Not Just the Saudis: Iran’s Huge Role in 9/11 Also Covered Up

28-pages-911-Iran-Saudi.sized-770x415xb

PJ MEDIA, BY ROBERT SPENCER, JULY 19, 2016

The 28-page section of the 9/11 report detailing Saudi involvement in the terror attack has finally been released (although with substantial portions still redacted). We now know why one president who held hands with the Saudi king and another president who bowed to him worked so hard all these years to keep these pages secret. The 28 pages confirm that the 9/11 jihad murderers received significant help from people at the highest levels of the Saudi government.

However, Saudi involvement in 9/11 was not the only subject of a cover-up: Iran’s little-noted role in 9/11 has been covered up as well.

As I detail in my new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran, on December 22, 2011, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled in Havlish, et al. v. bin Laden, et al., that Iran and Hizballah were liable for damages to be paid to relatives of the victims of the September 11, 2001 jihad attacks in New York and Washington.

Judge Daniels found that both the Islamic Republic and its Lebanese proxy had actively aided al-Qaeda in planning and executing those attacks. He found that Iran and Hizballah had cooperated and collaborated with al-Qaeda before 9/11, and continued to do so after the attacks.

Before 9/11, Iran and Hizballah were implicated in efforts to train al-Qaeda members to blow up large buildings. This training resulted in the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

Shortly after the Cole attack, the 9/11 jihad plot began to come together — and Iran was involved.

Former MOIS operative Abolghasem Mesbahi, a defector from Iran, testified that during the summer of 2001 he received messages from Iranian government officials regarding a plan for unconventional warfare against the United States. The plot was entitled Shaitan dar Atash (“Satan in Flames”).

“Satan in Flames” was the Iranian’s elaborate plot to hijack three passenger jets, each packed full of people, and crash them into American landmarks: the World Trade Center, which jihadis took to be the center of American commerce; the Pentagon, the center of America’s military apparatus; and the White House.

A classified National Security Agency analysis referred to in the 9/11 Commission report reveals that eight to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers traveled to Iran repeatedly in late 2000 and early 2001.

The 9/11 Commission called for a U.S. government investigation into Iran’s role in 9/11 — but none was ever undertaken.

So Kenneth R. Timmerman of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran was, in his words, “engaged by the Havlish attorneys in 2004 to carry out the investigation the 9/11 Commission report called on the U.S. government to handle.”

Timmerman noted that during the 9/11 hijackers’ trips to Iran, they were “accompanied by ‘senior Hezbollah operatives’ who were in fact agents of the Iranian regime.” Iranian border agents did not stamp their passports so that their having been inside the Islamic Republic would not arouse suspicion when they entered the United States. The CIA, embarrassed by its failure to recognize the import of these trips, tried to suppress this revelation.

However, Timmerman contends that even the available evidence is explosive enough. In his words, he reveals that the Islamic Republic of Iran:

  • Helped design the 9/11 plot
  • Provided intelligence support to identify and train the operatives who carried it out
  • Allowed the future hijackers to evade U.S. and Pakistani surveillance on key trips to Afghanistan — where they received the final order of mission from Osama bin Laden — by escorting them through Iranian borders without passport stamps
  • Evacuated hundreds of top al-Qaeda operatives from Afghanistan to Iran after 9/11 just as U.S. forces launched their offensive
  • Provided safe haven and continued financial support to al-Qaeda cadres for years after 9/11
  • Allowed al-Qaeda to use Iran as an operational base for additional terror attacks, in particular the May 2003 bombings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

The Ayatollah Khamenei knew about the plot. During the summer of 2001, he instructed Iranian agents to be careful to conceal their tracks. He told them to communicate only with al-Qaeda’s second-in-command — Ayman al-Zawahiri — and Imad Mughniyah of Hizballah.

Mughniyah was Iran’s key player in the 9/11 “Satan in Flames” plot. During theHavlish trial, former CIA agents Clare M. Lopez and Bruce D. Tefft submitted an affidavit stating:

Imad Mughniyah, the most notable and notorious world terrorist of his time, an agent of Iran and a senior operative of Hizballah, facilitated the international travel of certain 9/11 hijackers to and from Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, and perhaps various other locations for the purpose of executing the events of September 11, 2001.This support enabled two vital aspects of the September 11, 2001 plot to succeed: (1) the continued training of the hijackers in Afghanistan and Iran after securing their United States visas in Saudi Arabia, and (2) entry into the United States.

The Obama-era CIA went to great pains to try to ensure that information about Iran’s role in 9/11 did not come out in the Havlish case.

In August 2010, a CIA official pressured a Havlish witness to withdraw his testimony in exchange for a new identity, new passport, and new job.

In December of that year, another CIA operative approached a different Havlishwitness, showed him documents stolen from the case, and took him to a U.S. embassy where he was subjected to five hours of interrogation. He was finally offered cash if he recanted his testimony. Says Timmerman:

After I reported those attempts at witness tampering to a Congressional oversight committee, they ceased.

Judge Daniels determined that Iran, Hizballah, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and other Iranian government departments — as well as the Ayatollah Khamenei himself and former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — were all directly implicated in Iranian efforts to aid al-Qaeda in its 9/11 plot.

Daniels awarded the plaintiffs in the Havlish case $394,277,884 for economic damages, $94,000,000 for pain and suffering, $874,000,000 for mental anguish and grief, $4,686,235,921 in punitive damages, and $968,000,000 in pre-judgment interest for a total of $7,016,513,805.

The Havlish plaintiffs will not receive a check for that amount from the Islamic Republic of Iran neatly signed by the Ayatollah Khamenei. Still, the judgment provided a small bit of solace for the loss of life and years of trauma these families suffered as a result of the Islamic Republic’s war against the United States.

Most importantly, the judgment stands as an acknowledgment of Iran’s role in the 9/11 attacks.

Clearly, Iran is and has been at war with the United States. Over a period of many years, Iran has conducted that war on numerous unconventional fronts while threatening conventional attacks if its agenda is thwarted in any way.

For the Islamic Republic this war is very real, a principal focus of its energy and expenditures. But it appears that only one side is fighting.

This was underscored in March 2016, when it came to light that Iranian hackers who were accused of being tied to the Islamic Republic had attempted to hack into the operating system of the Bowman Avenue Dam north of New York City, as well as into financial conglomerates Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, and HSBC – and the New York Stock Exchange.

Said Attorney General Loretta Lynch:

These attacks were relentless, they were systematic, and they were widespread.

Such attacks, if they had been successful, could have caused catastrophic damage to New York City and the American economy. Yet true to form, the Obama administration only indicted the accused (none of whom it had in custody).He took no measures against the Iranian government.

After 9/11, the U.S. declared war on terror and entered Afghanistan and Iraq. But if Bush had really been serious about attacking jihad terror at its root, he would have invaded Saudi Arabia and Iran instead. Under Obama, the denial and willful ignorance have only gotten exponentially worse.

5 Troubling Takeaways From The Declassified 9/11 Pages

1534157424

Center for Security Policy, by Benjamin Weingarten, July 20, 2016:

The infamous 28 previously classified pages from Congress’ joint inquiry into intelligence activities surrounding 9/11 represent far more than a symbolic reckoning with a politically controversial history of apparent Saudi duplicity that the U.S. government felt it imperative to suppress.

As we continue to be struck by jihadists at home and abroad under an at best rudderless and at worst suicidal national security and foreign policy, the report’s substance is live, relevant and beckons critical questions that ought to be demanded by our representatives and the public at large.

Why the federal government in general, and Bush and Obama administrations in particular, sought to keep such information from the public for 15 years is a worthy question, as is the question of why law enforcement did not move to arrest and prosecute or deport many of the individuals associated with the 9/11 attack that were under investigation.

Hindsight is 20/20, it is an open secret that diplomatic officials in foreign countries frequently are involved in pernicious activities like espionage and are provided with certain privileges and immunities if not legally than politically derived. Intelligence and law enforcement officials must use their discretion as to whether to move on suspects or continue monitoring them in the hopes of uncovering bigger networks and threats.

But the suspicious activities and associations of the individuals described in these 28 pages are well beyond the pale, as are many of the report’s other findings.

Here are five of the most consequential points from the 28 declassified pages, along with the critical questions we must be demanding of our government:

  1. America subordinated National Security to politicsThe first page of the report notes that “Prior to September 11th, the FBI apparently did not focus investigative resources on [redacted] Saudi nationals in the United States due to Saudi Arabia’s status as an American “ally.”Given the House of Saud’s longtime funding of and overall support for Islamic supremacist Wahhabism around the world, this admission is stunning.And it raises questions that we should be asking today.

    Does the intelligence community not focus investigative resources on Saudi nationals in America today? How about nationals from other Sunni nations in the Middle East that harbor jihadists? What about Iranian nationals, now that the Islamic Republic upon whom we have lavished over $100 billion and offered protection of their nuclear infrastructure has become ade facto ally against ISIS?

    Was the decision not to pursue Saudi nationals a conscious move to subordinate national security considerations to political ones? Is this still American policy?

    There are other revelations as well that merit grave concern and inquiry.

  2. Jihadi front group Proliferated on American soil (and they persist)

    Omar al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi intelligence officer who “provided substantial assistance” to two of the 9/11 hijackers was reportedly in contact with individuals under FBI investigation. He also communicated with others at the Holy Land Foundation, which had been under investigation for and ultimately would be charged with providing material support for Hamas as a fundraising front.The federal government today considers individuals from Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups to be legitimate law enforcement partners with whom to consult and to whom to outsource Countering Violent Extremism efforts. Glaringly, law enforcement continues to collaborate with The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)—an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case—in spite of policies to the contrary.Does law enforcement work to identify and monitor the activities of such groups? What are the standards for shutting down such groups? Does law enforcement monitor the activities of those tied to such groups and pursue investigations when merited? What specific policies and practices in place today would prevent other Omar al-Bayoumis from operating on American soil?

