George Bush Funds Terrorists

Touchy-feelie Politics Is Failing, Or I've Seen The Enemy, and Well, You Know The Rest
Oh, this is rich, absolutely ludicrous, this news that the United States taxpayer should be sending money TO Saudi Arabia, instead of collecting huge sums of dough FROM those scoundrels. With billions of petrodollars carefully counted and stashed in secret vaults, a workforce of foreigners to do the manual and sophisticated work the Saudis won't and can't accomplish for themselves, of course, for a single reason or many, and a military force made up not of Saudi men and women, but of Kansans, Californians, and New Yorkers, these slick-tongued Saudi imposters continue to milk jizya from our Dhimmi-in-chief, and he of course, is delighted to pay it.

How many 9/11 terrorists originated from Arabia? Who funds radical Wahabbi madrassas and mosques all over the planet, including some 1500 built here in the US in the past 25 years? Who threatens to convert oil dollars into oil euros, if a certain bankrupt nation doesn't toe the line? Who oppressively rules its own country with the strongest of iron hands, while jet setting about partaking in big gulps of every vice it refuses its own people, and who continues to traffic in slavery without a hint of shame? Who refuses to allow a school of young girls to escape a burning building because they aren't wearing the proscribed head garb required by the religious police? Who exhibit zero tolerance for any show of religious faith other than their own particularly vile state-mandated form of Islam?

Read on...

Last Friday, President Bush certified Saudi Arabia as a cooperative anti-terrorism ally and released U.S. financial aid to Riyadh. This occurred despite charges leveled against the “Kingdom” by Stuart Levey, the U.S. Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, who one day after the sixth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, declared that Saudi Arabia had failed to prosecute terrorism financiers.

Levey voiced frustration that not a single terrorist supporter identified by Washington had been prosecuted by the Saudis.

“If I could snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia,” a frustrated Levey told the press. “When the evidence is clear that these individuals have funded terror organizations . . . then that should be prosecuted and treated as real terrorism because it is.”

Levey leads an office which marshals the Treasury Department's policy, enforcement, regulatory and intelligence functions to sever the lines of financial support to international terrorists, weapons of mass destruction proliferators, narcotics traffickers, and other threats to our national security. Yet, the United States blithely ignored the very person with the best information whose job is to help stop terrorism and safeguard our country.

Instead, we are providing U.S. aid to the world’s top oil-producing country which is also coincidentally the main financial and ideological sponsor of Wahhabism or Islamic extremism. This austere form of Islam insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran and spreads the belief that all those who don't practice their form of Islam are heathens and enemies. In effect, we are funding our enemies. Even more outrageous, we are funding wealthy enemies: a resource-rich country that is the largest source of financing for Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists who have murdered hundreds of Americans and Israelis.

The extent of Saudia Arabia’s wealth frequently makes headlines. Recently, Prince Al-Walid bin Talal, a member of the Saudi royal family, sold a 5% share of the Kingdom Holding Company, one of the largest investment companies in the world, for more than two and a half times its initial public offering valuation. As a member of the Saudi royal family, Al-Walid holds assets estimated at $20.3 billion and is deemed by Forbes Magazine as the 13th wealthiest person in the world. The prince’s major holdings include Citibank, AOL, Apple, Inc., Worldcom, Motorola, News Corp, Planet Hollywood, and numerous other companies. He alone is the largest foreign investor in New York and his extensive real estate holdings including upscale hotel chains and resorts. In July of 2005, Talal donated $20 million to the Louvre in Paris, the largest donation ever received by the museum, for the construction of a wing to house Islamic art.

Get Off Your Knees, Mr. President
In recent years, Talal has used his financial clout to influence American foreign policy, shape media portrayals and promote Islamist ideology. Following the 9/11 attacks, in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, Al-Walid offered a $10 million donation to New York City toward relief efforts and suggested that the U.S. should reexamine its allegedly pro-Israel policies in the Middle East as the root cause of the attacks. The donation was turned down.

Prince Talal gave $500,000 to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an un-indicted co-conspirator in the funding of Hamas, for distribution to American public libraries of books that sanitize Islam and terrorist organization activities. One book declares that terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah were placed on the U.S. government’s terrorist list, not because of their well-documented terrorist operations, but because of the pro-Israel bias of American leaders.

During the 2005 Muslim riots in France, Prince Talal, the fifth largest shareholder of the parent company of Fox News, called network chief Rupert Murdoch and demanded that a screen banner identifying the unrest as “Muslim riots” be changed to “civil riots.” The Prince maintained that the U.S. media is too pro-Israel and he encouraged the Arab world and media to do more to counter this tendency.

Further, Prince Talal has tried to influence U.S. Middle East policy by donating $20 million each to Harvard University and Georgetown University, among the largest university donations in history, to finance Islamic studies and create a pro-Islamic environment among future and current policy leaders. From a country that ironically routinely punishes practitioners of Christianity, he declared that his primary reason for bestowing the gifts was the promotion of “Muslim-Christian” understanding.

Of grave concern is another donation by the Prince to the Saudi Committee for the Support of the al-Quds Intifada for $27 million given in 2002. Although committee leadership attempted to portray the gift as assistance for Arab-Palestinian families resisting the “occupation,” documents captured by the Israel Defense Forces indicated that the funds were payoffs for suicide bombings used as enticements to murder by Hamas. A Saudi-government cleric, Sheikh Saad al-Buraik, stated to television audiences viewing the 2002 fundraising telethon, “I am against America until this life ends…She is the root of all evils and wickedness on Earth…” He further urged listeners to pillage the Jews, enslave their women and wage all-out jihad.

The travesty of U.S. funding for a wealthy terrorist-sponsoring nation is further demonstrated by a 2005 study, “Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques” by Freedom House, a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that seeks to advance the worldwide expansion of political and economic freedom. Freedom House researchers found that over 80% of U.S. mosques had been radicalized by Saudi-appointed, Wahhabist imams and ideology. These Saudi-trained clerics, the ideological arm of the royal family, advocate the rejection of Christianity and Judaism, the full application of the Sharia or Islamic law in America, hatred of non-believers, renunciation of allegiance to America and the waging of jihad by all Muslims against infidels.

It is indeed troubling that U.S. leaders overlook the role that the Saudi government plays in supporting terrorism worldwide and the spreading of extremist ideology within America. It is the height of irony that while Saudia Arabia bans churches and arrests Christians praying in private homes, it is also freely funding a fifth column inside America in the form of “religious” instruction. For President Bush to praise Saudi Arabia as an “anti-terrorism” ally while Saudi-funded efforts within our borders are undermining and threatening our very existence as a free nation, nullifies American counter-terrorism measures and ignores the warnings of those charged with protecting us. Such a decision dangerously ignores reality and courts our own destruction.

Beautiful Atrocities

god is great
God Is Great, Islam Means Submission
In the spirit of Lewis Carroll and Jack Benny, two comedians who probably had nothing in common but the number 39, we here at the Two-Fisted Forum welcome a new voice to our Blogroll. The ferocious gay voice of Beautiful Atrocities is no longer in the closet about the threat posed by Islamic forces in their world and ours. Let's start here with the laughs.

And once you have finished with your history lesson, try keeping your head with this one. And while we are at it, here's a wonderful post by an observer named Karl, posting at Jihad Watch:

In an Islamic state, there is no separation of church and state, so the Koran (and example of Mohammed as documented in the hadiths) is used as a substitute. It is immutable, of course. Apologists for Islam are likely to justify the extreme passages of the Koran by pointing out the the U.S. Constitution, as originally drafted, counts blacks as 3/5 of a person.

In response to that argument, I would suggest making the following offer:

If the apologist for Islam will stand up on a soap-box in front of 10,000 Muslims in an Islamic republic (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc., take your pick) and shout out that the Koran is wrong and Mohammed was wrong to justify taking slaves, having sex with them, and killing non-believers and apostates and the Koran should be amended; I will stand up on a soapbox in front of 10,000 people in our Constitutional Republic (the U.S.A.) and shout out that our Founding Fathers were wrong to count blacks as 3/5ths of a person and that the U.S. Constitution was rightly amended to delete that onerous provision.

