(Photo: Glyn Lowe/cc/flickr)
Jul 15, 2016
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, toldCNN, "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."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
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, toldCNN, "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, toldCNN, "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."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.