Why now? (Saudis and 9/11)

[Nordic]

But I am starting to wonder about the Bush family. Once Poppy is gone, things could change. The way this 28 page thing is suddenly being brought to the forefront I have been wondering about the Bush family power situation.

Who might be in the wings ready to take in the Bush family? There's gotta be someone! I can't think of a better way to throw them under the bus than this.

[Karmamatterz]

Perhaps the 28 pages is a red herring.

[JackRiddler]

Perhaps it is! Perhaps it isn't! Perhaps, perhaps!

That's a pretty long struggle to keep a red herring classified, no? But perhaps that's part of the show! Perhaps it isn't! Perhaps perhaps!

[seemslikeadream]

General News 1/16/2015 at 18:26:50
What is Philip Zelikow Hiding? A History of Zelikow's Efforts to Block Public Access to 28 Pages of the Joint 9/11 Inte
By Elizabeth Woodworth (about the author) Permalink

Most people have never heard of Philip D. Zelikow, who is perhaps best known for his role as executive director of the 9/11 Commission back in 2003-2004. .
As a White House insider, Zelikow's appointment to this task was controversial on grounds of conflict of interest. [1]

Before the investigation even got underway, Zelikow alarmed Commission staff by writing a detailed outline for the report, "complete with chapter headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings."[2]

After the staff learned of this outline, some of them wrote a parody entitled "The Warren Commission Report - Preemptive Outline," with one chapter headed, "Single Bullet: We Haven't Seen the Evidence Yet. But Really. We're Sure."

As this parodied outline indicated, Zelikow had decided in advance what the 9/11 Commission's report would say and, as documented by then-New York Times reporter Philip Shenon, used iron-fisted control over virtually every aspect of the Final Report (2004)[3]

Last week Zelikow was again in the news about an earlier 9/11 report, which he did not supervise -- the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities (2002). [4]

This report contains 28 pages, blank to the public, that deal with the financing of the attacks. They were classified 12 years ago by President George W. Bush for national security reasons.

Closely guarded in a basement room under Capitol Hill, these pages may only be read by legislators following a formal application process -- and even then only under the watchful eyes of staffers who forbid note-taking.

- Advertisement -
A group of 23 members of Congress agree that they shed essential light on the 9/11 attacks and are pressing for their declassification so that the American people might finally have the truth.

On Wednesday, January 7, Congressmen Walter Jones (R) and Stephen Lynch (D), co-sponsors of House Resolution 428[5] calling for the President to release the information, held a press conference on Capitol Hill, together with three people who had lost family members in the attacks. [6]

Before and after this press conference, Jones and Lynch were interviewed by national networks, including CNN, CBS, ABC, CBC, and Fox News.

In at least two cases, news agencies referred to statements by Zelikow, who, after running the 9/11 Commission returned to academics at the University of Virginia in 2007, where he is now:[7]

The CBS anchor commented: "Philip Zelikow, who was the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, says that the pages should not be released, saying that the pages are full of unproven facts."[8] (Congressman Lynch replied that the same people who wrote these pages drafted the entire report, the rest of whose 858 pages have been public all along.)

Newsweek reported: "Philip D. Zelikow, who was executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and has read the pages, thinks they should remains secret. Now a professor of history at the University of Virginia, Zelikow compared the 28 pages to grand jury testimony and raw police interviews -- full of unproven facts, rumors and innuendo."[9]

Equally intriguing is that Zelikow fired a 9/11 Commission investigator, Dana Leseman, back in 2003 over the same issue. Leseman and a colleague had been researching a possible link between two of the 9/11 hijackers -- Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi -- and elements of the government of Saudi Arabia.

Leseman asked Zelikow to provide her with a document she needed for her work -- 28 redacted pages from the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry report that she herself had helped to research -- but Zelikow blocked her access to it. This led to an argument that resulted in her dismissal. [10]

The situation now is that just as President Bush had the authority to censor the pages, President Obama has the authority to release them.
Congressmen Jones and Lynch say they wrote to Obama in April 2014, asking for their release (as Obama had once promised the 9/11 families he would do. [11])

Sometime later, having received no reply, they phoned the White House and were told only that they "were working on it."[12]

This is not the first time elected representatives have tried to get their hands on the 28 pages.