What will happen, of course, is that the apologist for Islam will avoid taking up such a challenge, knowing full well that he would be put to death for apostasy in the Islamic republic; while a person in our constitutional republic making an assertion that our Founding Fathers and their central document were in error would be met with yawns, and an explanation that even Frederick Douglass knew made both the document and the nation a righteous endeavor, an endeavor in teh service of freedom, liberty and justice for all. The Koran, not so much.


The Plight Of Laura Bush

Laura Bush
Laura Bush, Meets Dr. Huda Abdel Kareem
The following commentary comes to us by Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post. Her poignant reportage once again shows those of us paying attention how sadly entrenched the Bush administration is with the Saudi royal family. This insult to America's own recent history in standing up to the human rights violations of global despots wherever we find them (okay, not entirely true) seems lost on our present leadership.

Or closer to the truth, and far worse in terms of the economic and other strategic ramifications is that the American presidency is simply "owned" by the Saudis, and thus are behaving like obedient dhimmi slaves to the oil masters who threaten us with painful economic sanctions if we do not abide their every request. Respect is one thing. Submission quite another. Let us not forget that the word "Islam" itself translates from the Arabic as submission.

On the surface, wearing the scarf is no big deal. Male gentile visitors to a Jewish synagogue are usually asked to don the yarmulka. But lntuit the striking difference of garb here in the first picture when compared to the second picture taken of the First Lady in the scarf, just below. The difference is visceral. Then finish reading Glick's essay:

Women in Saudi Arabia do not have human rights. As Amnesty International puts it, "The abuse of women's rights in Saudi Arabia is not simply the unfortunate consequence of overzealous security forces and religious police. It is the inevitable result of a state policy which gives women fewer rights than men, which means that women face discrimination in all walks of life and which allows men with authority to exercise their power without any fear of being held to account for their actions."

First Lady Laura Bush In Muslim Drag
For instance, women in Saudi Arabia cannot choose whom they marry and they have no real power to divorce their husbands. Men on the other hand can lawfully marry up to four women and divorce any of them simply by announcing that they have divorced them. And once they are divorced, they are by law and practice denied custody of their children.

Marital rape and physical abuse are not generally considered crimes and therefore women have no legal recourse for dealing with abusive husbands, or fathers or brothers. Since they are legally barred from serving as lawyers, and Islam weighs a woman's court testimony as worth half the testimony of a man, even if they were able to press charges against their male tormentors, Saudi women are effectively denied recourse in the local courts.

Women of course are not the only victims of the Saudi regime. Non-Muslims are denied the right to worship. Shi'ite Muslims' right to worship is subject to draconian limitations. Jews are officially barred from entering the kingdom. Then too, there are no real elections in Saudi Arabia, no press freedom, no freedom of assembly. Yet even against this totalitarian backdrop the position of women stands out in its severity.

Take education for example. As the State Department's 2006 Human Rights report notes, there is little academic freedom in Saudi Arabia. For instance, "The government prohibited the study of Freud, Marx, Western music, and Western philosophy." Yet women's educational opportunities are even more constrained. Due to gender apartheid, women may only study in all female institutions. There they are prohibited from studying fields like law and engineering and petroleum sciences. In 2005 the BBC reported, "Although women make up more than half of all graduates from Saudi universities, they comprise only 5 percent of the kingdom's workforce."

Saudi women have no freedom of movement. They may not drive. And they may not move around in public unless escorted by their husband, father or brother. Women found in public unescorted by suitable males are subject to arrest and corporal punishment.

The limitations placed on public appearances are mind boggling. As Freedom House reported in 2005, "Visible and invisible spatial boundaries also limit women's movement. Mosques, most ministries, public streets, and food stalls (supermarkets not included) are male territory. Furthermore, accommodations that are available for men are always superior to those accessible to women, and public space, such as parks, zoos, museums, libraries, or the national Jinadriyah Festival of Folklore and Culture, is created for men, with only limited times allotted for women's visits."

