Bob Graham, March 21: "There's no question that the Bush administration covered up for the Saudis."

[johnnyreb]

Demand your representatives to go READ The 28 Pages.

Transcript excerpts and bold emphasis are mine.

We Were Lied To About 9/11 - Episode 23 - Senator Bob Graham
Published on Mar 21, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS4k7qquJ_I


Graham at 20:15: There was no question vice-president Cheney was closely monitoring what we were doing, and was not happy that we were having the Inquiry at all. And he did at one point ah, (over an issue similar to the one that you just discussed I'm not certain that it was precisely that) indicate his disapproval of what was going on, and that if that continued, that the administration might stop its assistance to the Inquiry. We did not change our actions or our plan of inquiry. The administration was frankly "off and on" in terms of its level of support, there were some areas where it was forthcoming, there were other areas ah where it was ah, very (closed (?)). And the facts that The 28 Pages were censured is an example of that non-cooperation.

Graham at 30:55 (re those who coverup): Whether they are criminally responsible or not I will leave to others, but I will state based on what I know, that they have dis-served the United States, by denying us the American People the ability to understand, and therefore fully participate in decisions evolving out of 9/11. They have denied the families of those almost-3000 Americans who were killed on September the 11th, the ability to receive any compensation from co-conspirators. AND, the American national security has been weakened by the failure to let the American People and the world know what Saudi Arabia did around 9/11 and subsequent to 9/11.

Graham at 32:42: The attention recently has been on The 28 Pages, they are very dramatic, tangible and uh, how some 13 years in which they have been withheld is a particularly egregious act. But The 28 Pages are by no means the totality of instances in which Saudi Arabian actions have been covered up by US officials.

Graham at 36:00: (re the Sarasota family) .... the FBI has gone to extreme lengths to conceal what they should have learned about the relationship between the hijackers and the prominent family. The FBI initially said they have no information about that case, but in a FOIA hearing before a federal judge, they finally admitted much later that they have over 80,000 pages of materials relating to the Sarasota investigation; which the judge demanded brought to his office and for the last several months he has been reviewing those pages to make a determination as to which deserve to be released to the American People.

Graham at 39:20: There's no question that the Bush administration covered up for the Saudis. Whether the president himself or someone on his behalf told the alphabet intelligence community agencies that they should go lax on the Saudis, I don't know. But their actions were certainly consistent with such a directive.

[think]

1. thank you. bookmarked for later /nt

[Old and In the Way]

2. Coverup would be the best case scenario.

(1) Criminal Incompetence. (unlikely)
(2) Willfull LIHOP (probable)
(3) Overt accomplices MIHOP (unlikely)

(1) OR (2).... they should have been impeached.

[TBF]

3. Seriously -

I was just thinking to myself "or the other way around". Smh.

[billhicks76]

60. TREASON

The volume needs to be turned up.

[leveymg]

6. Instead of prosecutions, we rewarded KSA by regime changing

their principal regional rivals using 9/11 as the rationale. We then methodically pursued invasion and support for terrorism against neighboring Shi'ia states over the course of two US Administrations. Is there a word for ironic outcomes that include mass murder? Evil.

[Old and In the Way]

8. When Saudi Arabia attacked the USA on 9/11, the Bush-Cheney response was:

-get the bin laden and Saudi extended family out of the US while we could not fly.
-exit SA military bases ASAP
-DESTROY THE SECULAR ENEMY OF SA that, surprisingly, had the most secular and moderate society in the ME.

Shocked that we helped SA make their oil worth even more as we committed US troops to fight a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

[leveymg]

9. And destroy all the evidence you can't classify.

Remember when Cheney's document shredder overheated?

[Old and In the Way]

13. You are one of my favorite posters here.

Your contributions to 9/11, Bush, and US foreign policy are interesting and illuminating. You impress with with your depth of knowledge. But your cheap shot of HRC, using her house as a drop for your weak point about her not being a viable candidate sucks. Convince me that she is a crimina....like any Republican running for POTUS and maybe I can agree. OR MAYBE, ALL OF THE CLOWNS RUNNING FOR RPOTUS know they will lose, but know HRCwill push this country rightward...is that what you really think?

Btw, she has never been my preference, but I will always take an awful Democrat over a "good"Republican. I shouldn't have to explain this to a smart dude like you. You know the stakes.

