War bling and the inscrutability of motives

[rich]

Joseph--flesh this out you should write something for Pynchon Notes or
something--don't agree and question some of what you say but I dig the
connections, extrapolations, etc, keep it bouncing....

couple questions:

On 10/6/09, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> The FBI and J.E. Hoover were supportive of and close to Nixon, a Southern
> California boy. Hoover in 70 71 is near the end of his life( 72)  had
> cowed 3 presidents into not firing him, was one of the most powerful
> police state creeps in history( involved in Malcom X killing, and
> probably MLK assassination),
_____________
is there specific evidence of FBI involvement (its hard to think of
the FBI as the FBI and not just Hoover's fascist little army of
reactionaries, some sort of rogue project of his? i.e. something even
most field agents wouldn't been aware of, I guess is what I'm saying
and does that even make a difference) beyond its criminal
persecution/discrimination, etc. of the civil rights movement,
particularly with Malcolm X's murder in 1965?

 The FBI  has Bigfoot  ( Deepthroat?)   on a short leash because he is
probing the death of
> his partner, which seems to be a big part of his motive for  "recruiting" Doc.
____________
I wonder if short leash is the right term here--it kinda implies some
sense of control but knowing the visceral antagonism b/w local and
federal law enforcement, I think the problem for the feds is his
uncontrollability, in a sense

 One of the key abuses of power under Hoover was to
> block alternative investigations ( Kennedy, King).This obviously
> continues today with Oklahoma Bombing, 9-1, etc.
> The Fact that Pynchon sets the novel in this time frame , when
> southern CA is at the epicenter of a new republican rebirth of power,
> and is already at the epicenter of cultural influence,  and close to
> the birth of the internet DARPANET as survellance tool,  together
> with everything else we have turned up has me thinking Pynchon is not
> just writing an entertaining "psychedelic noir".  It may look like
> high comedy , but a little digging reveals deep tragedy . If the Coen
> Brothers buy the rights, watch for serious cultural sparks as
> interest and interpretive depth increase.
____________________-
I'm not sure--Pynchon is pretty clear about who the bad guys are--why
would he need to plant all these clues about what we all know
collectively, at least those of us on the left, as the tragedy of
reactionary forces arising out of those sea waves and cloudless
California sky. I can't see the point of Pynchon dumbing it down to an
extent that for many these nuances or nudges to open your eyes are
lost amidst the overwhelming pot smoke, pussy-eating, and general
hippie weirdness. Of course, that goofiness is a Pynchon trait but
tragedy is the last thing I would think IV invokes, not only for the
rise of the reactionary buffoons and goons but also the anger at the
left for the childish obliviousness it exhibited. Guess what I'm
saying is he balanced the goofy with the tragic better in the past,
that's all


> 		  Saudi money transfers
> 	A Saudi named Omar al-Bayoumi housed and opened bank accounts for
> two of the 9/11 hijackers. About two weeks after the assistance
> began, al-Bayoumi's wife began receiving monthly payments totaling
> tens of thousands of dollars from Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the
> wife of Saudi ambassador and Bush family confidant, Prince Bandar bin
> Sultan, through a Riggs bank account.[2] (Jonathan Bush, uncle of
> President George W. Bush, was an executive at Riggs Bank during this
> period.)
> 	Upon discovery of these transactions, the FBI began investigating
> the bank for possible money-laundering and terrorist financing.
> Although the FBI and later the 9/11 Commission ultimately stated that
> the money was not intentionally being routed to fund terrorists,
> investigators were surprised to see how lax the safeguards at Riggs
> Bank were. Several Saudi accounts were discovered to have financial
> improprieties, including a lack of required background checks and a
> consistent failure to alert regulators to large transactions, in
> violation of federal banking laws.
>
> 	Many of these transactions involved Prince Bandar personally, often
> transferring over $1 million at a time. According to British
> investigations on the Al Yamamah deal, reported by The Guardian,
> Bandar would have received over $ 1.5 billion in bribery from BAE
> Systems, laundered through the Riggs Bank.
_____________
he Saudis royal family made the mistake of paying off the radicals to
foment jihad as long as they didn't foment it in Riyadh or Jetta. The
connection is oil, of course, and we know the Bush connection and its
sympathy and respect for the relationship it had with the royals. Bin
Laden's stated goal, one of his important endeavors was/is to
overthrow the Saudi gov't. He was pissed that his offer to fight the
Iraqis was nixed and that the US was called in. I'm not sure what the
conspiracy is here vis-a-vis 9/11 and the like beyond the cozy
corruption of international capital and its minions like Riggs bank.
The idea that the Saudis approved (or the Bushes knew) of something
like 9/11 I think doesn't make alot of sense (not denying that some
royals may have supported jihad or thought they were giving money to
charity, hard to tell)
Most foreign business transactions involve some sort of bribery, let's
face it--its not right but it happens and everyone knows it (BAE sale
of weapons to the kingdom is case in point--they just happened to get
caught)

Rich