Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Saudi Blackmail Obama over 9/11
#21
Podcast Russ Baker on Peter Boyles Radio Show
Peter Boyles: Russ Baker is with us. His book is Family of Secrets. Russ, it's a real honor always when you do the radio shows. I want to say that first, and thanks for doing it. Welcome back to Denver.
Russ Baker: Thank you very much. It's great to be back.
Peter: I'd like you to just do a bio. I'm sure there are some people that don't know who you are, the work you've done. And then we're going to talk about 60 Minutes. So, if you would…
Russ: Sure. I'm an investigative journalist. Worked on staff and independently on a large number of American and international news organizations around the world and have focused in part on things related to national security. I founded an organization called whowhatwhy. We are a non-profit, non-partisan, non-commercial investigative and analytical news site, whowhatwhy.org, and I run that, and I also wrote the book, as you mentioned, Family of Secrets, which is nominally about the Bush family but it really is about years of hidden American history and the influences and forces that have shaped our country's trajectory in ways that have not been formally or officially acknowledged.
Peter: Most recently Neil Bush has turned up on the Ted Cruz staff. What do you do with that?
Russ: (Laughs) It's so interesting because a number of members of the Bush family were involved in the collapse of various savings and loans, during that particular crisis, Neil Bush key among them. These are people who used their links to their father, or their brother, when they were presidents, and who got most of their opportunities to make money through that. There are other interesting interactions. Neil Bush is friendly with the family of John Hinckley. Hinckley famously shot Ronald Reagan. And, had Ronald Reagan died, the new president would have been Neil Bush's father, George H.W. Bush. Just…
Peter: They were having dinner together that night. Neil…
Russ: The brother of Hinckley and Neil Bush. These are the fascinating odd coincidences one runs into.
Peter: Let me jump to 60 Minutes. We've talked before, and it's been really limited. Not you, but the amount of people who are taking interest in the suppressed 28 pages, and on Sunday night I started getting email from people that are friends across the country who have been involved in the struggle "Peter, get up, get ready, somebody is finally starting to take a hard look at it." Steve Kroft and that team, they did The 28 Pages. Sunday night on 60 Minutes. I don't know if you saw that piece…
Russ: I did and I'm going back to watch it again. I'm looking for very, very small things, statements being made in there. I tend to screen things like that about ten times before I begin to move on my end.
Peter: Megyn Kelly had Bob Graham last night talking about it as well so that's all encouraging. I've watched it three times. George Bush's name came up once and that was in the beginning. And they never came back to it. Who suppressed the 28 pages?
Russ: That's an interesting question. Of course, when you watch this, and I've talked about Graham. And on whowhatwhy.org we actually ran an article on Graham, maybe we can talk about it and how the FBI personally sort of threatened him over this. And I'd like to tie it in, by the way, to the Boston Marathon. Because I think all of these things are connected. In any case, there was the …
According to these people, according to Porter Goss who was with the CIA himself, and was on the[congressional] 9/11 [Inquiry], was a co-chair, he said the same thing: The FBI told them the thing had to be suppressed. And when they asked why, they said "because we said so."
That's a very, very interesting statement, because it begins to raise questions: what is the FBI? Who dictates to the FBI what it does, or does the FBI dictate to the US government? What is that?
Peter: I saw that as well, but Graham has said it was George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the administration that ordered the suppression, and I was surprised to see the answer of the FBI. That was surprising.
Russ: The missing link there is: Who does the FBI answer to? Presumably, unless it's shown to be otherwise, they're being told what to do by the White House.
Peter: Precisely, and for all the money and what's behind the curtain, is there any doubt in your mind that Bush, Cheney or Bush ordered the suppression?
Russ: Oh absolutely not. You have to remember that the … when they were interviewed themselves, Bush would not even answer any questions unless Cheney was present with him. That in itself… why is it that these things are not made into bigger deals?
All of the concentrated might of the media, 60 Minutes, Fox News, Megyn Kelly, those kinds of people, they could have all focused on how does the President manage to not talk about one of the biggest events in the history of the country and what he knows about it without having essentially a babysitter. That is astonishing,
Peter: But that's what they always do. That's the point of believing that George Bush was the true leader of the country during the eight years and during that time. And he was't. It was Rumsfeld and it was… this is from my reading of the list. It was Rumsfeld, it was Cheney, it was Wolfowitz, it was Card. Those were the guys that were precisely telling him what to do. Do you doubt that, Russ?
Russ: I don't doubt that. These things are even more complicated, some of the work that was done years ago by Fletcher Prouty …
Peter: I know Fletcher Prouty, yeah.
Russ: And Fletcher Prouty, who was a member of the military, served in a key position as a liaison with the Central Intelligence Agency for years. He used to talk about what he called "the secret team", the notion of people throughout the national security apparatus who had a shared mindset and who were able to sort of affect policy. And this is where you get into what Peter Dale Scott calls the "deep state." How these sentiments are arrived at. More and more I've been taking a hard look at Dick Cheney, and realizing the extent that he was never really the kind of mastermind of things that people would think he is.
My sense is the way that a lot of these things happen, a consensus is arrived at. I think the Saudi story is very, very complicated. One of the key pieces of this, I believe, is a story that we did, whowhatwhy.org, if you go to the site, we have links to that story we ran a number of years ago. This is a related piece. I don't know how much time we have here but we should probably and I know you are so very well-versed, more than practically any radio host, in this stuff, is to talk about the piece that they discuss on 60 Minutes. They focus on the San Diego connection…
Peter: The San Diego L.A. connection, yes.
Russ: Yes, which is very important. And in our piece we focus on the Sarasota connection, from one coast to the other.
Peter: If we can pause for one second. You're listening to the one and only Russ Baker. We're talking about 60 Minutes. Two things, the family that escapes and they find food on the table, it's right by the airport, they knew Mohamed Atta. That was never brought up on 60 Minutes. The other one that wasn't brought up, was the flights. We know that Prince Bandar goes to and is recorded, sits on what's called and I brought this up yesterday "the Truman Balcony". And he sits there with George W. Bush and they concoct this plan to get God only knows who, and God knows how many, flights and they got him up and out of the country. And that was not in the 60 Minutes piece as well, moving toward a connection. So I turn it over to you. Talk about the Florida connection.
Russ: The Florida connection was an important piece of that as brought out by other journalists for whom I have good regard. One of them was working on a book about 9/11. The book did not go that far in terms of what it established or speculated on, or anything else, but the author is a solid guy: Tony Summers.
Peter: Another guy I know and respect, Anthony Summers.
Russ: That's right. And so he had developed some information. He hadn't developed it far enough to put in his book. So when the book was done, he contacted another fellow in Florida, a former newspaper journalist whom I know, also a solid guy, and he said, "hey, maybe we ought to run this thing down."
