Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org
[NOTE: On the morning of 11 December 2016, German Economic News headlined “Brutal Power Struggle in the U.S.: CIA Is Targeting Donald Trump” (“Brutaler Machtkampf in den USA: CIA nimmt Donald Trump ins Visier”), and the following essay places that event into its essential broader global and historical context — because the future of America, and of the world, has been shaped by the outcome of this power-struggle that the CIA won, which cannot be truthfully understood outside of this broader context, regardless what happens. PS: The CIA’s alleged allegations in that matter are lies, and here’s how a former British Ambassador told how he knew that they’re lies. If that’s not enough, try this, keeping in mind this, all showing that the CIA and the rest of the military-industrial complex or national-‘security’-state, which rules the U.S., is hardly the public’s friend.]
Everyone knows that jihadists, and people who fund their terrorism against the United States and against other (non-fundamentalist-Islamic) nations, are enemies of every (non-fundamentalist-Islamic) nation, including the United States. However, what isn’t well known is that the U.S. federal government is itself secretly allied with jihadists and their funders — secretly allied with (and dependent upon) the enemies of all nations (including the U.S.) that aren’t fundamentalist-Islamic. Our government is secretly allied with jihadist groups in a number of countries, and is allied especially with the Arab royal families who finance jihadists in all countries (except their own — none of those royals wants jihadists to attack their own countries: their deal with jihadists is for them to attack only other countries).
Even thirteen years after the 9/11 attacks against the U.S. by a team of 19 jihadists — 15 of whom were Saudis — the former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was saying in an email to her friend John Podesta on 17 August 2014, that “we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL [ISIS] and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”
The phrase “the government of Qatar” refers to the Thani family, who own that country; and the phrase “the government of Saudi Arabia” refers to the Saud family, who own that country. She was referring to the Thanis (and their vassals) and to the Sauds (and their vassals) — they’re the main and enduring sources of funding for ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other ‘terrorist’ (actually jihadist) groups. (The word ‘terrorist’ is used in order to make the public think that jihadists are no different from, or are basically similar to, other types of terrorists, such as Timothy McVeigh, and many different types of terrorists. But jihadists belong actually in a different and more dangerous category from those, and that’s the type of terrorist which is posing a significant national-security threat, in the United States, and in many other countries.)
One might want to, as Hillary Clinton said, “bring pressure upon” — as opposed to harm or kill — an ally. However, an enemy (which is what those families actually are) is supposed to be treated differently (and far more harshly) than that. Ms. Clinton was stating that the U.S. government should bring pressure upon the Thanis and the Sauds, to stop their funding foreign jihadists such as Al Qaeda and ISIS — their funding of groups that endanger Americans. However, no indication has been presented showing that either Ms. Clinton or her State Department even brought pressure upon those allies — not even 13 years after the 9/11 attacks, which attacks those Arabic royal families (especially the Sauds) financed — and those ‘allies’, according to her, were still doing this.
It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority. …
Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide. …
Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT, and other terrorist groups, including Hamas, which probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources. …
An “ongoing challenge,” still eight years after the owners of Saudi Arabia had paid so much money to Al Qaeda up to the 9/11 attacks so that Osama bin Laden’s bookkeeper subsequently said “Without the money of the — of the Saudi — you will have nothing” of Al Qaeda — and yet they were still doing it. That cable also said of the Qatar Government (owned by the Thani family):
Qatar’s overall level of CT [Counter Terrorist] cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region. Al-Qaida, the Taliban, UN-1267 listed LeT, and other terrorist groups exploit Qatar as a fundraising locale. Although Qatar’s security services have the capability to deal with direct threats and occasionally have put that capability to use, they have been hesitant to act against known terrorists. …
The long-suppressed ‘missing 28 pages’ from the U.S. Congress’s 9/11 report documented that the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud (a top member of the Saud family), and his wife, had regularly been sending multi-thousand-dollar funds to the two Saudi minders who were paying for the flight-training and apartment rents for (basically setting-up) some of the 15 Saudi (out of the 19 total) 9/11 hijackers, prior to the attacks.
