents should be declassified. And they've been in the process of reviewing and declassifying some of the important staff documents of the two investigative bodies. Last July, they declassified about 29 documents that were work-products from the 9/11 Commission; and one in particular written by Dana Lesemann and Jacobson, is very revealing. It was a work-product document; it was classified for the last decades as being "Secret", but what they laid out was their plans for pursuing the investigation over the period of the next several months. What's very clear is that they had many, many more leads on many more officials of the Saudi government — in southern California, in Washington, in Saudi Arabia — who were deeply implicated with the 9/11 hijackers. One section of Document 17, this 47-page paper that was declassified last July, is headlined "A Brief Overview of Possible Saudi Government Connections to the September 11 Attacks"; and it goes through the names of 18 Saudi officials who were in southern California, in Washington, and back in Saudi Arabia, who had direct contact and facilitated the efforts of the hijackers.

Now, the FBI was a continuous obstacle from the top down. During the "60 Minutes" broadcast several weeks ago, Commission Member John Lehman said that the order to block the publication of the 28 pages came directly from Robert Muller, who was the director of the FBI at the time. Now, it happens, and again it's repeated throughout this 47-page working document from the 9/11 Commission staff, that the two 9/11 hijackers, al-Hazmi and al-Midhar, who were living in the San Diego area; for the better part of a year were living in the home of a man who was an FBI informant, who was being paid $3000 a month by the FBI to keep tabs on possible radicals inside the Muslim community — particularly the Saudi-Muslim community in the southern California area. The staff from the 9/11 Commission and earlier the staff from the Joint Congressional Inquiry, repeatedly asked to interview the informant; they were blocked at every turn. The informant was put in the Federal Witness Protection Program under a change of identity; the FBI Special Agents who were the handlers of this informant, were also blocked from being interviewed by the Committee. So, in other words, one branch of the Executive Branch of the Federal government was working overtime to prevent the investigation from going forward.

Now, going all the way back to the days of J Edgar Hoover, it was notorious that the FBI was completely in bed with the British. During World War II, it was an open collaboration between the FBI and the British Special Operations Executive, with their headquarters at Rockefeller Center in New York City. But this relationship continued. Wall Street is an important intermediary between the FBI and the British. And so, the FBI role in the cover-up, both in San Diego and in other parts of the country, is absolutely stunning; and is something that in and of itself must be thoroughly investigated and exposed.

In the case of Sarasota, the FBI conducted an exhaustive investigation into a wealthy Saudi family that were intimately tied through business with the Saudi royals, who were in regular contact with Mohammed Atta and two other of the 9/11 hijackers. They lived in a gated community in the Sarasota, Florida area. Mohammed Atta and the others would frequently visit that home; and two weeks before the 9/11 attacks, that family on very short notice, picked up and left the country. First flew back to London; and from London back on to Saudi Arabia. The FBI compiled 86,000 pages of documentation following up those leads; because the connections between this leading Saudi family and the 9/11 hijackers was unmistakable. Those documents were withheld from the Joint Congressional Inquiry, despite the fact that the FBI was subpoenaed all over the country to turn over any records relevant to the investigation into 9/11.

So, you've got — as Senator Graham said — "willful deception" at the highest levels of government. Now, we know about San Diego; we know about Sarasota. We know also that Herndon and Falls Church, Virginia was another sort of center of activity of some of the hijackers and some of the leading Saudi clerics who were part of the overall structure of support for those 9/11 terrorists. Paterson, New Jersey was another center of this. Senator Graham has said at press conferences on Capitol Hill, that we've barely scratched the surface; because the government — to protect the British and protect the Saudis — have put up a wall of deception. They've blocked lines of inquiry; they've concealed documents; they've committed fraud and perjury. All because the power of the British and the power of the British/Saudi alliance is so dominant over politics in Washington that the FBI, in effect, is sworn to defend that relationship; even if it means that the American people are denied justice.

So, once again in conclusion, there is much more to this story than merely the events of September 11, 2001; as horrific and as dramatic as they were. The 9/11 Families deserve nothing less than the full and complete truth; no matter where it leads. But the problem runs much deeper. If we don't purge this Anglo-Saudi problem, if we don't get to some of the questions that were posed by the 9/11 Commission staffers; such as "Did the FBI intentionally withhold from the Joint Inquiry, information about the informant's relationship with the hijackers; and subsequently attempt to obstruct the Joint Inquiry's investigation of the matter? If the FBI did withhold information and obstruct the Joint Inquiry's investigation, were the FBI's actions indicative of a larger pattern of an FBI non-compliance with Congressional oversight; and what should be done about it?"

So, this is a can of worms that must be opened; and must be systematically investigated. Because our very future may depend on getting to the bottom of this.

OGDEN: And we are truly seeing a very momentous shift around this while Obama is in Riyadh and then flying directly to London. This has become the subject of almost all of the media coverage in the United States. And it's an extraordinary opportunity to pull this thread to unravel this empire. However, this is just yet one of many threads that can and must be pulled. There are other threads: What came out two years ago in the Senator Levin report on HSBC. This has a major aspect of it; and of course, this is becoming relevant again in the Panama Papers. And Helga LaRouche thought it was very significant that Jacques Attali, a prominent French economist, wrote an article this week saying, don't call them the Panama Papers; call them the London Papers. Because what this is really all about is the entire system of British offshore tax havens and Crown Protectorates that create the safe haven for this dark underworld of narco-terrorism, drug money laundering, and terrorism financing. And you can be guaranteed that if you follow the money, some of those threads lead directly back to these offshore tax havens.

So, as we're seeing right now, a lot of the work that has been done over years if not decades by the LaRouche Movement, by Executive Intelligence Review, by associates of Jeff Steinberg. And by Mr. LaRouche going back to his book, Dope, Inc. and also the very important film that he put out at the end of the 1990s, "Storm Over Asia", which described exactly how these irregular warfare operations are run to destabilize countries. And then the appearance he had on the Jack Stockwell show on the day that September 11 was occurring; that is featured in this "9/11 Ten Years Later" feature documentary that we showed little excerpts from, during the statement that you heard from Mr. LaRouche earlier this evening.

So, if you have a chance and you haven't watched it, or you haven't watched it lately; we would encourage you to go back and view that documentary. It's available on larouchepac.com/28pages; it's also available on our youTube channel. And I think you can be ready for much, much more that will be coming from LaRouche PAC TV on this subject and the broader implications of it. So, please stay tuned to larouchepac.com; please subscribe to our YouTube channel if you haven't already. Please explore all the content that we have published on this subject in the past; and please share it as widely as you can with your friends and your associates.

So, I'd like to thank Jeff Steinberg for joining us here this evening; and I would like to thank you for watching our broadcast. Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Thank you and good night.

 




Obama og det anglo-saudiske imperium på huggeblokken

Søndag aftens ’60 Minutter’ – eksposé af den saudiske rolle i de originale 11. september angreb og Bush- og Obama-administrationernes dække over de 28 sider, har forårsaget total panik i det Hvide Hus, i Riyadh og i London. Med krav fra både tidligere formand for Repræsentanternes Hus Nancy Pelosi og senator Kristen Gillebrand (D-NY) om, at Obama omgående af-klassificerer de 28 sider, har presset på Obama og det anglo-saudiske apparatur, som han og Bush har beskyttet i de sidste 15 år, nået en tærskel.
Obamas medskyld i at dække over det saudiske monarkis forbrydelser mere end overstiger målet for omgående rigsretssag og afsættelse. ’60 Minutter’–udsendelsen har været parat til at gå i luften i månedsvis, og det faktum, at showet blev sendt ti dage før Obamas planlagte besøg i Saudi Arabien for at mødes med GCC ledere, er en indikation af, at voksende magtfaktorer har erkendt, hvad Lyndon LaRouche erklærede så tidligt som i april 2009: At Obama er et redskab for det britiske monarki og deres saudiske slagtere, og at selve USA’s overlevelse er i fare for hver dag han forbliver i embedet.
’60 Minutter’-dokumentaren inddrog et antal veletablerede nationale sikkerheds-veteraner fra forhenværende flådesekretær John Lehman til tidligere CIA direktør Porter Goss og forhenværende senator Bob Graham, der alle forlangte en øjeblikkelig frigivelse af de 28 sider. Medlem af kongressens fælles undersøgelsesudvalg Tim Roemer pegede på tidligere FBI direktør Robert Mueller, som en af nøglefigurerne bag tilsløringen af den saudiske rolle.
’60 Minutter’-afsløringen gik I luften blot en uge efter frigivelsen af ’Panama-papirerne, ‘ der afslørede det virkeligt beskidte ømme punkt i det britiske imperium: ‘offshore’ penge-centrene, der hvidvasker narko- og andre former for sorte penge samt styrer skatteunddragelse og anden kriminalitet. Som Lyndon LaRouche har gjort det klart igennem årtier, er det britiske imperium et kriminelt oligarki opsat på befolkningsmord. Nu findes der 11 millioner sider med beviser imod det London-centrerede kriminelle og morderiske imperium.
Dette ‘et-to stød’ til hjertet af oligarkiet kommer endvidere på et tidspunkt, hvor briterne er desperate for at starte en verdenskrig imod Rusland og Kina, som en respons på det faktum, at deres system er håbløst og uigenkaldeligt bankerot. Obama er deres ynkelige instrument i denne stræben efter krig, og hans fjernelse fra embedet er på nuværende tidspunkt den eneste ægte løsningsmodel for at undgå krig.

Kampen om de 28 sider er nu nået til et punkt, hvor den kan bringe Obama og hele det rådne anglo-saudiske system til fald. Det er på tide!

Kampagnen for frigivelse af de 28 siger får nu også prominent dækning i Europa, som for eksempel på det velkendte franske sikkerhed- og forsvars website Dedefensa.org, der er baseret i Belgien. Dets omfattende dækning begynder med en rapport om ”60 minutter” exposéen: ”I søndags steg det politiske og folkelige pres for en af-klassificering af de famøse 28 sider fra den oprindelige amerikanske regeringsrapport om 11. september skarpt. Det skete med udsendelsen af et TV-program, for første gang med et stort nationalt publikum – ’60 Minutter’ med CS’s Steven Kroft som vært, et program, der helt og holdent var helliget spørgsmålet om 11. september. Det er en vigtig sejr for en offentligt lanceret bevægelse, udenfor politiske netværk……”

Link til udsendelsen på dansk TV:

https://www.dr.dk/tv/se/60-minutes/60-minutes-2016-04-06?app_mode=true&platform=ios&personalization=true&?queryhash=!%2F00%3A00%3A00




Tv-programmet “60 minutes” opfordrer Obama til at frigive de hemmelige “28 sider”
af kongressens 11. september undersøgelsesrapport, der blotlægger Saudi Arabiens rolle i angrebet

Link til “60 minutter” programmet på DR TV

D. 11. april, 2016 – En tværpolitisk række af ledende medlemmer fra de to større undersøgelser af angrebene d. 11. september optrådte i det amerikanske Tv-program ”60 minutter” søndag aften, og opfordrede til frigivelse af hemmelige dokumenter, der viser Saudi Arabiens medvirken i angrebene. Programmet blev udsendt umiddelbart før Barack Obamas sidste præsidentbesøg i Saudi Arabien i næste uge, og samtidig med en presseerklæring fra Kongressens demokratiske leder Nancy Pelosi med opfordring til frigivelse af de hemmelige ”28” sider af Kongressens undersøgelse af 11. september.

Dagsordenen for Obamas “kronings-“visit til hans krigsallierede er nu uden tvivl blevet ”vanskeliggjort.” Det saudiske wahabit-monarkis kongelige ambassade i Washington, der er svækket og ikke så affærdigende som ved tidligere eksponeringer af 11. september, tog øjeblikkeligt afstand fra udsendelsen, der blev betegnet som ”en sammenskrivning af myter og fejlagtige anklager, der allerede er blevet grundigt adresseret, ikke alene af den saudiske regering, men også af 11. september Kommissionen, og de amerikanske domstole.”

I årene siden Obama første gang lovede familierne til ofrene for 11. september at han ville af-klassificere de 28 sider, har han og saudierne gået hånd i hånd i så meget katastrofalt og folkemorderisk krigsførelse – og gør det stadig –, at en afsløring af saudisk ansvar for angrebene d. 11. september ville være en dynamit-anklage, der tillige ville ramme London. Segmentet i ”60 minutter” begyndte med præcist at fastslå, at der er ”dyb mistillid” mellem de krigsallierede, hvoraf en del er opstået på grund af den åbenlyse saudiske støtte til sunni-jihadistgrupper og terrorist-ideologier verden over.

Og til sidst må retfærdigheden dog ske fyldest for ofrene for 11. september. Medlem af Repræsentanternes Hus Nancy Peloci udtalte, at ”Som tidligere højtplaceret demokrat i Husets Efterretningskommité, der undersøgte angrebene d. 11. september, er jeg enig med tidligere senator Bob Graham i, at disse dokumenter skulle af-klassificeres og gøres offentlige.” Graham sagde på CBS-udsendelse, at flykaprerne nødvendigvis må have haft opbakning indenfor USA, og da han blev spurgt, ”Tror De, at der var støtte fra Saudi Arabien?” svarede han, ”i betydelig grad,” og indikerede, at han medregnede den saudiske regering. Medlemmerne af 11. september Kommissionen, pensioneret admiral John Lehman, forhenværende senator Bob Kerrey og U.S. repræsentant Tim Roemer bekræftede alle, at de fleste medlemmer af begge undersøgelser – inklusiv deres ledere – ønsker de 28 sider af-klassificeret af Obama. Og det gør familierne og EIR ikke mindre.

