Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists. He faces accusations that he himself took more than £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.
He was accused in yesterday's high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family." -- from the British report quoted here
This is Prince Bandar, smiling Prince Bandar. The one with the estate in Virginia. The one with the vast chalet in Aspen, where he had the top of an entire mountain removed so as to improve his view. The one who has that Plantagenet hunting-lodge outside London. The one who became the longest-serving diplomat in Washington, who entertained so lavishly all of his many good and great friends of both parties. The one who defended the massive thievery of the Al-Saud with his usual actor's routine, as he served the port and distributed the box of cigars, that "after all, all governments are corrupt and it is only a matter of degree" -- and how, after all, could the Americans present, all of them recognizing the corruption in their own government, and of which some of them were no doubt more than observers, disagree?
Prince Bandar, the Smiler With the Knyf Under the Cloke, the one who was allowed in, or rather allowed himself in, to secret policy-planning sessions just before the war in Iraq. Prince Bandar, the one who was a regular tennis partner of Colin Powell, to whose wife he gave a jaguar, the very same one she had once possessed, and had let drop in conversation how much she missed it. Prince Bandar –whom did he not touch? Was there a President, or a Secretary of State, or a National Security Advisor, or members of key Congressional committees, or generals preparing arms sales of all kind, from AWACS back in 1980 to the most advanced weaponry now, or people in the Energy Department who never managed to come up with even the semblance of an intelligent energy policy, who never met Prince Bandar?
After all, those Energy Department officials never came up with taxes on gasoline of the kind needed, and never suggested any subsidies to trains and rebuilding of track by the Federal government, no subsidies to urban mass transit, no subsidies to solar energy, as the Germans finally did, no intelligent campaign to recognize the need for nuclear plants that required government planning, as the French did, no nothing at all, save measures largely ineffective, late, and in some cases, counter-productive.
They must all be very proud of themselves, all the people in the American government who for so long said such nice things about Saudi Arabia, trusted Saudi Arabia, "our staunch ally," to do the right thing. They must be very proud of all they have managed to do, and not to do, since 1973, when the massive price rises came, a period during which the Muslim nations of OPEC (that is, almost all of OPEC) were the recipients of the largest transfer of wealth in human history, some ten trillion dollars -- with the results we all see.
They must be very proud to have learned that Saudi Arabia has spent nearly $100 billion in the last years to pay for mosques, madrasas, campaigns of Da'wa, and small armies of propagandists all over the Western world, to make sure that Saudi Arabia, with its blend of Islamic fanaticism and ruling-class decadence and smiling malevolence toward Infidels, always with just enough of an appearance (and some gravelly-voiced assurances that seem so...so reasonable...if you are already inclined to be impressed by friendly billionaires, bearing or likely to bear gifts), could always satisfy the doubts of the slightly-doubting.
And at the center of it all, in Washington, there was one man.
Prince Bandar.
Wasn't he recalled back to Saudi due to alcoholism? Where's that photo of him with his foot on the furniture in the W. white house?
It takes two to tango. Prince Bandar could not have accomplished all he did without the willing acquiescence of American and British leaders. Why do we give a fig what happens to the Saudi regime? Let Iran take them over. Let Iran take over Kuwait as well. Why should we care? Can the Iranians really be any worse? At least they let us know they hate us and seek our destruction. The wolf in sheep's clothing is far more dangerous.
People will say this just gives the Iranians more money and power to finance their terrorist organizations, but our "special relationship" with Saudi Arabia did nothing to protect us from terrorism of the Sunni variety. Sunni terrorism or Shiite terrorism. Take your pick. Who cares? A killer is a killer, no matter what religious cloak he wears.
I used to think George Bush just had blinders on where the Saudis were concerned and that Tony Blair had more (relatively speaking) wisdom.
If this story is true then it's clear where Gordon Brown gets his timidity from. Labour needs better leaders. Are there any to be found?
America also needs better leaders but we won't get them. Instead we'll get what we deserve - mediocre leaders in a race to the bottom. We don't want leaders who tell the truth, only those who make us feel good inside. President Barack Obama, coming to a television near you.
It takes two to tango. Prince Bandar could not have accomplished all he did without the willing acquiescence of American and British leaders.
Ain't that the truth...More than one official held hands with Bandar, while strolling through the park...
Some may bitterly deny the pre-eminence of Islamic power. All you need to see is how Kosovo has become a country today. Perhaps many have forgotten how Saudi has wrought this havoc out since the Clinton era.
