60 Minutes to Report on 28 Pages Said to Link 9/11 and Saudi Arabia's Government

[charrob]

60 Minutes to Report on 28 Pages Said to Link 9/11 and Saudi Arabia's Government: (https://28pages.org/2016/04/08/60-minutes-to-report-on-28-pages-said-to-link-911-saudi-arabia/)





The drive to declassify 28 pages from a congressional intelligence inquiry that detail specific indications of foreign government support of the 9/11 hijackers is about to be put under a powerful spotlight, as 60 Minutes will air a segment on the topic this Sunday, April 10 at 7 pm ET/PT.

According to the CBS News preview of the story, Steve Kroft interviewed former senator Bob Graham, former congressman and CIA director Porter Goss, former 9/11 Commission members Bob Kerrey and John Lehman, lawyers representing 9/11 family members suing Saudi Arabia and former congressman Tim Roemer, who served on both the inquiry that produced the 28 pages and the 9/11 Commission that followed that inquiry.

Report to Air on Eve of Obama Visit to Saudi Arabia

The high-profile 60 Minutes segment—which is positioned for high viewership as it follows coverage of the Masters Tournament—comes at a particularly sensitive time for the White House, as the president will visit Saudi Arabia on April 21. 9/11 family members say that, in 2009 and 2011, Obama assured them he would declassify the 28 pages, yet that promise has gone unfulfilled.

Graham, who co-chaired the inquiry that wrote the 28 pages, has said, “The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11 and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier.” He has also said that, by shielding Saudi Arabia from scrutiny of its sponsorship of Sunni extremism, the continued classification has encouraged their continued sponsorship and paved the way for the rise of ISIS.

Congressman Thomas Massie described the experience of reading the pages as “shocking” and said, “I had to stop every couple pages and…try to rearrange my understanding of history. It challenges you to rethink everything.”

Congressmen Walter Jones, Stephen Lynch and Massie are leading an effort in the U.S. House of Representatives to declassify the 28 pages: Their House Resolution 14, which urges the president to declassify the material, has 41 cosponsors. A similar measure, Senate Bill 1471, was introduced by Senators Rand Paul and Ron Wyden and cosponsored by Kirsten Gillibrand.

Review of 28 Pages Nears Its Third Year

In response to heightened media attention to the 28 pages in September 2014, the White House said the president, earlier that summer, tasked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper with conducting an intelligence community review of the 28 pages for potential declassification.

Inexplicably, and with essentially no follow-up by national media to date, that review of just 28 pages has already taken far longer than the entire, unprecedented congressional inquiry that produced them. As we reported here last summer, in just six months the 2002 inquiry:


Reviewed nearly a half million pages of documents from intelligence agencies and other sources
Conducted roughly 300 interviews
Participated in briefings and panel discussions involving about 600 people from the intelligence community, other government departments, state and local entities, foreign government representatives and other individuals
Held 13 closed-door sessions and nine public hearings
Dueled with intelligence agencies and the White House over many aspects of the inquiry’s undertaking, including requests for information and the format of the final report
Wrote, edited and revised an 838-page report on the inquiry’s findings

A separate evaluation, under a process called Mandatory Declassification Review, was initiated in 2014 by an attorney representing investigative journalists Dan Christensen, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. Like the review requested by the president, it is still pending as the Obama administration nears its final months.

[pcosmar]

Changing times? or times up?

[ghengis86]

Changing times? or times up?

Times up. Just a burn notice to pave the way for the next fraud that's currently taking place.

[phill4paul]

If these 28 pages reveal that some Sauds' financed 9/11 wouldn't that indicate a conspiracy on the part of some Sauds'? And if individuals within our government classified these documents to cover up the Sauds' involvement wouldn't that be considered an "inside job?"
Hopefully the White House wash job will see the light of day. In another 30-40 yrs. after the primary actors are long retired.

[bunklocoempire]

Oh look, a bone. I wonder where they'll throw it.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Wow, whod'a thunk it???

