Before 9 11, Bush told agents to back off bin Ladin family: We hate conspiracy theories, but the saga of the Bush and bin Laden families' relationship through the Carlyle Group is fascinating and largely undisputed. The enclosed chronology comes from a reporter who asked to be anonymous for spam-prevention purposes. We don't endorse the wilder conclusions that people have drawn from the story, and we don't mean to lend plausibility to them. It's just that the public facts are interesting enough in themselves. We have reformatted this message but haven't otherwise altered it.] Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 11:37:42 -0800 From: << a reporter who doesn't want to get spam>> Subject: Summary: Carlyle Group and Bush Administration Here's a chronology of the Carlyle Group stories. To ward off unwanted spam, please delete my address before forwarding. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Back in January when the administration was new, the Washington Monthly noted (2nd last item)the Bush family business: The NYT ran a front-page photo of former President Bush with Saudi King Fahd on a trip to Saudi Arabia as part of his work for the Carlyle Group. The ice-breaking story by LWayne quoted CLewis: "In a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration's decisions, through his father's investments. The average American doesn't know that and, to me, that's a jaw-dropper." Judicial Watch commented that the senior Bush's association with the Carlyle Group was a "conflict of interest (which) could cause problems for America's foreign policy in Middle East and Asia". Judicial Watch called on the President's father to resign. Without saying 'revolving door, it was noted that the former FCC chair was joining the telecom and media section at Carlyle: On May 7, European Venture Capital Journal identified the Carlyle Group as heavy hitters with "an all-star roster of professionals (that) just got stronger": On May 13 when another conservative world leader cashed in his chips and traded on his former government insider status and knowledge of the regulatory system, the BBC ran a story headlined: Major to chair private equity house The London Times followed on May 26, noting that "The employment of Bush Sr has attracted attention, mainly because his son is ultimately responsible for awarding US arms contracts":,,37-2001180089,00.html In late September The Wall Street Journal touched on salient aspects of the story last month by highlighting the bin Laden family investments in the Carlyle Group, then dropped it like a hot 'tater. "Bin Laden Family Could Profit From a Jump In Defense Spending Due to Ties to U.S. Bank", The Wall Street Journal, 9/28/01 After the WSJ story, Judicial Watch posted a release uppping the ante. He was again ignored by the mainstream when he said, "This conflict of interest has now turned into a scandal. The idea of the President's father, an ex-president himself, doing business with a company under investigation by the FBI in the terror attacks of September 11 is horrible. President Bush should not ask, but demand, that his father pull out of the Carlyle Group." A down under paper picked it up: Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. The confluence of Bush and bin Laden family interests was noted briefly in the last item at: Along with others in the world press, India and Pakistani newspapers have either either reported or copied aspects of the perceived conflicts: There's been a little but not much editorial comment: and indignation at the Center for Public Integrity, which was then strangely attacked by a Washington Post columnist. Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity discusses the revolving door of the Carlyle Group. (audio, Democracy, Now!, Pacifica Radio, March 6) The WSJ story had legs. For a few weeks in October, the mainstream, including LAT and the Chicago Tribune among others, turned up the heat on Saudi Arabia, so much so that President Bush felt compelled to call the Saudi Prince to thank him for "cooperating" with the investigation to find the perpetrators of the attacks on the Pentagon and Twin Towers. On October 25, the NY Times' Elaine Sciolino and Neil MacFarquhar told of the delicate dance: Naming of Hijackers as Saudis May Further Erode Ties to U.S. The story ran with a photograph of Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal with President Bush in the Oval Office, noting that "the Saudis value such personal contacts highly". The engine at presents and searches tables that sort and order defense contractors. Among many tables that establish the Carlyle Group as the 11! th and sometimes 12th leading defense contractor, depending on which branch of the armed forces is the purchasing agent, there's one table that establishes President Bush's family business as the "12th largest missile defense contractor": But only 32nd in defense contracting of electronic & communication: The defense angle was covered by Defense News in August: After 9 11, the Carlyle Group pulled the plug on its Web pages, which are still visible in Google's cache but won't be for a lot longer. Bush AND "Carlyle Group" is one possible search term. Some U.S. editors are ignoring or downplaying the story while the U.K. and other international press are interested. A topical example from a recent week: A buried one liner in a U.S. newspaper notes with no elaboration the revolving door relationship between the administration and the Carlyle Group: Forty-five days after the dive-bombing at the Twin Towers, another buried one liner confides that the bin Laden family will no longer be doing business with the Bush family within the Carlyle Group: Part of the larger picture is explored at The Ex-President's Club at:,1300,583869,00.html If this Guardian story is true, then there was not, as was widely reported, a massive U.S. intelligence failure leading to 9 11.,4273,4293682,00.html Sydney Morning rewrote the above story, crediting the BBC: Before 9 11, Bush told agents to back off bin Ladin family: