Documents Back Saudi Link to Extremists, but May Never Be Used in 9/11 Suit

[RamboLiberal]

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON — Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family, but the material may never find its way into court because of legal and diplomatic obstacles.

The case has put the Obama administration in the middle of a political and legal dispute, with the Justice Department siding with the Saudis in court last month in seeking to kill further legal action. Adding to the intrigue, classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. The Justice Department had the lawyers’ copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.

The Saudis and their defenders in Washington have long denied links to terrorists, and they have mounted an aggressive and, so far, successful campaign to beat back the allegations in federal court based on a claim of sovereign immunity.

-----

But the thousands of pages of previously undisclosed documents compiled by lawyers for the Sept. 11 families and their insurers represented an unusually detailed look at some of the evidence.

-----

Senior Obama administration officials held a private meeting on Monday with 9/11 family members to speak about progress in cracking down on terrorist financing. Administration officials at the meeting largely sidestepped questions about the lawsuit, according to participants. But the official who helped lead the meeting, Stuart A. Levey, the under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, has been outspoken in his criticism of wealthy Saudis, saying they have helped to finance terrorism.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24sa...

---

Past time for the truth to come out on this. And it's past time for these and all other information on 9-11 to be publicly released!

[wildbilln864]

1. k&r! Thanks! nt

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pjt7]

52. I find it hard to believe there is NOT a strong link

with Bush's Neo-Con's, Saudi Arabia, Israel & Egypt in co-hots w/. 9.11 These Countries were all partners in creating Al-Queda in Pakistan starting in the early 80's.

[Old and In the Way]

2. Oil - they got it and we need it.

The real question is, why didn't Bush declare war on SA after 9/11, given the connections that we know of to some of the fingered terrorists? 17 of 19 hijackers were Sauds.

[saigon68]

16. Corporations feeding at the trough

Is what has been and always will be protected, by who ever is "IN CHARGE"

The Chimp through Cheney was a Bitch and Lapdog of the (Insert epithet for the guys with the dresses on)

[groovedaddy]

23. Family connections...the Bush's had 'em with the Saudis, not with Sadam. n.t

[barbtries]

31. yeah.

makes me want to scream.

[No Elephants]

46. 'Cause his Saudi friends told him to hit Afghanistan instead?

[AlbertCat]

53. why didn't Bush declare war on SA after 9/11,

C'mon! You don't know the answer? You don't need a conspiracy theory to figure that out.

It is clear we were attacked by Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan. Instead of seizing Saudi assets, he flew Saudis out of the country when US citizens couldn't even fly anywhere.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Old and In the Way]

73. Actually worse than that.

Here's how we punished Saudi Arabia-

(1) We exited the military bases in their country.
(2) We took out their secular, soicialist threat on their Eastern border
(3) By keeping Iraqi oil pretty much off the market, we made their product even more valuable
(4) Oh, and we made sure that all members of the Royal family had safe passage out of the country while the ruins were still smoking. No Gitmo for them!

[Duval]

63. Exactly! But, I don't think you are "Old

and In the Way". Man, where did you get that?

[KoKo]

3. K&R...before it goes to archives...down the rat hole...

[SpiralHawk]

4. "Smirk" -xCommander AWOL (R) and Cronies

[bobshin]

7. Uh, it's 2009. Obama's President now and following the same course...

albeit not as intimately. So Obama's subtler than Bush in hiding his support of terrorist funders. Just as bad.

[frog92969]

8. You may be missing the point.

[SpiralHawk]

20. "No way, Jose - Smirk" - xCommander AWOL (R)

"But nice try with the Republicon Homelander propaganda point Smirk"

- xCommander AWOL (R)

[eagertolearn]

40. I've watched that clip of Bush many times and I can't help but think

that he knew this was about to happen. He kept such a flat affect and don't you think he should have been glancing around to see how he could get out of his reading so he could take care of manners? Then how he let all Bin Ladens relatives fly out of the country the next day (what was the hurry..don't you think they could of interviewed a few of them?). These two things have had me wondering....

[wildbilln864]

88. Shit! How'd Bush and the Secret Service ....

know that a hijacked plane wasn't coming their way at the very second? It was in the papers and on the news where Bush would be that day weeks in advance. A smart terrorist would go for the leader wouldn't they. But Bush and company stayed at that school for another 30 minutes after being told it was under attack! They knew they had nothing to fear there IMHO!

[Festivito]

5. Maybe the people must next turn to the world. /nt

[bluesmail]

6. This is an extremely important news story.

The so-called war on terror started with what happened on Sept 11, '01.

[rschop]

9. re: Saudis involvment in 9/11. Past time for the truth to come out on this.

While this is interesting, it still does nothing to absolve the CIA and FBI HQ in allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

There is now iron clad proof that the CIA working with groups inside of FBI HQ deliberately, knowingly, and intentionally allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11. They not only withheld information on the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing in a massive criminal conspiracy, but then shut down all FBI investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US just prior to the attacks on 9/11. They not only knew the names of these terrorists but even knew they were inside of the US in order to prepare for a massive attack on a target in the US.

They did this knowing that as a direct result of their actions thousands of Americans were going to perish in the al Qaeda attacks they had many warnings about. The US governments own documents from US official source and webs site in fact now are now the absolute proof of this.

People inside of our own government intentionally allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder 3000 people on 9/11.

[rschop]

11. re: the truth, and just to make sure this is perfectly clear

There is now iron clad proof that people inside of our own government intentionally allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder 3000 people on 9/11.

Many if not most of the very documents, in fact the official US government documents, that prove this you can personally down load from a single web site.

[flyboyscotty68]

12. it will never come out

They will never let this out cause it says they were accomplices. That would mean they are just as guilty as the supposed Al-CIA-da. The entire government should be tried for war crimes. They will never admit that they are guilty of War Crimes. That's what this is proof that the US government is guilty of crimes against humanity.

[rschop]

90. re: The truth will never come out!

You could be right! At this point there are just too many people involved, not only at the CIA and FBI HQ but in the official investigations of 9/11. When all of the information is now out there in the public domain, that prove that the CIA working with agents at FBI HQ intentionally allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11, it is not credible that these investigations could not find this information.

[leveymg]

13. Who were the FBI officials who withheld info from I-49 just prior to 9/11, and what's your source?

Please provide links to the "documents from US official source and web site" that establish that FBI officials had the names. Please provide additional information that FBI HQ "shut down all FBI investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US just prior to the attacks on 9/11."

If you want to know my interest in this case, just GOOGLE my screenname and 9/11.

[earcandle]

15. Thanks for asking that question. I hope he give you an answer worthy of your time.

[rschop]

54. re: Who were the FBI officials who withheld info from I-49 just prior to 9/11, and what's your sourc

Leveymg,

Good question.

I will answer this with the short answer and the multi-part long answer.

The short answer is see "my Journal", it is all there!

Information on my web site and book comes from the DOJ IG report, with some parts filled in from the Joint Inquiry Committee report and the 9/11 Commission report. I also added in information from Bob Woodward’s book on the Tenet and Black meeting in the White House with Rice and Clarke on July 10, 2001, plus some additional material from Der Zeit a German newspaper on the period before January 2000 when the several of the al Qaeda terrorists were graduate school in Germany.

I carefully created detailed times lines from the DOJ IG report, which is perhaps the most complete report on 9/11 to date. Then I filled in the holes with the other reports. Even after this there were many unanswered questions. I was able to find answers to most of these from the account of FBI Special Agent Ali Soufan from an article in the New Yorker, July 17, 2006 issue, by Lawrence Wright. This account had been given to Wright by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and vetted by John Miller, FBI information officer, and can be considered to be the official FBI account of what had occurred prior to the attacks on 9/11 at the CIA and FBI from the FBI prospective. I then went back to used the official webs site for the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui to add in additional detail. I think I have the entire account on 9/11 put back together again, in almost every single detail, with just minor questions left over .

The long answer, I will add to this Forum, in multi-parts. The first part will be the account of FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and FBI Agent Ali Soufan and their investigation of the Cole bombing, one of the investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US that had been blocked.

The second part will be the investigation of FBI Agent Harry Samit and his investigation of Zacharias Moussaoui, another FBI investigation of al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US that had also been blocked. And the third part will be on FBI Director Louis Freeh and his interaction with FBI Agent Ali Soufan while Soufan was investigating the bombing of the USS Cole, an attack that killed 17 US sailors.

The complete answer to "Who were the FBI officials who withheld info from I-49 just prior to 9/11, and what's your source?" is that I also have information that goes way beyond what I stated above from sources that will have to remain anonymous, for obvious reasons.

[leveymg]

57. In the first part of your answer, please provide the following:

Please give us a short introduction that directly answers the questions I posed to you above.

1) Who were the FBI officials who withheld info from I-49 just prior to 9/11, and what's your source?

2) Please provide links to the "documents from US official source and web site" that establish that FBI officials had the names of the 19 before 9/11.

