Justin Raimondo
WHAT DOES BUSH HAVE TO HIDE?
Sat Aug 2 13:42:08 2003
64.140.159.109


WHAT DOES BUSH HAVE TO HIDE?
Censoring the 9/11 report: neocons project their fantasies onto blank pages
by Justin Raimondo

GO TO ORIG FOR BACK UP LINKS:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html

The long-awaited congressional report on 9/11 came with a kicker: 28 redacted pages, deemed too sensitive for the unwashed masses, which have generated more discussion than all the other 800-plus pages put together. The censored section deals with "specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States," as the non-redacted portion puts it. The blankness of these pages, however, hasn't stopped everyone from talking as if they can read the invisible ink detailing all sorts of accusations aimed squarely at the Saudi government.

The Saudis responded, in the state-run Arab News, by calling for the release of the 28 pages:

"It would be far better if the section were published. What has been produced is nothing less than a charter for Saudi-bashing, all the more so because of the 28 pages supposedly dealing with Saudi links to the hijackers, blocked on White House orders."

"Anyone who thinks that President Bush is doing us a favor can forget it. Whatever the intention, this is an invitation to the U.S. and other media to speculate. ... This way, it will be open season on Saudi Arabia."

And indeed it is open season on Saudi Arabia, with all the usual conspiracy theorists projecting their lurid fantasies on the emptiness of those 28 pages.

If Saudi sponsorship of the 9/11 hijackers is somehow proved by the redacted portions of the report, then why did the Saudi foreign minister travel all the way to Washington to ask for their release? He was pointedly rejected by the President, and was met, instead, with a request from Condoleeza Rice to turn over Omar al-Bayoumi, an employee of the Saudi Civil Aviation Authority, as a material witness to the ongoing terrorism investigation. The Saudis readily agreed. But this is more of a political ploy, meant to placate congressional critics, than a real attempt to garner information. Shortly after 9/11, Mr. al-Bayoumi was interrogated by British authorities for 7 days, and released to Saudi Arabia, where he was also questioned. In his own defense, al-Bayoumi says:

"I stopped being a suspect for over a year now. Do you imagine that if any of what has been rumored in the media about me is true, would the FBI or Scotland Yard have set me free?"

The idea that the Saudi government, or some vaguely-defined faction, is the real author of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. is a conspiracy theory shared by the far-left "Bush knew" tinfoil hat brigade and the neoconservative phalanx of American Likudniks, who posit Riyadh as the center of a worldwide Wahabist web of evil.

In addition, the Bush family ties to the Saudi royals are too promising a theme for Democratic presidential hopefuls clamoring for attention. Yet one such hopeful, Florida's Senator Bob Graham, a key member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has a somewhat different take on the matter: In contrast to those who have not read the 28 pages, and don't know the background deliberations that went into the writing of it, Graham doesn't speak of only one potential accomplice of the hijackers, but says there is "compelling evidence" that "one or more foreign governments" facilitated the terrorists in some way.

Graham has been talking about the foreign state sponsors of the 9/11 plotters in plural terms since last December, when he told PBS's Gwen Ifill that he was "surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States." The brief notes appended to the blank 28 pages also speak in the plural, describing "sources of foreign support."

Both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been bruited about as the most likely sources. The accusers have got 28 blank pages of "evidence" – what more do they need?

There is plenty of evidence pointing to some measure of foreign involvement in the events leading up to the 9/11 terror attacks, but none of it points to Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan. In December of 2001, Fox News reporter Carl Cameron, who did a four-part series exposing the enormity of Israel's spy apparatus in the U.S., flatly stated:

"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are 'tie-ins.' But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, 'evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.'"

Der Spiegel and the BBC reported on this, but the American media abruptly dropped the story, echoing the official government line that the whole thing was an "urban myth."

This story was pursued by Christopher Ketcham, in Salon, John Sugg, in Creative Loafing, and reported on extensively in Europe. A multi-agency task force report was leaked to the media, detailing and confirming Cameron's account. The idea that the Israelis had some knowledge of the attacks, or at least were familiar with the plotters, was elaborated on in a recent news story in Die Zeit. Based on French intelligence sources, the respected German weekly reports that the Mossad, Israel's spy agency, was tracking the hijackers 24/7. In "Next Door to Mohammed Atta," reporter Oliver Schrom avers:

"Everything indicates that the terrorists were constantly observed by the Israelis."