[William R]

bump

[dannno]

If these 28 pages reveal that some Sauds' financed 9/11 wouldn't that indicate a conspiracy on the part of some Sauds'? And if individuals within our government classified these documents to cover up the Sauds' involvement wouldn't that be considered an "inside job?"
Hopefully the White House wash job will see the light of day. In another 30-40 yrs. after the primary actors are long retired.

As much as most people here hate Michael Moore, he was calling all of this back in 2004 in Fahrenheit 9/11... Saudi involvement in 9/11, Saudi conspiracies w/ the Bush family, etc..

[jmdrake]

Sooooooo....when are we going to stop pretending that the idea of a greater conspiracy regarding 9/11, with its tentacles reaching even into the U.S. government, is no theory? We do we close down hot topics and mainstream 9/11 truth? If nothing else, Donald Trump's candidacy proves that 9/11 truth doesn't have to hurt.

[Zippyjuan]

Sooooooo....when are we going to stop pretending that the idea of a greater conspiracy regarding 9/11, with its tentacles reaching even into the U.S. government, is no theory? We do we close down hot topics and mainstream 9/11 truth? If nothing else, Donald Trump's candidacy proves that 9/11 truth doesn't have to hurt.

If the Saudis were involved (and it sounds like they might have been) that does not mean that the US government was somehow behind it. When Ron Paul called for a new investigation he said the government was covering up ineptness, not any involvement.


Paul: Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I don't believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated.

http://libertyfight.com/ronpaul911.html


Steve Gill: Do you think the American government, the U.S. government, had anything to do with bringing those towers down either directly or allowing it to happen?

Ron Paul: I think indirectly out of ineptness rather than participating in it, planning it or allowing it to happen. I see it's ineptness - that's why I think the investigations are always coverup of the inefficiency of government. ....that's why I don't trust the investigations.


Q. Many of your supporters call themselves '9/11 Truthers'. They believe that the U.S. government was in some way complicit with the 9/11 attacks or covered it up. Are you tonight prepared to either embrace that rhetoric or ask those supporters to abandon it, or divorce themselves from your candidacy?

Paul: Well, I can't tell people what to do, but I've abandoned those viewpoints, I don't believe that, and that's all.. that's the only thing that is important, and so I don't endorse anything they say, but I would like to take an opportunity to talk about the issue that we've been debating here for the last 20 minutes.

Q. Sir, would you ask them to cease that rhetoric tonight on your behalf?

Paul: Well it doesn't do me any good, so if they care about me they should, but The only thing I have control over is what I believe and what i say. I can't tell them what to do, so I don't endorse what they say and I don't believe that, so please, could I participate in the current debate rather than talking this out?

A. please do. Please do. Please do. Please do.

Of course Ron Paul isn't running for any offices anymore.

[jmdrake]

If the Saudis were involved (and it sounds like they might have been) that does not mean that the US government was somehow behind it. When Ron Paul called for a new investigation he said the government was covering up ineptness, not any involvement.

Ron Paul is on video saying the collapse of WTC 7 was suspicious. Ron Paul also said that the reason he didn't come out with the truth about 9/11 is that it was too controversial for him. And note I didn't even mention Ron Paul in my post. Straw man argument on your part. Trump, for all his flaws, has taken the 9/11 truther ball and run with it both pointing out that Bush had the intel needed to stop 9/11 and Bush allowed the Bin Laden family to leave the U.S. when everyone else was grounded. There is such a think called "accessory after the fact" you know. And covering up who funded 9/11 and misdirecting American anger from Saudi Arabia to Iraq is more accessory after the fact and that goes beyond ineptness.

[phill4paul]

As much as most people here hate Michael Moore, he was calling all of this back in 2004 in Fahrenheit 9/11... Saudi involvement in 9/11, Saudi conspiracies w/ the Bush family, etc..

Yup.

[juleswin]

What them white wash whatever incriminating information from those documents to something that is just slightly criminal but not in a malicious way. Its probably someone unknowingly gave the "hijackers" passports or mistakenly put the chargers into the building structure forgot to alert authorities about the rogue team of suicide bombers.

