Bush's Buddy Bandar Aids Ai Qaeda, Supported Some 9-11 Terrorists

Gee, breaking news from Kossack calipygian about Bush's bestest buddy, Saudi Prince Bandar and family:

...the British Government had launched an investigation into defense contractor BAE for paying bribes to Saudi officials, including Bush family BFF and former Saudi Ambassador to the United States Prince Bandar bin Sultan. As you probably already know,Prince Bandar knew about the Invasion of Iraq before our own State Department.  As it turns out, while Prince Bandar was getting more access to our deepest secrets than our own State Department, he was also getting up to 120 million Pounds a year deposited into a Washington DC Riggs Bank account for facilitating the 43 billion pound Al-Yamanah arms deal between Saudi Arabia and BAE.

The investgation was quashed because Bandar threatened the UK if they didn't stop.


Why is that significant? Because Bandar's wife was paying some of the 9/11 hijackers:

Findings from an inquiry by the House-Senate Joint Intelligence Committee suggest evidence indicates money from the Saudi Arabian government could have made its way to the two hijackers through two Saudi students when they were in California.

There is some evidence that the students received a payment through the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States, according to the inquiry.

Do you get that? Money goes from BAE to bank accounts controlled by Prince Bandar bin Sultan to the 9/11 hijackers in California.

In addition to that, most Republicans probably want folks to overlook other Republican ties to terror. For example, while Reich-wing nuts cry out how liberals are "terrorist-lovers trying to destroy our nation," two Republicans have already been arrested for aiding Al Qaeda and terrorist organizations.1 The true nature of today's Republicans and Conservatives -- and the Beasties in the White House -- is coming to light; they can be easily found by the company they keep.

And that's not all...

Even more evidence about the psychological and genetic influences (and effects of) conservatism has emerged that conservatives are desperately attempting to spin away.

Before we get into the new science, let's look at what some conservative pundits have recently begun spinning: a book by a Dr. Lyle Rossiter called The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. It's their attempt to lay a foundation of faux scientific "evidence" that demonizes liberals.2 Here's what the World Net Daily store site has to say about it:

Are Liberals Out of Their Minds? Why do modern liberals think and act as they do? The radical left's politics and its destructive effects on our basic freedoms have provoked many to speculate on what makes these people tick. "The Liberal Mind" answers these questions. This book is the first systematic analysis of the political madness that now threatens to destroy the West's greatest achievement: the American dream of civilized liberty.

In his penetrating analysis, Dr. Rossiter reveals modern liberalism's assaults on:

  • The freedom of adults to make good lives for themselves by cooperating with others
  • The ability of families to raise children to be self-reliant and mutual
  • The morals, rights and laws that protect our freedoms

"Modern liberalism's irrationality can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche." "The Liberal Mind" reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world's political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty.

So, who the hell is Rossiter?

The author is an MD who received his medical and psychiatric training at the UNiversity of Chicago and served for two years as a psychiatrist in the U.S. Army. He is currently in private practice in Chicago.

Heh. Sparkling credentials -- it doesn't seem to indicate any particularly compelling status in his field. My perusal of excerpts from his site for "The Liberal Mind" found lots of Republican talking points and propaganda. It left me with the distinct impression that Rossiter is nothing more than a wanna-be pundit, ascribing clearly observable traits of today's conservatives -- and the rampant moral, sexual and legal corruption of today's Republicans -- to liberals, even as some of the core think-tank conservatives desperately start to try and spin their way into an attempt to claim the term "liberal" was stolen from them.1

I'd previously noted a study by the US Government that delved into the foundational elements behind conservative thinking: That stubborn, stupid 30%...it's genetic.

Now, even more direct, scientific evidence of the stilted Conservative mind has come out -- no doubt why Conservatives are desperately clinging to the likes of Rossiter for one lowly pseudo-scientific source to try hold REALITY at bay. The following article comes from the article The Liberal Mind vs the Conservative Mind -- Genetic? by Howie Klein over on the Huffington Post:

A fascinating new study from the British weekly scientific magazine, New Scientist brings up the question on its front cover, "Two Tribes: Are Your Genes Liberal or Conservative?" It delves into the serious scientific research on the formation of political opinions. [...snip...]

"...a rather unflattering view of conservatives emerges from the studies. They are portrayed as dogmatic, routine-loving individuals, while liberals come across as free-spirited and open-minded folk."

[...snip...] Neuroscientists have also got in on the act, showing that liberals and conservatives have different patterns of brain activity."