3) Please provide additional information that FBI HQ "shut down all FBI investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US just prior to the attacks on 9/11."

I take it that your reference to Ali Soufan goes to 1), 2) and 3) - Soufan's repeatedly frustrated efforts to get CIA/CTC to turn over information about the Kuala Lumpur summit are well known. See Paul Thompson's 9/11 Timeline at History Commons about Soufan, below.

It's also well known that Freeh was briefed, as was Tenet, about the Malaysia AQ summit where the Cole and 9/11 attacks were planned out, and that Tenet was additionally briefed about al-Hazmi and al-Midhar's travels as they departed Malaysia with Khallad bin Attash from which the pair (the Flt. 77 hijackers) entered the US on 01/15/2000.

The 9/11 timeline makes reference to "some others within FBI" who withheld information from Soufan - I haven't seen those names. Do you have names and sources that you can cite? I'm not being contentious, I just want to know if there's more specific information on that particular item. Also, please provide a link to your articles. Thanks.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=ali_sou...

July 2001: CIA Rejects Third FBI Request for Malaysia Summit Information Ali Soufan, an FBI agent working on the investigation into the USS Cole bombing, submits a third request to the CIA for information about travel by al-Qaeda operatives in Southeast Asia (see Late November 2000 and April 2001). Whereas in previous requests to the CIA he had only asked for information about a possible meeting somewhere in Southeast Asia, he has now developed a much clearer understanding of the relationship between al-Qaeda manager Khallad bin Attash and the Cole conspirators, and correctly suspects some operatives met in Malaysia in January 2000. He asks the CIA about this and about a trip by bin Attash to Bangkok to meet another two members of the Cole bombing team (see January 13, 2000). The CIA actually monitored the meeting Soufan suspects took place in Malaysia (see January 5-8, 2000) and considered it so important that the CIA director and other top officials were repeatedly briefed about it (see January 6-9, 2000), but the CIA does not respond to his inquiry. FBI managers are also aware of some of this information, including the existence of an al-Qaeda meeting in Malaysia at the time Soufan suspects one took place, but they apparently do not tell Soufan either (see January 6, 2000). New Yorker, 7/10/2006 Author Lawrence Wright will later say: “The FBI’s investigating the death of 17 American sailors and they’re asking the CIA for information that would solve the crime. And the CIA is refusing, essentially obstructing justice.” Federal News Service, 10/5/2006
Entity Tags: Central Intelligence Agency, Ali Soufan, Lawrence Wright, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

August 22, 2001: FBI Team Returns to Yemen to Investigate Cole Bombing An FBI team returns to Yemen to re-commence its investigation of the bombing of the USS Cole (see October 12, 2000). The team, headed by FBI agent Ali Soufan and sent by retiring FBI manager John O’Neill on his last day with the FBI (see August 22, 2001), had been pulled out of Yemen in June, due to possible threats against it (see June 17, 2001). On the same day as Soufan leaves, the CIA finally tells the FBI some of what it knows about 9/11 hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, and their attendance at an al-Qaeda’s Malaysia summit (see August 21-22, 2001 and August 23, 2001). Soufan had requested information about the Malaysia meeting from the CIA three times (see Late November 2000, April 2001 and July 2001), but the CIA had repeatedly failed to respond to his requests. While in Yemen, Soufan appears not to be aware of the new information provided to the FBI, and learns about the Malaysia summit shortly after the 9/11 attacks (see January 5-8, 2000 and September 12-Late September, 2001). New Yorker, 7/10/2006
Entity Tags: Khalid Almihdhar, Ali Soufan, John O’Neill, Nawaf Alhazmi, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

September 12-Late September, 2001: FBI Agent Disgusted about Information CIA Hid from Him that Could Have Stopped 9/11 Attacks
Abu Jandal. Source: CNN On the day of 9/11, FBI agent Ali Soufan happens to be in Yemen, working on the recently reopened USS Cole bombing investigation there. For nearly a year, the CIA had hidden all information about the January 2000 al-Qaeda summit in Malaysia from Soufan (see Late October-Late November 2000 and Early December 2000). On September 12, 2001, he is sent a packet of information containing a complete report about the Malaysia summit and three surveillance photos from it. According to author Lawrence Wright, “When Soufan realized that the CIA and some people in the FBI had known for more than a year and a half that two of the hijackers were in the US, he ran into the bathroom and retched.” Using the new information, he interrogates Fahad al-Quso, an attendee of the Malaysia summit, and after a few days al-Quso admits to recognizing 9/11 hijacker Marwan Alshehhi, whom he met in Kandahar, Afghanistan near the end of 1999. Abu Jandal, bin Laden’s bodyguard, happens to be in custody in Yemen as well. After some more days, Jandal tells Soufan everything that he knows about al-Qaeda. He recognizes photos of Alshehhi, Mohamed Atta, Khalid Almihdhar, and four other 9/11 hijackers, from when they were in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Wright, 2006, pp. 362-367
Entity Tags: Fahad al-Quso, Ali Soufan, Abu Jandal, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

[rschop]

62. re please provide the following

Please give us a short introduction that directly answers the questions I posed to you above.

1) Who were the FBI officials who withheld info from I-49 just prior to 9/11, and what's your source?

2) Please provide links to the "documents from US official source and web site" that establish that FBI officials had the names of the 19 before 9/11.

3) Please provide additional information that FBI HQ "shut down all FBI investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US just prior to the attacks on 9/11."

It's also well known that Freeh was briefed, as was Tenet, about the Malaysia AQ summit where the Cole and 9/11 attacks were planned out, and that Tenet was additionally briefed about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar’s travels as they departed Malaysia with Khallad bin Attash from which the pair (the Flt. 77 hijackers) entered the US on 01/15/2000.

The 9/11 timeline makes reference to "some others within FBI" who withheld information from Soufan - I haven't seen those names. Do you have names and sources that you can cite? I'm not being contentious, I just want to know if there's more specific information on that particular item. Also, please provide a link to your articles. Thanks.

The short answers to your questions;

1) Who were the FBI officials who withheld info from I-49 just prior to 9/11, and what's your source?

At the FBI HQ it was liaison to Michael Rolince, Tom Wilshire, FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi, likely FBI Supervising Agent Rod Middleton in the Bin Laden unit under Michael Rolince at the ITOS unit, and possibly even his boss Michael Rolince. FBI Director Louis Freeh had already criminally obstructed the Soufan’s' Cole bombing investigation in November 2000.

For the investigation by FBI Agent Harry Samit of Moussaoui, this would have been Michael Maltbie and David Frasca of the RFU unit also under Rolince at the FBI ITOS.

See Prior Knowledge of 9/11, and the information on the web site for this book. Also page 181 of the 9/11 Commission report, pages 238-399 of the DOJ IG report, and the official web site for the Moussaoui trial, http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exh... /.

At the CIA the people who knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US preparing to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands would include almost all of the CIA Bin Laden unit, Richard B chief of the CIA Bin laden unit, Cofer Back CTC head and George Tenet Director of the CIA and perhaps may others on the CIA management hierarchy. Those who knew about Mihdhar and Hazmi at the CIA and knew they had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Walid Bin Attash planning the Cole bombing, and never gave this information to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing include the CIA Bin Laden unit, the CIA Yemen station, the handler for the joint FBI/CIA source, virtually the entire management of the CIA including John Gannon, Cofer Black, George Tenet, as documented in the CIA IG report and Clark Shannon and Tom Wilshire as documented in the DOJ IG report

2) Please provide links to the "documents from US official source and web site" that establish that FBI officials had the names of the 19 before 9/11.

See DOJ IG report, 9/11 Commission report, and CIA IG report. Links on the web site for the book "Prior Knowledge of 9/11" has a summary of all of this information with the exact US government documents and the page numbers for each time line entry in the summary. See the web site for the Moussaoui trial at http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exh... / for the Defense Exhibits entered into the Moussaoui trial.

3) Please provide additional information that FBI HQ "shut down all FBI investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US just prior to the attacks on 9/11."

The DOJ IG report is summarized and linked in "Prior Knowledge of 9/11" and in the summary for this book. The summary of this is on the web site for this book with all links to this information. I will post this information also in a later post.

The 9/11 timeline makes reference to "some others within FBI" who withheld information from Soufan - I haven't seen those names. Do you have names and sources that you can cite? I'm not being contentious, I just want to know if there's more specific information on that particular item. Also, please provide a link to your articles. Thanks.

This would have been FBI IOS HQ Agent Dina Corsi, and her boss Rod Middleton, and perhaps Michael Rolince. Many people other besides Freeh had to know about the January 2000 Kuala Lumpur planning meeting at FBI HQ and hid that information from Soufan but these people are buried in the FBI HQ hierarchy between Freeh and Rolince and have never been exposed.

Note is not only the documents but the analysis in "Prior Knowledge of 9/11" that put this all back together again. Data with no analysis really tells very little.