[phill4paul]

If the Saudis were involved (and it sounds like they might have been) that does not mean that the US government was somehow behind it. When Ron Paul called for a new investigation he said the government was covering up ineptness, not any involvement.



http://libertyfight.com/ronpaul911.html

It doesn't have to be that the U.S. was behind it. Just that they conspired to cover up. In jurisprudence that is called accessory after the fact. It in, and of, itself is a criminal act. Members of our government are guilty of a criminal act. Period.
There was a conspiracy over 9/11. Period.
Now, the answer that many of us have been seeking is how much of an involvement did our government and officials of our government become involved.
That's all it has ever been about to me.
Who, what, when, where and why?

[donnay]

https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Fwww.bartcop.com%2Fsaudi-gay-monkey.jpg&sp=3459265faec58cb06a6ca193b30859bf

If the government has nothing to hide it should be no problem declassifying these 28 pages--right?

Everyone should support Walter Jones (R - NC).

Rep. Walter Jones and Ron Paul on the Saudi Arabia-Bush Administration 9/11 Cover-Up
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2014/august/18/rep-walter-jones-and-ron-paul-on-the-saudi-arabia-bush-administration-911-cover-up/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT_DC3SmdAI

[ChristianAnarchist]

Ron Paul is on video saying the collapse of WTC 7 was suspicious. Ron Paul also said that the reason he didn't come out with the truth about 9/11 is that it was too controversial for him. And note I didn't even mention Ron Paul in my post. Straw man argument on your part. Trump, for all his flaws, has taken the 9/11 truther ball and run with it both pointing out that Bush had the intel needed to stop 9/11 and Bush allowed the Bin Laden family to leave the U.S. when everyone else was grounded. There is such a think called "accessory after the fact" you know. And covering up who funded 9/11 and misdirecting American anger from Saudi Arabia to Iraq is more accessory after the fact and that goes beyond ineptness.

I have found all the events surrounding 9-11 suspicious since that very day. I watched those 3 (THREE) buildings fall flat to the ground and knew something was happening not as described. I know that what happened will never be revealed and for that reason I move on. I know we will never know the truth and for me it's enough to know that we will never know BECAUSE "they" will never allow the truth to come out.

For the most part I don't even discuss it with people because most of them have become so brainwashed that reason is out of their reach. I accept that and try to reach them with the message of liberty as that's something most people can understand at least in it's most rudimentary state. If they take that baby step towards admitting that liberty is what everyone should have then one can slowly bring them around to the TRUTH (goonerment is the opposite of liberty)...

[otherone]

For the most part I don't even discuss it with people because most of them have become so brainwashed that reason is out of their reach.

The worst part is that, even if 911 is revealed as a criminal conspiracy involving the government, people would believe that the problem would be solved if the players are changed in Washington.

[Jan2017]

If the government has nothing to hide it should be no problem declassifying these 28 pages--right?

Everyone should support Walter Jones (R - NC).



Jones, Graham, Massie and Rand are on tape in this tube . . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lskMwrLuwWM
.

[donnay]

Jones, Graham, Massie and Rand are on tape in this tube . . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lskMwrLuwWM
.

Yes my mistake.


House Resolution 14

House Resolution 14 urges the president to declassify the 28-page finding on foreign government support of the 9/11 hijackers. The equivalent of H.Res.428 in the previous Congress, H.Res.14 was introduced by Congressmen Walter Jones (R, NC-3), Stephen Lynch (D, MA-8) and Thomas Massie (R, KY-4). We’ve posted the full text of H.Res.14 at the bottom of the page.

https://28pages.org/hr-428/

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul is on video saying the collapse of WTC 7 was suspicious. Ron Paul also said that the reason he didn't come out with the truth about 9/11 is that it was too controversial for him. And note I didn't even mention Ron Paul in my post. Straw man argument on your part. Trump, for all his flaws, has taken the 9/11 truther ball and run with it both pointing out that Bush had the intel needed to stop 9/11 and Bush allowed the Bin Laden family to leave the U.S. when everyone else was grounded. There is such a think called "accessory after the fact" you know. And covering up who funded 9/11 and misdirecting American anger from Saudi Arabia to Iraq is more accessory after the fact and that goes beyond ineptness.

This is Dr. Paul's "truth"...


Former Rep. Ron Paul said he believes the U.S. government had prior knowledge of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and has kept this information hidden in a classified section of the 9/11 Commission report.

Paul, who made the comments during a radio interview last Friday, also argued that the crimes of Osama bin Laden were “minor” compared to the harm the U.S. government has caused since the 2001 attacks.

“I believe that if we ever get the full truth [about 9/11], we’ll find out that our government had it in the records exactly what the plans were, or at least close to it,” said Paul, during the interview with Money and Markets host Charles Goyette. “You already mentioned that [the U.S. government] had been warned that something was going to happen.”

However, Paul said he doubted that Bush administration officials personally helped plot the attacks.

“Does that prove the fact that our president and others actually sat down and laid the plans and did this? I don’t think it does,” he said.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/ron-paul-government-had-foreknowledge-of-911-terror-attacks/

[jmdrake]

This is Dr. Paul's "truth"...

http://freebeacon.com/politics/ron-paul-government-had-foreknowledge-of-911-terror-attacks/

That's part of his truth. That's not the whole truth. If it was the whole truth then he was lying when he said, in answer to why he didn't come out with the truth about 9/11, that it was "too controversial for me." If it was the whole truth then he was lying when he said that he found the fall of WTC 7 suspicious. I don't believe Dr. Paul was lying either time thus I don't accept your conclusion that your quote of part of his truth was "his truth." I think the truth is that you yourself can't handle the truth.

[jmdrake]

This is Dr. Paul's "truth"...



http://freebeacon.com/politics/ron-paul-government-had-foreknowledge-of-911-terror-attacks/

One more thing LibertyEagle. I'm reporting you (again) to the moderators. This neg rep from you is a clear violation of the forum procedures.

Mischaracterizing Dr. Paul's beliefs.

I did not mischaracterize Dr. Paul's beliefs in the slightest. You do not have the right to basically call me a liar when I all have done is state the facts. And the facts are that Dr. Paul is on video saying that the reason he didn't come out with "the truth" about 9/11 is that is is too controversial for him and that Ron Paul is suspicious of how WTC 7 fell. You will no longer be able to get away with distorting what I or others say and then turn around and basically call us liars.

[Zippyjuan]

Can you find- at any time- Ron Paul saying he believed the US government was behind or directly involved in the events of 9/11? I find many quotes saying the opposite. Has he always been lying about his own personal beliefs? What else was he lying about?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx3pYcKsBzU

[twomp]

60 minutes is a government mouthpiece. Why after all these years are they talking about it now? Did the reporters just suddenly run into this story?

[donnay]

60 minutes is a government mouthpiece. Why after all these years are they talking about it now? Did the reporters just suddenly run into this story?

Infighting among factions--it's an election year.

[LibertyEagle]

That's part of his truth. That's not the whole truth. If it was the whole truth then he was lying when he said, in answer to why he didn't come out with the truth about 9/11, that it was "too controversial for me." If it was the whole truth then he was lying when he said that he found the fall of WTC 7 suspicious. I don't believe Dr. Paul was lying either time thus I don't accept your conclusion that your quote of part of his truth was "his truth." I think the truth is that you yourself can't handle the truth.

No Drake. I just think it's important not to put words into his mouth and jump to conclusions.


One more thing LibertyEagle. I'm reporting you (again) to the moderators. This neg rep from you is a clear violation of the forum procedures.

Mischaracterizing Dr. Paul's beliefs.
How so? However, I'm thinking your threat in your neg rep to me is. I didn't report ya though.


I did not mischaracterize Dr. Paul's beliefs in the slightest. You do not have the right to basically call me a liar when I all have done is state the facts. And the facts are that Dr. Paul is on video saying that the reason he didn't come out with "the truth" about 9/11 is that is is too controversial for him and that Ron Paul is suspicious of how WTC 7 fell. You will no longer be able to get away with distorting what I or others say and then turn around and basically call us liars.