Back in 2003 -- while Zelikow was directing the 9/11 Commission -- a group of 46 senators, including Democrats Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, wrote to President Bush requesting the pages from the 2002 report, but to no avail. [13]

Why, given the change to a Democratic administration in 2008, has there not been more progress?

Could it partly be that Zelikow was appointed to Obama's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board -- where he had also served under George W. Bush [14] -- in September 2011?

One thing is clear: Zelikow is never far away when the 28 pages threaten to become public.

What is Zelikow hiding?

- Advertisement -
One possibility involves a 2004 Los Angeles Times story based on interviews with "several senior members" of the 9/11 Commission, who reportedly said that the Commission had uncovered evidence that "Saudi Arabia provided funds and equipment to the Taliban and probably directly to Bin Laden."[15]

"Now," said the reporter, "the bipartisan commission is wrestling with how to characterize such politically sensitive information in its final report, and even whether to include it."[16]

The result of the Zelikow-controlled commission's "wrestling" was to say that it had "found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization."[17]

Might Zelikow want to hide this lie and the facts that this lie was meant to bury?

Given that the 9/11 wars have been the defining international tragedy of this century, the world needs to know.

[thatsmystory]

28 pages: the controversy over Saudi Arabia and 9/11, explained
Updated by Max Fisher on April 20, 2016, 8:30 a.m. ET @Max_Fisher max@vox.com

This article by Max Fisher is classic US media bullshit.

Other officials, though, say the findings are speculative and inconclusive and have been rebuked by subsequent investigations.

Other officials? Like who, Zelikow?

Those reports, which have been made at least their final assessments public, found no evidence that the Saudi government supported the 9/11 attacks or attackers.

What are the 28 pages if not evidence that the Saudi government supported the alleged hijackers? Nice way to confuse your readers. Regardless if you think the Saudi aspect is a red herring or not the fact is that Graham has made it very, very clear he is talking about a Saudi support network.

This past June, the CIA's Office of the Inspector General finally released the findings of its own internal investigation, concluded in 2005, into intelligence failures leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

Where is Fisher's comment on this? Does he understand that this aspect is just as big as the Saudi link? Rich Blee? Dina Corsi? Alfreda Bikowsky?

What the fuck. I'm not the champion of all these shitty investigations. Journalists like Max Fisher are the guys who love to tell us the sanctioned preservers of all truth looked into this and concluded only conspiracy dickheads think something doesn't smell right. Did Max Fisher read John Farmer's book? Does he know Farmer admitted he has no fucking clue what Alec Station was doing in regard to al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. That's right only conspiracy theorists are honest enough to state that people at Alec Station were likely given orders to back the fuck off. That's why they did it. Maybe they agreed with the orders. The point is that guys like Max Fisher don't give a shit about the truth.

[seemslikeadream]

well there goes Obama's reason for not letting 9/11 families sue

SUPREME COURT RULES IRAN MUST PAY VICTIMS OF 1983 ATTACKS
BY REUTERS ON 4/20/16 AT 9:40 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that almost $2 billion in frozen Iranian assets must be turned over to American families of people killed in the 1983 bombing of a U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut and other attacks blamed on Iran.

The court's 6-2 ruling dealt a setback to Iran's central bank, finding that the U.S. Congress did not usurp the authority of American courts by passing a 2012 law stating that the frozen funds should go toward satisfying a $2.65 billion judgment won by the families against Iran in U.S. federal court in 2007.

