Two Congressmen claim secret report on 9/11 pins the blame on Saudi Arabia

posted at 8:23 am on December 16, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

What we know from the New York Post’s report on the claim from Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch and Republican Rep. Walter Jones is that two administrations have kept 28 pages of a 2002 report on the 9/11 so highly classified that they don’t contain redactions — just an ellipsis noting their absence. Lynch and Jones claim that the report from Congress after the attacks that left 3,000 Americans dead contain material that “absolutely shocked” them — and pins the blame on Saudi Arabia for state support of the attack:

President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).

A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.

Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”

Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally.

The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.

Three years later, Congress — essentially the same Congress, by the way — produced another report on the 9/11 attacks that didn’t make these accusations, nor the specific allegations mentioned by Paul Sperry in this article. (Be sure to read it all.) Congress would have had the ability to refer to its own materials, one would presume anyway, and clearly the minor changes in the 2002 midterms wouldn’t have wiped out the memories of those who worked on the 2002 report.  That leaves a big question as to whether this intel Sperry cites may have later been discredited, or whether the executive branch interfered with one or both reports.

Why would the Bush administration interfere with the report? Saudi Arabia was a strategic partner for the US in the region, but hardly our only option. If what Lynch and Jones claim is true, the US would have been forced to declare war on Saudi Arabia, which would have touched off a much wider war, especially if we had gone after the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, as was being suggested anyway at the time by some public figures as retaliation for the terrorist attack. Covering up their involvement would still leave the US covering up an act of war out of what can only be charitably called an overabundance of caution.  If the Saudis declared war on us, then we should have responded in kind or forced a very public surrender on our terms.

That still doesn’t explain why the successor Obama administration would have kept this locked away if the data was accurate and conclusions correct, assuming that’s what the report says.  Democrats spent years floating conspiracy theories about the Bushes and the Saudis — and this would have been the smokiest smoking gun of all. It would have helped Obama explain and draw support for his decision to warm up to Iran and snub Saudis over the last few months, if not the last few years.

If I had to guess, I’d say the reason it remains classified is that the data may not be as solid as it appears, but we’re not going to know that until it’s actually declassified. More than 12 years after the attack, it’s time to see that initial review of the intelligence and let the American people make up their own minds about it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

…we’ll have to ask Snowden!

KOOLAID2 on December 16, 2013 at 8:28 AM

Most shocking is that it’s already been 12 years. Wow

blatantblue on December 16, 2013 at 8:29 AM

The first casualty in any war is the truth…

JohnGalt23 on December 16, 2013 at 8:30 AM

Man Obama is going to be angry when he wakes up and reads about this in the paper this morning. Very angry indeed!

Johnnyreb on December 16, 2013 at 8:30 AM

It wouldn’t surprise me if this turned out to be true.

Nineball on December 16, 2013 at 8:31 AM

::rubs eyes and sips coffee::

Wut?

ted c on December 16, 2013 at 8:31 AM

That still doesn’t explain why the successor Obama administration would have kept this locked away if the data was accurate and conclusions correct, assuming that’s what the report says.

A more interesting question is why has it been allowed to come to light now? The Saudis have been very vocal about their displeasure with us in the last two months. I don’t think this is a coincidence.

Doomberg on December 16, 2013 at 8:31 AM

Or maybe the reason it wasn’t released by the Obama administration is that it pointed to a collaboration between Iraq and Saudi governments.

JimBob on December 16, 2013 at 8:32 AM

Will be great fodder for the Blame Bush excuse to have a resurgence!
No idea of how true this is but there was a concerted effort to excuse the Saudis et. al. that raised my suspicions.

philw1776 on December 16, 2013 at 8:32 AM

Ditto nineball

cmsinaz on December 16, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Ed says,

If I had to guess, I’d say the reason it remains classified is that the data may not be as solid as it appears, but we’re not going to know that until it’s actually declassified.

I disagree with your supposition…I say it’s classified for the same reason that our government has never admitted what Israel did to the USS Liberty.

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 8:34 AM

A more interesting question is why has it been allowed to come to light now? The Saudis have been very vocal about their displeasure with us in the last two months. I don’t think this is a coincidence.

Doomberg on December 16, 2013 at 8:31 AM

Part of Obama’s pro-Iran agenda?

kcewa on December 16, 2013 at 8:35 AM

Man Obama is going to be angry when he wakes up and reads about this in the paper this morning. Very angry indeed!

Johnnyreb on December 16, 2013 at 8:30 AM

Nobody is madder than Obama.

