A Damned Good Question, Tribute To Iraq War

Jon Gold
UPDATED: 3/27/2022

I was listening to my interview with Paul Thompson (which by the way is priceless), and we talked about the "flip theory" concerning the two alleged hijackers in San Diego put forward by Richard Clarke. The idea was so they would have operatives inside of "Al-Qaeda." I don't agree with it. What I know is that the CIA was protecting two of the alleged hijackers, and that's reason enough for people to be held accountable, and for truths to be told.

Here's my interview with Paul:

We Were Lied To About 9/11
Paul Thompson Part I

Paul Thompson Part II

Paul Thompson Part III

Paul Thompson Part IV

You can read about Richard Clarke here: https://www.salon.com/2011/10/14/ins...oubts_cia_911/

Here's an old article from MSNBC from 2006 entitled "Did The 9/11 Hijackers Have A U.S. Accomplice?"


So I was thinking, if Prince Bandar helps to finance "Al-Qaeda" and 9/11, then that technically makes him a member of "Al-Qaeda." I can't think of a better plant to get inside of "Al-Qaeda." He was good friends with George Tenet, then the Director of the CIA. George used to go to his house, swim in his pool, and go on drunken tirades. I'm sure they spoke about A LOT of things.

Late 1990s: CIA Director Tenet Has Direct, Private Channels to Saudi Leaders

George Tenet Screamed About Jews In Saudi Prince's Pool: Book

Prince Bandar was GOOD FRIENDS with the Bush Family. So close, he was referred to as "Bandar Bush."

House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties

On March 15th 2001, George Bush was meeting with Prince Bandar, one of the financiers of "Al-Qaeda" and 9/11, and talked about Iraq. He said "if there is any military action, then it has to be decisive. That can finalize the issue," and that "the Iraqi opposition is useless and not effective." Months before the pretext (9/11) that enabled the Bush Administration to go into Iraq.

March 15, 2001: Bush Tells Saudi Prince that Military Action in Iraq Needs to be ‘Decisive'

Too Many Americans Thought Saddam Had Something To Do With 9/11

One day Dick Cheney invites Prince Bandar to his West Wing Office. Donald Rumsfeld, and General Myers are present. Myers brought "a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, 'Top secret. No foreign.' No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this." "They describe in detail the war plan for Bandar. And so Bandar, who's skeptical because he knows in the first Gulf War we didn't get Saddam out, so he says to Cheney and Rumsfeld, 'So Saddam this time is gonna be out, period?' And Cheney - who has said nothing - says the following: 'Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast.'"

Woodward Shares War Secrets

Because of the fact that the President of the United States was talking about the need for "decisive" military action in Iraq with one of the financiers of "Al-Qaeda" and 9/11, because Prince Bandar also wanted war with Iraq, and because 9/11 was the pretext that enabled the Bush Administration to go into Iraq, that brings up the question of whether or not there was a collaboration between the Bush Administration and Prince Bandar to bring about the 9/11 attacks. It's not a "theory." It's a DAMNED GOOD QUESTION.

After all, 10 days after his inauguration at his very first principals meeting, Bush asked his subordinates to "go find me a way" to get into Iraq. One of the FIRST things the Bush Administration did was tell the different alphabet agencies to "BACK OFF" the Saudis and the Bin Ladens, an action that Senator Bob Graham said if true, would be a "very serious charge." It sure seems to be because the famous John O'Neill complained about it. Not to mention the "Visa Express Program" that was implemented before 9/11 which ONLY applied to Saudi Arabia, and which some of the alleged hijackers took advantage of. Also, according to Richard Clarke, in the months before 9/11, members of the Bush Administration discussed creating a "cassus belli" for war with Iraq. When I asked Richard Clarke on Facebook his opinion on whether or not people in the Bush Administration were capable of such a thing, he said "some of them were." When 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman asked George Bush about Bandar and 9/11, he "dodged the questions," and then went outside and told the world that he "answered every question" they asked. When the 9/11 Commission questioned Bandar, they didn't even bother to ask him about his connections, financial or otherwise, to 9/11.

Jacobin recently came out with this article that talks about even more incriminating information concerning Prince Bandar. In it, they cite Thomas Kean. I am FURIOUS that Kean has the gall to feign anger. As if he didn't know about the 9/11 Commission not asking Prince Bandar the tough questions or Bush dodging questions about Bandar.

Anyway, I don't believe in the "flip theory." On top of that, I've shown that we had access to one of the most important insiders of "Al-Qaeda" so why the need to "flip" those two hijackers at all (I'm saying that with a sly, angry smile across my face)?

Prince Bandar even admitted that Saudi intelligence was "actively following most of the terrorists with precision."

Prince Bandar Says Saudi Intel "Actively Following" Hijackers "With Precision"

He says that "U.S. Security Authorities" never "engaged their Saudi Counterparts in a serious and credible manner" and that's why 9/11 happened, but I wonder if he "engaged" members of the Bush Administration. After all, if you wanted a terrorist attack to take place, Prince Bandar WOULD be the guy to go to. Remember he threatened London with terrorist attacks "unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted." Former FBI Director Louis Freeh was his lawyer at the time. He also sent in terrorists into Syria to try and take out Assad.

BAE: secret papers reveal threats from Saudi prince

Freeh defends Saudi payments

End of an era as Prince Bandar departs Saudi intelligence post

Because this is the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, I posted that "they're (those responsible) being invited on "Ellen" to promote their book, they're getting apologies from Keith Olbermann. Their history is being rewritten so as to put them on a pedestal instead of the Hague where they belong."

Hell yes they do.

Ellen DeGeneres explains friendship with George W. Bush: "We're all different ... that's OK"

Olbermann: 'I probably owe George W. Bush an apology'

By the way, isn't it a disgrace that Prince Bandar's daughter is now the Saudi Ambassador to the United States?


Also, FOR SOME REASON, Bandar refuses to testify in the lawsuit brought on by the 9/11 Families against Saudi Arabia.


UPDATE: This was recently reported on. I don’t have a problem with the idea that the CIA and Saudi Arabia were “secretly working hand in glove.” I have a problem with the idea that it was “to recruit Hazmi and Mihdhar as informants.” As I showed above, the Bush Administration already had the PERFECT INSIDER INTO AL-QAEDA. It doesn’t get any better than Bandar. Especially when you consider the recent news that Omar al-Bayoumi, someone who helped the alleged hijackers, “reported directly to the longtime Saudi ambassador to the United States (Prince Bandar), a close and long-standing family friend of the US president“ George W. Bush.

Something not being reported on by anyone that I can see, on August 3rd, 2011, George Tenet, Cofer Black, and Richard Blee all released a statement that said “Mr. Clarke went on to speculate--which he admits is based on nothing other than his imagination--that the CIA might have been trying to recruit these two future hijackers as agents. This, like much of what Mr. Clarke said in his interview, is utterly without foundation.“

Their statement was the result of work done by Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy.

As well as my “Damned Good Question” many other questions need to be answered. The families and the people of the world both deserve and require it.