[leveymg]

15. I don't believe she is the inevitable candidate.

And, she is part of the criminal cabal of neocons eho have been profiting politically and personally from thr forever wars in the Mideast. Where can I start to illustrate that point?

[Old and In the Way]

16. I get your point.

So, we are fucked. We have to elect another Bush approved source....like Jeb. Because they are no different than the Clintons. Sounds like 2000 all over again.

[leveymg]

44. As I said, she isn't inevitable.

We aren't fucked until we're fucked.

But, we'll be truly fucked if she is the nominee, because, in Hillary's own words, "there is no daylight between" her and Bibi.

[Dustlawyer]

57. It's a shame that we have a great candidate, not bought by the Special Interests, in Bernie Sanders.

He has been marginalized to the point of irrelevantcy, much of which comes from the Democratic establishment, the so called Liberal media, and many here at DU. His message is spot on for Democrats and Progressives and he is virtually the only one with a plan to get the money out of politics! He supports Publicly Funded Elections which would help to solve the root problem that is causing most of our other problems such as hyper-Partisianship, intransigence on Climate Change...

Instead, we are told that Hillary is the only one, mainly because she is loaded with campaign cash bribes from all of the big evil Plutocrat's, corporations, and industries such as the MIC, Wall Street, and the 6 major media oligarchies.

We should use the Primary to back the candidate that we really want, not the "inevitable" one. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for giving control to the PTB!

[Vincardog]

71. Agreed we need to fight to get a Progressive Populist candidate NOW. If we let $$$$$ be the only

Thing picking OUR candidate we will be truly Fked.


The lesser of two evils is still EVIL.

[JonLP24]

22. I agree very much with you in regards to the poster's contributions

Regarding the point what the poster may agree, you can verify pretty easily Nancy Pelosi scores clearly on the right side when it GovTrack which is a metric that uses quite a bit but points out its limits -- https://www.govtrack.us/about/analysis#leadership

She scores on the right end of the ideology score this tracks many House/Senate & behavior that relates to each other such as "Working with the House" she is #268 is Nancy Pelosi whichs there are 267 members of Congress to the right of her but means she is the 173rd most liberal member of the House but she is mostly irrelevant (though she was briefs quite a bit from Bush & US foreign policy that were indeed illuminating very early going back to shortly after 9/11) but I think it is unlikely to have seen campaign ads to not see one with the ad mentioning Pelosi in it. She drives the right crazy which I don't understand why since she agrees with a lot.

How this relates to Hillary Clinton, the right isn't scared or really polarizing when it comes to certain individuals isn't because they are socialists or lefties, its like they hate the Democrats that make a point to agree with or try not to piss off.

Convince me that she is a crimina....? You can't find things depend on what you're looking for or what would convince of...

Spying on United Nations leaders by United States diplomats

In July 2009, a confidential cable[1] originating from the United States Department of State, and under US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's name, ordered US diplomats to spy on Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, and other top UN officials.[2] The intelligence information the diplomats were ordered to gather included biometric information (which apparently included DNA, fingerprints, and iris scans), passwords, and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.[2][3] It also included Internet and intranet usernames, e-mail addresses, web site URLs useful for identification, credit card numbers, frequent flier account numbers, and work schedules.[2][4][5] The targeted human intelligence was requested in a process known as the National Humint Collection Directive, and was aimed at foreign diplomats of US allies as well.[5]

The news of the cable and directive was revealed by website WikiLeaks on 28 November 2010, as part of the overall United States diplomatic cables leak.

The disclosed cables on the more aggressive intelligence gathering went back to 2008 when they went out under Condoleezza Rice's name during her tenure as Secretary of State.[5]

US State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley stated that Clinton had not drafted the directive and that the Secretary of State's name is systematically attached to the bottom of cables originating from Washington.[6] In fact, further leaked material revealed that the guidance in the cables was actually written by the Central Intelligence Agency before being sent out under Clinton's name, as the CIA cannot directly instruct State Department personnel.[3][7] Specifically, the effort came from the National Clandestine Service, a CIA service formed in the years following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with the goal of better coordinating human intelligence activities.[3] According to former US officials, the instructions given in these cables may have been largely ignored by American diplomats as ill-advised.[7]
Breach of international laws