Mest bemærkelsesværdig var Kerrey’s bemærkning. Den saudiske regering har i 14 år påberåbt sig en enkelt sætning i 11. september Kommisionsrapporten om, ”at den ikke fandt bevis for, at ledende saudiske officials stod bag angrebene.” Til trods for den ekstreme og overlagte tvetydighed i ordet ”ledende”, har saudierne offentligt, og ved amerikanske domstole, hævdet, at Kommissionen fritog dem for skyld. Kerrey sagde ligeud til værten på ”60 minutter” Steve Kroft, ”Nej, vi fritog ikke saudierne for skyld”.

Link til “60 minutter” programmet på DR TV




RADIO SCHILLER den 4. januar 2016:
Året 2016: Bail-in, kaos og krig
– eller et nyt paradigme for samarbejde og udvikling?

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:




Ét minut før midnat; Tiden er inde til at
fordømme den saudiske barbarisme og Wall Street

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, USA, 4. januar 2016:

Retfærdighed for ofrene for angrebene 11. sept. 2001 er for længe blevet forhindret af George W. Bush og Barack Obama; og nu afhænger en afværgelse af en verdenskrig netop af, at denne retfærdighed sker fyldest.

Det barbariske, saudiske regimes massehenrettelser den 2. jan., der nu igen polariserer hele den muslimske verden, må fordømmes bredt af alle civiliserede folk, før de saudiske handlinger udløser en ny, global krig.

Det første, omgående skridt må være den omgående frigivelse af de hemmelige 28 sider fra den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september, der udlagde det saudiske monarkis direkte rolle i organiseringen af disse angreb på New York og Washington. Præsident George W. Bush begravede disse 28 sider, og præsident Barack Obama har holdt dem begravet. Lovforslagene i hhv. Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, hhv. H. Res. 14 og S. 1471, kræver disse siders frigivelse. Men tiden er nu inde til at bringe indholdet af disse 28 sider til salen, til debat, i Huset og Senatet, og til alle amerikanere.

Havde disse oplysninger været offentliggjort, ville der ikke have været nogen trussel fra Islamisk Stat i dag, og det saudiske sponsorskab af global, jihadistisk terror ville være blevet standset for 13 år siden. Bush’ og Obamas handlinger, hvor de har beskyttet denne beskidte, saudiske hemmelighed, svarer til forræderi imod det amerikanske folk, og først og fremmest de 3.000 amerikanere, der omkom under angrebene den 11. september, 2001.

De barbariske massehenrettelser den 2. januar turde være de klareste påmindelser om, at dette lederskab af Kongedømmet ikke kan skelnes fra lederskabet af ISIS.

Vi står også ét minut før midnat, før et finanskrak, der er i sine virkninger på folk er værre end i 2008.

I dag, den 4. jan., træder politikken med »bail-in« i kraft over hele Europa og i USA. Regeringens finanstilsynsfolk og bankierer kender politikken; men det gør du sandsynligvis ikke: De vil forsøge at »gen-kapitalisere« alle banker, der går konkurs, ved at inddrage deres kreditorers obligationer, og dernæst tage kontohavernes penge.

Og der vil være banker, der krakker. I Europa har en række bankkonkurser og »bail-in«-begivenheder af kontohaverne allerede ramt Italien og Portugal lige før Nytårsdag. I det amerikanske finanssystem er boblen af »junkgæld«, der er knyttet til råvarer, blevet 150 % større, end ejendomsboblen af subprime-lån i 2008 nogensinde var; og den forfaldne del af denne junkgæld steg pludselig i december måned til 25 % – det er lige så højt, som betalingsstandsningen på subprime-boliglån nåede op på, før bankerne krakkede.

Klar og direkte handling imod Wall Street kræves. Svindlen med »bail-in« er blevet godkendt af præsident Obama og vedtaget ved lov, i Dodd/Frank-loven, gennem en fej og korrupt amerikansk Kongres. Denne Kongres træder igen sammen tirsdag, den 5. januar – og de må omgående holdes til ilden.

Kongressen kunne have lukket Wall Street-kasinoet ned i 2010 ved at genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven og andre tiltag lig dem, præsident Franklin Roosevelt indførte i de første måneder af sin embedsperiode. I stedet bukkede Kongressen under for Wall Street. De vedtog bailout – statslige redningspakker – for milliarder og dernæst en Dodd/Frank-lov, der nu står for at frembringe den endnu mere ødelæggende »bail-in« – dvs. en ekspropriering af jeres kontoindeståender og en overdragelse af midlerne til insolvente banker. Nu kan Wall Street/London-banksystemet, der er klar til at eksplodere, virkelig slå jer ihjel.

Der bør ikke tages flere bailouts, eller nogen bail-ins, i betragtning. Wall Street har ikke myndighed til at kræve denne dårlige gæld indfriet, eller erstatte den med jeres bankindeståender. For at forhindre en økonomisk katastrofe og generel krig, luk Wall Street og Obama ned. Tving dem til at gennemføre Glass/Steagall nu! Lovforslag i Huset HR 381 og i Senatet S. 1709.

Den tidligere guvernør for Maryland, Martin O’Malley, har klarere end nogen anden præsidentkandidat erklæret sin hensigt om at genindføre Glass-Steagall – Wall Street Journal kaldte ham »Wall Streets fjende nummer ét« som resultat. Vil han få den nødvendige støtte til at gøre det?

 

 




USA: Senator Mike Gravel angriber USA’s støtte til saudierne

20. november 2015 – Internetvært Alex Jones fra »Infowars« (http://www.infowars.com/) interviewede i dag den amerikanske senator Mike Gravel (1969-1981) i 40 minutter. Det syndikerede show udsendes på mere end 160 radiostationer i USA.

Alex Jones introducerede sen. Gravel som en person, der altid have afsløret den korrupte forbindelse mellem Saudi Arabien og USA: »Saudierne styrede flykaprerne, og vores regering gjorde ingenting … Hvad med de 28 sider?«

»Det er latterligt, at de blev hemmeligstemplet«, svarede sen. Gravel: »Kongressen er ligeværdig med den udøvende gren (præsidenten, -red.), og den udøvende gren kan ikke hemmeligstemple det, der øver indflydelse på Forfatningens ’tale- eller debatklausul’ … «, hvilket er, hvad der giver Kongressen mulighed for at informere borgerne om, hvad regeringen foretager sig, for »hvis man som borger ikke ved, hvad regeringen foretager sig, hvordan skal man så kunne handle på det?« Saudierne har i tre til fem årtier finansieret udbredelsen af Wahhabi-doktrinen. Vi gør et stort nummer ud af, hvad ISIS gør (halshugning, stening etc.), men saudierne gør disse ting som noget ganske normalt. ISIS er et produkt af Wahhabi-tankegangen og er blevet betalt for det af Saudi Arabien i generationer. Om Syrien sagde sen. Gravel: »Hvem tror vi, vi er, at vi kan diktere, at Assad skal væk? Mellemøsten er noget rod. Vi invaderede Libyen, et fremgangsrigt land, hvor borgerne blev uddannet«, inkl. kvinder. »Victoria Nuland (USA’s viceudenrigsminister for Eurasien, -red.) brugte milliarder af dollar til at anstifte det ukrainske rod. Vores udenrigspolitik er ’Apokalypsens Fire Ryttere’ – krig, hungersnød, pest og død – gennem erobringskrige, som vi ikke har råd til.«

Sen. Gravel påpegede USA’s politik over for Kina som et eksempel på Thukydides-fælden[1], hvor en fremvoksende magt er i færd med at fortrænge en eksisterende supermagt. »Der kunne ske en ulykke, som startede en atomkrig … Lyt engang til de republikanske kandidater; Kongressen er lige så skyldig som den udøvende gren … Vi skal være amerikanske borgere, men vi skal også være verdensborgere. USA er et imperium i forfald, som ikke vil indrømme det.«

Alex Jones roste larouchepac.com webside, og sen. Gravel roste Executive Intelligence Reviews webside (http://www.larouchepub.com/), som han kaldte »fantastisk«. Han sagde, at han var »henrykt over at være associeret med LaRouche-bevægelsen« og henviste til LaRouches rolle i SDI (Strategisk Forsvarsinitiativ)[2] og EIR’s historiske analyser, der »går lige til sagen«.

Sen. Gravel sagde, at han støttede den kinesiske udviklingsplan, »Ét bælte, én vej«[3], der ville forene verden rent økonomisk på en måde, hvor alle nyder frugterne af modernitet«, versus USA’s fremstød for »en militarisering af planeten … Kina er i færd med at erobre verden gennem økonomiske midler. Det kunne USA have gjort«, sagde sen. Gravel.

[1] Gr. Historiker, 460-305 f.Kr.; beskrev, hvordan republikken Athen degenererede til et imperium og destruerede sig selv gennem erobringskrige.

[2] Se: LaRouches Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ, en amerikansk-sovjetisk aftale for fred og udvikling, tema-artikel, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=6976

[3] Se: Schiller Institut-seminar i København den 27. april 2015: Kinas politik for “Et Bælte, En Vej”, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=6387

 




LaRouchePAC Fredags-webcast 20. november 2015:
Obamaregeringen skaber kaos med overlæg ved at sprænge
verden luften. Fjern ham, eller se en større katastrofe i øjnene.

Som hr. LaRouche eftertrykkeligt erklærede under vores diskussion med ham, så er den amerikanske præsident Obamas politik den førende årsag til det kaos, som verden nu befinder sig i, og har ikke alene bevirket skabelsen af en frugtbar yngleplads for vækst og deployering af terrororganisationer som ISIS i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, men har også bragt os helt ud på randen af krig med Rusland og Kina – en krig, som ville blive en verdenskrig med anvendelse af atomvåben, som ville betyde udslettelsen af det store flertal af denne planets befolkning. Med Jeff Steinberg m. fl.

Engelsk udskrift.

 

International LaRouche PAC Webcast for Friday November 20 2015

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s November 20, 2015. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly broadcast
here from larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio tonight by
both Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, and
Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science Team, and we have
a very timely and important presentation prepared for you
tonight, which was informed by a meeting that the three of us had
earlier today with both Lyndon LaRouche, as well as Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, who joined us via video-call from Europe.
Obviously we’re meeting here tonight exactly one week
following the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday. As
Helga LaRouche emphasized during our discussion with her earlier,
the sheer horror of these attacks, striking as they did at the
heart of one of the leading cities of Europe, claiming the lives
of 130 innocent people, who were slaughtered in cold blood as
they went around their usual business on a Friday night — this
has absolutely changed everything, and has served to force people
across Europe, and in the United States, to recognize that a
sudden and dramatic change in policy must be adopted, or else the
entirety of Western Civilization is on the verge of descending
into a total hell on earth, from which it would be virtually
impossible to return.
As Mr. LaRouche emphatically stated in our discussion with
him, the policies of US President Barack Obama are the leading
cause of the chaos which the world now finds itself in, and have
served not only to create a fertile breeding ground for the
growth and deployment of terrorist organizations like ISIS in the
Middle East and North Africa, but have brought us right to the
edge of a war with Russia, and with China — a war that would be
world war, which would involve the use of thermonuclear weapons,
which would mean the extermination of a vast majority of the
population on this planet.
Now in a very significant development, which I know Jeff
will go a little bit more into, and will elaborate on in his
remarks, this fact has been explicitly stated by a Congresswoman,
whom we’ve spoken about previously on these broadcasts, Rep.
Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii, in a press release which
she issued earlier today, announcing the filing of a bill in the
House of Representatives that, in her words, would bring an
immediate end to the illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow
the Syrian government of Assad, Barack Obama’s war. Congresswoman
Gabbard explains:
“The war to overthrow Assad is illegal and
counterproductive, because it actually helps ISIS and other
Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian
government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria.” Then she
lists 10 reasons, which include the fact that if we are to
succeed in overthrowing Assad, as Barack Obama wishes, it would
open the door for ISIS to take over all of Syria, including
Damascus, in which case, she says, “there will be genocide and
suffering on a scale beyond our imagination.”
She also states that the overthrowing of the government of
Assad is the goal of ISIS, and other Islamic extremist groups,
and “we should not be allying ourselves with these Islamic
extremists by helping them achieve their goal, because it is
against the security interests of the United States and all of
civilization.” And she also says that we should learn from the
past mistakes in both the regime changes in Iraq and in Libya,
which is saying something from a combat veteran, Congresswoman
Gabbard, who was herself deployed in the war in Iraq.
Now, she also makes the point that Obama’s war has been the
direct exacerbation of the chaos and the carnage in Syria
inflicted by ISIS on the innocent people of that country, which
has caused the number of refugees being forced to flee Syria and
elsewhere, to continue to increase at a rapid rate. And later in
the broadcast that is something that I know Ben Deniston will
also be addressing.
But most significantly, she lists as reason number 10:
“Because our war to overthrow the Assad government puts us in
direct conflict with Russia, and increases the likelihood of war
between the United States and Russia, and the possibility of
another world war.” So, as far as I know, that makes Tulsi
Gabbard the only sitting member of Congress to have had the guts
to state that fact as explicitly and clearly.
I just want to read one more short excerpt from her press
release before introducing our institutional question for this
evening. Congresswoman Gabbard concludes her press release by
stating: “To destroy ISIS will take international alliances. If
we are serious about defeating ISIS, and solving the refugee
problem, we’ll work in partnership with Russia, with France, and
anyone else who is serious about destroying ISIS and affiliated
Islamic extremist organizations worldwide. The problem is because
the U.S. is trying to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad,
and Russia is supporting the government of Assad, it is
impossible for us to have an effective cooperative relationship
with Russia in our mutual fight against ISIS. Our focus on
overthrowing Assad is interfering with our ability to destroy
ISIS. We must immediately end the illegal, counterproductive war
to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad, and ally ourselves
with any countries willing to focus on destroying the Islamic
extremists who pose a genuine threat to civilization.”
So this brings us directly to our institutional question for
this evening, to which I’m going to ask Jeff to deliver Mr.
LaRouche’s response. The question reads as follows: “Mr.
LaRouche, the Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev has said
that the best way to combat the so-called Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria, or ISIS, is for Russia to unite with the West in a
grand alliance to defeat this common threat of terrorism. In this
regard, Russia is already coordinating airstrikes against ISIS
with France. How do you envision a closer collaboration between
the United States and Russia in this fight to defeat ISIS, and
all of its affiliated terrorist organizations?”

