"We will starve the terrorists of funding," he said. "If you do business with terrorists, if you support or sponsor them, you will not do business with the United States of America." -George Bush, 24 September 2001
While thousands of human beings lie buried under tons of rubble and hundreds of thousands of desperate human beings flee raids on Afghan cities employing Tomahawk missile which have deadly uranium as ballast, some folks are doing OK. [On uranium ballast, see notes at 'Further Reading']. Below we have reprinted an article from the 'Wall Street Journal'. It reveals that Saudi Binladin Group, the conglomerate owned by Osama bin Laden's family, has invested in:"Carlyle Group, a well-connected Washington merchant bank specializing in buyouts of defense and aerospace companies." Through his lofty position at Carlyle and as a consultant, George Bush Sr. is closely linked to the bin Ladens. As are other powerhouse U.S. politicians. Given that their business is "defense," the Bushes and bin Ladens will profit handsomely from the current war. There has been no outcry in the mass media about this. No U.S. newspaper has picked up the WSJ story. Nor has CNN or Fox. As for politicians, only those involved commented, and they dismissed the bin Laden link without a blush. For instance, Caspar Weinberger, Reagan's Secretary of Defense and part of the Saudi Binladin connection says: "I don't think the sins of the son should be visited on the father or the brother and the cousins and the aunts." How stern Weinberger was when it came to invading little Granada; how non-judgmental when his own interests are at stake. At first, Bush spokeswoman Jean Becker told the 'Wall Street Journal' that her boss had met with the bin Ladens only once. But "after being read the ex-president's subsequent thank-you note" the original "only once" claim was revised. In other words, she got caught in a lie and switched to a new story: "President Bush does not have a relationship with the bin Laden family," says Ms. Becker. "He's met them twice." Once, twice, who's counting? Clearly a) Bush has a guilty conscience, otherwise why not tell the truth? And b) since he's clearly in stonewall-mode there is no reason to believe there weren't more meetings with the bin Ladens. How many more? Who knows? But his spokeswoman's behavior shows this: if Bush did have more meetings, he surely won't come clean unless confronted with proof.
EVEN IN AN EXPOSЙ, THE WSJ TOES THE LINE The 'Wall Street Journal' article implicitly supports the official story, that Osama has broken with his family, by writing, as if it were a fact, that Osama only "worked briefly in the [family] business." This is not true. In an article in preparation, Emperor's Clothes will show that Osama directed the family business in carrying out at least two large projects for the CIA, one in the 1980s and one in the late 1990s, building facilities to be used by terrorists. Moreover, the only pieces of evidence that Osama bin Laden broke with his family are statements by him, his family, and U.S. officials. Since these parties have an interest in convincing the public that the connection was broken, their statements are of scant value. Also, there is evidence to the contrary. In "Body of Secrets," the new book by National Security Agency expert James Bamford, the author cites freedom of information documents revealing that: "[National Security] Agency officials have sometimes played tapes of bin Laden talking to his mother to impress members of Congress and select visitors to the agency." (quoted in 'Baltimore Sun', 24 April 2001) And another article states: "Yossef Bodansky, director of the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, said "Osama maintains connections" with some of his nearly two dozen brothers. He would not elaborate." ('San Antonio Express-News,' 14 September 1998).
Note: The 'Wall Street Journal' Bushladen exposй is also discussed in the article, "Judicial Watch Condemns Bush-Binladin Group Connection," at http://emperors-clothes.com/news/jw.htm
Riyadh will not make contradictory statements, nor will it ask for explanations, as Moscow does in the case of the poisoning of Sergei Skripal
Representatives of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation commented on the state of affairs in the Sea of Azov