The UN had previously declared that spying on the secretary-general was illegal, as a breach of the 1946 UN convention.[2] Peter Kemp, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and international-law professor Ben Saul, publicly asked Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia, to complain "to the U.S. about both Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton being in major breach of International law ie UN Covenants, by making orders to spy on UN personnel, including the Secretary General, to include theft of their credit card details and communication passwords. Perhaps the Attorney General should investigate this clear prima facie evidence of crime (likely against Australian diplomats as well), rather than he attempts to prosecute the messenger of those crimes."[8][9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spying_on_United_Nations_leaders_by_United_States_diplomats

The spokesman does mention a lot that is quite factual. It likely did came from a CIA idea shortly after 9/11 (I'm willing put down large bets that Pelosi was there for the briefing) but who is ultimately responsible for the leak under her name? Nobody, so it varies with what are you looking for in what would be convincing.

Hillary Clinton could be very illuminating depending on perceptions, I suppose.

Pre-War Militarism

Senator Clinton's militaristic stance on Iraq predated her support for Bush's 2003 invasion. For example, in defending the brutal four-day U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 – known as Operation Desert Fox – she claimed that "[T]he so-called presidential palaces ... in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left." In reality, as became apparent when UN inspectors returned in 2002 as well as in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation, there were no weapons labs, stocks of weapons or missing records in these presidential palaces. In addition, Saddam was still allowing for virtually all inspections to go forward at the time of the 1998 U.S. attacks. The inspectors were withdrawn for their own safety at the encouragement of President Clinton in anticipation of the imminent U.S.-led assault.

Senator Clinton also took credit for strengthening U.S. ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the convicted embezzler who played a major role in convincing key segments of the administration, Congress, the CIA, and the American public that Iraq still had proscribed weapons, weapons systems, and weapons labs. She has expressed pride that her husband's administration changed underlying U.S. policy toward Iraq from "containment" – which had been quite successful in defending Iraq's neighbors and protecting its Kurdish minority – to "regime change," which has resulted in tragic warfare, chaos, dislocation, and instability.

You may not see this but by IAEA was so very interested as to why a Russian scientist was in Iran in the 1990's, why was a Russian scientist in Iran in 90s? We know now he was there on business with the CIA.

Prior to the 2003 invasion, Clinton insisted that Iraq still had a nuclear program, despite a detailed 1998 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), subsequent studies that indicated that Iraq's nuclear program appeared to have been completely dismantled a full decade earlier, and a 2002 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that made no mention of any reconstituted nuclear development effort. Similarly, even though Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs had been dismantled years earlier, she also insisted that Iraq had rebuilt its biological and chemical weapons stockpiles. And, even though the limited shelf life of such chemical and biological agents and the strict embargo against imports of any additional banned materials that had been in place since 1990 made it physically impossible for Iraq to have reconstituted such weapons, she insisted that "It is clear...that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

In the fall of 2002, Senator Clinton sought to discredit those questioning Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and others who were making hyperbolic statements about Iraq's supposed military prowess by insisting that Iraq's possession of such weapons "are not in doubt" and was "undisputed." Similarly, Clinton insisted that Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 2005 speech at the UN was "compelling" although UN officials and arms control experts roundly denounced its false claims that Iraq had reconstituted these proscribed weapons, weapons programs, and delivery systems. In addition, although top strategic analysts correctly informed her that there were no links between Saddam Hussein's secular nationalist regime and the radical Islamist al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton insisted that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."

http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12052

Is it really cheap shots or concerns?

[Old and In the Way]

23. wow, sounds awful.

But I will base her against (1) her primery candidate - who I might vote for and (2) her GE candidate....who, you can take to the bank, I will vote for....that is, Hillary Rodam Clinton, tje first woman t o be elected....POTUS. Not a bad thing. Maybe Republicans will start offering normal people to run for POTUS and we can have a real dicussion on poltics.

[JonLP24]

26. Is that sarcasm

I'm not sure because values differ & change over time, a lot less people angry about indefinite detention now than let's say 10 years ago.

I'm not trying to stop the first woman to be elected simply because she is a woman has a good chance of becoming elected.

but what it is it you are taking to the bank? That you will vote or she will become elected? I certainly agree she has the best odds right or left but a lot is unknown about primary candidates & who she will be based against. I can see scenarios I'd vote if it was leveraged against a member that troubles me more. It is hard to tell but candidates who run to the right of her won't stand a chance in the primaries.