In 2003, John Jost, a psychologist at New York University, and colleagues surveyed 88 studies, involving more than 20,000 people in 12 countries, that looked for a correlation between personality traits and political orientation (American Psychologist, vol 61, p 651). Some traits are obviously going to be linked to politics, such as xenophobia being connected with the far right.1 However, Jost uncovered many more intriguing connections. People who scored highly on a scale measuring fear of death, for example, were almost four times more likely to hold conservative views. Dogmatic types were also more conservative, while those who expressed interest in new experiences tended to be liberals. Jost's review also noted research showing that conservatives prefer simple and unambiguous paintings, poems and songs.2

...A much stronger link exists between political orientation and openness, which psychologists define as including traits such as an ability to accept new ideas, a tolerance for ambiguity and an interest in different cultures. When these traits are combined, people with high openness scores turn out to be almost twice as likely to be liberals.3

[...snip...] Some traits that are linked to openness, such as being sociable, are also known to be influenced by the levels of neurotransmitters in the brain. And levels of these chemicals are controlled in part by genes. So while there isn't a gene for liking hippies, there is probably a set of genes that influences openness, which in turn may influence political orientation.

This is cross-posted from DownWithTyranny, where the full story, somewhat longer, is available, along with some lovely illustrative artwork.

Let's break this down, shall we?

  1. Xenophobia -- fear of others: conservatives fear anyone not immediately like themselves or perceived as part of their little tribe. This explains why they are usually rife with racial, religious and dogmatic fears and prejudices that appear borderline unhinged to normal people.
  2. Conservatives prefer simple and unambiguous things; they can't get their heads around complex concepts or understand things like subtlety.
  3. Conservatives have trouble accepting new or different ideas, and are compelled to see the world in black-and-white terms, and are wholly uninterested in life that exists outside of their own little cultural madrassa; even within the same nation, they frown upon any cultural differences between people -- anything that makes a person or the person's heritage "different" is a threat to their fragile, inflexible mind.

Yeah, that makes sense. So, wow -- more evidence, from GROUPS of accredited scientists that are leaders in their field, actually pointing to conservatives as mentally, emotionally, socially and intellectually limited.

What a surprise.



  1. From a comment by Edger over on Docudharma:


    And then there are

    "conservatives" (really radical RW nutbars) who try to call themselves "liberal" just to try to stay on the scale at all.

    Operation Comeback

    TO: My Fellow Neoconservatives
    FROM: Joshua Muravchik
    RE: How to Save the Neocons

    We neoconservatives have been through a startling few years. Who could have imagined six years ago that wild stories about our influence over U.S. foreign policy would reach the far corners of the globe? The loose group of us who felt impelled by the antics of the 1960s to migrate from the political left to right must have numbered fewer than 100. And we were proven losers at Washington's power game: The left had driven us from the Democratic Party, stolen the "liberal" label, and successfully affixed to us the name "neoconservative."

    by: Edger @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 21:54:56 EST


    Thanks again, Edger. :) Great find, and quite useful.

  2. It isn't the liberals or Democrats, or the Greens or Libertarians, who are undermining the Constitution that our troops are fighting to protect and defend -- it's the Republicans.

    The same ones who actively seek out and support terrorism and terrorists.

    Mark Deli Siljander, former two-term Republican member of the United States House of Representatives (from 1981-1987, and a Ronald Reagan appointee tapped to serve as a delegate to the United Nations in 1987:



    Michael Mixon (rhymes with "Nixon"), a.k.a. Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari, a lifetime member of the National Republican Senate Committee's Inner Circle, which the NRCC describes as "an impressive cross-section of American society – community leaders, business executives, entrepreneurs, retirees, and sports and entertainment celebrities – all of whom hold a deep interest in our nation's prosperity and security." Mixon gave $15,500 to the National Republican Campaign Committee between 2002 and 2004, according to Federal Election Commission records. That amount includes $13,000 in 2003, a year when he claims to have been named NRCC New York State Businessman of the Year.


    ...Republicans: terrorists with expensive clothes paid for with the tax dollars of hard working Americans.

No votes yet


See (among others): Guardian: BAE Files, and the report cited above: Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (GPO Access Page).

Also true that Bandar is no more "buddy" to Bush than he was to Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. Not only helpful for context, but required for accuracy.

wonder what new scheme was cooked up when GW currently had his visit with the Saudi's.

Tho I was under the impression that Bush family connection to Bandar was a little tighter than Carter and Reagan's...I dunno 'bout Clinton.

Got a suggestion for where more info could be found?

He helped President Carter persuade Congress to sell F-15 jets to Saudi Arabia. When Carter needed Fahd to push down oil prices, he sent the request through Bandar. Bandar entranced President Reagan, too, teaming up with him in 1981 to convince Congress that Saudi Arabia should buy American AWACS planes. In 1983, Bandar, still a youngster, was named ambassador. He quickly emerged as D.C.'s prince of intrigue, the eager middleman between Washington and the world. He negotiated secretly to get the PLO out of Beirut during Israel's Lebanon invasion. Bandar assisted the Reagan administration on the sly by sending $2 million a month to the Nicaraguan Contras as part of the Iran-Contra scheme.

From the article by David Ploz in Slate (2001). Also recommend Elsa Walsh's The Prince (New Yorker/2003). No question he's closer to the Bushes, but his history with us spans thirty years. Plenty of "buddies" during his tenure.

Good info to have, and helps flesh out the piece.

to shorten the length of the link in the footnotes to preserve the margins.

Much appreciated.