Uproar
Over the 28 Pages: The Saudi/CIA Connection?
By
Kristen Breitweiser
May 05,
2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- "Huffington
Post"
-
Tom Kean
and Lee Hamilton wrote an opinion piece last
week inUSAToday,
trying to “temper” feelings surrounding the
release of the 28 pages.
Kean
and Hamilton wrote, “The 28 pages have generated
a lot of public speculation over the years and
have been described as a “smoking gun”
implicating the Saudi government in the
deadliest terrorist attack carried out on U.S.
soil.”
They go on to write, “What often gets lost in
those theories is that the 28 pages were based
almost entirely on raw, unvetted material that
came to the FBI. That material was written up as
possible leads for further investigation, and
the 28 pages were a summary of some of those
reports and leads as of the end of 2002 — all of
them uninvestigated.”
What Tom and Lee fail to acknowledge is the
reason the “raw, unvetted material” was left
“uninvestigated” was strictly because of the
9/11 Commission’s Staff Director, Philip Zelikow.
Zelikow has
too many conflicts of interest to list in
this blog. Suffice it to say that a critical
portion of the
9/11 Commission’s Final Report can be seen
as merely a fairy-tale rendition (or
intelligence “story”) of Philip’s design.
(Scroll down to the lunch break, read Zelikow’s
next Staff Statement where he talks about an
“intelligence story.”)
Indeed,
chapter 5, “Al Qaeda Aims at the Homeland,”
and chapter 7, “The Attack Looms,” provide most
of the vital pieces of information surrounding
the 9/11 plot by citing Khalid Sheikh Mohammad’s
interviews as their primary source. Why would
any laudable historian (who Zelikow professes to
be) base an official accounting of the worst
terrorist attack since Pearl Harbor on the bogus
ramblings of a detained, tortured terrorist?
That’s why anything and everything that comes
out of Zelikow’s mouth should be questioned for
its veracity — and motive.
After all,
if the person in charge of torturing KSM wanted
to obscure the Saudi role, is it a surprise that
KSM would say what his torturer wanted to hear?
Moreover, is it a surprise that the person or
persons in charge of KSM’s torture, who wanted
to obscure the U.S. government’s awareness of
the threat and indeed specific knowledge of many
of the terrorist activities before the attack,
would elicit a story consistent with that goal?
Indeed, regarding the 9/11 Commission’s
treatment of the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks,
Zelikow’s hands are easily found. Look at three
items. First, Zelikow blocked and then fired
Dana Lesemann when she tried to investigate the
uninvestigated leads in the 28 pages. Where were
Tom and Lee when this happened? Second, it was
only Zelikow and Dieter Snell who were granted
access and able to question Omar Bayoumi—a man
who stands at the epicenter of the Saudi nexus
to the 9/11 attacks. Why were Zelikow and Snell
the only ones permitted to interview such a key
individual? Finally, it was Zelikow and Snell
who “re-wrote” the entire Saudi section of the
9/11 Commission’s Final Report — leaving out all
the damning, incriminating information. Where is
that missing information today? Available for
public review?
So please, when Tom and Lee say that they “found
no evidence linking the Saudi’s to the 9/11
attacks,” pay careful attention to the cute use
of their words, “found no evidence.” Because
while concededly there may not then
have been conclusive proof, there were certainly
indications and evidence that required further
and immediate follow-up.
In addition, note when Tom and Lee talk about
access granted to the 28 pages being given to
“relevant” staff. Which staff were deemed
relevant? And who decided what staffers were
“relevant?” Zelikow? Everyone had clearance, so
why didn’t all investigative staff have access
to the 28 pages?
Tom and Lee also proudly state that their report
is unclassified and available to the public.
What you need to realize is that while their
final report is unclassified, the source
documents for that report remain classified and
hidden from the public. In short, unlike
redacted reports where you can readily see what
is being kept secret by the dark lines crossing
out words, with the 9/11 Commission’s Final
Report, we’ll never know how much other
pertinent information was kept out and
classified by Zelikow. And, as someone who has
looked for specific documents on the National
Archives website, I can state emphatically that
many of the 9/11 Commission’s
most vital and damning documents remain
redacted, withheld, classified and/or
unavailable to the public.
Moreover, please pay attention to how Tom and
Lee characterize the 9/11 Review Panel. Realize
that the 9/11 Review Panel did nothing more than
tie up the loose, uncomfortable (i.e. damning)
ends that would inevitably be created with the
release of the 28 pages. Was the Panel’s purpose
to uncover the entire 9/11 story or to stop
further inquiry that would eventually uncover
the entire truth?
Finally, I do agree with one section of Kean and
Hamilton’s editorial, “The 9/11 attacks were the
worst mass murder ever carried out in the United
States. Those responsible deserve the maximum
punishment possible. Therefore, accusations of
complicity in that mass murder from responsible
authorities are a grave matter. Such charges
should be levied with care.”
I just hope that both Kean and Hamilton mean
what they say when they talk about those
responsible and complicit in the 9/11 attacks
“deserving the maximum punishment possible.” And
I hope their definition of complicity is as
broad as mine, by including actions before and
after the crime and actors from inside and
outside the United States.
So for example, let’s just say that our CIA (or
a rogue element of it) tried to recruit two 9/11
hijackers in San Diego who were already in
contact with Saudi agents. And in carrying out
that task, the CIA worked with those Saudi
agents in the recruitment process. And thus, all
the Saudi contacts and support for the hijackers
detailed in the 28 pages (the so-called “smoking
gun”) necessarily reveals the CIA/Saudi
cooperation in dealing with those two 9/11
hijackers. Incidentally, this might explain why
CIA Director, John Brennan, has
joined the chorus in stating that all
information released in the 28 pages is
“uncorroborated, unvetted information.”
Will Kean and Hamilton support holding the
CIA officials accountable? Will Cofer Black
and James Pavitt be held accountable? George
Tenet? John McLaughlin? What about John Brennan?
Or Michael Hayden? Bob Mueller? Richard Clarke?
Too late for Sandy Berger(and those docs he
stuffed in his socks), but what about Clinton?
Bush? Cheney? Rice? And, Obama? How about
Zelikow and all others who have known the truth
for years and kept silent? When Kean and
Hamilton say complicity is a “grave matter,” I
hope they follow through on their word.
Clearly, much will depend on how good a job was
done by the 9/11 Review Panel. But, putting that
aside, I certainly hope the U.S. government does
not expect the 9/11 families to ignore fifteen
years of their cover-up and capitalized
“opportunities” in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
(Quoting
Condi Rice here in the immediate wake of the
9/11 attacks where she said, “how can we
capitalize on these opportunities” — that’s
right, she called the mass murder of 3000
innocent people an “opportunity” that should be
“capitalized upon”).
Recently,
we’ve seen that even though decades have passed
since Dennis Hastert committed his despicable
deeds, he was eventually caught and held
accountable for the cover-up of those deeds. To
me, this demonstrates that the truth will always
emerge.
Fifteen
years after the 9/11 murders, we have uncovered
a part of that truth, let us hope it does not
take another fifteen years for the whole truth
to emerge. Rest assured, we will never give up
nor will we ever go away.
(9/11
Widows Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy
Kleinberg, and Lorie Van Auken also sign their
names to this blog.)
Copyright ©
2016 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc |
