CON GAMES: Bandar’s Wife Linked To 9/11 Terrorists

April 15th, 2008 at 06:58am Michael Conniff 2

A new book connects Princess Haifa al-Faisal—the wife of former Saudi Arabia ambassador to the United States Prince Bandar bin Sultan—to money that aided and abetted two of the 9/11 hijackers.

The new information comes from “The Commission: The Uncensored History Of The 9/11 Investigation” by Philip Shenon, an investigative reporter for The New York Times. The revelation is contained in a portion of a House-Senate Joint Intelligence Committee report with 28 pages on Saudi links to the 9/11 attacks that destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center, struck the Pentagon, caused the crash of jet in a Pennsylvania field—and killed more than 3,000 people in the most deadly terrorist attack ever on United States soil.

The 28 pages on the Saudi connections never saw the light of day because the White House invoked executive privilege. President George W. Bush is so close to the Saudi royal family he is known by the nickname “Bandar Bush.”

The two hijackers implicated in the allegations are Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mindhar, who both investigated flight schools in the San Diego area. The money was funneled to them through Saudi expatriate Omar al-Bayoumi: on the payroll to a Saudi government airline contractor, though Bayoumi did no work for the firm, according to Shenon. While helping the hijackers, Bayoumi’s income from the “ghost” job jumped $40,000. Another Saudi spy, Osama Bassan, funneled thousands of dollars to Bassan, according to Michael Jacobson, an investigator for the joint House-Senate Committee.

“The source of Bassan’s money was at additional shock to the Senate investigators,” Shenon writes in his new book. “Much of it had come in the form of cashier’s checks directed to his family by Princess Haifa al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi ambassador to Washington. The Princess had a charity fund that assisted Saudis in distress in the United States, and she had supposedly sent the money to help Bayoumi’s wife pay for thyroid surgery; Bassan’s wife had signed a number of the checks over to Bayoumi’s wife.”

Shenon’s sources, among others, is Senator Bob Graham of Florida, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Graham says there was a “direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia.” Graham says Saudi “spies” based in Southern California helped at least two of the hijackers.

“And Graham and his investigators,” Shenon writes, “had become convinced that a number of sympathetic Saudi officials, possibly within the sprawling Islamic Affairs Ministry, had known that al-Qaeda terrorists were entering the United States beginning in 2000 in preparation for some sort of attack. Graham believed the Saudi officials had directed the spies operating in the United States to assist them.”

This is not the first time the charge against Princess Haifa has surfaced. In 2002, Adel Al-Jubeir, a foreign policy adviser to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, told CNN that Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, is "a very generous woman" who generously supports charitable causes.

“The princess, however, never sent any money directly to the two hijackers, Al-Jubeir said,” according to CNN, “An investigation by her office has found the princess sent money to a woman on her charity recipient list and that woman then sent the money to the students.”

Entry Filed under: Politics, Colorado, Con Games, Foreign Policy, The West, United Post

23 Comments Add your own

1. Mitch Mulhall | April 15th, 2008 at 10:15 am

While you're on the subject of unfortunate Saudi influence, you may be surprised to learn that the British Labour Party have their nickers in a twist over corporate activites by British Aerospace (BAe) and Prince Bandar. Scotland Yard was about to seize Bandar's Swiss Bank accounts when then-Prime Minister Tony Blair pulled the plug on the investigation in the name of "National Security." In December, 2006, Lord Goldsmith officially called off the dogs. Is Saudi influence above the law? It is when theirs are the hands on the petrol spigot.
2. reckless G | April 15th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

[The 28 pages on the Saudi connections never saw the light of day because the White House invoked executive privilege. ]

You mean there was a conspiracy!?!

This whole book sounds like a collection of facts put together in such a way as to prove the author's postulation that something fishy was going on. That's a conspiracy theory right?
3. Mitch Mulhall | April 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

G,

This is not a clever distinction, and one you should have gotten by now.

If Shenon observes 28 pages of redacted material and postulates a conclusion about the missing content, to call it theory is to put it kindly.

If Shenon writes about the nature of the 28 pages based on the statements or writings of Senator and Armed Services Committee member Bob Graham, that's journalism.

Cheers,
4. Michael Conniff | April 15th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

You're my buddies but you're both wrong.

This is a top-notch investigative reporter, so start there. Though he never makes direct reference to quotes from the 28 pages he has either seen it or gotten detailed briefing from Senator Bob Graham and/or others on the committe; and Michael Jaccobson, the investigator, or others on the committee.

