House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties

by Craig Unger

Newsbreaking and controversial -- an award-winning investigative journalist uncovers the thirty-year relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud and explains its impact on American foreign policy, business, and national security.
House of Bush, House of Saud begins with a politically explosive How is it that two days after 9/11, when U.S. air traffic was tightly restricted, 140 Saudis, many immediate kin to Osama Bin Laden, were permitted to leave the country without being questioned by U.S. intelligence?
The answer lies in a hidden relationship that began in the 1970s, when the oil-rich House of Saud began courting American politicians in a bid for military protection, influence, and investment opportunity. With the Bush family, the Saudis hit a gusher -- direct access to presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. To trace the amazing weave of Saud- Bush connections, Unger interviewed three former directors of the CIA, top Saudi and Israeli intelligence officials, and more than one hundred other sources. His access to major players is unparalleled and often exclusive -- including executives at the Carlyle Group, the giant investment firm where the House of Bush and the House of Saud each has a major stake.
Like Bob Woodward's The Veil, Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud features unprecedented reportage; like Michael Moore's Dude, Where's My Country? Unger's book offers a political counter-narrative to official explanations; this deeply sourced account has already been cited by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer, and sets 9/11, the two Gulf Wars, and the ongoing Middle East crisis in a new What really happened when America's most powerful political family became seduced by its Saudi counterparts?

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Middle East, Biography, The United States Of America, Journalism

384 pages, Paperback

First published March 16, 2004

About the author

Craig Unger is an American journalist and writer. His most recent book is The Fall of the House of Bush, about the internal feud in the Bush family and the rise and collusion of the neoconservative and Christian right in Republican party politics, viewing each group's weltanschauung and efforts concerning present and potential future US policy through a distinctly negative prism. His previous work, House of Bush, House of Saud explored 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. He has written about George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush for The New Yorker, Esquire Magazine and Vanity Fair.

Reviews

[Manny · Rating 3 out of 5]

This just in: the 9/11 attacks may possibly have been carried out with help from the Saudi government.

Well, I'm shocked. Shocked. I mean, I knew that three-quarters of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. And George W. Bush, who, now you mention it, was somewhat close to the Saudi royal family, did do rather a lot to delay release of the evidence. And, it's true, there were a few vaguely disturbing rumors - i hesitate to say facts - reported in this book. But I still refuse to believe it. No, it's impossible. I'm quite sure that, as soon as the missing 28 pages are released, those chattering tongues will be silenced once and for all.

[Mikey B. · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very good historical presentation of U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia. How could the U.S. government get entwined monetarily with such a sinister and foreboding country and regime? Current American politicians (prior to Obama) are constantly guilty of viewing the world from their own perspective. Perhaps the author is too generous with the Clinton era and it’s naiveté on terrorism.

[Joe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another book every American needs to read. If half of it is true we were governed by criminals including Bush and Cheney! Anyon who believes we have a liberal media is way off base. I do not remeber hearing about the Sauds and bin Ladens allowed to fly whe the rest of America couldn't. It should have been on every news channel. That is just one example of the corruption of the Bush admistration.

[Amr · Rating 5 out of 5]

Normally, I try to find something in the book that makes it not eligible for a 5 stars rating because nothing is perfect. Most of the time there's is something in the book that takes away that 5th star. This book is not one of those.
It's full of information, told in away that keeps you anticipating as if it's a drama, and most importantly all these information and story lines are backed by references to sources including books, congressional records, declassified memos and reports.
It might be a little difficult for someone who have no prior knowledge on the topic to keep up with all the characters and the names. It's especially difficult because most names are in Arabic and English and if you don't know one of the two languages, then half of the names are difficult to keep up with. However that is a minor issue comparing to the amount of information provided in the book.
This book is totally worth reading (or listening to the Audio book like I did).

