This keeps coming up time and time again, but don't expect the M$M to treat these revelations as anything more than a moonbat conspiracy theory...
Senator Bob Graham -- Bush Covered Up Saudi Involvement in 9/11
SalonYour investigation in Congress focused on a Saudi national named Omar al-Bayoumi, who had provided extensive assistance to two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, when they lived in San Diego. You say al-Bayoumi was apparently a covert agent of the Saudi government, and from that you conclude there was official Saudi support for the plot. Yet the independent 9/11 commission came to a different conclusion. Its executive director, Philip Zelikow, has said his investigation had more access to information than yours - including the opportunity to interview al-Bayoumi. And the commission concluded he had nothing to do with the attacks, that his contacts with the hijackers were coincidental.
Let me say that what we know about this comes primarily from FBI and CIA reports that were in the file in San Diego. And in those files, FBI agents referred to Bayoumi as being a Saudi Arabian agent or Saudi Arabian spy. In the summer of 2002, a CIA agent filed a report that said it was "incontrovertible" that terrorists were receiving assistance, financial and otherwise, from Saudis in San Diego. No. 2: Bayoumi was supposed to be working for a firm that was a subcontractor for the Saudi civil aviation authority. Yet he never showed up for work. His boss tried to fire him, and he received a letter from the Saudi civil aviation authority demanding that he be retained on their payroll despite the fact he wasn't performing any services. And the subcontracting company that employed Bayoumi was owned by a Saudi national who, according to do ents seized in Bosnia, was an early financial backer of al-Qaida. Now, that's rather su ious.
Also su ious is the number of telephone conversations between Bayoumi and Saudi government representatives. It was a very substantial number that remains classified.
.....
Why do you think the White House is so intent on keeping that information from the public?
I think there are several possible reasons. One is that it did not want the public to be aware of the degree of Saudi involvement in supporting the 9/11 terrorists. Second, it was embarrassing that that support took place literally under the nose of the FBI, to the point where one of the terrorists in San Diego was living at the house of a paid FBI informant. Third, there has been a long-term special relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and that relationship has probably reached a new high under the George W. Bush administration, in part because of the long and close family relationship that the Bushes have had with the Saudi royal family.
In the book, you describe being furious with the FBI for blocking your committee's attempts to interview that paid FBI informant. You write that the panel needed the bureau to deliver a congressional subpoena to the informant because he was in the FBI's protective custody and could not be located without the bureau's cooperation. But the FBI refused to help. What happened? And what do you think the bureau was trying to hide?
We had just finished a hearing and had asked various representatives of the FBI to come into a conference room and discuss our strong interest in being able to interview the San Diego informant. It was clear that the FBI representatives were not going to voluntarily allow that to happen, and we had already prepared a subpoena, which I had in my coat pocket. I walked over to the principal representative for the FBI, Ken Wainstein, and I was approaching him with this subpoena, he clasped his hands tightly behind his back. I tried to hand him the subpoena, but he acted as if it were radioactive. Finally he said he didn't want to take the subpoena, but he would get back to us on the following Monday. Well, nobody ever got back to us. It was the only time in my senatorial experience that the FBI has refused to deliver a legally issued congressional subpoena.
Later, the FBI congressional affairs officer sent a letter to Porter Goss and me, saying, "The administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source, nor did the administration agree to allow the FBI to serve a subpoena on the source." What that tells me is the FBI wasn't acting on its own but had been directed by the White House not to cooperate.
The whole terra tape debate seems to be a smoke-screen to throw cold water on the burning hot theory that the real reason the WH had the torture tapes destroyed is because the terra-ists kept implicating Saudi's and Pakistanis in the 911 attacks...
Repeat whatever propaganda you wish. The CIA made the decision to protect the ACTIVE AGENTS iden ies by destroying the tapes. It wasn't worth the chance of some politician using the tape for political purposes, which would put agents lifes on a hit list.
Please Dan, get real for once.
That was the CIA's stated reason, and I see no better reason than stated.
So your denying any Saudi involvement in 911?
