SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
(Photo: Glyn Lowe/cc/flickr)
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."
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - 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."