Thank you for your reply, your input is most appreciated even though I don’t agree.

The reason I don’t agree is because how can we and our government that’s been intent upon using the terrorist attacks to carry out the invasion of Iraq, prevent bringing to justice those who’ve been established as being directly responsible for it?

Saudi’s “OPEN” support includes financial backing for minority Sunnis because of the civil war between them and Iraq’s Shiite majority. Before that the Sunnis were getting the money from private donations such as extremist Wahhabi mosques and the Bin Laden family which is an immensely wealthy family intimately connected with the innermost circles of the Saudi royal family.

So why are we doing nothing to combat the real terrorist the “SAUDI’S”! Who warned Cheney that they were going to supply the Sunnis with advanced weaponry and cash (to buy more) if we sided with the Shiites. There has been evidence that they had been funding them from the beginning.

U.S. intelligence reports and the U.S. Iraq Study Group report as well as Iraqi intelligence reports said Saudis are funding Sunni Arab insurgents and the money is used to buy weapons, including Strelas, Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has warned Vice President Dick Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back the Sunnis if the United States pulls out of Iraq, according to a senior American official.

The official said the king “read the riot act” to the vice president when the two met in the Saudi capital, Riyadh.

The New York Times first reported the conversation saying Saudi support would include financial backing for minority Sunnis in the event of a civil war between them and Iraq’s Shiite majority.

Asked about the meeting, a senior Saudi official – who spoke on condition he not be named – ruled out using terminology such as “warning” or “threatening.” He said, “I believe the Saudi position was clear, that things might deteriorate or drift in Iraq, and then the kingdom will find itself forced to interfere.”

Saudi Arabia believes the Iraqi government is not up to the challenge and has told the United States that it is prepared to move its own forces into Iraq should the violence there degenerate into chaos, a senior U.S. official told NBC News.

The Saudis’ primary concern is the Sunni population of Anbar province, the senior U.S. official. The official said the Saudis had informed Washington that they were considering a plan to send troops into the province if Bush’s plan failed.

The Saudi’s are mad as hell at “US” turning the government over to people who are known to be Iranian agents like Ahmad Chalabi, Al-Jafari, Al-Hakim and Al-Maliki!

This has caused many Sunni Saudis concern and outrage over the single handed give away in Sunni Iraq to Shia Iranian interests while demonizing and sabre rattling against Tehran.

If, indeed, the Iranians are funding, arming and training Shiite militias (who are responsible for 4% of American military deaths in Iraq and 5% of injuries inflicted on American military in Iraq) who COMBINED with the Taliban are responsible for 9% of TOTAL American military deaths and 8% of TOTAL injuries inflicted on the American military. For which we are threatening military action against Iran. Then doesn’t it logically follow that we should be threatening military action against Saudi Arabia which has been funding the Sunni insurgency (who is responsible for 91% of TOTAL American military casualties and 92% of TOTAL injuries inflicted on the American military) an insurgency that has killed far more Americans than the Taliban and Shiite insurgency COMBINED?

Doesn’t it logically follow that we should be threatening military action against Saudi Arabia which has been “OPENLY” funding the Sunni insurgency, an insurgency that has killed far more Americans than the Shiite insurgency?

Especially when according to U.S. intelligence reports Saudi Arabia has an active role as a player in the nuclear black-market!

According to Mohammed Khilewi, first secretary at the Saudi mission to the United Nations until July 1994, the Saudis have sought a bomb since 1975; they sought to buy nuclear reactors from China, supported Pakistan’s nuclear program, and contributed $5 billion to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program between 1985 and 1990. While the U.S. government vocally opposes the development or procurement of ballistic missiles by non-allies, it has been very quiet in Saudi Arabia’s case, considering the fact that it possesses the longest-range ballistic missiles of any developing country.

In his 2003 Naval Post graduate thesis titled “Is Saudi Arabia a Nuclear Threat?”Steven R. McDowell writes:

Now that the CSS-2 missiles are nearing the end of their lifecycle, the Saudi regime may choose to replace them. During a March 11, 1997 interview with Defense News, Saudi military chief of staff, Lt Gen. Saleh Mohaya stated [referring to the Saudi's CSS-2 ballistic missile inventory], “The [Saudi Arabian] oil kingdom is now considering replacing or refurbishing the desert missile force.”

