Why did the Bush administration cover up Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11?

Its becoming common knowledge that the Bush administration covered up Saudi Arabia's involvement into the 9/11 attacks. These attacks against us resulted in us invading Afghanistan and later Iraq. It seems like we attacked the wrong countries, as the 9/11 attacks were funded and orchestrated by members of the royal family in Saudi Arabia.

Isn't the acts by the Bush administration covering up Saudi Arabia's involvement treason?

Today nothing has been done about Saudi Arabia's involvement into the attacks of 9/11. Congress hasn't called for a investigation? Hasn't conducted a investigation? Why not?

Who do you think was behind the attacks of 9/11?

a reply to: LDragonFire

Saudi Arabia has oil. Our currency is tied to the petrodollar. OPEC (which Saudi Arabia is a part of) can set prices on oil and control entire economies.

We play nice with Saudi Arabia so that we can keep our currency valuable.

That was a really, REALLY simple and down and dirty explanation.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Because they didn't act alone. They didn't have the motive or opportunity to demo 3 high rises.

Well since you asked so nicely i think it was American government (shadow government) Saudi's and Israel.
Call it a love triangle.
They need eachother and if one falls so will the rest. Maybe the pope was in it too? Who knows it's a crazy world we live in

I think if the Bushs had said anything about Saudi Arabia involvement, it would have blown up in there face. Leaving open gaps in their arguements for America. They pretty much could do whatever they wanted during that time, because no one knew all the facts in those days, and everyone was onboard to get payback. Sad that we all know different, but still cant prove with out a doubt. Its going to be another JFK type situation, Everone knows the government was involved and it still wont change a thing.

Could the Saudis own or are bribing both of the US of A's political parties?

Why do so many harp on Bush family ties to the Saudis, but do not mention Clinton's ties?

The New York Sun on Nov. 22, '04 reported that President Clinton’s library was funded in part by gifts of $1m or more each from the Saudi royal family & 3 Saudi businessmen. The governments of Dubai, Kuwait, & Qatar & the deputy prime minister of Lebanon all also appear to have donated $1m or more. On October 10, 2005, CNN reported that Ex-FBI Director, Louis Freesh, said Clinton failed to seek Saudi cooperation in the investigation into the Khobar Towers attack of '96, which killed 19 U.S. airmen, that he effectively closed the investigation down. He said Clinton opted to press then-Crown Prince Abdullah for a donation to his presidential library instead.

source

It is kind of a difficult question to answer.

I do believe that the Saudis where involved.

But the House of Saud hated Bin Laden just as much as the Americans did, they kicked him out and revoked his passport after he was highly critical of the monarchy there was even a bombing in 1995 in Saudi that was attributed to Al-Qa'ida. So it is difficult to say "it was the Saudi government or intelligence" because they had just as much motive as anyone else to hate Bin Laden.

However, with in the House of Saud there are many who may very well have been sympathetic to Al-Qa'ida, not necessarily a high up member of the house of Saud but it is possible that it was say a cousin of the King or one of his many other wealthy relatives. In otherwords I am saying it may have been some rouge element inside Saudi close to the king. Most people tend to point the figure of blame at the feet of prince Turki who was head of Saudi intelligence and had links to Bin Laden during the Soviet Jihad. Could have been him but we will probably never really know because a US federal judge said that he and other prominent Saudi's were immune from a law suit filed against them for their alleged role in the attacks.

I think that the Bush Administration knew that there could have been a rouge Saudi funding the attacks, the Alec Station had been tracking Al-Qa'ida funding and the CIA must have know "if" there were wealthy backers in Saudi supporting Al-Qa'ida.

Then question then is why did they cover this up, apparently there were 28 pages of the 9/11 commission redacted because they allegedly show evidence of a Saudi connection to the attacks.

I believe they done this so as not to upset one of America's most valuable allies, I can only speculate but is it really to hard to imagine Bush saying "you let us use your bases and keep those Jihadest dudes in line, and we will keep this quite for both our sakes"? Also if the Saudi involvement was to go even deeper than just some rouge giving out money to Al-Qa'ida then we could be taking about a act of state sponsored terrorist. That is also know as a act of war.

That is what I think probably happened but off course proof is hard to find, there are lots of allegations but so far the only real proof is locked away, all 28 pages of it.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Because the Bush admin was in cahoots with the Saudi royal family is why. While the attacks were going on Bush senior was in a meeting with the saudis AND Bin Ladin's uncle. I mean how much more evidence does it take? The whole thing was a set up. Since when do we tell NORAD to stand down? Especially when you have been getting warnings from your letter agencies telling you of an impending attack? Cheney was gonna make money hand over fist from these wars due to Haliburton, yes yes he says he didn't. Truly I doubt this man has EVER told the truth in his whole life. Bush wanted to mop up things in Iraq to show his daddy he could do what Senior didn't. Didn't matter how many men and women he put in harms way to do it. That lazy piece of useless trash never spent one day fighting anything more than a hangover during his so called service. Now we have the so called patriot act that is anything but patriotic,more letter agencies than there are letters in our alphabet,more searches than we have cavities,and a police force that is out of control.Welcome to Amerika.