[leveymg]

65. Thank you for answering those questions.

Your response and website appear to be well-sourced, and the details are consistent with what I've seen elsewhere. I look forward to the next 2 installments!

Regards - Mark

[rschop]

71. re: Who blocked the FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi and why?

It was clear from the information in the DOJ IG report, that the CIA had hidden the information on the al Qaeda planning meeting that took place in Kuala Lumpur from January 5-8, 2000 from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing numerous times in a wide ranging criminal conspiracy.

Tom Wilshire, the deputy chief of the Bin laden unit at the CIA, and who was in the middle of this criminal conspiracy, first initiated this conspiracy by blocking FBI Agent Doug Miller’s CIR on Khalid al-Mihdhar, on January 5, 2000. This CIR described Mihdhar's travel with Hazmi to an important al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur on January 5-8, 2000.

This CIR not only had Mihdhar’s passport photo and passport number, but also the fact that Mihdhar had a US multi-entry visa that said his destination was the Marriott in New York, quite likely the very Marriot that was destroyed when the WTC Towers came down. When asked after the attacks on 9/11 by the DOJ IG criminal investigators why this cable had been blocked, Wilshire said he could not recollect this cable or why it had been blocked. Michele, his CIA desk officer told the DOJ IG investigators that she had no recollection of this cable or the cable she sent out right after she had blocked Miller’s cable on Mihdhar that said this information on Mihdhar had been sent to the FBI, when it had not been sent.

She could not even recall who asked her to write on the bottom of this cable, “Blocked by order of the Deputy Chief”, at the time Tom Wilshire, or who had asked her to send out another cable that said the information on Mihdhar had been sent to the FBI. Even Doug Miller said he could not recall this cable, but Miller later told author James Bamford that he had been ordered by the FBI to deliberately withhold any information on his cable on Mihdhar from the DOJ IG investigators. But withholding information from a DOJ criminal investigation is a crime, and asking someone to withhold information is a conspiracy to commit a crime. So it is clear that the FBI committed a crime by asking Miller not to answer the DOJ IG questions on this cable.

The DOJ IG report documented the fact that Tom Wilshire was moved from his high level manger position at the CIA to the FBI in mid-May 2001 to be liaison to Michael Rolince, the head of the ITOS unit. Wilshire had been moved over to the FBI by Cofer Black and George Tenet, just after the CIA received an official request from FBI Special Agent Ali Soufan, in April 2001. This was a request for any information the CIA had on Walid Bin Attash, thought to be one of the masterminds of the Cole bombing, and for any information on an al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000. The CIA never responded directly to Soufan's official request.

But it now appears that the CIA literally went ballistic when it received this request from Soufan. The CIA clearly thought that the FBI Cole criminal investigators had uncovered the information on the Kula Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, and the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at this meeting planning the Cole bombing with Walid Bin Attash, the very information the CIA had been keeping as one of their most closely guarded secrets from the FBI criminal investigators.

We know the CIA wanted to find out what the FBI criminal investigators had found out about Kuala Lumpur, because the first thing Wilshire did just after his move to the FBI ITOS unit was to enlist FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi to set up a meeting for June 11, 2001 with the very people who worked for Soufan, the FBI Cole bombing investigators in New York City field office under Soufan’s assistant, FBI Special Agent Steve Bongardt.

While Wilshire claimed he had no official role at the FBI ITOS unit, and Corsi actually worked for FBI Supervising Special Agent Rod Middleton, it is still a mystery how or why Corsi ended up clearly working for Wilshire as he carried out his criminal conspiracy at the FBI to withhold critical information from FBI criminal investigations.

At this meeting in the New York City field office of the FBI, Bongardt and some of his investigators were shown three photos, by Dina Corsi, of Mihdhar taken at Kuala Lumpur, photos obtained from the CIA by Tom Wilshire. One photo even included Hazmi together with Mihdhar at Kuala Lumpur.

After Corsi presented these Kuala Lumpur photos, CIA officer Clark Shannon, who was working at the CIA Bin Laden unit, Wilshire’s former group, asked Bongardt and his team if they could recognize anyone in these photographs. Bongardt and the other Cole investigators said they were unable to recognize anyone in these photos but then quickly became suspicious of why the CIA and FBI HQ were showing them these photographs.

Bongardt asked Shannon and Corsi; “Who are these people and what do they have to do with the Cole bombing?” Neither Corsi nor Shannon would give him any answers other to say “the wall” did not allow this information to be given to him or his investigators. But it turns out one the FBI investigators in the room was actually an FBI intelligence investigator, for whom there was no restriction at all on receiving intelligence information. If the wall were really a restriction, Corsi and Shannon could have asked the FBI criminal investigators to step outside the meeting for a few minutes while they gave all of the information they had to this intelligence agent.

But both Shannon and Corsi, and even Wilshire who was not at this meeting he had set up, all knew that the people in these photographs, Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Walid Bin Attash, actually planning the Cole bombing. Yet they all withheld this information from Bongardt and his team, the very FBI agents who were assigned to investigate this horrific crime, the attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 US sailors.

Both Wilshire and Shannon even knew that Nawaf al-Hazmi, known to be a very dangerous long time al Qaeda terrorist, had already entered the US. Both had just reviewed the cable that the CIA had received in March 5, 2000 that stated that Hazmi had flown into the US from Bangkok on January 15, 2000. There is no explanation when both Wilshire and Shannon knew that Hazmi had not only taken part in the bombing of US embassies in east Africa that had killed over 200 people and had also help plan the bombing of the USS Cole why they did not give this information on Mihdhar and Hazmi to Bongardt and his team of FBI criminal investigators. This has never been explained even 7 ½ years after the attacks on 9/11.

Intelligence information was supposed to pass immediately to FBI criminal investigators when any evidence of a criminal act had been uncovered. Instead the CIA and FBI HQ agents continued to withhold this information from the FBI criminal investigation, knowing full well that they were in fact committing a felony that would send them to prison for years if uncovered. Since this meeting had actually been set up by CIA officer Tom Wilshire, it is clear Wilshire and the CIA had forbidden both Shannon and Corsi from giving any of this information to the FBI Cole investigators.

It is now also clear that both Louis Freeh and Michael Rolince had to know when Wilshire was moved over to the FBI in mid-May, 2001 by Cofer Back and George Tenet, that Wilshire in fact was a CIA spy being planted into the FBI single most important organization that controlled all FBI criminal investigations in the world.

Rolince also had to know when Wilshire set up the meeting with the FBI Cole investigators on June 11, 2001, right after being moved to the FBI, that he was doing this to make sure that the information the CIA had from the Kuala Lumpur meeting had never been discovered by the Cole bombing investigators. In fact, it is impossible to believe that FBI IOS Agent Corsi, who actually worked for Rod Middleton, had not been ordered by Rolince to work for Wilshire, as he carried out his criminal obstruction of the Cole bombing investigation.

We also know from the DOJ IG report that even FBI IOS HQ Agent Dina Corsi was aware well before this June 11, 2001 meeting with the FBI Cole bombing investigators that Khallad Bin Attash had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi.

On July 5 2001, Wilshire sent email back to his CTC managers. Wilshire indicated that he felt that the people who were at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting were connected to the massive warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack that the CIA had been receiving since April 2001. SEE DOJ IG report, July 5, 2001.

In July 13, 2001 email back to his CTC mangers; he requested permission to transfer the information he had on the Kuala Lumpur meeting to the FBI. See “Substitution for the testimony of John”, aka Tom Wilshire, entered into the Moussaoui trial on March 11, 2006, http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases /... /

In his July 23, 2001, email Wilshire clearly stated that Khalid al-Mihdhar and by association Nawaf al-Hazmi were going to take part on the next big al Qaeda operation. He also asked why no one had responded to his July 13, 2001 request to transfer the Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI Cole bombing investigators. See “Substitution for the testimony of John”.

In July 2001 when the CIA was clearly aware that a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US, they clearly had forbidden Tom Wilshire twice from turning over the information on the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, they very information that would have prevented that attacks on 9/11.

Wilshire was forbidden from turning over this information at the almost the exact same time that Tenet and Black held an extremely urgent meeting in the White House with Rice and Clarke on July 10, 2001 indicating that a huge al Qaeda attacks was about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans. One week later Tenet and Black gave this same information to both John Ashcroft, head of the DOJ and the FBI and Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense.

On August 22, 2001, less than one month after Wilshire sent his email to his CTC managers indicating Mihdhar would take part in the next big al Qaeda attack, both Wilshire and Dina Corsi were told US by FBI IOS Agent Margaret Gillespie, a FBI agent at the CIA Bin Laden unit, that Mihdhar and Hazmi were found to be inside of the US. See “Substitution for the testimony of John”, August 22, 2001.

