Pierce writes: "The pointless alleged cover-up of the role of Saudi
nationals in the attacks of September 11, 2001 is starting to come just a
little bit unraveled. The Guardian had a provocative piece quoting John
Lehman, a Republican member of the 9/11 Commission and a former Secretary of
the Navy under Ronald Reagan, to the effect that the investigation
essentially buried the question of Saudi involvement."
Saudi king Salman talks to the media during a meeting with US president
Barack Obama in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, September
4, 2015. (photo: Yuri Gripas/AFP)
Why Do We Keep Learning New Secrets About 9/11?
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
14 May 16
There are allegedly more Saudi officials implicated in the 9/11 Report than
we thought.
The pointless alleged cover-up of the role of Saudi nationals in the
attacks of September 11, 2001 is starting to come just a little bit
unraveled. The Guardian had a provocative piece quoting John Lehman, a
Republican member of the 9/11 Commission and a former Secretary of the Navy
under Ronald Reagan, to the effect that the investigation essentially buried
the question of Saudi involvement.
"There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting
the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government,"
Lehman said in an interview, suggesting that the commission may have made a
mistake by not stating that explicitly in its final report. "Our report
should never have been read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia." He was
critical of a statement released late last month by the former chairman and
vice-chairman of the commission, who urged the Obama administration to be
cautious about releasing the full congressional report on the Saudis and
9/11-"the 28 pages", as they are widely known in Washington-because they
contained "raw, unvetted" material that might smear innocent people.
I, for one, didn't know that a Saudi diplomat had been implicated in the
support network on which some of the hijackers depended while living in San
Diego. (Why is Fahad al-Thumairy walking around free while shoeless losers
who fall for FBI stings get shipped off to the nether regions of the federal
penal system?) But Lehman wasn't finished yet.
In the interview Wednesday, Lehman said Kean and Hamilton's statement that
only one Saudi government employee was "implicated" in supporting the
hijackers in California and elsewhere was "a game of semantics" and that the
commission had been aware of at least five Saudi government officials who
were strongly suspected of involvement in the terrorists' support network.
"They may not have been indicted, but they were certainly implicated," he
said. "There was an awful lot of circumstantial evidence."
Allegedly, there was a considerable brawl within the commission about how
the material concerning the Saudi involvement was being handled, and at the
center of it was staff director Philip Zelikow, whose previous job was as an
aide to Condoleezza Rice back in the days when she was proving to be the
worst National Security Advisor ever. This always has stuck in my craw, and
if the stonewall is falling down, then that's all to the good.
Zelikow fired a staffer, who had repeatedly protested over limitations on
the Saudi investigation, after she obtained a copy of the 28 pages outside
of official channels. Other staffers described an angry scene late one
night, near the end of the investigation, when two investigators who focused
on the Saudi allegations were forced to rush back to the commission's
offices after midnight after learning to their astonishment that some of the
most compelling evidence about a Saudi tie to 9/11 was being edited out of
the report or was being pushed to tiny, barely readable footnotes and
endnotes. The staff protests were mostly overruled.
The crime against history is ongoing, but it does seem we're edging a little
closer to solving it.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Saudi king Salman talks to the media during a meeting with US president
Barack Obama in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, September
4, 2015. (photo: Yuri Gripas/AFP)
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a44864/saudi-arabia-9-11-
report/http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a44864/saudi-arabi
a-9-11-report/
Why Do We Keep Learning New Secrets About 9/11?
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
14 May 16
There are allegedly more Saudi officials implicated in the 9/11 Report than
we thought.
he pointless alleged cover-up of the role of Saudi nationals in the attacks
of September 11, 2001 is starting to come just a little bit unraveled. The
Guardian had a provocative piece quoting John Lehman, a Republican member of
the 9/11 Commission and a former Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan,
to the effect that the investigation essentially buried the question of
Saudi involvement.
"There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting
the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government,"
Lehman said in an interview, suggesting that the commission may have made a
mistake by not stating that explicitly in its final report. "Our report
should never have been read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia." He was
critical of a statement released late last month by the former chairman and
vice-chairman of the commission, who urged the Obama administration to be
cautious about releasing the full congressional report on the Saudis and
9/11-"the 28 pages", as they are widely known in Washington-because they
contained "raw, unvetted" material that might smear innocent people.
I, for one, didn't know that a Saudi diplomat had been implicated in the
support network on which some of the hijackers depended while living in San
Diego. (Why is Fahad al-Thumairy walking around free while shoeless losers
who fall for FBI stings get shipped off to the nether regions of the federal
penal system?) But Lehman wasn't finished yet.
In the interview Wednesday, Lehman said Kean and Hamilton's statement that
only one Saudi government employee was "implicated" in supporting the
hijackers in California and elsewhere was "a game of semantics" and that the
commission had been aware of at least five Saudi government officials who
were strongly suspected of involvement in the terrorists' support network.
"They may not have been indicted, but they were certainly implicated," he
said. "There was an awful lot of circumstantial evidence."
Allegedly, there was a considerable brawl within the commission about how
the material concerning the Saudi involvement was being handled, and at the
center of it was staff director Philip Zelikow, whose previous job was as an
aide to Condoleezza Rice back in the days when she was proving to be the
worst National Security Advisor ever. This always has stuck in my craw, and
if the stonewall is falling down, then that's all to the good.
Zelikow fired a staffer, who had repeatedly protested over limitations on
the Saudi investigation, after she obtained a copy of the 28 pages outside
of official channels. Other staffers described an angry scene late one
night, near the end of the investigation, when two investigators who focused
on the Saudi allegations were forced to rush back to the commission's
offices after midnight after learning to their astonishment that some of the
most compelling evidence about a Saudi tie to 9/11 was being edited out of
the report or was being pushed to tiny, barely readable footnotes and
endnotes. The staff protests were mostly overruled.
The crime against history is ongoing, but it does seem we're edging a little
closer to solving it.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
