Bob Graham on 60 Mins "9/11 attackers has help from inside the US" (1 Viewer)

[SWJJ]

Basically Bush classified the evidence that links the ally Saudi Arabia.

28 Pages - CBS News

So at the very least the Bush Administration covered up evidence of the Saudi involvement.

 

[Alan]

People don't want to hear that our Government might have been hip deep in this mess but as time goes on it will become more evident. It's just like someone said in the morals/religions thread, no matter what side you are on, meeting in the middle may not be achievable.

 

[sbadeaux]

WOW

Anyone who believes this is crazy. That's all I can say.

When I say crazy I mean that it would be classified for any other reason than it would hurt national security.

Basically Bush classified the evidence that links the ally Saudi Arabia.

28 Pages - CBS News

So at the very least the Bush Administration covered up evidence of the Saudi involvement.

 

[SystemShock]

... so what's the big bombshell here? That there is a Saudi Arabian connection? No ****! Or that there were people who knowingly or unknowingly helped the 19 hijackers in the US? Again, no ****!

As for this comment in the article, where I stopped reading:

Bob Graham: I think it is implausible to believe that 19 people, most of whom didn't speak English, most of whom had never been in the United States before, many of whom didn't have a high school education-- could've carried out such a complicated task without some support from within the United States.

Well, they knew enough English to take flying lessons in the US. And you don't need a H.S. diploma to board a plane with box cutters and threaten people... or speak English for that matter.

 

[LSSpam]

... so what's the big bombshell here? That there is a Saudi Arabian connection? No ****! Or that there were people who knowingly or unknowingly helped the 19 hijackers in the US? Again, no ****!

Right? I mean Bin Laden's family is/was in neck deep with the House of Saud.

I love how the US contemplating declassifying obvious and largely assumed details about 9/11 is somehow evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy

 

[SWJJ]

Anyone who believes this is crazy. That's all I can say.

When I say crazy I mean that it would be classified for any other reason than it would hurt national security.

Did you watch the interview? The majority of the bipartisan 9/11 committee doesn't believe it is classified for any legitimate national security purposes.

So the Senate Bipartisan 9/11 committee is crazy?

This is 60 minutes, not Info wars.

 

[SWJJ]

Right? I mean Bin Laden's family is/was in neck deep with the House of Saud.

I love how the US contemplating declassifying obvious and largely assumed details about 9/11 is somehow evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy

They are not contemplating anything. It remains classified. This is people crying out for transparency.

I am convinced none of you watched the video or even read the link. They are saying it never should have been classified and they are fighting to get it unclassified.

Keeping it classified is ABSOLUTELY continuing a cover up effort to shield the Saudis (Friends with the W administration) from blame.

 

[onthurdays]

Blah blah tin foil blah blah Elvis aliens moon landing kook.

 

[SWJJ]

... so what's the big bombshell here? That there is a Saudi Arabian connection? No ****! Or that there were people who knowingly or unknowingly helped the 19 hijackers in the US? Again, no ****!

As for this comment in the article, where I stopped reading:


Well, they knew enough English to take flying lessons in the US. And you don't need a H.S. diploma to board a plane with box cutters and threaten people... or speak English for that matter.

If you had watched the video, it was addressed that there is no "smoking gun" but it does name people, and has tons of information that could be used to further investigate, instead with these 28 pages redacted, the Saudis don't have to answer for ANYTHING and are basically exonerated. If you think there is in fact a Saudi connection pull your head out of your backside and listen.


The 9-11 commission is basically saying it's being covered up. We must demand all information be made available.


The confirmation bias on this is mind blowing to me.


This is 60 min.

This is a US Senator.

This is a man that read those 28 pages!

Jesus H Christ, halleljua!

 

[El Caliente]

Sounds like an episode of 24.

 

[SystemShock]

I am convinced none of you watched the video or even read the link. They are saying it never should have been classified and they are fighting to get it unclassified.

Because we didn't have to. 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Bin Laden was Saudi. Bin Laden's family is/was highly connected with House of Saud, as LSSpam mentions. Saudi money was used to finance the attack. What more Saudi connection do you want? What other names do you want? Do you want to know the name of some obscure Saudi prince who may have been involved? Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud himself?

And most importantly, what is it that you want to do with this information? You are talking about 28 pages. Do you think these 28 pages prove anything?

Keeping it classified is ABSOLUTELY continuing a cover up effort to shield the Saudis (Friends with the W administration) from blame.

Let me correct you in one thing: the Saudis were not friends of the W administration, or the Clinton administration, or the Reagan administration, or any US administration... the Saudis are not our friends. They are the devil we know. They are the devil we know because they allow the US to securely put air bases there, right in the middle of the Middle East, from where the US can quickly strike anyone in the ME, even Moscow; and they sell us oil, lest we forget the oil embargo in the early 70s during the Arab-Israeli war.

 

[Det. Brees]

I think everyone has known for years there is a Saudi Connection. I believe it was public info back in the day.

 

[superchuck500]

Basically Bush classified the evidence that links the ally Saudi Arabia.

28 Pages - CBS News

So at the very least the Bush Administration covered up evidence of the Saudi involvement.

I can't believe you watched the same piece that I did. Your thread title is accurate - indeed a few individuals that were already within the US aided the attackers. But that's hardly new information. And to say the redactions where a "Bush administration cover up" of "Saudi involvement" misrepresents the 60 Minutes piece. You clearly seem to be implicating the Saudis as a nation - a government decision - instead of the mere fact that actors involved are Saudi.

Yes, the 28 pages are about Saudi Arabia. The section of the report redacted by the Bush administration is about links to co-horts to the 9/11 attackers there were Saudi, and indeed at least one was a member of the Saudi government (a member of the LA consulate, and certainly not key or "senior" official). The 28 pages and those who now speak about them claim that this is not "official" Saudi involvement or even tacit Saudi (as in the Saudi government) involvement. And the 28 pages are also about aspects of the kind of Islam centered in Saudi Arabia that tends to fuel jihadism, and how that version of Islam is both nurtured in Saudi Arabia, and exported.

In other words, the 28 pages are fairly critical of what the Bush administration deemed to be an important ally in the Mid East . . . hence the redaction. But the 28 pages aren't about a smoking gun that links the attacks to the Saudi government as some kind of orchestrated attack.

You do your cause a disservice with mischaracterization. But I agree with you that there's no reason to keep it classified.

 

[SWJJ]

I can't believe you watched the same piece that I did. Your thread title is accurate - indeed a few individuals that were already within the US aided the attackers. But that's hardly new information. And to say the redactions where a "Bush administration cover up" of "Saudi involvement" misrepresents the 60 Minutes piece. You clearly seem to be implicating the Saudis as a nation - a government decision - instead of the mere fact that actors involved are Saudi.

Yes, the 28 pages are about Saudi Arabia. The section of the report redacted by the Bush administration is about links to co-horts to the 9/11 attackers there were Saudi, and indeed at least one was a member of the Saudi government (a member of the LA consulate, and certainly not key or "senior" official). The 28 pages and those who now speak about them claim that this is not "official" Saudi involvement or even tacit Saudi (as in the Saudi government) involvement. And the 28 pages are also about aspects of the kind of Islam centered in Saudi Arabia that tends to fuel jihadism, and how that version of Islam is both nurtured in Saudi Arabia, and exported.

In other words, the 28 pages are fairly critical of what the Bush administration deemed to be an important ally in the Mid East . . . hence the redaction. But the 28 pages aren't about a smoking gun that links the attacks to the Saudi government as some kind of orchestrated attack.

You do your cause a disservice with mischaracterization. But I agree with you that there's no reason to keep it classified.

you don't know what's in the 28 pages. There is a reason they are pushing for it to be declassified. They say it never should have been classified. It has nothing to do with national security.


They made a point to say the statement "no key senior level" was a carefully worded mischaracterization.


Answer these for me:

Did the bush family have a close relation with Saudi Arabia?

Is it general knowledge that at some level the Saudi government was involved?

Do the majority of the bipartisan 9/11 committee feel the 28 pages are classified for national security?



I really can't get over the confirmation bias on this.



If Bob Graham is right and there is no national security reason to classify the 28 pages, why else would they classify them?

 

[SWJJ]

I don't see how this passes the smell tests. Bob pulled no strings, he was flat asked "do you mean government? Do you mean rich leaders? To which he replied "all of them" he can't come out and say what's in the 28 pages or he could be thrown in jail, but he implicates their involvement.


Do we think the bush administration is too scrupulous to cover up for an oil rich ally?