If he referred to the material directly in quotes, my guess is he could be liable to prosecution--he could be liable in any event.

But no: this is the opposite of conspiracy theory. Shenon is dealing in--and here''s the key phrase for you conspiracy nuts--VERIFIABLE FACT.

Best, Con Man!
5. Mitch Mulhall | April 15th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

[Though he never makes direct reference to quotes from the 28 pages he has either seen it or gotten detailed briefing from Senator Bob Graham and/or others on the committe; and Michael Jaccobson, the investigator, or others on the committee.]

That's the condition I described as journalism, actually. If that makes me wrong, I suppose I'll have to take your word for it...

Cheers,
6. reckless G | April 15th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

So let me get this straight. If a "top notch investigative reporter" writes a book full of VERIFIABLE FACTS postulating a connection between Prince Bandar's wife and the 9/11 hijackers (among other things), it's called journalism. But when an uncredentialed citizen makes a connection between the military-industrial complex and war profiteering by the Bush administration that makes them a conspiracy nut.

Gee, thanks for that clarification...buddy.
7. Mitch Mulhall | April 15th, 2008 at 7:02 pm

G,

I for one am not surprised you'd give lofty generalization more credence than top notch investigative reporting. You set that precedent with your wholesale dismissal of Lawrence Wright.

BTW--What are your lunch plans this week, and have you heard from Wharf Rat lately?

Cheers,
8. Star Eagle | April 15th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Michael,

I challenge you to your conspiracy theory based on your governments VERIFIABLE FACTS. If you did any serious research into the subject you would be amazed at how flimsy this Bush sponsored conspiracy really is.

I reiterate Michael, I am the critic from hell. It took years of saying, "show me the proof" before I too saw the light beyond the shadow of deceit.

And, I then had to objectively seek the answers to huge questions that loomed once the true story began to emerge.

Time will tell Michael, and as I have written before, don't be too late to the table my friend, for as a journalist, you will miss the tastiest morsels. And this Bush inspired conspiracy is rotting in the growing heat and light of day.

I can attest to the expanding dissatisfaction of the masses to the propagated theory that Bush and his handlers were only "foolish". It is wearing exceptionally thin. I attended a lecture on The New World Order earlier today, followed by a Q&A afterward, by retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni.

The overriding observation, the natives are restless, and getting more so daily, ladies and gentlemen.

While he talked a fine historical story, he (being the player he is) tried mightily to ignore that 800 lb. gorilla staring him in the face. The one that says your awareness is good... but only to a point.

Really listen to what you a saying Gen. Zinni and extend that wisdom to its logical... and yes, obvious, conclusion.

The New World Order does indeed stand before us. The key word however being... NEW!

Leave it to the bold among us to create this New World Order sir. You can lead, you can join, but, if you don't wake up and at least get out of the way, your ass is going to get run over... again!

And this time the train is coming the other way.
9. Michael Conniff | April 15th, 2008 at 8:27 pm

As the only person in this discussion with any experience as a working journalist I might have something to add here.

You're all misunderstanding "verifiable fact." Verifiable fact means it doesn't belong to the govenment or to an individual but could be verified by anyone. In practice it means that the reporter (or the historian) is working with primary material--original documents and interviews, as an example.

Bloggers, different from journalists, are invariably working second- and third-hand--without access to primary information--and are thus at least one or two or three steps removed from verifiable fact.

That's the difference, G, and it's a big one. It's not to say you're wrong or the information isn't valuable, it's just to say you are neither journalist nor historian.

Best, Michael!

PS One of the keys is to know how you know what you know.
10. Mitch Mulhall | April 15th, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Michael,

I learned a difficult lesson in graduate school, and that is that where critical thought is concerned, the discipline of journalism trumps study of literature absolutely. Looking back on it now, I say this: my twenty years experience writing about empirically verifiable data be damned; I do now and always will, as merely a blogger, defer to the superior intellectual candle power of the working journalist.

Eh hem...

Given the obvious intellectual advantage afforded you by career choice, how do you define the difference between the "left" and "Liberalism"?

Cheers,
11. reckless G | April 15th, 2008 at 10:56 pm

I respect journalism, but not all journalists and not all journals. I don’t believe everything I read and, this might come as a surprise to some of you; I am actually capable of critical thinking.

Isn't it true that most journalists, like scientists, start with a theory and then go about investigating and writing down their findings in such a way as to prove that theory, along the way making assumptions and dubious connections, finally leading the reader to a conclusion which may or may not be accurate? Just because a credentialed journalist wrote something, doesn’t make it 100% accurate. And just because a blogger wrote it, doesn’t mean it isn’t. Some very important stories have been broken by investigative bloggers.