  3. Islamic Supremacist Mosques Proliferated on American Soil (And They Persist)

    Several times the 28 pages’ authors make reference to a mosque “widely known for its anti-Western views” that was created in 1998 with funding from the late Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdulaziz. The Culver City, CA-based King Fahad Mosque, then led by among others jihadist-supporting imam Sheikh al-Thumairy—an accredited diplomat at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles—remains open today.This raises a number of questions.If the King Fahad Mosque has not been shut down in spite of the facts described above, on what grounds would the government shut down a mosque? What, if any policies, has the federal government considered in connection with the funding of mosques and other institutions in the U.S. from regimes with ties to jihad? Does law enforcement monitor mosques for anti-Western or other subversive views today? Given exemptions for religious experts, what immigration protections are there to stop Islamic supremacist imams from entering the U.S.?It bears noting that a survey of 100 mosques in America revealed that 84.5% of such mosques had an imam recommending studying violence-positive texts. 58% of mosques invited guest imams who had been known to promote violent jihad.
  4. Jihadists believed Islamic supremacist immigration had hit critical mass over a decade ago

    Another vital section of the report concerns Osama Bassnan, an individual with extensive ties to both two of the 9/11 hijackers and the Saudi government. Page 428 reads:

    Bassnan…stated to an FBI asset that he heard that the U.S. Government had stopped approving visas for foreign students. He considered such measures to be insufficient as there are already enough Muslims in the United States to destroy the United States and make it an Islamic state within ten to fifteen years.

    Juxtapose this statement with the fact that America has admitted approximately 1.6 million immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries between 2001 and 2013, among other critical data on Islamic immigration compiled by Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz.

    While Bassnan is just one man, whether our federal government recognizes it or not, immigration is a tenet of jihad known as “Al-Hijra.” While we fret over the potential for jihadist infiltration among refugees from the Middle East today, over a decade ago Islamic supremacists were already claiming that there was a critical mass of Islamic supremacists ready, willing and able to ultimately take down America.

    Should not all future immigration policies be formulated based upon an understanding of the jihadis’ goals, strategies and tactics? Should not current homeland security policies be focused upon isolating and removing the jihadist cancer already metastasizing within?

  5. Saudi self-interest trumped all, and America was (and is) willfully blind

    One of the most significant statements in the declassified pages comes courtesy of a veteran New York FBI agent. In light of Saudi recalcitrance when it came to Islamic terrorism investigations before and after 9/11, this agent “stated that, from his point of view, the Saudis have been useless and obstructionist for years. In this agent’s opinion, the Saudis will only act when it is in their self-interest.”The report goes on to cite several examples of Saudi non-cooperation.

    What is so critical here is that the FBI agent in question identified openly and honestly the nature of the House of Saud. His description could work for practically all other regimes not only in the Middle East but throughout the world.

    One wonders, does U.S. foreign policy start from the first principle of identifying the nature of such regimes, as well as non-state actors with whom they may or may not be allied?

I would submit that self-evidently our national security and foreign policies do not recognize the comprehensive nature of the jihadist threat, Sunni and Shia, state and non-state, violent and civilizational, as has been reflected in numerous examples from the revelations of the recent Senate Judiciary Committee “willful blindness” hearing, to the redaction of the Orlando jihadist transcript, to the purging of documents that identify the very nature of the jihadist threat on American soil from law enforcement offices.

Given the perilous state of America’s national security and foreign policy today with respect to a global jihadist enemy that we fail to even call by its name, it is readily apparent that while we may have identified failures in connection with 9/11, we have not adequately answered the question as to what we must do to prevent such failures in the future.

The declassified 28 pages provide another opportunity for us to ask the necessary questions and seek out answers that may mean the difference between life and death for our nation.

Also see:

28 Pages Tie ‘Moderate’ Muslim Brotherhood To 9/11

1

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, July 19, 2016:

Washington has assumed the Muslim Brotherhood is, as President Obama’s intelligence czar put it, a nonviolent group “largely secular” in nature.  It has even invited Brotherhood figures into Muslim outreach powwows at both ends of Pennsylvania. But the newly declassified 28 pages detailing Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks casts serious doubt on the assumption that the Brotherhood is a benign organization.

In fact, the now-largely uncensored section of the congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11 reveals that U.S.-stationed Saudi intelligence officers who aided the hijackers in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks were in contact with senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, suggesting the Saudi-funded Brotherhood was part of the support network for the hijackers and involved in the 9/11 conspiracy.

For example consider page 416 of the Joint Inquiry report, a page that until last week had been completely blacked out for 14 years.  This page states that Saudi intelligence agent Omar al-Bayoumi, who assisted two of the Saudi hijackers with financing, housing and flight schools, was at the same time associating with several leaders of a Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas charitable front known as the Holy Land Foundation.

“The FBI determined that al-Bayoumi was in contact with several individuals under FBI investigation and with the Holy Land Foundation, which has been under investigation as a fundraising front for Hamas,” the report said. The Justice Department said the Holy Land Foundation was also a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the parent of Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group.  The connection was later proven in Federal court.

Federal investigative sources tell CounterJihad that one of the Holy Land Foundation contacts was Mohammad el-Mezain, who in 2009 was convicted of providing material support to Hamas suicide bombers and other terrorists in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorist-financing case in US history. Bayoumi met with El-Mezain in San Diego, where he was handling two of the Saudi hijackers who went on to attack the Pentagon. Before his arrest, El-Mezain headed Holy Land Foundation’s San Diego office and also served as a leader in a local mosque attended by the hijackers.

El-Mezain, a hardcore Muslim Brother now serving out a 15-year federal prison sentence on Terminal Island in Los Angeles, was also in contact at the time with al-Qaida cleric Anwar Awlaki.  Awlaki, later killed in a US drone strike, privately counseled the hijackers on martyrdom and jihad at a small, non-descript Saudi-funded mosque in San Diego, and later at a Saudi-built mosque in Falls Church, Va., where the hijackers followed him.

I have obtained Saudi Embassy travel itinerary showing Awlaki and El-Mezain acted together as tour guides on Saudi pilgrimages to Mecca.

The pair also once lived in the same small Colorado apartment complex together. Federal investigators tell me El-Mezain likely met Awlaki (aka Aulaqi) in Fort Collins, Colo., around 1990, when the two were neighbors and attended the same local mosque. Authorities have traced El-Mezain’s address at the time to 500 West Prospect Rd. in Fort Collins. Awlaki also listed an address then at 500 West Prospect Rd. El-Mezain occupied Apt. 19C, while Awlaki rented Apt. 23L.

El-Mezain also happens to have been a major fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Washington-based Hamas front group that claims to be a “civil-rights organization.” The Justice Department implicated CAIR and its founder in the Holy Land Foundation case as unindicted co-conspirators, while identifying CAIR as a US front for the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian branch Hamas.

El-Mezain co-founded the Holy Land Foundation with Hamas terrorist Ghassan Elashi, who was also a founding CAIR director. Elashi is serving a 65-year prison term for funneling more than $12 million to Hamas suicide bombers and other Palestinian terrorist leaders. El-Mezain and Elashi are both related to fugitive Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook.

Elashi attended a secret Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 with Nihad Awad, the current executive director of CAIR, whom both the FBI and NSA have investigated and monitored for alleged terrorist activities. The next year, CAIR was formed.

CAIR is mentioned by name in secret Brotherhood documents as part of a 1994 agenda of a secret US “committee” to support Hamas — the smoking gun linking CAIR directly to the Hamas network inside America.  Those documents are reproduced in the appendix of Muslim Mafia:  Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America.

Does this tie CAIR into 9/11 along with the Holy Land Foundation? According to Muslim Mafia, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad once hosted the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, now a convicted al-Qaida-tied terrorist, at his apartment in Santa Clara, California.  Ahmad also helped raise money for al-Qaida kingpin Ayman al-Zawahiri through his Santa Clara mosque, which was founded by senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders. Before the 9/11 attacks, Bayoumi and another Saudi intelligence officer who handled the hijackers in San Diego, Osama Bassnan, were investigated for ties to the Blind Sheik and who hosted a party for him. It’s not immediately known if Ahmad also attended that party, or if he had any contacts with the 9/11 hijackers or their Saudi handlers.

Attempts to reach Ahmad and Awad for comment were unsuccessful.

The nexus between the Saudis, the 9/11 hijackers and the Muslim Brotherhood runs even deeper.

Sources tell me that a still-redacted section of the Joint Inquiry report reveals that El-Mezain was also linked to 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui “through a member of the Muslim Brotherhood,” who attempted to post bond for Moussaoui’s roommate. Moussaoui recently testified in a deposition that he got help and funding directly from Saudi royals during his stay in America.

There’s yet another direct tie between al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood: the former head of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s shura council was one of al-Qaida’s top fundraisers in America, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. Abdurahman Alamoudi, who infiltrated both the Clinton and Bush administrations, is now serving 23 years in federal prison for plotting terrorism.

In 1996, Alamoudi — who founded the Boston Marathon bombers’ mosque — told a Muslim audience in Illinois: “Either we do it now or we do it after a hundred years, but this country will become a Muslim country.”

As the White House and Homeland Security continue to conduct outreach with Muslim Brotherhood front groups, declassification of 9/11 investigative documents reveal that these very same groups may have played a role alongside several Saudi government conspirators in the 9/11 attacks. They also reveal that the hijackers got help obtaining housing and IDs, along with other support, while attending several Muslim Brotherhood-controlled mosques in California, Arizona, Florida, Virginia and other states.

This terrorist support network is still in place inside America.

Also see:

Declassified Pages Link Muslim Brotherhood to 9/11 Network

Hamas supporters march in Gaza (Photo: Video screenshot)

Hamas supporters march in Gaza (Photo: Video screenshot)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, July 18, 2016:

The recently-declassified 28 pages from the official U.S. report on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks implicates the Muslim Brotherhood — including Hamas — as being part of the Saudi-linked Islamist network in America that assisted the 9/11 hijackers and Al-Qaeda in general.

On page 7, the report discusses how a suspected Saudi intelligence officer, Omar Al-Bayoumi, may have assisted two 9/11 hijackers and had links to Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. It then states:

“In addition, the FBI determined that al-Bayoumi was in contact with several individuals under investigation and with the Holy Land Foundation, which has been under investigation as a fundraising front for Hamas.”

The Holy Land Foundation was later successfully prosecuted and identified as a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s wing in the United States. It was set up to finance Hamas, the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing, which is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

(The Brotherhood more broadly is not designated as such, but over 80 members of Congress have endorsed recently-proposed legislation to change that.)

During the course of the Holy Land trial, numerous Brotherhood entities and members were identified. The Justice Department put together a long list of unidentified co-conspirators. The list specifically named Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) as Brotherhood “entities.”