Yeah, cause we all know that if anybody is concerned about protecting the iden ies of covert CIA agents or using them as political bargaining chips it's Bush and Co.
Literally LOL that you'd actually have the balls post something this stupid given the Admin's record as criminal when it comes to outing CIA agents.
Last edited by balli; 12-15-2007 at 12:42 AM.
they really destroyed them because they were worried about nbadan and his 400 lbs large ass.
Get a clue. It wasn't the Bush administration that outed the , and she was not an active covert agent. It was the second in command of the state department, and he is a liberal! They tried to pin it on Bush, but couldn't.
Warning...
Being a Lemming and drinking Kool-Aid is a dangerous mix. It makes propaganda believeable!
Coming from the dude I quickly realized is the biggest kook and conspiracy theorist I've ever come across on a message board after only about 2 minutes of being here.
Trying to blame Plamegate on the democrats? Seriously? Literally man, lay off the sauce. You're laughable.
How can someone deny something not known Dan? Please... get out of fantasy land.
Saudi citizens were involved. Are you implying their government was too?
Evidence please. Good evidence. Not the typical propaganda you post. If you haven't noticed, I and growing increasingly tired of "Captain Cut and Paste."
At a minimum, check the implied facts of the stories before you quote them please.
I never said democrat, I said liberal.Coming from the dude I quickly realized is the biggest kook and conspiracy theorist I've ever come across on a message board after only about 2 minutes of being here.
Trying to blame Plamegate on the democrats? Seriously? Literally man, lay off the sauce. You're laughable.
No conspiracy, but the truth. Armitage is a liberal. Even after the prosecution found Armitage to be the leak, they pursued and pursued until they were able to trip up Libby and get him for perjury, when it appears he simple confused facts.
This story is as good as any, please read it:
Plame Out
The ridiculous end to the scandal that distracted Washington.
Because, of course, Christopher Hitchens is completely objective and non-partisan.
so now wild cobra is on record of taking the CIAs word as Gospel. Good to know...well see how that works out later.. i have a feeling that the hypocrite will disagree with the CIA in the future... I guess it's one of those convenience things..
Only when it makes sense, and not quite as gospel. The CIA was lax of security procedures allowing Wilson to play 'spy for a day' without signing any type of a confidentiality agreements, and it bit them in the ass. Tenet resigned, and in the aftermath, we see he had his own agenda.
Tell me....
You think the administration can dictatate the CIA to destroy those tapes? We have very few active agents in foreign governments. Should we take any chance of them being exposed if it can be avoided?
Too many leaks in congress. Better they destroy the tapes than have a politically motivated demonrat expose an active agent.
You guys believe the silliest of things. Shame on you.
^^Ah heck, WC, you know the reason those tapes were destroyed. It
showed George Bush and Cheney helping torture those guys
and laughing hysterically. And Bush hollering bring'en on boys
we know how to handle these pansy woosies.......
This just in!!! Bush jumped off the bridge and WC and Ray followed...
George, can you address what would happen to the CIA's Middle Eastern operatives if their iden y was 'accidently' revealed?
So are you asking me if keeping our spies secret is important? I would say that would be a priority.
Unless they cross Bush or Cheney by telling the truth. Then it's OK to out them.
So was it right for the CIA to destroy the tapes, to keep an accidental political leak from happening?
depends. will the leak hurt or benefit "W"?
So... If it hurts "W", you are in favor of leaking the tape, exposing the agents iden y, likely getting him killed?
So armitage is a conservative?
Do we even know which side to take?
I am still trying to find anything relating to the reason these tapes were destroyed because of 'accidental political leaks'. Seems to me that's your opinion on the matter..your asking me if I agree with your opinion on this..IF the only reason the CIA destroyed them was to keep the evil dems from poilitcizing them then I agree with you. Since I have a hard time fathoming the only reason they were destroyed was because of political concerns I choose to keep an open mind on this matter. I have a feeling there was alot of ass covering when they did this... if anything I would have kept them for training purposes for future interrogators..
The CIA claimed in court that the tapes were blank...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