They had heard that something had happened around 9/11 in Sarasota, Florida, on the West coast of Florida, and they decided they would see what they'd find about this. Basically, people living in a gated community in Sarasota had noticed shortly after 9/11 that the majority of the hijackers were Saudis and it became known that some of the Saudis had trained in Florida in that area.
They noticed that their neighbors were devout Saudis. They hadn't seen them for a while. Of course you have to be careful about that, not to scapegoat people, but they just noticed that right around the same time these people had sort of vanished. They brought that to the attention of the authorities, who brought it to the attention of the FBI. The FBI had apparently swarmed that facility and been in the house and had taken out things and so forth. So they [the journalists] looked into this thing, and basically what they discovered was that the FBI's internal document had concluded that this family had links to several of the alleged hijackers, including the alleged ringleader, Mohamed Atta.
Atta had actually been going to their house and visiting the house, going through the gate. At the gate you have to show identification, license plates, and they knew who they were. They did some triangulation with phone records and they found links between this house and a number of the hijackers.
Now with the California connection, you have a similar thing where you've got a Saudi diplomat and a person, a ghost employee of a major Saudi aviation company, both interacting with these people who would then end up being hijackers.
In Sarasota you have a similar thing but this time you have an actual house that they're visiting. And the man who owned this house and here's where my groupwhowhatwhy.org comes in. We then do the next piece of reporting which was who were the people who owned the house. What we discovered through extensive investigation was that the man who owned the house was the president, CEO, of a major Saudi company. That company was involved in major transportation services. Their activities that gave it a reason to get around the world those are the things that are typically used as intelligence cover. And what is very significant is that that man, his boss, the chairman of his company, was a very powerful Saudi man who was essentially the head of aviation in Saudi Arabia.
And so what you have, you have aviation in the San Diego and L.A. story and you have aviation in the East Coast story, and you have all these guys trained in aviation and they're the ones who supposedly run the planes into all those buildings. Now, as you point out, that program did not go the whole way. But to be fair in our piece, we focus on our angle, meaning what we developed.
It's important to put these pieces together. What I've seen happening, Peter, in the greater stratosphere is that, because there is so much theorizing about what 9/11 was, because we know that people justifiably look at the way those buildings came down, look at other pieces of what they've heard, what they've seen, people have different speculations. They want to say it was this country, was this group or this person and not this other one.
And we've noticed that this Saudi material that we have developed and that others have developed, gets ignored, gets pooh-poohed. We always have people coming on our site posting comments, people saying "this is a distraction, the real story is something else…" Well, it may be that this is part of something else, but it is not a distraction. I do not believe for a second that Bob Graham is anything but an honorable person …
Peter: absolutely.
Russ: All these people, you see Tim Roemer, a former Congressman, Democrats and Republicans alike, liberals, conservatives, whatever you want to call them, they all are doing the best that they can, which is, by the way, generally true for people in government. There's constant effort to vilify government. I don't share that. I think people are people, the same person you like, who is a football coach, then runs for office, is still the same person facing certain kinds of constraints, but I think they often do the best that they can. The problem here is the system and…
Peter: This is Russ Baker. He did Family of Secrets, an investigative reporter. I'm a huge fan. We're short of time this morning. If you missed 60 Minutes, for the first time it breaks surface on the 28 pages that were suppressed by George Bush and Dick Cheney. I'm told that Megyn Kelly did a report, I'll get to it before the end of the day.
….I saw some polling data that was done on young men and women in the military, right after the invasion of Iraq. And by the way, they withheld the 9/11 Commission Report till after Bush launches his invasion. Over 95% adult men and women, when asked why they're there [in Iraq], they answered "it was to get even for what Saddam did on 9/11." It's a lie. True or False.
Russ: I'm sorry. You lost me on that last…
Peter: I've seen polling that was done on young men and women in the military on the invasion of Iraq, when asked why. They said they were getting even for what Saddam Hussein did to the United States on 9/11.
Russ: I see. Yes, when you think what a tragedy it is when people devote their entire lives I mean their lives, they can lose their limbs, they can lose their lives, they're killing other people they don't even understand what they do or why. And when you think about what a tragedy that is, we can do a whole separate program on that. Think about that. If those people don't know what's been going on, and I'm sure you've seen when they ask Americans and polls still show, at least among Republicans, a very large segment, maybe the majority…
Peter: Yes, they say horrible things about me for doing shows like this. And it's gone, it started up this morning as well. I got big shoulders. The truth will win out. There's a great line that says "time is a great enemy of a lie." And the lie was told. The bucks now are dropping left and right. There's a new book right after 9/11. They talk about Rumsfeld, five or six hours after the attacks, saying "my interest is to hit Saddam." He's telling people this at meetings, recorded meetings. Bush was told there was no evidence of WMDs. There were no terrorist camps. It did not matter to those people.
Russ: A very important piece on this, Peter, at whowhatwhy.org, a video with General Wesley Clark, the former commander of NATO says that right after 9/11, he was at the Pentagon, and he was shown a top secret memo that said there was a plan to attack or invade seven Middle Eastern countries and he was stunned by that. And in another video we have up there he says "It's all about oil."
Now here's the man who was representing the United States in one of the most important international military positions, this would have been on Fox News, on all these programs [when he was] in his official capacity, [but] when he was no longer in power and he says this stunning thing to really explain all of this. Nobody covers it.
Peter: Can you stay through a break?
Russ: Yes, sure.
Peter: Thanks, Russ Baker, that's good stuff.
… Russ Baker is with us, is kind enough to stay. We were talking about Sunday Night, 60 Minutes does a report on these top secret documents that no one is allowed to see. And about 28 pages, the entire 9/11 Commission Report was about 838 pages and the joint inquiry is about the 9/11 attacks. And then they step in and suppress 28 pages. You know, and I've talked to Bob Graham, privately three or four times, on air half a dozen times. Other people who have read the papers say to me, and they've all been men of their word, who did not say at all what they saw, but they would say "every page totally changes your opinion of what happened on 9/11." I realize this is a weird question, but Russ, if we were able to read those pages, what do you think we would see?
Russ: Well, the best sense that I can get as somebody who has not read them, is pretty much what 60 Minutes conveyed, although they did it in that very narrow way, and for a news organization, I think it's gutsy what they did. And they had to be incredibly laser-like. But I think what we see is this notion that many people in the Saudi apparatus, not just the ones mentioned in the report, but others that I talked about earlier with regard to Sarasota. And I believe there were more seeded throughout the Saudi government who, for whatever reason, were enthusiasts and supporters of terrorism.
