Posts Tagged ‘Senator Bob Graham’

PRINCE BANDAR AND GEORGE BUSH 2

 

Bob Graham may be turning up the heat with the success of the JASTA motion in congress. We may see some action on the September 11th cover-up yet.

 

Prince_Bandar_911

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?414563-1/former-senator-bob-graham-addresses-release-911-reports-28-pages

“The unanswered questions still remain unanswered.”
-Senator Bob Graham

LINK

PS

Some observations:

  1. Graham avoids much, including Pakistani involvement, focusing exclusively on Saudi Arabia. No mention of the longtime Pak connections, the money transfers and the sacking of General Mahmud Ahmad after FBI discovered his links to Atta.
  2. No mention that the cover-up is itself TREASONOUS “Aid and Comfort” and that alone should be enough to arrest US high officials who obstruct justice.
  3. No mention of Richard Clarke and the CIA’s hiding of hijackers inside the US for over a year. The CIA’s role in allowing the attacks to succeed is the glaring red flag in all of this, dwarfing everything else.
  4. Of course he avoids building forensics, Israeli front company Urban Moving Systems and dozens–if not hundreds–of warnings prior to the event.

graham-v-chossudovsky copy.jpg

 

Conspiracy to Breakfast?

Graham v. Chossudovsky

by Joe Giambrone

Professor Michel Chossudovsky (who has published my pieces in the past) has his own unique take on 9/11, one which I believe clouds his judgment. Over at the Global Research site the contentious issue of Senator Bob Graham is front and center, and when it comes to the September 11th attacks that is no small matter.

For over a decade Professor Chossudovsky’s case against Senator Bob Graham was that he was having breakfast with the Pakistani ISI head during the 9/11 attacks. That’s it. That’s the entire case. Not one specific piece of information about what was exchanged, the conversation is unknown. Chossudovsky has speculated and assumed that the Senator must be a traitorous co-conspirator based upon meeting with an intelligence chief of an allied nation, one whom may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks, as if breakfast meant complicity. The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence should be expected to meet with foreign intelligence officials as part of his oversight duties. There is nothing out of the ordinary about that, as we do not have any idea whatsoever what was discussed. It’s a completely speculative denunciation.

(more…)

COMBO PICTURE OF SUSPECTED HIJACKERS

 

Senator Graham received a call today:
Bob Graham gets call from White House and word that declassification of secret 9/11 documents is underway

 


28 Pages? Beware of “PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.”

Do NOT rejoice too soon at Obama’s apparent move to expose the Congressional Joint Inquiry findings. This isn’t anything approaching justice, yet. It is only a small step out of a large swamp.

The CIA and Saudi Arabia likely have a COVER STORY, which some FBI agents and Richard Clarke have already floated. A cover story is what you tell people, even your own people, to make your actions seem legitimate.

The cover story that emerges from the 28 pages controversy is that Saudi agents were supposedly“recruiting” Al Midhar and Al Hazmi to be double-agents. That would account for their helping them out with money and apartments. The Saudi government will likely claim that they were filling in for CIA in the US because the CIA isn’t technically allowed to operate here.

That is bullshit, the kind you tell your gullible underlings to get them to go along with your orders, rather than waking up to the otherwise obvious acts of Treason.

The CIA hid future alleged hijackers from the FBI for 16 months, and never did the job of alerting the intelligence community to go arrest them, even through numerous warnings of imminent attacks. Even after the Phoenix and Minnesota revelations of suspected terrorists training in flight schools and the arrest of Zacharias Moussaoui for wanting to “steer” a 747 without landing. Even as G.W. Bush was moved out of his hotel in Genoa Italy in July because of warnings of suicide skyjackings by Al Qaeda (LA Times).

The “recruitment” of Al Qaeda story, if you do see it, will be indefensible garbage, just another story from storytellers. The hijackers were not recruited. They were not carefully watched. They were allowed to … go do 9/11.

Many underestimate the CIA, including many in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and politicians as well. That is one reason we have been on the losing end.

The CIA wrote the book on PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY: they craft the elaborate excuses before they even consider to execute the plan. They lie to their own people as needed, called Eye Washing. All sensitive information is compartmentalized, so that only a few at the top ever get to see the big picture.

Beware of “plausible deniability.”

Joe Giambrone
https://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/

P.S.

The Saudi story…

Prince Bandar Says Saudi Intel “Actively Following” Hijackers “With Precision”

 

We still haven’t heard George Tenet’s story on this Saudi “precision”, just this tall tale.

 

911

Joe Giambrone

In the wake of Donald Trump’s shocking pledge: “You will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center,” many Americans may find themselves staring into the abyss. The implication has reached the mainstream, that we do not exactly know who was behind the September 11th attacks, which are trotted out to justify every policy enacted ever since.

“Because they have papers in there that are very secret,” continued Trump, “you may find it’s the Saudis, okay? But you will find out.”

It was genuinely a surprise that Trump would commit to uncovering the truth of the September 11th attacks, while the de facto leader of the American left, Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT, had long ago and repeatedly dismissed the 9/11 attacks as holding no importance whatsoever.

“Who cares?” was Noam Chomsky’s now infamous 2007 quote.

“I mean even if it [a September 11th government conspiracy] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn’t have any significance.”

In an email to Professor Chomsky I demanded he answer one very direct, albeit surprisingly controversial question. His non-response speaks volumes. My public debate challenge stands unanswered.

That vital question I posed to Chomsky, a cornerstone question for our age, concerns reality as we know it today (or as many do not). It is a “yes” or “no” proposition, and so without the opportunity for any fanciful verbal contortions.

Is there a US government cover-up of the facts of the September 11th attacks?
YES or NO?

You may want to ask Professor Chomsky this question yourself (chomsky@mit.edu). Don’t expect a response, although he may double down on “who cares?”

(more…)

Nytimes_hq

“White House officials say the administration has undertaken a review on whether to release the [28 redacted] pages but has no timetable for when they might be made public.” -NY Times

A convincing case can be made that Barack Obama decided to protect the Saudi sponsors of the September 11th attacks as soon as he won the presidency in 2008:

Justice Dept. Backs Saudi Royal Family on 9/11 Lawsuit

Obama literally had his “Justice” (sic) Department aid and abet the Saudi terror financiers and stood against the American victims of the 9/11 attacks. Obama sided with Saudi terrorists over US victims of 9/11, in one of the most shameful displays in the history of this country, something I will “never forget,” nor forgive. Obama betrayed America, as proven beyond any shadow of a doubt in the above link from May 29, 2009. But many, many people also betrayed America. The president is not alone there.

Today’s Times:

“[Senator Bob] Graham has repeatedly said it shows that Saudi Arabia was complicit in the Sept. 11 attacks. “The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier,” Mr. Graham said last month as he pressed for the pages to be made public.

NY Times, of course, allows Zelikow to LIE:

“Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director of the national commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks after the congressional panels, said the commission followed up on the allegations, using some of the same personnel who wrote them initially, but reached a different conclusion.”

Far from following up Zelikow FIRED a Commission staffer for simply getting a copy of the 28 pages and reading it. Where’s that part of the story, NY Times?

History Commons:

Two investigators on the 9/11 Commission, Mike Jacobson and Dana Leseman, compile a list of interviews they want to do to investigate leads indicating that two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, were linked to elements of the Saudi government. The list is submitted to Philip Zelikow, the commission’s executive director, for approval. However, a few days later Zelikow replies that the twenty interviews requested is too much, and they can only do half the interviews. Leseman, a former Justice Department lawyer, is unhappy with this, as it is traditional to demand the widest range of documents and interviews early on, so that reductions can be made later in negotiations if need be.
‘We Need the Interviews’ – Leseman tells Zelikow that his decision is “very arbitrary” and “crazy,” adding: “Philip, this is ridiculous. We need the interviews. We need these documents. Why are you trying to limit our investigation?” Zelikow says that he does not want to overwhelm federal agencies with document and interview requests at an early stage of the investigation, but, according to author Philip Shenon, after this, “Zelikow was done explaining. He was not in the business of negotiating with staff who worked for him.”
More Conflicts – This is the first of several conflicts between Zelikow and Leseman, who, together with Jacobson, had been on the staff of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry and had researched this issue there. Shenon will write: “Leseman was that rare thing on the commission: She was not afraid of Zelikow; she would not be intimidated by him. In fact, from the moment she arrived at the commission’s offices on K Street, she seemed to almost relish the daily combat with Zelikow, even if she wondered aloud to her colleagues why there had to be any combat at all.” [SHENON, 2008, PP. 109-111]
Later Fired, Evidence Deleted from Final Report – Zelikow will later fire Leseman from the commission for mishandling classified information (see April 2003and (April 2003)) and will have the evidence of the Saudi connection gathered by Jacobson and Leseman’s successor, Raj De, deleted from the main text of the commission’s report (see June 2004).

100210_9_11_lg7

First Segments