To the extent that women in Saudi Arabia are allowed leave their homes, they are prohibited from actually being seen by anyone through the rigid enforcement of Islamic dress codes. As the State Department 2006 report explains, "In public, a woman was expected to wear an abaya (a black garment that covers the entire body) and also to cover her head and hair. The religious police generally expected Muslim women to cover their faces and non-Muslim women from other Asian and African countries to comply more fully with local customs of dress than non-Muslim Western women. During the year religious police admonished and harassed citizen and noncitizen women who failed to wear an abaya and hair cover."

Perhaps it is because it is so offensive to the Western eye to see women covered like sacks of potatoes, the abaya has become a symbol of Islamic oppression and degradation of women. Although outlawing their use, as the French have attempted to do in recent years, is itself a form of religious oppression, the sentiment informing their ban is certainly understandable. The fact is that a free society should not be able to easily stomach the notion that women should be encouraged, let alone obliged to wear degrading garments that deny them the outward vestiges of their humanity and individuality.

Due to the fact that the abayas convey a symbolic message of effective enslavement of women, Mrs. Bush's interaction with women clad in abayas was the aspect of her trip most scrutinized. In the United Arab Emirates, Mrs. Bush was photographed sitting between four women covered head to toe in abayas while she was wearing regular clothes. The image of Mrs. Bush sitting between four women who look like nothing more than black piles of fabric couldn't have been more viscerally evocative and consequently, symbolically meaningful.

The image told the world that she—and America—is free and humane while the hidden women of Arabia are enslaved and their society is inhumane.

By having her picture taken wearing an abaya in Saudi Arabia—the epicenter of Islamic totalitarian misogyny—Mrs. Bush diminished that symbol. In so doing, she weakened the causes of freedom and liberty which America has fought since its founding to secure and defend at home and throughout the world.
But then Mrs. Bush went to Saudi Arabia and the symbolic message of the previous day was superseded and lost when she donned an abaya herself and had her picture taken with other abaya-clad women. The symbolic message of those photographs also couldn't have been clearer. By donning an abaya, Mrs. Bush symbolically accepted the legitimacy of the system of subjugating women that the garment embodies, (or disembodies). Understanding this, conservative media outlets in the US criticized her angrily.

Sunday morning, Mrs. Bush sought to answer her critics in an interview with Fox News. Unfortunately, her remarks compounded the damage. Mrs. Bush said, "These women do not see covering as some sort of subjugation of women, this group of women that I was with. That's their culture. That's their tradition. That's a religious choice of theirs."

It is true that this is their culture. And it is also their tradition. But it is not their choice. Their culture and tradition are predicated on denying them the choice of whether or not to wear a garment that denies them their identity just as it denies them the right to make any choices about their lives. The Saudi women's assertions of satisfaction with their plight were no more credible than statements by hostages in support of their captors.

As the First Lady, Laura Bush is an American symbol. By having her picture taken wearing an abaya in Saudi Arabia—the epicenter of Islamic totalitarian misogyny—Mrs. Bush diminished that symbol. In so doing, she weakened the causes of freedom and liberty which America has fought since its founding to secure and defend at home and throughout the world.

Just In Case You Were Napping

Is the American Way on its way out?

Just in case you were napping, we introduce Bruce Tefft, the Director of CRA's Threat Assessment Center. Retired from the CIA as a case officer in 1995 after 21 years, 17 working in Stations abroad, Tefft was a founding member of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center in 1985 and has been involved with terrorism issues since then. After his retirement, he has continued studying Islamic terrorist techniques and training more than 16,000 first responders, law enforcement, military and intelligence officials in terrorism awareness and prevention. For a two year period following 9/11, he was the Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence advisor to the New York Police Department.

Here is his quite succinct statement on the current threat circling the globe with stealth wings:

The "War on Terror" and the use of the terms "Islamofascism" or "radical Islam" are basic examples of faulty nomenclature. One, terrorism is a tactic, used by an enemy. One wages war on the enemy, not the tactic. During WWII we did not wage war on the "blitzkrieg" or "kamikaze pilots"—we fought a war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japanese. We are fighting a 14-century year old war against Islam and its adherents, Muslims. And it is a war that they have declared on all non-Muslims as part of their religious mandate, their ideology, to make the whole world Islamic, under the Caliphate, and to convert, kill or enslave all non-Muslims.

In a recent interview with FrontPageMag, Tefft is characteristic clear, "Well sir, again, it is not Muslims that are the problem. Islam is the problem. There are many Muslims who want a modernized and democratic Islam—Salim Mansur, Thomas Haidon, Kamal Nawash and Mustafa Akyol are among them. And these reformers and moderates oppose the extremists in their religion just as much as any one of us."

Just in you were napping...

In Copenhagen Protesters Attacked

COPENHAGEN—The attack was not covered by MSM. This is not 1773, and standing up to the Islamofascists in America will never be a Boston tea party, but Europe meanwhile already has its hands full of its own blood, evidenced this time as several SIAO members from Denmark suffered an attack on their lives by Leftist thugs in the lead-up to the October 21 demonstration against the Islamization of Europe. This is nothing new, of course. Just within the past week, David Horowitz is shouted down by ill-mannered and poorly educated students at Emory University in Atlanta and Robert Spencer is repeatedly interrupted with shouts at the University of Rhode Island by opponents of free speech there, and both must travel with their own security squads for personal protection.

Attack of the Copenhagen citizenry by Muslim apparachiks

C This scene in Denmark and those happening around the campuses of America this week should serve to remind us that resisting fascism in any form is not a picnic. There will be casualties. But do not meet violence with violence, otherwise you will play into the hands of the enemy and give them the ammunition they need to retaliate. It is not the Muslim community who should be the focal point of attack but our own political leaders who have brought us into the present mess with appeasements and blatant ignorance. These outrages among peoples without borders offers merely a glimpse of what is to come should our political leaders continue to mishandle the problem.

As is pointed out often anywhere outside the mainstream media, left-wing radicals and their heroes can come to any campus in America (Ahmadinejad at Columbia) and speak to great cheers without security being breeched even once, but conservative speakers like Brigitte Gabriel, Walid Shoebat and others who disagree with the jihadi left, face grave personal dangers with each speaking engagement they accept.

Of course, the Left will continue its infilading probe into the hornet's nest. Witness this week's Code Pink attack on Condoleeza Rice. The beat goes on.

So let's persevere with our campaign, continuing to clarify the issues relating to the Islamofascist threat, but we should never descend to the tactics of these "counter" aggressors here in the US, misdirected groups such as Code Pink and IVAW. We enjoy these liberties of free speech only because of the sacrifices made by our forefathers (forefathers who these radicals now despise) with their own self-loathing apotheosis of the Other. Yes, there is much wrong with American policy, both at home and abroad. We here at the Project just feel another tact is required of our dissenters.

What is happening in our institutions of higher learning is abominable. In fact, it is these same "liberal" liberties of free speech and freedom of assembly absent in so much of the world that the enemies of liberty wish to deny those of us less susceptible to their unprovable ideologies while using such "liberal" laws to gain an advantage, many by the institution of "political correctness" onward toward sharia law which are incompatible with democratic principles and the US Constitution.

Such insanity! Better to consider the very real oppression endured by the ordinary citizens of Islamic regimes.

Coming to a blog near you. Dare I say it, should we just stop globalization in its tracks right now! Yes, let's just recoil back in time and sanctimony to our own respective testaments in history, pick a date, any date, and demand that the rest of the world feel free to crawl back under the rock they first left with outstretched hand. That should clear all this mess up, nice and tidy, right?

Making The Case For Darfur Defense

Arab Supremacy alert: African Muslim refugees from Darfur scatter across Sudan to Chad fleeing genocide at hands of Arab Muslim soldiers.

By Hugh Fitzgerald

Osama bin Laden's [crew] is now attacking the government in Khartoum, decrying the permission given by the fanatical Arab Muslims in Khartoum to the "infidels"—i.e., allowing in some completely ineffective troops from the African Union to "keep the peace" in Darfur. He needn't worry. Turabi is still Turabi, and the Muslims of Khartoum are just as fanatically vicious as they ever were. They are just willing to be a bit more mindful of Muhammad's "war is deception" as they attempt to diminish Western pressure on them. Hence that "peace treaty" with the Christians and animists in the southern Sudan, which "treaty" is, of course, merely a hudna or "truce" treaty and, for the past six months at least, has been grossly violated by the Sudanese government—and with seeming indifference by the Western powers, which content themselves with the notion that there is now an agreement, a "peace agreement," in the southern Sudan, and they can all forget about that part of the Sudan.

In Darfur, the Sudanese government has made sure that the troops will only be from the African Union, and has repeatedly said that not a single Western soldier will be allowed in. In other words, there will be no force effective enough to smash the Janjaweed, and protect the black Africans being killed for the crime of being black African, rather than Arab, Muslims.

Osama Bin Laden and his Arabs famously treated the Afghani Muslims with indifference, or contempt. The Arabs, after all, are the "best of peoples" to whom the Qur'an was given, and—so Muslims believe—in Arabic. In his remarks on the Sudan, he reveals his indifference to, or rather his tacit approval of, the mass murdering of black Africans. That is not surprising. What is surprising is how this is overlooked by the entire Western world, including those—such as Nicholas Kristof—who write about the Sudan without any mention, much less understanding, of either Islam, or that aspect of Islam that makes it a vehicle for Arab cultural, linguistic, economic, and political imperialism. That subject is too difficult and too troubling for the heart-on-sleeves (and Pulitzers carefully pocketed) likes of Nicholas Kristof and others like him, who can report, who can be mere reporters, full of their easy anguish, but who cannot make sense, for themselves much less for others, of what it is they have been reporting on. They cannot explain the promptings, the attitudes, the atmospherics, that move the people who run the government in Khartoum. They cannot explain the Arab Muslim view of non-Arab Muslims. Don't expect someone on the mental level of Nicholas Kristof to conceivably beable to make a connection between the massacres of Kurds by Arabs in Iraq, and the cultural and linguistic imperialism of the Arabs directed at the Berbers in Algeria, and what is happening in Darfur, where he reports so much, and understands so little.

No, Bin Laden doesn't have to worry about the Turabi government in Khartoum. They know exactly how to delay any day of reckoning.

There is no contradiction here between a policy of removal in Iraq and intervention in Sudan. Both measures would contribute to weakening the Camp of Islam. And that is, or should be, the goal.

But what of the American government? Does it realize what an opportunity it is missing by not sending a few thousand troops to seize all of the southern Sudan (with its oil, that would allow that region to pay for itself, and deny those oil revenues to the Arabs in the north?), and Darfur, and holding them until a referendum on independence can be held? That would be a blow for that "freedom" and "democracy" that, unlike in Iraq, might actually mean something because the southern Sudanese are not Muslims, and those in Darfur are nominal Muslims who, having had a taste of the Arab Muslim attitudes, might be willing to listen to the message of Christianity—already hundreds of refugees from Darfur have apparently, once out of the Sudan, converted to Christianity. Quite an opportunity presents itself for the American government to draw a line against further Arab (and Egyptian Arab) expansion further south, threatening Ethiopia, and Kenya, and the rest of the littoral, including Tanzaniya, which is where the old Arab slave trade had its entrepots, at Pemba and Zanzibar, to ship those black slaves to the Arab slave markets of Muscat, and beyond.

But Tarbaby Iraq gets in the way. It gets in the way of properly dealing with Iran's nuclear project. It gets in the way of domestic surveillance that is amply justified. It gets in the way of thinking clearly about the future of the Western countries now subject to demopraphic assault from within. It gets in the way of considering the Jihad as a world-wide phenomenon, one for which terrorism is the least effective of its weapons.

Bin Laden needn't worry about the Sudan. The government there knows exactly what it needs to do to protect the Arab Muslim position, and it has already violated the "peace agreement" with the south in ways that, if Bin Laden knew, would leave him well-satisfied. And they are doing much the same, or trying to, in Darfur.