We may say Allah is dead, but he has given the "Nafadak--Arab Mutabera" an unlimited inheritance to cause the entire west to buckle.
There is power in the abundance of wealth.
If I recall, Bandar is a bastard child of the Al Saud family and had to work very hard for his place within that family, by establishing himself as the top diplomat with his US ties and kinship. He's close friends with Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and worked in an intelligence capacity for us to smuggle weapons to either Iran or Iraq back in the 80's, I just can't remember which one. And also worked as a go between to send weapons to Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion there. He regards Bush 41 as a father figure and is close to him. All I can say is it's better to have a US friendly diplomat running Saudi intelligence than one who seeks our destruction.
If we had an alternative means of oil or energy, we would not need a friendship with the Saudi's. Venezuela is where we get 40% of our oil, and Chavez has just cut off Exxon/Mobil from their Venezula supply. Oil and Islam are the main evils here and combining them together make it doubly bad for us and all Westernized cultures.
Prince Bandar bin Sultan is also the man who used to walk into White House cabinet meetings uninvited, and nobody thought they had enough power to tell him to leave, including the President of the United States.
Prince Bandar bin Sultan is also the husband of that vicious, virulent little ice bitch Princess Halifa, caught funding terrorists (and pleaded ignorance or insanity of some such crap), ultra-Wahhabi, who used to routinely hold torture sessions(called "teas") for Saudi Embassy wives in which she screamed at them for three hours for the most minor infractions of religious law — her own personal little muttawiyin operation.
Prince Bandar bin Sultan is also the diplomat whom Vince Foster visited the morning he died. For some reason, right after he left Prince Bandar had to remove and replaced a priceless ballroom-sized oriental carpet worth about $5 million. Apparently, Foster knew something about Bandar that Bandar didn't want anybody to know. That afternoon Foster was found in a staged "suicide" in a park. Oddly for a suicide, there were no powder burns on Foster's hands or scalp.
Is Prince Bandar bin Sultan—whose visits to London brothers are infamous, whose could only get Johnny Walker Gold into his bloodstream faster if it were given intravenously, whose rape of the Colorado Rockies by blowing the top off a mountain should be met with a $20 bln lawsuit from the EPA, and whose personal sleaze is almost incomprehensible—not to be trusted?
Well, you figure it out. There is nothing so low this man will not stoop to it, including selling out the safety of whole cities of people, in order to keep power, wealth, sex, alcohol and drugs going for him and the other royals who live profligate, decadent lives while Saudi citizens get sent to the axeman for "insulting Islam."
I used to think George Bush just had blinders on where the Saudis were concerned.....
Posted by: PMK at February 15, 2008 10:56 AM
George Bush's daddy was in Bandar's (and so, wahhabbi) back pocket way before dubya was "elected" president. Take a close look and you will find that the Gulf wars were faught to shield the wahhabbis from Saddam, and not stopped until Saddam was a threat. So what if it takes American blood, money and braves to shield the rich? Daddy Bush knew that American livess are fodder. Amrican tax-dollars and American votes are far more valuable.
Any wondery why dubya dances to Saudi tunes? Ofcourse, Americans don't have any idea how much this "dance", and "electing" dubya, is going to cost (in addition to 9/11) the nation.
Hugh,
The very picture of corruption of the most venal yet subtle kind. Many thanks.
Prince Bandar’s name has always brought to my mind Rudyard Kipling’s bandarlog, the monkey people, who are always making grand plans, who create havoc with their meddling and thievery, who always end up squabbling, ultimately end up forgetting everything they’ve ever done or promised to do, moving on to other amusements and hence all for which are never to be trusted. How apropos. If one could have access to Prince Bandar’s diary, the other Bandar Log if you'll allow me, whose names would we find within? Perhaps easier to ask: What high ranking Washington official isn’t a member of the Bandar Log? Who hasn’t, as has been said, sipped his port and smoked his cigars, made plans with his advice and assurances? How many have made the Hajj to Riyadh, assuring vast fortunes for themselves that are still trifles compared to the Saudi monies that are used to impose, quietly and steadily, an alien way of life in the West, sapping the foundations of this civilization? The tale of the bandarlog/Bandar Log is a cautionary tale as well as an apt poke at the fleeting, superficial, self-serving attention of politicians. In Kipling’s tale, when the real master showed up --Kaa the python-- the bandarlog tribe became universally hypnotized. Then, at Kaa’s command, they walked single file and under their own power down Kaa’s gullet. Monkeys beware.
