Great rainy day reading here folks; perhaps some homework too, if you like:
By Gilbert Beezley
October 2, 2003
Re: your Sept. 23 editorial, "Terrorist had bigger vision": That the Sept. 11, 2001, original plot was twice the size of what was carried out is not all that remarkable when compared to questions that remain unanswered.
For example, someone should have asked: Why did all those Saudis dislike America so much?
It is perfectly logical that those who did the planning and carried it out would know the answers to those questions, right? Don't the families of those who were lost 9-11 deserve to know the real truth of why?
What is suspect about the goings-on in Saudi Arabia over the past 20 years? Well, let's take a look at some of the basic facts.
First, why did the Soviet Union attempt to invade and occupy Afghanistan in the first place? Was it because it knew there were newly discovered major oil resources in Kazakhstan, a large portion of land just northeast of Afghanistan, but landlocked, so restricted in exporting the oil to the world's markets? Was it because an oil pipeline was necessary to transport the Tengiz oil production to tankers in the Persian Gulf?
Would occupying Afghanistan make the pipeline more feasible in light of the history of dealing with those "unpredictable Muslim" nations? Also, is it logical that Afghanistan might contain large oil deposits itself as it lies between oil-rich Iran and Kazakhstan?
Before it all happened, the Soviets learned a lot from American oil companies, beginning in the early 1970s when U.S. companies, such as Hughes Tool Co. of Houston, and many others, showed off their best oil-drilling equipment to the Soviets in an oil trade show in Moscow, the same time David Rockefeller formed the Trilateral Commission and when Chase Bank opened a branch in Moscow.
Entering the 1988 scene of defending Afghanistan from the Soviets was "good ol' boy" Osama bin Laden from oil-rich Saudi Arabia, with CIA aid in the billions, to fight off the Soviets, including the latest of warfare technology. When thinking about Saudi Arabia, keep in mind the Carlyle Group, which includes George H. W. Bush, has profited in many ways from dealing with the Saudis, including training and overseeing Saudi military and security programs.
The defending of Afghanistan worked, and the CIA closed shop and returned home, leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban. It didn't want a pipeline, even with pressure from the consulting firm of (Henry) Kissinger and Associates. It reportedly entered the picture during the beginning of Chevron/Texaco-Exxon/Mobil participation in the Kazakhstan oil fields as a 50 percent partner. That is currently a scandal of interest to the U.S. Department of Justice over multimillion-dollar bribes paid to Kazakhstan officials for the oil deals.
The shift of oil operations from the Soviet Union to the Rockefeller-dominated big-oil companies is quite interesting as it relates to the 9-11 strike because the two main Rockefeller brothers -- David, of Chase Bank, and Nelson, the then-New York governor -- combined their skills to lead the development of the World Trade Center in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Is it logical to assume that angry Saudis would focus their anger on a Rockefeller monument if they wanted to deal with revenge or payback for any dealings that went sour with the Rockefeller oil interests?
The government's 9-11 intelligence report labels about 20 pages of information as "classified" and not subject to public disclosure, but informed senators have stated that the secrets deal with the Saudi involvement in the 9-11 strike.
Why is America not asking: Why was it that so many Saudis participated in the 9-11 event? Or, if the question is being asked by the CIA, why then don't Americans get the true and correct answer?
-- Gilbert Beezley, of Oxnard, is a former Russian language specialist for the U.S. Air Force Security Service, handling classified data, and toured Russia in 1990 and 1991.