[Cwn_annwn_13 · Rating 4 out of 5]

House of Bush, House of Saud delves into the relationship between the Bush crime family and the Saudi Royal family. It also goes into the Bin Laden family and their interactions with both, as well as stuff about the Carlyle Group and the allegations that members of the Saudi Royal family flowed money to Cial-queda. After all there was a captured high level cial-queda op that blabbed that members of the Saudi Royal family and other super wealthy Saudis helped Cial-queda and knew 9/11 was going to happen beforehand. A funny thing is that many of the people named turned up dead under very fishy circumstances within the next few years. I also thought this book did a good job of going into the how and questioning why Saudis were allowed to fly out of the USA right after 9/11 when all air traffic was suspended and hundreds of completely innocent Muslims from other countries that were staying in America were being rounded up. This included sevral memebers of the Bin Laden family. It seems awful fishy to me when you consider that even by the US governments own account 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

There are lots of other interesting tidbits in this. Like how Saudi Arabia is an Islamo-Fascist state where you can be executed for adultery and have your hand chopped off for stealing an apple but at the same time the Saudi Royal family are notorious gambling, whoring, drinking and drugging party animals. They also talk about how in the 1980s Saudis were helping the CIA instigate war between Iraq and Iran by sending them intelligence that exagerated Irans military weakness in order to encourage Iraq to attack them. Criticisms I have of this is when going into Poppy Bushs history it fails to mention that Reagan hated Bush and was bullied into choosing him as Vice president as well as failing to mention that Bush was a lackey for Kissinger for several years. Also some of the extraneous history seems like filler, it unnecessarily goes into neo-con war policy in Iraq for example. It seems like he gets almost all the info for this book from other sources but its put together well. The Saudi Royals are definitely close to the top of the new world order pyramid. Certainly overall they have more power than the Bush crime family who are really just high level servants to the people that really run the world.

[John Harvard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most books about the 43rd presidency have described the poor decision making and the lack of judgement in a President who was in over his head. House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties provides a different perspective on the Bush presidency that has not been covered by any of the other books about this period. The book reveals an active agenda by the Bush family to help the House of Saud and its interests at the cost of America's economic interests and the lives of its citizens. This is investigative journalism at its best that reads like an engrossing novel. Craig Unger has made a tremendous amount of effort to sift through a lot of news material and interview several insiders to paint a complete picture about the cozy relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud.

The author compellingly connects the relationship between the Bushes' business interests and the Saudis. To do this, the author traces the sources of the money Bush received through the now bankrupt middle eastern bank, BCCI, to the royal Saudi family. He also details the extensive investments made by the Saudis in other businesses that the Bushes were close to for example, the Carlyle Group. Carlyle is a large private equity company in DC which received over a $1 billion of support through various sources close to the Saudis. In addition, he also provides compelling reasons behind various decisions about the Middle East that were made by the President which turned out to be disastrous for our country.

A must read for those interested in the second Bush presidency as it covers a very different aspect that no one has written about.

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

When this book came out, author and investigative reporter Unger was accused of writing a highly political book. The accusation possibly holds merit, but then, there is probably also no way to write a book like this and have it not be political. Unger himself insists he was not trying to write a Republican vs. Democrat book, merely a book about the relationship between one political family in America and one Royal Family in the Middle East. The book puts together what really is a documented and acknowledged decades-long relationship between the dynasties of George H. W. Bush and the Saud family of Saudi Arabia. This relationship isn't disputed by anyone. That 15 of 19 hijackers on September 11th came from Saudi Arabia, that Osama bin Laden was Saudi, that many in The Kingdom harbor anti-American sentiment, it is inarguably alarming that our leader walks around holding hands with the Crown Prince. We don't even have diplomatic discussions with other states in similar straits. That never in American history has a President been so close to a foreign leader really, especially given today's relationship to the Middle East, really should be cause for alarm to Republicans and Democrats alike.

NC

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's amazing how little of this information the average American knows. Before reading this book, I didn't know a lot of this information either. For example, it's shocking that under the Reagan administration Saddam Hussein was considered an ally of the U.S. - that fact never seemed to recieve much attention in the mainstream news media. Nor did the Bush family's relationship with the Saudi Royal family. If it weren't for Michael Moore and brave journalists like this author, very few Americans would know about the Bush administration's incredible secrecy and hypocricy when in comes to Middle Eastern affairs. (Of course, they are very secretive and hypocritical about everything else, so that's hardly surprising.) It's amazing how the mainstream news media turns a blind eye to such disturbing information, while focusing on ridiculously trivial matters like why Obama doesn't wear an American flag pin on his lapel.