On page 8, a second suspected Saudi intelligence officer, Osama Bassnan, a known supporter of Osama Bin Laden, is mentioned. Bassnan admitted to an FBI asset that he assisted the 9/11 hijackers more than Omar Al-Bayoumi did. Multiple people from the Muslim-American community warned the U.S. government that they believed Bassnan was a secret Saudi agent.

The report states that the FBI had linked Bassnan to the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Muslim Brotherhood-linked terrorist who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Abdel-Rahman is currently serving a life sentence in a U.S. prison. His release is a top objective of the Muslim Brotherhood.  When Mohammed Morsi, an Islamist and member of the Brotherhood, was president of Egypt, he demanded Abdel-Rahman’s release.

When you connect the dots, you’ll see the error of the West’s distinguishing between violent and (ostensibly) non-violent Islamist groups. They use the same international network and are often inseparable operationally, linking back to the same addresses, fronts, preachers, financiers, state sponsors, etc.

The information in the declassified pages should teach us the only workable policy is one that broadly targets the Islamist ideological movement  — including its state sponsors.

Also see:

28 Pages Suggest Huma-Connected Group Funded Terrorism

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Breitbart, by Lee Stranahan, July 15, 2016:

The declassified “28 Pages” released by Congress Friday afternoon concerning 9/11, terror funding, and Saudi Arabia contains a bombshell piece of information: The World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) is specifically named as having connections to terror funding and support for a number of worldwide terror groups.

As Breitbart News has reported exclusively, the “Abedin family business” is an academic group called the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs that is based in the London offices of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth and its parent organization, the Muslim World League.

Huma Abedin, born in the United States but raised in Saudi Arabia, has worked closely with Hillary Clinton since 1996 and is now Hillary Clinton’s closest aide and the vice-chairwoman of her presidential campaign. Abedin, who is married to disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, is also at the heart of the Clinton email scandal.

Page 24 of the 28 Pages report discusses Osama bin Laden’s half-brother and says in part:

According to the FBI. Abdullah Bin Ladin has a number of connections to terrorist organizations. He is the President and Director of the World Arab Muslim Youth Association (WAMY) and the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Science in America. Both organizations are local branches of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

According to the FBI, there is reason to believe that WAMY is “closely associated with the funding and financing of international terrorist activities and in the past has provided logistical support to individuals wishing to to fight in the Afghan War.” In 1998, the CIA published a paper characterizing WAMY as a NGO that provides funding. logistical support and training with possible connections to the Arab Afghans network, Hamas, Algerian extremists and Philippine militants.

Although the 28 Pages make no mention of Abedin at all, the information in the 28 Pages lays out a timeline of events during the planning and execution of the 9/11 terror attack that shows that, at all times, Huma Abedin was working for both Hillary Clinton and the WAMY organization the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs.

In the past, all efforts to vet or ask basic questions about Abedin have been shut down by the mainstream media and politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Republican Sen. John McCain and Democrat Congressman Keith Ellison.

A footnote on page 24 of the 28 Pages is inconclusive but doesn’t rule out the possibility that WAMY’s senior leadership may have supported terrorism.

According to the FBI’s November 8th, 2002 response, although several officials in WAMY support Al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups, the intelligence is insufficient to show whether the organization as whole and its senior leadership support terrorism.

Although the footnote makes it clear that the depth of WAMY’s full support for terrorism wasn’t fully known in 2003, the matter is clearly a subject that should have been both investigated and discussed, especially given the connection between New York Senator Clinton, and one of her top aides at the time, to the group.

Further, it’s very clear that WAMY supports the Wahhabist strain of Islam that is both the state religion of Saudi Arabia and is behind nearly every terrorist group today, including al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and the Taliban.

As Breitbart News previously reported exclusively, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she even admitted that Saudi Arabia was using the Muslim World League and WAMY to fund terrorism, writing in a 2009 memo:

Saudi Arabia has enacted important reforms to criminalize terrorist financing and restrict the overseas flow of funds from Saudi-based charities. However, these restrictions fail to include &multilateral organizations such as the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), Muslim World League (MWL) and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY.) Intelligence suggests that these groups continue to send money overseas and, at times, fund extremism overseas.

For decades, the Saudis have spent millions of dollars promoting Wahabbism through organizations like WAMY, its parent the Muslim World League, and other “charities” that promote Da’wa or Islamic evangelism throughout the world via activities such as building mosques.

The mainstream media has either ignored these clear connections between Huma Abedin and Saudi NGOs or, worse, smeared the people making the charges, most notably the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

Further, the fact that the Bush administration’s compliance with the Saudi’s request to bury the information that is damaging to The Kingdom raises new questions of what influence the Saudis has on President Bush.

Breitbart News reported exclusively that just a month after 9/11, Newsweek claimed that the Muslim World League — the parent organization of WAMY with connections to Huma Abedin — was removed from a list of terror funders under pressure from Saudi Arabia.

The 28 Pages were available to members of Congress to read, although only under the right security conditions.

It is not known whether Sec. Clinton, then the Senator for New York, ever read the 28 Pages.

DEVELOPING…

***

Also see:

Yes, the Saudi government helped the 9/11 terrorists

Photo: Getty Images

Photo: Getty Images

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, July 15, 2016:

Now we know why the missing 28 pages on 9/11 were kept under lock and key for 15 years: They show the hijackers got help across America from Saudi diplomats and spies in the run-up to the attacks. Because of the coverup, a Saudi terror support network may still be in place inside the United States.

A CIA memorandum dated July 2, 2002, stated unequivocally that the connections found between the hijackers, the Saudi embassy in Washington and Saudi consulate in Los Angeles are “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government.”

“Numerous” FBI files also fingered two Saudi government employees who assisted the 9/11 hijackers as “Saudi intelligence officers,” the newly declassified documents reveal.

Though much is still redacted, they also show the Saudi government’s ties to the hijackers and other al Qaeda suspects were so extensive that the FBI’s Washington field office created a special squad to investigate the Saudi angle.

But this special focus on Saudi Arabia occurred belatedly, only after the 9/11 attacks, “due to Saudi Arabia’s status as an American ‘ally.’ ” Astoundingly, investigative resources were not dedicated to Saudi involvement in financing and supporting terrorism prior to 9/11.

The explosive information was locked up in a top-secret, highly secured room in the basement of the US Capitol for the past 15 years, ostensibly to protect the Kingdom from embarrassment. (The Post helped get the declassification ball rolling with the December 2013 piece, “Inside the Saudi 9/11 coverup.”)

That means for 15 years, 9/11 victims and their families have been denied by their own government critical evidence they’ve sought to sue the Saudi government for responsibility in the death of their loved ones.

It also means Washington has misled the American people about foreign sponsorship of 9/11. For 15 years, we’ve been told that al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors. We were led to believe that 15 Saudi nationals who barely spoke English received no help while in America; that they operated in isolation, like visitors from outer space.

It was all a monstrous lie.

FBI files show Saudi agent Omar al-Bayoumi provided “substantial assistance” to Saudi hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000. Hazmi was the leader of the cell that attacked the Pentagon, while Mihdhar was one of that cell’s muscle hijackers. The two even stayed at Bayoumi’s apartment, working out in his gym.

At the same time he was aiding the hijackers, Bayoumi was getting large salary increases from a Saudi defense front company tied to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, where he worked as a ghost employee. Another alleged Saudi intelligence officer who handled the hijackers, Osama Bassnan, worked closely with Bayoumi.

According to a CIA memo, cited by the now-uncensored 28-page section of the 9/11 report, “Bassnan reportedly received funding and possibly a fake passport from Saudi government officials.”

More alarming, “he and his wife have received financial support from the Saudi ambassador to the United States and his wife.” That would be Prince Bandar, who was promoted to Saudi intelligence minister after 9/11.

The same report says Bassnan, described as a “supporter of Osama bin Laden,” also got “a significant amount of cash” from another “member of the Saudi Royal Family.”

FBI documents and a CIA memo further indicate that the hijackers had contact with Shayk Fahad al-Thumairy, then a Saudi consular official in Los Angeles. Records show the accredited Saudi diplomat had dozens of phone conversations and at least one meeting with Bayoumi in advance of the hijackers’ arrival.

But wait, the Saudi-9/11 conspiracy gets even worse.

A Saudi interior ministry official stayed at the same hotel in Herndon, Va., with Hazmi and other Pentagon cell hijackers on the night before they hijacked the plane that departed that fateful Sept. 11, 2001, morning from nearby Dulles airport. FBI agents felt Saleh al-Hussayen lied about not meeting with or even knowing the hijackers, but when they tried to re-interview him, it was too late — he had been spirited out of the country along with dozens of other Saudi VIP suspects at Bandar’s request, and with the White House’s permission.

Speaking of Bandar, it turns out that an unlisted phone number connected to the good prince’s Aspen chalet was found in the phone book of senior al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaida when he was captured in Pakistan in 2002. Zubaida also just happened to have a contact number for Bandar’s bodyguard at the Saudi Embassy.

Mind you, these stomach-turning revelations are gleaned from merely summaries of FBI case files and CIA memos. There is much rawer intel that remains classified about the Saudi government’s role in 9/11.

The treachery may still be worse than we know. And it may be ongoing. As the 28 pages warn: “Saudi government officials in the United States may have other ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.”

Sperry is author of “INFILTRATION: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington,” which exposes the Saudi terror support network in America.

Kyle Shideler discusses Saudi role in 9/11 and Obama’s new liaison to the Muslim-American community

882707322

Center For Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, June 1, 2016:

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Welcome back. We’re joined by Kyle Shideler, my colleague at the Center for Security Policy where he directs our Threat Information office. Really a go-to resource on the challenges that we’re facing from the jihad, both of the violent kind and the civilisation kind, among others. Kyle is an expert in these matters. He previously served as a director of research and communications at the highly esteemed Endowment for Middle East Truth. And has been a contributing author to, among other things, its books, Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace. Kyle, welcome back. It’s good to have you with us.

KYLE SHIDELER:

It’s a pleasure to be here, Frank.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Let me ask you about Saudi Arabia. It’s been getting a lot of attention, much of it critical of late, as you know, in particular in connection with the possible declassification at long last of twenty-eight pages of a congressional report looking into its involvement as an official government operation in the 9-11 attacks. Kyle Shideler, you know a lot about the Saudis. Give us a sense of the likelihood that the Saudis were doing such a thing.

KYLE SHIDELER:

Well, the Saudis were almost certainly – they had some level of involvement. What exactly that is remains to be seen. And obviously, if we were able to access these twenty-eight pages, these classified pages, we would know a lot more. What we do know, of course, is that the Saudis, for a long time, played a role in the sort of support and finance function of organisations which then supported al-Qaeda. We’re talking about organisations like the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, which was the sort of Wahbabist organisation that the Saudis used to fund mosques and fund Islamist organisations which then, in turn, funnelled money to al-Qaeda. So the Saudis played a most key role in creating the infrastructure which then undergirds all of what al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups were able to accomplish.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

We’re visiting with Kyle Shideler of the Threat Information office he directs at the Center for Security Policy. And Kyle, you were just touching on an incredibly important point, it seems to me, and that is that what the Saudis have been doing for a long time, whether it’s through this so-called WAMY, the World Association of Muslim Youth, or organisations like the North American Islamic Trust, has been building mosques which in turn create, as you say, a kind of support network for jihadists of the violent stripe as well as the sort of pre-violent kind, as I call it, the civilisation kind. How do they do that? I mean, what is the funding mechanism and what are the orders of magnitude of what they’ve put into this enterprise?

KYLE SHIDELER:

Well, we’re talking about billions and billions of dollars. They do it through a variety of different ways. Obviously, they have a sort of international structure, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, and other groups like that, which are moving money around to various other Islamic entities which then are, in turn, controlling and building the mosques. You mentioned the North American Islamic Trust, which is a good example of that. The North American Islamic Trust is an organisation of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. We know that because of documents that were submitted at the Holy Land Foundation trial. But it’s real job is to hold the deed to US mosques. And so that then enables them, that is the Muslim Brotherhood and other Saudi-supported radicals, to use those mosques for their recruitment for their indoctrination of people who will come to be jihadists. By moving them through stages of indoctrination and recruitment. And so that’s what we saw in the lead up to 9-11. We saw individuals like, for example, Anwar al-Awlaki who worked out of dar al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church. And individuals like this still, to this day, play a very key role in recruiting and indoctrinating individuals to jihad terrorism.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

When you see what the Brotherhood has been doing, Kyle, it’s unmistakable that it’s about jihad, of course, but what does that tell us, what’s the relationship between the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood, obviously the supporting of their activities is going on, but I had thought at one point that the Saudis had actually declared the Brotherhood a terrorist organisation, had they not?

KYLE SHIDELER:

Well, they had. The on-again, off-again relationship between the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood is one of these things that, as Westerners, we’re perhaps often befuddled by. Prior to 9-11 and certainly prior to the takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudis had largely used the Brothers as part of a transmission chain for the moving of this money and this radical material, shariah-adherent material, around the world. But following the takeover in Egypt, the Saudis became very concerned that they themselves would become a target. This is the sort of relationship that the Saudis have always had with Islamists. It’s because despite their own support for these causes abroad, they are not interested in seeing those same forces turned back on them and risking their control of the Arabian peninsula.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

It’s kind of, I guess, a protection racket. They wind up supporting these guys with the condition that they wage their jihad someplace else, not in the kingdom. Let me ask you about one of the most prominent Muslim Brothers that we know about, Kyle, a fellow by the name of Jamal Barzinji. Give us a sense of his background and his involvement with the, well, with the Brotherhood for sure, but also perhaps with the Saudis.

KYLE SHIDELER:

Well, Barzinji passed away in September of last year, but during his time in America, he was the co-founder of the International Institute of Islamic Thought located in Fairfax, Virginia, and it’s a very prominent Muslim Brotherhood think tank. They really kind of provide some of the intellectual backbone for the civilisation jihad project that the Muslim Brotherhood carries out in the United States. In fact, one of their – they introduced the term civilizational battle to talk about this idea of a conflict between civilisations at the ideological rather than at the military level. Additionally, Barzinji was the founder or one of the founding members of the Muslim Students Association which was the first Muslim Brotherhood organisation in the United States. He was the general manager of the North American Islamic Trust. He was a member of the shura council of the Islamic Society of North America. And he was a director of the SAFA Group, which was a network of charities and companies in northern Virginia that was raided by federal authorities for funding Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. He was also a member of a number of other Brotherhood organisations as well.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Yeah, so this is quite a pedigree. What do you make, Kyle Shideler of the Threat Information office, then of the fact that the White House, which has been quite embracing of Muslim Brotherhood operatives and organisations here and abroad for some time now, has decided to pick, of all people, Jamal Barzinji’s grandson, Zaki, to be its head of public outreach to this Muslim community?

KYLE SHIDELER:

Well, you might say to yourself perhaps the son didn’t follow in the footsteps of the father. Which would, one, indicate to me that you don’t understand the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood because it is very much a family enterprise, but you would also need to know that Zaki Barzinji was himself the former president of the Muslim Youth of North America, which is another Brotherhood-oriented organisation that was named in the explanatory memorandum of the Brotherhood when it was found in that house of that Hamas operative in Virginia and entered into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial. So this is an individual who was a leader of a group, a named group, that the government is well aware is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and yet he is being selected to represent the US government to Muslim-Americans in this country. And that sends a terrible message. But it has been a message that the Obama White House has sent uninterrupted since he took office in 2009.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

It’s nonetheless staggering. Kyle Shideler, we thank you so much for the work that you do birddogging these various organisations and their influence operations, their subversion, their civilisation jihad here in the United States as well as elsewhere around the world. Keep it up my good friend and come back to us again very soon. Next up, we’ll be speaking with Gordon Chang, who will talk about the latest North Korean missile launch and president Obama’s appalling visit to Hiroshima. Right after this.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Also see:

Saudis Not Happy With US on Iran

ISAUDThe two leading supporters of international jihad are increasingly at odds.

BY CounterJihad · @CounterjihadUS | April 26, 2016

Abdulrahman Al-Rashed, a leading Saudi journalist and confidante of the royal family, wrote that US President Barack Obama’s recent visit had done nothing to mend the rift between America and the Saudis.  In the wake of the Iran deal, Saudi Arabia has noticed that the US continues to pander to the Islamic Republic of Iran.  However, Iran has done nothing but escalate its violations of the terms of the deal.  Meanwhile, he pointed out, the Obama administration’s regional policies have led to chaos.

Since the signing of the deal with Iran, the White House failed to give the other camp security guarantees that would alleviate the dangers that the deal ushered in.  Meanwhile, Iran has pursued its efforts to take over the region…. Obama’s hands-off approach has failed – it led to anarchy and to the rise of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

It is true that Obama’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq led to the collapse of that country into civil war, and the rise of the Islamic State.  It is also true that his failure to enforce his “red line” in Syria led to the massive refugee crisis, the resurgence of al Qaeda, and — combined with the Iran deal — a tightening of Iran’s grip on the Levant.  His deal with Iran has been historically negative in its fallout.

However, Saudi Arabia is no innocent.  With Iran, it leads the world in sharia-law brutality.  A diplomatic cable signed by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton points out that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”  The Saudi government officially opposes terrorist groups, though its approach to captured terrorists is often quite genteel given that it frequently beheads people for such offenses as “sorcery.”  The money that flows out of the state through Kuwait and other Sunni states provides the most significant contribution to terrorists such as al Qaeda.

Watching these two powers fall into an oil war with each other is not entirely displeasing.  The truth is that neither power is reliable.  They are enemies of each other, but that does not make either our friend.

Also see:

First, Let’s Get the Facts on Saudis and Iranian Involvement in 9/11

911 rubbleNational Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy — April 23, 2016

The 9/11 attacks were not civil torts. They were acts of war. It is important to keep that fact in the front of our minds as we press for long-overdue disclosure of evidence linking the Saudi Arabian government to the mass murder of nearly 3,000 Americans, to say nothing of the even more overdue investigation of Iran’s contributory role — an investigation that should have been in high gear immediately after the planes struck their targets.

Over the years in these pages, we have catalogued the damage done to national security by regarding international terrorism as a mere law-enforcement problem — the 1990s Clinton counterterrorism paradigm that President Obama has gradually reinstated. We haven’t much considered, though, another problem with thinking about violent jihadism as a litigation matter: It leads us to lose perspective about who was attacked, and why.

Much as our hearts ache for the victims whose lives were lost, and for the families whose lives were ripped apart, 9/11 was not principally an attack on the victims and their families. It was an attack on the United States of America. It was a stealth combat operation against the American people, all of us, by foreign enemies who had quite publicly declared war on our nation. Those killed and wounded are more accurately thought of as casualties than as victims.

This is why it is so unfortunate that the drive to get public accountability for the attacks has been intertwined with the effort to get financial compensation for the families by way of civil lawsuits against complicit nations.

Don’t get me wrong: All of us should demand that state sponsors of terrorism be made to pay dearly for their atrocities – although, for reasons I’ll get to in a bit, legislation permitting victims to sue is a counterproductive way to go about this. But for all the incalculable pain and suffering inflicted on our fallen fellow Americans and their families, the laudable desire to see them awarded hefty money damages is, at best, a secondary priority.

The national security of the United States demands that we endeavor to understand why and how the 9/11 attacks happened as well as what kind of relations we should have, all these years later, with nations that were culpable.

In just the last few days, as Tom Joscelyn reports, the Obama administration has transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Riyadh nine more hardcore anti-American Yemeni detainees – notwithstanding that al-Qaeda’s most capable franchise (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) has alarmingly expanded its safe haven in Yemen. Meanwhile, we learn in a jaw-dropping Wall Street Journal dispatch, the administration has announced that it will purchase from Iran tons of heavy water (used in developing plutonium bombs). In one fell swoop, Obama thus cures yet another Iranian violation of his vaunted nuclear deal (so soon after Iran tested ballistic missiles festooned with vows to destroy Israel); subsidizes Iran’s nuclear program; legitimizes Iran’s heavy-water production (i.e., its plutonium R&D) by encouraging other nations to engage in similar commerce; and apparently structures an infusion of multi-millions of American dollars into a country he promised Congress would continue to be precluded from access to our economy.

I know, I know: Obama is incorrigible. There is no American national-security interest that would be allowed to take precedence over his legacy hunt. He is determined to be remembered by the global Left – the only audience that matters – as the president who shut down Bush’s Gitmo gulag; and if Congress won’t cooperate by transferring anti-American jihadists to stateside prisons, then he will simply empty Gitmo by transferring the jihadists back to the jihad. And we have seen time and again that he is desperate to sustain his historic “achievement” in striking the Iran nuclear deal, no matter how often Tehran humiliates him.

