US Congress Finally Releases '28 Pages' of 9/11 Report
"I think of this almost as the 28 pages are sort of the cork in the wine bottle," said former Sen. Bob Graham.
This story may be updated.
The U.S. Congress on Friday released the previously classified 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report on potential Saudi government ties to the 2001 terrorist attack.
The pages were posted (pdf) on the House Intelligence Committee's website.
The New York Times' Mark Mazzetti describes the document--secret for 13 years--as "a wide-ranging catalog of alleged links between Saudi officials and Qaeda operatives, from contacts that Saudi operatives in Southern California had with the hijackers to a telephone number found on the first Qaeda prisoner in C.I.A. custody that the F.B.I. traced to a corporation managing a Colorado home of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the Saudi ambassador to Washington."
Former Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired the congressional inquiry and had called for the release of the pages, told CNN, "I think of this almost as the 28 pages are sort of the cork in the wine bottle. And once it's out, hopefully the rest of the wine itself will start to pour out."
"Would the U.S. government have kept information that was just speculation away from American people for 14 years if somebody didn't think it was going to make a difference?" he added.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, however, said, "This information does not change the assessment of the U.S. government that there's no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi individuals funded al-Qaeda."
House intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said, "it's important to note that this section does not put forward vetted conclusions, but rather unverified leads that were later fully investigated by the intelligence community."
Graham, however, has scoffed at that line of dismissal. In an op-ed published in May at the Washington Post, Graham wrote, referencing CIA director John Brennan's use of that dismissal: "What is the investigatory basis for his conclusion?"
Another member of the panel, Republican John Lehman, had also urged the declassification of the pages, and, like Graham, had criticized the "unvetted" line of dismissal, saying that was "a game of semantics," and telling the Guardian, "There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This story may be updated.
The U.S. Congress on Friday released the previously classified 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report on potential Saudi government ties to the 2001 terrorist attack.
The pages were posted (pdf) on the House Intelligence Committee's website.
The New York Times' Mark Mazzetti describes the document--secret for 13 years--as "a wide-ranging catalog of alleged links between Saudi officials and Qaeda operatives, from contacts that Saudi operatives in Southern California had with the hijackers to a telephone number found on the first Qaeda prisoner in C.I.A. custody that the F.B.I. traced to a corporation managing a Colorado home of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the Saudi ambassador to Washington."
Former Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired the congressional inquiry and had called for the release of the pages, told CNN, "I think of this almost as the 28 pages are sort of the cork in the wine bottle. And once it's out, hopefully the rest of the wine itself will start to pour out."
"Would the U.S. government have kept information that was just speculation away from American people for 14 years if somebody didn't think it was going to make a difference?" he added.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, however, said, "This information does not change the assessment of the U.S. government that there's no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi individuals funded al-Qaeda."
House intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said, "it's important to note that this section does not put forward vetted conclusions, but rather unverified leads that were later fully investigated by the intelligence community."
Graham, however, has scoffed at that line of dismissal. In an op-ed published in May at the Washington Post, Graham wrote, referencing CIA director John Brennan's use of that dismissal: "What is the investigatory basis for his conclusion?"
Another member of the panel, Republican John Lehman, had also urged the declassification of the pages, and, like Graham, had criticized the "unvetted" line of dismissal, saying that was "a game of semantics," and telling the Guardian, "There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government."
This story may be updated.
The U.S. Congress on Friday released the previously classified 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report on potential Saudi government ties to the 2001 terrorist attack.
The pages were posted (pdf) on the House Intelligence Committee's website.
The New York Times' Mark Mazzetti describes the document--secret for 13 years--as "a wide-ranging catalog of alleged links between Saudi officials and Qaeda operatives, from contacts that Saudi operatives in Southern California had with the hijackers to a telephone number found on the first Qaeda prisoner in C.I.A. custody that the F.B.I. traced to a corporation managing a Colorado home of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the Saudi ambassador to Washington."
Former Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired the congressional inquiry and had called for the release of the pages, told CNN, "I think of this almost as the 28 pages are sort of the cork in the wine bottle. And once it's out, hopefully the rest of the wine itself will start to pour out."
"Would the U.S. government have kept information that was just speculation away from American people for 14 years if somebody didn't think it was going to make a difference?" he added.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, however, said, "This information does not change the assessment of the U.S. government that there's no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi individuals funded al-Qaeda."
House intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said, "it's important to note that this section does not put forward vetted conclusions, but rather unverified leads that were later fully investigated by the intelligence community."
Graham, however, has scoffed at that line of dismissal. In an op-ed published in May at the Washington Post, Graham wrote, referencing CIA director John Brennan's use of that dismissal: "What is the investigatory basis for his conclusion?"
Another member of the panel, Republican John Lehman, had also urged the declassification of the pages, and, like Graham, had criticized the "unvetted" line of dismissal, saying that was "a game of semantics," and telling the Guardian, "There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government."