Home Media Murdoch’s NYPost Today Backs Michael Moore Bush-Saudi Claims from “Fahrenheit 911″

UPDATE- Paul Sperry responds: “Unger and Moore have their own agendas. mine aligns with the FBI WFO case agents and FCPD* detectives who say they’ll never forgive the Bush admin for throttling their investigation of leads back to Saudi Embassy and Bandar himself in McLean. they view the former POTUS as a traitor.”

Earlier this afternoon:
Shock: today’s Murdoch owned highly conservative New York Post features an opinion piece backing Michael Moore‘s Bush-Saudi claims from “Fahrenheit 911.” It’s the main story on the Post’s website with a huge photo and prominent placement. The story is also featured in a color block headline on the front page of today’s paper.

Moore must get a lot of satisfaction out of this. It’s only taken a decade for a conservative pundit writing in a conservative newspaper to endorse his movie.

Indeed, Paul Sperry’s editorial is a direct echo of a 2003 Vanity Fair story by Craig Unger, author of the book that was the underlying information for the Oscar winning movie. That book was called “House of Bush, House of Saud” and it still available for Kindle. The Vanity Fair article was called Saving the Saudis, publishing ten years ago. Here’s the link: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2003/10/saving-the-saudis-200310

Today’s piece by Sperry is shocking first because he is a conservative. But second, Sperry’s piece questions why huge portions of a Congressional report about 9/11 remain redacted– blacked out–in his piece called “Inside the Saudi Cover Up.” http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/

The story could just as easily have been called “Inside the Bush Cover Up.” It’s amazing that NY Post editor Col Allan ran it, and that Rupert Murdoch would have approved it. The Post has always mocked Michael Moore, and certainly backed George W. Bush endlessly.

For conservatives, Sperry suddenly endorsing Moore and Unger and “Fahrenheit 911″ has to be a slap in the face.

Sperry writes:

“President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).

A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.”

He adds:

“Just days after Bush met with the Saudi ambassador in the White House, the FBI evacuated from the United States dozens of Saudi officials, as well as Osama bin Laden family members. Bandar made the request for escorts directly to FBI headquarters on Sept. 13, 2001 — just hours after he met with the president. The two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony while discussing the attacks.”

Even stranger, the NY Post via Sperry is now featuring Sen. Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida. Sperry writes: “Democrat Bob Graham, the former Florida senator who chaired the Joint Inquiry, has asked the FBI for the Sarasota case files, but can’t get a single, even heavily redacted, page released. He says it’s a “coverup.”

 

*Fairfax County Police Department

36 replies to this post
  1. There are militants in the Middle East, but Al Qaeda is a concoction of the western media, the Department of Justice, and the FBI. It has become since 911 a label that is attached by media or self-attached to various militant groups.
    While FBI director in the late 1990s, Louis Freeh investigated the Khobar Towers bombing in which Freeh tried to pin the blame on Iran mainly because of the forced confessions from one or more captives repeatedly tortured by the Saudis. Freeh apparently developed a close relationship with his main Saudi contact, Bandar bin Sultan, so as to become Bandar’s legal representative years later after leaving the FBI (Louis Freeh, after leaving the FBI, also became a citizen of Italy!!).
    Webster Tarpley has suggested that 911 was a product of USA intelligence agencies, the USA shadow government, that hired on other intelligence agencies such as Saudi Arabia’s, Israel’s, and the UK’s.

  2. Fifteen ( 15 ) of the 18 hijackers were Saudis. Like Bin-Laden. No Iraqis. Shrub takes peace and prosperity to war and depression, hides trillions of new debt, and you guys care who’s conservative ?
    Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
    Moore gets most of his stuff right, don’t blame him if you can’t admit you were duped.

  3. Hmmm….the Bin Laden family living in “the Great Satan” US are jettisoned out of the country within 36 hours or less of the attacks…why not hold them in “protective custody” as a security measure and dually, perhaps for their own protection ? But no, whisked away, gotta get ‘em out, WHY ? HoB, HoS ? How about House of Bullshit.