Furthermore, suppressed U.S. court testimony that was presented under oath by the former bagman for Osama bin Laden (he had collected in cash in person each one of the million-dollar-plus donations to Al Qaeda prior to 9/11), who also had been Al Qaeda’s bookkeeper, Zacarias Moussaoui, stated that he had collected million-dollar-plus cash donations from each of the Saud Princes, including Prince Bandar. Moussaoui said that making such a donation was like a rite-of-passage for them, passage into the possibility of being approved by the Wahhabist clergy, which approval is essential in order for a Prince to be even considered for promotion to the kingship.
That’s the Saud family, an ally of the U.S. federal government — and an enemy of the American nation.
In the view of America’s federal government, those are friends, allies; and Russia and China, and any of their friends, are enemies. This is not really ‘national defense’ for America; it is old-style, Empire-building, big-power ‘politics’, which is another phrase for war between aristocracies. Though the communist-versus-capitalist Cold War ended on the Russian and Chinese side (the formerly communist nations), it did not end on the U.S.-and-allied side; it continues to this day, as a U.S. fascist war to extend the American aristocracy’s empire.
Anyone who doubts or questions this allegation should see Oliver Stone’s masterpiece, his 10-part documentary series, and parallel book (all co-authored with the great historian Peter Kuznick) Untold History of the United States. Oliver Stone’s courage and genius in producing this astounding work are above and beyond any comment, because this work blows away the standard filth that passes for ‘history’ about all U.S. Presidents from the time of Truman onward; and, clearly, the U.S. federal government during this entire period has been effectively controlled by America’s enemies, a few American billionaires and their thousands of hirees. They have profited enormously by immiserating the world — including a large portion of the American people (though not nearly so much as the residents of other countries — as this 10-part (“10 Chapter”) movie makes excruciatingly clear). If you want to get an accurate idea of the entire series, just see Chapter One, and Chapter Two, which are at those links, free of charge. That’ll tell you more about America — and about this entire series (all of which is simply breathtaking) — than any ‘review’ of it possibly can. Judge it for yourself. Then see the entire series — and judge the U.S. federal government, finally, upon the basis of its reality (no longer just its exquisitely air-brushed myths). Every school-child should see this series. On that basis, we would have a truthfully informed electorate. (The book provides the documentary sources.) And only with a truthfully informed electorate can a democracy exist.
Prior to Hillary’s becoming the U.S. Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation had collected a total of $10 million to $25 million from the Saud family and their vassals (the Sauds’ subordinate aristocrats, such as the bin Ladens — but all from official government accounts). As the U.S. Secretary of State, she and her State Department celebrated in 2011 the Saud family’s purchase of $29.4 billion worth of U.S. Boeing F15-SA bombers (which now were destroying Saudi Arabia’s neighboring country of Yemen, with American bombs); and, as Lee Fang of The Intercept noted about that, “As weapons transfers were being approved, both the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Boeing made donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Washington Post revealed that a Boeing lobbyist helped with fundraising in the early stages of Hillary Clinton’s current presidential campaign.”
Although Ms. Clinton is no longer in the U.S. federal government, there is no change, because she was merely part of a system that has ruled the United States without real challenge since at least 24 February 1990, if not before (going back at least to the Eisenhower Administration, and — in some respects — even back to President Harry S. Truman) — it’s the ancient system of Empire, which has gradually, after World War II, come to replace the previous American system of a partial (originally a slaveholding) democracy, returning to America’s pre-Revololutionary condition of being subjects in an Empire, but this time it was the domestic American Empire, not the foreign British Empire. Although the ‘anti-communist’ ideological excuse for terminating America’s democracy, and becoming just another aristocratic empire, ended on 24 February 1990 (after which, U.S. foreign policy became purely a grab for global empire), the grab for global empire continued on, and especially surged in President Obama’s second Administration (2013-2016), with Obama’s increasing references to America as “the one indispensable nation” — meaning that all others are “dispensable,” as Imperial nations have always viewed all other nations to be. During Obama’s second term — first in Ukraine, and then in Syria — the possibility of nuclear war against Russia and China (the main targets to be ultimately conquered) arose: first, it arose with conventional wars in the battlefields of Syria (via a jihadist-proxy U.S. invasion there) and Ukraine (via a fascist coup that was perpetrated in February 2014 but started in the planning-stages by no later than 2011). (Obama also started preparations to strangle China by limiting China’s essential commercial transports through their nearby South China Sea.)