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. Mr. LaRouche was very
blunt, as you’ll hear in a just a moment, and in fact, he took
the question one step beyond the otherwise very important and
admirable comments made by Congresswoman Gabbard today. And by
the way, that press release was announcing the introduction of a
bill into the U.S. House of Representatives that would formally
ban the Obama administration from any further actions to
overthrow the Assad government.
Now, during our discussion with Mr. LaRouche, I took rather
detailed notes so what I’m about to read to you are not verbatim
transcripts of what Mr. LaRouche had to say, but they will give
you a very clear flavor, and represent I think a pretty accurate
accounting from Mr. LaRouche’s comments. And the very first thing
that he said is, to defeat ISIS in partnership with the Russians,
you have to get rid of Obama. Putin surprised everyone with his
military move into Syria in September; and it was the only way to
do it. Obama is sunk in, and there is no alternative until he is
removed; and this cannot be postponed. We’re running out of time,
and we are on the verge of the total collapse of the US system;
he must be thrown out immediately. And LaRouche went on to add,
we must totally dump Wall Street and adopt the approach of FDR at
the start of his New Deal. Roosevelt solved the problem within
weeks of taking office, by changing the entire direction of the
nation after the disaster of President Herbert Hoover. Everything
changed within a few years. The idea of totally shutting down
Wall Street is not difficult for intelligent people to
understand; nothing else works. Congress is pussyfooting around.
Wall Street must be shut, and a new Federal operation must be
launched to rebuild the nation. Do not try to salvage any part of
the old system. The problem is that most people in Congress are
idiots; and the President of the United States is a criminal.
When you have a criminal leading idiots, you have a system that
will not work. So, Obama must be thrown out, and there is no
alternative to that. All of the evidence is there. Shut down Wall
Street! It’s not needed.
Furthermore, Obama has committed so many crimes in fact,
that he can be removed from office at any moment. Start with his
Tuesday kill sessions; these are crimes that not only demand his
removal from office, but should land him in prison for mass
murder. Obama has presided over the destruction of the US
economy, to the point that a majority of our citizens are facing
the disaster of impoverishment. He has followed the George
Bush/Dick Cheney cover-up of 9/11; this is typical for Obama, who
is nothing but a British agent protecting the brutish.
And so, the problem is not with the evidence; the problem is
that most members of Congress lack guts. The Tuesday kill
meetings tell it all. The vast majority of people killed on
Obama’s personal orders, were innocent bystanders; not even the
so-called “legitimate targets”. And Obama personally signed off
on every one of those killings.
Now, I want you to take a look at one of the documents that
was released as part of the “Drone Papers”. We’ve talked about
this repeatedly for the last four or five weeks. The “Drone
Papers” that were published by {The Intercept}, a web-based news
organization founded by Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, are
hundreds of pages of documents from the Pentagon and from the
House Select Committee on Intelligence. Now the specific document
that you’re looking at, is a flowchart that goes through
step-by-step the procedures that are used to establish who will
be killed. This is the process that ultimately leads up to those
Tuesday kill meetings, where President Obama personally presides.
If you follow the chain of command — and this is dealing with
two specific operations within the overall drone kill program —
one operation in Somalia called Operation Jupiter Garrett; and
another operation in Yemen called Copper Dune. In every instance,
the process for deciding on the kill order goes up from the local
military intelligence units on the ground, up through the
military command all the way through the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
up to the Secretary of Defense, and up to the Principals
Committee and the Deputy Principals Committee; these are the
Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet officials of the government. But
ultimately, everything leads back to the President of the United
States. And it’s only with President Obama’s personal signature
that the kill orders go out; the clock starts, and there is a
60-day deadline to track down and kill the designated target.
Now, even by the criteria that are contained in this
document, we know from the House Intelligence review and from
other exposés that none of the guidelines have been followed; and
that all of procedures that were supposedly built in to make sure
that innocent civilian casualties were avoided, that there was
direct confirmation of the whereabouts of the target — none of
those things were adhered to. At the very bottom, it says that
“At every level, the targetting window suitability is determined
by rules of engagement.” The rules of engagement are that there
must be low collateral damage estimates; meaning “collateral
damage” is a polite word for innocent civilians being killed in
the course of the attacks. There must be “near certainty” of the
high-value individual’s presence, based on two forms of
intelligence and no contradictory intelligence; and then, all the
way up the chain of command — including the host government —
must all concur, or otherwise no strike is allowed to take place.
Now, I can tell you that having reviewed the totality of the
“Drone Papers”, that these procedures — as minimal and as
limited as they are — were never adhered to. None of these
conditions were met in the overwhelming majority of these kill
incidents. And to give you an idea of the callousness of this
structure under President Obama, the formal name given to the
summary documents; the photographs and documentary evidence that
was used to determine whether or not the President will sign off
on a kill order, is referred to in these meetings as the
“baseball card”. So, in other words, the lack of any sense of
what this program is all about, is absolutely stunning.
Now, let me just add that, earlier today, President Obama,
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and CIA Director John Brennan
received a letter that was written by four former US Air Force
Drone Team members. They are: Brandon Bryant, Sion Westmoreland,
Stephen Lewis, and Michael Haas; all four of them operated for
years as members of the drone crew. And they wrote this letter,
urging the President to end the program right now; and I want to
read you what they had to say, because I think it’s one of the
most powerful testaments to the murderous criminality of our
President. And it should make very clear that anything short of
immediate removal from office, by impeachment, or invoking of the
25th Amendment, or forcing his immediate resignation is
unacceptable and doesn’t rise to the magnitude of the crisis that
we’re in, or the crimes that he’s committed. Here’s the letter:
“We are former Air Force service members. We joined the Air
Force to protect American lives and to protect our Constitution.
We came to the realization that the innocent civilians we were
killing, only fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited
terrorism and groups like ISIS, while also serving as a
fundamental recruitment tool similar to Guantanamo Bay. This
administration and its predecessors have built a drone program
that is one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism
and destabilization around the world. When the guilt of our roles
in facilitating this systematic loss of innocent life became too
much, all of us succumbed to PTSD — post-traumatic stress
disorder. We were cut loose by the same government we gave so
much to, sent out in the world without adequate medical care,
reliable public health services, or necessary benefits. Some of
us are now homeless. Others of us barely make it. We witnessed
gross waste, mismanagement, abuse of power, and our country’s
leaders lying publicly about the effectiveness of the drone
program. We cannot sit silently by and witness tragedies like the
attacks in Paris, knowing the devastating effects the drone
program has, overseas and at home. Such silence would violate the
very oaths we took to support and defend the Constitution. We
request that you consider our perspective, though perhaps that
request is in vain, given the unprecedented prosecutions of
truth-tellers who came before us, like Chelsea Manning, Julian
Assange, and Edward Snowden. For the sake of this country, we
hope it is otherwise.”
Now, again, Mr. LaRouche has put the right punctuation mark
on the situation, and has made clear that nothing can be
accomplished, nothing can be effectively achieved in partnership
with the Russians, unless Obama is removed. I want to continue
briefly reading the remainder of Mr. LaRouche’s comments to us
this afternoon, and then we’ll move on. ` He said, the
gutlessness of the Congress really started in the current context
with the attacks of 9/11, with Cheney and company. He said, I
still have vivid recollection of the planes crashing into the
twin towers. This is a Manhattan issue. It goes to the heart of
the Bush family, and the heart of the Obama legacy. Obama’s
personality was shaped by his step-father, who was a cold
murderer. Obama has blood on his hands; he’s too dangerous for
mankind. Since the Russians launched their Syria operations in
September, and especially since the Paris attacks of one week
ago, there is an implicit taming of Obama, but he is still too
dangerous to be allowed to remain in office. Imagine where we
would be today without Putin’s actions and the actions of China.
The Victory Day parade in Beijing attended by Xi Jinping and
Putin established the Asian factor as a supreme factor in world
affairs. Compare that to the mess we see in France, the mess we
see in Germany, and elsewhere. So you must remove Obama from
office, or we can’t make it.
Now, he then returned to the question of Wall Street, which
Obama’s Presidency has protected up and down the line. Wall
Street is about to implode, and we must shut it down now. Treat
Wall Street as something that no longer exists. Use FDR’s methods
with even more emphasis. Write off all of Wall Street’s assets
out of existence, and develop a program, an FDR program, to
change the direction of the economy. Create a credit system, and
make it known that nothing will be paid on the useless assets of
Wall Street. And Mr. LaRouche ended by simply noting, Clinton was
blackmailed into going along with the end of Glass-Steagall, and
Hillary was unfortunately used as a tool in that process.
So, again, there is no question that a coordinated alliance
between the United States and Russia to defeat ISIS, using the
same approach that was used to defeat Hitler in World War II, is
feasible. Some leading retired American military officials have
openly called for a formal military alliance between the United
States and Russia. Let Russia, which has been formally invited
into Syria, handle the assault on the ISIS forces from the Syrian
side, and let the United States, which has been invited-in by the
Iraqi government, handle the assault against the Islamic State
from the Iraqi side. Run that as a pincer operation. Hit them
from both flanks, and crush them under the weight of the
capability that could be brought to bear by the United States and
Russia in combination. But again, while that is absolutely
feasible, there is no reason to assume that the British will let
that happen, so long as Obama remains in office. And therefore,
it is essential, if we are going to have this alliance, if we are
going to avoid many more Paris-es — perhaps the next one on the
streets of New York City, or Washington DC, or Chicago, or Los
Angeles — then Obama must be removed now, and Congress
collectively must find the guts to take the necessary action.
OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Now, as we mentioned last week on
our broadcast here, which we recorded just hours after the
initial attacks occurred in Paris, before there was last Friday’s
attacks in Paris, which killed 130 people, there were also the
fore-going attacks in January of this year, against the editorial
offices of the satirical magazine {Charlie Hebdo}.
As a matter of very eerie coincidence, just hours after
those attacks occurred, on January 7th of this year, several
members of Congress, including Walter Jones, and Stephen Lynch,
as well as former Senator Bob Graham, of the State of Florida,
and additionally, family members of the victims of 9/11, convened
a press conference on Capitol Hill, on the morning of January
7th, which had been previously scheduled, on the subject of a
bill to release the redacted 28 pages of the Congressional Joint
Inquiry Report into the attacks on 9/11, an inquiry of which
former Senator Bob Graham had been co-chair at the time. We are
going to replay a very short excerpt of Senator Graham’s remarks
at that press conference then, January 7th of this year, but
while we play this for you, I want you to reflect on how even
more relevant and urgent his statements are, now, in the wake, in
the aftermath of last Friday’s attacks in Paris, not to mention
the attacks in Beirut, the attacks in Mali earlier today, and
elsewhere, and the fact that the failure to release these pages
{then}, on January 7th, or January 8th, in the immediate wake of
that press conference, the failure to release the 28 pages
{then}, puts the blood of the innocent victims of these
subsequent attacks on the hands of those who insist on
perpetuating this cover-up to this day. So watch this brief
excerpt from the press conference on January 7th.

[RECORDING] CONG. WALTER JONES: I introduce the esteemed
Senator from Florida, Bob Graham. Thank you.