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 8:38 AM

why do I get the sense that we are careening towards a war? Pick one… China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Syria….who’d I miss?

ted c on December 16, 2013 at 8:38 AM

OT:
Durbin: GOP presidential ambitions and Tea Party challengers imperil budget deal

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), the second-ranking Senate Democratic leader estimated that Democrats will lose three members of their caucus on the vote, which means they’ll need at least eight Republicans to cross the aisle and vote with them.

kcewa on December 16, 2013 at 8:40 AM

Easy.

It’s classified because if it were released, the people would demand war against Saudi Arabia, and the entire US policy of having the Sunni Arabs price their oil in US dollars in exchange for supporting their dictatorships would fall apart.

ebrawer on December 16, 2013 at 8:40 AM

I disagree with your supposition…I say it’s classified for the same reason that our government has never admitted what Israel did to the USS Liberty.

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 8:34 AM

What Israel did to the USS Liberty has never been an issue. What is disturbing to me is that the Johnson administration actually considered scuttling the ship in order to hide the evidence as to what Israel did. They didn’t want to upset the Jews ahead of the 1968 elections.

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 8:40 AM

why do I get the sense that we are careening towards a war? Pick one… China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Syria….who’d I miss?

ted c on December 16, 2013 at 8:38 AM

North Korea, Pakistan…

kcewa on December 16, 2013 at 8:42 AM

Almost all of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.

nobar on December 16, 2013 at 8:43 AM

The problem with Saudi Arabia is the Royal Family. You have “moderate” Saudi Royals, and you have some who have seriously drunk the jihadist Kool-Aide. It would not surprise me a bit if one or more Saudi princes were involved in the funding and logistics of 9-11. But to be honest, that would just be the actions of Prince Hachmad Achmed al-Saud on his own initiative, not an official act condoned and sanctioned by the House of Saud. No point in making war on Saudi Arabia over the actions of some Prince off the reservation somewhere.

Sekhmet on December 16, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Durbin: GOP presidential ambitions and Tea Party challengers imperil budget deal

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), the second-ranking Senate Democratic leader estimated that Democrats will lose three members of their caucus on the vote, which means they’ll need at least eight Republicans to cross the aisle and vote with them.

kcewa on December 16, 2013 at 8:40 AM

I’d say the chances are that they’ll get the votes they need. Which is unfortunate considering that Paul Ryan has decided that military retirees can be kicked to the curb.

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 8:45 AM

why do I get the sense that we are careening towards a war? Pick one… China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Syria….who’d I miss?

ted c on December 16, 2013 at 8:38 AM

Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Indonesia.

Steve Eggleston on December 16, 2013 at 8:46 AM

What Israel did to the USS Liberty has never been an issue.

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 8:40 AM

Our government has admitted that Israel intentionally went after the USS Liberty, knowing that it was one of ours? lol where has it done this?

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Well, if this were true, you would think Obozo would be a little nicer to Israel…

Aplombed on December 16, 2013 at 8:47 AM

So why then did AlQaeda, in the person of Osama bin Laden claim responsibility for the attack? Is AlQaeda a proxy militia for Saudi Arabia?

dogsoldier on December 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM

But to be honest, that would just be the actions of Prince Hachmad Achmed al-Saud on his own initiative, not an official act condoned and sanctioned by the House of Saud. No point in making war on Saudi Arabia over the actions of some Prince off the reservation somewhere.

Sekhmet on December 16, 2013 at 8:43 AM

But who determines the “official policy” for the Al Saud? Isn’t the policy, if there is one, to appease the Jihadists as long as they don’t attack the family?

kcewa on December 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM

..potential nuke-bearing squirrel for ObamaCare and 2014 elections? Abba-lutely!

Cue the mirror-fogging, mouth-breathing proles!

The War Planner on December 16, 2013 at 8:51 AM

The problem with Saudi Arabia is the Royal Family. You have “moderate” Saudi Royals, and you have some who have seriously drunk the jihadist Kool-Aide. It would not surprise me a bit if one or more Saudi princes were involved in the funding and logistics of 9-11. But to be honest, that would just be the actions of Prince Hachmad Achmed al-Saud on his own initiative, not an official act condoned and sanctioned by the House of Saud. No point in making war on Saudi Arabia over the actions of some Prince off the reservation somewhere.

Sekhmet on December 16, 2013 at 8:43 AM

What if it was everybody except Fahd and (possibly) Abdullah?

Steve Eggleston on December 16, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Our government has admitted that Israel intentionally went after the USS Liberty, knowing that it was one of ours? lol where has it done this?