[MacCruiskeen]

There's a whole website devoted to this issue:

28Pages.org

An information & activism hub for the growing movement to declassify 28 pages on foreign government ties to 9/11

https://28pages.org/tag/28-pages/

Some pseudo-presidential non-politics in the early days of post-reality:

Sanders’ Worst-in-Show Answer on Whether He’s Read 28 Pages

April 18, 2016 28 pages, 9/11, Bernie Sanders, CBS This Morning, Thomas Massie

Screen Shot 2016-04-18 at 9.03.50 PMSince our launch in 2014, 28Pages.org has encouraged citizens and journalists alike to ask members of Congress a simple question about the secret 28 pages on foreign government financing of the 9/11 attacks: “Have you read the 28 pages?”

Today, Senator Bernie Sanders managed to give the worst answer we’ve encountered to date.

On CBS This Morning, amid a discussion of tensions with Saudi Arabia over a bill that would clear a path for 9/11 victims to sue the kingdom and the president’s upcoming decision on whether to declassify the 28 pages, host Norah O’Donnell asked our favorite question: “Have you read them?”

“No, I have not,” he replied. An honest albeit disappointing answer—but not a surprising one given the extraordinarily low level of 28-pages readership on Capitol Hill. Then things turned south quickly.

Admirably pressed by the hosts as to whether he should read them, Sanders said, “The difficulty is, you see then, if you read them, then you’re gonna ask me a question, you’re gonna say, ‘You read them, what’s in them?’ And now I can tell you honestly I have not.”

Put another way, Sanders essentially declared he’d rather avoid the minor inconvenience of deflecting questions than be fully informed about who enabled 9/11—which might also provide critical insights into the rise of ISIS and other offshoots of extremism while informing the life and death votes he casts as a United States senator.

...

https://28pages.org/tag/28-pages/

[Nordic]

It sounds like he's actually read them but would rather avoid the awkward questions that would result if he admitted he had. So he's taking the easiest way out.

Which still sucks.

[JackRiddler]

I doubt he's read them. He or his campaign are with the 99%, in this case the 99% of everyone including media doofuses who think the 28 pages are from The 9/11 Commission Report and never heard of JICI/Graham-Goss.

I wrote to their press office and other campaign e-mails trying to warn them about this mistake, and so did others, but no reply:

https://berniesanders.com/press-release ... -911-bill/

[JackRiddler]

When Sanders talks that Saudi boots on the ground against ISIS shit, I actually like him better for foreign policy. Precisely because he seems to have serious knowledge gaps! That is why I would trust him 100 times more to make better decisions as he becomes informed about situations, in the now unlikely case that he actually wins. I trust Clinton about 80% to know foreign policy shit reasonably well, and 110% to always do the wrong thing on behalf of a neocon grand strategy. She will do that in every case, in keeping with her consistent record. She's actually not a "flip-flopper," only in the rhetoric, which from her is cheaper than Trump's. On action she's highly consistent. Clinton means war. I mean, more war than we've seen under Obama, more war than the American imperialist average.

I was willing to play along with Obama 2008 because a) he hadn't actually murdered anyone yet, though I was certain he would; and b) I thought a popular rejection of Bushism was essential for the political atmosphere, even if it was certain to be betrayed. I have to say, Obama for all the continuity of evil really was the lesser evil - you would not have seen the Iran deal or the decision not to go into Syria with McCain or Clinton. Or the apparent back-down on Ukraine (still ongoing, so who knows). And the political atmosphere on the ground in the U.S. obviously has improved, in part because of the popular perception that Bushism was rejected. (And the crisis, of course! And the coming of age of a leftier generation...) But I never voted for Clinton I, never would have, and never will for Clinton II. I'm voting for Stein and if that means Trump wins, so be it. Sanders will have to keep his promise to endorse Clinton, because to do otherwise would break up the movement he has coalesced. But if he doesn't proceed to start a third party after November, fuck him too.

[backtoiam]

jackriddler wrote:

I doubt he's read them. He or his campaign are with the 99%, in this case the 99% of everyone including media doofuses who think the 28 pages are from The 9/11 Commission Report and never heard of JICI/Graham-Goss.

I think you are correct.

[thatsmystory]

9/11 Commissioners have recently stated in all the 28 pages coverage that they weren't able to conduct a thorough investigation (i.e. not enough time or resources). OTOH the media keeps pointing out over and over that all these allegations were put to rest by the 9/11 Commission. Sure the Joint Inquiry may have found some troubling information but don't worry the 9/11 Commission followed up on their work. How does that work whereby the 9/11 Commission chased down all the leads while the people who were on the commission say they weren't able to chase down all the leads. Good journalism.

It's like the Warren Commission in the complete refusal of the media to admit that the state sponsored investigations of 9/11 did not follow the leads wherever they led. "We found no evidence that X happened" doesn't mean a lead was properly investigated and determined to have no substance. It means that any lead that didn't conform to establishment consensus was not thoroughly investigated. The unwavering belief in the 9/11 Commission is really strange. I don't know who has more faith in the 9/11 Commission-9/11 debunkers or US journalists.

[seemslikeadream]

April 21, 2016

When Media Shill For Saudi Money

A timely Washington Post piece looks at how the Saudis bribe left, right and center:

Saudi government has vast network of PR, lobby firms in U.S.
The Saudi government and its affiliates have spent millions of dollars on U.S. law, lobby and public relations firms to raise the country’s visibility in the United States and before the United Nations at a crucial time.
...
Five lobby and PR firms were hired in 2015 alone, signaling a stepped-up focus on ties with Washington. The firms have been coordinating meetings between Saudi officials and business leaders and U.S. media, ...

The Saudis are getting some bang for their money.

This recent NYT Saturday profile was conspicuous sympathetic - Artist Nurtures a Creative Oasis in Conservative Saudi Arabia
The lowbrow whores at the Brookings Institute are always willing to take Gulf money - Mr. Obama goes to Riyadh: Why the United States and Saudi Arabia still need each other
Newsweek couldn't resist the bribes - Learning to Love the Unlovable Saudis
And just today these three well-paid-for pieces appeared. Notice how they have a common, lobby induced theme:

Daily Beast - Pentagon: Don’t Sue the Saudis for 9/11
They may have promoted al Qaeda’s poisonous ideology. But Saudi Arabia is too valuable an ally against today’s terrorism to allow ordinary Americans to make the kingdom pay.
Foreign Policy - Saudi Arabia Is a Great American Ally
While Tehran continues to sow anti-American terrorism across the Middle East, Riyadh holds the key to regional stability. This is not the time to back away from the House of Saud.
CBS News - Saudi officials give Obama chilly reception in Riyadh
The Saudis are particularly angry about the Iran nuclear deal, and they believe that only the next U.S. president -- whether it's Hillary Clinton or even Donald Trump -- will be able to restore Saudi Arabia's status as America's key ally in the Middle East.
The biggest sellout yet is Bloomberg which whored out the May issue of Businessweek, including the cover, to a Saudi prince:


The $2 Trillion Project to Get Saudi Arabia’s Economy Off Oil - Eight unprecedented hours with “Mr. Everything,” Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
In Prince Mohammed, the U.S. may find a sympathetic long-term ally in a chaotic region.

The Saudi mafia clan is not just itself corrupt. It is massively corrupting others. It bribes them to do take part in their crimes, no matter how nefarious. Just consider this, mentioned in the WaPo lobby piece above:

In 2014, consultants at the PR firm Qorvis developed content for the Saudi Arabia embassy’s YouTube and Twitter pages, and ran the Twitter account for the Syrian Opposition Coalition.
The Saudis are the major money behind the war on Syria. They are building ISIS and Al-Qaeda not only in Syria but also in Yemen and elsewhere. A former Saudi foreign minister, quoted in in yesterdays Financial Times (see here), admitted such:

Saud al-Feisal, the respected Saudi foreign minister, remonstrated with John Kerry, U.S. secretary of state, that "Daesh [ISIS] is our [Sunni] response to your support for the Da'wa" - the Tehran aligned Shia Islamist ruling party of Iraq.
Whoever shills for the Saudis should be considered adhering to enemies.

[82_28]

What I think is that Sanders is the last gasp of honesty in high office. For all time.