SENATOR BOB GRAHAM: Walter, thank you very much. And I, too,
want to thank Walter and Steve — Congressmen Jones and Lynch —
for their leadership in bringing this matter to the attention of
the Congress. I want to thank the family members, who have been
without question the most influential force in all of the changes
that have occurred as a result of 9/11, and will be the most
significant force in terms of convincing the President that it is
time to give the American people the truth. Needless to say, my
remarks that I will espouse this morning, are considerably
different than they would have been, but for events in Paris this
morning, which in my judgment, bring this matter into its proper
focus.
What have been the consequences of this refusal to release
the pages? The consequences, in my judgment are three:
One, is a denial of the truth. A core question in 9/11 is,
did these 19 people act alone, or did they have a network of
support which facilitated their ability to carry out a very
complex plot? No one who has looked closely at the facts,
including the individuals that I just named, has come to a
conclusion other than that it is highly improbable that the 19
people could have acted alone. Yet, the official position of the
United States government has been that they did act alone, and
that there is no necessity for further inquiry into the question
of whether there was a support network.
The second issue, is the issue of justice. Some 3,000
members of the families who were lost on 9/11 have been trying
for years to get justice through our system for the losses that
they have suffered. The position of the United States government
has been to protect Saudi Arabia, at virtually every step of the
judicial process. When the United States government was called
upon to take a position, it has been a position adverse to the
interests of the United States citizens seeking justice, and
protective of the government which, in my judgment, was the most
responsible for that network of support.
The third consequence is the issue of national security, and
frequently those who have defended nondisclosure, have said, this
cannot be made available to the American people, because it would
be adverse to our national security. It will affect methods and
sources of information, or other information that is
inappropriate to be made publicly known. As the two Congressmen
have just said, they both read the reportnot 12 years ago, when I
participated in writing the reportbut they have read it recently,
and have both come to the same conclusion that we did a dozen
years ago: that there is no threat to national security in
disclosure.
I’m going to make the case today, that there is a threat to
national security by non-disclosure, and we saw another chapter
of that today in Paris.
Here are some facts:
The Saudis know what they did. They are not persons who are
unaware of the consequences of their government’s actions.
Second, the Saudis know that we know what they did! Somebody in
the Federal government has read these 28 pages, someone in the
Federal government has read all the other documents that have
been covered up so far. And the Saudis know that.
What would you think the Saudis’ position would be, if they
knew what they had done, they knew that the United States knew
what they had done, and they also observed that the United States
had taken a position of either passivity, or actual hostility to
letting those facts be known? What would the Saudi government do
in that circumstance, which is precisely where they have been,
for more than a decade?
Well, one, they have continued, maybe accelerated, their
support for one of the most extreme forms of Islam, Wahhabism,
throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. And
second, they have supported the religious fervor, with financial
and other forms of support, of the institutions which were going
to carry out those extreme forms of Islam. Those institutions
have included mosques, madrassas, and military. Al-Qaeda was a
creature of Saudi Arabia; the regional groups such as al-Shabaab
have been largely creatures of Saudi Arabia; and now, ISIS is the
latest creature!
Yes, I hope and I trust that the United States will crush
ISIS, but if we think that is the definition of victory, we are
being very naive! ISIS is a consequence, not a causeit is a
consequence of the spread of extremism, largely by Saudi Arabia,
and if it is crushed, there will be another institution
established, financed, supported, to carry on the cause.
So the consequences of our passivity to Saudi Arabia, have
been that we have tolerated this succession of
institutionsviolent, extreme, extremely hurtful to the region of
the Middle East, and a threat to the world, as we saw this
morning in Paris.
So I conclude by saying, this is a very important issue. It
may seem stale to some, but it is as current as the headlines
that we will read today. It is an issue that goes to the core of
the United States’ contract with its people, that the people
would give the government the credibility and support to govern;
the government would give the people the information upon which
they can make good judgments, as to the appropriateness of
governmental action. It’s as fundamental as justice to our
people, who have suffered so, by this evil union of extremism and
a very powerful nation-state. And it is the security of the
people of the United States of America.
So, I again thank the Congressmen for their leadership. I
hope that they will soon be joined by a rising tide of other
members of Congress who recognize the importance of this issue.
And then, finally, that the President of the United States will
declare that he is going to adopt the Lincolnesque standard of
full disclosure, and rely on the intelligence and judgment and
patriotism of the American people to decide what the appropriate
course of action should be.
Thank you.

OGDEN: Now both Jeff Steinberg and myself had the
opportunity to be in that room on that day, January 7, present at
that press conference, and I know Senator Graham’s presentation
sent chills through the audience, especially because it came in
such proximity to these terrible attacks on that day, on the
headquarters of {Charlie Hebdo}; but especially when he said —
and I think this stood out for you, probably, when you were just
listening to this again — when he said, this is a very important
issue. It may seem stale to some, but it is as current as the
headlines we will read today.
And tragically, that applies just as much this week, in the
aftermath of the horrific attacks in Paris of last Friday, as it
did then, in the aftermath of the attacks at {Charlie Hebdo}. And
as long as this cover-up continues, innocent people continue to
die. Paris, Beirut, Mali, the Russian airliner — what’s next?
What must be done to ensure there {is} no next time?
So I know that Jeff has been deeply involved in this issue
for several years, over a decade, and I’d like him to come to the
podium to briefly comment on the significance of what you just
heard Senator Bob Graham say.

STEINBERG: The statement I read a few moments ago from the
four former drone pilots reminded me that among the documents
that were released in 2010 by WikiLeaks, which of course began
the process of revealing some of the murderous behavior of the
Obama administration, included a document which was a cable from
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Richard Holbrooke, who
was the Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who was
preparing to make a visit to Saudi Arabia soon after that memo
was written, towards the end of 2009. And what that memo said was
well, we’re in possession of massive evidence that the number one
source of financing for all of the various Sunni jihadist terror
groups is Saudi Arabia. And we’ve got to begin to develop a
policy for putting some kind of pressure on Saudi Arabia so
they’ll cut it out.
So, in other words, there was full knowledge in 2009 at the
very beginning of the Obama administration throughout the
administration that Saudi Arabia was still continuing to be a
major source of support for the al-Qaeda networks that carried
out the 9/11 atrocities. Remember also that General Michael
Flynn, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was
unceremoniously fired last year by President Obama for daring to
continue to supply intelligence on the fact that Obama’s own
policies were fueling the growth of al-Qaeda and eventually
fueling the growth of the Islamic State — ISIS. So, this should
be a further reminder of the points that were made by Senator
Graham and the others that this administration, from day one, has
been fully on notice about the continuing role of Saudi Arabia as
the principal source of financing and logistical support for the
activities of these hideous jihadist terrorists.
Now just in the past week, really in the past several weeks,
we can account for hundreds of people who’ve been killed by the
very apparatus that this President has refused to take any action
against. You had the bombing of the Metro Jet airliner — 224
people killed when the plane blew up by a terrorist bomb over the
Sinai Desert. Secondly, you had two suicide bombings in the
southern portions of Beirut, targetting a largely Shi’ite
neighborhood. We don’t have the precise number of people killed,
but it was a large number of people killed and wounded. And of
course, we now have a death toll of 130 in Paris. And even
earlier today, you had a jihadist assault on the Radisson Blue
Hotel in Mali, where again we’re still awaiting the body count;
but 180 or so people were taken hostage by a group of armed
gunmen, and ultimately Malian, French and American commandoes
raided the hotel. And again, we witnessed a significant fire
fight; people were killed — innocent civilians arbitrarily
targetted simply because they were in the wrong place at the
wrong time.
Now, let’s face the reality. If those 28 pages had been
published back in 2002, and had revealed the indications of the
role of the Saudi monarchy and Saudi intelligence and Saudi
defense industrial company in providing the key support for the
9/11 hijackers, there would have been a public outcry. There
would have been a serious investigation into Saudi Arabia. There
would have been a fundamental change in the US relationship to
Saudi Arabia. And by the way, the investigation into the specific
funds provided by Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan to
the Saudi intelligence agents who were managing and supporting
two of the hijackers in San Diego, would have directly led to the
doorsteps of the British; because some of the money that went
from Bandar’s personal account into the hands of those
terrorists, came from the al Yamamah agreement — the
British/Saudi barter agreement, which {EIR} documented created an
offshore slush fund of tens of billions of dollars, perhaps
hundreds of billions of dollars over the scope and sweep of that
agreement — that was used to finance terrorism. Prince Bandar
openly boasted that funds from the al Yamamah project went to
financing what were then called the Afghan mujahideen; the
so-called freedom fighters who soon were known as al-Qaeda and
Taliban.
So, the track record is enormous; it’s unambiguous. There
has been a top-down Presidential cover-up of the Saudis and
British and their role in this terrorism under the Bush/Cheney
administration, and continuing under Obama. And in spite of all
of that evidence, the Obama administration continued to smuggle
weapons out of Benghazi into the hands of Syrian rebels;
including those who became part of ISIS and the Nusra Front. And
that’s not idle speculation; that’s from documents from the
Defense Intelligence Agency that were presented to the President
by no later than the Fall of 2012. One of those documents
specifically said, why are we still smuggling weapons into the
Syrian rebels out of Benghazi, when those networks just
assassinated a US ambassador and three other American officials?
So again, let’s go back to the original comments in response
to tonight’s institutional question by Mr. LaRouche. Obama’s got
to be removed from office because he’s got blood on his hands.
And the United States will never ever be able to actually
re-establish its role as a leading force for good in the world,
so long as we tolerate a President in office who’s got that much
blood on his hands and continues to carry forward the same
policies despite all of the evidence and all of the warnings.

OGDEN: Now, a direct correlative of this entire situation in
Syria, Libya, Iraq, and elsewhere is the unprecedented refugee
crisis now being experienced by the people of this region; who
are flooding across the Mediterranean and into Europe. And I know
this is one of the items that was directly cited by Congresswoman
Tulsi Gabbard in her list of ten reasons why the illegal war
against Bashar al-Assad must be ended. And it’s impossible to
underestimate the urgency and the significance of the currently
ongoing refugee crisis. This is a massive displacement of human
beings on the scale of millions, flooding into Europe from the
Middle East and North Africa; fleeing from the carnage and the
chaos which have taken over that region, which is a direct result
of the regime-change wars of first the George W Bush
administration, and now the Barack Obama administration. Again,
the culpability lies on the doorstep of Obama. And in Europe,
even before the terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday, we saw a
frightening rise of a right-wing, proto-fascist, xenophobic
backlash within the European population against these refugees;
driven by the effects of the policies of such persons as Schäuble
and his so-called “Black Zero” policy. And the danger is that
this could drastically worsen and spin out of control as the
economic breakdown in the trans-Atlantic region continually gets
worse; and it will get worse rapidly, as long as the necessary
policies of a top-down complete bankruptcy re-organization of
this Wall Street system are not taken, which must begin with
Glass-Steagall, and the correlated policies that Franklin
Roosevelt enacted at the beginning of his New Deal.
Now this is the real civilizational crisis, threatening
Europe, the United States and the entire world, and {not}, as
Obama and his fellow travelers in the British Royal Family would
have you believe, the so-called crisis of anthropogenic global
warming. This is the real crisis: this refugee crisis, the crisis
of the destabilization of the entire region of the Middle East
and North Africa, and the threat of a total blow-out of the
trans-Atlantic bankrupt financial system. This is the real
crisis, which responsible leaders of the world’s leading powers
should be discussing as they gather in Paris next week for the
so-called COP21 Summit in Paris.
So before I say more about that, I would like to ask Ben
Deniston to come to the podium to make some very relevant
comments in that regard.
BEN DENISTON: Thanks, Matthew. From our discussion with
Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche earlier today, we were discussing
a certain article that had just been released in the last couple
days, and Helga and all of us thought it would be an important
thing to highlight, given the relevance of this article to what
Matt just referenced. You should have graphic on your screen,
just a screen-shot of one publication, one blog, which is hosting
this article. The title is, as you can read, “Terrorism and a
Cold Winter Refugee Crisis,” with a subline reading “A Brutal
Cold Spell Could Kill Refugees.” Paris COP21 delegates need to
discuss this climate issue.
Now this article was authored by two leading so-called
climate skeptics, two individuals who have been out front
fighting against this fraudulent claim of a man-made climate
change crisis. One individual, just to give you a sense of who
they are, Joseph D’Aleo, is a certified consulting meteorologist;
he’s a fellow of the American Meteorology Society; and he’s one
of the original co-founders of the Weather Channel. So, he’s
somebody familiar with climate and weather. The other author is
Paul Driessen, who is a self-proclaimed former environmentalist,
until the environmentalist movement went against human beings,
and he decided it wasn’t a good thing to stick with. But he’s the
author of such books as the 2003 book “Eco-Imperialism: Green
Power, Black Death.” And he’s also done a number of interviews
with {Executive Intelligence Review} magazine, one of which is
part of the 2015 report put out by {Executive Intelligence
Review}, which, if you don’t have a copy of, we encourage you to
get a copy of immediately. Our recent report “Global Warming
Scare is Population Reduction, not Science”
So, they came out with a rather interesting piece which we
want to just put on the table and then comment upon. But just to
quote the beginning of their article. They open by saying “Even
after these latest Paris massacres, and previous radical Islamist
atrocities in the USA, in France, in Britain, in Canada, in
Spain, India, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and elsewhere, politicians
still absurdly say that hypothetical man-made global warming is
the greatest threat facing humanity. In reality, fossil fuel
contributions to the climate change pose few dangers to people or
planet, and winters actually kill 20 times more people than hot
weather.”
So after that lunge, they go on to highlight some very
relevant facts. They go into focus on the millions of refugees
that Matthew just referenced, who are desperately now trying to
escape the horrors of what frankly Obama has unleashed with the
Islamic State. As we discussed, many of them fleeing into Europe.
Well, the authors of this article make the relevant point that
these people are coming from a climate that is on average
generally 20 to 30 degrees warmer in the winter time than their
current destinations they’re heading into in Eastern and Northern
Europe. That this people who are fleeing desperately to get out
with their lives intact, are simply not prepared to just plunge
into this much colder climate of Europe, and especially if
they’re just simply left to try and survive in makeshift shelters
or tents, we could be seeing the beginnings of a very horrific
mass death scene, as these people suffer the horrors of a cold
European winter.
And these authors give a warning, that this could actually
be worse, this particular winter, if we see the return of some of
these periodic blasts or movements of frigid, extremely cold
Siberian air transfer over Europe, which is a not-uncommon
phenomenon, and could give rise to, again, a very cold, deadly
cold in this case, winter over Europe.
Now, they make the point: this prospect of a potentially
harsh cold is obviously in stark contrast to just the insane
propaganda lies about global warming, including, for example — a
couple of their highlights are rather useful, if anything, for
comic relief. But they cite a headline article from the German
publication {Der Spiegel} from 15 years [ago], from the year
2000. And the title of this article was: ” Goodbye, Winter. In
Germany cold winters are now a thing of the past.” This was
declared in 2000 to be the reality. Or a scientist with a British
Climate research unit, who was quoted saying, again about 15
years ago, around the year 2000: “Children are not going to know
what snow is.”
So, despite these crazy lies that have been spouted for
decades, and are being spouted again now, they make the relevant
point that for five years, between 2008 and 2013, you had a whole
series of extremely cold winters throughout Europe, in some cases
setting many records. England, for example, having one of the
coldest winters they had in centuries. Mind you, 8 to 12 years
after it was proclaimed that children in England would no longer
know what snow is, they had the coldest winter they’ve had since
sometime in the 1600s, in the Little Ice Age.
So anyway, they go on to point out that with most recent
scientific knowledge, these particular climate conditions, these
blasts, this movement of very frigid, cold air from the Siberian
region into Europe, tends to be associated with certain
fluctuation in the Atlantic ocean, certain multi-decadal cycles
in the Atlantic, in correspondence with certain changes in solar
activity. There’s a very close correlation and indications
between these solar phenomena and this particular process leading
to extremely cold winters in Europe. And they — obviously none
of this having anything to do with human CO2 emissions.
But Driessen and D’Aleo do make the point that the fact of
the matter is that the current phase of what the ocean is doing
in the Atlantic, the current phase of solar activity, generally
points to the possibility that we could be seeing another very
harsh, very cold winter in Europe. Now, it’s not to say for
certain that’s going to happen, but that is the type of reality,
the type of threat to these people, that we should be thinking of
— that the people in Paris should actually be addressing.
So, with literally millions of lives on the line, we thought
today in our discussion that these authors’ call could not be
more correct, could not be more relevant: their call on the
delegates to this upcoming UN conference on climate change —
which, as Matt said, is going to start in just a little over a
week and run for two weeks in December — that at this event,
this is the climate issue that should be being discussed. And
they present this refugee crisis against evidence for a broader
reality, that quite frankly — and as has been shown even in more
detail on some recent studies — cold weather generally kills
something on the order of 20 times more people than hot weather.
Periods of extreme cold, winter is on average, averaged over many
locations, far more deadly than warming. And on top of that, this
entire Green energy program makes it even worse; it’s making it
more expensive if not impossible for many people — especially in
cold regions — to be able to afford basic heating for their home
to keep themselves alive during the winters.
So with this framework, this particular article concludes
rather sharply that it would be an “unconscionable crime against
humanity if the nations gathering in Paris implement policies to
protect our planet’s energy-depraved masses from hypothetical
manmade climate change occurring decades from now by perpetuating
poverty and disease that will kill millions of people tomorrow.
These are the reasons that climate change is a critical, moral
issue. We need to recognize that and stop playing games with
people’s lives.”
So again, in the discussion earlier today, we thought that
this recent article, Helga Zepp-LaRouche said in particular that
this should serve as a real challenge to people. This should be a
challenge to many of the so-called “climate skeptics” out there;
it should be a challenge to really all individuals who, for one
reason or another might be claiming they’re opposing this
upcoming UN climate conference. And it should really be a
challenge obviously, to anybody participating directly in this
process. This is not an academic debate; this is not a debate
about one scientific theory against another in academia. This is
a life or death issue for millions upon millions of people. This
has real world consequences; it has had them, it’s having them
now, it’s going to have them in the future. If this type of thing
is going to go through, you’re literally condemning millions of
people — potentially billions — to unnecessary poverty, to
suffering, and to early death. Those are the facts of the matter.
So the question on the table right now is, will you let this
happen? Will you go down in history as having let this happen?
And as we’ve documented, especially in this report and in other
locations, we know what this is all about. This is intentional;
this is the 21st Century version of Thomas Malthus’ policy. This
is the modern Zeus policy.
Who did we just hear is going to be one of the leading
prominent speakers at this Paris COP 21 conference? Prince
Charles, the British Empire; the next in the series of
degenerations of the British Royal Family, following Prince
Phillip and Queen Elizabeth. And it’s no secret these people are
promoting a policy of outright genocide; they’re advocating and
promoting a policy saying the world can only support 1-2 billion
people. And we need to push to reduce the world’s population to a
few billion people. So if you let this type of program to go
through, this will go down in history as the greatest mass
killing on record; save perhaps Obama’s thermonuclear war if we
let him launch that. But if that’s not launched by Obama, this
would go down in history as the greatest mass death; and you will
be the people who let that happen.
So the crisis conditions facing these refugees are a leading
expression of this more general threat. And this is occurring at
the same time as we’re seeing this gathering for this fake global
warming scare conference in Paris, which is just about to occur.
If you reflect on this process, it really almost sounds like
you’re describing the opening scenario of a rather famous short
story by Edgar Allan Poe; it’s almost reminiscent of something
like {The Mask of the Red Death}. We have some major gathering of
representatives of upper class layers of society, gathering in
some isolated, climate-controlled conference halls — very
comfortable; hoping they can celebrate their own delusional
picture of the world. Hoping they can celebrate their
determination of the fate of the masses of people, under the
fantasy that they themselves are going to free from the effects
of their actions. Well at the same time that this absurd scene is
going on, you have millions of desperate people gathering around
them throughout Europe; fleeing into Europe. Running from the
policies which most of the people at this conference refuse to
address; Obama’s policies. Masses of people suffering from the
reality that those people at this conference refuse to accept;
which is the fact that global warming is nothing but a Malthusian
hoax. So, it’s got an eerie similarity to some stories of the
past, but unlike Poe’s dramatic account, what we have now is that
you still have the time to act.