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Depends on what you mean by admitted. The administration didn’t buy Israel’s claim that it was a mistake from the very beginning. But, because of the politics, the US just sorta let it all go.

I recently was at a panel discussion with four of the Liberty survivors. Some stupid woman got up and asked if they thought that the US would ever try this kind of cover-up again. To a man they said it already has (Benghazi).

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 8:51 AM

If you like your petro-dollar you can keep your petro-dollar…….but only if you cover up the Saudi’s 911 involvement.

aquaviva on December 16, 2013 at 8:51 AM

So doesn’t this classified information actually destroy the truthers (well, pretty much any facts do but still…) and their whole “the U.S. did it”?

DethMetalCookieMonst on December 16, 2013 at 8:51 AM

So why then did AlQaeda, in the person of Osama bin Laden claim responsibility for the attack? Is AlQaeda a proxy militia for Saudi Arabia?

dogsoldier on December 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Or at least certain elements of the House of Saud.

Steve Eggleston on December 16, 2013 at 8:54 AM

why do I get the sense that we are careening towards a war? Pick one… China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Syria….who’d I miss?

ted c on December 16, 2013 at 8:38 AM

Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Indonesia.

Steve Eggleston on December 16, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Let’s not forget about Canada! Every February there are enough Canadians in place that they could easily launch a take-over from the Gulf Coast. ;0

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Depends on what you mean by admitted. The administration didn’t buy Israel’s claim that it was a mistake from the very beginning. But, because of the politics, the US just sorta let it all go.

What I meant was, no one has come out as an authorized government spokesperson and acknowledged the truth. I agree with the rest of what you said.

I recently was at a panel discussion with four of the Liberty survivors. Some stupid woman got up and asked if they thought that the US would ever try this kind of cover-up again. To a man they said it already has (Benghazi).

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 8:51 AM

:(

As bad as Benghazi was, the Liberty incident was worse. This Saudi cover-up is also bigger than Benghazi imo.

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 8:57 AM

If true, one wonders why those Saudis named in the report were not “droned”, so-to-speak, by the CIA or SEALs….

Where are those people today?

albill on December 16, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Didn’t Israel pay reparations for the attack?

celtic warrior on December 16, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Or maybe the reason it wasn’t released by the Obama administration is that it pointed to a collaboration between Iraq and Saudi governments.

Wouldn’t this be interesting? On the one hand Bush looks bad for covering up a major component of the 9/11 attack. On the other hand, the Left would look positively awful as this would destroy their entire rationale for opposing the Iraq war, which is largely responsible for their control of congress in 2007, and the Whitehouse ever since.

SAMinVA on December 16, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Congressmen can leak secret classified stuff but Snowden is labeled a traitor for doing the same thing? OK, I think I got it now. One thing we need to remember is that the Saudis are not our friends. Actually we have no friends. We may have some allies but it has to be in their best interest as well as ours to start something or say something. What the Saudis have is a business arrangement. We allow them to remain in power while it’s in our best interests and they appear moderate. That would turn on a dime if they felt threatened. We need to remember exactly what they are.

Kissmygrits on December 16, 2013 at 9:02 AM

As bad as Benghazi was, the Liberty incident was worse. This Saudi cover-up is also bigger than Benghazi imo.
Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Evidence points to the attack being the result of mistaken identity. There is no credible evidence that it was anything but that.

bluegill on December 16, 2013 at 9:03 AM

Or maybe the reason it wasn’t released by the Obama administration is that it pointed to a collaboration between Iraq and Saudi governments.

It’s more likely that they were competing for influence with Al Qaeda.

kcewa on December 16, 2013 at 9:04 AM

As bad as Benghazi was, the Liberty incident was worse. This Saudi cover-up is also bigger than Benghazi imo.
Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Evidence points to the attack being the result of mistaken identity. There is no credible evidence that it was anything but that.

Oops, I quoted the wrong part in the last comment.

The attack on the USS Liberty was an accident. A terrible one. Just want to make my comment clear.

bluegill on December 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Wag. The. Dog.

nukemhill on December 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM

So why then did AlQaeda, in the person of Osama bin Laden claim responsibility for the attack? Is AlQaeda a proxy militia for Saudi Arabia?

dogsoldier on December 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Or at least certain elements of the House of Saud.

Steve Eggleston on December 16, 2013 at 8:54 AM

There’s a whole lot of real estate between being a proxy for the KSA, and being a proxy for rogue elements of the House of Saud…

JohnGalt23 on December 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM

I disagree with your supposition…I say it’s classified for the same reason that our government has never admitted what Israel did to the USS Liberty.

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 8:34 AM

We already know exactly what happened.

A ship sailed into contested waters in an active war zone. One of the two sides shot at it.

Anti-semites have been hot and bothered over it ever since.

Didn’t Israel pay reparations for the attack?

celtic warrior on December 16, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Yes. They admitted thier tragic error within hours too. Cuz that’s how sneaky and back-stabby them jews are.

Alberta_Patriot on December 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), the second-ranking Senate Democratic leader estimated that Democrats will lose three members of their caucus on the vote, which means they’ll need at least eight Republicans to cross the aisle and vote with them.

kcewa on December 16, 2013 at 8:40 AM

We’re trying to get rid of Dirtbag.

Dirtbag is pulling the strings on Kirk, too.

Fallon on December 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM

From the article:

The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.

Um, it was an act of war either way. Muslims are at war with us. They make no secret about this. All this speculation about whether the Saudis were behind it is pointless. It’s a distraction. We need to declare war on all Muslims.

WhatSlushfund on December 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Or at least certain elements of the House of Saud.

Steve Eggleston on December 16, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Yeah it seems likely. Can war be declared on that country if there is conclusive proof?

We still don’t know who the Saudis smuggled out of Boston after the marathon bombing. Some Saudi national, “person of interest” that according to some reports received a visit from Moochelle.

Jeff Kuhner on WRKO reported the person’s name, but I can’t recall it.

And of course we have all seen the photo of Obama bowing deeply.

dogsoldier on December 16, 2013 at 9:06 AM

As bad as Benghazi was, the Liberty incident was worse. This Saudi cover-up is also bigger than Benghazi imo.
Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Evidence points to the attack being the result of mistaken identity. There is no credible evidence that it was anything but that.

Oops, I quoted the wrong part in the last comment.
The attack on the USS Liberty was an accident. A terrible one. Just want to make my comment clear.

Hope I got it right his time. If not, I give up. I don’t know what’s wrong.

bluegill on December 16, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Didn’t Israel pay reparations for the attack?

celtic warrior on December 16, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Yeah, the son of one of the officers killed stated that the nominal amount of reparations didn’t make up for losing his dad.

The point Anti-Control is making that the US government has pretty much whitewashed the fact that Israel knowingly and deliberately attacked a US Navy ship. The subsequent investigation was a complete joke.

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Evidence points to the attack being the result of mistaken identity. There is no credible evidence that it was anything but that.

bluegill on December 16, 2013 at 9:03 AM

We already know exactly what happened.

A ship sailed into contested waters in an active war zone. One of the two sides shot at it.

Anti-semites have been hot and bothered over it ever since.

Alberta_Patriot on December 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Yes, and we on the Right hate Choomie only because he’s half-black! :eyeroll:

You 2 don’t know what you are talking about, but this is not the thread to debate it…

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Man Obama is going to be angry when he wakes up and reads about this in the paper this morning. Very angry indeed!

Johnnyreb on December 16, 2013 at 8:30 AM

Nobody is madder than Obama.

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 8:38 AM

When he wakes and reads about this in the morning paper (probably about 10:30 AM), he will pivot and focus on it like a laser.

petefrt on December 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM

JohnGalt23 on December 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Aren’t the Taliban KSA’s proxy? The Taliban work in concert with AQ, but the KSA doesn’t run AQ.

dogsoldier on December 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM

If I had to guess, I’d say the reason it remains classified is that the data may not be as solid as it appears, but we’re not going to know that until it’s actually declassified. More than 12 years after the attack, it’s time to see that initial review of the intelligence and let the American people make up their own minds about it.

Ed’s guess is probably right.

But let’s hope it is declassified soon.

bluegill on December 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Hope I got it right his time. If not, I give up. I don’t know what’s wrong.

bluegill on December 16, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Hot Air’s lack of an edit function.

Alberta_Patriot on December 16, 2013 at 9:11 AM

The attack on the USS Liberty was an accident. A terrible one. Just want to make my comment clear.

Hope I got it right his time. If not, I give up. I don’t know what’s wrong.

bluegill on December 16, 2013 at 9:06 AM

The Liberty survivors I heard speak a couple of months ago would disagree with you. The Liberty’s battle flag was flying. Besides the air attack they were shelled and torpedoed by Israeli ships who could not help but to have identified the nationality of the Liberty.

This was no accident. The Israelis thought the Liberty was relaying communications to the Arabs and deliberately took the ship out and then claimed it to be a “terrible accident.”

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Yes, and we on the Right hate Choomie only because he’s half-black! :eyeroll:
You 2 don’t know what you are talking about, but this is not the thread to debate it…
Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Alberta Patriot is absolutely right. That is a favorite theory among anti-Semites.