Nevertheless, we will have a new president soon (albeit not soon enough). That president will have to decide the nature of our relations with the Saudis and Iranians. Assuming that, unlike Obama, the next president figures there should be a rational connection between how we engage a country and how much it threatens our interests, the facts about Saudi and Iranian complicity in the anti-American jihad must be known. More to the point, the American people are entitled to be able to weigh those facts in choosing the next commander-in-chief.

As I outlined last week, there is extensive evidence of complicity by high levels of the Saudi government in the 9/11 attacks. There is, moreover, compelling evidence of Iranian complicity.

Iran had an alliance with al-Qaeda beginning in the early 1990s. It principally included training by Hezbollah (the Beirut-based terrorist faction created and controlled by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) and such joint ventures as the 1996 Khobar Towers attack, in which 19 U.S. airmen were killed (and the FBI’s investigation of which was obstructed by the Saudi government). Toward the conclusion of its probe (and thus without time to investigate the matter fully), the 9/11 Commission learned that Iran had provided critical assistance to the suicide hijackers by allowing them to transit through Iran and Lebanon as they moved from obtaining travel documents in Saudi Arabia (Saudi passports and U.S. visas) to training for the attacks in al-Qaeda’s Afghan safe havens.

Indeed, we now know that Iran’s assistance was overseen by none less than Imad Mugniyah, the now-deceased Hezbollah master terrorist who spent much of his life killing Americans, most notoriously in the Beirut marine-barracks bombing in 1983, and almost certainly at Khobar Towers. In October 2000, Mugniyah went to Saudi Arabia to “coordinate activities” (as the 9/11 Commission put it) with the suicide hijackers. (See 9/11 Commission Report at page 240, as well as affidavits of former CIA officers and a 9/11 Commission staffer, here and here). Thereafter, Mugniyah and other senior Hezbollah members accompanied the “muscle hijackers” on flights through Iran and Lebanon.

By enabling the hijackers to cross through these countries without having their passports stamped – an Iranian or Lebanese stamp being a telltale sign of potential terrorist training – Iran made it much more likely that the jihadists’ applications for Saudi passports and U.S. visas would be approved, as they were. That is why, on the topic of potential Iranian complicity in the plot, the 9/11 Commission wrote, “We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.”

The plea has fallen on deaf ears. In fact, thanks to Obama’s Iranian nuclear deal, our government is no longer content to be willfully blind; it is knowingly and materially supporting Tehran’s terror promotion, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

Will we ever get accountability?

The prospects are not promising at the moment. As noted above, legislation has been proposed by Senators John Cornyn (R., Texas) and Chuck Schumer (D, N.Y.) to allow 9/11 families to sue the Saudis. Unfortunately, this Cornyn-Schumer bill has gotten itself tied to the effort to get disclosure of the 28 pages on Saudi complicity in 9/11 from Congress’s 2002 report.

The Saudi government has threatened to destabilize the U.S. economy by dumping up to $780 billion in dollar-denominated assets if the kingdom is made liable to suit. They are probably bluffing. It is doubtful that they actually hold assets in that amount, and even if they sold off whatever they have, they are likely exaggerating the amount of havoc it would wreak. Still, the threat has given Obama the fig leaf he needs not only to threaten a veto of the legislation but to continue suppressing the long-sought 28 pages.

The two issues must be de-linked. The development of a truly definitive public accounting of the nations and terrorist organizations that colluded in acts of war against the United States should have nothing to do with whether the 9/11 families are given a legal basis to sue foreign sovereigns. Even if the two things were necessarily connected – and they’re not – it would be the legislation, not publication of the 28 pages, that should be dropped.

Civil lawsuits by victims are no more a serious response to wartime aggression than are grand-jury indictments. A great nation does not react to acts of war by issuing court process. Furthermore, permitting such lawsuits (a) encourages other nations to subject the United States to lawsuits for legitimate actions taken in our national defense; and (b) consigns the conduct of the most delicate foreign-policy matters to the vagaries of litigation presided over by the judiciary – the branch of government that lacks constitutional responsibility, political accountability, and institutional competence for managing international affairs and national security.

Of course our government should pressure rogue regimes to compensate victims of terrorism. The political branches of government that are actually responsible for foreign affairs should demand that any nation complicit in the 9/11 attacks provide a fund for the families. It is feckless, however, to punt that job to the courts. Unlike the president and Congress, judges are powerless to enforce their writs against, or otherwise credibly threaten, hostile foreign sovereigns.

That, however, is the least of our problems. First, we need to find out exactly what happened in the lead-up to and aftermath of 9/11. (Post-9/11, Iran harbored al-Qaeda as the terror network fled invading U.S. forces.) Then, we need to define our engagement with Saudi Arabia and Iran in accordance with what they have done and who they actually are – not who Obama and the bipartisan foreign-policy establishment fantasize they could become.

So let’s get the facts . . . finally.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor at National Review.

RELEASE THOSE 28 PAGES NOW

With Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, April 2002 (Wikimedia Commons)

With Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, April 2002 (Wikimedia Commons)

The American Spectator, By 4.21.16

President Obama made his fourth trip to Saudi Arabia Wednesday, ostensibly to “clear the air” in an attempt to repair the damaged relationship with the Kingdom brought about by what many will regard as his administration’s mistakes — cozying up to the Islamic Republic of Iran, for example, and embracing the Arab Spring which toppled the Saudi ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

But perhaps the biggest mistake Obama has made with regard to the Saudis is the one they’ll likely thank him for; namely, opposing — and threatening to veto — a bill authored by Sens. John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer which would declassify 28 pages of a 2002 bicameral congressional report on the 9/11 terrorist attacks and open the door for civil litigation against foreign governments involved in material support for that terrorist conspiracy.

The latter aspect of the bill can be debatable. There is a school of thought that says that if Congress passes and Obama signs legislation stripping sovereign immunity from foreign governments even for atrocities they’ve committed like 9/11, it’s akin to opening a Pandora’s box of potential unintended consequences. Doing so could open the American government up to suits for things like drone strikes that created collateral damage, or even to suit by Americans for failure to prevent a 9/11. A certain degree of circumspection and reticence to embrace a potentially dangerous new legal regime where sovereign immunity is concerned is reasonable, which is why John Bolton has expressed reservations about the bill.

But as to the former aspect? Release those pages immediately. It’s been 14 years without the transparency the American people deserve surrounding the deadliest enemy attack on our soil in the history of the Republic, and we deserve better.

Of all the things the American people can rightly condemn the administration of George W. Bush for, the redaction of the 28 pages might be the most egregious. The Bush administration, and Bush himself, had lots of personal friendships with the Saudi government and key players in it, and those friendships certainly colored American policy during those years. The 9/11 commission and the congressional investigation into the attacks of that day both found a great deal of evidence that it wasn’t some crazy coincidence that 15 of the 19 hijackers of those planes happened to be Saudis. Material support for them, the network of assistance they made use of to move about the country, attend flight schools, find housing and acclimate into American society while preparing to attack us came from other Saudis living in this country, some of whom were unquestionably connected to that nation’s regime.

We know from unredacted material in those 9/11 reports, for example, that there was a great deal of support given to two of the hijackers, a pair of Saudis named Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar, while they lived in San Diego before the attacks. The “San Diego cell” was provided with cash, assistance with lodging and other help (like finding an apartment, putting down a deposit, opening a bank account and introducing them to a support network at a local mosque in San Diego) after arriving in the country by a shadowy figure named Omar al-Bayoumi, reportedly a Saudi intelligence agent, and Fahad al-Thumairi, a jihadist cleric at the King Fahd mosque in Los Angeles and Saudi consular official.

Bayoumi left the country abruptly, shortly before 9/11. So did another Saudi, Abdulazziz al-Hijji, an oil executive with Saudi Aramco who abandoned a posh Sarasota, Florida home owned by his father-in-law — an advisor to Prince Fahd bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud, nephew of then-King Fahd. Al-Hijji also abandoned three cars, a full house of expensive furniture, closets full of clothes, and even a refrigerator full of food when he and his family vanished. Subsequent investigations connected al-Hijji to 9/11 hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, whose cars were spotted by archived security footage within the gated community al-Hijji inhabited after the deed was done. Al-Hijji, who denied any connection to the hijacking and denounced it as a “crime against all humankind,” later turned up in London as an executive with Aramco, the Saudi national oil company.

Yes, but the Saudi government relies on a key passage from the 9/11 Commission Report which says, “We have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.” Emphasis mine.

Nobody thinks the Saudi government was stupid enough to make material support for the 9/11 hijackers explicit government policy. It wouldn’t have worked that way. Thus there is no exoneration in that passage at all. In fact, 9/11 Commission member and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman told 60 Minutes earlier this year that those 28 pages contain information that would greatly color American perception of a Saudi role in the attacks. Though the exchange with Steve Kroft was rather suspiciously left to an online segment of the news report not broadcast on CBS air, when Lehman was asked if the 28 pages include specific names, his answer was “Yes. The average intelligent watcher of 60 Minutes would recognize them instantly.”

We could get into a semantic discussion of who a senior Saudi official might be. Ambassadors aren’t policy-makers per se, for example, so would one qualify as a “senior official”? How about the wife or brother of one? And shouldn’t the American people get to judge?

Rep. Thomas Massie, the libertarian-leaning Republican congressman from Kentucky, has seen the 28 pages. Massie’s reaction was enough in itself to argue the American people deserve to see them. “I had to stop every couple pages,” Massie said, “and… try to rearrange my understanding of history. It challenges you to rethink everything.”

But naturally, getting things rethought in Washington, D.C. is nearly impossible. And in this case we can probably drop the “nearly.” While the bill has bipartisan support and is quite popular, Obama says he’ll veto it. Lindsey Graham has put a hold on it. Mitch McConnell won’t say he supports it even though Harry Reid says he does. Paul Ryan isn’t quite running away from it, but he sure isn’t running toward it, either.

And meanwhile the Saudis, who are quite skilled in lots of things but conveying the impression of innocence surely isn’t one of them, have responded to the bill by (1) buying up every D.C. lobbying firm imaginable, including the ones containing former Mississippi governor and RNC chairman Haley Barbour, high-priced Washington lawyer Bob Bennett,Democrat super-lobbyist Tony Podesta, brother of the Clintons’ chief political hatchet man, and lots of others, and (2) threatening to unload some $750 billion in assets held in the U.S., including Treasury debt and real estate, on the theory that they’d have to liquidate that property before having it seized to pay judgments from American kangaroo courts seeking vengeance for 9/11.

