Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Were The Saudis Complicit In 9/11? - What You Won't See Elsewhere


Something rattling the blogsphere thew last two days is an op-ed in the New York Post by investigative reporter, author and columnist Paul Sperry. It concerns an alleged cover up by the Bush Administration on Saudi involvement in 9/11:

After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors.

But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.

It was kept secret and remains so today.

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.

Sperry goes on to detail a number of specific instances, all of them factual, as is his habit. He cites Saudi diplomats like Saudi consulate official Fahad al-Thumairy, Saudi intelligence agents Omar al-Bayoumi, Osama Bassnan actually set up safe houses for the 9/11 hijackers and provided them with funds. He relates how these men set up private meetings for the hijackers with American al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who fled America to escape terrorism charges and was later killed by a drone in Yemen.Bassnan later fled America as well after 9/11.

He also says that then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar and his wife sent checks totaling some $130,000 to Bassnan, much of whom went to the hijackers and to al-Qaeda. The questionable donations are not actually not classified, but a matter of public record...yet nothing happened to Bandar and he was simply recalled.

it is also a matter of record that a number of Saudi government official and nationals were given priority after 9/11 in getting out of the country, including members of the bin-Laden family.

None of this is news, frankly, to anyone who took an honest look at 9/11. Nor is the news on how FBI attempts to investigate 9/11 were stymied by the Bush Administration.

Where Sperry and I part ways is his conjecture that this was an organized attack and an act of war by the Saudi government.

What we had instead, I think, was a number of high level members of the Saudi government and the royal family, plus others in the Gulf Emirates who funded and supported bin-Laden, mostly because, you know, jihad. Some were more involved than others, but probably few of them really believed a second attack on the WTC would succeed, or that it do the damage it did. If you recall, even bin-Laden was pleasantly surprised as how successful the attack went.There was no upside to the Saudis attacking the U.S.

So now we come to the Bush Administration's role in this.

Revealing that high level Saudis had been involved in 9/11 would have meant a declaration of war. Now had I been president, I would have had no problems going there, or at the very least getting a full Saudi mea culpa, financial compensation, the guilty Saudis repatriated back to America to stand trial and an end to their financing mosques and jihad friendly imams here in America.

But President Bush's relationship with these people was, shall we say, somewhat different.


As more than one Bush biography relates, the Bush family was so close to Prince Bander that his nickname within the family circle was 'Bandar Bush'. And a look at Neil Bush of Silverado Trust fame also reveals the family's close connections with the Gulf States.

Nor is it limited to the Bushes. A look at the 'bi-partisan' Carlyle Fund(a huge mega-hedge fund mainly run by former cabinet members, influential congressmen and yes, a few former presidents that included substantial investments by the bin-Laden family), the plethora of six and seven figure speaking and 'consulting fees' enjoyed by a number of political figures on both sides of the aisle including the Clintons, Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and former senators Bob Dole and Tom Daschle just to name a few, the vast amounts spent to fund presidential libraries and foundations, former president Bill Clinton's special 'business relationship' with the Sultan of Dubai that made him a multimillionaire and helped fund Hillary's Clinton's last presidential campaign..lots of members of our ruling class have had their snouts in the trough.

Which by the way, might just tell you why America has never sought to seriously become energy independent even though we have ample oil and are one of the top five petroleum exporters.

In any event. let's just say taking out Saudi Arabia would be bad for business with all that money involved...not to mention that as keeper of the Muslim shrines at Mecca and Medina, a strike at the Saudis might have widened the scope of the war just a bit.

Or would it? Aside from the Saudis and the Gulf Emirates, there was another Muslim country that was very much complicit in 9/11. And unlike The Saudis, we are talking about direct, proven government involvement.

Hezbollah and Iran were directly involved in the 9/11 attacks and it is a matter of record thanks to a federal trial that took place in response to lawsuits filed by families of 9/11 victims.

Iran facilitated the transit of the 9/11 hijackers into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, just like they allowed entry to al-Qaeda fighters after we invaded their stronghold in Afghanistan.

On page 240 of the 9/11 Commission’s final report, it mentions a “senior Hezbollah operative” who accompanied some of the future 9/11 hijackers on their final airline flights into and out of Afghanistan, Iran, and Lebanon.

It's now known beyond any doubt that the “senior Hezbollah operative” was our old friend Imad Mugniyeh. You'll remember that he was not only a member of al-Qaeda but a founding member of Hezbollah and a former member of Yasser Arafat's Force 17. He was the commander of the operation that killed 247 marines in Beirut, the man who tortured to death Marine Colonel William Buckley,videotaped the proceedings and sent it to the White House, and the facilitator in the Karina A arms shipment, which involved Iranian weapons sent to the PLO.