OGDEN: Thank you very much Ben. And let me just say in
conclusion, there is a petition which is circulating; it was
authored by the Schiller Institute, and it is now posted on the
LaRouche PAC website titled, “A Resolution To Defend Billions of
Lives; We Say ‘No’ to Paris COP 21”. So, we invite you to sign
that and to circulate that as widely as you can in the coming
days. Also, as Ben mentioned, that {EIR} Special Report is
available from {Executive Intelligence Review}. So, that’s
available for you to obtain as well. So, I’m going to bring a
conclusion to our broadcast here tonight. I want to thank very
much both Ben and Jeff for joining me here; I want to thank you
for tuning in, and please, stay tuned to larouchepac.com.




Leder, 20. november 2015:
Obama er ved at være færdig

I Europa, i Mellemøsten og i Asien kan sandheden om Obamas morderiske planer og politik ikke længere skjules. I Wien flaksede Obama rundt, mens han kogte indvendig over, at det tydeligvis var Putin, der styrede processen. Han fortsatte til Manila til APEC-mødet, måske i tillid til, at hans indsats for at genoprette Filippinernes neo-kolonialistiske status og besætte nationen endnu engang med amerikanske militærstyrker som forberedelse til en krig mod Kina, ville genoprette hans narcissistiske grandiositet. I stedet blev han mødt af en opstand fra filippinske patrioter med Senatet, der afviste hans militære besættelsesplaner, mens APEC afviste overhovedet at behandle hans obskøne anklager om kinesisk aggression ved at opbygge nogle øer under deres kontrol.

Måske forestiller Obama sig, at han vil fare bedre i Malaysia i denne weekend ved ASEAN-topmødet og det øst-asiatiske topmøde. Men forsvarsministrene fra ASEAN afviste allerede tidligere på måneden hans forsøg på at kalde Kina en aggressor – faktisk erklærede transportministrene fra ASEAN deres entusiastiske engagement for samarbejde med Kina om de Nye Silkevejsprogrammer, Kinas »Ét bælte, én vej«.

Både franske og italienske medier havde interviews med Syriens præsident Assad i denne uge – en »lige op i ansigtet«-konfrontation af Obamas holden fast ved sin imperiale ret til at fjerne et selvstændigt statsoverhoved. Assad nævnte USA, Tyrkiet, Saudi Arabien og Qatar som ophavsmændene til ISIS og dennes økonomiske støtte og bemærkede, at den russiske intervention har vendt tidevandet imod barbarerne. Europæiske og amerikanske militære og politiske ledere vender sig i stigende grad imod Obamas regimeskift-vanvid og kræver en fælles indsats med Rusland imod ISIS.

I USA har den demokratiske præsidentkandidat Bernie Sanders, for at forklare, hvad han mener med at beskrive sig selv som en demokratisk socialist, påkaldt Franklin Roosevelts politik, FDR, der gjorde noget ved sin tids ødelæggelse af befolkningen ved at skabe sociale programmer, der havde til formål at give dem deres økonomiske rettigheder – til beskæftigelse, sundhedsydelser, uddannelse – samtidig med, at han bekæmpede Wall Streets magt igennem Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven og andre restriktioner af bankernes magt over økonomien, og over regeringen. Dernæst beskrev Sanders ødelæggelsen af levestandarden i USA i dag, den uhyrlige narkoepidemi og sammenbruddet af husstandsindkomsterne og beskæftigelsen, og han fordømte de seneste regeringers politik for »regimeskift«, der skaber kaos og terrorisme i sit kølvand.

I USA’s Kongres cirkulerer EIR nu til alle kongresmedlemmer et juridisk dokument, der demonstrerer, at den Højesteretsdom, der dømte til fordel for daværende senator Mike Gravels indlæsning af Pentagon-papirerne i Kongressens Journal i 1971, ligeledes er gældende for i dag, for ethvert kongresmedlem, der har mod til at oplæse de 28 sider af den Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september, der således optages i den officielle journal og afslører den saudiske finansiering af 11. september-terroristerne, der angreb USA. I realiteten kan Kongressen, under Højesteretsdommen i tilfældet Gravel, uden rådslagning med Det Hvide Hus, ophæve hemmeligstemplingen af hele det 28 sider lange kapitel – sammen med alle de andre 11. september-undersøgelsesdokumenter, der har været holdt skjult i de seneste 13 år.

Obamas åbne alliance med terrorister og disses sponsorer i Riyadh, med det formål at opnå sit kriminelle regimeskift, kan og må afsløres og må føre til, at han fjernes fra embedet, nu.

Dette er en tid med revolutionære forandringer. Der er ikke plads til pragmatisme eller halve tiltag, når man konfronteres med atomkrig og økonomisk kollaps. Løsningen er klar – med genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall, tilslutning til Kinas og BRIKS-nationernes globale udviklingsprogrammer, genetablering af ægte videnskab som centrum for politikken, og med genoplivelse af klassisk musik og kunst. Tiden er nu. Genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall, der vil udslette Wall Street totalt, må ledsages af den form for programmer gennem statskreditter, som kan skabe millioner af produktive jobs og påbegynde processen med at genoplive en reel, produktiv økonomi.

 




Leder, 19. november 2015:
Obama er nede; Tiden er inde
til at jage ham ud

Øjenvidneberetninger fra weekendens G20-topmøde i Tyrkiet indikerer, at præsident Obama var i rasende humør over den kendsgerning, at den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin var centrum for opmærksomheden pga. Ruslands militære intervention i Syrien, der »ændrer hele spillet«, og som nu frembyder en realistisk mulighed for at knuse Islamisk Stat (ISIS) og bringe den næsten fem år lange krig i Syrien til en fredelig afslutning.

Obama er blevet trængt op i en krog af den russiske flankeoperation i Syrien, og af den kendsgerning, at, i kølvandet på sidste fredags forfærdelige ISIS-angreb i Paris, verden er forenet omkring behovet for at skride til afgørende handling imod den jihadistiske svøbe. Denne handling kræver afgørende samarbejde med Rusland, som endda tidligere chef for Det forenede Kongeriges forsvarsstab, general, Sir David Richards sagde til BBC i denne uge.

Obama har, sammen med George W. Bush, gjort sig skyldig i mørklægning af anglo-saudiernes forbrydelser ved at nægte at ophæve hemmeligstemplingen af det 28 sider lange kapitel i den oprindelige rapport fra den Fælles Kongresundersøgelse af 11. september 2001, et kapitel, der leverer afgørende bevis for det saudiske monarkis finansiering af flykaprerne. Som tidl. senator Bob Graham sagde ved den tætpakkede pressekonference på Capitol Hill (Kongressen) den 7. januar 2015, kun få timer efter angrebene på Charlie Hebdos kontorer i Paris, at, hvis disse 28 sider var blevet frigivet til offentligheden, kunne det saudisk-støttede Islamisk Stat aldrig have eksisteret.

Med blodbadet i Paris den 13. november stadig hængende i luften er tiden nu inde til, at disse 28 sider offentliggøres og danner grundlag for lanceringen af en de novo undersøgelse af 11. september og alle de følgende terrorgrusomheder, som det britisk-saudiske apparat har begået, frem til og inklusive sidste fredags slagteri i Paris. Det er dette apparat, der ejer, og altid har ejet, Barack Obama.

Nu mere end nogen sinde før er tiden inde til, at Kongressen bruger sit forfatningsmæssige mandat og smider Obama ud af embedet. De fulde konsekvenser af mørklægningen af kapitlet om 11. september ses nu i blodbadet i Paris. På en meget direkte måde har Obama disse dræbte og sårede menneskers blod fra angrebene i Paris på sine hænder. Konsekvenserne af hans fortsatte mørklægning af de 28 sider kan ikke længere tolereres. Hvis Islamisk Stat og alle de andre anglo-saudiske jihadister skal afgørende nedkæmpes og udslettes, må Obama fjernes fra embedet. Han er lige så meget en skabelse af dette britisk-kontrollerede apparat, som lederne af ISIS og al-Qaeda. At tolerere Obamas fortsatte forbliven i embedet, efter angrebene i Paris og hans bevidste beskyttelse og mørklægning af saudierne bag 11. september, er det samme som at afskrive De forenede Stater.