As an aside, it’s somewhat amusing that Tony Podesta would be pocketing big money in an attempt to keep the Saudis’ secrets surrounding 9/11 secret when his brother is so often quoted as selling the openness with which Hillary Clinton will grace the American people on other government information surrounding encounters with aliens from outer space. He’s saying the American people can handle the truth about UFOs; his brother says, thanks to a check from Riyadh, that we can’t handle the truth about the Saudis.

It’s not illegal for the Saudis to hire lobbyists, but the rich and nefarious buying up of influence with both parties inside the Beltway to push things contrary to good policy and the desire of the majority is precisely why the American people have had it with the political class. Fourteen years of those redacted 28 pages, which represent a cover-up of why and how 9/11 really happened by both Republican Bush and Democrat Obama, serve as a perfect avatar for bipartisan decline and disgrace.

As Cornyn, the author of the bill, rightly says, it’s time to let the chips fall where they may. Release those pages and let’s build a diplomatic relationship with the Saudis based on truth for a change.

Also see:

EXCLUSIVE- A Buried Envelope & Buried Questions: Your First Look Inside Declassified Document 17

Tour of Al Janadriyah Ranch

Tour of Al Janadriyah Ranch

Clare Lopez posted this article on her facebook page with this comment:

Fascinating account of evidence, some known, some not-so-much, about Saudi involvement in 9/11 attacks (in addition to collaborating w/Iran to put a mark in hijackers’ ppts so Iranian border guards wouldn’t stamp them as they traveled in & out – see www.iran911case.com, Exhibit #4; in addition to Riyadh allowing Iran-directed Hizballah terror operative Imad Mughniyeh to recruit hijackers in Saudi Arabia in Oct 2000 – see 9/11 Commission Report, pg. 240; in addition to the ‘Golden Chain’ including wealthy Saudis who were allowed to funds AQ & UBL pre-9/11…etc.

***

9/11 Commission Work Plan Reveals FBI Found al Qaeda Member’s U.S. Pilot Certificate Inside Envelope of Saudi Embassy in D.C.

Investigators Sought to Examine Possible Political Influence on Examination of Saudi Government, Royal Family Links

28pages.org, By Brian P. McGlinchey, April 19, 2016:

As President Obama prepares to visit Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, his administration is under increasing pressure to declassify 28 pages that, according to many who’ve read them, illustrate financial links between the Saudi government and the 9/11 hijackers.

Meanwhile, a far lesser-known document from the files of the 9/11 Commission—written by the same principal authors as the 28 pages and declassified last summer without publicity and without media analysis—indicates investigators proposed exploring to what extent “political, economic and other considerations” affected U.S. government investigations of links between Saudi Arabia and 9/11.

Drafted by Dana Lesemann and Michael Jacobson as a set of work plans for their specific parts of the 9/11 Commission investigation, the 47-page document also provides an overview of individuals of most interest to investigators pursuing a Saudi connection to the 2001 attack that killed nearly 3,000 people.

Included in that overview is a previously unpublicized declaration that, after the capture of alleged al-Qaeda operative Ghassan al-Sharbi in Pakistan, the FBI discovered a cache of documents he had buried nearby. Among them: al-Sharbi’s U.S. pilot certificate inside an envelope of the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C.

Declassified in July 2015 under the authority of the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) pursuant to a Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) appeal, the document is the seventeenth of 29 released under ISCAP appeal 2012-48, which focuses on FBI files related to 9/11. One of two documents in the series identified as “Saudi Notes,” we’ll refer to it as “Document 17.”

Dated June 6, 2003, Document 17 was written by Lesemann and Jacobson in their capacity as staff investigators for the 9/11 Commission, and was addressed to 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow, Deputy Executive Director Chris Kojm and General Counsel Dan Marcus.

Commission Investigators Posed Two Questions That Linger Today

Lesemann and Jacobson had previously worked together on the 2002 joint congressional 9/11 intelligence inquiry and authored the classified, 28-page chapter on foreign government financing of the attacks. Document 17 outlines how the two investigators proposed to extend their earlier research. The plans include many questions Lesemann and Jacobson felt the investigation should answer.

Two of those questions seem strikingly relevant today, as a declassification review of just 28 pages said to implicate Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 attacks has inexplicably taken three times as long as the entire joint inquiry that produced them, and while a growing number of current and former officials who are familiar with the pages emphatically assert there’s no national security risk in their release.

Lesemann and Jacobson, already veterans of investigating 9/11 with the congressional inquiry, asked:

Document 17 Two Questions

They are two questions Lesemann wouldn’t be permitted to answer: Zelikow fired her first. Her termination had an apparent Saudi aspect of its own: Impatient with Zelikow’s neglect of her repeated requests for access to the 28 pages, she circumvented him to gain access on her own. When Zelikow discovered it, he promptly dismissed her.

Organizationally set apart from dozens of other questions as among the more important, overarching lines of inquiry for their particular avenue of the commission’s work, the significance of the questions’ presence in Document 17 is amplified by the absence of corresponding answers in the commission’s final report.

At some point—perhaps after Lesemann’s determined interest in Saudi links to 9/11 led to her dismissal—someone apparently determined a public study of those questions was beyond the scope of work.

Zelikow’s appointment over the commission was controversial, given his previous friendship with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and the fact he’d served on the Bush administration’s transition team. That history and, once appointed, his ongoing contacts with Bush political advisor Karl Rove, led some to question whether he was willing or able to achieve the high level of impartiality so essential to his role.

The Bush administration’s lack of cooperation with Saudi-related 9/11 inquiries is well-documented. According to Philip Shenon’s book, The Commission:

(Commission member and former Secretary of the Navy John) Lehman was struck by the determination of the Bush White House to try to hide any evidence of the relationship between the Saudis and al Qaeda. “They were refusing to declassify anything having to do with Saudi Arabia,” Lehman said. “Anything having to do with the Saudis, for some reason, it had this very special sensitivity.” He raised the Saudi issue repeatedly with Andy Card. “I used to go over to see Andy, and I met with Rumsfeld three or four times, mainly to say, ‘What are you guys doing? This stonewalling is so counterproductive.”

The Bush family has a multi-generational relationship with the Saudi royal family, with ties that are both deeply personal and deeply financial. Prince Bandar bin Sultan was the Saudi ambassador to the United States on 9/11, and is considered a personal friend of George W. Bush.

With many investigatory leads pointing toward the Saudi embassy in Washington, some feel Bandar merits thorough investigation—or that he may even be directly implicated in the 28 pages that Bush controversially redacted.

Saturday, appearing on Michael Smerconish’s CNN program to discuss a Saudi threat to divest itself of some $750 billion in U.S. Treasury securities if Congress passes a law clearing a path for 9/11 victims’ lawsuit against the kingdom, former Senator Bob Graham said, “I believe that there is material in the 28 pages and the volume of other documents that would indicate that there was a connection at the highest levels between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the 19 hijackers.”

Asked by 60 Minutes if the 28 pages name names, commission member Lehman replied, “Yes. The average intelligent watcher of 60 Minutes would recognize them instantly.”

(If you watched the impactful prime time 60 Minutes segment on the 28 pages that aired last week and don’t remember Lehman’s intriguing statement, it’s because 60 Minutes oddly relegated perhaps their most newsworthy quote of all to this web extra.) There are many more examples of the U.S. government’s thwarting of Saudi-related inquiries, both outside and inside the work of the 9/11 Commission.

A Buried Flight Certificate

The FBI’s 2002 discovery of a U.S. pilot certificate or “flight certificate” inside a Saudi embassy envelope was news to Graham, who co-chaired the joint congressional inquiry that produced the 28 pages. 

al-sharbi-excerpt-document-17“That’s very interesting. That’s a very intriguing and close connection to the Saudi embassy,” said Graham, who has been championing the declassification of the 28 pages and a perhaps hundreds of thousands of pages of other documents since 2003.  

Since people often re-use envelopes and citizens of any country may have legitimatereasons for correspondence with the embassies of their government in foreign countries they live in, the Saudi embassy envelope isn’t by itself conclusive of anything. 28Pages.org couldn’t find any other history of the FBI’s find or of the government’s evaluation of its significance.

Al-Sharbi is one of 80 remaining detainees at Guantanamo Bay. His public record includes his graduation from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, reported association with other al-Qaeda members and alleged attendance at training camps in Afghanistan.

He is also among the individuals identified in FBI agent Kenneth Williams’ July 2001 electronic communication, sometimes called the “Phoenix EC” or “Phoenix Memo.” With it, Williams attempted—unsuccessfully—to alert the rest of the bureau about suspicions that Middle Eastern extremists were attending flight schools with ill intent, and to recommend a nationwide investigation of the phenomenon.

While those aspects of al-Sharbi’s story have been widely discussed, the FBI’s reported discovery of his flight certificate inside a Saudi embassy envelope buried in Pakistan has not.

Read more

Help Release the 28 Pages: Use Our Guide to Call Congress Today

Knowledge is power: Share this post on social media

Follow 28Pages.org on Facebook and Twitter

Also see:

Cruz adviser points finger at Saudis for 9/11

911-world-trade-center

WND, by Garth Kant, April 19, 2016:

WASHINGTON – It’s an explosive charge, but evidence keeps mounting to support it.

“Make no mistake: Support to al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks was official Saudi government policy.”

That is the bombshell comment made to WND by Clare Lopez, the vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy. She is also a member of the national security advisory team for GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz.

The accusation is staggering because, if true, it would mean it was official Saudi policy to help conduct what was, essentially, a military act of war against the U.S., a supposed ally.

WND reported a year-and-a-half ago concerns by lawmakers that some members of the Saudi government did, in fact, assist the hijackers.

But an article in the New York Post on Sunday by former WND Washington Bureau Chief Paul Sperry, based on well-placed government sources, directly ties Prince Bandar bin Sultan to the 9/11 conspiracy. Bandar was Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States from 1983 to 2005.

If Bandar was involved, it would likely mean support for the 9/11 attacks went to the highest levels of the Saudi government.

Lopez takes Sperry’s revelation a shocking step further by declaring support for the “9/11 attacks was official Saudi government policy.”

Sperry also reported, “[T]he kingdom’s involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government.”