  4. Absolutely horrifying. I believe that these same allegations were made equally as strong by 9/11 Truther Alex Jones and his Infowars cohorts – but I discounted him, because I’ve always thought he was a temperamental nutcase conspiracy theorist.
    I’m sorry, but even if it’s painful for the nation, this needs to be pursued to the fullest – and if it ends with Bush and Cheney in jail, so be it. The country needs to know what happened, and people must be held accountable.
    I’d like to know why Pakistan was told “you’re either with us, or against us – and if you’re not with us, we’ll bomb you back to the stone ages”, while the Saudis were given a pass. We’ve known for years that elements of the ISI assisted al qaeda, now we’re learning that Saudi intel was also deeply involved? I would like to understand why the Saudis would have done this to us…what did they hope to gain from it? Did they view it as payback for something – or as a warning? What did they hope to gain, that was worth risking an all-out attack by the U.S.? Bewildering to me, I don’t understand. How could this have remained cast as fringe theory and partisan character assassination for this long? Why didn’t anyone who was in the know about this, spill the beans to the entire media? Even if it would have cost them their careers, shouldn’t the people who knew about this and were so angry about it, have made the sacrifice out of moral imperative? Lots of dark questions…wouldn’t be all that surprising if we don’t get that many answers. I am just sickened by this…

  5. “Today’s piece by Sperry is shocking first because he is a conservative” – Shocking?? I wonder if Mr. Friedman read any of Sperry’s articles or books before writing this sentence. Sperry hates Bush, has for years, this article is just another in a long string of Sperry’s articles about Bush’s and his team’s coverup of 9/11 events. It would be wise for Mr. Friedman to do some fact checking next time.

  6. What do you make of a country that allows such evil to be covered up? It is an absolute travesty that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Silverstein are allowed to walk the face of the Earth with impunity. There is no justice.

  7. AGREEING THAT ONE POINT OF A FILM THAT WAS A LITANY OF LIES *MIGHT* HAVE SOME MERIT, DOES NOT COME ANYWHERE CLOSE TO ENDORSING THE MOVIE.
    THIS COMMENT PERVERTS REALITY ALMOST AS BAD AS THE FILM DID.

  8. I think that the media is in general, like mikey m himself full of sht…..and I don’t have to be lied to more than once to know that the distraction is once again away from the traitor In the white house who is a practiced fraud and liar.

  9. Obama is in such trouble they are trotting their favorite scrap goat, W. Bush, back out. You can tell by how they bend over backwards certifying Sperry as a for real Conservative. Its really sad now. Next they will blame Bush for the Titanic.

  10. Looks like Fox is ready to throw Bush under the bus. For all of the crap that Moore went through, and now has been vindicated by Murdoch’s own press. Kind of wonder if the OLD MONEY will try their best kill this story.

  11. Pardon me, but I seem to recall this stuff being “aired” immediately after 9/11, and then periodically thereafter. It never went anywhere and, as I also recall, was thoroughly debunked. Now, you resurrect the concept, and offer as “proof an article by an alleged “conservative,” in an allegedly “conservative” newspaper. Oh, I forgot, some blank pages in. a report. Uh, they’re BLANK — Get it? I’d call this out as BS but, sorry, ti doesnt’ even rise to that level

  12. Of course its a cover up and it smelled like a cover up on day one. To say it is not a cover up are the empire eternal war makers who need a mental viagra for more war. Our troops are not dying for USA ever since 9-11. They are dying for oil and Israel plain and simple. Both are a bad idea to support when we keep finding oil at home.

  13. This is just the tip of the iceberg, presented in a story espousing the official conspiracy theory. 9/11 was an inside job. This is being leaked on purpose in order to build a case to doublecross the Saudis. It’s been known for a long time that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. So why invade Afghanistan? Opium. This will only get worse unless people wake up. http://www.ae911truth.org

  14. I say, if there was a cover-up — or anything remotely like Bush was wrong — Obama would’ve gleefully released it upon assuming office. He surely blamed Bush for a lot of things — without any reason to do it. Here he would’ve had a perfectly good reason — if the allegations were true.