Prince Bandar was also the only envoy ever invited to Crawford - this was an honor that the no other envoy had - not Britain's, not Russia's and not even Mexico's!
In my academic capacity, I received a copy of Bandar's biography, "The Prince" (heh,heh,heh), last spring. Bandar is a graduate of RAF Cranwell, the equivalent of Sandhurst for the Royal Air Force, and makes much of its influence on his life. Ironic now that he is in a position to threaten the British people. He is the kind of man who, if he walked into the room and casually mentioned that it had begun to rain, would compel me to look out of a window to confirm his statement with my own eyes.
...as [Prince Bandar] served the port and distributed the box of cigars, that "after all, all governments are corrupt and it is only a matter of degree"...
Actually, the reigning consensus among Jihad Watchers seems to be that Prince Bandar's suavely suasive cynicism is perfectly accurate and that, taking up the explanatory slack of the theory of "Gramscian Leftists" to explain the West's irrational dhimmitude -- since that would not explain the majority of conservative dhimmis out there -- perforce rushes in to fill the vacuum our own quasi-nihilistic cynicism about our own politicians (and academics and journalists & analysts), all so soullessly amoral and corrupt that they would, for "petrodollars", knowingly and willingly support what they themselves know to be our Enemies (for how could they, conservatives, not know what we Jihad Watchers know?). And one typical mechanism by which to relieve some of the pressure this quasi-nihilism must exert seems to find expression in a kind of class resentment of, and alienation from, "Elites" -- against whom the only logical and psychologically satisfying response would be classical Revolution.
Tony Blair should immediately be removed from any role in Middle East peace mediation.
He is tainted as are all other members of the Band ar Brothers.
Cantor - We have a crack at cleaning out Congress every two years. At least it would be a start. Two long-entrenched members in Maryland got the shove just this week. A revolution if you will, but a Constitutional one.
Sinclair- They sell them ballroom rugs at the Family Dollar Store for $25.
This is the smiling snake that appeared all over the news after Sept. 11 telling us all that Saudi's would NEVER do anything like it to "our wonderful friends in the US". I remember thinking how oily (no pun intended) he came across.
Cantor,
The conservative dhimmis out there are easily explained by their sensitivity to saying bad things about any religion, first and foremost. This is a remnant of ideological distinctions made commonly by conservatives in the cold war. Conservatives are also sensitive to being considered racist.
Regarding this comment about JW reader's purported conception of our "elites": "[...] all so soullessly amoral and corrupt that they would, for "petrodollars", knowingly and willingly support what they themselves know to be our Enemies".
That's not how most people work, even corrupt people. People have a plethora of data coming into them from the world, and tend to shuffle through it in a way that makes those things which are in their direct personal interest appear to also be in their larger civilizational and national interests. It is a normal psychological tendency, and all but the very most curious fail to escape it entirely.
That doesn't mean us plebes are bad to call things differently when they see them differently.
And this: "(for how could they, conservatives, not know what we Jihad Watchers know?)"
Sometimes people not caught up in political games can see things more clearly than people who are. Tell me, in all history, are masses of elites always the first on the right side (in the sense of most moral, or most likely to support common national interests)? Tell me about the British leadership, until Churchill, before WWII.
At any rate, the mere fact that people of a higher social position don't agree with one, is no reason to assume that one is wrong. That's a very ugly form of authoritarianism. Sometimes the grassroots gets something the wonks don't.
"And one typical mechanism by which to relieve some of the pressure this quasi-nihilism must exert seems to find expression in a kind of class resentment of, and alienation from, "Elites" -- against whom the only logical and psychologically satisfying response would be classical Revolution."
First, the bit about "classical Revolution" is paranoid. No on is talking about it, or is interested in it, or has reason to be. The main JihadWatch approach, so far as I can tell, is to speak the truth and peacefully politically organize until pressures of our time help the Churchills of our time begin to be popularly recognized.
Second, there's little quazi-nihilism. I've seen a few posts with it, but it is the distinct minority. Anti-Jihad is mostly composed of people who have a deep and sincere religious belief system (Christianity or Judaism, typcially), or else people who deeply believe in the values of the Enlightnement - basic human rights, life, libery, pursuit of happiness, art, science. Oh, and a good sense of humor.
There's no nihilism to be found in any of these.
