Matt Damon’s Anti-American Movie Funded by Enemies of America?

by CHRISTOPHER HOLTON October 10, 2012

Serious, patriotic Americans know that the ultimate solution to America's national security challenge is energy independence.

Our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas results in our funding both sides in the global war on terrorism.

The nations that produce and export much of the world's oil are populated by wealthy princes, emirs, sheikhs, Imams and mullahs who provide financial support for violent jihad. One way or another, virtually all of the money comes from oil and gas revenues.

That's why it is so vital that America work to end our dependence on foreign oil and gas by developing domestic sources of energy. We need to stop funding our enemies. But we can't do that until we fully develop every possible alternative to buying oil and gas from OPEC nations.

Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way.

One of them is the fanatical leftist actor Matt Damon.

Damon has put his name on a movie called Promised Land that is due to be released in December.

Promised Land is nothing more than a propaganda film dedicated to attacking key components of vital efforts by the US domestic energy industry to develop sources of natural gas in the USA-so we don't have to buy natural gas from the princes, emirs, sheikhs, Imams and mullahs who fund violent jihad. Reportedly Promised Land is littered with unsubstantiated claims about environmental damage from a natural gas production process known as "fracking."

Despite herculean efforts by leftist idealogues, there is not a shred of evidence that "fracking" is hazardous to the environment or to public health and safety.

On the other hand, we know that dependence on oil and gas from the Islamic-dominated Middle East is decidedly hazardous to public safety in America.

But here's the interesting part-the part you may have already read about elsewhere.

Who do you suppose is funding this film aimed at discouraging a particularly successful domestic energy program in the USA?

OPEC member the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the wealthy monarchy in the Persian Gulf.

That's right, the company behind the film is a UAE-government owned media firm.

The Heritage Foundation published a report on the UAE regime's underwriting of this anti-American movie late in September.

While the Heritage Foundation's report is certainly very well done, it doesn't tell the whole story about just how hostile Matt Damon's UAE bagmen are to America.

Many folks may not remember it now, but the UAE royals were so close to Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden that the US had to call off a cruise missile strike on a Bin Laden compound in February 1999 due to the presence of members of the UAE royal family.

That's right. Matt Damon's pals pal around with Al Qaeda.

This isn't some urban legend.

It comes straight from the man that President Clinton appointed to be director of the CIA: George Tenet.

Tenet made this revelation in sworn testimony before the 9-11 Commission. The story of how Bin Laden's cozy relations with the UAE royals saved his skin from US military power can be found in the 9-11 Commission Report on pages 137-138.

Early in 1999, the CIA received reporting that Bin Ladin was spending much of his time at one of several camps in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar. At the beginning of February, Bin Ladin was reportedly located in the vicinity of the Sheikh Ali camp, a desert hunting camp being used by visitors from a Gulf state. Public sources have stated that these visitors were from the United Arab Emirates.

Reporting from the CIA's assets provided a detailed description of the hunt­ ing camp, including its size, location, resources, and security, as well as of Bin Ladin's smaller, adjacent camp. Because this was not in an urban area, mis­ siles launched against it would have less risk of causing collateral damage. On February 8, the military began to ready itself for a possible strike. The next day, national technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates.

According to reporting from the tribals, Bin Ladin regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis; the tribals expected him to be at the hunting camp for such a visit at least until midmorning on February 11. Clarke wrote to Berger's deputy on February 10 that the military was then doing targeting work to hit the main camp with cruise missiles and should be in position to strike the following morning. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert appears to have been briefed on the situation.

No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot. According to CIA and Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Ladin or close by.

 






Christopher Holton is a Vice President with the Center for Security Policy and the Director of its Divest Terror Initiative. Chris Holton is a past president and marketing director of Blanchard & Co. and editor-in-chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit from 1990 to 2003. As chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit in 2000, he conceived and commissioned the Center for Security Policy special report Clinton's Legacy: The Dangerous Decade. Holton is a member of the Board of Advisers of WorldTribune.com.

 


blog comments powered by Disqus

FSM Archives

10 year FSM Anniversary

More in PUBLICATIONS ( 1 OF 25 ARTICLES )