It is clear that both Wilshire and Corsi knew immediately that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in this massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

In spite of this, they forced the investigation of Mihdhar away from Bongardt by urgently requesting the head of the FBI intelligence unit in New York, Craig Donnachie, to start an intelligence investigation of Mihdhar. When they did this, they knew that the CIA had been hiding from the FBI criminal investigators, the photograph of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur. This was the very photograph that clearly connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the actual planning of the Cole bombing. By doing this Bongardt had no real clear evidence that would connect Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing, evidence that would have allowed him to start a criminal investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

But FBI Agent Steve Bongardt found out about that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US when FBI supervisor at the New York office, John Liguori, accidentally send Corsi's EC to him on August 28, 2001. When Bongardt called Corsi and demanded that the investigation and search for Mihdhar be given to him and his team, Corsi told him that since the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi had come from the NSA and the NSA had caveats on this information that required written permission from them before it could be sent to FBI criminal investigators, he was forbidden to have any part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

But from Defense Exhibit #681, found on the Moussaoui court web site, in email on August 29, 2001, from Dina Corsi to John Liguori (the FBI manager at the New York FBI field office), Dina Corsi says:

"John (Liguori),

” I think I may have caused some unnecessary confusion with this issue. The EC on al-Mihdhar I sent to Craig (Donnachie), via email marking it as a DRAFT so that he could read it before he went on vacation. There is material in the EC which has not been approved and which is not cleared for criminal investigators (meaning the FBI Cole bombing investigators on the Cole bombing). Steve and Rod, (this is Rod Middleton, her boss) and I spoke with him, (FBI Agent Steve Bongardt) and tried to explain why this case had to stay on the intel side of the house.”

But Defense Evidence #448, on the same web site, is the actual NSA release that Dina Corsi received from the NSA, and shows that this release had already been approved on August 27, 2001, and sent to Corsi on August 28, 2001. This release had actually been approved by the NSA in just a few hours after being submitted on August 27, 2001!

This release clearly stated that the NSA information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the names Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, who were attending this important al Qaeda planning meeting, was cleared by the NSA to be sent to the “FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing in New York”, FBI Steve Bongardt and his team. When Corsi tells Bongardt that this information had not yet been approved and is not cleared for criminal investigators, it is clear she is lying to him in a desperate attempt to shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

After being told he could not take part in the investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, Bongardt asked Corsi to get a ruling from the NSLU, to see if he could take part in the investigation of Mihdhar, since he knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack that would kill many Americans. Bongardt could not see any connection to any FISA warrant when the NSA had obtained this information and felt that the NSA and NSLU would readily approve this information going to him and his team.

But Corsi told him on August 29, 2001 that she had consulted NSLU attorneys, and that they had ruled he could not be part of any investigation and search for Mihdhar.

From evidence item #682 also on the same site.

Email from Dina Corsi to Steve Bongardt 8/29 7:44 AM

Steve,

Rod and I spoke with National Security Law Unit (NSLU) in order to confirm that our recommendations were accurate. And get answers to the questions you posed. They responded as follows:

Al-Mihdhar should be opened as a FFI. If Mihdhar is located the interview must be conducted by an intel agent criminal agent CAN NOT be present at the interview. The case is entirely based on intel. If at such time information is developed indicating the existence of a substantial Federal crime, that information will be passed over the wall according to procedures.

Email, Steve back to Corsi, 08/29 8:38 AM

Dina- where is "the wall" defined? Isn't it dealing with FISA information"? I think everyone is still confusing this issue. I know we discussed this issue ad nasuseum but "the wall" concept grew out of the fear that FISA would be obtained as opposed to a Title III. Whatever has happened to this - someday someone will die - the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain "problems". Let’s hope the National security unit will stand behind their decisions...

Email, Corsi back to Steve, Aug 29, 2001 9:27 AM

Steve, I do know how you feel about this. I don't think you understand that we at FBIHQ are all frustrated with this issue. I don’t know what to tell you. I don't know how many other ways I can explain this to you. These are the rules. NSLU does not make them up and neither does UBLU.

This was almost exactly 2 weeks before the attacks on 9/11 and still plenty of time that Bongardt could have had to stop the attacks that took place on 9/11, had he been allowed to continue his investigation of Mihdhar..

It is now clear that FBI Agent Bongardt was right. From page 538, footnote 81 in the 9/11 Commission’s own report we learn that Corsi had fabricated Attorney Sherry Sabol’s ruling. According to testimony she gave to DOJ IG investigators on November 7, 2002, Attorney Sabol stated that she had in fact, ruled that Bongardt could be part of any investigation of Mihdhar since the NSA information was not connected to any FISA warrant.

Sabol even told Corsi, if Corsi was still confused about this issue she could go herself to the NSA herself and get a release from the NSA caveats. So it is clear that Corsi withheld the fact from Attorney Sabol that she had already obtained a release from the NSA on August 27, 2001, two days earlier!

But Corsi also knew full well that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing attacks and had even taken part in the east Africa bombings. So there was already plenty of evidence “ indicating the existence of a substantial Federal crime”. So it is clear that there was absolutely no valid reason for Corsi, who had been closely working with Wilshire, to shut down FBI Agent Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

It is clear that Wilshire had been ordered by his CTC managers at the CIA to keep all of the information from Kuala Lumpur from ever going to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing.

But, since both Corsi and Wilshire had criminally obstructed his investigation of the Cole bombing numerous times, and they both knew if Bongardt continued with any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and then obtained the photographs of Mihdhar and Hazmi along with the photograph of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur planning the Cole bombing, he would have immediately known that the June 11, 2001 meeting set up in New York City had been a CIA sting on the FBI and his team, and that the CIA had been hiding this information all along.

It is now also clear that this huge criminal conspiracy first to withhold information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting from the FBI Cole investigators and then to finally shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar went way beyond either Corsi and Wilshire.

The following lists the many additional reasons this criminal conspiracy must have gone way beyond either Corsi or Wilshire.

First it is clear that Tenet and Black had forbidden Wilshire twice from giving the very information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting attended by Mihdhar and Hazmi, and Bin Attash to the FBI criminal investigators, when at the almost the exact same time they were having an urgent meeting in the White House with Rice and Clark, on July 10, 2001, describing a huge al Qaeda attack just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans.

Second, Tenet's testimony to the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004 indicated he was clearly hiding his meetings in August 2001 with the President of the United States from the American public.

At this hearing, 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer asked the question: "If you, (George Tenet), knew that the al Qaeda terrorists were about to mount a huge attack inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans why did he not tell the President in August?"

Tenet answered that he was in Washington DC and the President was in Crawford Texas, and that is “why he had not told the President”.

Then Roemer asked why did he not pick up the telephone and call the President and give him this horrific information.

Tenet in answer said he had not called the President in August but just could not go beyond this as an explanation. He simply could offer no possible explanation at all of why he had not called the President of the United States and given him this horrific information, and main stream media seemed unusually uncurious about this.

But Bill Harlow, the CIA spokesman came out after Tenet’s testimony and said Tenet had misspoken, which is CIA speak for lied. Harlow said that Tenet had flown down to Crawford on August 17, and had seen the President in Washington on August 31, and six more times in September before the attacks on 9/11. So it is clear that he had plenty of opportunity to tell the President of the United States about this huge al Qaeda attack.

We now know he had also flown down to Crawford on August 24, 2001 in order to have a meeting with the President on August 25, 2001. This is just after Tenet learned on August 23, that Moussaoui had been arrested after the FBI thought he was a terrorist learning to fly a 747. Tenet had also learned on August 23, that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US preparing to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that he knew would kill thousands of Americans, when FBI Agent Gillespie had the CIA Bin Laden unit issue a worldwide alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

So just what did George Tenet Director of the CIA, who had all of this horrific information tell the President of the United States of America at these meetings. It seems that after 7 1/2 year that we still do not know. But we know he was willing to lie to the American people and to the 9/11 Commission, a major crime of perjury, in order to hide these meetings with the President.

But isn’t this what psychologists call "consciousness of guilt", something one does only if they have committed a crime!

We now know this because we know from the DOJ IG report that on August 23, 2001 Margaret Gillespie had issued a worldwide alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi, an alert that clearly went to the head of the CIA Bin Laden unit, to Cofer Black, and to George Tenet, and to at least 50-60 other people at the CIA according to the CIA IG report.

All of these people not only knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, but almost all of these people were aware that the CIA had received numerous warnings of a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands. Many including chief of the Bin Laden unit Richard B., Cofer Black and George Tenet knew of Wilshire’s emails that clearly identified Mihdhar and Hazmi as al Qaeda terrorists who were going to take part in this attack.

Yet not only did they all keep silent about this huge threat to the people in the US, and did not warn anyone at either the FBI criminal units or the US government, but many must also have known that thousands of Americans were about to perish in these huge al Qaeda attacks that the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001.