Resentment of corrupt "elites" (and yes, there are some people in the world that take bribes and similar; even of those with high social status!) is part and parcel of America, and goes back to the days of tar-and-feathering of local officials, and of the Boston tea party. Since the American Revolution, such resentment, being formulated in a healthy manner, doesn't embody itself in bloody idealistic revolution after revolution after revolution (French style), but rather in peaceful public protest, strong debates in the press (and more recently, radio and internet), and voting corrupt or wrong-headed political leaders out of office.
If you have a problem with this method of settling political disputes, please consider what the French Revolutions have led to on the one hand, and what deifying submission to authority has led to in, say, Saudi Arabia, on the other.
So far as class warfare goes, I'm in favor of both busting trusts and eliminating corporate welfare... and I'm against non-corporate welfare for that matter as well. If these things count as class warfare to you, you'll find that most Americans are in favor of one or another point of what you consider class warfare. But, that's very different from being in favor of Communist or Classical Revolution.
Energy: We need to up nuclear, like huge, like now. The fact that we aren't doing so is, I think, in part related to the fact that it will cut into oil companies' income. They're special intersts, special interests have say in Washington... Do I have to be a nihilist or a Communist or a paranoid believe the game works like the evidence suggests it works?
MP -- "We have a crack at cleaning out Congress every two years. At least it would be a start. Two long-entrenched members in Maryland got the shove just this week."
The replacements for those two members may be good on other issues, but I doubt they are free of the politically correct multi-culturalist assumptions about Islam. I.e., when the society at large is PC MC, any genuinely democratic polity and its political representatives will reflect that.
George Bush's daddy was in Bandar's (and so, wahhabbi) back pocket way before dubya was "elected" president. Take a close look and you will find that the Gulf wars were faught to shield the wahhabbis from Saddam, and not stopped until Saddam was a threat.
by alert
No argument there. Every president beginning with FDR loved the Saudis and promised to protect them from the evil godless communists. We might never have gone into Kuwait if Saddam hadn't threatened the Saudi regime. The topper was when Saddam tried to kill dear old dad. Thus, the blinders. Saddam - bad, anyone who even seems to oppose Saddam - good.
Morgaan,
There is nothing so low Bandar will not stoop to? He's not alone. We support him. We elect people who think they can't stand up to him. We are the ones who kowtow to him and his family in order to protect world commerce. Everyone who hates the Saudis would still scream bloody murder if American policies toward Saudi Arabia resulted in another oil embargo. We have to decide which is more important: our comfort or the defeat of Islamism.
We are not the only ones who have an interest in global commerce. Where is everyone else whose prosperity depends on the free flow of oil and free trade around the world? They are catering to this band of killers and thieves every bit as much as we are.
Cantor - One "gets it", one does not, but it will be a net gain of one.
"We don't want leaders who tell the truth, only those who make us feel good inside. President Barack Obama, coming to a television near you."
Coming from a Democrat after the day school shooting -- when they traditionally notch up the anti-gun hysterics -- *this* makes me feel good inside:
The senator [Obama], a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.
"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference.
"He said he would support federal legislation based on a California law that would facilitate immediate tracing of bullets used in a crime. He said even though the California law was passed over the strong objection of the National Rifle Association, he thinks it's the type of law that gun owners and crime victims can get behind."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080215/ap_on_el_pr/obama
Yes, he's a leftwing liberal, but as this shows, in this thinking he's not Hillary, who'd probably choke trying to get out the phrase "individual right".
If he makes Democrats feel better inside than Hillary does, I respect them more for it.
Alert ...
One word: OIL.
Bandar had as many privileges under Clinton as Bush, perhaps more. He certainly was HIGHLY involved with a whole raft of Clinton ideologues and White House staffers.
Want to stop funding people like him? Get off foreign oil.
A little Yankee ingenuity on the energy front would be a splendid development.
MP, who's the one who "gets it"? And on what basis do you say he or she does?
Cantor - Andy Harris, M.D. is currently in Maryland State Government. Based on his public statements about immigration and international jihad, I'm optimistic.
/I've been fooled before.
//Harris spoke on the Tom Marr show (680AM), and Marr is the guy who first put me on to Mr.Spencer and this site. Marr definitely gets it and is a hero anti-jihadist in the Soviet sense of hero.
Before we say all the bad things about Prince Bandar, we only need to look the lovely character of our leaders:
After the world has witnessed the assassination of the most wanted terrorist, Imad Mugniyeh, there is no reason to doubt that Syria is a sanctuary for terrorists. Contrary to the foreign policy of the USA, on February 12, Former Security Adviser to Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who endorsed Obama, had arrived in Syria--secretly-- to meet President Assad. Going with Zbigniew Brzezinski was the anti-Israel foreign policy adviser to Obama, Samantha Power. The National finance Chairman for Hillary Clinton's campaign, Hassan Nemazee, has also rushed to meet with Assad. All these American élites were there to meet the Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki when he arrived in Damascus on February 14.