Mugniyah was the natural liaison man for the 9/11 hijackers as well,because he was one of the few people trusted by by all parties involved...Hezbollah, Iran and al- Qaeda. He was finally sent to hell in 2008, most likely by the Israeli Mossad.

The 9/11 commission report strongly suggested further investigation of the Iranian complicity at the time, but neither the Bush Administration or the Obama Administration ever saw fit to follow up.

As evidence given in the trials show, in addition to directing Mughniyah’s extensive involvement in recruiting, guiding, and training the hijackers, Iran provided vital material support to those hijackers by ordering its border and passport officials not to stamp their passports when they crossed Iranian territory. That meant they could enter the U.S. with clean passports, no questions asked and was of huge help in maintaining their cover.

Not only that, but there's evidence that emerged from the trials that the hijackers may even have received some training in Iran.

According to testimony by a former senior Iranian intelligence officer, Abolghasem Mesbahi, Mugniyeh helped train the hijackers in a camp set up by the MOIS, Iran's intelligence service. Mesabi, who has also been a witness for the German BND in investigating and trying cases involving Iranian assassins of expatriates and dissidents in that country, testified in Federal court that al-Qaeda received instruction in spy craft, explosives, communications, operational guidance and time on a flight simulator purchased by Iran from China for the exact model of domestic airliner the hijackers would use in the 9/11 attacks...which Iran did not have as part of its domestic air fleet in IranAir at the time.

None of this has ever been followed up on.

So, if we were actually talking about going after the perpetrators of 9/11, it seems like Iran Hezbollah, and probably the Saudis and some of the Gulf Emirates might have been on our list. Pretty specific targets, either for a diplomatic or military reckoning. Instead, we went after al-Qaeda, the jihad subcontractors, and we have done so in two consecutive administrations. Worse than that, we continue to appease these regimes who were involved in butchering 3,000 of our fellow Americans.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has talked several times about reconvening the 9/11 Commission to get some answers. As you might imagine, the response from the White House has not been overwhelming and I doubt it will happen.

The complicity of a number of Muslim countries is what they're not telling you about 9/11, and that's why more evidence of Saudi complicity in 9/11 is no big news.

The real story is how we got from there to where we are now over the past 12 years, and why. That's what we have yet to find out.


Anonymous said...

The best politicians money can buy.

B.Poster said...

Actually I think Mr. Sperry is right that this was an act of war by the Saudi government. I pretty much knew this from the start. Actually what was needed at the time was a coherent strategy to defeat both Saudi Arabia and Iran. Essentially we needed to defeat the backers of both Sunni and Shia Islamists.

A good place to start would have been a declaration of war on Saudi Arabia, a full force invasion of Saudi Arabia, conquest of the that nation, seizure of the oil wells making them US property, and if we were unable to seize control of them destroy them so no one could use them again.

Much of what you write probably does explain a good deal of why America has never really became energy independent. I must say that must be an awful lot of money American officials are being paid to willingly sell oneself into bondage to those who hate them and their families.

I do find it surprising that the Saudis or Bin Laden would not have expected the attacks to be as successful as they were. Given the incompetent nature of US intelligence services, it's hard to imagine they could have stopped it. What seems amazing to me is the attacks were not more successful.

At the time, I remember thinking the attacks were tactically brilliant but strategically stupid. I did not fully realize the rot within American leadership. I thought they really might make the Saudis pay a steep price for this. Furthermore, now that they are getting their collective clocks cleaned by Iran and its surrogates they could use whatever help we could muster. Having attacked us once those who would want us to help the Saudis in places like Syria are finding it a tough sell.

Additionally, the Saudis further undermined their position when they tried to thwart us in Iran. By undermining our efforts there they all but ensured Iran would gain control. The Saudis could not have a government friendly to America so they made things worse for themselves!! Ideology blinds and in some cases it kills. As the Iraq operation was ill thought, ill conceived, botched, and a bad idea that never should have seen the light of day perhaps that would have happened any way but by Saudi actions was but guaranteed.

Given that the US military has been worn down, the type of military solution I suggested in the first paragraph that could have conceivably handled the Saudi problem after 911 is unavailable right now nor does the US have a viable military option for Iran other solutions will need to be sought. The best option and probably the only option at this point is a full withdrawl from the region and redeployment to positions that will give us a chance to defend our nation. Additionally we have Russia and China who are stronger and more emboldened while we are significantly weaker.