Calm down. I did not call you a liar. I do think though that it's not right to read things into what Dr. Paul said. That's all.

[jmdrake]

No Drake. I just think it's important not to put words into his mouth and jump to conclusions.

No miss whoever you are. I didn't put any words in Dr. Paul's mouth. I quoted him directly. You are the one jumping to conclusions as to what he things the truth is.


How so? However, I'm thinking your threat in your neg rep to me is. I didn't report ya though.

How so? Because it's a dishonest attack on me. I did not mischaracterize anything. And I don't care if you didn't report me. Others have for my simply telling the truth. So I'm going to report you when you don't. You did send the nasty neg rep about my "Not reading Bryan's memo" so spare me the platitudes.



Calm down. I did not call you a liar.

I am calm and yes you did and this isn't the first time.

[LibertyEagle]

No miss whoever you are. I didn't put any words in Dr. Paul's mouth. I quoted him directly. You are the one jumping to conclusions as to what he things the truth is.

How so? Because it's a dishonest attack on me. I did not mischaracterize anything. And I don't care if you didn't report me. Others have for my simply telling the truth. So I'm going to report you when you don't. You did send the nasty neg rep about my "Not reading Bryan's memo" so spare me the platitudes.

I am calm and yes you did and this isn't the first time.

I don't want to fight with you. So, flame on.

[jmdrake]

Can you find- at any time- Ron Paul saying he believed the US government was behind or directly involved in the events of 9/11? I find many quotes saying the opposite. Has he always been lying about his own personal beliefs? What else was he lying about?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx3pYcKsBzU

Straw man argument. I never said Ron Paul said he believed the U.S. government was behind 9/11. For the record nobody believes that, not even Alex Jones. He has multiple times said he believes it was a rogue faction within the government.

Furthermore I haven't said Ron Paul believed that any faction was involved. He might believe that. He might not. What we do know, from his own words, is that he hasn't come out with the full truth of what he believes about 9/11 because that is "too controversial" for him. Now, if he had already stated everything he believed to be true about 9/11, as LibertyEagle is asserting, then he should have said in this video "I've already come out with everything I believe to be true about 9/11". He didn't. Please watch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cENpjWNIt-Y&nohtml5=False

Further we know, based on Ron Paul's own public statement, that he is, or at least one time was, suspicious about how WTC 7 fell.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ADYLUOk1I&nohtml5=False

So what we know to be the truth about what Ron Paul believes about 9/11?

1) He doesn't feel comfortable saying everything he knows or believes about 9/11 because it is too controversial.

2) He thinks, or at least thought, that the collapse of WTC 7 is suspicious.

You can post a million other videos of Ron Paul saying this or that about 9/11 but that will in no way diminish the truth of those two facts that I keep pointing out and that you and others keep having trouble coming to grips with.

[jmdrake]

I don't want to fight with you. So, flame on.

Then quit picking fights with me. Flame off.

[LibertyEagle]

Now, if he had already stated everything he believed to be true about 9/11, as LibertyEagle is asserting, then he should have said in this video "I've already come out with everything I believe to be true about 9/11". He didn't.

You just had to go on and mention my name and attribute things to me that I never said. :rolleyes:

I never said what you claim, Drake. But, Dr. Paul was clear about what he did not believe.

[jmdrake]

You just had to go on and mention my name and attribute things to me that I never said. :rolleyes:

I never said what you claim, Drake. But, Dr. Paul was clear about what he did not believe.

Ron Paul has clearly stated that he does believe that WTC 7 is suspicious. You might not like it, but he did. And :rolleyes: right back at you.

[twomp]

Infighting among factions--it's an election year.

Something like this doesn't get run on 60 minutes without White House approval. Maybe Obama taking one last jab at the Clintons? After all, the Clintons and the Saudi Arabians are good friends. Paul Ryan is in Saudi Arabia at the moment too.