[Old and In the Way]

28. I will vote for the Democrat.

Who will you vote?
Answer: Republican
Answer: Someone else (Republican)

Those are the 3 choices you have. Pretend world does not exist.

[rhett o rick]

31. Really, you will vote for the Democrat irregardless? Can you not see how Fracked up our

system is when you say that. You'd vote for Satan if he called himself a Democrat. If HRC runs against Jeb Bush, I will piss in the voting machine. But you go ahead and pretend that voting for Oligarch Thing 1 is somehow better than voting for Oligarch Thing 2 and that since you are getting the choice you are somehow free.

[Maedhros]

69. Some people are more willing that others to overlook atrocities for partisan reasons [n/t]

[JonLP24]

33. I'm mainly when the primary happens though it will likely be decided by the time it gets to Arizona

It is way too early to evaluating our options, I meant the primary, I thought you meant the primary so her status as the Presidential Democratic nominee is a given or that certain. I'm not there yet which is why I misunderstood your post but I meant primaries. Those are the choice pretty narrowed down. Rand Paul would be tricky especially in how it relates to foreign policy or 4th amendment but Rand Paul have private business freedoms that are much worse than Hillary Clinton's views regarding the Domestic economy but bipartisan views is exactly where the is the "Warren supporters" or the populist outrage is the thing that threatens her becoming President more than the Republicans. Republicans, if I could understand why better regarding voters I'd be able to better predict the type of candidate or the chances. I'm not a big believer in Jeb Bush or Christie even being elected much less being a credible threat Hillary Clinton or anyone really.

[RoccoR5955]

66. How about...

I will be doing what many Germans did in the 30's. LEAVE THE COUNTRY until things get better.
And if they get no better, just stay away.

[leveymg]

50. I believe that her later decision to support arming Islamic militants in Libya and Syria was also

illegal, at least under International Law norms. If another country did the same to us, we would treat it as an act of aggressive war, which has been defined in practice as follows.

In 1945, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal defined three categories of crimes, including crimes against peace. This definition was first used by Finland to prosecute the political leadership in the war-responsibility trials in Finland. The principles were later known as the Nuremberg Principles.

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle VI, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:[12][13]

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

Specifically, in 2011 and 2012, Secretary Clinton at State and CIA Director Petraeus aided Qatar in the arming of Sunni militia groups of Qatar's choosing in Libya and Syria. The U.S. then facilitated arms shipments in both directions across the Mediterranean. That decision was described in a much overlooked NYT article:

U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands
By JAMES RISEN, MARK MAZZETTI and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT DEC. 5, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.
(. . .)

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.

The Obama administration did not initially raise objections when Qatar began shipping arms to opposition groups in Syria, even if it did not offer encouragement, according to current and former administration officials. But they said the United States has growing concerns that, just as in Libya, the Qataris are equipping some of the wrong militants.

The United States, which had only small numbers of C.I.A. officers in Libya during the tumult of the rebellion, provided little oversight of the arms shipments. Within weeks of endorsing Qatar’s plan to send weapons there in spring 2011, the White House began receiving reports that they were going to Islamic militant groups. They were “more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam” than the main rebel alliance in Libya, said a former Defense Department official.

The Qatari assistance to fighters viewed as hostile by the United States demonstrates the Obama administration’s continuing struggles in dealing with the Arab Spring uprisings, as it tries to support popular protest movements while avoiding American military entanglements. Relying on surrogates allows the United States to keep its fingerprints off operations, but also means they may play out in ways that conflict with American interests.

(. . .)

He said that Qatar would not have gone through with the arms shipments if the United States had resisted them, but other current and former administration officials said Washington had little leverage at times over Qatari officials. “They march to their own drummer,” said a former senior State Department official. The White House and State Department declined to comment.

(. . .)

But after the White House decided to encourage Qatar — and on a smaller scale, the United Arab Emirates — to ship arms to the Libyans, President Obama complained in April 2011 to the emir of Qatar that his country was not coordinating its actions in Libya with the United States, the American officials said. “The president made the point to the emir that we needed transparency about what Qatar was doing in Libya,” said a former senior administration official who had been briefed on the matter. (INSERT: It was at this time that US Ambassador Chris Stevens quietly reappeared in Benghazi, where he took over direction of Eastern Libyan militias and CIA collection of weapons.)

About that same time, Mahmoud Jibril, then the prime minister of the Libyan transitional government, expressed frustration to administration officials that the United States was allowing Qatar to arm extremist groups opposed to the new leadership, according to several American officials. They, like nearly a dozen current and former White House, diplomatic, intelligence, military and foreign officials, would speak only on the condition of anonymity for this article.

The administration has never determined where all of the weapons, paid for by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, went inside Libya, officials said. Qatar is believed to have shipped by air and sea small arms, including machine guns, automatic rifles, and ammunition, for which it has demanded reimbursement from Libya’s new government. Some of the arms since have been moved from Libya to militants with ties to Al Qaeda in Mali, where radical jihadi factions have imposed Shariah law in the northern part of the country, the former Defense Department official said. Others have gone to Syria, according to several American and foreign officials and arms traders.

[valerief]

53. Oh, yes, his convenient little fire. And I seem to recall when

a document shredder truck was seen outside his house.
http://www.phawker.com/2006/10/30/breaking-document-shredder-truck-spotter-outside-cheneys-house/

[malaise]

39. +1, 000 n/t

[Enthusiast]

41. Certainly 2 and probably 3. But not "overt".

They couldn't have been that incompetent unless it was intentional. They made an effort to appear incompetent.















I am not satisfied with the building seven explanation.

[Dont call me Shirley]

48. That is so correct, Enthusiast.

I have been saying that for so long. The incompetence is a dunce act to make it appear that they did not know what they were doing. An act, an act of playing the fool. When the reality is that these people are criminal geniuses. Their real stupidity is that they are truly too incompetent at being decent and good human beings.

[dotymed]

63. I am waay past satisfied with any

of the official "explanations" fed to us by TPTB starting 11/12/2001. I, of course, am a "Truther."
Some pretty doublespeak shit.. anyway .. before the "media" began touting the Official Line, we as average Americans were
much better informed during the actual WTC catastrophe before the PTB began spinning it on the next day.
In my (obviously insane truther) opinion it was a clear "burning of the Reichstag" and billions were made on the stock market by short selling. Obviously, as told to us by the MSM on the 11th, they just had to follow the money trail....

As for POTUS elections, if TRUE FDR Democrats would band together and support the only probable candidate that truly represents us; Bernie Sanders, we can change this 3rd world country into a first rate Democracy.

Obfuscation seems to be the word of the last few decades. Fascism is what we have and the wealthy are our masters....duh.

IF elections actually do (I have been voting for many decades) work, WE unified can take back our country. I prefer that to violence. We are at or near the point of fix or fight.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. Lest we forget, how many American soldiers

were killed in that avoidable conflict?

"A total of 4,491 U.S. service members were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2014"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

[niyad]

7. and how many were wounded? how many iraqis killed or wounded? how many families

on all sides torn apart? how much are we going to continue to pay for this war based on lies?

[Enthusiast]

42. How much longer will the nation's media pretend the war was justified?

There should be repercussions for such a massive coordinated lie.

[valerief]

55. For as long as war profiteers own the media. nt

[jwirr]

30. Not were - still are in danger of being killed and wounded. And we are forgetting the overstretch

that has literally destroyed our economy. This is also part of their crimes. Chaney needs to go start painting and shut is damned mouth like W has. They have nothing more they can tell us.

[Dont call me Shirley]

49. They both, and several more, need to be painting the inside of prison walls.

[Mnpaul]

73. we have already forgotten(or didn't know)

that many of those deaths were caused by Bush's failure to secure many of Saddam's ammo dumps that were chock full of conventional high explosives on his way to Baghdad. We put up signs saying "keep out" but when we returned, the explosives were gone. This is the source of the IEDs not Iran.

[WillyT]

5. Huge K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[blkmusclmachine]

10. ,

,

[bbgrunt]

11. HUGE K and R

[Octafish]

12. If Bush and Cheney weren't guilty of something, they would've testified under oath...

...and separately. Oh well. It's just another one of those things that says to me, "legal-like for just-us."

[tblue37]

20. IOKIYAR. nt

[Enthusiast]

64. That point seems to have escaped the establishment media completely.

Could anything be any more obvious.

All I can say is, they must have supreme confidence in their control of media content.