And as a side note,the only time Cheney has ever been even half way truthful is when the idiot tried to shoot off his best friends face.WHO LET THAT FOOL HAVE A GUN??

a reply to: AlaskanDad
They are all the same. Its to the point you can't tell one president from another anymore.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Its becoming common knowledge that the Bush administration covered up Saudi Arabia's involvement into the 9/11 attacks.

Might help if we can see some evidence of this "common knowledge".

TIA

The answer was probably in the debris .Enron ,and maybe some other cases that were going to be fully investigated and might have let certain cats out of the bag they couldn't afford .I think 911 was used for multipal reasons or they had figured that it could be used as a pearl harbor type to get US to go to war .It was a big plan with lots of covet reasons and actors doing their own parts .The people or patsies had to come from somewhere and they just happened to be Saudi .They probably could have used some other patsies but probably figured the link to Bin Laden was link they wanted .

My take is that it was a black sheep of the royal Saudi family that contributed to the funding of the 19.

You don't bomb one of your largest sources of oil and one of your biggest allies in the middle east because they have a nephew who is a jerk.

Can you say $10 gallon for gas? More than NYC would have suffered if reactionaries in our government got wind of the rogue prince's doings.

That's something you cover up for the good of the country.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Saudi Arabia has oil. Our currency is tied to the petrodollar. OPEC (which Saudi Arabia is a part of) can set prices on oil and control entire economies.

We play nice with Saudi Arabia so that we can keep our currency valuable.

That was a really, REALLY simple and down and dirty explanation.

There's a lot of truth in what you said! There's also a connection on why we continue to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
Could the Saudis own or are bribing both of the US of A's political parties?

Of course they are. We had the energy crisis in the 1970's over this. While Western and European economies were prospering and rapidly advancing, the rest of the world got jealous. The Arab countries started jacking up oil prices so that they would get some of the moolah. That caused chaos in the Western economies, so the countries were forced to sign the Lima Declaration of 1975. In exchange for stable oil prices, the Western economies agreed to offshore work to the Far East and other developing countries.

Now our countries are desperate to get away from the choke chain of oil dependency and are looking at fracking, solar and wind power.

It was apparently a multi-national venture which must have included the USA and Israel.

Why USA?
Proof - media propaganda.

Why Israel?
Proof - Mossad agents who were filming the event (from NJ) and found celebrating during the event, who were apprehended by police, were sent back to Israel with no other actions taken against them.

Found an interesting link with the actual officer who arrested them: www.youtube.com...
(also notice many of the actual news articles posted by various news station websites at the time, no longer make the top search results.)

We speak of countries involved, but I think at this point the many councils who have a strong influence in this world (i.e. direct influence on many countries including the USA) are multinational organizations.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Its becoming common knowledge that the Bush administration covered up Saudi Arabia's involvement into the 9/11 attacks. These attacks against us resulted in us invading Afghanistan and later Iraq. It seems like we attacked the wrong countries, as the 9/11 attacks were funded and orchestrated by members of the royal family in Saudi Arabia.

Isn't it funny how we attacked the very countries Saudi Arabia wanted us to attack, which are also the same countries Neocons listed in the Plan for a New American Century (PNAC) among those slated for a regime change?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

If BinLaden was the "fall guy" then it would make even more sense for The house of Saud to hate him. 2 birds, 1 stone.

Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Why blame something on someone you like? Case in point, MH17.....

I think it might be because they gave W a warning that allowed him to be far from the unfolding events that day.....In 'exchange' for his life, the Saudi's possible role was not mentioned...........I always thought he looked stricken that day in the school room, but not so much surprised.......

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: LDragonFire

Its becoming common knowledge that the Bush administration covered up Saudi Arabia's involvement into the 9/11 attacks. These attacks against us resulted in us invading Afghanistan and later Iraq. It seems like we attacked the wrong countries, as the 9/11 attacks were funded and orchestrated by members of the royal family in Saudi Arabia.

Isn't it funny how we attacked the very countries Saudi Arabia wanted us to attack, which are also the same countries Neocons listed in the Plan for a New American Century (PNAC) among those slated for a regime change?

And yet, over a decade later Brent oil tanks and trading at prices not seen in about a decade. I wonder why that is suddenly? They say "over-production" with Saudi (OPEC) not even offering a hint as to whether or not they'll hold back production to prop it back up. They'll officially communicate their position next week.

Makes me wonder if we failed on our commitment to sack Damascus.

originally posted by: LDragonFire as the 9/11 attacks were funded and orchestrated by members of the royal family in Saudi Arabia.

This is almost certainly true.

Here's a little known fact : some time after 9/11, the FBI discovered that one of the royal princes (there's several hundred of them) was providing money to AQ in some fashion, and this information was relayed to the Saudis. Shortly thereafter, the prince had an "accident" and was killed.

Can you think of any better justice than that?

Do any of you think that brining him to the US Courts would be better?

Who do you think was behind the attacks of 9/11?

Radical Muslims, with financial help from wealthy Saudi Arabians (and perhaps wealthy members of other countries) , which almost certainly included members of the vast House of Saud.