[bunklocoempire]

nm

[AZJoe]

Link to the 60 minutes segment on the 28 pages concealed from American citizens: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/28-pages/

[Jan2017]

some tubes are getting posted of part of the 60 Minutes program . . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5GguXw6mGA
.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Link to the 60 minutes segment on the 28 pages concealed from American citizens: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/28-pages/

Watched the whole thing. What I get from those who have read it but can't say what's there other than to make some generalizations is that some Saudi officials and charitable organizations were involved in funding and training the "hijackers". Well "duh"... I think we all know this but it would sure be nice to see some names...

[puppetmaster]

The 28 pages if released will be heavily redacted to the tune of one sentence per page.

[donnay]

Obama to decide whether to declassify 9/11 documents 'exposing Saudi connection to the attacks' within 60 days

By Ollie Gillman For Dailymail.com

Published: 08:42 EST, 13 April 2016

President Obama will decide whether to declassify 28 pages of sealed documents that are rumored to expose Saudi Arabia's connection to the 9/11 attacks within 60 days, a senator claimed last night.

Former Florida senator Bob Graham said the White House made it clear to him that a decision on the secret files would be made in the next two months.

Graham told Fox News he was 'pleased that after two years this matter is about to come to a decision by the president'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3537841/Obama-decide-declassify-9-11-documents-exposing-Saudi-connection-attacks-60-days.html

[Jamesiv1]

Obama to decide whether to declassify 9/11 documents 'exposing Saudi connection to the attacks' within 60 days

By Ollie Gillman For Dailymail.com

Published: 08:42 EST, 13 April 2016

President Obama will decide whether to declassify 28 pages of sealed documents that are rumored to expose Saudi Arabia's connection to the 9/11 attacks within 60 days, a senator claimed last night.

Former Florida senator Bob Graham said the White House made it clear to him that a decision on the secret files would be made in the next two months.

Graham told Fox News he was 'pleased that after two years this matter is about to come to a decision by the president'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3537841/Obama-decide-declassify-9-11-documents-exposing-Saudi-connection-attacks-60-days.html
If they get released, I would expect to see large chunks of black magic marker.

[donnay]

If they get released, I would expect to see large chunks of black magic marker.

That's usually government's MO. That's how cover-ups are made.

[Brian4Liberty]

On 60 Minutes, A Compelling Case for Releasing 28 Pages on 9/11 (https://28pages.org/2016/04/10/on-60-minutes-a-compelling-case-for-releasing-28-pages-on-911/)


The movement to declassify 28 pages on foreign government ties to 9/11 received its highest-profile exposure to date tonight, as 60 Minutes aired a report that featured insights from several former officials who are familiar with what the 28 pages contain—and believe the information should be public.

Even before it aired, Steve Kroft’s report had already had an impact: This afternoon, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released a statement reviving her long-dormant stance that the pages should be declassified.

The 28 pages are an entire chapter in the 838-page report of a joint House-Senate intelligence inquiry into 9/11 conducted in 2002. They were redacted by the George W. Bush administration over the objection of many who served on the inquiry, and of 46 senators who signed a 2003 letter to Bush demanding the release of the pages to the public. Among the signatories: future Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and future Vice President Joe Biden.

“Substantial” Saudi Support for 9/11 Terrorists

While none of the individuals Kroft spoke to disclosed any specifics about their contents, former Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired the inquiry, told Kroft he believes Saudi Arabia “substantially” supported the 19 hijackers. Asked if that support came from the government, wealthy individuals or charities, Graham said, “All of the above.”

Kroft elicited a particularly intriguing statement that, surprisingly, wasn’t included in the prime time segment, but can be found in a “60 Overtime” segment available on the show’s website. Asked if the 28 pages include specific names, former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman said, “Yes. The average intelligent watcher of 60 Minutes would recognize them instantly.”

Perhaps the strongest unclassified indication of Saudi support of the 9/11 hijackers was found in San Diego, where future 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar received cash, assistance with lodging and other help from Omar al-Bayoumi, who is widely believed to have been an operative for the Kingdom.