But I don’t think he/she is saying you have to be anti-Semitic to believe (wrongly) that Israel deliberately attacked an American ship.

bluegill on December 16, 2013 at 9:12 AM

I disagree with your supposition…I say it’s classified for the same reason that our government has never admitted what Israel did to the USS Liberty.

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 8:34 AM

And what is not being told about the USS Liberty attack?

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 9:13 AM

But let’s hope it is declassified soon.

bluegill on December 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM

It’s an interesting problem. Just how long should information in these incidents be classified. Is twelve years too long or not long enough?

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 9:13 AM

One thing I want to know is…Who was the young Saudi gent who Michelle Obama visited in the hospital right after the Boston Marathon bombing, who was quickly whisked out of the country before they had captured / killed the brothers who had perpetrated the bombings?

easyt65 on December 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

This was no accident. The Israelis thought the Liberty was relaying communications to the Arabs and deliberately took the ship out and then claimed it to be a “terrible accident.”
Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Theories, opinions, etc… but no evidence. I don’t doubt that many people sincerely believe that, but the evidence just isn’t there.

bluegill on December 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

You 2 don’t know what you are talking about, but this is not the thread to debate it…

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM

You were the one who brought it up with your comment at 8:34 am. Attacking Israel in an article about 9/11 putting the blame on Saudis is really something.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on December 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

When he wakes and reads about this in the morning paper (probably about 10:30 AM), he will pivot and focus on it like a laser.

petefrt on December 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM

I’d bet that the rat-eared wonder goes for the Sports section first. Then the comics. And only then will he get around to the stuff that makes him madder than his staff.

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Wag. The. Dog.

nukemhill on December 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Hmmmmm….

workingclass artist on December 16, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Alberta Patriot is absolutely right. That is a favorite theory among anti-Semites.

But I don’t think he/she is saying you have to be anti-Semitic to believe (wrongly) that Israel deliberately attacked an American ship.

bluegill on December 16, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Guess what – I don’t believe you about the motivation behind bringing it up! lol

You were the one who brought it up with your comment at 8:34 am. Attacking Israel in an article about 9/11 putting the blame on Saudis is really something.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on December 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

I freely brought up my point about the Liberty, and they freely countered it – that doesn’t mean we should debate the facts of the incident here, does it?

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 9:20 AM

There’s a whole lot of real estate between being a proxy for the KSA, and being a proxy for rogue elements of the House of Saud…

JohnGalt23 on December 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Well put. One need only a tangential relation to the Al-Saud family to be a “Prince,” get the oil stipends, and be fast-tracked to a government job of influence in Saudi Arabia.

Sekhmet on December 16, 2013 at 9:20 AM

“Abdul Rahman Ali Issa Al-Salimi Al-Harbi in the hospital after the Boston marathon bombings, is now reporting that the Saudi national was also visited by the first lady of the United States, Michelle Obama during his hospital stay.”

“In light of recent reports that Alharbi was scheduled for deportation on ‘national security grounds’, the first lady’s visit takes on much added significance if those reports are true. We already know that the Alharbi clan consists of multiple Al-Qaeda members. This would seem to bolster the claims of scheduled deportation, not claims to the contrary made by the likes of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, who actually never really answered the question; she just got rankled and blew it off.”

“Michelle Obama visited Al-Harbi yet skipped over an American who lost both legs in the bombing…”

“Saudi student Abdul Rahman Ali Issa Al-Salimi Al-Harbi was injured in the Boston Marathon Bombings. He was once a “person of interest” in the bombings. He was put on a terror watch list after the bombings.” Yet he was placed on a plane and sent back to Saudi before the Boston Marathon Bombing investigation had barely begun.

“Abdul Rahman Al-Harbi has visited the White House several times since 2009.” — “The White House says it is a completly different ‘Abdul Rahman Al-Harbi’.” Yeah, just like a completely different Jeremiah Wright visited Obama more than 6 times after he was elected President.

easyt65 on December 16, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Theories, opinions, etc… but no evidence. I don’t doubt that many people sincerely believe that, but the evidence just isn’t there.

bluegill on December 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

You really are dense.

celtic warrior on December 16, 2013 at 9:23 AM

The Israelis thought the Liberty was relaying communications to the Arabs and deliberately took the ship out and then claimed it to be a “terrible accident.”

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Coldest days of the Cold War. Americans knee-deep in commies in southeast asia.

Now, according to you, in a seperate war a few thousand miles away from Vietnamwherein one side is a modern western liberal democracy with a free market economy, the Israelis naturally assumed the Americans were going to pick the side armed with commie weapons, commie equipment and commie training.