The 9/11 Commission stated as one of their most important conclusions that:

"We could not understand why the CIA had never connected Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi to the warnings of a massive al Qaeda attack the CIA and FBI HQ were both aware of".

But the email from Wilshire on July 5, 2001 and July 23, 2001, that had connected Mihdhar and Hazmi to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack, and which were sent to the management of the CIA would have rendered this conclusion somewhat less than accurate. The testimony of Corsi shows that FBI HQ intentionally shut down the investigation of Bongardt even when they knew this would block the only FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that could have prevented the upcoming al Qaeda attacks that took place on 9/11.

Had this information been brought out at the 9/11 Commission hearings, it would have caused a major problem for the CIA and FBI HQ when the American people found out that our own intelligence agencies had deliberately and intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

The conclusion that the 9/11 Commission reached that the CIA and FBI were not criminally involved in allowing the attacks on 9/11 was a conclusion the 9/11 Commission had been required to make since their job was to insure that no one was blamed for intentionally allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

It is now clear that they in fact intentionally left out critical information that showed the many criminal actions at both the CIA and FBI HQ to deliberately and criminally obstruct the FBI investigation of the Cole bombing. So that no one could be blamed for 9/11, it was considered important that the 9/11 Commission withhold this evidence until long after the 9/11 Commission had reached their final conclusions and wrote their final report.

Since the 9/11 Commission had subpoena power and had access to all of this information that now make up the “Substitution of John” and all of the other interviews, emails and other evidence items that are now part of the DOJ IG report and the record of the Moussaoui trial, it is clear that the 9/11 Commission report reached conclusions that were contrary to the very evidence they were already aware of. One might says this renders the entire effort of the 9/11 Commission a complete fraud. See www.eventson911.com, for the actual US government documents.

[Old and In the Way]

74. Thanks for this post!

I've known for a long time that there was obstruction of key information within the CIA/FBI with regards to these terrorists, but you've distilled the details extremely well. Great work....too bad we don't have an MSM wanting to do their job and do this kind of investigative reporting.

So why does Obama continue to provide cover for these criminals? I'm betting he's received some pretty subtle threats that he best mind his own business with anything related to 9/11 or he'll pay dearly for revisiting this dark chapter of recent American history.

[rschop]

85. re: Thanks for this post!

from prior post:

"I've known for a long time that there was obstruction of key information within the CIA/FBI with regards to these terrorists, but you've distilled the details extremely well. Great work....too bad we don't have an MSM wanting to do their job and do this kind of investigative reporting."

What is so amazing is all of this information is now in the public domain. And almost all of this information comes from official US government sources and web sites!

So why has main stream media not found this information and let Americans know what was the real reason was for the perhaps the most traumatic experience in US history. Why are they keeping all of this information secret?

GO FIGURE!

[leveymg]

75. There are a few detail differences in your account from the sources I've seen

I would like to see if we can reconcile these narratives or trace back how our sources may differ.

You write:

1) "It was clear from the information in the DOJ IG report, that the CIA had hidden the information on the al Qaeda planning meeting that took place in Kuala Lumpur from January 5-8, 2000 from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing numerous times in a wide ranging criminal conspiracy.

Tom Wilshire, the deputy chief of the Bin laden unit at the CIA, and who was in the middle of this criminal conspiracy, first initiated this conspiracy by blocking FBI Agent Doug Miller’s CIR on Khalid al-Mihdhar, on January 5, 2000. This CIR described Mihdhar's travel with Hazmi to an important al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur on January 5-8, 2000.

This CIR not only had Mihdhar’s passport photo and passport number, but also the fact that Mihdhar had a US multi-entry visa that said his destination was the Marriott in New York, quite likely the very Marriot that was destroyed when the WTC Towers came down. When asked after the attacks on 9/11 by the DOJ IG criminal investigators why this cable had been blocked, Wilshire said he could not recollect this cable or why it had been blocked. Michele, his CIA desk officer told the DOJ IG investigators that she had no recollection of this cable or the cable she sent out right after she had blocked Miller’s cable on Mihdhar that said this information on Mihdhar had been sent to the FBI, when it had not been sent.

She could not even recall who asked her to write on the bottom of this cable, “Blocked by order of the Deputy Chief”, at the time Tom Wilshire, or who had asked her to send out another cable that said the information on Mihdhar had been sent to the FBI. Even Doug Miller said he could not recall this cable, but Miller later told author James Bamford that he had been ordered by the FBI to deliberately withhold any information on his cable on Mihdhar from the DOJ IG investigators. But withholding information from a DOJ criminal investigation is a crime, and asking someone to withhold information is a conspiracy to commit a crime. So it is clear that the FBI committed a crime by asking Miller not to answer the DOJ IG questions on this cable."

leveymg wrote: http://www.dailykos.com/2009/5/11/730314/-Reuters:-Disa...

Cofer Black was in charge of the CTC on January 15, 2000, when al-Hazmi along with Khalid al-Midhar, entered the U.S. after attending a week-long planning summit in Kuala Lumpur that was monitored by the CIA and "a half dozen allied agencies", as George Tenet testified before the Joint Intelligence Committee in 2002.

The FBI has long accused the CIA of withholding crucial evidence about the pair and obstructing Bureau efforts to locate and track al-Qaeda cells known to be inside the U.S. before 9/11. In early 2000, a series of cables were drafted by FBI liaison persons posted at CTC that would have alerted the Bureau to the presence of al-Hazmi and al-Midhar, but each of those cables was withheld at the order of the CTC Assistant Director.

The CTC Assistant Director at the time has been alternately identified in official documents as "Richard", "Rich B", and as "James" in the FBI OIG’s report. We will call him Richard, the name he is referred to in the 9/11 Commission report. Regardless, it's certain that Cofer Black was Director and operational head of CTC at the time the principal 9/11 hijackers were allowed into the U.S., and Richard was his deputy. Richard replaced Michael Scheuer as operations chief of Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit within CTC at Tyson’s Corner, VA as part of a 1999 shakeup of the unit ordered by George Tenet. Cofer Black and Richard, in particular, were considered to be Tenet proteges.

Those FBI draft cables never reached John O’Neill, head of the FBI national security office, who had a series of furious run-ins with Black and his deputy.

Al-Hazmi and al-Midhar's identities as al-Qaeda operatives were well known to Cofer Black and Richard, and a number of others in intelligence agencies around the world. U.S. and British intelligence has been monitoring al-Midhar’s communications and movements since the mid-1990s, when British Intelligence and the NSA started monitoring a communications center in Yemen run by al-Hazmi’s father-in-law. Despite being designated international terrorists, the pair travelled internationally and inside the U.S. with such seeming ease that Author Joe Trento concludes Al-Hazmi and al-Midhar were handled by the CIA as double-agents working for Saudi intelligence.

Al-Midhar was known to the CIA to have a valid US visa, information the FBI claims wasn’t passed on to the Bureau until August 2001. Al-Midhar left the US after a few months without interference and freely traveled around the world on al-Qaeda business, renewing his visa, and taking a key role organizing the Cole bombing and recruiting the dozen or so "muscle hijackers" in Saudi Arabia, returning in the months before 9/11.

In late 1999, Al-Hazmi and al-Midhar were dispatched to the Malaysia planning session by Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM), whose identity as a terrorist had been known to various intelligence services for an even longer period, since the 1993 WTC bombing. KSM received the most waterboarding sessions, 183 during April 2003. The third al-Qaeda detainee waterboarded, al Nashiri, is credited as the chief planner of the USS Cole attack. He was also observed in attendance at the early January planning session in Malaysia, as was Ramzi bin al-Sheibh, Mohamed Atta’s roommate in Hamburg. Al-Shibh actually traveled back to Hamburg and returned to the conference - had anyone bothered to track him, he would have led the CIA directly to Atta. Bin al Shibh is reported to also have had a brief acquaintance with the waterboard.

The question here is, who at CTC gave the order to withhold the warning cables? Was it Tom Wilshire or Rich B.?

____________________

ISSUE 2) You write:

"Second, Tenet's testimony to the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004 indicated he was clearly hiding his meetings in August 2001 with the President of the United States from the American public.

At this hearing, 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer asked the question: "If you, (George Tenet), knew that the al Qaeda terrorists were about to mount a huge attack inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans why did he not tell the President in August?"

Tenet answered that he was in Washington DC and the President was in Crawford Texas, and that is “why he had not told the President”.

Then Roemer asked why did he not pick up the telephone and call the President and give him this horrific information.

Tenet in answer said he had not called the President in August but just could not go beyond this as an explanation. He simply could offer no possible explanation at all of why he had not called the President of the United States and given him this horrific information, and main stream media seemed unusually uncurious about this.

But Bill Harlow, the CIA spokesman came out after Tenet’s testimony and said Tenet had misspoken, which is CIA speak for lied. Harlow said that Tenet had flown down to Crawford on August 17, and had seen the President in Washington on August 31, and six more times in September before the attacks on 9/11. So it is clear that he had plenty of opportunity to tell the President of the United States about this huge al Qaeda attack.