Those who need to worry about the Sudan are the Infidels. Why has the American government not yet taken the step—the "humanitarian" step—of rescuing the black Africans of Darfur and the southern Sudan? Why has it not allowed its troops to be deployed effectively, instead of ineffectively—to attain exactly the wrong goals—in Iraq? Why has it not created a situation in which the Arab League would have to denounce the Americans (and other Western troops) for protecting the obviously grateful (see those photographs of smiling black faces surrounding their saviors and protectors) for ending the mass murder, by Arabs, of black Africans. What better way to drive a wedge between Arabs and sub-Saharan Africa? What better way to bring to the attention of black Americans, one group long targetted for sinister campaigns of Da'wa, that the Arabs conducted a slave trade that lasted far longer (indeed lasts to this day, despite Western efforts to end it), and claimed far more victims (see "The Hideous Trade") than the Atlantic slave trade and that the Qur'an permanently recognizes the institution of slavery (and Saudi clerics have restated that position repeatedly), and the fury of the Arab League over the rescue of black Africans in Darfur or southern Sudan ought to tell us all a great deal about the real attitudes and intentions of the Arabs.

The Sudan presents a great opportunity to weaken the Camp of Islam, through a very small deployment and application of force. Iraq, on the other hand, presents a great opportunity to weaken the Camp of Islam not through the bringing of "democracy" and keeping the country together, but by the removal of American troops, in order that the pre-existing fissures, sectarian and ethnic, may work themselves out, as they inevitably will.

There is no contradiction here between a policy of removal in Iraq and intervention in Sudan. Both measures would contribute to weakening the Camp of Islam. And that is, or should be, the goal.

Burning Bush Conspiracies

What do you expect for a Muslim? Al taqyya, of course!

Despite a recent poll that 12% of Americans defy the functions of ordinary intelligence amidst clear evidence to the contrary in suggesting that the Bush administration had an active hand in the September 11 attacks on American soil, we cannot dismiss all the bad news thrown at us by conspiracy theorists aiming to tear America apart at the seams.

The following scenario, while old news, is almost certainly factual, and continues to point up the hard conclusion that Saudi Arabia is no less a declared enemy against the West and the United States than Iran is, and that the US military is little more than a mercenary force controlled by Saudi interests held in place by the kingdom's subtle threats against our nation's economical best interests.

And it is this realization that compels me to advocate with the most avid anti-war protestor that the US needs to vacate Iraq and Afghanistan, cease all overt military actions until we are attacked once more, close our borders to ALL immigration, begin rebuilding our own infrastructure and fortitude, leaving the ME Islamists (Arabs & Chaldeans) to quarrel among themselves for supremacy in the hopes of weakening the Camp of Islam as it pursues its oft-stated desire to reconstitute its beloved Caliphate, And then we should take a hard look at shutting down the Saudi-financed madrassas springing up all over the West since the 1970s, and deporting or charging with treason all hard line Muslims and sympathizers who would call for jihad and sharia law on American soil. War is a nasty business. And it is rarely won with words. Let the saber-rattling masquerade begin!

Given the impossible task of actually earning or owning its own right of return according to Leftists even those among their own people, Israel can and therefore must protect itself. After all, it has vowed to use the Samson option if pushed to the wall, and will not flinch. Never again!

America, unfortunately, is a house divided, and must be healed, or face our own painful reality check. After all, Ahmadinejad has proclaimed that both Israel and America will perish from among the nations of the earth. I have no reason not to take him at his word (no matter how preposterous), if we in the West don't change our ways and learn to name our enemy, and fight this inevitable war with a strategy based on winning not the hearts and minds of our enemies but those hearts and minds of those who support the enemy from within our own borders, those Americans who may hold dear to cherished ideals but for some reason cannot recognize the true enemies of those ideals.

From Greg Palast of the BBC, a fiendishly far-left outfit I usually avoid:

On November 9, 2001, when you could still choke on the dust in the air near Ground Zero, BBC Television received a call in London from a top-level US intelligence agent. He was not happy. Shortly after George W. Bush took office, he told us reluctantly, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the FBI, “were told to back off the Saudis.”

We knew that. In the newsroom, we had a document already in hand, marked, “SECRET” across the top and “199-I” - meaning this was a national security matter.

The secret memo released agents to hunt down two members of the bin Laden family operating a “suspected terrorist organization” in the USA. It was dated September 13, 2001—two days too late for too many. What the memo indicates, corroborated by other sources, was that the agents had long wanted to question these characters … but could not until after the attack. By that time, these bin Laden birds had flown their American nest.