Frigiv de 28 sider, og afsæt Obama nu.         




Leder, 18. november 2015:
I kølvandet på Paris: Frigiv de 28 sider nu!

Tiden er nu inde til at stille det anglo-saudiske apparat, der har kontrolleret væksten af det globale jihadist-apparat gennem årtiers finansiering og logistisk støtte, til regnskab.

Tiden er inde til at frigive de 28 sider af Kongressens Fælles Undersøgelsesrapport over 11. september-angrebene i USA. Frigivelsen af disse 28 sider bør være starten på en gennemgribende undersøgelse fra toppen og ned af det saudiske monarkis rolle i promoveringen af terrorisme, at begynde med den fulde afsløring af saudiernes rolle i angrebene på World Trade Center og Pentagon den 11. september, 2001.

 

Den 7. januar 2015, blot få timer efter terrorister havde iscenesat et angreb mod det satiriske blad Charlie Hebdos kontor i Paris og dræbt et dusin mennesker, tilsluttede tidligere senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.) sig medlemmer af Repræsentanternes Hus Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Steven Lynch (D-Mass.) og Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), samt repræsentanter for de pårørende til ofre for 11. september i en pressekonference på Capitol Hill, der var sammenkaldt for at kræve den omgående frigivelse af det 28 sider lange kapitel fra den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september, og som detaljeret beskrev den Saudiske Kongefamilies rolle i finansieringen af de 19 flykaprere.

Senator Grahams ord er endnu mere alvorlige og bydende nødvendige i dag, i kølvandet på massakren i Paris den 13. nov., udført af slagtere, allieret med Islamisk Stat. Graham sagde til de, pga. antallet af fremmødte, stående forsamlede personer:

»Saudierne ved, hvad de gjorde. De er ikke personer, der er ubevidste om konsekvenserne af deres regerings handlinger. For det andet, så ved saudierne, at vi ved, hvad de gjorde! Der er nogen i USA’s regering, der har læst disse 28 sider, nogen i regeringen har læst alle de andre dokumenter, der hidtil har været mørklagt. Og det ved saudierne.

Hvad tror man, saudiernes standpunkt ville være, hvis de vidste, hvad de havde gjort, vidste, at USA vidste, hvad de havde gjort, og dernæst så, at USA havde indtaget et standpunkt af enten passivitet, eller ligefrem fjendtlighed over for at lade disse kendsgerninger blive kendt? Hvad ville den saudiske regering gøre under sådanne omstændigheder, som netop er, hvor de har befundet sig i mere end et årti?

Al-Qaeda var Saudi Arabiens skabelse; de regionale grupper så som al-Shabab, har for størstedelens vedkommende været Saudi Arabiens skabelser; og nu er ISIS den seneste skabelse!

Så konsekvensen af vores passivitet over for Saudi Arabien har været, at vi har tolereret denne serie af organisationer; voldelige, ekstreme, ekstremt skadelige for Mellemøsten, og en trussel mod verden, som vi så det i Paris i morges.«

(Hele Bob Grahams tale under pressekonferencen kan læses her på dansk:http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=4671)

Senator Graham havde absolut ret den 7. januar. Hans ord får nu en endnu større betydning, mens hele verden stadig er i chok over fredagens hændelser i Paris, og udsigten til, at det kan ske igen.

 

Det kan ske igen

ISIS har allerede udstedt en ny trussel om lignende, blinde terrorangreb, denne gang med Washington, D.C. og andre amerikanske byer som mål. Den russiske regering har, efter en omhyggelig undersøgelse, den 17. nov. konkluderet, at Metro-ruteflyet, der eksploderede over Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypten, havde en terrorbombe om bord. ISIS har taget ansvaret for denne grusomhed, hvor 224 mennesker blev dræbt. ISIS har også taget ansvaret for to selvmordsbomber i det sydlige Beirut den 12. nov., der dræbte og sårede hundreder af uskyldige mennesker.

Senator Graham har absolut ret. ISIS er en følge af Saudi-Arabiens promovering af wahabisme og voldelig, jihadistisk terror. For at være mere præcis, så er al-Qaeda, Islamisk Stat, Nusra Front og andre terrorgrupper produkter af en anglo-saudisk alliance, som særdeles offentligt er associeret med Al Yamamah-byttehandelen våben-for-olie mellem London og Riyadh. Al Yamamah skabte en udenlandsk, hemmelig konto til terrorisme, som direkte fodrede al-Qaeda, fra begyndelsen af denne dystre handel i 1980’erne.

Chokket efter angrebene i Paris har tvunget Obamaregeringen til, i det mindste for indeværende, at fravige sin hadekampagne imod Rusland og præsident Putin, og i det mindste formelt acceptere det bydende nødvendige samarbejde med Moskva for at knuse Islamisk Stat.

Tiden er nu inde til at stille det anglo-saudiske apparat, der har kontrolleret væksten af det globale jihadist-apparat gennem årtiers finansiering og logistisk støtte, til regnskab.

Tiden er inde til at frigive de 28 sider af Kongressens Fælles Undersøgelsesrapport over 11. september-angrebene i USA. Frigivelsen af disse 28 sider bør være starten på en gennemgribende undersøgelse fra toppen og ned af det saudiske monarkis rolle i promoveringen af terrorisme, at begynde med den fulde afsløring af saudiernes rolle i angrebene på World Trade Center og Pentagon den 11. september, 2001.

 

Regnskabets time

Kongressen må ikke tolerere et eneste minut mere af Det Hvide Hus’ mørklægning af disse 28 sider. Fællesundersøgelsen var en undersøgelse, iværksat af den lovgivende gren, og Kongressen har total myndighed til at frigive de 28 sider, hvad enten Det Hvide Hus er enig eller ej. Den Amerikanske Højesterets enstemmige dom fra 1971 i sagen om daværende senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska), der indlæste Pentagon-papirerne i Kongressens journal under Forfatningens »tale- og debatklausul«, gør det klart, at Kongressen har den forfatningsmæssige myndighed til omgående at ophæve hemmeligstemplingen af disse sider.

Alt imens det er kendt, at disse sider giver detaljer om, hvordan det Saudiske Almene Efterretningsdirektorat støttede mindst to af 11. september-flykaprerne ved deres ankomst til Californien, og hvordan daværende saudiske ambassadør til USA, Prins Bandar bin-Sultan, finansierede de to flykaprere, så indeholder siderne tydeligvis andre vitale detaljer om og spor til det fulde omfang af det saudiske regimes støtte til drabsmændene fra 11. september.

Hvis det fulde omfang af det saudiske monarkis blodige hænder bag 11. september var kommet frem dengang, kunne ingen amerikansk præsident være sluppet godt fra den forkælelse af saudierne, der har været både Bush- og Obamaregeringens varemærke, efter 11. september. Selv i dag roser præsident Obama åbenlyst saudierne for deres rolle i »koalitionen«, der bekæmper ISIS. Selv, hvis denne præsident ikke havde begået andre handlinger, der berettiger til en rigsretssag, så udgør hans skamløse mørklægning af saudiernes hånd bag global, jihadistisk terrorisme »store forbrydelser og forseelser«, der kræver omgående iværksættelse af en rigsretssag.

Hvis der skal ydes nogen retfærdighed til dem, der døde 11. september, der omkom om bord på Metro-ruteflyet og som blev brutalt myrdet i Paris og i det sydlige Beirut, så må saudiernes fulde medskyldighed afsløres offentligt, nu.

I modsat fald, som senator Graham så forudseende advarede om, vil al-Qaeda og ISIS muligvis formelt blive knust, men den underliggende sygdom vil atter blusse op i en ny og mere virulent form på slet ingen tid.

Frigiv de 28 sider nu!

 

 




Leder, 17. november 2015:
Gør en ende på den anglo-saudiske
terrorakse – før den dræber igen

Aktivister fra LaRouche Politiske Aktionskomite (LPAC) mødtes uden for De forenede Nationer i New York med dette budskab i går, hvor de fik kraftig, »rå« respons på deres mobilisering, fra diplomater, New Yorkere såvel som udenlandske besøgende. Deres mobilisering: Frigiv de hemmeligstemplede 28 sider, afslør gerningsmændene bag angrebene i USA den 11. september, 2001. Stop »Londonistan«, rekrutteringsbasen for terrorister, og Riyadh, deres financier og wahabisme-»opdrager«, før de kan slå til igen.

Beviserne kom frem internationalt i mandags, med »alt er i færd med at ændre sig« som resultat af den russiske præsident Putins resolutte aktion i Syrien, og nu med chokket efter de nye mord i Paris. Putin meddelte, at han personligt briefede G20-ledere i Ankara om Ruslands efterretninger om dem, der finansierer terrorister »i G20-landene«; Indiens premierminister Modi krævede, at man angreb terrorismen der, hvor den finansieres; fordømmelse af saudiernes førende rolle kom fra den britiske labourleder, Jeremy Corbyn, fra de italienske katolske biskoppers publikation Famiglia Cristiana og fra amerikanske journalister, der er modstandere af Bush-Obama-regeringernes ’evindelige krige’.

Obama, som mente, at ISIS »var holdt tilbage«, var under intenst pres i Antalya, Tyrkiet, for at indvillige i en krig mod jihadist-terrorisme anført af Putin og chokerede europæiske ledere. Den franske præsident Hollande sagde til den franske parlamentssamling: »Vi må eliminere, ikke begrænse, Daesh (ISIS).«

Frigiv de 28 sider nu! Denne del af rapporten fra 2002, »Kongressens fælles undersøgelsesrapport om terrorangrebene den 11. september, 2001«, der fremlægger saudiernes ansvar for 11. september-angrebene iflg. den daværende formand for Senatets Efterretningskomite, senator Bob Graham, er blevet holdt skjult af George W. Bush og Barack Obama i 13 år. Alene dens offentliggørelse vil ændre USA’s politik, iflg. kongresmedlemmer, der har set den.

Mobiliser for at frigive dette bevis nu, der viser, at Obamas og Camerons »regimeskift-krige« er i åben alliance med terroristerne.

Den 7. januar 2015, blot få timer efter terrorister havde iscenesat et angreb mod det satiriske blad Charlie Hebdos kontor i Paris og dræbt et dusin mennesker, tilsluttede tidligere senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.) sig medlemmer af Repræsentanternes Hus Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Steven Lynch (D-Mass.) og Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), samt repræsentanter for de pårørende til ofre for 11. september i en pressekonference på Capitol Hill, der var sammenkaldt for at kræve den omgående frigivelse af det 28 sider lange kapitel fra den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september, og som detaljeret beskrev den Saudiske Kongefamilies rolle i finansieringen af de 19 flykaprere.

Senator Grahams ord er endnu mere alvorlige og bydende nødvendige i dag, i kølvandet på massakren i Paris den 13. nov., udført af slagtere, allieret med Islamisk Stat. Graham sagde til de, pga. antallet af fremmødte, stående forsamlede personer:

»Saudierne ved, hvad de gjorde. De er ikke personer, der er ubevidste om konsekvenserne af deres regerings handlinger. For det andet, så ved saudierne, at vi ved, hvad de gjorde! Der er nogen i USA’s regering, der har læst disse 28 sider, nogen i regeringen har læst alle de andre dokumenter, der hidtil har været mørklagt. Og det ved saudierne.

Hvad tror man, saudiernes standpunkt ville være, hvis de vidste, hvad de havde gjort, vidste, at USA vidste, hvad de havde gjort, og dernæst så, at USA havde indtaget et standpunkt af enten passivitet, eller ligefrem fjendtlighed over for at lade disse kendsgerninger blive kendt? Hvad ville den saudiske regering gøre under sådanne omstændigheder, som netop er, hvor de har befundet sig i mere end et årti?

Al-Qaeda var Saudi Arabiens skabelse; de regionale grupper så som al-Shabab, har for størstedelens vedkommende været Saudi Arabiens skabelser; og nu er ISIS den seneste skabelse!

Så konsekvensen af vores passivitet over for Saudi Arabien har været, at vi har tolereret denne serie af organisationer; voldelige, ekstreme, ekstremt skadelige for Mellemøsten, og en trussel mod verden, som vi så det i Paris i morges.«

(Hele Bob Grahams tale under pressekonferencen kan læses her på dansk: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=4671)

Senator Graham havde absolut ret den 7. januar. Hans ord får nu en endnu større betydning, mens hele verden stadig er i chok over fredagens hændelser i Paris, og udsigten til, at det kan ske igen.

 

 

 




Jeffrey Steinberg, en af EIR’s redaktører med speciale i efterretninger:
Den anglo-saudiske baggrund for den aktuelle, internationale terrorisme:
Frigiv sandheden, og lad os lukke imperiemagternes topstyrede terrorapparat ned,
én gang for alle!

Webcast 9. januar 2015: Jeffrey Steinberg: … det spørgsmål, vi har fået fra institutionelt hold, og som fokuserer på de seneste dages begivenheder i Frankrig. Men jeg tror, at pointen nu burde stå klart for Dem alle, at det er umuligt blot at påbegynde en diskussion af disse begivenheder, uden som et minimum at gå tilbage til begivenhederne den 11. september, samt den brutale mørklægning, der fulgte efter.

Webcast 9. januar 2015: Jeffrey Steinberg: Jeg mener, at senator Graham virkelig satte rammerne for at besvare det spørgsmål, vi har fået fra institutionelt hold, og som fokuserer på de seneste dages begivenheder i Frankrig. Men jeg tror, at pointen nu burde stå klart for Dem alle, at det er umuligt blot at påbegynde en diskussion af disse begivenheder, uden som et minimum at gå tilbage til begivenhederne den 11. september, samt den brutale mørklægning, der fulgte efter.

