Craig Unger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please discuss this issue on the talk page or replace this tag with a more specific message. This article has been tagged since February 2007. |
Craig Unger is an American journalist and writer. His most recent book is House of Bush, House of Saud about the relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud. Craig Unger's work is featured in Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. Unger has served as deputy editor of the New York Observer and was editor-in-chief of Boston Magazine. Unger has written about George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush for The New Yorker, Esquire Magazine and Vanity Fair.
Contents |
[edit] Biography and articles
On April 11th, 2004, he wrote an editorial for the Boston Globe demanding answers from the 9/11 commission on who gave permission for Saudi nationals to leave the U.S.. He repeated a theory connected with his book, "House Of Bush, House Of Saud", that was featured in Fahrenheit 9/11: "Is it possible that President Bush himself played a role in authorizing the evacuation of the Saudis after 9/11?"
He noted that he had traced $1.4 billion in investments by the Saudis to companies connected with Bush.
Newsweek had harsh criticism of the $1.4 billion figure, the "Saudi connection", and the flight out of the U.S.. According to Newsweek: "Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard." According to Newsweek, Bush couldn't have been involved with the Carlyle Group, which owned BDM, when the $1.18 billion deal was made: "...according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman... former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm." Newsweek also quotes the 9/11 report on the Saudi flights, noting that the September 13th flight was after the Tampa airport had already been opened. The flights out of the US that occurred later were approved by Richard Clarke, a Bush critic.
On his website, Unger replied that Newsweek wrongly suggests that the Bush family and its allies had little or no relationship with the Carlyle Group until 1998. “If that were true, [Newsweek] might have a point,” Unger writes. “But in fact, the Bush-Carlyle relationship began eight years earlier when the Carlyle Group put George W. Bush on the board of one of its subsidiaries, Caterair in 1990. In 1993, after the Bush-Quayle administration left office, the Bush family’s relationship with the Carlyle Group became more substantive. By the end of that year, key figures at the Carlyle Group included such powerful Bush colleagues as James Baker, Frank Carlucci, and Richard Darman. Because George W. Bush’s role at Carlyle had been marginal, the $1.4 billion figure includes no contracts that predated the arrival of Baker, Carlucci and Darman at Carlyle. With former Secretary of Defense Carlucci guiding the acquisition of defense companies, Carlyle finally began making real money from the Saudis, through investments from the royal family, the bin Ladens and other members of the Saudi elite, and through lucrative defense investments.
Unger added that Newsweek is misleading in characterizing the relationship between the Bushes and the House of Saud at the Carlyle Group as a distant one: “‘Six degrees of separation’ is the term Newsweek uses. Yet according to a December 4, 2003 email from Carlyle’s Chris Ullman, James Baker and George H. W. Bush made four trips to Saudi Arabia on Carlyle’s behalf, and that does not include meetings they had with Saudis in the U.S. During these trips, Ullman says, former president Bush met privately with members of the Saudi Binladen Group. At times, Carlyle officials have characterized these meetings as ‘ceremonial.’ But in fact, at least $80 million in investments came from the House of Saud and allies such as the bin Laden family. It would be unseemly– and unnecessary– for former president Bush or James Baker to actually ask for money from the Saudis at such meetings. Instead, David Rubenstein’s team did that after Bush and Baker spoke.”
Newsweek also suggests there was nothing extraordinary about the evacuation of the Saudis because the Tampa airport had reopened. But Unger adds, “In fact, some restrictions had been lifted–but not all. Commercial aviation slowly resumed on September 13, but at 10:57 am that day, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a Notice to Airmen stating that private aviation was still banned. Three planes violated that order and were forced down by American military aircraft that day. (See House of Bush, House of Saud, p. 9) Yet the Saudis were allowed to fly on the ten passenger Learjet. The Tampa to Lexington flight is vital because it required permission from the highest levels of our government…. If it were just another normal flight, why would anyone go to a crisis-stricken White House to get permission for the Saudis to fly?”
Finally, Newsweek notes that Richard Clarke, a Bush critic, approved the Saudi evacuation, but, again, Unger says, Newsweek omits important information. As Unger reported in House of Bush, Clarke said, “‘I asked [the F.B.I.] to make sure that no one inappropriate was leaving. I asked them if they had any objection to Saudis leaving the country at a time when aircraft were banned from flying.’ He noted that he assumed the F.B.I. had vetted the bin Ladens prior to September 11. Then he added, ‘I have no idea if they did a good job. I’m not in any position to second guess the FBI.’"
Adds Unger, “I interviewed two FBI agents who participated in the Saudi evacuation and they made it clear that they did not subject the passengers to a formal criminal investigation. One rather astonishing finding of the 9/11 Commission is that the FBI did not even bother to check the Saudi passenger lists against its terror watch lists. There are many other unanswered questions. 'It is clear that the Saudi charities were being used as cover for Al Qaeda, but it is unclear how far up the chain of authority that went,' Clarke said. Do we know for certain none of the Saudis on the flights could have shed light on that crucial question? Were any of them tied to the charities in question? Did any of them have any information on bin Laden? Did we let a treasure trove of intelligence leave?"