Early in 2006, the German periodical Cicero reported that satellite imagery obtained by Germany’s secret service indicated that Saudi Arabia has set up in Al-Sulaiyil, south of Riyadh, a new secret underground city and dozens of underground silos for missiles. TPMcafe has also picked up on this item

According to some Western security services, long-range Ghauri-type missiles of Pakistani-origin are housed inside the silos.

The Ghauri missile has a range of 1,500 kilometers, while the CSS-2.
missile has a longer 2500km range.

The East Wind’s modified range/payload (5) of 2,500 km/2,000 kg (conventional load) brings many countries within striking range, including Israel, the former Soviet Union, and Iran, though the missiles are said to be targeted on Tehran and other Iranian population centers, rather than Israel.

It seems that Saudi Arabia has replaced its aging Chinese missiles with North Korean/Pakistani “Ghauri” missiles, albeit with 1000km less range, they have essentially modernized their missile fleet.

Leaders of Hezbollah, the Iranian- backed party trying to overthrow the Lebanese government, have recently visited the Saudi king in Riyadh, according to officials who attended the meeting. And Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi chief security adviser, has met with his Iranian counterpart, Ali Larijani, in Riyadh and Tehran to try to stop Lebanon’s slide into civil war.

“The only hope is for the Iranians and Saudis to go further in easing the situation and bringing people back to the negotiating table,” said Radwan al- Sayyed, an adviser to Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

“It is true, whoever governs will decide Lebanon’s political direction,” said Muhammad Fneish, a senior Hezbollah member who said he recently attended a meeting with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

“Saudi Arabia and Iran are near an agreement,” said Toufic Sultan, a former leader in the main government-aligned Druse party who has maintained close ties to Saudi officials.

“The United States is the first to be blamed for the rise of Iranian influence in the Middle East,” said Khaled al-Dakhil, a Saudi writer and academic. “There is one thing important about the ascendance of Iran here. It does not reflect a real change in Iranian capabilities, economic or political. It’s more a reflection of the failures on the part of the U.S. and its Arab allies in the region.”

“It was necessary to create an enemy to justify the failure of the American occupation in Iraq,” Talal Salman, the editor-in-chief of as-Safir, a Lebanese newspaper, wrote in a column this month. “So to protect ourselves against the coming of the wolf, we bring the foreign fleets that fill our lands, skies and seas.”

Iran has found itself strengthened almost by default, first with the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to Iran’s east, which ousted the Taliban rulers against whom it almost went to war in the 1990s, and then to its west, with the American ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, against whom it fought an eight-year war in the 1980s.

“I disagree with Iranian policy, but you have to give the Iranians credit,” said Abdullah al-Shayji, a political science professor and head of Kuwait University’s American Studies Unit. “You have to appreciate that they have an agenda, they’re planning for it, they seize the opportunity, they see an American weakness and they are capitalizing on it.”

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Kuwait rarely rebuffs its ally, the United States, partly out of gratitude for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But in October it reneged on a pledge to send three military observers to an American-led naval exercise in the Gulf, according to U.S. officials and Kuwaiti analysts.

“We understood,” a State Department official said. “The Kuwaitis were being careful not to antagonize the Iranians.”

If America withdrew from Iraq and a Sunni-Shi’ite war took off, the narrative of the long war would inevitably change. It would go from Islam versus the West to Islam versus itself and we would reap dividends in the long run.

Redefining the war on terror as essentially the product of ancient feuds within Islam immediately shifts the argument onto terrain favorable to the West. As it stands now our being in Iraq unites the Muslim world against “US” while both sides are using “US” our children and our resources.

I’ve been a long time lurker (about 2 years) and have often read post that connect Iraq with 9/11 or at least to some if not “the” terrorist which is why we had to invade in order to defend ourselves from a potential attack from terrorist in and/or aided by Iraq.

But the joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation, the FBI program of voluntary interviews and numerous other post-9-11 inquiries, together comprising probably the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history—chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people — has turned up no evidence of Iraq’s involvement; nor has the extensive search of post-Saddam Iraq by the Kay and Duelfer commission and US troops combing through Saddam’s computers.

The intelligence community (CIA, NSA, DIA, etc) view, confirmed by the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, is that there was not a cooperative effort between the two and that Saddam did not support the 9/11 attacks. According to this view, the difference in ideology between Saddam and al-Qaeda made cooperation in any terrorist attacks very unlikely (Saddam Hussein did not trust Islamic extremists and had often worked against them, while Osama bin Laden had called Saddam Hussein an “infidel” a number of times).

Though its true Iraq had (by coincidence) been killing OBL’s religious enemies since January 1998 such as the killings of internationally respected clerics have been attributed widely to Iraqi government agents by Shi’a clergy in Iran, international human rights activists, the U.S. and other governments. For example;

According to a report submitted to the Special Rapporteur in September 1999, one of al-Sadr’s sons, Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr, was arrested along with a large number of theological students who had studied under the Ayatollah. Nineteen followers of al-Sadr reportedly were executed toward the end of 1999, including Sheikh Muhammad al-Numani, Friday imam Sheikh Abd-al-Razzaq al-Rabi’i, assistant Friday imam Kazim al-Safi, and students from a religious seminary in Najaf. But it was only a coincidence that the victims were also enemies of OBL as ultimately the Senate Report confirmed the CIA’s conclusion that there was no evidence of operational cooperation between the two.

Yet, both parties in the House and Senate intelligence committees have through their investigations proven with incontrovertible evidence that there was support for the 9/11 terrorists;

“Our investigators found a CIA memo dated August 2, 2002, whose author concluded that there is incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government. On September 11, America was not attacked by a nation-state, but we had just discovered that the attackers were actively supported by one, and that state was our supposed friend and ally Saudi Arabia.”

“We had discovered an FBI asset who had a close relationship with the terrorists; a terrorist support network that went through the Saudi Embassy; and a funding network that went through the Saudi Royal family.”

According to U.S. intelligence reports the Saudi government played a direct role in funding 9/11 and Saudi Arabia has an active role as a player in the nuclear black-market. Also the U.S. State Department’s 2000 Human Rights Report shows Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship that makes Iraq under Saddam Hussein look like Disneyworld.

The Treasury and State Departments have catalogued the Saudi government’s decades of support for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

The hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar received money from Saudi Arabia’s royal family through two Saudis, Omar Al-Bayoumi and Osama Basnan. Newsweek bases its report on information leaked from the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry in October.[Newsweek, 11/22/2002; Newsweek, 11/22/2002;
New York Times, 11/23/2002; Washington Post, 11/23/2003]
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/23/internat…ast/23TERR.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A…anguage=printer

later even more connections between them and both entities are revealed. [US Congress, 7/24/2003 pdf file] http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creport…port_errata.pdf

“The money moved into the family’s bank account beginning in early 2000, just a few months after hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi arrived in Los Angeles from an Al Qaeda planning summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, according to the sources. Within days of the terrorists’ arrival in the United States, Al Bayoumi befriended the two men who would eventually hijack American Flight 77, throwing them a welcoming party in San Diego and guaranteeing their lease on an apartment next door to his own. Al Bayoumi also paid $1,500 to cover the first two months of rent for Al Midhar and Alhazmi, although officials said it could be possible that the hijackers later repaid the money.” [Newsweek, November 22, 2002; US Congress, 7/24/2003 pdf file]
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creport…port_errata.pdf

MSNBC claims that “members of the Saudi royal family met frequently with bin Laden—both before and after 9/11” [MSNBC, 9/5/2003] , and many Saudi royals and bin Laden relatives are being sued for their alleged role in 9/11.
http://www.emjournal.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sept030.html

Saudi Arabia has transferred $500 million to Al Qaida over the past decade, according to a report prepared for the United Nations. The report said prominent Saudi charities, supported by leading officials and companies, continue to finance groups deemed as terrorist by the European Union and the United States, but regarded as legitimate by the kingdom.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/W…udis_01_03.html

After funding the hijackers the Saudi agents decided they needed to travel to Las Vegas where they would meet up with the rest of the Bin Ladens and fly out of the country while American air space was on shoot to kill lock down after 9/11. (According to FBI documents, the Las Vegas charter (Ryan 441) was the one paid for by either the Saudi Royal Family or Osama Bin Laden) And many of the passengers who were escaping on the flight were ALREADY WANTED by the FBI for questioning BEFORE 9/11 and also had several connections to the 9/11 terrorist! For example:

The son of the Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan. Sultan is sued in August 2002 for alleged complicity in the 9/11 plot. [Tampa Tribune, 10/5/2001] He is alleged to have contributed at least $6 million since 1994 to four charities that finance al-Qaeda. [Vanity Fair, 10/2003]
http://web.archive.org/web/20011108145853/…GA3F78EFSC.html
http://www.wesjones.com/saudi1.htm

Khalil bin Laden. He has been investigated by the Brazilian government for possible terrorist connections. [Vanity Fair, 10/2003]
http://www.wesjones.com/saudi1.htm

Abdullah bin Laden and Omar bin Laden, cousins of bin Laden. Abdullah was the US director of the Muslim charity World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). The governments of India, Pakistan, Philippines, and Bosnia have all accused WAMY of funding terrorism. These two relatives were investigated by the FBI in 1996 (see February-September 11, 1996) in a case involving espionage, murder, and national security.
http://www.wesjones.com/saudi1.htm

Remarkably, four of the 9/11 hijackers briefly live in the town of Falls Church, Virginia, three blocks from the WAMY office headed by Abdullah bin Laden. [BBC, 11/6/2001]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm

Saleh Ibn Abdul Rahman Hussayen. He is a prominent Saudi official who is in the same hotel as three of the hijackers the night before 9/11. He leaves on one of the first flights to Saudi Arabia before the FBI can properly interview him about this. [Washington Post, 10/2/2003]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A…anguage=printer

Akberali Moawalla. A Pakistani and business partner of Osama’s brother Yeslam bin Laden. In 2000, a transfer of over $250 million was made from a bank account belonging jointly to Moawalla and Osama bin Laden.(see 2000). [Washington Post, 7/22/2004]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic…-2004Jul21.html

Khalid bin Mahfouz. In October 2001, the Treasury Department identified the Muwafaq Foundation, largely endowed by Khalid bin Mahfouz, as an al Qaeda front that had funneled millions of dollars to bin Laden. Some families of the 9/11 victims have named Mahfouz and dozens of prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family, in a lawsuit that accuses the Saudis of funding the 9/11 terrorists. Bush administration officials stated that they would seek to have the suit dismissed or delayed.
[New York Times, November 28, 2002]

One not on the flight or wanted but is important to note; Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar had been making monthly transfers, $130,000 in all, to an FBI informant in counter-terrorism specializing in Arabic terrorist “Al Bayoumi” who assisted and funded the two hijackers who were based in San Diego.["FBI Looks at Saudi's Links to 9/11," Los Angeles Times, November 23, 2002]

I could go on but to some it up, because of 9/11 we have declared a war on terror while at the same time failing to hold those most responsible “THE SAUDIS” who according to U.S. intelligence reports played a direct role in funding 9/11, has an active role as a player in the nuclear black-market plus the U.S. State Department’s 2000 Human Rights Report shows Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship that makes Iraq under Saddam Hussein look like Disneyworld yet we attacked Iraq. Why?

I suppose it would sound funny to go on using the username “Wretchard” when everybody knows your real name, but it was a terrific username, especially for the kind of posts that you write, serious, often sad, without pomposity. I also liked the cat icon by your comments. Also I liked the small Georgia font but if people have trouble reading it then maybe you could bring it back but a bit larger. The dark-gray non-serif font makes commenters’ words look like leaf fragments ready to blow away, or to be scattered by cats. Also I liked the (blah blah, etc., etc.)

Anyway, again, congratulations.

Miss your editing, welcome your writing.

I noticed through reading many of the responses to the article here … Facts (Still) Do Not Matter To The Left.

We do know this from the behavior of Barack Obama, if it serves political ends, Obama will jettison ANY position … he may actually develop a war-footing if backed into a wall, just ask the crowd “under” the bus.

You are right about the cat.

Yes but the recent Senate(Democratic part) Intelligence Committe report says the following about the Admistrations stance prior to the war:

Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

Statments that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,”

Statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

Looks like that while there was no Al Queda in Irag, Iraq is where Al Queda promises to be defeated in detail.

I wonder who is opposed to that result?

Even if we limited ourselves to fighting against Al Qaeda, they haven’t always been in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Fighting them there only doesn’t make very much sense.