A report detailing various bits of information garnered from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies on the subject of foreign involvement in 9/11 is not unlikely to contain these allegations. The suspicion that such is the case is boosted by the curiously agnostic tone taken by the authors of the congressional report, who note that the information contained in the classifed section has "yet to be independently verified." The joint inquiry is also careful to take no position on whether foreign support for the hijackers was "knowing or inadvertent in nature." However, a CIA memorandum is rather tantalizingly cited, claiming "incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists [redacted]."

On the other hand, we're told, these could be "legitimate and innocent associations." But what associations, and with whom?

Everyone who knows anything about these mysterious redactions has kept remarkably tight-lipped about their content. Remarkable, that is, for Washington, D.C., where politically explosive secrets are hard to keep. It is impossible to believe that the Democrats, if they know something about Saudi state sponsorship of the 9/11 terrorists, couldn't find someone to "leak" the evidence – if only to get the President for engaging in a cover-up. They're already talking about impeaching him because of a relatively obscure crime, rightly claiming he lied to the American people about Iraqi attempts to procure uranium in Niger. If, however, they could somehow prove Bush covered up foreign sponsorship of 9/11 – now that would be real grounds for impeachment. This would turn Ann Coulter's charge that the Democrats are the Party of Treason back on the GOP, to deadly effect.

But none of that is happening. Instead, we are confronted with uncharacteristically discreet members of Congress who talk around specifics and almost universally agree that they see no reason why most of the redacted pages can't be un-redacted. The President, however, insists that national security is at stake, and that U.S. intelligence "sources and methods" would be compromised. In other words, he's telling us just what Carl Cameron's sources told him:

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."

The Saudis maintain that the controversy is designed to drive a wedge between the Kingdom and the U.S., but that may be just a secondary effect. If George W. Bush is the captive of Saudi interests, and is determined to shield them at all costs, his present course is accomplishing nothing of the sort.

Who benefits from this brouhaha? In America, it's the Saudi-phobic neocons, who want to take their war of "liberation" to the Arabian peninsula and dream of overthrowing the House of Saud, installing "democracy" a la Iraq. In the Middle East, however, the chief beneficiary is Osama bin Laden, who can now argue quite persuasively that Washington is embarked on a crusade against Islam.

Keeping the classified section of the report under wraps, yet constructing a myth around the alleged contents, would provide the perfect camouflage – but for whom?

The American people are not usually prone to conspiracy theories, but those 28 blank pages seem to have transformed us into a mirror image of the Arab world, where conspiracism is the woof and warp of everyday discourse. In the absence of real knowledge, various competing conspiracy theories – usually reflecting the subjective hopes, wishes, and fears of the theorists – are certain to gain adherents, So let's look at our options:

On the one hand, we have 28 blank pages proffered as proof of a Saudi or Pakistani conspiracy against America. On the other hand, we have a large body of evidence – not from wackos, but from mainstream news sources: that is, if you consider Fox News non-wacko – pointing to Israel's notoriously efficient spy agency trailing the hijackers around the country.

Of these dueling narratives, which deserves more credence: that the Saudis funneled money and other assistance directly to the hijackers, in a series of easily traceable transactions, leaving a clear trail from the hijackers' bank accounts to the House of Saud? Or that the Israelis kept the hijackers under constant surveillance, and knew more about the plot than they'll ever let us know?

– Justin Raimondo
-----------------------------------------
DELEGATION LEADER:
Jacquie Wathen
Commercial Specialist
U.S. Commercial Service
Embassy of the United States of America
P.O. Box 94309
Riyadh 11693
Saudi Arabia
Tel: 966/1/488-3800 Ext 1109
Fax: 966/1/488-3237
E-mail: jacquie.wathen@mail.doc.gov
----------------------------------------
Report on 9/11 Suggests a Role by Saudi Spies
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/02/national/02SAUD.html?ei=5062&en=624d7ad76c8e2748&ex=1060401600&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position

August 2, 2003

By JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 — The classified part of a Congressional report on the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, says that two Saudi citizens who had at least indirect links with two hijackers were probably Saudi intelligence agents and may have reported to Saudi government officials, according to people who have seen the report.

These findings, according to several people who have read the report, help to explain why the classified part of the report has become so politically charged, causing strains between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Senior Saudi officials have denied any links between their government and the attacks and have asked that the section be declassified, but President Bush has refused.

People familiar with the report and who spoke on condition of not being named said that the two Saudi citizens, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassnan, operated in a complex web of financial relationships with officials of the Saudi government. The sections that focus on them draw connections between the two men, two hijackers, and Saudi officials.

The report urges further investigation of the two men and their contacts with the hijackers, because of unresolved questions about their relationship and whether they had any involvement in the 9/11 plot.

The edited 28-page section of the report, produced by a joint panel of the House and Senate intelligence committees, also says that a Muslim cleric in San Diego was a central figure in a support network that aided the same two hijackers. Most connections drawn in the report between the men, Saudi intelligence and the attacks are circumstantial, several people who have read the report said.

The unclassified parts of the report also suggest a connection between Mr. al-Bayoumi and Saudi intelligence. The report says that "one of the F.B.I.'s best sources in San Diego informed the F.B.I. that he thought that al-Bayoumi must be an intelligence officer." The report also says that "despite the fact that he was a student, al-Bayoumi had access to seemingly unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia."

The joint inquiry's investigation of Mr. al-Bayoumi and Mr. Bassnan centered on their activities three years ago when they were living in San Diego. The report concluded that the two men were crucial to understanding the events leading up to the plot, largely because of Mr. al-Bayoumi's extensive contacts with two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, after they settled in San Diego in early 2000. There is no definitive evidence that Mr. Bassnan knew the hijackers, but the report describes him as a close associate of Mr. al-Bayoumi.

One unresolved issue in the classified part of the report concerned Mr. Bassnan's visit to Houston after the attacks. While Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah met with President Bush, Mr. Bassnan met with a Saudi in his entourage, according to the report. It is not known what they discussed.

In San Diego, Mr. al-Bayoumi was employed by a contractor to the Saudi civil aviation authority, and received payments authorized by a Saudi official. But Congressional officials believe he was a "ghost employee" of the contractor who did no actual work. The payments authorized by the Saudi official increased significantly after Mr. al-Bayoumi came in contact with the two hijackers in early 2000, the classified part of the report states.

According to the unclassified parts of the report, Mr. al-Bayoumi first befriended Mr. al-Mihdhar and Mr. al-Hazmi in January 2000 when they arrived in Los Angeles from Bangkok, after attending a meeting in Malaysia with other operatives of al Qaeda. The two men stayed in Mr. al-Bayoumi's apartment for several days. He helped them find their own apartment, paid their first month's rent and security deposit, and threw a party to help them get settled in the local Arabic community.

Law enforcement officials have said, though, that Mr. Almidhar repaid Mr. al-Bayoumi and added that there was no evidence Mr. al-Bayoumi or Mr. Bassnan ever provided any other money to Mr. Almidhar or Mr. Hazmi. That point, the officials said, helps to explain why Mr. al-Bayoumi has not been accused of any crime, like providing material support to terrorists.

Law enforcement officials have played down the significance of the connection between Mr. al-Bayoumi and the two hijackers, saying there is no evidence that Mr. al-Bayoumi knew of the 9/11 plot. They dismissed the tone of the report, which they say portrays the possible links between the plot and Saudi Arabian officials as clearer and more direct than is actually known.

F.B.I. and C.I.A. officials have also said that they are not certain why Mr. al-Bayoumi was in San Diego, and that they are not certain of his exact relationship with the Saudi government. Some officials said that even if he was not a professional Saudi intelligence officer, he may have had some informal role. It is possible, they believe, that he was assigned to monitor the activities of Saudi students and other expatriates in the United States.

Investigators said that the role of the Muslim cleric who the report says served as a "spiritual adviser" to the two hijackers is central to an understanding of what happened in San Diego. The cleric is not named in the declassified section of the report, but officials identified him as Anwar Aulaqi. He is said to have held meetings with the two hijackers, and when he moved to Falls Church, Va., in 2001, the two hijack