Report on 9/11 Suggests a Role by Saudi Spies

August 2, 2003 3:29 AM

Report on 9/11 Suggests a Role by Saudi Spies If this article in the NY Times is accurate, then The Saudi request that the classified pages be made public, and the Bush refusal to do so, is a cooperative effort to keep the public from knowing the Saudi involvement rather than an attempt to protect intelligence methods etc as had been claimed by Bush. Ot, Bush is right (we won't know) and the Times wrong. Take your choice.
posted by Postroad (13 comments total)

Al Qaeda has been attacking Saudi Arabia as well, so I am hesitant, although not totally, to blame them. Perhaps the Saudis are telling the truth, and they had nothing to do with it.

But what if some of the Saudis that were involved were some of Mr. Bush's business contacts from his oil ventures. Remember that GW received money from Saudi sources to start his business, and if those business people are in jeopardy, and it makes it look like he was working with people that were funding terrorists, things could get interesting.
posted by benjh at 4:05 AM on August 2, 2003

Ot tu posttoad?
posted by delmoi at 4:17 AM on August 2, 2003

the pages have to released, and if Bush knew what was good for him he'd stop this secret shit, which is reinforcing what even his supporters are starting to realize--that he's covering his own ass regarding the saudis.
posted by amberglow at 8:03 AM on August 2, 2003

Dear delmoie....I assume you meant e tu...I am merely asking and not accepting as establish fat. However, one TV pundit pointed out that the Saudis didn't give a hoot till the same guy began hitting at their homeland--Saudi Arbia--and that they are cracking down on internal terror but remain rather indifferent to that which takes place elsewhere...more will come out I expect.
posted by Postroad at 8:10 AM on August 2, 2003

No, I meant Ot. Reread your initial post and maybe you will figure out why I made that comment. Ot, not.
posted by delmoi at 8:56 AM on August 2, 2003

From TNR: Since the joint congressional committee investigating September 11 issued a censored version of its report on July 24, there's been considerable speculation about the 28 pages blanked out from the section entitled "Certain Sensitive National Security Matters." The section cites "specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers," which most commentators have interpreted to mean Saudi contributions to Al Qaeda-linked charities. But an official who has read the report tells The New Republic that the support described in the report goes well beyond that: It involves connections between the hijacking plot and the very top levels of the Saudi royal family. "There's a lot more in the 28 pages than money. Everyone's chasing the charities," says this official. "They should be chasing direct links to high levels of the Saudi government. We're not talking about rogue elements. We're talking about a coordinated network that reaches right from the hijackers to multiple places in the Saudi government."
posted by homunculus at 10:21 AM on August 2, 2003

Rich Lowry: "Saddam Hussein never got it. He didn't realize that personal schmoozing in Washington and spreading lots of money around to former and soon-to-be U.S. government officials were the keys to realizing his geopolitical ambitions. He, in short, never learned the Saudi lesson. How else to explain the differing treatments of the Iraqi and Saudi governments?"
posted by homunculus at 3:01 PM on August 2, 2003

CIA veteran Bob Baer talks about the censored 9/11 report, why al-Qaida is still cozy in the house of Saud -- and why Osama is winning.
posted by homunculus at 7:16 PM on August 2, 2003

We all know that the September eleventh hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia, but why would the entire country want to destroy the United States? We're their biggest customer!
posted by interrobang at 8:04 PM on August 2, 2003

Mutually assured destruction.

Used to be the Russians on the "other side". Now it's the Saudis.

I know linking to Den Beste is gauche on these pages, and I often think he's flat out wrong. But I think he (and others) who claim the ultimate raison d'etre of the Neo-con policy is the neutralization of Saudi Arabia are dead right.

hope the neo-con/French juxtaposition was tres clever!
posted by trharlan at 11:15 PM on August 2, 2003

We all know that the September eleventh hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia, but why would the entire country want to destroy the United States?

While there are some ungodly number like 40,000 of them, the Saudi royal family doesn't so much speak for the population as they own it. I doubt it will turn out that like their whole government was consciously behind it, but rather that several higher-ups colluded to steer things in their direction. Think Saudi neocons.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:25 PM on August 2, 2003

Speaking of al Qaeda and 9/11, look who's back!
posted by homunculus at 11:47 PM on August 2, 2003

Greg Palast: "Furthermore, in the summer of 2001, Mr. Bush disbanded the US intelligence unit tracking funding of Al Qaeda. What is it our G-men were uncovering? According to two separate sources speaking to BBC, the funders of Al Qaeda fronts include those who have previously funded Bush family business and political ventures."
posted by homunculus at 5:53 PM on August 3, 2003