Now that, of course, raises the question I mean, are these people traitors to their own country, their own government? And if so why are they not cracked down on? And that's what I don't hear discussed. Not on 60 Minutes, not anywhere. What are we really looking at here? And of course, the larger question, if Saudi Arabia is tolerating this kind of thing, why? And why is the US government tolerating Saudi Arabia's tolerating it? As you know, one of the themes in our report whowhatwhy.org, is that terrorism itself is almost a necessity for the continuation of this vast money-making machine called the military industrial complex.
Peter: I come to some conclusions that you do. Dick Cheney and George Bush told… They had two mantras: WMDs and terrorist camps were Saddam Hussein's regime for training jihadis for Osama bin Laden. Nothing could be further from the truth. They hated each other. Many books that I've read suggest that Saddam Hussein was probably good for how many thousands jihadis or religious fanatics he ordered killed, whether they were Shia or Sunni. He was locked in a death struggle with what was going on with the mullahs in Iran … But there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 9/11. No evidence.
Russ: That's right. There was a concerted effort to vilify all of these people with this Baathist whatever you want to call them, secular quasi-socialist types of regimes, whether it was Saddam or the Assads. I know you're an expert on that…
Peter: No, just a reader.
Russ: Or Qaddafi… that there was a long-standing plan to knock out these sorts of independent actors in the MIddle East. There were many different reasons. Some of it had to do with, in the case of Assad, who unlike Saddam, was in part because he was an ally of Iran. There were natural gas pipeline issues, there were a whole host of different things. What I was talking about earlier, how the consensus is arrived at, people may arrive at a consensus but they may not have the same motivations. And I think that's key. And certain causes we've seen the destabilization, the removal of Saddam, or Qaddafi, and the attempted removal of Assad has plunged the region into chaos, resulted in the rise of the Islamic State.
And now we've got Hillary Clinton running for president, claiming that she is much better qualified than Bernie Sanders. Sanders says we shouldn't be in any of those places. He even in one debate started going into the kind of territory that you and I are going into, and I'm sure his advisors would like him to stop. Because people don't understand. But he started a bit.
She's being routinely described by the media as well-qualified because she was secretary of state. But in spite of the fact that she has been so avid in support of more of these same kinds of things that's why you see a continuum, I think. One of the themes in my book Family of Secrets is that the Bush family disaster can be seen in a larger context that they and to some extent the Clintons, and others who will not buck the system are very much a continuity and it involves both parties.
Peter: Your new books that we're talking about the waterboarding has come back up again and people have come forward, high-ranking officials that say Rumsfeld and Cheney demanded that interrogators find evidence of … al-Qaeda-Iraqi collaboration. So in 2002, Cheney and Rumsfeld were demanding proof of the links between al-Qaeda and Iraq, and also in the middle of this is Chalabi, Ahmed Chalabi. And Chalabi tells these guys "Oh, they're there." So they take Abu Zainab and they take Khalid Sheikh Mohammed whom I'm not defending, but they waterboard them. I think Khalid was waterboarded 180 times.
They came up empty. Eventually people were told by Cheney and Rumsfeld: push harder. And eventually as we know from torture people will tell you what you want to hear to have it stopped. And people in books like The 500 Days who said they beat them in these black prisons. They beat them into telling them what they wanted to hear, and George Bush and Dick Cheney used those things. There's a reason why the French stayed out of that war, why lots of people stayed out of that war. The French tell them, "this whole yellow-cake story is a lie."
Russ: And of course this goes back to the still very secret energy task force that Cheney convened right away when they came into power. This, we have to remember, was before 9/11. We don't know too much about what they did, but we do know they had maps and they went and looked at the maps, talked to the oil companies and said where do you want to be? Of course we know where those places were.
This goes back to The Project for a New American Century. I mean, the big unspoken thing here is the United States, the machine that we're all part of, our addiction to driving gas-guzzlers and needing all kinds of motorized vehicles that of course we don't really need, to me, denial of climate change, and denial of the need to change our lifestyles, and to minimize waste. Americans waste much more than anybody else in the world, and we don't want to stop. There is a cost for this addiction. And that cost is all this fuel has to come from somewhere. And so because that's how our economy runs there is a mandate that finding and grabbing this stuff anywhere in the world is the essence of national security, and that is the story here. The story of the tolerance of the Saudis, the black prisons, all the things that you're just talking about …
Peter: The more I see into it, the more frightened I get. This Libyan guy, remember, al-Shaykh al-Libi, he claimed that there was a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda and WMDs. There was no way the guy could have had any knowledge of any of these things. And I listen to radio shows and they bring up al-Libi. There were people that knew al-Libi was lying. They were marginalized claims and the Bush administration… by the way, there was the one guy from 9/11… he was tortured until he signed a confession and he was never even allowed to read the confession that he signed. And they go on to Cheney, they go on to Rumsfeld, they go on to Card. And even George Tenet who I had lost all my respect for, and Tenet's come out and said Cheney and company, they wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11. They said they were looking for all that crap that Cheney and Rumsfeld came up with for justification for Iraq. George Tenet called it "crap."
Russ: And as you may remember, in my book Family of Secrets I broke the story from George Bush's own advisor that, or rather his co-author of a book, in a section of a book that never came out, where this co-author asked Bush as a candidate for president in 1999, "What do you want to do if you're elected president?" Bush had almost no ideas at all. And the one thing he finally came up with was he was going to invade Iraq. And the co-author said "Why do you want to do that?" And he said: "I became convinced as an advisor to my father, and I saw Margaret Thatcher and Britain when they invaded these tiny undefended Falklands off of Argentina…", he said, "Oh, the tremendous response in Britain and the pride, parades, and people throwing flowers at her, there's no question. As a commander in chief, you've got to have a war. It's the key to your ratings."
Peter: My last question, I know you stayed way beyond the time you had allotted. How long before this thing really breaks surface, people really truly look at what happened?
Russ: It's hard to say, Peter. When I started whowhatwhy.org, some years ago, people were dismissing these types of things. I sense a sea change going on. I see that the same people who wanted to label us "kooks" aren't doing that anymore. We're getting more invitations [onto shows]. It's a slow process. I'm not saying it's happening overnight. Since we began, you had Edward Snowden, the Panama Papers, Wikileaks, all of these things show there's a movement afoot in the land, the people are arising. I'm very excited for the near-term much more for all this. Much less for other things like climate change but I'm hopeful that there is an exciting moment at hand.
Peter: Thank you for everything. Thank you for the books, your appearances. Russ, we'll talk as soon as possible again. And it really was an honor. Thank you for doing the radio show. Take care of yourself.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Reply
#22
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/...-hijackers