[Thespian2]

14. K & R, hugely

Cheney and his band of murders should burn in Hell, but I think Satan will reject them...they are too evil.
I know Bush is part of the band, just not the leader.

[rhett o rick]

32. Cheney is Satan. nm

[Enthusiast]

43. I believe he picked out his new heart on the hoof, so to say.

[rhett o rick]

70. I have a hunch that if he ever dies he will be immediately cremated to protect

against what an autopsy might reveal. He may be functioning without a heart, literally as well as figuratively.

[Zorra]

17. Thanks, johnnyreb. It is our right to access all of that information. nt

[NBachers]

18. If only Al Gore had chosen Bob Graham as a running mate, instead of Lieberman

"Graham for Anything"

[JonLP24]

27. When mad joked that Al Gore was running for President

my first question was if he was going to pick Lieberman as his running mate. You can put that in the hall of bad decisions.

[freshwest]

38. You know what was weird about the Lieberman choice? Some fundies claimed it was a trick to put a Jew

in the White House if Gore was assassinated. Then he'd be the anti-Christ. Then The End Would Come. The RWNJs said anyone who voted for Gore would GTH because of well... abortion.

When Obama was running, he was the anti-Christ. Now that HRC will run most likely, she's been dubbed the one who will bring about TEOTWAWKI. And Then The End Will Come.

Or just The End Of The World As They Know It. They're right on that point, at least. They sure are a shifty bunch, after dissing Lieberman, now they're Cotton-ing up to Israel.

They speak with forked tongue.

[Mnpaul]

74. The scary part about that

"Holy Joe" is a rapture ready end timer.

'Holy Joe' Lieberman Erases Ties to Apocalyptic Fundamentalist Group
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/02/45684.shtml

[tblue37]

19. Which *we* have known and have been squawking about all along, of course. nt

[BeanMusical]

21. Good post. K and R.

[johnnyreb]

24. "We think The 28 Pages are really the tip of the iceberg;..." --9/11 plaintiffs' lawyer

"We think The 28 Pages are really the tip of the iceberg; there are troves of documents that we've asked for through the Freedom of Information Act that bear on potential Saudi responsibility, and in every instance we've gotten back responses that they remain classified, or we've gotten documents that are entirely redacted, so this is a relatively comprehensive problem."
—Sean P. Carter who is representing the plaintiffs, at about 10:30 in the audio below (from early February 2015):

https://soundcloud.com/smerconishshow/the-attorney-who-deposed-zacarias-moussaoui-about-alleged-saudi-911-involvement

Seems like cable news could sell a lot of commercials with this ongoing story. You know: graphics, countdown, theme music.

[mountain grammy]

35. Yes, this must not be allowed to rest.

The 28 pages must be declassified and the "news" will lap it up.. great for ratings.

[leveymg]

45. That photo of GHW Bush and Abdullah with their entourages, and their body language, tells us who

was really in charge of the world. It ain't Dick Cheney. Comic in the most deeply tragic sort of way.

[Caretha]

56. When your right

your right.

I truly appreciate your honesty. Others might not want to hear it, but it is salve to my soul that there is at least one person on DU who is not afraid of the truth.

[leveymg]

58. Funny. An editor at Barron's once told me being right isn't as important as

giving the readers the impression they had learned something, whether right or wrong, that fits in with stuff they already believed. But, that rule seems to apply to those writers who are actually paid for a living.

Thanks.

[GoneFishin]

25. I do believe all of this about the Saudis, but many people have suspected that very

strongly for enough years that it makes me wonder if the real delay in the release of the 28 pages is due to something contained in them which is even worse than the Saudi involvement.

[JonLP24]

29. It mainly has to do with the financing

In that is directly relates to what was redacting from the 9/11 Commission report or the lawsuit filed by 9/11 victim's family members which was originally filed early 2000s, easily over 10 years ago. There is a more recent article on that lawsuit

Terrorist Claims Return Sept. 11 Suit to Spotlight

WASHINGTON — Ron Motley could have come straight out of a John Grisham novel, a charismatic Southern trial lawyer with the swagger of a man who had bet big in life and usually won.