“After he (Bandar) met on Sept. 13, 2001, with President Bush in the White House, where the two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony, the FBI evacuated dozens of Saudi officials from multiple cities, including at least one Osama bin Laden family member on the terror watch list. Instead of interrogating the Saudis, FBI agents acted as security escorts for them, even though it was known at the time that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens,” reported Sperry.

Former Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Former President George W. Bush, Former Saudi King Abdullah

Former Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Former President George W. Bush, Former Saudi King Abdullah

Lopez told WND, “The involvement of (then-Saudi ambassador to the U.S.) Prince Bandar as well as the passport issue, above all, make that abundantly clear. They may have gambled on the personal relationship between Bandar and President George W. Bush – as well as a very different energy situation at that time – to evade accountability for their role in the 9/11 attacks, but those days are over.”

The passport issue Lopez referenced was from testimony in a court case that she said “talked about the mark that the Iranian and Saudi governments collaborated to have placed in the Saudi hijackers’ passports, so that when they crossed the Iranian border on their various pre-9/11 training trips, the Iranian border guards would not stamp them. This allowed these hijackers eventually to obtain U.S. visas in ‘clean’ passports.”

That testimony was made by Janice L. Kephart, former immigration counsel to the 9/11 Commission, in the December 2011 ruling in the Havlish case by U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels in Manhattan that, according to the court record, “Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case.”

What makes the remarks by Lopez and Sperry so timely is the growing bipartisan pressure on President Obama to release classified information from the 9/11 Commission findings that reportedly implicates the government of Saudi Arabia in supporting the 9/11 hijackers and helping them execute the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

For what it called reasons of “national security,” the Bush administration removed 28 pages of the bipartisan “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001” that was published in 2002.

Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001

Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001

Republicans and Democrats, including lawmakers who have read the redacted pages, are calling on Obama to release the information. Obama is resisting, apparently because that could seriously rupture diplomatic relations with the Saudis at a time when they are officially portrayed as U.S. allies in fighting ISIS.

Already, the Saudi government is threatening to dump billions of dollars in American assets if Congress passes a bipartisan bill that would allow victims of terrorist attacks to sue foreign governments.

That legislation is co-sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and is even supported by Democratic Party presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

Lopez told WND the prospect that the Saudis supported the Sept. 11 attacks is “not shocking at all” because the country “is birthplace of Islam, whose doctrine commands Muslims to conquer and subjugate the Dar al-Harb” (regions where Islam does not dominate).

The Middle East expert continued, “Saudis are guardians of the ‘Two Holy Places,’ in Mecca and Medina, the stewards of the annual hajj. They, along with ISIS, are the truest of the true believers.”

WND asked: If Bandar was involved in supporting the 9/11 hijackers, as the sources claim, what should the U.S. response be?

“Release the 28 pages (redacted from the 9/11 Commission report), inform Saudis that we hold them responsible for their role. They must come clean, pay reparations and we will go from there. Allow them an out, in that leadership now is not same as leadership then.”

She added, “It is not just Prince Bandar. So much more.”

Lopez said it was worth recalling that the 9/11 Commission report stated on Page 240 that in October 2000 “a senior operative of Hezbollah visited Saudi Arabia, to coordinate activities there.”

“This,” she said, “is a much-redacted version of what really happened: Imad Mughniyeh (a senior member of Hezbollah) was ordered by Iran to go to KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) to recruit Saudi hijackers.”

“Of course, the Saudi government at the highest levels knew about this and permitted it to happen.”

Lopez said less well-corroborated were reports that then-Saudi Intelligence Director Turki bin Faisal met Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan before Sept. 11, 2001.

In addition to spending two decades in the field as a CIA operations officer, Lopez was an instructor for military intelligence and special forces students; has been a consultant, intelligence analyst and researcher within the defense sector; and has authored two books, and contributed to many others, on Iran and jihadism. She turned to history to further her case against the Saudis.

Lopez said more proof was provided by “the funding that senior Saudis and other wealthy Gulf figures provided to bin Laden in the 1990s, when he was mostly broke because he’d spent his family inheritance in the 1980s in Afghanistan.”

“These Saudis may not have been members of the royal family, but they were certainly close to them and there is no way the Riyadh royals did not know they were funding bin Laden and allowing it to happen. This was the so-called ‘Golden Chain’ – including such individuals as Abdullah Omar Nasseef, he of the Rabita Trust, who has been ‘godfather’ to the Huma Abedin family for all these decades.”

Huma Abedin is Hillary Clinton’s top aide and former top State Department official whose family has been repeatedly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group dedicated to spreading militant Islam worldwide.

WND asked Lopez: In light of growing evidence of Saudi support of the 9/11 hijackers, and in light of their continuing export of wahhabism (a form of radical Islam), is that government really an ally of the U.S., or is it an enemy?

She replied, “The Saudi regime is a ‘frenemy.’ The House of Saud made a deal with (wahhabism founder) Ibn Wahhab in late 1700s, which has held, off and on, ever since. The deal is that Wahhabi clergy will lend theological legitimacy to Riyadh royals in return for which said royals will use power and wealth to spread Islam, jihad and Shariah (strict Islamic law) throughout the world, both by force and stealth.”

But the emergence of ISIS has become a grave threat to the Saudis.

“A serious problem now for those Riyadh royals is that they have not been leading exactly devout Muslim lives. Wahhabi establishment today, in fact, finds more in common, ideologically speaking, with the more pure practice of Islam by the Islamic State than by the House of Saud, at a time when both ISIS and Iran pose possibly existential threats to the Riyadh regime.”

Mecca, Saudi Arabia is the spiritual home of Islam

Mecca, Saudi Arabia is the spiritual home of Islam

WND asked the Cruz foreign-policy adviser, what should U.S. policy be toward Saudi Arabia? Is it time to dramatically reassess our relationship with the regime?

“U.S. leaders need to make very clear to Riyadh that, yes, we share certain key objectives: free flow of oil from the Gulf, countering the Iranian regime’s quest for deliverable nuclear weapons and its geo-strategic aggression and expansion in the region, stopping ISIS aggression and expansion, and generally supporting regional stability.”

“That said,” she concluded, “we will no longer permit Riyadh to pretend to work with the U.S., purchase top-of-the-line U.S. military equipment, or pose as American partners while simultaneously funding and/or allowing funding from the kingdom to support the export and expansion of jihad and Shariah.”

“Riyadh must choose: We are willing to work with them on mutual objectives but will no longer tolerate a double game. Decide – or there will be consequences.”

***

Also see:

Dr. Sebastian Gorka: ‘Potentially Some Very Embarrassing Things’ For Saudi Government In 9/11 Documents

SETH MCALLISTER/AFP/Getty Images

SETH MCALLISTER/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by John  Hayward, April 18, 2016:

Dr. Sebastian Gorka, national security editor for Breitbart Newsand author of the new book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War,tells host Stephen K. Bannon on Breitbart News Daily about tensions with Saudi Arabia, as pressure to declassify the Saudi-related “28 Pages” of 9/11 documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee report grows.

Gorka explained that the backstory to Saudi involvement in 9/11 began with “the siege of Mecca in 1979, and the deal that was cut between the Royal Family and the radical clerics that helped facilitate that jihadi attack on the Grand Mosque of Mecca.”

“For the next twenty years, elements of the government were deep into the export of jihadi ideology,” he continued.

Gorka recalled how the nation of Saudi Arabia was created “in a deal between the House of Saud and a man called ibn Wahab, who was a fundamentalist preacher, a cleric of Islam.” He said no one should be surprised by the continuing influence of fundamentalist Islam and jihadi ideology on Saudi politics – an influence likely to be spotlighted by those 28 pages of classified documents.

“I think what we’re going to find, if we ever see those 28 pages, is even if there wasn’t a systematic, holistic Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks, we will find – and we’ve seen already, in the unclassified domain – there are connections between at least two of the hijackers and the Saudi embassy in Washington,” said Gorka. “So there are potentially some very embarrassing things in those 28 pages.”

Bannon noted the Saudis appear to be very apprehensive about the possible exposure of those documents, and legislation that would make Saudi officials vulnerable to lawsuits by 9/11 families, citing a story from the weekend about Saudi threats to sell off $750 billion in U.S. Treasury securities if the 9/11 bill is passed – a move that could destabilize the dollar and throw global markets into turmoil.

Gorka said he was not surprised by this threatening behavior from our “schizophrenic” ally, although he was a little surprised by “how unsubtle a move this is,” combined with equally heavy-handed attempts by the Saudis to put pressure on the United States through OPEC.

“There must be something that’s very potentially damaging – otherwise, why would you even make such a noise publicly?” he wondered. “So I think that they’re at a crescendo point, with regards to their reputation internationally.  Remember, this is not a good time to be Saudi Arabia. If you look at what’s happening in the region, if you look at the rise of Iran’s power, the collapse of Sanaa in Yemen to the Shia, this is scary time, if you want to keep your royal privileges intact on the Arabian continent.”

Gorka said it was unfortunate that Western media underestimated the importance of the 1979 jihadi siege of the Grand Mosque, and the connections it established between the Saudi monarchy and fundamentalist Islam, because it was difficult for Western citizens to look past the official line on Saudi Arabia’s conduct without knowing its history. He attributed this ignorance to the “short attention span” of the media, even decades before the rise of social media, causing the Grand Mosque siege to be eclipsed in importance by other major events of the era.

“The siege of Mecca is the beginning of when the jihadi movement of the 20th Century goes global – in part thanks to the Saudi regime, or elements within the Saudi regime,” Gorka said.

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00AM to 9:00AM EST.

You can listen to the full interview with Dr. Sebastian Gorka below:

Also see:

Willful Blindness and Our Saudi ‘Friends’

Anwar al-Awlaki in October 2008 (Wikipedia/CC BY-SA 3.0)

Anwar al-Awlaki in October 2008 (Wikipedia/CC BY-SA 3.0)

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, April 16, 2016:

For many years, I was reluctant to write a memoir of my experience leading the investigation and prosecution of the jihadists against whom we are still at war over 20 years later. For one thing, while an exhilarating experience for a trial lawyer, it was also a very hard time for my family, for obvious reasons. Also, with all the tough judgment calls we had to make, we inevitably made some mistakes — “we” very much including me. A triumphant outcome has a pleasant way of bleaching away any memory of errors; to write honestly about the case would mean revisiting them. Who needed that?