We now know he had also flown down to Crawford on August 24, 2001 in order to have a meeting with the President on August 25, 2001. This is just after Tenet learned on August 23, that Moussaoui had been arrested after the FBI thought he was a terrorist learning to fly a 747. Tenet had also learned on August 23, that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US preparing to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that he knew would kill thousands of Americans, when FBI Agent Gillespie had the CIA Bin Laden unit issue a worldwide alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

So just what did George Tenet Director of the CIA, who had all of this horrific information tell the President of the United States of America at these meetings. It seems that after 7 1/2 year that we still do not know. But we know he was willing to lie to the American people and to the 9/11 Commission, a major crime of perjury, in order to hide these meetings with the President."


On the same subject, I have written: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/258

George Tenet's new book, At the Center of the Storm, reveals something extremely important about events in the final weeks before 9/11. For the first time, the former CIA Director admits he flew to Crawford in late August, just weeks before the attack by al-Qaeda cells known to be in the U.S., and briefed President George W. Bush personally about the threat.

This briefing followed a CIA PDB read to the President on August 6 in a meeting with Harriet Miers, then the President's lawyer, and an emergency meeting between Tenet and Condi Rice on July 10 on the same subject.

It also reveals that in order to cover up the last meeting, Tenet committed perjury before the 9/11 Commission when he denied meeting with Bush in the month before the attack. According to the White House website, Bush met in Crawford with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condi Rice, and the present and former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Generals Meyers and Pace, on August 24, 2001. Actually, this is not the first time Tenet has referenced that meeting. During April 2003 testimony before the Commission, Tenet "misspoke" and let it slip that he had met with the President in the weeks leading up to 9/11.

The corporate media virtually ignored a couple wire service reports about Tenet's revelation, and practically no one followed-up on it, except two bloggers, one of whom was me.

Here's the relevant extract from Tenet's book: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/050607 ....


“A few weeks after the Aug. 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the President stayed current on events,” Tenet wrote in his memoir, At the Center of the Storm. “This was my first visit to the ranch. I remember the President graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and my trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna, none of which were native to Queens,”


And, here's the article that I published nearly three years ago: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0406/S000 ...


UQ Wire: Tenet Lied Under Oath To 9/11 Commission
Wednesday, 9 June 2004, 1:37 pm
Press Release: www.UnansweredQuestions.org

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
Sign up for the wire at:
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/headlin ...
Unanswered Questions : Thinking for ourselves.
NEWS RELEASE ----- NEWS RELEASE ----- NEWS RELEASE ----


TENET LIED UNDER OATH TO 9/11 COMMISSION ABOUT 8/24/01 MEETING WITH PRESIDENT - AGENCY COMPOUNDS MISREPRESENTATION

* CIA Statement Omits Key Date From List of Bush-DCI Meetings in Weeks Before 9/11
* What Did Bush, Tenet, Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers Talk About in Crawford, TX Three Weeks Before the Attacks - One Day After the Flt. 77 Hijackers Were Watchlisted by the CIA?
From Mark G. Levy
Washington, DC, June 7, 2004 - Former CIA Director George Tenet committed perjury in his April 14 testimony before the 9/11 Commission when he claimed he had not met with President Bush in the month before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. That misrepresentation in Tenet's testimony was noted within hours by Agence France-Presse.

The following day, AP reported the CIA issued what was described as a correction after the Director "misspoke." The Agency asserted that its records showed Tenet meeting with Bush on August 17 and 31, and then on at least six occasions in September prior to Tuesday, the 11th.

However, that CIA announcement omits mention of the visit that then DCI Tenet apparently made to the President's Crawford, Texas ranch on August 24. The White House website on August 25 quotes a remark made by George W. Bush that he met with Tenet the previous day.

In a verbatim transcript, the President is quoted during an impromptu walking tour of Bush's Crawford, TX ranch that he had met the day before with CIA Director and newly appointed members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Rice were also present at a Presidential press conference in Crawford on the 24th, according to the White House press notice issued that day. In the August 25 transcript, the President Bush states to reporters and visitors:

THE PRESIDENT: " . . . Yesterday, we spent -- well, they arrived at 10:00 a.m. It took a while to get the press conference. We got back here at about 11:30 a.m. and met until 5:15 p.m. I think they left. That's the longest meeting I've had in a long time, on a very important subject . . .

Q When you have those business meetings, like the Joint Chiefs briefing, do you like to keep it separate from the living quarters on the ranch?

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, you know, what we call the governor's house, the place where you all came out during the -- that's where we went. Condi and Karen Hughes stayed there. And right across the street from that is a -- it's a nice looking government doublewide. (Laughter.) And that's where the mil aide, the nurse, the WHCA head, the doc, they stay.

The CIA briefings, I have on our porch, the end of our porch looking out over the lake. When Tenet came up, that's where we visited, out there.

You know, everybody wants to see the ranch, which I'm proud to show it off. So George Tenet and I -- yesterday, we piled in the new nominees for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice Chairman and their wives and went right up the canyon. "http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20 ... >

The "very important subject" discussed for almost six hours by Bush with his core national security team would likely have been the CIA's action the day before placing four wanted Al-Qaeda terrorists on the "watchlist" of persons to be detained if located in the US. On August 23 the Agency sent "cables to the State Department, the FBI, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, requesting that 'four bin Laden related individuals' including Almidhar and Alhazmi, be placed on the watchlist." (Washington Post, A8, September 21, 2002) Two of those - Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi - subsequently led the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 77 that slammed into the Pentagon.

The pair had been the subject of CIA-directed surveillance since at least late 1999, when they were followed by the CIA to an Al-Qaeda planning session in Kuala Lumpur, at which they were observed meeting with a ranking terrorist operations director and Mohamed Atta's roommate, Ramzi Binalshibh, who subsequently wired money to them from Germany. Binalshibh also sent funds to Zacarias Moussaoui, who in October 2000 stayed at the same Al-Qaeda safehouse in Malaysia while on his way to the United States. On August 15, Moussaoui was arrested by the FBI at a Minnesota flight school.

If Tenet did not take the opportunity to discuss these events with the President, he committed one of the worst acts of derelection of duty in CIA history. Former DCI George Tenet is generally held to be a thorough and responsible intelligence executive. It is simply implausible that Tenet and Bush did not discuss the 9/11 hijackers when they met in Crawford on August 24.

A special prosecutor needs to be appointed to investigate CIA Director Tenet's apparent perjury on April 14 and the Agency's material misrepresentation of fact in its statement the next day. The former CIA Director and the President need to reveal publicly, and under oath, what was discussed at their numerous meetings in the weeks before 9/11, and why this has been concealed.

The questions that arise here comparing our two accounts is, what was the actual date in August 2001 that Tenet flew to Crawford, and what was the immediate subject of his face-to-face conversation or conversations with Bush? If it was August 17 the topic would not have been the watchlisting of the Flt 77 hijackers, but if the meeting had been held on the 24th, the subject would most certainly have touched on that, and other significant figures within the national security team might well have been part of that discussion. Which was it? I see evidence of only one flight to Crawford, and the White House website seems to indicate the later date. Paul Thompson, when I last talked to him about this, thinks Bush misspoke on the date as "yesterday"(the 24th), but I believe this is an important point that I'd like to see clarified.

[rschop]

76. re detail differences

From the prior post:

"The question here is, who at CTC gave the order to withhold the warning cables? Was it Tom Wilshire or Rich B.?"

There is no way of knowing since this information does not appear in any know document that I am aware of. But, I would have a very hard time believing that since all of the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting went to the highest levels of both the CIA and FBI, including the directors of both organizations, that the orders to block this information on Mihdhar had to have come from the top levels of the CIA. It most likely came directly from Tenet to Black, and then to Richard B and finally to Wilshire. Tom Wilshire was just the means to block Miller's cable on Mihdhar.

But he big question is why was Miller's cable blocked by Wilshire when no one at that time knew about the attack on the Cole? What were they really hiding?

Again in my book, "Prior Knowledge of 9/11", I speculated that it seemed to me to make sense since Mihdhar had worked with Ali Mohammad in the east Africa bombings, that the CIA wanted Mihdhar’s name also kept secret for fear it would lead back to Mohammad. Mohammad had been working inside of the both the CIA and FBI, while part of Bin Laden’s organization. This explanation even made the fact that the FBI HQ took part in this criminal conspiracy, make sense, since the FBI had been embarrassed by double agents Aldridge Ames and others. As far as I can tell even though the FBI had proof that Mohammad had taken part in the east Africa bombings no one knows where he is today other than it looks like he has never been put in jail for this crime.