I don’t see how this “jews are gob-smackingly stupid” theory is any less offensively anti-semitic than the “all jews are sneaky back-stabbers” theories.

Alberta_Patriot on December 16, 2013 at 9:24 AM

The attack on the USS Liberty was an accident. A terrible one. Just want to make my comment clear.

bluegill on December 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM

That’s not what the men on the ship said, both enlisted and officers on the bridge. Perhaps you had a better view of the attack from your position.

There’s a documentary on youtube called Dead in the Water,

keep the change on December 16, 2013 at 9:24 AM

The first casualty in any war is the truth…

JohnGalt23 on December 16, 2013 at 8:30 AM

Can we please stop with this silly cliche? The first casualty in any war is the first guy to catch a bullet. Or, in the case of 9/11, it was the crew on the first plane hijacked.

GWB on December 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Aren’t the Taliban KSA’s proxy? The Taliban work in concert with AQ, but the KSA doesn’t run AQ.

dogsoldier on December 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Not sure I’d use the term “proxy” to describe the Taliban, who were, at one point, the closest thing that miserable piece of real estate had to a state actor.

Nor is it exactly clear just how closely the Taliban worked “in concert” with AQ. I seem to remember hearing stories floated around that there were people in Taliban leadership who desperately wanted OBL out after the Cole bombing (and especially after 9/11), but were outmuscled by the rest of leadership.

But even if we assume those things to be true, wouldn’t that make them kind of second-degree proxies? I mean, if the Taliban were so beholden to the KSA, wouldn’t they have dealt with OBL after the Khobar bombing…?

JohnGalt23 on December 16, 2013 at 9:32 AM

The attack on the USS Liberty was an accident. A terrible one. Just want to make my comment clear.

bluegill on December 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM

That’s not what the men on the ship said,

keep the change on December 16, 2013 at 9:24 AM

There’s a janitor from the WTC who converted to Islam and tried to sue the US government for carrying out the 9/11 attacks.

There was also an enlisted US Army from the Pentagon who launched a similar suit claiming automated anti-aircraft missiles at the Pentagon were shut off that day (because automated anti-aircraft systems right next to a major civilian airport make sense to stupid people).

I empathize with the Liberty survivors, but stupid anti-semitic conspiracy theories are always bull@#$% regardless of who promotes them.

Alberta_Patriot on December 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Theories, opinions, etc… but no evidence. I don’t doubt that many people sincerely believe that, but the evidence just isn’t there.

bluegill on December 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Lots of facts here! lol

This is as convincing as what I hear from leftards when they deny that the Preezy is a narcissist! :)

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 9:35 AM

You were the one who brought it up with your comment at 8:34 am. Attacking Israel in an article about 9/11 putting the blame on Saudis is really something.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on December 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

These are the same people who are quick to tell us that there’s no such thing as a coincidence.

“Coincidence theorist” is a derogatory term used by 9/11 truthers against their intellectual superiors.

Alberta_Patriot on December 16, 2013 at 9:36 AM

I freely brought up my point about the Liberty, and they freely countered it – that doesn’t mean we should debate the facts of the incident here, does it?

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 9:20 AM

You’ve introduced a (dubious) theory into a post having to do with something else altogether, and when challenged, say there is no need to discuss the underlying actual facts. Come on, man.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on December 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM

I don’t see how this “jews are gob-smackingly stupid” theory is any less offensively anti-semitic than the “all jews are sneaky back-stabbers” theories.

Alberta_Patriot on December 16, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Have you ever served in the Navy? The facts and eyewitness statements simply don’t support the idea that the Liberty attack was a horrible accident.

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

And what is not being told about the USS Liberty attack?

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 9:13 AM

The evidence is overwhelming that Israel knew they were attacking a US ship (don’t take my word for it – I see below that keep the change has a link to “Dead in the Water”…)

Think what would have happened if our government had admitted the truth then – I find it to be a perfect parallel to this Saudi revelation.

You’ve introduced a (dubious) theory into a post having to do with something else altogether, and when challenged, say there is no need to discuss the underlying actual facts. Come on, man.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on December 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM

No, you come on.

If someone wants to argue about the facts of that case here, they can do it without my participation…I’m content with them telling me I’m wrong, and they should be just as content with me saying the same back to them.

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 9:42 AM

BASED UPON THIS AND OTHER REPORTS ABOUT THIS, then, yes, it DOES “sound like” Saudi Arabia was responsible and that there was, indeed, an intentional effort by Bush/US to “cover up” that.

I’m no “Truther” so no one can rightfully level that as accusation but I’ve read the few articles about this issue over the weekend and again this morning, this post, and it’s looking like the Saudis — some of them, can’t say it was “all Saudis,” as in “the entire government” — who were responsible, still are.

As to Bush/the US “covering up” this information…if that’s the case, if all this in these reports is accurate, then my guess is that there was an emergency need to keep the Saudis invested in the US stock market, who were at the time of 9/11, primary investors in the US economy. Shaming them by declaring war with SA after 9/11 — all these reports say that it was an act of war by SA on the US, 9/11 was, now that the fact are coming out as to Saudi responsibility — would have certainly been immediate doom for the US economy, so in all likelihood, Bush/et al. were scrambling to avoid blasting SA involvement information before the public.

Lourdes on December 16, 2013 at 9:45 AM

There’s a whole lot of real estate between being a proxy for the KSA, and being a proxy for rogue elements of the House of Saud…

JohnGalt23 on December 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Only if you believe that a quarter acre is a lot of real estate.

Steve Eggleston on December 16, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Geez! This thread is being hijacked

journeymike on December 16, 2013 at 9:46 AM

It wouldn’t surprise me if this turned out to be true.

Nineball on December 16, 2013 at 8:31 AM

Agreed. From the specific connections by specific individuals responsible for 9/11, it sounds quite likely that this latest information showing Saudi responsibility is true.

Name-names is the next process. Maybe the Saudi Royals have/had as many nuts in govt. positions then as Obama has now.

Lourdes on December 16, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Let’s not forget about Canada! Every February there are enough Canadians in place that they could easily launch a take-over from the Gulf Coast. ;0

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 8:57 AM

I’ll be leading the May counterattack.

Steve Eggleston on December 16, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Theories, opinions, etc… but no evidence. I don’t doubt that many people sincerely believe that, but the evidence just isn’t there.

bluegill on December 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Specific names and connections to specific names already proven to be part of the terrorists involved in 9/11.

http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/

AT the time of 9/11 and for a while afterward, there wasn’t the ability by US to connect and identify people specifically as to locations, etc. as there was later developed.

The Post article is showing that with later intelligence ability, people posing as uninvolved were, indeed, involved. That is, if the Post article is accurate.

Lourdes on December 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Wow, Saudi-Arabia starts joining with Israel against Iran and suddenly this report shows up. How convenient.

That does not mean that it could not be true. It would not surprise me one bit that (rogue?) Saudi officials were involved in the planning/financing/execution of the attack. Just questioning the timing…

Oh, and the world will be a much better place once the so-called holy sites of Islam have been razed to the ground and Islam is eradicated completely from the planet. Can’t happen soon enough!

Antivenin on December 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

I empathize with the Liberty survivors, but stupid anti-semitic conspiracy theories are always bull@#$% regardless of who promotes them.

Alberta_Patriot on December 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

The liberty survivors don’t need your sympathy. Throwing out the term “anti-Semitic” is like throwing out the term “racist”.

keep the change on December 16, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Geez! This thread is being hijacked

journeymike on December 16, 2013 at 9:46 AM

You can’t handle the TROOF!!!

whatcat on December 16, 2013 at 9:55 AM

When he wakes and reads about this in the morning paper (probably about 10:30 AM), he will pivot and focus on it like a laser.

petefrt on December 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM

His pivots are a distraction. He drives left, shoots left, passes left. Always. Defend his left hand and passing lanes and he’s done. As for focus, did you ever see his so-called jump shot?

Barnestormer on December 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Geez! This thread is being hijacked

journeymike on December 16, 2013 at 9:46 AM

I agree.

“Truthers” have a lot of issues tossed together in their theories and can’t discuss one aspect of 9/11 without quickly jumping into other issues — that in their minds, “are connected”…whether they are or not.

It’s the problem with general “fear-conspiracy theorizing,” though I know in life that not all “fears and conspiracy theories” are irrational, there is so much involved in the Truther theories about 9/11 that it’s nearly impossible to discuss the 9/11 terrorism without all the rest immediately being tossed into things.

Lourdes on December 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Islam being declared a religion of peace by Dubya would be diametrically opposed to fingering Saudi Arabia as complicit in the attack. Do you miss him yet?

AH_C on December 16, 2013 at 9:57 AM

That does not mean that it could not be true. It would not surprise me one bit that (rogue?) Saudi officials were involved in the planning/financing/execution of the attack. Just questioning the timing…

Antivenin on December 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Agreed.

It sounds like there were (if not continue to be) “rogue” nutty Muslims all through the ME and some deployed to the US for purposes of harms to US…

And I intentionally identified “Muslims” responsible. IN Saudi govt., in wherever govt, even now in the US govt. It’s their “terrorist go-switch” that’s inherent in their minds and at this point, anyone who fears discussing THAT is not paying attention.

Lourdes on December 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM

I empathize with the Liberty survivors, but stupid anti-semitic conspiracy theories are always bull@#$% regardless of who promotes them.

Alberta_Patriot on December 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

I live in Europe,I know anti-semitism at it’s worst. Israel was grossly wrong in what it did to the USS Liberty. that doesn’t make the critics of their decision anti-semites.

When I go to Oslo or Copenhagen we don’t talk international politics because if the topic of Israel comes up it gets contentious.I support Israel.

celtic warrior on December 16, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Islam being declared a religion of peace by Dubya would be diametrically opposed to fingering Saudi Arabia as complicit in the attack. Do you miss him yet?

AH_C on December 16, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Bush, et al., HAD to see the economic disaster building if not inevitably lurching on the horizon at 9/11 and at that time, Saudis were primary investors in the US stock market. Had the Saudis disinvested due to “war declared” upon them at that time or any other, the US economic disaster would only have happened sooner than later.

I’m pretty sure as to Best Guessing that that was the motive, if this whole thing with the Saudis is true, to avoid a public naming of them as responsible for 9/11. As it was, anyone who could read and listen knew that the terrorists identified were Saudis so it didn’t take a lot to connect the dots in that regard.

In other words, the truth was there, people could and did perceive it, just didn’t have the names as later were revealed (and are now being more revealed). To have slapped the Saudi govt at that time would have meant, however, they’d have rendered far greater harm on the US via dooming the economy/markets than 9/11 damage itself did.

Just guessing here.

Lourdes on December 16, 2013 at 10:04 AM

why do I get the sense that we are careening towards a war? Pick one… China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Syria….who’d I miss?

France, Germany, the United Kindom…

HiJack on December 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Israel was grossly wrong in what it did to the USS Liberty. that doesn’t make the critics of their decision anti-semites.

When I go to Oslo or Copenhagen we don’t talk international politics because if the topic of Israel comes up it gets contentious.I support Israel.

celtic warrior on December 16, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Agreed. It’s not “anti semetic” to criticize some deed/action by Israel any more than it is anti-semetic to criticize Bill Gates, Soros, etc. (“Jews”) for their wrong-headedness. It doesn’t mean “all Jews” are so, it means those individuals are as to issues, wrong notions.

Same goes for all people, all races, ethnicities. It’s easy to lapse into “that’s racist” and similar when someone (obviously) has race and everyone does have DNA of one sort or others…

Lourdes on December 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM

**BUT** how does the issue of “anti-semetism” even emerge here by others when the post itself is about the Saudis, their (likely or possible) responsibility for the terrorism of 9/11?

Someone went on an issue-safari…

Lourdes on December 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Israel was grossly wrong in what it did to the USS Liberty. that doesn’t make the critics of their decision anti-semites.

celtic warrior on December 16, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Every nation has had “friendly fire” incidents, including the US. It’s when someone is obsessed with one people involved in one incident that the question of their motivation comes up.

whatcat on December 16, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Bush, et al., HAD to see the economic disaster building if not inevitably lurching on the horizon at 9/11 and at that time, Saudis were primary investors in the US stock market. Had the Saudis disinvested due to “war declared” upon them at that time or any other, the US economic disaster would only have happened sooner than later.
Lourdes on December 16, 2013 at 10:04 AM

I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.

whatcat on December 16, 2013 at 10:21 AM

**BUT** how does the issue of “anti-semetism” even emerge here by others when the post itself is about the Saudis, their (likely or possible) responsibility for the terrorism of 9/11?

Someone went on an issue-safari…

Lourdes on December 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM

I’m the one who brought up the USS Liberty, but as a reference, not discussion, point in support of my opinion that Ed’s guess about why the info remains classified was wrong.

I am not going to blame anyone who was unclear about my intent.

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Ed, I have to respectfully disagree.

There are too many unknowns about what is in there at this point.

The Saudi government is huge; after 9-11 there were about 10,000 royal family members. The fact that many of those were Islamists doesn’t mean the ruling party (er, top of their government) had anything to do with 9-11.

And then, what do you do about the OIL?

If the USA were smart, they would begin to supply oil to everyone to minimize the power of the Arab countries and their ability to blackmail and extort from the other governments.

bumsteaddithers on December 16, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Comment pages: 1 2