Saudi officials were 'supporting' 9/11 hijackers, commission member says


First serious public split revealed among commissioners over the release of the secret 28 pages' that detail Saudi ties to 2001 terrorist attacks
[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/12/911-commission-saudi-arabia-hijackers#img-1"]

[/URL]In their joint statement last month, the chairman and vice-chairman of the commission suggested they agreed that there might be danger in releasing the full 28 pages of the congressional report. Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images​Philip Shenon
Thursday 12 May 201607.00 EDTLast modified on Thursday 12 May 201610.32 EDT
  • [URL="https://www.facebook.com/dialog/share?app_id=180444840287&href=http%3A%2F%2Fgu.com%2Fp%2F4j3n5%2Fsfb&redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgu.com%2Fp%2F4j3n5%2Fsfb"]
    [/URL]




A former Republican member of the 9/11 commission, breaking dramatically with the commission's leaders, said Wednesday he believes there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers and that the Obama administration should move quickly to declassify a long-secret congressional report on Saudi ties to the 2001 terrorist attack.
The comments by John F Lehman, an investment banker in New York who was Navy secretary in the Reagan administration, signal the first serious public split among the 10 commissioners since they issued a 2004 final report that was largely read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia, which was home to 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11.


"There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government," Lehman said in an interview, suggesting that the commission may have made a mistake by not stating that explicitly in its final report. "Our report should never have been read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia."
He was critical of a statement released late last month by the former chairman and vice-chairman of the commission, who urged the Obama administration to be cautious about releasing the full congressional report on the Saudis and 9/11 "the 28 pages", as they are widely known in Washington because they contained "raw, unvetted" material that might smear innocent people.
The 9/11 commission chairman, former Republican governor Tom Kean of New Jersey, and vice-chairman, former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana, praised Saudi Arabia as, overall, "an ally of the United States in combatting terrorism" and said the commission's investigation, which came after the congressional report was written, had identified only one Saudi government official a former diplomat in the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles as being "implicated in the 9/11 plot investigation".
The diplomat, Fahad al-Thumairy, who was deported from the US but was never charged with a crime, was suspected of involvement in a support network for two Saudi hijackers who had lived in San Diego the year before the attacks.
In the interview Wednesday, Lehman said Kean and Hamilton's statement that only one Saudi government employee was "implicated" in supporting the hijackers in California and elsewhere was "a game of semantics" and that the commission had been aware of at least five Saudi government officials who were strongly suspected of involvement in the terrorists' support network.
"They may not have been indicted, but they were certainly implicated," he said. "There was an awful lot of circumstantial evidence."
[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/12/911-commission-saudi-arabia-hijackers#img-2"]
[/URL]The 9/11 commission vice-chairman, former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana, and the chairman, former Republican governor Tom Kean of New Jersey. Photograph: Paul J.richards/AFP/Getty ImagesAlthough Lehman said he did not believe that the Saudi royal family or the country's senior civilian leadership had any role in supporting al-Qaida or the 9/11 plot, he recalled that a focus of the criminal investigation after 9/11 was upon employees of the Saudi ministry of Islamic affairs, which had sponsored Thumairy for his job in Los Angeles and has long been suspected of ties to extremist groups.
He said "the 28 pages", which were prepared by a special House-Senate committee investigating pre-9/11 intelligence failures, reviewed much of the same material and ought to be made public as soon as possible, although possibly with redactions to remove the names of a few Saudi suspects who were later cleared of any involvement in the terrorist attacks.
Lehman has support among some of the other commissioners, although none have spoken out so bluntly in criticizing the Saudis. A Democratic commissioner, former congressman Tim Roemer of Indiana, said he wants the congressional report released to end some of the wild speculation about what is in the 28 pages and to see if parts of the inquiry should be reopened. When it comes to the Saudis, he said, "we still haven't gotten to the bottom of what happened on 9/11".
They may not have been indicted, but they were certainly implicated. There was an awful lot of circumstantial evidence
John Lehman
Another panel member, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of offending the other nine, said the 28 pages should be released even though they could damage the commission's legacy "fairly or unfairly" by suggesting lines of investigation involving the Saudi government that were pursued by Congress but never adequately explored by the commission.
"I think we were tough on the Saudis, but obviously not tough enough," the commissioner said. "I know some members of the staff felt we went much too easy on the Saudis. I didn't really know the extent of it until after the report came out."
The commissioner said the renewed public debate could force a spotlight on a mostly unknown chapter of the history of the 9/11 commission: behind closed doors, members of the panel's staff fiercely protested the way the material about the Saudis was presented in the final report, saying it underplayed or ignored evidence that Saudi officials especially at lower levels of the government were part of an al-Qaida support network that had been tasked to assist the hijackers after they arrived in the US.


In fact, there were repeated showdowns, especially over the Saudis, between the staff and the commission's hard-charging executive director, University of Virginia historian Philip Zelikow, who joined the Bush administration as a senior adviser to the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, after leaving the commission. The staff included experienced investigators from the FBI, the Department of Justice and the CIA, as well as the congressional staffer who was the principal author of the 28 pages.
Zelikow fired a staffer, who had repeatedly protested over limitations on the Saudi investigation, after she obtained a copy of the 28 pages outside of official channels. Other staffers described an angry scene late one night, near the end of the investigation, when two investigators who focused on the Saudi allegations were forced to rush back to the commission's offices after midnight after learning to their astonishment that some of the most compelling evidence about a Saudi tie to 9/11 was being edited out of the report or was being pushed to tiny, barely readable footnotes and endnotes. The staff protests were mostly overruled.
The 9/11 commission did criticize Saudi Arabia for its sponsorship of a fundamentalist branch of Islam embraced by terrorists and for the Saudi royal family's relationship with charity groups that bankrolled al-Qaida before 9/11.
[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/12/911-commission-saudi-arabia-hijackers#img-3"]
[/URL]
George W Bush, with Lee Hamilton on the left, speaks to the press after receiving a report of the Iraq study group. Photograph: Larry Downing/REUTERSHowever, the commission's final report was still widely read as an exoneration, with a central finding by the commission that there was "no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually" provided financial assistance to Osama bin Laden's terrorist network. The statement was hailed by the Saudi government as effectively clearing Saudi officials of any tie to 9/11.
Last month Barack Obama, returning from a tense state visit to Saudi Arabia, disclosed the administration was nearing a decision on whether to declassify some or all of the 28 pages, which have been held under lock and key in a secure room beneath the Capitol since they were written in 2002. Just days after the president's comments however, his CIA director, John Brennan, announced that he opposed the release of the congressional report, saying it contained inaccurate material that might lead to unfair allegations that Saudi Arabia was tied to 9/11.
I think we were tough on the Saudis, but obviously not tough enough
A commissioner
In their joint statement last month, Kean and Hamilton suggested they agreed with Brennan and that there might be danger in releasing the full 28 pages.
The congressional report was "based almost entirely on raw, unvetted material that came to the FBI", they said. "The 28 pages, therefore, are comparable to preliminary law enforcement notes, which are generally covered by grand jury secrecy rules." If any part of the congressional report is made public, they said, it should be redacted "to protect the identities of anyone who has been ruled out by authorities as having any connection to the 9/11 plot".
Zelikow, the commission's executive director, told NBC News last month that the 28 pages "provide no further answers about the 9/11 attacks that are not already included in the 9/11 commission report". Making them public "will only make the red herring glow redder".
But Kean, Hamilton and Zelikow clearly do not speak for a number of the other commissioners, who have repeatedly suggested they are uncomfortable with the perception that the commission exonerated Saudi Arabia and who have joined in calling for public release of the 28 pages.

Lehman and another commissioner, former Democratic senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, filed affidavits last year in support of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government by the families of 9/11 victims. "Significant questions remain unanswered concerning possible involvement of Saudi government institutions and actors," Kerrey said. Lehman agreed: "Contrary to the argument advocated by the Kingdom, the 9/11 commission did not exonerate Saudi Arabia of culpability for the events of 11 September 2001 or the financing of al-Qaida." He said he was "deeply troubled" by the evidence gathered about a hijackers' support network in California.
In an interview last week, congressman Roemer, the Democratic commissioner, suggested a compromise in releasing the 28 pages. He said that, unlike Kean and Hamilton, he was eager to see the full congressional report declassified and made public, although the 28 pages should be released alongside a list of pertinent excerpts of the 9/11 commission's final report. "That would show what allegations were and were not proven, so that innocent people are not unfairly maligned," he said. "It would also show there are issues raised in the 28 pages about the Saudis that are still unresolved to this day."
  • Philip Shenon is the author of The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation



Reply
#23
Former 9/11 commissioner brings shocking new details about redacted documents to light

Matt Purple May 13th 2016 12:52PM

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/05/13/fo.../21376801/


What's behind the redacted 28 pages of the 9/11 report, stored in a vault deep beneath the Capitol building? Most likely, they show evidence of complicity in the attacks by our great and glorious ally Saudi Arabia. Former Florida senator Bob Graham says declassifying the 28 pages will help make the case for Saudi involvement in 9/11. Congressman Thomas Massie warns, "It's sort of shocking when you read it." Former 9/11 commissioner Tim Roemer has advocated for removing most of the redactions.


Now, you can add John F. Lehman, former secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan and Republican commissioner behind the 9/11 report. In an interview with the Guardian published yesterday, Lehman unleashed the most shocking allegations we've heard yet: "There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government," Lehman said in an interview, suggesting that the commission may have made a mistake by not stating that explicitly in its final report. "Our report should never have been read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia." He was critical of a statement released late last month by the former chairman and vice-chairman of the commission, who urged the Obama administration to be cautious about releasing the full congressional report on the Saudis and 9/11 "the 28 pages", as they are widely known in Washington because they contained "raw, unvetted" material that might smear innocent people. ...