He rose to wealth and fame by vanquishing one seemingly unbeatable legal foe after another — first the asbestos industry, then Big Tobacco. Finally, he focused on what was arguably his toughest target of all: Saudi Arabia, which he saw as helping finance the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In 2002, Mr. Motley sued in federal court on behalf of the families of Sept. 11 victims against the government of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi elite, including banks, charities and even members of the royal family, accusing them of financing Al Qaeda. But the lawsuit, which lacked a smoking gun proving Saudi complicity, became mired in endless procedural delays, and Mr. Motley, its original champion, died in 2013.

Last week, though, the case drew headlines when lawyers for the families disclosed that Zacarias Moussaoui, a former Qaeda operative now in federal prison, had told them that members of Saudi Arabia’s royal family had been major donors to the terrorist organization in the late 1990s.

While those claims were quickly challenged by some foreign policy experts and rejected by Saudi officials, the assertions helped bring the once-simmering issue of possible Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks back into public view and renewed awareness of the lawsuit, which has occupied the federal court docket for almost the entire 21st century.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/world/middleeast/terrorists-claims-about-saudis-put-9-11-families-lawsuit-back-in-spotlight.html

Following the money isn't a very politically safe thing, The Wire makes this claim regarding a local police department & following the money to the city council or being told to release a legislative caught receiving a bag full of money "off the wire" from active targets of their investigation. Also told to give him back his money. Clay Davis just wanted "Cash the checks, count the votes, and move on".

So I agree.

[GoneFishin]

47. I still think that there is more more to this story than just Saudi involvement. Too many people

had already figured that out a decade ago for it to be a huge deal any longer.

[mountain grammy]

34. Good thread, bookmarking for later.

[JEB]

36. Any potential candidates calling for the release of the 28 pages?

[leveymg]

46. Even Nancy Pelosi called the subject, "sacred ground." Nobody wants to go there. Bob Graham should

run.

[JEB]

51. Too sacred for us peons to know about. Sickening.

I don't want to vote for anybody who chooses to keep us in the dark.

[leveymg]

52. By the terms of her oath of secrecy as one of the Eight, she's gagged herself. But, she could bring

attention to the subject, and refuses to do so as a matter of her own personal politics. Graham, as head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was also one of the Eight Congressional leaders who had been sworn in at the time of the 9/11 attacks, but he has since been doing what he can to get the word out. He's one of the few heroes in this sad episode.

[RobertEarl]

37. there's no cover and no up

Therefore there can be no coverup. Makes sense, right?

besides it's only been 13 years. it's still just a kid. let it grow up and when it's 50 or so and we are all dead, then they can tell them what was up. in the meantime all you cters are in violation of something. you're not perfect are you? then you are in violation.

besides some guy who never exposed any of this did not wear a condom one day and so he's the bad guy.
[font size=+3]

[Alkene]

40. Roger that. n/t

[gordianot]

54. It always happens someone has trouble sleeping at night.

Two possibilities exist for our collective betrayal:

1. It is so outrageous that few will believe it.

2. It is so horrible no one wants to know.

[Mnpaul]

59. Graham was also the one

screaming up and down about the Iraq WMD intel. He actually examined the evidence and knew it was bogus. He tried to warn the others but they didn't listen.

[KansDem]

61. Release the 28 pages...

It might explain why--
1. Bush did nothing when told by Andrew Card we were under attack;
2. Bush permitted members of the Saudi Royal Family to leave the U.S. when all plane traffic was grounded;
3. Bush admitted to seeing the first plane crash into the WTC while waiting to go into the classroom for his photo-op.

Just released the pages and be done with it!

[nashville_brook]

62. this is a fascinating youtube interview

it's an amazing "get" for a citizen journalist, and/or Bob Graham is willing to take a hit to his brand in order to get this information out. i mean really -- this is gobsmacking. BG has been out there forever, ringing the alarm on the Saudis vis-a-vis 9/11, so i'm sure he's just had it. he's willing to do what it takes.

[johnnyreb]

68. And FBI agent Robert Wright, "Vulgar Betrayal", etc.

As a child of WWII veteran parents who suffered mightily for their service, I have found the long years of silence and cowardice lightened only by people such as you who care enough to learn and to continue speaking.

[JonLP24]

67. The attorney who deposed Zacarias Moussaoui about alleged Saudi-9/11 involvement

I recommend all 13 minutes
https://soundcloud.com/smerconishshow/the-attorney-who-deposed-zacarias-moussaoui-about-alleged-saudi-911-involvement

[KamaAina]

72. Don't fly in any small planes, Bob.