Report on 9/11 Suggests a Role by Saudi Spies; may have reported to Saudi government

New York Times ^ | 08-01-03

[optimistically_conservative]

If Bush knows who did 9/11, and lets them off.. You're damn right that's it for me. Should be for everyone.

Where have you been? I know who "did" 9/11, why Afghanistan and Iraq were important to deny, dismantle and diminish our enemies, and why North Korea, Iran and Iraq were name as the "axis of evil."

JAY-SUS, have you been paying attention and thinking this through?

[okie01]

"Then publish the 28 pages and get it over with. That would end the "mystery" now wouldn't it."

Not if the 28 pages are a collection of inconclusive and contradictory evidence, mixed with half-baked speculation.

This would make it a worthwhile intelligence document, but hardly something worth airing in public.

Get a grip.

[okie01]

Ping to #33.

Your common sense regarding how we should view provocative liberal media reports is needed here.

[optimistically_conservative]

Call in the moles, spies, etc. (which we can't trust anyway) and tell them the gig's up.

That's stupifying. I'd be speechless if I could stop swearing.

[CWOJackson]

"I hope Freepers and the conservative media stops and thinks first and won't jump onto the Democrats' Bush bashing bandwagon, using the Saudi Trojan Horse."

For some here no excuse is too flimsy to not bash Bush with.

[optimistically_conservative]

stupifying -> stupefying

[Brian S]

Not if the 28 pages are a collection of inconclusive and contradictory evidence, mixed with half-baked speculation.

So instead we have a media frenzy of "inconclusive, contradictory evidence mixed with half-baked speculation"...

That is preferable?

This "inconclusive, contradictory evidence mixed with half-baked speculation" will be the topic of ALL the Sunday Talkies...and you can "get my grip" on that!

[LayoutGuru2]

So is there a word used in Washington for information that is not supposed to be available to the general public and to the rest of the world. When I was growing up we called it classified, they must be using some new word that I am not familiar with. =)

[MJY1288]

For all we know it's just a ploy to get Bin Laden to surface, Osama bin Laden condemned the Royal Family for it's involvement with us during the Gulf War and the Saudi's revoked his citsenship. There is no doubt that OBL would like nothing better than to drive a wedge between us and the Saudi's and it had to be easy to recruit Saudi's who didn't appreciate our presence in Sauid Arabia.

I have always believed that OBL intentionally recruited Saudi's for the 9/11 attacks in hopes we would attack the Saudi Royal Family with hundreds of Cruise Missiles, after all that was our pattern for 8 years of Clinton. It would make sense to get OBL's Saudi recruits to seek funding from the highest levels in the Saudi Royal Family as they could in order to leave a trail.

[Brian S]

Anything labeled congressional report, such as this is, should automatically be assumed as "unclassifed" whether deemed "classified" or not.

I would have liked to think that the White House realized this when they "blackout" 28 pages. They should have realized this would be a "lightning rod".

Things haven't been right at the White House since Karen Hughes left...Karen, where are you????

[Hazzardgate]

Easy now!

[Miss Marple]

Well, the first thing I would point out is that this is the usual NYT speculative, manufactured story. Look at the lead:

The classified part of a Congressional report on the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, says that two Saudi citizens who had at least indirect links with two hijackers were probably Saudi intelligence agents and may have reported to Saudi government officials, according to people who have seen the report.

Before everyone goes off the deep end because of their distrust of Saudi Arabia, please look at the bolded words in that lead paragraph.

They had "at least indirect links? " That is nothing. They could have a second cousin who went to school with Prince Bandar's mother-in-law. That is an indirect link, but it means nothing.

They are "probably" agents (no proof, only speculation) who "may have reported" to Saudi government officials. (Agian with the speculation, and what government officials? The King? The customs agent on the Kuwaiti border? Specificity would be nice, and I don't see it.)

Finally, all of this speculation is based on what the reporters were TOLD by "people who have seen the report." What people? It certainly isn't anyone on the Republican side of the aisle, because they would talk to the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post before they spoke to the Times. So, this is gossip from the Rat rumour mill.

Two members of the Intelligence Committee are running for president, Edwards and Graham. Graham has been skulking around hinting that there was some sort of cover-up, so my bet is that this leak came from his staff.

What I really hope is that this is a sting, and the names are bogus and reveal the source of the leaks.

[FairOpinion]

"Things haven't been right at the White House since Karen Hughes left...Karen, where are you???? "

---

Good point. They need her or someone like her, who thinks several steps ahead of everyone, and prevents problems, instead of trying to react to them after they occur.

[Miss Marple]

Karen Hughes is in pretty constant contact with the White House. She is simply working from her home.

However, since Karen Hughes has NOTHING to do with information in a Congressional report and certainly would not be the person classifying material to keep it from the public eye, your complaint is without merit.

Unless you think that speechwriters sit in on meetings to debate whether or not to declassify sensitive information.

[optimistically_conservative]

So after the strategery revelation of uranium from Africa, you're ready to dive into the shallow end of the pool with the DemonRats and liberal media pundits over UNSOURCED reporting of a classified document that MAY contain "inconclusive, contradictory evidence mixed with half-baked speculation" ... and you're concerned about the impact on your credibility or the DemonRats and media pundits?

[lainde]

At some point we're going to have to annihilate the S.A. "mothership". I don't think we're ready yet. I don't know what the plan is but I do believe there is one. As GWB says: "At a time and place of our choosing". Meanwhile we're strategically positioned in Iraq.

[technomage]

Why do we classify ANYTHING in this country? There are always un-American, self absorbed, power hungry congressmen, aides, lawyers, etc. who will leak the damn stuff.

[Brian S]

NO, but Karen would have been able to advise the President in how to deal with what some "deemed" as classified knowing that, what comes out of a congressional report is "never classified" regardless of the "stamp on the page".

BTW...do you characterize Karen as just a "speechwriter". If so, you are truely deluted.

[Brian S]

Point well taken. If it comes from a "congressional report" it is NEVER EVER classified. That should be a given for all concerned.

[af_vet_rr]

What I really hope is that this is a sting, and the names are bogus and reveal the source of the leaks.

You don't play aorund with a foreign government over something this sensitive simply to setup a sting on a couple of congressional members. This is such a sensitive thing, that it could jeopardize our ties with S.A. (which would be a good thing, they aren't our friends and I wish the government would drop the charade).

Let me ask you this Miss Marple - would it surprise you that people reporting to the Saudi government were involved with 9/11?

We know the majority of hijackers were Saudi, we know the Saudi government gives money to the families of suicide bombers (thereby promoting terrorism), we know that much of the anti-American/West hate is preached and spread by Saudi-educated religious leaders.