    They are not.

  15. Why would not the conservatives be concerned? Conservatives have been damming the Saudis for a long time for supporting terrorists. They continue to do so. e.g. The Muslim Brotherhood, The attacks on Syria, Libyan Terrorists, the list goes on. The Saudis I have known say it must be done to protect their country. By that, they mean themselves. You ought to see their antics in Las Vegas, hypocrites, all.

    Most likely redacted because it could be considered an act of war. The results of which would destabilize the Middle East.

    By the way, President Bush is considered a RINO Republican. That is to say he is a Liberal Republican.

    Just so you know. We no longer need the Middle Eastern Oil. Texas and the Gulf can take care of you. Allow BP back in and we would have to export our oversupply. That said, let the Saudis pound sand.

  16. Murdoch owned, highly conservative New York Post….

    You lose credibility with thinking folks when you write things like that… If you are going to use the NY Post’s articles as a reference, and not start the article by saying you disagree with them (perhaps even in the headline itself), then simply say “New York Post wrote/stated” …

    Liberal scourge of today is no different than the propagandists of yesteryear’s communists and other statists….

  17. If this is true the Saudi Arabia is guilty of an act of war should be punished. I’d say they pay the survivor families 100 million each and surrender all citizens and gov. officials involved… or we annex part of their oil wealth.

  18. It’s amazing that liberals still think that George Bush was a Conservative and that conservatives supported him. George W. Bush, as his father before him, is no Conservative. When will you liberals get that through your thick skulls. Romney is not a Conservative… nor was McCain… or Dole. The problem that the Republican party has is that it does NOT run a Conservative for President. It looks like they won’t again in 2016 if Christie is the nominee.

  19. This is the “New World Order”.
    There is no need to bother you with the truth.
    The truth is no longer any of your business.
    The Ruling Elite are now in charge.
    Go home and shut up.
    We shall tell you which truth you should repeat.

  20. Of course this is the portion of the full truth that is finally accepted, after more than a decade.. it is kosher because it makes no mention of Mossad involvement. So long as Israel is never implicated for its role in the attack, that’s all that really seems to matter.

  21. “For conservatives, …… has to be a slap in the face.” Actually, no its not. For this conservative, its been 12 yrs of the endless GWOT and the justification for shredding the Bill of Rights and its the MSM thats finally seeing past the tin foil pejoratives to where the alt media has been for the last decade. fyi, the left has been in the white house the last 5, so don’t try making this some left/right diversion. that trick doesn’t fly much anymore.
    my main question, why now? what’s changed? why are the defenders of the status quo suddenly acknowledging whats been floating around for so long?

  22. The very rich are the only true internationalists. In “Doctor Zhivago”, Pasternak observed that, as it always happens, the rich familes of one country have a fight with the rich families of another–and then send-in the poor to fight their battles. Of course, Pasternak was bullied by the Soviet version of the very rich–Josef Stalin–had to pirate copies of his novels and poetry out of the country in order to disseminate the information thereof, while uber-classist Stalin, paranoiac as is typical for psychopaths and megalomaniacs, was convinced Pasternak’s poetry about lilacs was some kind of “secret code” that hid political content. When awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, the dimwit Soviets, typically in a display of pointless power-mongering, refused to allow Pasternak to personally accept the award.

    And then there’s Poppy Bush, his “high violet” socks showing during a nationally televised interview. There’s Dick Cheney, pushing the “truth envelope” regarding where exactly he lived, when every single person here in Dallas knew damned well he’d been living in one of Dallas’ fancy pants enclaves for years, simply to twist the Constitution to suit his appetite for “unitary executive” power because, had he actually told the truth, he wouldnt’ have been able to become the Subcommadante of America, the newest banana republic on the block.

    Don’t ask me why those goofs don’t defend democracy anymore. America is under the care of an HMO called “the lobbying industry”.

What do you think?