Back to the high-level agent. I pressed him to tell me exactly which investigations were spiked. None of this interview dance was easy, requiring switching to untraceable phones. Ultimately, the insider said, “Khan Labs.” At the time, our intelligence agencies were on the trail of Pakistan’s Dr. Strangelove, A.Q. Khan, who built Pakistan’s bomb and was selling its secrets to the Libyans. But once Bush and Condoleeza Rice’s team took over, the source told us, agents were forced to let a hot trail go cold. Specifically, there were limits on tracing the Saudi money behind this “Islamic bomb.”

Then we made another call, this time to an arms dealer in the Mideast. He confirmed that his partner attended a meeting in 1995 at the 5-star Hotel Royale Monceau in Paris where, allegedly, Saudi billionaires agreed to fund Al Qaeda fanatics. We understood it to be protection money, not really a sign of support for their attacks. Nevertheless, rule number one of investigation is “follow the money” — but the sheiks’ piggy banks were effectively off-limits to the US agents during the Bush years. One of the men in the posh hotel’s meeting of vipers happens to have been a Bush family business associate.

Before you jump to the wrong conclusion, let me tell you that we found no evidence — none, zero, no kidding — that George Bush knew about Al Qaeda’s plan to attack on September 11. Indeed, the grim joke at BBC is that anyone accusing George Bush of knowing anything at all must have solid evidence. This is not a story of what George Bush knew but rather of his very-unfunny ignorance. And it was not stupidity, but policy: no asking Saudis uncomfortable questions about their paying off roving packs of killers, especially when those Saudis are so generous to Bush family businesses.

Yes, Bill Clinton was also a bit too tender toward the oil men of Arabia. But this you should know: In his last year in office, Clinton sent two delegations to the Gulf to suggest that the Royal family crack down on “charitable donations” from their kingdom to the guys who blew up our embassies.

But when a failed Texas oil man took over the White House in January 2001, demands on the Saudis to cut off terror funding simply stopped.

And what about the bin Laden “suspected terrorist organization”? Called the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, the group sponsors soccer teams and summer camps in Florida. BBC obtained a video of one camp activity, a speech exhorting kids on the heroism of suicide bombings and hostage takings. While WAMY draws membership with wholesome activities, it has also acted as a cover or front, say the Dutch, Indian and Bosnian governments, for the recruitment of jihadi killers.

Certainly, it was worth asking the bin Laden boys a few questions. But the FBI agents couldn’t, until it was too late.

In November 2001, when BBC ran the report on the spike of investigations of Saudi funding of terror, the Bush defenders whom we’d invited to respond on air dismissed the concerns of lower level FBI agents who’d passed over the WAMY documents. No action was taken on the group headed by the bin Ladens.

Then, in May this year, fifty FBI agents surrounded, invaded and sealed off WAMY’s Virginia office. It was like a bad scene out of the ‘Untouchables.’ The raid took place three years after our report and long after the bin Ladens had waved bye-bye. It is not surprising that the feds seized mostly empty files and a lot of soccer balls.

Why now this belated move on the bin Laden’s former operation? Why not right after the September 11 attack? This year’s FBI raid occurred just days after an Islamist terror assault in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Apparently, messin’ with the oil sheiks gets this Administration’s attention. Falling towers in New York are only for Republican convention photo ops.

The 199-I memo was passed to BBC television by the gumshoes at the National Security News Service in Washington. We authenticated it, added in our own sleuthing, then gave the FBI its say, expecting the usual, “It’s baloney, a fake.” But we didn’t get the usual response. Rather, FBI headquarters said, “There are lots of things the intelligence community knows and other people ought not to know.”

Ought not to know?

What else ought we not to know, Mr. President? And when are we supposed to forget it?

Greg Palast’s reports for BBC Television Newsnight and The Guardian paper of Britain (with David Pallister) on White House interference in the investigation of terrorism won a 2002 California State University Journalism School ‘Project Censored’ Award.

The BBC television reports, expanded and updated, will be released this month in the USA as a DVD, “Bush Family Fortunes,” produced by BBC’s Meirion Jones.