Obama thus hoped that his successor would continue these buildups toward conquest (perhaps to nuclear war in the battlefields of Russia and/or China). But President Trump had said that he would militarily concentrate instead only against jihadists — not conquest of any nation. (And, of course, nuclear weapons aren’t useful for that.) He said, basically, that the U.S. government would not continue to be the enemy of the American people, and that it would instead employ its vast military purely to protect the American people. That would be a sharp reversal of direction since 24 February 1990, if he adhered to it (which many people didn’t expect him to do — and his consideration of the super-neocon John Bolton as the #2 at the U.S. State Department fit strongly that pessimistic view).
It should be emphasized that there is nothing unusual about the American government’s being its own population’s biggest enemy. There is nothing unusual about a government’s being, and being allied with, an enemy to its own population. It doesn’t happen only in ‘banana republics’.
In many countries, the leadership are actually enemies of the public and therefore are allied with the nation’s enemies. This is the normal situation for any country that’s under foreign rule, such as a colony. When a domestic aristocracy (‘oligarchs’) control a country, these aristocrats are normally part of an empire, which is controlled by the aristocracy (‘oligarchs’) that control a superpower; and the superpower-aristocrats then extract from those vassal-aristocrats a share of the takings from that foreign public. No clear indication exists that President Donald Trump will terminate such extractions, either from the American public, or from publics of other nations. Trump’s plans to increase America’s already incredibly bloated ‘defense’ budget — which is still geared toward conquest instead of toward killing jihadists (which latter requires nothing like such a vast military expenditure) — suggest that Trump has no such actual intention: that he will instead continue America’s pursuit of empire. However, his words were contrary to that: he started by saying that he only wanted to negotiate with Russia and China, not to conquer them. But there is no indication that he has any intention of ending the U.S. government’s alliances with the American nation’s enemies. Only if the U.S. government ends its alliances with the American people’s enemies, will the situation be able to change for the better.
On Wednesday September 28th, Morning Consult bannered “Congress Overrides Obama’s Veto of 9/11 Bill”, and Eli Yokeley reported that:
Congress on Wednesday forcibly voted to override President Obama’s veto of legislation that would allow 9/11 victims’ families to sue the government of Saudi Arabia, despite Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan’s warning of “grave” risks to American national security if it becomes law.
Despite his late plea, the Senate voted 97-1 to override Obama’s veto, with only Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) voting to sustain it. In the House, the override attempt passed in similar fashion, 348 to 77.
It’s a stunning rebuke for the Obama administration, and was met with stern condemnation from the White House, which had echoed the concerns raised by intelligence and economic officials. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest lambasted lawmakers, noting concerns raised by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) on the floor Wednesday that he and other lawmakers had not had time to review all of the bill’s ramifications.
In that sense, Earnest said the vote was “an abdication of their basic responsibilities as elected representatives of the American people.” He called it “the single most embarrassing thing the United States Senate has done possibly since 1983,” referring to a big veto override in the 1980s.
While acknowledging the “pain of September 11th,” the CIA director warned lawmakers Wednesday morning that passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act could do harm to America’s own officials working overseas who enjoy the same immunity the country has extended to people like the Saudis. …
The Obama Administration was arguing that it’s necessary to hold the royal Sauds and their vassals harmless for whatever they did to finance and organize the 9/11 attacks, because otherwise there would be jeopardy “to America’s own officials working overseas who enjoy the same immunity.” In other words, the Administration’s argument was that all aristocrats must stand above the laws of every country. (But do America’s aristocrats really want to perpetrate attacks like the 9/11 attacks against another country? Against what country?)
If President Trump continues this policy of the Obama Presidency, then Trump will continue the U.S. federal government’s war against the American people; and the hope of, finally, ending the Cold War on America’s side — as Russia and China already had ended it by no later than 1991 on theirs — won’t be achieved in his Presidency. His promises “to clean the swamp in Washington” would turn out to have been mere lies.
If, on the other hand, Trump turned out to be sincere about that (and yet doesn’t become assassinated), then he’d probably turn out to have been the best American President since the time of FDR, because he’d have gone a long way toward re-establishing democracy in America. Certainly, that can’t happen while the U.S. government remains secretly allied with America’s enemies.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.