[Dru · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although dated (published in 2003), this book was still worth reading just as the eye-opener for the common citizen of the world who rarely, if ever, moves in or understands the groups that shape our destinies. It's scary to see how intertwined money, politics and wars are and how absolutely inconsequential you, the meek, non-billionaire, non-politician citizen are in the eyes of the powerful.

One major criticism: The opening chapter proposes to tell us that *because* of the Bush/Saud connection, that this *caused* 9/11. But, while the book shows many, many connections between the two houses, it never proves that 9/11 happened because of that connection. Certainly the arming of the Mujahadeen by the *Carter* administration is part of 9/11, as is the failure to kill UBL by the *Clinton* administration. The Bushes are the most to blame, but Craig Unger fails to wrap up his book by proving his opening accusation.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book greatly shows the connection between the Bush family and the Saudi's, greatly responsible for some of the funding of Islamic radicalism and how Osama Bin Laden himself was once a Saudi thus how the US might have been in bed with the Devil and not even have paid much attention to it. It also shows how the war in Iraq has distracted the world from the real war on terror, the funding given to setup radical Islamic camps all over the world. A great read for someone looking to learn more about the connections between the United States and the Saudis and how this has played out in the war on terror.

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't usually enjoy reading "textbook-type" writing but about a quarter of the way through, I became quite engrossed in the book. As much as I dislike Bush and most Republican-party platforms, I could recognize the parts of this book that were too anti-Bush and clearly liberally-biased. What scared me more than what Bush and his administration did was that they got away with it; where were the checks on the administration? If it happens with the Bush family, it is bound to happen again and that likelihood, even with an administration that I support, is terrifying.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

The information in this book, all thoroughly documented, shines a light on aspects of the events of 9/11 and the connection between the Bush family and the Saudi royals that has been conspicuously missing from the mainstream media. It raises painful questions about where the highest loyalties and priorities of the president and his father really lie. It's disturbing, disheartening and even kind of sickening, but it's important for as many American citizens as possible to know these things. If knowledge is power, ignorance can be terrible vulnerability.

[Richard Shepard · Rating 3 out of 5]

Contrary to the subtitle of this book, the relationship between the Bushes and the Sauds is not so secret. Rather, now that there is a Democrat in the White House the issue doesn't seem so important. However, that could change in two years, depending on how brother Jeb fares in his bid for the Oval Office. Of course this book was written by a Democrat. But that doesn't negate the fact that there are some nagging questions about how another Bush in the White House would affect American-Middle Eastern foreign policy. In a word, beware.

[Will Byrnes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great opening about Saudis leaving on and immediately after 911. Why? why? Why? The focus here is the familial relationships, but most of the material covered is not new, to me at least. Bandar stands out as a player in international relations, and the descriptions of the Saudi playboy activities in Texas are entertaining. Still there is such a wealth of information in the book that it is a must read for Bush watchers

[Gavin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential reading for getting a picture of how these two families have worked together behind the scenes. Not saying they were always in agreement, but in the end they back each other. This despite almost absolute proof of Saud involvement in financing 9/11 attacks.

And now Jeb Bush is running for President...

Too many coincidences and this is from a 2004 book. Would like a new updated edition.

[okyrhoe · Rating 2 out of 5]