Maybe the problem is in the word; conspiracy. CONS Piracy. It has a sinister connotation. But a conspiracy isn’t a diabolical plot by evildoers. It is just a coordinated plan by usually well meaning people in positions of power to secretly commit an illegal act which if known by the general public would not be condoned or tolerated. Like overthrowing governments, planning to assassinate leaders, selling weapons to an avowed enemy and using the proceeds to fund militant groups, you know, all the stuff that’s been done by the CIA in the last fifty years. And let’s not forget the biggest conspiracy of our time; Watergate!

So how is the Iraq war not a real conspiracy? It has all of the elements and all of the players. There is plenty of evidence out there in books by military commanders, UN weapons inspectors, congressional members, and even, hey wow, investigative journalists! As far as I know, no one has put it all together in one book, but I’ll bet if they did they’d get a guest appearance as an “expert” on CON Games.

Michael, aside from you labeling me a nut, I actually find your refusal to embrace the Iraq war conspiracy endearing. It means you really want to believe that the government is incapable of masterminding such a heinous plan for profit. It's nice that you so willingly believe in truth, justice, and the American way. Kind of cute really.

But whether you believe it or not, the fact is that verified conspiracies do exist. I've outlined a few here; http://www.aspenpost.net/2008/04/15/con-games-con-spiracies/
I’d be interested to hear comments on how those instances differ from the Iraq war profiteering scheme and why the theory is so incredible as to be considered nutworthy. After all, I’m not talking Illuminati here. Just your run of the mill government conspiracy. Sorry Michael, but that IS the way it works. History has proven it time and again.

Mitch, so TLT is your example of fine investigative journalism? Now I know we're in trouble! I'm free for lunch any day. And as for Wharf, he's MIA again, but maybe we can coax him out of his rathole for a lunch date.
12. Mitch Mulhall | April 16th, 2008 at 8:14 am

G,

I would not classify The Looming Tower as investigative journalism. In my opinion, The Looming Tower is an analysis of the radicalization of young Muslims. The work won a Pulitzer Prize in the category of general non-fiction, not investigative journalism.

Shenon's book, which I intend to read, has touched on a thread that if pulled helps unravel the fabric of your position on Palestine. Your out-of-hand dismissal of The Looming Tower, not to mention The Commission, doesn't comport with your willingness to listen to Dr. Tawfik Hamid. Perhaps you will find this speech by Lawrence Wright more palatable.

Cheers,
13. reckless G | April 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

I have not dismissed either book out of hand. My resistance to reading TLT was a reaction to Michael’s insistence that it was the definitive book on the causes of 9/11. Since I had already done years of research on the topic, I didn’t see any need to supplement what I’ve learned with another version of the same story, especially given time and energy restraints.

I also didn’t dismiss The Commission, I was simply using the post to illustrate my point about conspiracies, which as usual seems to have been misunderstood. I do intend to read it, as I believe there may be some material in there that I’ve not been previously been made aware of.

That was a really good lecture by Wright! Ironically, he validated my point about the relationship of the Palestinian problem to the causes of 9/11. In fact his view seems to be identical to mine. For six years I’ve been saying that the suffering and humiliation of the Palestinian people is being used to recruit young Muslims to jihad as a way to avenge their Muslim brethren. That is exactly what Wright said. One of his suggestions for what we can do to prevent the recruiting of Muslims to jihad was to help solve the Israel/Palestine crisis. He specifically mentioned that the US should take a hard stance against Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

I’m curious as to how you can promote Wright’s perspective and still say that; “Shenon's book…has touched on a thread that if pulled helps unravel the fabric of your position on Palestine.” That seems incongruous. My position on Palestine is the same as Wright’s, so how does Shenon’s book diverge from Wright’s position? Please elaborate.

I believe my position on Palestine has been unfairly characterized as a fanatical vendetta against Israel, support for terrorist tactics, and at the very least a naïve belief that solving the ME crisis is all that is needed to eliminate terrorism. Since neither you, nor Michael have spent as much time as I have on the study of the Israel/Palestine situation, I think my views deserve a more respectful evaluation than they have so far received.

Mitch, you’ve told me that since 911 you have made the cause of that event the focus of your study. In particular you have researched the roots of jihadism. I don’t characterize your chosen area of study as a desire to prove the innate inferiority of Muslims. I take it for what it is; a desire for understanding and a sincere search for a solution. We are on a parallel course that hopefully leads to the same destination; an elimination of terrorist acts against the US. As our goals are the same, I don’t see why we are constantly at odds regarding my position on Palestine. Especially when the author of The Looming Tower, which you and Michael both endorse, apparently agrees with me.
14. Star Eagle | April 16th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Touche to the divide and conquer. Yes. If this is the evolution of the content of the book of... Looming Tower, then the only word to start with is... YES!

Gentlemen Mitch and Conniff, the only difference in our view is the clinging conclusion of..."if you are a devout... what is at risk. What is your devotion? Once you lose what it is you are clinging to.. the gorilla suddenly appears

This lecture is very similar to the one I experienced yesterday and the questions asked afterward were likewise similar, with the exception of it being a year down the road of exposure and knowledge, as well as a dose of electoral year intensity thrown in for good measure.

I am consistently amazed that a true bumpkin such as I can listen to this presentation, and for example, hear Mr. Wright speak of the past, present and seeming future ineffectiveness of the FBI and our so called, 'Intelligence Agencies'. Then hear him simply and quickly dismiss the lack of cooperation with the CIA as being the 'missing link', thereby allowing the grand scheme of 9/11 to actually happen, and not see that big gorilla sitting right there in front of him.

Especially in light of the fact that our intelligence was not flawed in that more than one voice called out to say, it is coming, and it is coming fast. First, the intelligence was simply... ignored!

And why can I say this? Because I have looked into and seen the false flag aspects of 9/11 from its inception, through its incredulous execution and into its blatant cover-up. And it is not hard to see once, like I said above, you release your devotion to some conceived perception.

Beyond the initial events of 9/11 we have the continued invasion of Iraq.

Again, no lack of intelligence. Why can I say that? Voices of intelligence once again calling out exactly the quagmire we find ourselves in now.

I was reading the insurgency moves in the newspapers during the initial battles. Reports out of Syria were saying in essence, "we can't beat you on the field of battle but, you will never beat us in the occupation and we are ready, willing and able to bleed you dry forever".

I postulate that these are not idiots that have led us to this point, but true weasels in the henhouse. Snakes in the grass! Call them what you will, but don't call them... the idiots.

Or perhaps you find these men of exceptional intelligence and wholly back them in their actions. That does seem to be a option found comforting to some.

And of course it can always be said... they are simply men with faults and hopes and greater aspirations for all of us.

Gotta go... you decide!
15. reckless G | April 16th, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Well we've turned Michael's fine post into a fine mess! How many topics can we incorporate into this dialog anyway? I think this might be the record for straying off course. Sorry Michael!

Interestingly, the common thread is that we are all seeking to get a handle on this situation we find ourselves in; 9/11, war on terror, government collusion, Iraq occupation, the Middle East conflict, and terrorist networks with connections right here in our own little valley. It's such a big gorilla that it's hard to see the whole thing all at once. King Kong on steroids.

It sure helps to have all of your perspectives and links to other perspectives to add to my understanding.

Best local blog in the nation. You bet!
16. Star Eagle | April 17th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

I think its the LOVE.. that makes it so G.
17. reckless G | April 17th, 2008 at 6:56 pm

Maybe it's the Special Sauce!

Here's a cold beverage for y'all...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUH4zPdpbug
18. Mitch Mulhall | April 17th, 2008 at 7:48 pm

G,

[I’m curious as to how you can promote Wright’s perspective and still say that; “Shenon's book…has touched on a thread that if pulled helps unravel the fabric of your position on Palestine”… My position on Palestine is the same as Wright’s.]

To assert that your position is identical to Wright’s is not a claim you can make after listening to the presentation above.

First, you contend “the suffering and humiliation of the Palestinian people is being used to recruit young Muslims to jihad as a way to avenge their Muslim brethren.” Wright would not disagree with this—and neither do I—but neither Wright nor myself would make this a primary cause (I would probably go farther than Wright by declaring, where bin Laden and al Qaeda are concerned, this is purely an argument of convenience). Rather, Wright’s principal reason for radicalization is what Saad Eddin Ibrahim called displacement, a term Wright brushes aside in favor of marginalization. Wright asserts that radicalization occurs in young men who have traveled from their homeland—“Yemenis in Saudi Arabia, Moroccans in Europe, Pakistanis in Britain”—typically to University. Under such conditions, such young men encounter not only a conflict of culture, but of identity, so they gravitate toward the Mosque—a symbol of their homeland and the familiar—open-minded to the growing influence of what Dr. Hamid calls the Salafist doctrine of Islam.