Your next question:

“The questions that arise here comparing our two accounts is, what was the actual date in August 2001 that Tenet flew to Crawford, and what was the immediate subject of his face-to-face conversation or conversations with Bush? If it was August 17 the topic would not have been the watchlisting of the Flt 77 hijackers, but if the meeting had been held on the 24th, the subject would most certainly have touched on that, and other significant figures within the national security team might well have been part of that discussion. Which was it? I see evidence of only one flight to Crawford, and the White House website seems to indicate the later date. Paul Thompson, when I last talked to him about this, thinks Bush misspoke on the date as "yesterday"(the 24th), but I believe this is an important point that I'd like to see clarified.”

After Tenet's testimony to the 9/11 Commission Bill Harlow said Tenet had misspoke and had flown down to Crawford on August 17, 2001. This is per their records. But the White House web site said the President had met with Tenet on August 24, 2001. So I am assuming he went there at least twice in August on August 17, and August 24.

He flew down there for the August 24, 2001 meeting after he learned that Moussaoui had been arrested and that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on August 23, 2001. I assume you have looked over the "Substitution for the testimony of John" aka Tom Wilshire, on the official court web for the Moussaoui trail and his July 23, 2001 email back to his CTC managers.

This is where Wilshire says Mihdhar will be found at the next big al Qaeda attack. Since this went to his CTC managers and I am sure right up to Tenet, Tenet knew at the August 24, 2001 meeting with the President the names of at least two, actually three since they were aware of Salem al-Hazmi, Nawaf’s younger brother also on AA 77, of the al Qaeda terrorists who were to take part in 9/11 and even knew they were inside of the preparing to take part in this attack.

So what did he tell the President of the United States? We don't know. But is clear he lied at the 9/11 Commission hearings, and Harlow lied or did not know about his trip to Texas for the August 24, 2001 meeting. This is prima fascia evidence that Tenet was aware that he had committed a crime and in fact a humongous crime to cause him to commit perjury in front of the 9/11 Commission and the American people.

I was at the April 14, 2004 public 9/11 Commission hearing. I sat directly behind Tenet not more than 6 feet behind him, there were two rows of relatives of the people killed on 9/11 in front of me, since I wanted to clearly hear every single word he said. When he said he had not talked to the President in August, he next announced that just to make sure would check his calendar and get back to the 9/11 Commission on this.

When he said this he raised his voice so everyone in the hearing room could hear him make this statement. There was not person in that room after this point that believe anything the Director of the CIA said. It was clear he had lied directly to the Commissioners . The two rows of relatives of the people killed on 9/11 that Commissioners, all of the news people, everyone knew immediately Tenet was out and out lying to the 9/11 Commissioners. To claim he had to check his calendar to know if he had flown down to Crawford Texas in the middle of August had to be one of the biggest lies of all time and every single person in that hearing room knew it! And I am sure Tenet even knew they all knew he had lied to the 9/11 Commission.

But when Tenet said he had not picked up the phone and called the President to tell him that a huge attacks was about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans, and he somehow just could not explain why, that was the statement that will stand as the crowning testament for the 9/11 Commission for all time!

[rschop]

78. re: There are a few detail differences in your account

From prior post:

"The CTC Assistant Director at the time has been alternately identified in official documents as "Richard", "Rich B", and as "James" in the FBI OIG’s report. We will call him Richard, the name he is referred to in the 9/11 Commission report. Regardless, it's certain that Cofer Black was Director and operational head of CTC at the time the principal 9/11 hijackers were allowed into the U.S., and Richard was his deputy. Richard replaced Michael Scheuer as operations chief of Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit within CTC at Tyson’s Corner, VA as part of a 1999 shakeup of the unit ordered by George Tenet. Cofer Black and Richard, in particular, were considered to be Tenet protégés.

Those FBI draft cables never reached John O’Neill, head of the FBI national security office, who had a series of furious run-ins with Black and his deputy."

The NSA cable that Khalid, Nawaf and Selam thought to be Nawaf's younger brother, all known al Qaeda terrorists, were traveling to an important al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000 in Kuala Lumpur was sent to the New York FBI field office in late 1999. There is no way to know if John O’Neill, head of the FBI national security office, and the FBI New York field office ever saw that cable. FBI Agents Ali Soufan and Steve Bongardt for sure never saw this cable.

I am not blaming anyone at the FBI NY office for over looking this cable, but there was information right at the New York offfice that could have been used to prevent the attacks that took place on 9/11.

[leveymg]

80. Someone hasn't been asking the right questions of the people who would know,

so we aren't getting the truth of the matter.

I will PM you.

[rschop]

81. re: so we aren't getting the truth of the matter.

From prior post:

"Someone hasn't been asking the right questions of the people who would know, so we aren't getting the truth of the matter."

You can say that again! But I have already spent years putting this account all back together again so it is now available. It turns out the information was in fact all there, it just had to found and then carefully reassembled back into a coherent account.

The one thing my book, "Prior Knowledge of 9/11" points out was the deliberate overlooking of the information that was available to both the Joint Inquiry Committee of 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission and even to the DOJ IG investigators.

Since I was able to find all of this information on a zero budget, it is just not possible that these investigations also did not have this information.

It is also clear that the DOJ IG investigators had all of this information, since it is in their report where almost all of this information is now found today. But this report was deliberately obfuscated so that obvious conclusions could not be drawn. It is clear that the documents on the Moussaoui web site had also come from the DOJ IG investigations.

The July 13, 2001 email from Tom Wilshire to his CTC managers is in the DOJ IG report but the July 23, 2001 email is not. But it is clear that both emails had been part of the original DOJ IG investigation. So it seems that someone had gone in and excised out of the DOJ IG report the July 23 email, so the fact that the CIA knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were going to take part in the next big al Qaeda attack just prior to 9/11 was not made public.

Since FBI IOS Agent Gillespie told Wilshire and Corsi that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on August 22, 2001, the only possible conclusion that anyone can draw from this and from Wilshire’s emails (IMHO) is that the CIA working with FBI HQ knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally had allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11.

It was the document called “The Substation for the Testimony of John”, aka Tom Wilshire, entered into the Moussaoui trial, along with Wilshire’s July 5 email back to the CIA, and now found in the DOJ IG report, that conclusively proves that the CIA knew in July 2001 that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were going to take part in the massive al Qaeda attack that both the CIA and FBI HGQ had been warned about. Please see the official US government web site for the evidence items entered into the Moussaoui trial at;

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exh... /.

By the way, be prepared to be completely stunned by these documents. You will literally be looking at the actual documents that show the lies, treachery and deceit at the CIA and FBI HQ that lead to the deaths of almost 3000 people.

While, these documents on the Moussaoui trial web site are now perhaps the most damming evidence of this, I ultimately had used all of the information that was part of all four of the US official government investigations on 9/11, plus the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan to put this account back together again.

The information on Soufan is almost completely missing from these reports, and it is easy to see why. His account proves that every time the CIA withheld information from the FBI, and from official FBI requests for information from Soufan that were kept secret by these investigations, it was not a simple matter of "THE CIA DID NOT SHARE INFORMATION WITH THE FBI" as the Joint Inquiry Committee concluded, but out and out criminally obstruction of an official FBI criminal investigation into the deaths of 17 US sailors.

While the DOJ IG is the most complete, this report is full of conflicting testimony, with absolutely no attempt to resolve any of these conflicts. At first the conflicting testimony given to the FBI investigators on the DOJ IG investigation and now found in the DOJ IG report made it difficult to actually see what actually had taken place and sort out the truth.

But by building very detailed time lines of this information, and then working with these time lines to create "a consistent account" of all of this information, from January 5, 2000 to September 11, 2001, it became reasonably easy in the end to see exactly who was telling the truth and who was lying to the FBI IG investigators at both the CIA and FBI.

I think the American people are ultimately going to be absolutely shocked when they finally realize that it was our own intelligence agencies and both the CIA and FBI HQ, that had intentionally allowed the terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11 that killed almost 3000 people.

While they may also be shocked to learn that the government investigations of 9/11 had been nothing more than cover ups, and somewhat amateurish at best, since it was ultimately possible with the governments own documents to put this account all back together again, I have come across very few people who had already not suspected this all along!

[leveymg]

82. The issue of intent is one that is best proved in a court of law

There are other explanations. Maybe, not better explanations, but there's still a reasonable doubt that this happened the way it did on purpose. Otherwise, I'm with you.

[rschop]

83. re: There are other explanations. Maybe, not better explanations...

From prior post:

"There are other explanations. Maybe, not better explanations, but there's still a reasonable doubt that this happened the way it did on purpose. Otherwise, I'm with you."

I used what seemed to be the most reasonable explanations to understand the motivation of people who were behind shutting down the FBI investigations of al Qaeda terrorists who were found to be inside of the US.

In both the book "Prior Knowledge of 9/11" and the web site, I had compiled who knew what and when did they know this and then used the test "what would a prudent person have done with this information" to see what each person who had been involved could be more fully explained.

In the end I was able to come up with what I felt was a reasonably complete account that made sense and was consistent. But there are still some unanswered questions.