I andre afsnit af pressekonferencen onsdag pointerede senator Graham, og også kongresmedlem Lynch, mener jeg, at når dokumenter fra regeringen underkastes undersøgelse med henblik på klassificering (hemmeligstempling), før de frigives til offentligheden, så er der meget ofte bortredigeringer. Disse udgør navne, der ikke nævnes, måske undertiden landenavne, der ikke nævnes, fordi man er bekymret for, hvad det kunne afsløre. Men der har aldrig været et dokument af samme vigtighed som Den fælles Kongresundersøgelse, hvor et helt kapitel, med praktisk talt hvert ord i kapitlet spærret og erklæret klassificeret. Og alle de kongresmedlemmer, der for nylig har læst disse 28 sider, hvilket i sig selv var en kamp, har sagt, at der ikke er noget, der kommer op i den standard, hvor man kan være bekymret for den nationale sikkerhed.

(Dansk udskrift af hele senator Bob Grahams pressekonference, samt selve pressekonferencen, kan ses her)

Det, som siderne afslører, og der er vigtige dele af disse 28 sider, som vi kender til, de afslører for det første, at der rent faktisk var et udbredt støttenetværk, der i hvert fald i to af hovedflykaprernes tilfælde opererede, det vil sige de to første 11. september-flykaprere, der ankom til USA mere end et år før angrebene 11. september. De blev modtaget af to mænd i Los Angeles lufthavn, der blev identificeret som agenter i den saudiarabiske efterretningstjeneste; disse to saudiske agenter sørgede for indkvartering, andre former for logistiske behov, gav dem penge og fik dem rent faktisk ind i den oprindelige pilotuddannelse.

I hele denne periode modtog disse to saudiske efterretningsofficerer jævnligt penge for at finansiere disse aktiviteter. Nogle af pengene kom via et selskab, der var en eksklusiv, såkaldt privat, facade for Det saudiske Ministerium for Forsvar og Flyvning, og den ene af disse to saudiske efterretningsofficerer var en spøgelsesmedarbejder, der modtog ikke blot en betydelig løn, men også dyr finansiering af udgifter, i den periode, hvor 11. september-flykaprerne blev guidet rundt og beskyttet og finansieret. Der kom mindst 50.000 dollar, sandsynligvis nærmere 70.000 dollar, direkte til disse saudiske efterretningsagenter i tiden op til 11. september-angrebene fra den saudiarabiske ambassadør til USA, Prins Bandar bin Sultans personlige bankkonto.

Prins Bandar bin Sultan har været et fast element i USA i årtier; mange mennesker refererede til ham som »Bandar Bush«, fordi han havde sådan et ekstraordinært tæt forhold til både Bush 41 og Bush 43. Bandars hustru, Prinsesse Haifa, var søster til Prins Turki bin Faisal, som var chef for saudisk efterretningsvæsen i over ti år, og som trak sig tilbage fra denne post to uger før angrebene 11. september. Prins Turki var en af de afgørende spillere, der forhandlede direkte med Osama bin Laden og åbnede sluserne for saudisk finansiering, der tilflød al-Qaeda i perioden umiddelbart forud for bombningerne af afrikanske ambassader, angrebet på USS Cole og dernæst angrebene 11. september.

Jeg tror, at senator Graham var meget bevidst om sammenstillingen af sine bemærkninger om Saudi Arabien, monarkiet i Saudi Arabien, og hans referencer til det britiske monarkis forræderi under Borgerkrigen. For i dag er det i realiteten umuligt at skelne mellem det britiske og det saudiske monarki: De repræsenterer en enkelt kraft, og havde det ikke været for den aktive og bevidste involvering af det britiske monarki og britiske efterretningstjenester, havde saudierne ikke kunnet spille den form for rolle, de spillede, hvor de ydede afgørende støtte til 11. september-flykaprerne, og mange, mange andre lignende aktiviteter.

Der er faktisk et veldokumenteret billede af overensstemmelse mellem britiske og saudiske monarkiske operationer, der har direkte forbindelse til 11. september. Fra og med 1985 var Prins Bandar bin Sultan, selv om han var ambassadøren her i Washington, D.C., det personlige mellemled til daværende premierminister Margaret Thatcher i en meget unik aftale om en byttehandel mellem briterne og saudierne, hvor briterne gennem våbenindustriselskabet BAE Systems leverede diverse former for våben til en værdi af 40 milliarder dollar til Det saudiske Forsvarsministerium. Til gengæld betalte saudierne for dette militærudstyr, og et par meget store bestikkelser, der gik til ledende regeringsfolk i Det saudiske Forsvarsministerium og blev uddelt blandt flere andre saudiske prinser, ved at levere 600.000 tønder olie dagligt, fra 1985, og dette program eksisterer faktisk endnu i dag.

I EIR arbejdede vi lidt med at analysere tallene, og vi fik dernæst en vis afgørende, bekræftende information af Prins Bandar selv. Hvis man ser på den mængde penge, som briterne brugte til at levere disse våbensystemer, og dernæst sammenligner det med de indtægter, der blev genereret af salget af bogstavelig talt en supertanker olie om dagen på spotmarkederne i en periode fra 1985 og fortsættende frem til i dag, vil man finde, at efter at have taget alle disse kendsgerninger i betragtning, var der stadig en del mere end 100 milliarder dollar i finansiering til overs.

I en nylig, sanktioneret biografi pralede Prins Bandar af den kendsgerning, at det særlige forhold mellem det saudiske og det britiske monarki muliggjorde oprettelsen af en række offshore-fonde – sorte fonde, sandsynligvis den største pulje af penge til hemmelige operationer, der nogen sinde er samlet på en gang. Og disse britisk-saudiske fonde, der blev administreret i fællesskab, gik, som Bandar selv pralede med, til (citat) »krigen mod kommunisme«, hvorved han mente finansieringen af Mujaheddin i Afghanistan, som var en af ynglepladserne for al-Qaeda og alle de andre grupper, som vi nu ser optræde på verdensscenen.

Og i den periode, hvor Bandar og hans hustru således leverede finansiering til de saudiske efterretningsofficerer, der guidede to af hovedflykaprerne i 11. september rundt, modtog Bandar jævnligt bankoverførsler fra Bank of England, i form af hans »mæglersalær« for olie-for-våben-aftalen mellem briterne og saudierne – den hed al Yamamah; de kaldte det »The Dove«, oversat til engelsk fra arabisk. Så Bandars del af dette arrangement var som et minimum 2 mia. dollar i mæglersalær, der kom ind på hans bankkonti i Riggs National Bank. Det var disse penge, der blev sendt af sted for at hjælpe med at finansiere 11. september-flykaprerne.

Dette er alt sammen en del af det, der står i de 28 sider. Vi ved det ikke, fordi vi sneg os ned i kælderen i Capitol-bygningen og læste dem; vi ved det, fordi der har været andre redegørelser. For eksempel skrev senator Graham en bog i 2004 med titlen Efterretningsanliggender, og denne bog fortalte om hans oplevelse som formand for Den fælles Kongreskomite til undersøgelse af 11. september, og han fortalte som anekdoter om en del af de afgørende resultater, som dengang fandtes i de 28 sider, som blev bortredigeret af præsident Bush og vicepræsident Cheney, og som fortsat holdes tilsløret af præsident Obama på trods af den kendsgerning, at han, ved mindst to lejligheder lovede familiemedlemmerne, 11. september familiemedlemmerne, ansigt-til-ansigt, at han ville sørge for, at disse sider blev afklassificeret.

Jeg er sikker på, at der er mange andre faktorer inkluderet i disse 28 sider, der drejede sig om spørgsmålet om der var, eller ikke var, netværk, der var involveret i at støtte terroristerne, og hvor pengene til operationerne den 11. september kom fra. Navnet Saudi Arabien, navne på specifikke, højtplacerede personer i det saudiske monarki og den saudiske regering, står overalt på de 28 sider. Jeg havde, under pressekonferencen onsdag, lejlighed til at bede senator Graham om at give en kort redegørelse af et andet element af 11. september-historien: På baggrund af resultater af undersøgelsen af cellen i San Diego, Californien, hvor de saudiske efterretningsofficerer direkte fremmede flykaprernes aktiviteter og forberedelser, stillede senator Graham spørgsmålet, om der var, eller ikke var, etableret lignende støtteoperationer andre afgørende steder, hvor flykaprerne lavede det forberedende arbejde. Det omfatter steder som Sarasota, Florida, hvor Mohammed Atta og det ene team var under uddannelse og opererede; det omfattede Herndon, Virginia; det omfattede Paterson, New Jersey; og der var andre steder. Men disse fire steder, San Diego, Sarasota, Herndon og Paterson, var afgørende centre for alle forberedelserne og iscenesættelsen af 11. september-operationen.

Senator Graham kommer fra Florida. Han spurgte FBI, på det tidspunkt, hvor han var formand for Den fælles Kongresundersøgelse af alle filer med relation til de undersøgelser, der blev foretaget i Florida, om der var nogen indikation på, at et lignende støtteapparat opererede i dette område. FBI svarede tilbage, gentagne gange, at der ikke var nogen optegnelser, ingen beviser på noget sådant. Mange år senere, grundlæggende set inden for de seneste to år, blev det, gennem arbejde udført af undersøgende journalister, og gennem registreringen af en retssag, anlagt med baggrund i Loven om Informationsfrihed, med nogen forsinkelse opdaget, at jo, der havde faktisk været endnu en støttecelle, denne gang ledet af en meget prominent, saudisk forretningsmand, der var ansat af den saudiske kongefamilie, og hvis hjem ofte blev besøgt af Mohammed Atta og de andre flykaprere. Og minsandten, om ikke FBI sluttelig indrømmede, at de havde over 80.000 siders dokumentation! Denne dokumentation blev tilbageholdt for Den fælles Kongresundersøgelse, blev undertrykt og mørklagt i et dusin år; og nu, for første gang, undersøger en føderal dommer dette materiale. Dette kaster nu et langt stærkere lys på ikke alene det saudiske, men det anglo-saudiske element af hele 11. september-processen.

Og igen, hvis denne information var kommet ud til offentligheden – kongresmedlemmerne Jones, Lynch og Thomas Massie, der er den tredje medsponsor af lovforslaget for afklassificeringen af de 28 sider, har alle sammen sagt, at efter at have læst de 28 sider – og de har været meget forsigtige med ikke at sige et ord om, hvad de ved om indholdet af disse 28 sider, men de har ret til at komme med deres mening; og i alle tilfælde sagde de, at hele deres syn på de seneste 15 års historie, og endnu længere, var fundamentalt forandret og rystet af det, de havde læst i disse 28 sider.

Nu står vi så her, i begyndelsen af 2015. Vi har netop set det forfærdelige angreb, der fandt sted i Paris, Frankrig, onsdag morgen i denne uge. USA er nu angiveligt i en alliance med Saudi Arabien, Storbritannien og andre lande i Golfstaternes Samarbejdsråd i Den persiske Golf, sunni-lande, for det meste monarkier, der angiveligt fører krig mod Islamisk Stat, ISIS. Men bevismaterialet i disse 28 sider indikerer, at dette anglo-saudiske apparat er kildeudspringet til hele den internationale terrorisme, som vi er blevet konfronteret med i løbet af det seneste dusin år. I stedet for at afsløre den intense og dybe saudiske involvering i 11. september, var alle saudiere, der befandt sig i USA, inklusive medlemmer af bin Laden-familien, de første, der fik lov at gå ombord i kommercielle fly efter angrebet 11. september. I dagene efter 11. september blev hvert eneste af disse mennesker samlet og, ikke sat i fængsel, eller udleveret, men sat på kommercielle fly og bragt tilbage til Saudi Arabien, i sikkerhed for USA’s retshåndhævelse.

Så mørklægningen har været vedholdende, og, som senator Graham netop sagde på pressekonferencen, som et resultat af dette var der et klart budskab: I kan fortsætte ustraffet, for USA vil mørklægge denne britisk-saudiske faktor.

Hændelserne i Paris for et par dage siden er stadig ved at blive undersøgt. Det ville være for tidligt at erklære historien for klappet og klar og hævde, at der er et klart billede af, hvad der stod bag denne operation. Men der er allerede kommet flere ting frem, der er blevet bekræftet og står klart: For det første var de to brødre, der var involveret som attentatmænd på Charlie Hebdos kontor, og som dræbte et dusin mennesker, en del af et netværk, et rekrutterende netværk, et jihadist-netværk, der meget længe har opereret under det britiske monarkis beskyttende paraply. Der er moskéer i London, inklusive Finsbury Park-moskéen, hvor de, der rekrutterede disse to Kouachi-brødre, var baseret og i årtier beskyttet af den britiske krone og britisk efterretningsvæsen.

En af lederne af denne moské, Abu Hamza, blev for nylig, inden for de seneste par år, udleveret til USA og retsforfulgt for sin rolle i visse terroraktiviteter og rekruttering af terrorister, og hovedelementet i hans forsvar ved en amerikansk domstol er, at, mens han var i USA for at rekruttere til al-Qaeda og andre jihadist-grupper, arbejdede han også i hemmelighed for MI5, deres modstykke til FBI. Og der er grund til at tro, at disse påstande har betydelig troværdighed.