Second, the humiliation Wright talks about is not merely that of the Palestinian peoples, but of bin Laden, Saudis, Egyptians and the larger Muslim world. He ascribes this humiliation to a broader cultural failure that extends back to 1683, when the expansion of the Ottoman Empire was finally repelled in the Battle of Vienna, not to a one-sided pummeling of the Palestinians by IDF forces that began in 1967. Wright acknowledges that images from the West Bank and Gaza Strip certainly reinforce this humiliation, but so too do the Chinese semi-automatic rifles carried by Jihadists, and the Finnish cell phones they modify to detonate IEDs. Besides oil, the most noticeable export of modern Muslim cultures is terrorism.

In my opinion, Wright correctly calls for the formation of a “prosperous, unified, successful” Palestinian state. Wright also concedes this may not be possible, but in no way does he limit the causes of Jihadism to the continued occupation and oppression of the Palestinians. More importantly, Wright says that while a vibrant Palestinian state will reduce the pool of young Muslim recruits available to Jihadist organizations, the formation of a Palestinian state will not eliminate al Qaeda or Jihadism. If true, this does not leave the fabric of your argument a pile of useless thread on the ground, but a thread-bare patch of gauze on a gaping wound.

Cheers,
19. Mitch Mulhall | April 17th, 2008 at 7:55 pm

PS--I tried to fix your YouTube link above, but embedding was disabled by request... M
20. Mitch Mulhall | April 17th, 2008 at 8:23 pm

And now for some Thursday night Monte Montgomery:
21. reckless G | April 17th, 2008 at 10:14 pm

[PS--I tried to fix your YouTube link above, but embedding was disabled by request]

Yes, I ran into the same problem, that’s why I just used the URL.

Thanks for the recap of the video, but I had no trouble comprehending it on the first go.

This is where the problem lies between you and I. Though I’ve repeatedly said that ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine is BUT ONE STEP we can take in preventing terrorism, you continue to react to my comments as if I have declared this the ONLY step needed to totally eliminate jihadism. I’ve also never claimed that the occupation is the sole or even primary cause of jihadism.

I completely accept Wright’s explanation of the roots of jihadism; displacement and humiliation going back to the Ottoman empire. And I agree with you that “where bin Laden and al Qaeda are concerned, this is purely an argument of convenience.” I really doubt if bin Laden cares one whit for the Palestinians and it clearly is not bin Laden’s primary goal to end the occupation of Palestine. US support of Israel is just another way to incite anger and a desire for revenge on the US. Which is why I believe it’s important to remove this hammer from bin Laden’s tool bag.

Where Wright and I both differ from Dr. Hamid’s position, is that Hamid claims there is no link whatsoever between Israel’s occupation to the recruitment of jihadis. To dismiss this important issue as irrelevant is blatant propaganda designed to please his masters; the anti-Palestinian Jewish cabal who hire him to speak to American audiences.

As I’ve mentioned several times now, I believe if the US were to take a hard stance on the settlements as Wright suggests, withhold monetary aid to Israel until they comply with the UN resolutions regarding the occupation, and broker a peace deal between Israel and Palestine that leads to the creation of a viable strong Palestinian state, that would go a long way toward changing our image in the ME. But it wouldn’t go ALL the way, as there are certainly other issue, not the least of which is our own current occupation of a Muslim country.

I recognize this is a complex issue, I’ve just chosen to focus my efforts on Israel/Palestine, mainly because of the terrible suffering, anger, hatred and violence that the situation is creating, which I have dedicated my life to alleviating.

It’s up to Muslims themselves to work toward a reformation of Islam and deterring jihadism. As an American, I can only be responsible for my own government’s policies. If Israel’s occupation is a gaping wound and a patch of gauze is all I can offer, I’ll gladly accept that. It’s better than just letting it fester and infect the surrounding area. Eh?
22. Star Eagle | April 18th, 2008 at 10:49 am

Grab your socks Mitch I'm hitting you with more...

http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=135
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=136
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=137 links.

Hopefully you won't dismiss them just because.

They give an insight that is a bit broader than that of Lawrence Wright in TLT in that while they give insight into al Qaeda origins and evolution they also show the other side of the coin, which brings the proper 'fair and balanced' perspective we all seek.
23. Mitch Mulhall | April 18th, 2008 at 11:30 pm

[the anti-Palestinian Jewish cabal who hire [Dr. Hamid] to speak to American audiences]

Making friends, or just "Searching for Heritage"?

Cheers,