<div>Tom et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Just yesterday I was pointing out to a friend that the nation state as we have understood it is being deconstructed, but of course being maintained in "theory" with increasing monitoring and control over its subjects, for its extreme usefulness in controlling the peasants, i. e. those who are not in prominent positions of power in the global marketplace.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That last sentence implies a tome or two of analysis, but...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The fact that there is such an increasing foreign ownership of US assets is an expression of the deconstruction of the nation state in favor or a globalized economic order that favors the free flow of capitol and goods as a principle that overrides the possible regulation of business that separate nation states may impose based on other values.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The "War on Terror" is a excellent ruse to distract or gain the compliance of populations in numerous nations, while the masters of the new global economic order work out their plan. It is clear that the commercial interests of global trade access to US ports are more important than US national security from the point of view of stopping a terrorist attack at a US port. Securing our ports from terrorism would slow down trade and economic activity, so the bottom line is capitalism trumps national security, on this one issue.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Does this sound too oversimplified and conspiratorial? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Consider how the US government treats Saudi Arabia, given the evidence that Saudi Arabia has such damning connections to supporting and funding anti-US Islamic terrorism. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Do we force Saudi Arabia to protect the national security interests of the USA in the so called "War on Terror?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Is the fact that Saudi Arabia has invested close to a trillion dollars into the US economy (with deep pockets to lobby the US Congress), and represents a "stable" government that assures US access to Saudi oil, have anything to do with the fact that the US is allies with the Saudi ruling family dictatorship, a government that denies women basic rights, tortures its own citizens, shuts down freedom of the press and freedom to politically organize, and allows a extreme Wahabist Islamic movement (with a Saudi "wink" towards efforts to marginalize their power) connected to well documented funding ending up in "Al Queda's" coffers to continue to function, using our oil dollars, in effect, to fund anti-US terror groups, demonstrated in the fact that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals (could this be a coincidence?)?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The quotes immediately below are from a newspaper article (the web link to this article is no longer active) on a classified section of a US Congressional 9/11 report:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Saudi Government Provided Aid to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say</strong></div>
<div><strong><br></strong> By Josh Meyer<br> The Los Angeles Times </div>
<p> Saturday 02 August 2003</p>
<p>WASHINGTON - The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document.
</p>
<p> One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes "very direct, very specific links" between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators "that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental."
</p>
<p> Said another official: "It's really damning. What it says is that not only Saudi entities or nationals are implicated in 9/11, but the [Saudi] government" as well.</p>
<div>The nearly 900-page report, released last week, concluded that a series of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence failures preceded the Sept. 11 attacks and that there was evidence of financial support for the hijackers by an unnamed foreign government.
U.S. officials have confirmed that that government is Saudi Arabia, but nearly all the details supporting that claim are contained in the lengthy redacted section of the document.</div>
<div>-----------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Read about connections between Bush and the Saudis':</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=99415">http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=99415</a></div>
<div>-------------------------------------</div>
<div><a href="http://public-integrity.org/articles/publications69.htm">http://public-integrity.org/articles/publications69.htm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>From the public-integrity website above:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2">Saudi Arabia very proudly takes credit for having spent at least $80 billion in the last decade on building mosques and Islamic/Wahabist centers all over the world, including the US. They also renovate existing mosques and bring in imams from Saudi Arabia to spread Wahabism. They fund many Islamic centers in colleges and universities in the US, and give big grants to professors and students, furthering their influence.
<br><br>For many years, Saudi money in the US provided an equal opportunity for corrupting lobbyists on behalf of Saudi Arabia among Democrats and Republicans alike. The Saudis try to pay off anybody who is in power, and anybody who they think is going to be in power.
</font><br>----------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And in testimony before the US Senate Judiciary committee:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/war-on-terror/2005/051108-emerson-testimony.html">http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/war-on-terror/2005/051108-emerson-testimony.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The paper trail of Saudi money, funneled through a vast network of charities and religious organizations, has led to some of the most violent terrorist groups in the world, including Al-Qaeda and Hamas.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But in fact, much of the non-governmental network in Saudi Arabia was created by Saudi government officials to provide an arm's length relationship and has long been funded by Saudi government line items or by members of the Royal Family. The Wahabist-dominated religious hierarchy in Saudi Arabia was and is tightly controlled by the Saudi regime and Royal Family.
</div>
<div>------------------------------------------------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So the evidence above suggests that just as we find a lack of prioritizing national security to stop a terror attack at US ports because of economic/commercial interests, the "War on Terror" internationally is not being pursued as clearly and aggressively as we are led to believe, with US economic and other sorts of ties to Saudi Arabia's role in terrorism resulting in a less than consistent response.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am firmly convinced that forces within Saudi Arabia had more substantive connections to the 9/11 attacks than Afghanistan and surely Iraq, with Iraq having no connection at all that is not highly speculative, as even the US 9/11 commission determined:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is amazing that most US citizens have not carefully read the conclusions of the 9/11 commission, indicated in the wide spread continuing illusion that Saddam was connected to 9/11:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.9-11pdp.org/">http://www.9-11pdp.org/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/16/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Tom Hansen</b> <<a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Outsourcing port management to a mid east interest - What could possibly go<br>wrong?<br><br>"The Bush administration defended its approval of the sale. A spokesman for
<br>the White House National Security Council, Frederick Jones, said Thursday<br>that security implications of the deal were 'rigorously reviewed.'"<br><br><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/16/congress.ports.ap/index.html">
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/16/congress.ports.ap/index.html</a><br><br>Let's see:<br><br>1) Bush wants to sell federal lands to make up a portion of the national<br>deficit.<br><br>2) Troops are fighting and dying in Iraq without an exit strategy or
<br>defined goal.<br><br>3) And now Bush wants to give away our port security.<br><br>Well, it's not like he had sex with an intern . . .<br><br>Take care, Moscow.<br><br>Tom "and the voices" Hansen<br>Moscow, Idaho
<br><br><br>********************************************<br><br>"In America, anybody can become president.<br>That's one of the risks you take . . ."<br><br>- Adlai Stevenson<br><br>********************************************
<br><br><br><br>_____________________________________________________<br>List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">
http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<br></blockquote></div><br>