[Iamwhomiam]

When Sanders talks that Saudi boots on the ground against ISIS shit, I actually like him better for foreign policy. Precisely because he seems to have serious knowledge gaps! That is why I would trust him 100 times more to make better decisions as he becomes informed about situations, in the now unlikely case that he actually wins. I trust Clinton about 80% to know foreign policy shit reasonably well, and 110% to always do the wrong thing on behalf of a neocon grand strategy. She will do that in every case, in keeping with her consistent record. She's actually not a "flip-flopper," only in the rhetoric, which from her is cheaper than Trump's. On action she's highly consistent. Clinton means war. I mean, more war than we've seen under Obama, more war than the American imperialist average.

I was willing to play along with Obama 2008 because a) he hadn't actually murdered anyone yet, though I was certain he would; and b) I thought a popular rejection of Bushism was essential for the political atmosphere, even if it was certain to be betrayed. I have to say, Obama for all the continuity of evil really was the lesser evil - you would not have seen the Iran deal or the decision not to go into Syria with McCain or Clinton. Or the apparent back-down on Ukraine (still ongoing, so who knows). And the political atmosphere on the ground in the U.S. obviously has improved, in part because of the popular perception that Bushism was rejected. (And the crisis, of course! And the coming of age of a leftier generation...) But I never voted for Clinton I, never would have, and never will for Clinton II. I'm voting for Stein and if that means Trump wins, so be it. Sanders will have to keep his promise to endorse Clinton, because to do otherwise would break up the movement he has coalesced. But if he doesn't proceed to start a third party after November, fuck him too.

I would have summed-up Bernie a bit differently, though it really comes down to the same thing: I would trust him more to be thoughtful when considering certain situations than I would Hillary, not so much because of knowledge gaps but in that he hasn't made the connections she has with power brokers - those who have the ability to put any plan into action (really anywhere, but to remain on topic, particularly regarding the Middle East and the Arabian peninsula.)

Knowing, not knowing who's pulling the strings here or there; knowledge gaps, pretty much the same, no?

I trust Hillary to do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, as you say, to not make any waves whatsoever in improving the lot of the masses.

I went for Obama because he was the lesser of two evils, but as it's turned out, only slightly, sadly. I felt sure he would create a CCC or WPA type of public works program, employing artists and workers improving our decayed infrastructure. I remain sorely disappointed in his performance. Clinton I regret I enabled. But there again, I felt up against a wall.

I agree with what you say about Clinton's rhetoric being confused. As you say, she'll show her true nature waging war. She lusts for such power!

I'm still with Bernie, but if he throws in with Hillary we're done. Will he then fork over to the DNC a large chunk of his funds? He should initiate a third party. I'll stick with him if he does but otherwise I'd throw my vote to Stein, too.

An interesting 1 hour talk by Michael Eric Dyson before the Commonwealth Club discusses some of those Obama "threw under the bus," and much more. I enjoyed it and hope you do too.

Michael Eric Dyson, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times; Sociology Professor, Georgetown University; Author, The Black Presidency: Barack Obama and the Politics of Race in America; Twitter: @MichaelEDyson
Judge LaDoris Cordell (ret), Chair, Santa Clara County Jail Commission—Moderator

How have race relations defined President Obama’s administration? Dyson takes a deeper look and explores the powerful and surprising ways that race and politics have shaped Obama’s identity and time in office. He reveals some of the president’s greatest achievements and most challenging obstacles that will define what kind of legacy Obama leaves behind.

Dyson also offers his thoughts on what can be done to spark social change and justice in our country.

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2016-03-08/michael-eric-dyson-politics-race

Direct link to podcast ~ http://audio.commonwealthclub.org/audio/podcast/cc_20160308_Michael_Eric_Dyson.mp3

A Trump presidency will see the full power of the Senate and House of Representatives, which will be interesting, aside his own complete unpredictability. I really do feel the time is ripe for a military coup.

The fellow who wrote this so reminds me of what I looked forward to learning in each of Jeff's blog postings.
http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-16/911-joint-congressional-inquiry-and-28-missing-pages