Lehman said Kean and Hamilton's statement that only one Saudi government employee was "implicated" in supporting the hijackers in California and elsewhere was "a game of semantics" and that the commission had been aware of at least five Saudi government officials who were strongly suspected of involvement in the terrorists' support network. If true, the release of the 28 pageswhich could come as early as Junewould put enormous public strain on our alliance with Saudi Arabia and call into question why our government for so long has run cover for an archaic desert kingdom that constitutes the world's number one terrorism funding source. The Guardian reports fierce disagreement inside the 9/11 commission, with executive director Philip Zelikow even firing an employee because she allegedly griped over the free pass being given to the Saudis. If that's true, then Zelikow should spend the rest of this year being berated by congressional committees.


Lehman's allegations fit with what we already know about the Saudis and our government's supine posture before them. Fifteen of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, as was Osama bin Laden. Yet immediately after the attacks, our government chartered flights to whisk 140 Saudis out of the country, including almost two dozen bin Laden family members. The most rookie detective on the squad knows to question a missing suspect's relations, yet here the most rudimentary police work after the crime of the centry was skipped. Why?


Andrew McCarthy, the National Review writer and terrorism prosecutor, has been probing Saudi ties to terrorism for years. Among the fishy cases he's catalogued are: Abdulazziz al-Hijji, a Saudi oil magnate who revered Osama bin Laden and was connected to the 9/11 hijackershe fled to Saudi Arabia weeks before the Twin Towers came down and the FBI buried its investigation of him; Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi government agent who previously worked for the Kingdom's defense ministry before relocating to the United States, and who befriended and aided two of the hijackers before also fleeing to Saudi Arabia; and, most damning of all, Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaeda mastermind, who escaped to plot more terrorist attacks after the Saudis intervened on his behalf and the Justice Department mysteriously "un-arrested" him.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)

James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."

Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."

Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Reply
#24
I always love the line [true by the way] that 15 of the 19 'hijackers' [not true by the way - patsy hijackers would be more to the truth] were Saudi. Then, the question SHOULD be why did the USA not immediately attack S.A. instead of the pre-planed Iraq and Afghanistan? While the 28 pages no doubt make S.A. look bad, as they should, it really leads ultimately to US foreknowledge and complicity - before/during/after and THAT is more damning by light-years than that S.A. [and Pakistan and Israel and others] played minor parts in the affair of 9-11, which was ONLY to give an excuse for the endless 'war on terror', and thus control over the civilian populations and endless war.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Reply
#25
Peter Lemkin Wrote:I always love the line [true by the way] that 15 of the 19 'hijackers' [not true by the way - patsy hijackers would be more to the truth] were Saudi. Then, the question SHOULD be why did the USA not immediately attack S.A. instead of the pre-planed Iraq and Afghanistan? While the 28 pages no doubt make S.A. look bad, as they should, it really leads ultimately to US foreknowledge and complicity - before/during/after and THAT is more damning by light-years than that S.A. [and Pakistan and Israel and others] played minor parts in the affair of 9-11, which was ONLY to give an excuse for the endless 'war on terror', and thus control over the civilian populations and endless war.

Yep, and call me the eternal cynic but why now is this story making so many headlines? What's the back story for it?
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Reply
#26
David Guyatt Wrote:
Peter Lemkin Wrote:I always love the line [true by the way] that 15 of the 19 'hijackers' [not true by the way - patsy hijackers would be more to the truth] were Saudi. Then, the question SHOULD be why did the USA not immediately attack S.A. instead of the pre-planed Iraq and Afghanistan? While the 28 pages no doubt make S.A. look bad, as they should, it really leads ultimately to US foreknowledge and complicity - before/during/after and THAT is more damning by light-years than that S.A. [and Pakistan and Israel and others] played minor parts in the affair of 9-11, which was ONLY to give an excuse for the endless 'war on terror', and thus control over the civilian populations and endless war.

Yep, and call me the eternal cynic but why now is this story making so many headlines? What's the back story for it?

We are at the HSCA/Jack Ruby's ties to the mob/Mafia-did-it stage of the official story evolution.
Reply
#27
Tracy Riddle Wrote:
David Guyatt Wrote:
Peter Lemkin Wrote:I always love the line [true by the way] that 15 of the 19 'hijackers' [not true by the way - patsy hijackers would be more to the truth] were Saudi. Then, the question SHOULD be why did the USA not immediately attack S.A. instead of the pre-planed Iraq and Afghanistan? While the 28 pages no doubt make S.A. look bad, as they should, it really leads ultimately to US foreknowledge and complicity - before/during/after and THAT is more damning by light-years than that S.A. [and Pakistan and Israel and others] played minor parts in the affair of 9-11, which was ONLY to give an excuse for the endless 'war on terror', and thus control over the civilian populations and endless war.

Yep, and call me the eternal cynic but why now is this story making so many headlines? What's the back story for it?

We are at the HSCA/Jack Ruby's ties to the mob/Mafia-did-it stage of the official story evolution.

While I don't disagree that that is comparable to where we are, I don't expect the 'official story' to evolve any further. They simply can't without giving away the 'big SECRET' that it was an inside job [by a select few, but covered up by the many in power, with the complicity of the MSM - similar to Dallas]. They know the American People won't put up with that, as it will also give away that this 'formula' has been used over and over and over and over again...and is planed to be used endlessly. What I'm really saying is we are at an important point in history, IMHO, either the People soon wake up from their hypnotic sleep and see what has been going on; or the powers of control/repression and deception/propaganda will swell to such an extent that the USA will become a real Police State in every sense of the term, and try to spread that around the World. We are well on the way there and just a 'bit further' and I think there is no way back.....just my own take.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Reply
#28
Peter Lemkin Wrote:
Tracy Riddle Wrote:
David Guyatt Wrote:
Peter Lemkin Wrote:I always love the line [true by the way] that 15 of the 19 'hijackers' [not true by the way - patsy hijackers would be more to the truth] were Saudi. Then, the question SHOULD be why did the USA not immediately attack S.A. instead of the pre-planed Iraq and Afghanistan? While the 28 pages no doubt make S.A. look bad, as they should, it really leads ultimately to US foreknowledge and complicity - before/during/after and THAT is more damning by light-years than that S.A. [and Pakistan and Israel and others] played minor parts in the affair of 9-11, which was ONLY to give an excuse for the endless 'war on terror', and thus control over the civilian populations and endless war.

Yep, and call me the eternal cynic but why now is this story making so many headlines? What's the back story for it?

We are at the HSCA/Jack Ruby's ties to the mob/Mafia-did-it stage of the official story evolution.

While I don't disagree that that is comparable to where we are, I don't expect the 'official story' to evolve any further. They simply can't without giving away the 'big SECRET' that it was an inside job [by a select few, but covered up by the many in power, with the complicity of the MSM - similar to Dallas]. They know the American People won't put up with that, as it will also give away that this 'formula' has been used over and over and over and over again...and is planed to be used endlessly. What I'm really saying is we are at an important point in history, IMHO, either the People soon wake up from their hypnotic sleep and see what has been going on; or the powers of control/repression and deception/propaganda will swell to such an extent that the USA will become a real Police State in every sense of the term, and try to spread that around the World. We are well on the way there and just a 'bit further' and I think there is no way back.....just my own take.

Yes, I agree. And I'm not optimistic that most Americans will wake up in time. However, I find it interesting how the vast majority of public opinion polls about 9/11 were done between 2002 and 2007. Hardly any have been done since then, that I'm aware of. Are they afraid of what they might find? Are they afraid of encouraging people to be skeptical of the official story?
Reply
#29
My sense is that people are scared of stepping into that world. It's a big psychological step.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Reply
#30
Quote:

Saudi Press Just Accused US Govt of Blowing Up World Trade Centers as Pretext to Perpetual War

Jay Syrmopoulos May 23, 2016 87 Comments

Washington, D.C. In response to the U.S. Senate's unanimous vote to allow 9/11 victims' families to sue Saudi Arabia in federal court, a report published in the London-based Al-Hayat daily, by Saudi legal expert Katib al-Shammari, claims that the U.S. masterminded the terror attacks as a means of creating a nebulous "enemy" in order garner public support for a global war on terror.
The report by al-Shammari, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), claims that long-standing American policy is "built upon the principle of advance planning and future probabilities," which the U.S. has now turned toward the Saudi regime after being successfully employed against first the Taliban and al-Qaeda, then Saddam Hussein and his secular Baathist controlled Iraq.
Al-Shammari claims the recent U.S. threats to "expose" documents implicating the Saudi government are simply the continuation of a U.S. policy, which he refers to as "victory by means of archive." He highlights that during the initial invasion of Iraq, under George H.W. Bush, Saddam Hussein was left alive and in power to be used as "a bargaining chip," but upon deciding that he was "no longer an ace up their sleeve" Washington moved to topple his government and install a U.S.-backed ruling party.
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 are now the "ace up the sleeve" of the U.S. government, according to al-Shammari.
"September 11 is one of winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings… Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing [into them] only gave the green light for the detonation they were not the reason for the collapse. But the U.S. still spreads blame in all directions. [This policy] can be dubbed victory by means of archives."
The impetus behind the attacks, writes al-Shammari, was to create "an obscure enemy terrorism which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes" and that would provide justification for any "dirty operation" in any nation.
According to al-Shammari's report in Al-Hayat:
"On September 11, the U.S. attained several victories at the same time, that [even] the hawks [who were at that time] in the White House could not have imagined. Some of them can be enumerated as follows:
1. The U.S. created, in public opinion, an obscure enemy terrorism which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes, and also became the sole motivation for any dirty operation that American politicians and military figures desire to carry out in any country. [The] terrorism [label] was applied to Muslims, and specifically to Saudi Arabia.
2. Utilizing this incident [9/11], the U.S. launched a new age of global armament. Everyone wanted to acquire all kinds of weapons to defend themselves and at the same time battle the obscure enemy, terrorism [even though] up to this very moment we do not know the essence of this terrorism of which the U.S. speaks, except [to say that] that it is Islamic…
3. The U.S. made the American people choose from two bad options: either live peacefully [but] remain exposed to the danger of death [by terrorism] at any moment, or starve in safety, because [the country's budget will be spent on sending] the Marines even as far as Mars to defend you."
The Saudi press has been in a frenzy since the unanimous Senate vote to allow for the House of Saud to be held liable in U.S. federal court for the 9/11 attacks, with the U.S. being accused of being in alliance with Iran to press warnings that passage of the "Satanic" bill would "open the gates of hell," as reported by Breitbart.
Al-Shammari makes extremely clear that he views the problem as the U.S. imperial machine itself, stating, "the nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy."
"The nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy… [For example,] after a period during which it did not fight anyone [i.e. following World War II], the U.S. created a new kind of war the Cold War… Then, when the Soviet era ended, after we Muslims helped the religions and fought Communism on their [the Americans'] behalf, they began to see Muslims as their new enemy! The U.S. saw a need for creating a new enemy and planned, organized, and carried this out [i.e. blamed Muslims for terrorism]. This will never end until it [the U.S.] accomplishes the goals it has set for itself."

