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.