And about that triumph: I had, and have, a gnawing sense that we failed. Yes, the conviction of the Blind Sheikh and his henchmen was a great law-enforcement success. Throughout the long trial and in the years that followed, though, I came to appreciate that national security is principally about keeping Americans safe, not winning court cases. Sure, winning in this instance meant justice was done and some terrorists were incarcerated. How safe, though, had we really kept Americans?

For all the effort and expense, the number of jihadists neutralized was negligible compared to the overall threat. The attacks kept coming, as one might expect when one side detonates bombs and the other responds with subpoenas. As the years passed, the tally of casualties far outstripped that of convicted terrorists. When 9/11 finally happened, killing nearly 3,000 of our fellow Americans, al-Qaeda credited none other than the Blind Sheikh with issuing the fatwa — the sharia edict — that authorized the attack. We had imprisoned him, but we had not stopped him.

That is mainly why I finally wrote the memoir in 2008. I called it Willful Blindness . . . and not just because my infamous defendant was both blind and willful. American counterterrorism, even seven years after 9/11 (and fully 15 years after the jihadists declared war by bombing the World Trade Center), had bored its head ever deeper in the sand. It consciously avoided the central truths driving the terrorist threat against the United States.

The most significant of these is that violent jihadism is the inexorable result of the vibrance in Islam of sharia supremacism — a scripturally-rooted summons to Muslims to strive for conquest over infidels until Allah’s law (sharia) is established everywhere on earth.

This ideology — also referred to as “Islamism,” “Islamic supremacism,” “radical Islam,” “political Islam,” and other descriptors that endeavor to distinguish it from Islam (and to imply that such a distinction should be drawn) — is not the only way of interpreting Islam. Indeed, it is rejected by millions of Muslims. The conquest for which it strives, moreover, is not necessarily to be achieved by violence. Sharia supremacism is, nevertheless, a mainstream interpretation of Islam. Inevitably, it leads some believers to carry out jihadist violence, and an even greater number of believers to support the jihadists’ objectives, if not their methods.

Since 1993, the bipartisan American ruling class, throughout administrations of both parties, has refused to acknowledge, much less grapple with, this central truth of the threat we face. It has insisted, against fact and reason, that Islam is a monolithic “religion of peace,” and therefore that there can be no causal connection between Islamic doctrine and terrorism committed by Muslims. It has fraudulently maintained that jihadist violence is not jihadist at all — after all, we are to understand jihad (notwithstanding its roots as a belligerent concept, as holy war to establish sharia) to be a noble internal struggle to become a better person, to vanquish corruption, and the like. Terrorist attacks must be airbrushed into “violent extremism,” shorn of any ideological component — as if the killing were wanton, not purposeful. The fact that the attacks are so ubiquitously committed by Muslims (who explicitly cite scriptural chapter and verse to justify themselves), is to be ignored — as if all religions and ideologies were equally prone to inspire mass-murder attacks if believed too fervently.

This deceit at the core of American counterterrorism efforts has led seamlessly to other frauds. Among the most grievous is this one: Saudi Arabia is a key counterterrorism ally of the United States.

This is why it is time — it is long, long past time — for the United States government to come clean with the American people, and with the families of Americans slaughtered on 9/11 by 19 jihadists, 15 of them Saudis. The government must disclose the 28 pages of the 2002 congressional report on the 9/11 attacks that it has shamefully withheld from the public for 14 years. Those pages outline Saudi complicity in the jihad.

It is nothing short of disgraceful that the Bush and Obama administrations, relying on the president’s constitutional authority over foreign intelligence and the conduct of foreign affairs, have concealed these materials. It is equally disgraceful that Congress has indulged this decision in the context of its own fact-finding exercise. This has been done under the pretense that the Saudi government is a stalwart counterterrorism ally of the United States — an absurd proposition that passes the laugh test only if one accepts the even more absurd premise that Islam has nothing to do with jihadist terrorism.

The Saudis are the world’s chief propagator of sharia supremacism, sharia being the law of the Sunni kingdom. In Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism, a literalist interpretation of Islam rooted in scripture dating back 1,400 years, is the dominant belief system. For decades, the House of Saud has played a double game with the West: 1) feigning moderation while promoting and internally enforcing this repressive fundamentalism, which brutally discriminates against women, non-Muslims, and Muslim minorities; 2) posturing as a staunch counterterrorism ally while exporting their ideology — and, when called on it, rationalizing either that their ideology does not catalyze jihadism, or that, even if it does, exporting it is necessary to ensure that jihadists do not seize control of the kingdom and its oil wealth — an outcome that, we are warned, would be far worse for the West.

Several Saudi connections to 9/11, as well as our government’s disturbing appearance of not wanting to know the depth of Saudi culpability, have been reported over the years. Let’s look at some of the main ones. Read more…

 

*          *          *

Washington’s bipartisan insistence that the Saudi regime is a vital counterterrorism ally of the United States is a delusional byproduct of its willful blindness to sharia supremacism — the ideological driver of violent jihadism and the oil-rich kingdom’s most consequential export.

The point of the post-9/11 investigations was to hold every culpable actor and negligent government agency accountable. No American citizen or government official, not even the sitting president, was spared. It is time for Washington to stop running interference for the Saudis while the Saudis run interference for the jihadists. At long last, let’s see the 28 pages.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Also see:

Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill

unnamed (43)

New York Times, by Mark Marzette, April 15, 2016:

WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill’s passage, according to administration officials and congressional aides from both parties, and the Saudi threats have been the subject of intense discussions in recent weeks between lawmakers and officials from the State Department and the Pentagon. The officials have warned senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from the legislation.

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.

Several outside economists are skeptical that the Saudis will follow through, saying that such a sell-off would be difficult to execute and would end up crippling the kingdom’s economy. But the threat is another sign of the escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The administration, which argues that the legislation would put Americans at legal risk overseas, has been lobbying so intently against the bill that some lawmakers and families of Sept. 11 victims are infuriated. In their view, the Obama administration has consistently sided with the kingdom and has thwarted their efforts to learn what they believe to be the truth about the role some Saudi officials played in the terrorist plot.

“It’s stunning to think that our government would back the Saudis over its own citizens,” said Mindy Kleinberg, whose husband died in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 and who is part of a group of victims’ family members pushing for the legislation.

President Obama will arrive in Riyadh on Wednesday for meetings with King Salman and other Saudi officials. It is unclear whether the dispute over the Sept. 11 legislation will be on the agenda for the talks

A spokesman for the Saudi Embassy did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Saudi officials have long denied that the kingdom had any role in the Sept. 11 plot, and the 9/11 Commission found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.” But critics have noted that the commission’s narrow wording left open the possibility that less senior officials or parts of the Saudi government could have played a role. Suspicions have lingered, partly because of the conclusions of a 2002 congressional inquiry into the attacks that cited some evidence that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot.

Those conclusions, contained in 28 pages of the report, still have not been released publicly.

The dispute comes as bipartisan criticism is growing in Congress about Washington’s alliance with Saudi Arabia, for decades a crucial American ally in the Middle East and half of a partnership that once received little scrutiny from lawmakers. Last week, two senators introduced a resolution that would put restrictions on American arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which have expanded during the Obama administration.

Families of the Sept. 11 victims have used the courts to try to hold members of the Saudi royal family, Saudi banks and charities liable because of what the plaintiffs charged was Saudi financial support for terrorism. These efforts have largely been stymied, in part because of a 1976 law that gives foreign nations some immunity from lawsuits in American courts.

The Senate bill is intended to make clear that the immunity given to foreign nations under the law should not apply in cases where nations are found culpable for terrorist attacks that kill Americans on United States soil. If the bill were to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president, it could clear a path for the role of the Saudi government to be examined in the Sept. 11 lawsuits.

Obama administration officials counter that weakening the sovereign immunity provisions would put the American government, along with its citizens and corporations, in legal risk abroad because other nations might retaliate with their own legislation. Secretary of State John Kerry told a Senate panel in February that the bill, in its current form, would “expose the United States of America to lawsuits and take away our sovereign immunity and create a terrible precedent.”

The bill’s sponsors have said that the legislation is purposely drawn very narrowly — involving only attacks on American soil — to reduce the prospect that other nations might try to fight back.

In a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill on March 4, Anne W. Patterson, an assistant secretary of state, and Andrew Exum, a top Pentagon official on Middle East policy, told staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that American troops and civilians could be in legal jeopardy if other nations decide to retaliate and strip Americans of immunity abroad. They also discussed the Saudi threats specifically, laying out the impacts if Saudi Arabia made good on its economic threats.

John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, said in a statement that the administration stands by the victims of terrorism, “especially those who suffered and sacrificed so much on 9/11.”

Edwin M. Truman, a fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said he thought the Saudis were most likely making an “empty threat.” Selling hundreds of billions of dollars in American assets would not only be technically difficult to pull off, he said, but would also very likely cause global market turmoil for which the Saudis would be blamed.

Moreover, he said, it could destabilize the American dollar — the currency to which the Saudi riyal is pegged.

“The only way they could punish us is by punishing themselves,” Mr. Truman said.

The bill is an anomaly in a Congress fractured by bitter partisanship, especially during an election year. It is sponsored by Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, and Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York. It has the support of an unlikely coalition of liberal and conservative senators, including Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, and Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas. It passed through the Judiciary Committee in January without dissent.

“As our nation confronts new and expanding terror networks that are targeting our citizens, stopping the funding source for terrorists becomes even more important,” Mr. Cornyn said last month.

The alliance with Saudi Arabia has frayed in recent years as the White House has tried to thaw ties with Iran — Saudi Arabia’s bitter enemy— in the midst of recriminations between American and Saudi officials about the role that both countries should play in the stability of the Middle East.

But the administration has supported Saudi Arabia on other fronts, including providing the country with targeting intelligence and logistical support for its war in Yemen. The Saudi military is flying jets and dropping bombs it bought from the United States — part of the billions of dollars in arms deals that have been negotiated with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf nations during the Obama administration.

The war has been a humanitarian disaster and fueled a resurgence of Al Qaeda in Yemen, leading to the resolution in Congress to put new restrictions on arms deals to the kingdom. Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, one of the resolution’s sponsors and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that Congress has been “feckless” in conducting oversight of arms sales, especially those destined for Saudi Arabia.

“My first desire is for our relationship with Saudi Arabia to come with a greater degree of conditionality than it currently does,” he said.