Maybe I had higher expectations from this book. Craig Unger's work is adequate; he has researched his subject well. But he is mainly compiling information from previously published material. I was hoping that maybe he could present additional information, based on his own investigative research. Proof of his limitations is when he remarks, on at least one occasion, that a search on Nexis-Lexis did not provide any relevant information he was looking for. Well, maybe he needs to actually travel to KSA, or any where else beyond the US that the story might take him, conduct a few interviews, speak with a few more people, etc. In the few instances where he has actually contacted the principals involved, I believe it was either over the telephone or via email. In the cases of the Carlyle Group and the S.A. business families, he only has the carefully worded statements of their legal representatives to offer us.
There is nothing 'startlingly unbelievable' in the material presented in "HofB, HofS"; anyone up-to-date on international &/or financial affairs knows that what transpires between the HofB and the HofS is business as usual. I would also say that none of the allegations Unger puts forth in the book are particularly reprehensible, except for the unusual circumstances of the evacuations of Saudi nationals during the air travel ban in the US following 9/11. It does seem that the emergency measures & protocols set up hastily may have been violated. But then again the persons who were spirited away apparently were not 'suspects', legally speaking. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that whenever there's an unforeseen crisis in a foreign country, US agencies (as well as other 'Western' nations) use exactly the same behind-the-scenes negotiations to evacuate their own citizens who may be at risk by remaining in the crisis zone, while the hoi polloi remain stranded until the situation clears. Why be suspicious when the Saudis want the same done to protect their own citizens? To me it is a naive accusation, on Unger's part, when he starts and ends his narrative with the detailed hour-by-hour account of the airlifting of the Saudi nationals. I'm not saying I agree with what transpired; I'm saying that it's nothing out of the ordinary. This is what diplomats are required to do in these kinds of situations, even if it means resorting to extraordinary means to protect their fellow countrymen in a foreign land. For the US authorities (whoever gave the green light) to refuse to comply could possibly endanger the safety of US citizens in KSA, if the same 'service' was requested in a future crisis there. Putting undue emphasis on these events, in my opinion, weakens rather than strengthens, Unger's thesis overall.
After a while I also began to be bothered by certain generalizations. Unger refers to a "global network of terror" & the "global network of Islamic warriors" funded by Wahhabi fundamentalism. Unger states that OBL's network is the US's "mortal enemy" -- right at the beginning of Chapter 1, and in the last sentence of the book. Sure, OBL's particular terrorist network is spread out all over the globe, but the support the network receives, or even the scope of the network's aims, is not on a global scale.
Furthermore, he ridicules the efforts of the Justice Dept. under Ashcroft for putting the war on drugs on a higher priority than counterterrorism. OBL & Co.s activities may be deadly and uncontained, but there are other examples of 'global' networks that function with similar ruthlessness. The drug trade involves/d the leadership of criminal figures in many continents, as well as the collusion of various rebel and or terrorist groups sprinkled through S. America, Europe, the Middle East, the Far East, etc.
I also have a problem with his use of the term "the Age of Terror." To a European like me, the real terror came during the Nazi occupation of my country. Nothing OBL & Co. can do will ever equate that. If Unger merely means 'the Age of Terror' as the being the asymmetric attack of 9/11 bringing about a change in world history, then I would counter with other past examples where an event triggers a geopolitical crisis (the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand ushering WWI, for example, or the terror of the atomic bomb bringing Japan to a surrender in the 1940's).
On p. 80, Unger mentions Saddam Hussein's record of "human rights violations, use of chemical weapons, and continued support of terrorism." It is unclear, within the contents of Unger's book, what terrorist groups S.H. is known/alleged to have funded or supported. Another generalizing statement that remains unsupported by evidence is this one: "For all their anti-Americanism, even the most militant Islamists agreed that something had to be done about Saddam Hussein, a secular ruler who was seen as bent on destroying Islam." This sounds as if there is some sort of unity of action amongst all the militant Islamists worldwide - which is not the case - or that some sort of common statement or plan of action was taken to counter S.H., which again is not true. What Unger is referring to here is beyond me.
Futhermore, the militant Islamists referred to throughout the book are Wahhabi (Sunni). S.H. was also Sunni, and was responsible for the suppression of the Shiite population in Iraq. It's the (Shiite) Iranians and the non-Sunni Iraqis (Kurds & Shiites) who have reasons to contend with S.H.
In conclusion, I feel that Unger's book is limited in scope. I shall grant him that he remains true to the evidence before him and doesn't veer off into exaggerated claims or conclusions. But he provides no substantial new/underreported data; the greater part of his facts have been uncovered, compiled, or reported by others before him. Also, it seems odd that he doesn't once mention other important players in the wider story - Russian president Putin's moves to control the Asian energy fields, and the other European nations who have their own vested interests in the energy resources of the Middle East or even, that they stand to gain from facilitating the alliance of the two 'Houses'.

[Elizabeth Sulzby · Rating 5 out of 5]

I did not want to read this because of the title. Then I saw it was well documented so I could cross check with other sources. I read it once during the run up to Bush43's Iraq war. I have read it 2 times over the years since then. I found it a useful background to later books about the war and about the history of the bin Laden family. I am currently reading Peter Galbraith's (2006), The End of Iraq, and have found it useful to go back to Unger's book.


I heartly recommend it to those wanting background for the Bush 43 wars and our continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It lacks a good background of the history of the past 2,500 years or so of history in tribes, empires, countries and religions in Middle East.

Note: I just picked a date of finishing the book so Goodreads would accept my review. I don't know exactly when I read it first but I have read it a couple of times since then and have also dipped in and out about certain topics through 2010.

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quite an eye-opener. I read it awhile ago, so I don't remember the details - but the idea is that the relationship between America and the Middle East is in NO WAY simple and goes back to the Reagan Era. This made me appreciate the complexity of political decisions and be a little more thoughtful when speaking about something I think I know about but really have no idea. I might read it again...

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this was fascinating. I, like other reviewers, am surprised that more americans don't know the details in this book. I have voted Republican, and I can see how parts of this are very political, but he lays out a pretty clear case for the relationship with the Saudis that is undeniable, and scary. Very eye opening, and gives a lot of details about what really went on with US foreign policy from the late 70's until now. A must read.

[Lacy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although it is difficult to know how biased the author may or may not be, this book contains some very powerful and disturbing detail and facts which have the potential to outrage the reader whilst instilling a bit of "I just threw up in my mouth" nausea at the same time. If you despise Bush as I do, this book is for you. Conspiracy theorist I am not, this book nevertheless had the power to get me thinking and I like that.

[Anvith EVHS Annapureddy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Far more than a left wing version of the usual tin foil conspiracies. This well-researched, excellently cited novel provides clear and substantial evidence of George HW Bush's ties to the Saudi monarchy, and also explores the current geopolitical consequences. A step beyond traditional media reporting, and highly recommended for the well-informed political aficionado.

[Tony · Rating 4 out of 5]

Highly recommend if interested in the history of American Saudi relations.
It is a deeply insightful look at the bush family political dynasty and their interests in the oil industry. The 911 sections are heartbreaking as well as terribly anger inducing, because it reads as if the attacks were preventable. Lapses in coordinating intelligence are inexcusable.

[Ben Bush]

I like reading lefty politics as much as the next person but this whole thing seemed pretty sloppy for my tastes.

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

This online audio book is abridged - a fact which is not noted in the description and only mentioned at the end.

Unger tells a fascinating and infuriating tale of how the business and personal relationship between the Bush family and the ruling tribe of Arabia contributed to the rise of Saudi influence on US policy. The decades long relationship enabled the rise of Saudi-financed terrorism (informed by their wahabbi ideology) in the US and around the world, got George W. Bush elected, and ultimately allowed a cover up of Saudi family collusion in the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

Nearly two decades since 9/11, and the US government still has not figured out that the Saudi ruling family are not our friends. (They are no one's friends.) Our leaders and their advisors are so blinded by a prejudice against Islam (ironically encouraged by too much familiarity with wahabbi Saudis and their followers) that it has settled into a lazy presumption that there is not much good to know about the Muslim world. Unger explains how the affable, simple-minded Bush clan fell prey to the long-term strategy of motivated, savvy, and hugely wealthy but historically insulated, self-aggrandizing tribal leaders. The Bushes apparently had no clue that their friends were and are a murderous clan. It is a tragedy that more informed intelligence didn't make it into foreign policy during the Clinton years, due to his loss of prestige and influence (Unger says) after the Lewinski fiasco. After being awakened to the danger during the transition, Condoleeza Rice dropped the ball.
Unending suffering and death of millions ensues.

What could have been had we heard voices other than the Saudis and their secret agents of terror? Here we are after all that has happened, and still no one responsible for US foreign policy seems to have asked, "Why have the vast majority of Muslims and Muslim-majority country leaders around the world never rallied around the Saudi family?". It's as if the Bush family, and now the tRUmp family, know something about the Saudis that the rest of the Islamic world with all its culture, traditions, and scholarship does not. So much possibility for a better world lies in what could be developed from the answer to that question. But too many powerful corrupt forces leveraging hate don't want a functional, competent US Government to explore the options.

I am looking forward to reading more of Unger's books. This one was good.

[Zac · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book in the Summer of 2004, when heartbroken and miserable. I decided to learn about American politics, probably on the assumption that it is easier and more interesting to introduce new complications in your life than to solve old problems.

This book's primary contention is that the close relationship between
the Bush family and the House of Saud that rules Saudi Arabia has
blinded American policy to the Saudi origins of international
terrorism. This book is as interesting as Richard Clarke's "Against
All Enemies," and is more interesting than Bob Woodward's "Plan of
Attack." It doesn't have the confessional and immediate feel of the
former book, but it escapes the cloudy abstraction that Woodward's
attempt at a comprehensive account of the American government's 'plan'
results in. It lists a lot of amazing conflicts of interest between
the George W. Bush administration and the Saudi royal family, and it
confirms a lot of the worst fears of the enemies of the Neocons
(Wolfowitz had had a plan to attack Iraq, and he had had it since the
early 90s, Cheney had been jonesing for an Iraq war since the 80s, the
war might have been over oil, Bush campaigned with the help of known
terrorists, other things). Maybe Nixon's era is distinct from this
one only because 400 troops don't die daily in our modern pointless
war.

Several interesting points:

1. Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" strongly implies that James R.
Bath used contributions from Saudis to bail out George Bush's failing
oil company "Arbusto Energy." This is one of several places in
Moore's movie where Moore expects the viewer to make a leap of logic
that isn't quite warranted by the evidence presented. Unger's book
contradicts Moore's implication. Unger's book gives the
following on this matter: "But these Bush-bin Laden 'relationships'
were indirect--two degrees of separation, perhaps--and at times have
been overstated. Critics have asserted that money many have gone from
Khalid bin Mahfouz and Salem bin Laden through James Bath into Arbusto
Energy, the oil company started by George W. Bush, but no hard
evidence has ever been found to back up that charge.(footnote cross)"
(The footnote follows.) "Bath had fronted for Saudi billionaires Salem
bin Laden and Khalid bin Mahfouz on other deals, but in this case he
says, 'One hundred percent of those funds were mine. It was a purely
personal investment.' Bin Laden and bin Mahfouz, he insists, had
nothing to do with either the elder George Bush or his son. 'They
never met Bush,' Bath says. 'Ever. and there was no reason to. At
that point Bush was a young guy just out of Yale, a struggling young
entrepreneur trying to get a drilling fund.'" (Unger, p. 101)

2. There is a contention, widely spread by Christopher Hitchens and
Rush Limbaugh, that Clinton ordered the destruction of a Sudanese
aspirin factory in retaliation for the synchronized August 7, 1998
bombings of embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. Unger's book gives the
following: "Less than two weeks after the attacks on the U.S.
embassies in East Africa, on August 20, 1998, Clinton launched a
two-pronged strike against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan.
The rationale for attacking Afghanistan was incontrovertible. Bin
Laden had been encamped there, escaping not long before the U.S.
attack. The justification for attacking Sudan was slightly more
complicated. bin Laden still had operations there, including the
El-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, which, U.S. intelligence
showed, was manufacturing chemical weapons for Al Qaeda. As a result,
Clinton ordered a devastating Cruise missile attack against El-Shifa
that destroyed the factory.

"It may be impossible to corroborate beyond a shadow of a doubt the
assertion that the El-Shifa factory was actually producing chemical
weapons, but there is strong evidence that the Clinton administration
had in fact chosen a legitimate target. The most persuasive case for
it was made by Dan Benjamin and Steven Simon in their book, "The Age
of Sacred Terror." According to the authors, a soil sample obtained
by the CIA from El-Shifa showed that the factory was producing EMPTA,
which has no commercial use whatsoever, but is an extraordinarily rare
chemical used as a precursor for the fabrication of VX. (footnote 65)
VX is a lethal chemical weapon, a single drop of which can cause death
within fifteen minutes of being placed on the skin. (footnote 66)"
(Unger 2004, p. 185)

footnote 65: Benjamin and Simon, "The Age of Sacred Terror," p.355
footnote 66: Ibid., p. 353

Unger defends Clinton's decision to strike the El-Shifa pharmeceutical
plant, and criticizes not only the conservative talk-show hosts, but
also the more liberal media, for ridiculing Clinton's attempts to
protect the United States from terrorist attacks (pp. 186-187). Unger
also criticizes the President for allowing the Monica Lewinsky scandal
to distract the media's attention away from issues of international
terrorism. ("Wag the Dog" had been released a few months before, and
the media was comparing this situation to the one in that movie, in
which a president wages a war as a means of covering up a sexual
affair.) "Worse, now that Clinton's attempt to protect Americans from
chemical weapons had been ridiculed, his counterterrorist efforts,
however noble their intentions, were crippled. The Lewinsky affair
had so depleted Clinton's political capital that there was no support
for strong military measures in Afghanistan. At a time when national
security was a genuine issue, the administration was also widely
criticized for trying to get bin Laden, because in doing so, they had
'mythologized' him and helped build him into a hero among Muslims.
Yet Clinton continued to fight bin Laden. He cut off relations with
the Taliban government in Afghanistan that harbored bin Laden. he
pressured the Saudis to negotiate with the Taliban to extradite bin
Laden, and he pressured the Saudis to audit the National Commercial
bank's funding of terrorism. But as a result of Monicagate, few
Americans understood the nature of the terrorist threat." (Unger 204,
p. 187-188)

[Zoltan Pogatsa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Craig Unger is always great if you wanna learn more about the American elites. Highly recommend both this one and his later one: House of Trump / House of Putin.

[Tony Dutton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent production and a good read

[Christophe Finipolscie · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to read how the world really works, read this.

It is an astonishing and explosive revelation into the links between the world's most powerful people set against the backdrop of 9/11.

There were many occasions when I could barely believe what I was reading and 'gob-smacked' that he was allowed to publish it - but he managed it against stiff opposition - even from people like Amazon who apparently banned it!

Despite legal and other challenges the book still stands.

[Ben · Rating 2 out of 5]

There's no doubt that many Americans, especially of the liberal variety, are still seethingly full of hate for President George W. Bush. Most of us are angry about our lot in life, the falsehood of the "American Dream," and the perceived fall of our "great" country. While none of these things can actually be pinned on the shoulders of the Bush clan, Craig Unger carefully and with great detail enumerates dozens of reasons why the Bushes actions, especially in regards to policies and business with the Saudis, should be disliked, mistrusted, and, perhaps most damningly, learned from.

If one takes the saying "the devil is in the details" to heart, House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties can be considered a hellishly deep book. The footnotes and asides are as chock full of tidbits of information as an encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, reading entries in Brittanica should be considered vastly more useful and twice as interesting. For the majority of people, the information contained within will be useless conversation-fodder that would play best at political cocktail parties of the early 2000s, and good luck attending one of those now.

In the end, HoB/HoS is a solid if uninspiring non-fiction journey into an era better left less explored. After all, history is written by the winners, and spending a significant amount of time on this book is definitely a losing proposition.

[Akin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unger's thesis: the longstanding relationship between the ruling Saud family of Saudi Arabia and the Bush family of the United States prevented, indirectly, the United States from responding effectively to the security crisis that culminated in 9/11.

Interesting, engaging, pacy, very well-researched. The problem - which is as much evidential as aesthetic - is that the author sacrifices concision for evidential volume. Or, to put it more clearly, albeit a little unfairly: every so often, it feels like the author is throwing a truck load of shit at his targets, in the expectation that some of it will stick.

This isn't an entirely unreasonable expectation with this story and this book; but there are a number of allegations, suppositions and evidential expositions that are either incompletely corroborated, inadequately sourced or (informed) supposition that could be mistaken for fact. This may not necessarily trouble the contentious reader, but could (inadvertently) add grist to the conspiracy addicts' mill.

That said: there is enough in the book that gives pause for thought. Not about whether or not 9/11 could have been predicted or prevented, but rather about where the national interest should lie and whether this is always sufficiently articulated, represented and protected by government. But that's the eternal problem of representative politics, isn't it?