While it seems fighting Islamic terrorism is great for increasing fear and state propaganda meant to elicit compliant civilian populations that passively accept loss of liberty for promises of greater security, the military-industrial complex needs a bigger enemy to justify their $600 billion dollar-a-year budgets, thus beginning the transition to labeling Russia/China as "aggressive Russia/China," in an effort to begin to pivot away from one boogeyman to other, more profitable, ones.
Jay Syrmopoulos is a geopolitical analyst, free thinker, researcher, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs. Jay's work has been published on Ben Swann's Truth in Media, Truth-Out, Raw Story, MintPress News, as well as many other sites. You can follow him on Twitter @sirmetropolis, on Facebook at Sir Metropolis and now on [URL="https://www.tsu.co/SirMetropolis"]tsu.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/saudi-p...X1d0W45.01
[/URL]

[Image: mlogo.jpg]

May 19, 2016 Special Dispatch No.6438

Article In Saudi Daily: U.S. Planned, Carried Out 9/11 Attacks But Blames Others For Them

On the eve of President Obama's April 2016 visit to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Congress began debating the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), that would, inter alia, allow the families of victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the Saudi government for damages. Also in April 2016, the New York Times published that a 2002 congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks had found that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot. The commission's conclusions, said the paper, were specified in a report that has not been released publicly.[1]
The JASTA bill, which was passed by the Senate on May 17, 2016, triggered fury in Saudi Arabia, expressed both in statements by the Saudi foreign minister and in scathing attacks on the U.S. in the Saudi press.[2] On April 28, 2016, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat published an exceptionally harsh article on this topic by Saudi legal expert Katib Al-Shammari, who argued that the U.S. itself had planned and carried out 9/11, while placing the blame on a shifting series of others first Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, then Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and now Saudi Arabia. He wrote that American threats to reveal documents that supposedly point to Saudi involvement in 9/11 are part of standard U.S. policy of exposing archival documents to use as leverage against various countries which he calls "victory by means of archives."
Following are excerpts from Al-Shammari's article:[3]
"Those who follow American policy see that it is built upon the principle of advance planning and future probabilities. This is because it occasionally presents a certain topic to a country that it does not wish [to bring up] at that time but [that it is] reserving in its archives as an ace to play [at a later date] in order to pressure that country. Anyone revisiting... [statements by] George H.W. Bush regarding Operation Desert Storm might find that he acknowledged that the U.S. Army could have invaded Iraq in the 1990s, but that [the Americans] had preferred to keep Saddam Hussein around as a bargaining chip for [use against] other Gulf states. However, once the Shi'ite wave began to advance, the Americans wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, since they no longer saw him as an ace up their sleeve.
"September 11 is one of winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings... Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing [into them] only gave the green light for the detonation they were not the reason for the collapse. But the U.S. still spreads blame in all directions. [This policy] can be dubbed 'victory by means of archives.'
"On September 11, the U.S. attained several victories at the same time, that [even] the hawks [who were at that time] in the White House could not have imagined. Some of them can be enumerated as follows:
"1. The U.S. created, in public opinion, an obscure enemy terrorism which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes, and also became the sole motivation for any dirty operation that American politicians and military figures desire to carry out in any country. [The] terrorism [label] was applied to Muslims, and specifically to Saudi Arabia.
"2. Utilizing this incident [9/11], the U.S. launched a new age of global armament. Everyone wanted to acquire all kinds of weapons to defend themselves and at the same time battle the obscure enemy, terrorism [even though] up to this very moment we do not know the essence of this terrorism of which the U.S. speaks, except [to say that] that it is Islamic...
"3. The U.S. made the American people choose from two bad options: either live peacefully [but] remain exposed to the danger of death [by terrorism] at any moment, or starve in safety, because [the country's budget will be spent on sending] the Marines even as far as Mars to defend you.
"Lo and behold, today, we see these archives revealed before us: A New York court accuses the Iranian regime of responsibility for 9/11, and we [also] see a bill [in Congress] accusing Saudi Arabia of being behind it [sic]. This is after the previous Iraqi regime was accused of being behind it. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were also blamed for it, and we do not know who [will be blamed] tomorrow! But [whoever it is], we will not be surprised at all, since this is the essence of how the American archives, that are civilized and respect freedoms and democracy, operate.
"The nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy... [For example,] after a period during which it did not fight anyone [i.e. following World War II], the U.S. created a new kind of war the Cold War... Then, when the Soviet era ended, after we Muslims helped the religions and fought Communism on their [the Americans'] behalf, they began to see Muslims as their new enemy! The U.S. saw a need for creating a new enemy and planned, organized, and carried this out [i.e. blamed Muslims for terrorism]. This will never end until it [the U.S.] accomplishes the goals it has set for itself.
"So why not let these achievements be credited to the American administration, while insurance companies pay for the damages, whether domestic or foreign? This, my dear Arab and Muslim, is the policy of the American archives."

Endnotes:

[1] Nytimes.com, April 15, 2016.

[2] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6397, Against Backdrop Of Obama's Visit To Riyadh: Saudi, Gulf Press Furious At Allegations Of Saudi Involvement In September 11 Attacks, April 21, 2016.

[3] Al-Hayat (London), April 28, 2016.
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/9202.htm
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Saudi connections to strange terrorist events in the USA Peter Lemkin 0 2,260 09-12-2019, 06:20 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  CIA & Saudi Arabia Conspired to Keep 9/11 Details Secret - New Book David Guyatt 4 12,284 01-09-2018, 08:53 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Saudi Connections To 911 are Complex and Murky... Peter Lemkin 4 8,896 30-03-2018, 10:40 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  US Senate passes bill allowing Sept. 11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia Drew Phipps 3 5,033 18-05-2016, 09:27 AM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  Why is Obama considering shaming the Saudi's over their 9/11 involvement? David Guyatt 4 5,191 12-05-2015, 08:51 PM
Last Post: R.K. Locke
  The ongoing US-Saudi split heats up David Guyatt 0 2,859 18-02-2015, 05:30 PM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  Obama admits torture abuse after 9/11 (of course it wasn't HIS administration!) Drew Phipps 3 3,273 02-08-2014, 05:25 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  Saudi Funding Of Network Nailed Down Further Peter Lemkin 13 12,042 10-01-2014, 03:47 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  The role [and cover-up] of Saudi Arabia, before, during and after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 Peter Lemkin 11 17,286 12-12-2013, 09:13 AM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  Peter Dale Scott - US Government Protection of Al-Qaeda Terrorists and the US-Saudi Black Hole Anthony Thorne 7 7,271 12-08-2013, 11:01 PM
Last Post: Jeffrey Orling

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)