På den ene eller anden måde, så har vi her at gøre med et topstyret, anglo-saudisk apparat, der er kildeudspringet til finansieringen, uddannelsen og beskyttelsen af international terrorisme, og så længe, sandheden forbliver skjult for det amerikanske folk, og for hele verden, er der ingen måde, hvorpå vi kan stoppe denne terrorisme; denne terrorisme vil fortsætte, uafbrudt, og dog kan vi, ved simpelt hen at afsløre sandheden, og starte med frigivelen af de 28 sider, begynde at løse dette problem på den rigtige måde.

Jeg bør tilføje en fodnote: For, flere måneder før angrebene 11. september, præsenterede Executive Intelligence Review et dossier for daværende udenrigsminister Madeleine Albright. Og dossieret opfordrede grundlæggende set Udenrigsministeriet til at overveje, om Storbritanniens regering burde sættes på listen over stater, der sponsorerer terrorisme. [EIR, Vol. 27, nr. 3, 21. jan. 2000; »Put Britain on the List of State Sponsoring Terrorism«; http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2000/eirv27n03-20000121/

eirv27n03-20000121_052-put_britain_on_the_list_of_state.pdf].

Dette dossier, der kan ses på EIR’s websides hjemmeside, var udelukkende baseret på regeringsdokumentation, formelle diplomatiske henvendelser, der var registreret hos British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, fra regeringer så forskellige som den egyptiske, russiske, peruvianske, colombianske, indiske – og i hvert enkelt tilfælde lød klagen på det samme. At terrornetværk, der var aktive i alle disse lande, fik beskyttelse på et sikkert sted, logistisk støtte og finansiering af den britiske regering.

I Ruslands tilfælde var der moskéer over hele Det forenede Kongerige, der var brændpunkter for rekruttering for at sende fanatiske jihadist-rekrutter til først at blive uddannet i Afghanistan og Pakistan, og dernæst sendt til Kaukasus-området for at tilslutte sig de tjetjenske netværk, der udførte en blodig terrorkampagne mod Rusland. I Egyptens tilfælde blev den Islamiske Jihad-gruppe, der udførte massakren på turister på de historiske steder i Luxor i Øvre Egypten, kørt fra London af netværk, der blev finansieret og beskyttet af den britiske regering.

Så det spørgsmål, vi har for os med de 28 sider, går videre end til Saudi Arabien. Det går direkte til kernen af karakteren af de imperiemagter, der stadig eksisterer på denne planet. Og vi har derfor, ved at frigive disse 28 sider, og ved at frigive et element af sandheden, ikke alene en enestående mulighed for at opnå retfærdighed for familierne, for amerikanerne og for alle ofrene for terrorisme i hele verden; men vi lægger også grunden til at få lukket dette apparat ned, én gang for alle. For terrorisme er ikke et »sociologisk fænomen«, det er ikke noget, der styres fra bunden og opefter. Ligesom den internationale narkohandel, så styres det ovenfra og nedefter, og alle veje fører sluttelig tilbage til det, som selv den britiske presse refererer til som »Londonistan«.




Pressekonference med senator Bob Graham 7. januar 2015:
Afklassificer de 28 sider! Fuldt dansk udskrift

Senator Bob Graham: Jeg vil gerne takke Walter og Steve – kongresmedlemmerne Jones og Lynch – for deres lederskab i forbindelse med at gøre Kongressen opmærksom på denne sag. Jeg vil gerne takke familiemedlemmerne, som uden for enhver tvivl har været den mest indflydelsesrige kraft i alle de forandringer, der er sket som følge af 11. september, og også vil være den mest betydningsfulde kraft med hensyn til at overbevise præsidenten om, at tiden er inde til at give det amerikanske folk sandheden.

Det er overflødigt at nævne, at de bemærkninger, som jeg vil fremkomme med her til morgen, er væsentlig anderledes, end de ville have været, hvis det ikke havde været for begivenhederne i Paris her til morgen, som efter min mening stiller denne sag i det rette lys.

Men først lidt om baggrunden: Efter 11. september stod det klart, at det ville blive nødvendigt at Kongressen udførte en eller anden form for undersøgelse af, hvad der skete. Lederskabets beslutning gik ud på, at man skulle kombinere Efterretningskomiteerne i Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet til en komite; den første gang, noget sådant var sket i Kongressenes historie, for at stå for denne undersøgelse. Undersøgelsen varede hele året 2002. Den omfattede hundreder af vidner, ti tusindvis af sider med dokumentation, der førte til en rapport på over 800 sider, der blev fremlagt i december 2002. Henved seks måneder senere dukkede den offentlige version op, og vi var chokerede over at se, at et vigtigt kapitel i rapporten var bortredigeret, dvs., som kongresmedlem Lynch og kongresmedlem Jones sagde, ikke et ord eller en sætning her og der, men et helt kapitel.

Eftersom dette kapitel fortsat er hemmeligstemlet, kan ingen af os tale om det offentligt, men jeg tror, det er rimeligt at sige, at det er et centralt kapitel for forståelsen af, hvem det netværk var, der gjorde det muligt for 11. september at finde sted. Da vi så, at dette kapitel var blevet fjernet, lød der omgående et ramaskrig. Senator Dick Shelby, republikaner fra Alabama, som havde været formand og på daværende tidspunkt var næstformand for Senatets Efterretningskomite, og jeg, udstedte en erklæring, der sagde, at vi havde indgående kendskab til dette kapitel og ikke anså det for at indeholde noget, der havde skadelig virkning på den nationale sikkerhed, og at kapitlet var væsentligt for den generelle forståelse af 11. september og burde frigives.

Vi har efterfølgende fået tilslutning hertil fra andre, der var involveret, inklusive formanden for Husets komite, Porter Goss, der også gerne ville have været til stede her i dag, og dernæst har også borgerkommissionen for 11. septembers to medformænd, Lee Hamilton og Tom Kean, talt for, at disse 28 sider skulle frigives.

Kort tid efter, at afklassificeringsprocessen sluttede blev der udfærdiget et brev, der blev underskrevet af næsten halvdelen af medlemmerne af USA’s Senat, upartisk, og som inkluderede senator Joe Biden fra Delaware, senator John Kerry fra Massachusetts, og senator Hillary Clinton fra New York, der alle krævede, at præsident Bush frigav de 28 sider.

Hvad har konsekvenserne af, at man har nægtet at frigive disse sider, været? Og lad mig sige, at alt imens de 28 sider måske er de vigtigste og de mest prominente, så er de slet ikke det eneste eksempel på steder, hvor information, der er vigtig for forståelsen af hele 11. september, også er blevet holdt tilbage fra det amerikanske folk. Så de bemærkninger, jeg nu vil komme med, handler specifikt om de 28 sider, men mere generelt om et mønster med en mørklægning, der i 12 år har forhindret det amerikanske folk i at få en komplet forståelse af det mest forfærdelige angreb mod USA i dets historie.

Konsekvenserne er efter min vurdering tre:

For det første, en fornægtelse af sandheden. Et centralt spørgsmål i 11. september var, om de 19 personer handlede alene, eller om de havde et støttenetværk, der fremmede deres evne til at udføre en meget kompleks plan. Ingen, der har undersøgt kendsgerningerne nærmere, inklusive de individer, som jeg netop nævnte, er kommet til en anden konklusion end den, at det er højst usandsynligt, at de 19 personer kunne have handlet på egen hånd. Og dog er det den amerikanske regerings officielle standpunkt, at de handlede på egen hånd, og at der ikke er grund til yderligere at undersøge spørgsmålet, om der var et støttenetværk.

Vi befinder os nu i 150-års jubilæumsåret for Den amerikanske Borgerkrig, og i løbet af de sidste fem år har vi haft en national historietime, efterhånden som datoen for en nutidig begivenhed faldt sammen med en dato under denne krig. En af de informationer, som vi, eller jeg i det mindste, har lært, er, at præsident Lincoln under hele krigen havde en politik om, at alle budskaber, der kom til regeringen, mere specifikt til Udenrigsministeriet, skulle opføres i en offentlig protokol, på daglig basis. Hans forståelse var, at, hvis man skulle bevare det amerikanske folks støtte til en krig, der blev stadig mere blodig, med store mennesketab og materielle tab, ville det kræve det amerikanske folks tillid til, at deres regering opførte sig på en passende måde, og at nøglen til denne tillid var åbenhed.

Jeg ville ønske, at vi vedtog Lincoln-standarden for det, der skete under 11. september.

For det andet er der spørgsmålet om retfærdighed. Henved 3.000 pårørende til dem, der mistede livet under 11. september, har i årevis forsøgt at få retfærdighed gennem vores system, for de tab, de har lidt. Den amerikanske regerings standpunkt har været den at beskytte Saudi Arabien ved praktisk talt hvert trin i retsprocessen. Da den amerikanske regering skulle tage et standpunkt, tog den et standpunkt, der var til skade for de amerikanske borgeres interesser, der søgte retfærdighed, og beskyttende over for den regering, der efter min mening havde det største ansvar for dette støttenetværk.

Og igen, med et eksempel fra Borgerkrigen: Briterne havde underskrevet en neutralitetsaftale med USA om, at de ikke ville blande sig i Borgerkrigen. Efterfølgende fandt man ud af, at deres skibsværfter havde bygget militærskibe til Konføderationen. Da krigen endte, glemte USA det ikke; det ignorerede ikke de negative virkninger af Storbritanniens forræderi. I stedet forfulgte USA sagen mod dem, og sikrede sluttelig en erkendelse af, hvad Storbritannien havde gjort, samt fik nogen skadeserstatning for konsekvenserne af deres handlinger. Hvilken forskel på den måde, dette land så sig selv som en stolt forsvarer af retfærdighed for dets borgere, og så det, vi oplever i dag.

Den tredje konsekvens er spørgsmålet om national sikkerhed, og hyppigt har de, der var forsvarere for, at man ikke skulle have åbenhed, sagt, at dette ikke kan gøres tilgængeligt for det amerikanske folk, fordi det ville skade vores nationale sikkerhed. Det ville påvirke metoder og kilder til information, eller anden information, der ikke egner sig til offentliggørelse. Som de to kongresmedlemmer netop sagde, så læste de begge rapporten – ikke for 12 år siden, da jeg var med til at skrive rapporten – men de har læst den for nylig, og de er begge kommet til den samme konklusion, som vi gjorde for 12 år siden, at der ikke eksisterer nogen trussel mod vores nationale sikkerhed i frigivelse.

Jeg vil i dag hævde, at der eksisterer en trussel mod vores nationale sikkerhed i manglende frigivelse, og vi så endnu et kapitel af det i dag, i Paris.

Her er nogle kendsgerninger:

Saudierne ved, hvad de gjorde. De er ikke personer, der ikke er bevidste om konsekvenserne af deres regerings handlinger. For det andet, så ved saudierne, at vi ved, hvad de gjorde! Der er nogen i regeringen, der har læst disse 28 sider, nogen i regeringen har læst alle de andre dokumenter, der hidtil er blevet mørklagt. Og det ved saudierne.

Hvad tror man, saudiernes standpunkt ville være, hvis de vidste, hvad de havde gjort, vidste, at USA vidste, hvad de havde gjort, og dernæst så, at USA havde indtaget et standpunkt af enten passivitet, eller ligefrem fjendtlighed over for at lade disse kendsgerninger blive kendt? Hvad ville den saudiske regering gøre under sådanne betingelser, hvilket netop er, hvor de har befundet sig i mere end et årti?

Ja, for det første har de fortsat, måske optrappet, deres støtte til en af de mest ekstreme former for islam, wahhabisme, over hele verden, især i Mellemøsten. Og for det andet har de støttet deres religiøse iver med finansiel eller anden form for støtte til de organisationer, der skulle udføre disse ekstreme former for islam. Disse organisationer har omfattet moskéer, madrassaer og militær. Al-Qaeda var en skabelse af Saudi Arabien; de regionale grupper så som al-Shabab, har for størstedelen været skabelser af Saudi Arabien; og nu er ISIS den seneste skabelse!

Ja, jeg håber og har tillid til, at USA vil knuse ISIS, men hvis vi tror, det er definitionen på sejr, er vi meget naive! ISIS er en konsekvens, ikke en årsag – det er en konsekvens af udbredelsen af ekstremisme, primært af Saudi Arabien, og hvis det knuses, vil en anden organisation blive etableret, finansieret og støttet for at fortsætte sagen.

Så konsekvensen af vores passivitet over for Saudi Arabien har været, at vi har tolereret denne serie af organisationer; voldelige, ekstreme, ekstremt skadelige for Mellemøsten, og en trussel mod verden, som vi så det i Paris i morges.

Så jeg vil afslutte med at sige, at dette er et meget vigtigt spørgsmål. Det kan synes uaktuelt for nogle, men det er lige så aktuelt som de avisoverskrifter, vi vil læse i dag. Det er et spørgsmål, der vedrører kernen af USA’s kontrakt med sit folk, at folket vil give regeringen troværdighed og støtte til at regere; regeringen vil give folket den information, på basis af hvilken det kan foretage en sund vurdering af, om regeringens handlinger er passende. Det er fundamentalt som retfærdighed over for vort folk, der har lidt så meget under denne onde union mellem ekstremisme og en meget magtfuld nationalstat. Og det er det amerikanske folks sikkerhed.

Så jeg vil igen gerne takke kongresmedlemmerne for deres lederskab. Jeg håber, de snart vil få følgeskab at en bølge af andre kongresmedlemmer, der indser vigtigheden af dette spørgsmål. Og at USA’s præsident endelig vil erklære, at han vil vedtage Lincoln-standarden med fuld åbenhed og stole på det amerikanske folks intelligens og dømmekraft og patriotisme for at afgøre, hvad det passende handlingsforløb bør være.

Tak. [klapsalver]