Probably at no time in history has one nation faced the conflagration of enemies the United States currently faces. I'm sure every leader on earth is grateful that the problems his/her nation face is no where near as severe as those faced by America. At least would be the case for every major power.

Why would these people who read the reports be "shocked?" These are congress personnel. I've known this for years and I don't have access to any where near the information congressional personnel have.

john said...

"what you won't see elsewhere"????

i saw this in fahrenheit 911 almost ten years ago. suddenly the nypost gets on board and you're paying attention?? you guys owe michael moore an apology. otherwise, you have no right to pretend that 'you won't see this anywhere else' you bunch of frauds.

Rob said...

Hey 'John',
Do you really think you're going to get away with that here?

Moore is a 911 Truther and an 'anti-Zionist' slash anti-semite.

Depending on which side of bed his carcass rolls out of, he either claims 911 was an inside job by the Bushes to invade the Middle East for the oil (something that's already shown to be false if you see who ended up with Iraq's oil)or claiming that it was a Mossad operation.

Yeah, Moore's bogus film did go into some,but by no means all of the connections with the Saudis and the Bush family,much of which he 'borrowed' elsewhere. But he had almost none of the specifics Paul Sperry provides here, or the sort of things I and others have been writing about for years.

For instance, there's nothing about the Iran/Hezbollah connection in Moore's 'documentary',perhaps because he's been an appeaser of that evil regime for years.

And Moore curiously had a blind spot about any Democrat connections to the Saudis or the emirates like the Clintons, or Mr. Bill's using his Assistant attorney general Jamie Gorelick to build a wall between our intel agencies so operations like Able Danger who were actually tracking Atta and the 9/11 hijackers in Europe were unable to pass their intel over to the FBI.

In short, he's a partisan, radical shill who feeds off low information types.

Apologize? It's a pity Bush wasn't astute enough to actually go to congress and declare war as our Constitution mandates, so people like Moore could have been prosecuted for treason.

Anonymous said...

Bushes to invade the Middle East for the oil (something that's already shown to be false if you see who ended up with Iraq's oil)

That's an interesting argument. You assume that because we didn't end up with the oil, we didn't go in for the oil. Cum hoc; ergo, propter hoc.

The idea that an administration so craven and incompetent that they would go to war over a lie and get mired down in a war of their own choosing would also be competent enough to get the oil they so clearly lusted over is very naive. They put their hand in the cookie jar and didn't get a crumb. That pretty much sums up the whole crooked adventure.

Rob said...

I love it when people like you actually try and parse logic.

Of course, we were talking about 9/11, but I don't mind you tossing Iraq into the mix...just this once.

First off, show me on iota of evidence that the Iraqi oil was the object of the war. You can't because it doesn't exist. If oil was the objective, Saudi Arabia would have been a lot easier and lot more lucrative as a target.

Second, the Iraq oil itself wouldn't even exist if Halliburton hadn't performed what amounted to a miracle in putting out the fires after Saddam set the wells ablaze.No one else even wanted to take that job on.

And third, it's a matter of record that the revenues from Iraqi oil during our occupation were used to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure,provide humanitarian aid and fund its interim government.

In fact, Bush was actually right about that yellow cake uranium Saddam had. The Iraqis sold it to the Canadian government a few years ago.

So much for 9/11 being an 'inside job' designed to plunder Middle East oil!

Of course, if like Moore you're a 9/11 truther, none of this matters to you.

Hopefully, you have a few more brain cells than that.

BTW,lest you think I had much good to say about our invasion of Iraq do a search either on this site under 'Iraq' or via Google under 'Joshuapundit between Iraq and A Hard Place'.

Anonymous said...

Rob, 9:46am: "Bushes to invade the Middle East for the oil (something that's already shown to be false if you see who ended up with Iraq's oil)"

Rob, 12:53pm: "Of course, we were talking about 9/11, but I don't mind you tossing Iraq into the mix...just this once."

Maybe you're a time traveler, Rob. It certainly looks like it was you who brought it up. Might want to erase your first post there. Or just trash this comment so no one else notices the obvious......

Rob said...


Oh, c'mon! Given what you spewed out, would anyone have imagined you weren't bringing up Iraq?

Actually, I think what everyone else is going to notice is that I brought up a number of actual facts that you simply couldn't reply to, but hey...enjoy the fantasy.

And have a nice day.