Though they weren’t covered in the 60 Minutes segment, there are unanswered questions—and more government resistance to transparency—concerning an FBI investigation of a wealthy Saudi family that appeared to have multiple contacts with future 9/11 hijackers including Mohammed Atta from their home in Sarasota. The family abandoned the residence in haste just days before the attacks.

Investigative journalists have filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain the FBI’s records of its investigation of the Sarasota Saudis. The FBI initially said it had no files on it; a federal judge is now reviewing more than 80,000 pages the FBI ultimately produced.

Along with the secrecy of the 28 pages, the reluctance of the government to share the Florida files is part of what Graham previously called “a pervasive pattern of covering up the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11, by all of the agencies of the federal government which have access to information that might illuminate Saudi Arabia’s role in 9/11.”

Proponents of the release of the 28 pages ostensibly have a surprising ally: Saudi Arabia itself. As former Congressman and 9/11 Commission member Tim Roemer told Kroft, “Look, the Saudis have even said they’re for declassifying it.”

While it’s true that Saudi Arabia, in the summer of 2003, formally requested that the Bush administration declassify the 28 pages, the public plea may have been offered with confidence—or perhaps even an assurance—that the White House would deny it. In 2014, Congressman Stephen Lynch told MNSBC’s Chris Hayes, “I think there might be some duplicity on the part of the Saudis in terms of them desiring this to be disclosed.”

Protecting Saudi Arabia…At What Cost?

Though Bush attributed the classification of the 28 pages to a need to protect intelligence “sources and methods,” Lehman forcefully refuted the idea that the secrecy is justified.

Referring to himself and other former officials who’ve read the 28 pages and favor their release, Lehman said, “We’re not a bunch of rubes that rode into Washington for this commission….we’ve seen fire and we’ve seen rain and the politics of national security. We all have dealt for our careers in highly classified and compartmentalized in every aspect of security. We know when something shouldn’t be declassified….those 28 pages in no way fall into that category.”

In his report, Kroft said, “Graham and others believe the Saudi role has been soft-pedaled to protect a delicate relationship with a complicated kindgom where the rulers, royalty, riches and religion are deeply intertwined in its institutions.”

There was no mention of a more specific interest Bush may have been protecting when he redacted the pages: His family’s close, multi-generational ties to the Saudi royals, ties that are deeply personal and financial. Likewise missing was commentary on the apparent double-standard applied as the U.S. government identified friend and foe in the nascent “war on terror.”

Graham has previously asserted that, by covering up Saudi ties to the worst terror attack on U.S. soil, the Bush and Obama administrations have only encouraged their continued sponsorship of extremism and proliferation of the ultra-conservative form of Islam called Wahhabism.

Classified State Department documents published on Wikileaks acknowledge Saudi support for extremism enduring well beyond 2001. “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups,” declared then-Secretary of State Clinton in a 2009 cable. “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”
...
More: https://28pages.org/2016/04/10/on-60-minutes-a-compelling-case-for-releasing-28-pages-on-911/

[Suzanimal]

How US covered up Saudi role in 9/11

In its report on the still-censored “28 pages” implicating the Saudi government in 9/11, “60 Minutes” last weekend said the Saudi role in the attacks has been “soft-pedaled” to protect America’s delicate alliance with the oil-rich kingdom.

That’s quite an understatement.

Actually, the kingdom’s involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government. And the coverup goes beyond locking up 28 pages of the Saudi report in a vault in the US Capitol basement. Investigations were throttled. Co-conspirators were let off the hook.

Case agents I’ve interviewed at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Washington and San Diego, the forward operating base for some of the Saudi hijackers, as well as detectives at the Fairfax County (Va.) Police Department who also investigated several 9/11 leads, say virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.

Yet time and time again, they were called off from pursuing leads. A common excuse was “diplomatic immunity.”

...

http://nypost.com/2016/04/17/how-us-covered-up-saudi-role-in-911/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow

[randomname]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHrzIyGTcvs