Note: I'm not well versed in Middle East politics or Saudi culture. Your question just asked for my thoughts on the documents, and I'm providing them below. It's mostly speculation and may be entirely misguided.

I didn't read the whole thing (just searched around a bit with the names), but in my friend's experience, a lot of Saudis have a very cynical view of the West. My friend taught English in Saudi Arabia for about two or three years, and he told me stories of how his students would joke in class about 9/11. Only he was never sure it was actually a joke. I know that at least one other teacher quit over anti-American attitudes.

I guess what I'm getting at is that, if this is a common attitude in Saudi Arabia, then it offers serious plausible deniability. Even if two terrorists had ties to the Saudi Government and specifically to Bandar, and even if they disclosed their hatred for America and desire to see an Islamic State established "within 15 years" to Saudi officials, it's entirely plausible that the Ambassador or anyone else working in an official capacity for the Saudi government didn't knowingly fund terrorism. Maybe they just wrote it off as some kind of punk phase. And that's assuming Bandar had any idea who these guys actually were or had any knowledge of their beliefs or connections. It's even easier to imagine a scenario where Bandar barely knows the guy but cuts him a check for $15,000 because that kind of money is nothing to him anyway.

Don't get me wrong, having your name connected to terrorists is always a bad look, and it deserves serious attention. But with what I read in your post and in the document, it's just not enough for me to condemn this guy and even less evidence to condemn Bush for being any worse than I already think he was. Even if Bandar had direct connections to 9/11, based on the evidence provided, I could see George "I was able to get a sense of Putin's soul" Bush honestly taking his long-time friend at his word that he didn't do anything.