All these lovely American leaders must have something to offer Assad. Since it's a secret meeting with our arched foes, they must be telling him that America is for sale for as long as Assad would help them grab power in the US. There is no shortage of those in the US who would happily sell this country to Middle East tyrants, of which Prince Bandar is only one.
We have ourselves to blame for our problems.
I can't believe that none of you remember that he was/is such a great friend of both president Bushes', that he is(in)formally known as "Bandar Bush".This was even before the presidencies,remember they're 'Texas oilmen'.
O.T: Honestly,do you think Dubya would reeeeeellly mind that much if one of the twins married a rich Saudi prince w/oil connections?I'm curious...conservative christianity notwithstanding...
MP:
I read the victory speech of Andy Harris from September 2007; it's not bad, as platitudinous speeches go, but I have a couple of problems with it.
"Our nation can bring our troops home and thus bring terrorism back to our shores; or our nation can stay on the offensive and take the battle to the very roots of Islamic radicalism around the world."
1) I agree with the JW stance on the War in Iraq: we should end it and bring our troops home, unless we can fight it in a thoroughly politically INcorrect way (Rep. Harris gives no indication he demands this or even knows what it would entail).
2) He perpetuates the implausibility that "fighting them over there will prevent us from having to fight them here". What I want to hear from an American politician is how -- and why -- we need to fight them here in addition to, and regardless of, how well we "surge" in Iraq.
"If America fails to stand strong against the radical Islamic terrorists..."
3) I'm glad he used the word "Islamic"; I'm disappointed that he saw fit to pad that word with "radical" and "terrorists".
"On this anniversary, let us be resolved to hold fast in the fight against Islamic radicalism. Though this fight may not end today or tomorrow, we have no choice but to see it through to ultimate victory."
4) Another fallacy: that there will ever be an "ultimate victory" against Islamic radicalism. As Fitzgerald has argued cogently many times, the best we can hope for is to construct a system of perpetual management of the problem of Islam in order to minimize the threats that come from Islam, but to think we can eliminate those threats and the underlying pathology that nourishes their millions of agents and has for 1400 years, is naive in the extreme. Even if Harris was referring only to an "ultimate victory" in Iraq, his statement still suffers from an unacceptable naivete about the magnitude of the Islamic pathology.
However, at the end of the day, these days, I guess we must be satisfied with crumbs, while we continue to starve for the more robust beef of Churchillian politicians.
"There is no shortage of those in the US who would happily sell this country to Middle East tyrants, of which Prince Bandar is only one.
We have ourselves to blame for our problems."
ssa: AMEN
cantor
I doubt that there are any pols on the right side of the jihad who agree with the JW position on it, except maybe Tancredo. In fact, even the Loyalist Party (scroll down to 'The betrayal in Iraq') is not demanding a withdrawal from Iraq, although they do support going at all Islamic forces there with full hammer and tongs.
Papa Bear - "Tony Blair should immediately be removed from any role in Middle East peace mediation.
He is tainted as are all other members of the Band ar Brothers."
Tony Blair 'found out', to be a low man.
Reminds me of.....
1 Kings 21:20
And Ahab said to Elijah, Hast thou found me, O mine enemy? And he answered, I have found thee: *because thou hast sold thyself to work evil* in the sight of the LORD.
We might never have gone into Kuwait if Saddam hadn't threatened the Saudi regime. The topper was when Saddam tried to kill dear old dad. Thus, the blinders. Saddam - bad, anyone who even seems to oppose Saddam - good.
Posted by: PMK at February 15, 2008 1:36 PM
BINGO! Saddam's hostility masked dubya's dancing to wannabbi tunes. Then again, there must be some who knew about it (Not that I endorse it fully but Michael Moore did expose dubya's submission to Saudi Arabia) yet looked the other way, thanks to which, we got 9/11 and dubya used it to submit more to Saudi by making the very peretrators of 9/11, "friends and allies" in war on terror". Ofcourse, that phony war was going nowhere, but, as long as he could please his Saudi masters, that was the least of dubya's concern. What followed is now history, with dubya covering for Saudi at each and every turn. Yet Americans cannot see that Saudis would not harm USA only if they did not have a traitor in the white house. Then again, Americans elected Bush again, so I must be missing something BIG!