More high-relevance news from the magnificent insurgent finance blog Zerohedge:
It has been a day of Friday afternoon surprises: just one hour after Ted Cruz pretended to endorse Donald Trump when he really meant don’t vote for Hillary, president Obama denied what all American citizens demanded – and got – after both chambers unanimously passed the Sept 11 law several weeks ago, when he decided to veto the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act bill.
Well, it shouldn’t be a surprise to dedicated readers of Stebbing-Heuer. Our hypothesis regarding September 11, following that of Richard Clarke, is that the result of a joint operation between the Saudis and the Americans, to infiltrate al-Qaeda by recruiting some of bin Laden’s men, which (somehow, and for some reason) went horribly wrong.
This hypothesis explains why:
- the US government was (and IS) so keen to cover up what actually happened on the day, and in the years and months preceding the attacks, including by spiking the congressional and committee investigations into the attacks (it doesn’t want the public to know that some/all of the attackers were its agents, and that it lost control of them); and also
- why Saudi Prince Bandar and his wife, long-time friends of the House of Bush, were giving money to the attackers in the months prior to the attacks, why the attackers were in touch with Saudi intelligence, and why so many Saudis fled the US in tremendous haste just days before the attacks took place (they were in on the infiltration operation, they were involved in funding it (the US is good at getting others to pay for its programs), and when they knew that the attackers had ‘gone rogue’ they knew it was bad news and cleared out immediately).
I think it is important to continue to monitor this situation, because the unanswered question for me is – why did the infiltration operation go wrong? What happened to make the CIA, and whatever other unknown agencies and personnel operate in this space – and I’m sure there exist multiple organisations and operations of which the public is only dimly aware – lose control of their agents?
At the moment, the official story – al Qaeda did the sneak attack, we didn’t know anything about them beforehand – is undermined by the 28 pages which outline in detail the extent and depth of Saudi involvement in funding and monitoring, and possibly guiding, the attackers in the years and months before the attacks.
Congress – that sordid parliament of whores – is for once acting in the public interest. In its members’ collective naivety, it thinks that the Saudi Royal family was behind the attacks, and has thus passed the ‘Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act’ in order to get at the Saudis. And it thinks this because the evidence against the Saudis lain out in the 28 pages is so comprehensively complete.
Now the White House knows that the Saudis weren’t behind the attacks. Both because it knows of the intelligence operations that were conducted at the time, and because the Saudis, I believe, have told White House staff what it was they were up to, why they were funding and monitoring and advising the attackers.
But the White House can’t tell Congress, or the public, this, because it would give away White House, FBI, CIA and whatever other agencies’ involvement with the attackers and their bungling in losing control of the attackers. In short, they don’t want the public to know that they trained and funded the very people who attacked on September 11.
What Congress’ actions do is place pressure on the Saudis to ‘fess up. The Saudis are weak, and completely reliant on the US for their existence. If the US turns on them – as Congress is doing, and the population did long ago – then they disappear in a sandstorm of blood-soaked violence. Their only allies are whoever is in the White House. But the White House can’t protect them without compromising the US government. The White House is being forced to choose to protect the Saudis, because if it doesn’t, the Saudis will spill the beans in the interests of self-preservation, and that will break the official cover story wide open.
But the White House can’t keep protecting the Saudis, because Congress can overturn the White House’s veto of JASTA. How should the White House react? Most likely, it will do everything it can to sway as many Congressional representatives as it needs to in order to maintain the veto. And that will mean leaning on them to protect the Saudis ‘in the interests of national security’. With the Saudis so on the nose, more persuasion is likely to be needed, and that may include the White House’s telling people, in confidence, about the joint US-Saudi operation that went wrong. It’s a Hail Mary pass, and one that could backfire, because it would mean that, for the first time in 15 years, the White House had let slip the truth. And once it’s out, it’s explosive.
And if the White House can’t protect the Saudis, no matter what it does, then the Saudis spill the beans.
And the whole of September 11 is revised in the light of this new information.
And, as I dearly hope, the interest of the public and the elites will then turn to the threshold question – why did the infiltration operation go wrong?
And that’s when the real fun begins. Because the Saudis are a side-show. And the truth, I think, when it gets out, is going to tear apart the world as we know it.
* * * * *
The line in the title comes from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and is the expression of what I think is the most exquisite dilemma ever faced by a criminal in the history of literature.
In Act V, Scene ii of the play, Claudius’ plots and deceits are undone by unforeseen and uncontrollable contingencies – Hamlet’s deciding to ‘play this bout first’ before he drinks the tainted cup offered by Claudius, and Gertrude’s naive impulse to drink a toast to Hamlet from same cup:
Stay; give me drink. Hamlet, this pearl is thine;
Here’s to thy health.
(Trumpets sound, and cannon shot off within)
Give him the cup.
I’ll play this bout first; set it by awhile. Come.
Another hit; what say you?
A touch, a touch, I do confess.
Our son shall win.
He’s fat, and scant of breath.
Here, Hamlet, take my napkin, rub thy brows;
The queen carouses to thy fortune, Hamlet.
Gertrude, do not drink.
I will, my lord; I pray you, pardon me.
[Aside] It is the poison’d cup: it is too late.
Claudius is faced with a dilemma: forbid Gertrude to drink (as he well might, being the King and her husband), and risk having his plot discovered; allow Gertrude to drink, and she will die, with the certainty that his plot will be discovered.
The line ‘Gertrude, do not drink’ is thus exquisite. I cannot imagine how anyone could possibly act it entirely convincingly. Claudius must show concern at the impending death of his lover, and the uncovering of his plots, so as to make his appeal carry weight; but he must also make his words sound like a gentle appeal to his wife, so that he doesn’t sound unreasonable and thus give those around him concern about what he is up to. How can one possibly bring those two conflicting necessities together, in one four–word line?
Of course, the actor’s task is made easier by the scripts revealing that Gertrude does indeed drink from the poisoned chalice, so that Claudius’ line must necessarily not have been in the form of a command, nor could it have been convincing. But the actor playing Claudius is still left with the need, prior to his exhortation, to reveal the inner conflict between protecting his lover and protecting himself. No more exquisite dilemma is possible in the life of a person – whom shall I sacrifice? How does one possibly act this convincingly?
The genius of Shakespeare is that he has Claudius reveal himself as the treacherous worm he has been all along, by having him sacrifice his wife, even though that will serve no good, as the poisoning will simply reveal his plot against Hamlet. And even then, this ‘king of shreds and patches’, rather than assist the woman whom he’d proclaimed earlier was most dear to him in what are now revealed to be empty words:
The queen his mother
Lives almost by his looks; and for myself–
My virtue or my plague, be it either which–
She’s so conjunctive to my life and soul,
That, as the star moves not but in his sphere,
I could not but by her.
seeks – unsuccessfully – to divert attention from his crime:
How does the queen?
She swounds to see them bleed.
No, no, the drink, the drink,–O my dear Hamlet,–
The drink, the drink! I am poison’d.
The dilemma facing the White House is similar to that which faced Claudius. They have engaged in a dark plot, which went wrong, and which now, through a combination of its own self-serving deceits and the naivety of those who believe those deceits, is coming unstuck. They need to protect the secrecy of the plot, but to do so, they must also protect the Saudis, their co-conspirators, an action which risks uncovering the plot. How can the White House possibly bring those two conflicting necessities together, as they must, in one simple action?
The exquisite but necessarily stifled anguish of Claudius’ exhortation ‘Gertrude, do not drink’ is matched by the exquisite anguish of the White House’s exhortation ‘Congress, do no pass JASTA’.
The White House’s exhortation will fail just as did Claudius’.
The plot will be uncovered.
And the reckoning will be apocalyptic.
Update, 27 October 2016: I’ve just watched David Tennant’s Hamlet, with Patrick Stewart starring as Claudius. Stewart delivers the line as well as could be expected of any actor, I was impressed.