Why did Tom Wilshire block FBI Agent Doug Millers cable on Mihdhar on January 5, 2000 when this was months before the attack on the USS Cole?

What information is so secret that the CIA does not want anyone to talk to the high value al Qaeda terrorists and why do they want these terrorists executed before they can tell the world what they know? The CIA says it is protect "national security. But this explanation is asinine at best. What information could be so significant that it would jeopardize national security after 7 1/2 years?

What were the documents Sandy Berger was trying to steal out of the US national Achieves, just before he was to testify to the 9/11 Commission, we still do not know?

All of this seems to be connected. Wilshire was ordered, it looks like by the very top leadership of the CIA, to block Miller's cable on Mihdhar, on January 5, 2000 at the same time Berger would have been getting information on the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, in January 2000. And the high value al Qaeda terrorists seem to be the only ones who would have known who went to that meeting in Kuala Lumpur and what was said at that meeting.

[rschop]

91. re: Tenet flys to Crawford Texas for a meetring on August 24, 2001

"From the prior post:

The "very important subject" discussed for almost six hours by Bush with his core national security team would likely have been the CIA's action the day before placing four wanted Al-Qaeda terrorists on the "watchlist" of persons to be detained if located in the US. On August 23 the Agency sent "cables to the State Department, the FBI, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, requesting that 'four bin Laden related individuals' including Almidhar and Alhazmi, be placed on the watchlist." (Washington Post, A8, September 21, 2002) Two of those - Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi - subsequently led the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 77 that slammed into the Pentagon.

The pair had been the subject of CIA-directed surveillance since at least late 1999, when they were followed by the CIA to an Al-Qaeda planning session in Kuala Lumpur, at which they were observed meeting with a ranking terrorist operations director and Mohamed Atta's roommate, Ramzi Binalshibh, who subsequently wired money to them from Germany. Binalshibh also sent funds to Zacarias Moussaoui, who in October 2000 stayed at the same Al-Qaeda safehouse in Malaysia while on his way to the United States. On August 15, Moussaoui was arrested by the FBI at a Minnesota flight school.

If Tenet did not take the opportunity to discuss these events with the President, he committed one of the worst acts of dereliction of duty in CIA history. Former DCI George Tenet is generally held to be a thorough and responsible intelligence executive. It is simply implausible that Tenet and Bush did not discuss the 9/11 hijackers when they met in Crawford on August 24."

But what UQ wire left out, because they had not found the evidence items entered into the Moussaoui trial was the fact that all of the CIA top management knew when Mihdhar and Hazmi were discovered inside of the US, that they were here in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack that the CIA had been warned about since April 2001. And yet not only did they keep this secret from the FBI criminal investigators, but also allowed former CIA Bin Laden unit deputy chief Tom Wilshire to shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi knowing that as a result of their actions thousands of Americans would be killed in these al Qaeda attacks.

Notice, that Tenet flew down to Crawford for the August 24, 2001 meeting after he learned that Moussaoui had been arrested and that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on August 23, 2001. The document "Substitution for the testimony of John" aka Tom Wilshire, which is on the official court web for the Moussaoui trail and his July 23, 2001 email back to his CTC managers, in the iron clad confirmation that all of these managers had this information.

In this email Wilshire clearly says Mihdhar will be found at the next big al Qaeda attack. Since this went to his CTC managers and right up to Black, and Tenet, Tenet knew at the August 24, 2001 meeting with the President the names of at least two, actually three since they were aware of Salem al-Hazmi, Nawaf’s younger brother also on AA 77, of the al Qaeda terrorists who were to take part in 9/11 and even knew they were inside of the US preparing to take part in this attack.

It is not even remotely believable that Tenet did not tell the President this horrific information. While he can deny it, the facts now available on the internet speak for themselves.

[rschop]

77. re: Who blocked FBI Agent Harry Samit's investigation of Moussaoui and why?

From a FBI document found on the US official web site for the Trail of Zacharias Moussaoui:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exh... /

Defense Exhibit 792,

April 2001; The FBI HQ released a threat assessment which said:

"Bin Laden Khattab Threat Reporting

This note is to advise you of recent threat reporting deemed significant and urgent by the US Intelligence Community

The US government has received information indicating that serious operational planning had been underway since late 2000 with an intended culmination in late Spring 2001. These plans are being undertaken by Suni extremists with links to Ibn al Khattab, an extremist leader in Chechnya and to Usama bin Laden.

Multiple sources also suggest that UBL's organization is planning a terrorist attack against US interests.

The UBL unit, (with FBI Supervisor Rod Middleton and FBI IOS agent Dina Corsi), is preparing an EC for all field offices and Legats."

This threat reporting went to Michael Rolince, who was over the ITOS with the RFU and UBL units, and to Rod Middleton of the UBL unit, among others.

Rolince was over the RFU's Maltbie and Frasca. So why did Frasca and Maltbie refuse to allow FBI Agent Harry Samit even the chance to request a FISA search warrant when Samit had clearly linked Moussaoui to Khattab and this FBI threat assessment had linked Khattab to Bin Laden?

The burden of proof for getting a FISA search warrant was to have probable cause that the target was part of a terrorist organization, which Samit had clearly done when he linked Moussaoui to Khattab.

It is clear Rolince knew Khattab was already a Suni terrorist linked to Bin Laden and had not only received a warning of this threat but had also had his own UBL unit issue an EC to report that threat throughout the FBI in April 2001. But Maltbie and Frasca claimed that Samit just did not have enough proof that Khattab’s organization was a “recognized” terrorist organization, in spite of the April 2001 FBI threat assessment, directly linking Khattab to Bin Laden, a threat assessment, which was kept secret from Samit and his team of investigators.

This threat assessment was released before CIA deputy chief of the Bin Laden unit at the CIA, Tom Wilshire, had been moved over to be liaison to Michael Rolince at the ITOS. It appears Wilshire had been moved to the FBI ITOS unit, the FBI unit responsible for all criminal investigations in the world, to ensure that CIA information on the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting was kept secret from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing. see "Prior Knowledge of 9/11", www.eventson911.com

But since Wilshire ultimately worked with FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi to shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, when both he and Corsi knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were found inside of the US preparing to take part in an al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans, it would appear that this had to be also part of the CIA plan when Wilshire was moved to the FBI. Not only to hide the information on the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, but also to shut down their investigation of Mihdhar if they somehow ever developed enough information that would have allowed them to start a FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar.

After August 22, 2001, when Wilshire and FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans and were taking part in a massive criminal conspiracy to hide this information from the FBI Cole investigators, Wilshire was in email contact with Maltbie. see Substitution for the Testimony of John, Tom Wilshire, entered into the Moussaoui trial, on March 11, 2006.

Wilshire finds out from Maltbie's email, that others in the FBI were sabotaging Samit’s investigation of Moussaoui. So it would appear that part of his assignment when he was moved over to the FBI, was not only to insure the CIA secrets on the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, but to closely monitor any and all FBI criminal investigations of any al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US, to make insure that none of these investigations developed to the point that would disrupt the al Qaeda attacks that were about to take place on 9/11.

This email between Wilshire and Maltbie was on August 24, 2001, so at this point Wilshire knows that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack, and also knows Moussaoui had been arrested after the FBI in Minneapolis thought he was an terrorist trying to learn how to fly a 747 in order to hijack a large airliner and fly it into the WTC Towers.

He has all of the information needed to stop the attacks on 9/11, but for some unexplained reason just somehow fails to alert anyone at the FBI criminal investigating units or even in the US government to the threat of these horrific al Qaeda attacks. And these actions by Wilshire just somehow have been never explained by either the FBI HQ, the CIA or even the 9/11 Commission.

Samit was not able to even get a search warrant request approved from Maltbie or Frasca until after the attack on the Pentagon. When he asked Frasca after the attack of the World Trade Center Towers, he was told the fact they had arrested Moussaoui and the attacks on the WTC towers were nothing more than just a simple coincidence, and this could not be used as evidence to get a search warrant for Moussaoui's possessions.

After the Pentagon was attacked and Samit got a search warrant he immediately found the receipt from Ramzi Bin al-Sheibh for $14,000 sent to Moussaoui, traced this back to Hamburg, Germany, and the fact Bin al Sheibh had been room-mates with Mohammed Atta, Mawin al-Shiehi, and Ziad Jarrah, three of the 9/11 pilots. He also quickly found the phone number for the al Qaeda pay-master in the UAE from al-Sheibh’s phone records and traced calls from this phone number in the UAE in a few days to almost all of the terrorists who took part in the attacks on 9/11.

At the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui Samit called Maltbie and Frasca out and out criminals, for allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to murder 3000 people on 9/11. But the FBI said Michael Maltbie and David Frasca would have no comment on this. The FBI even said that the FBI itself would have no comment on this.

Let’s see now, you are accused of criminal acts that had allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder 3000 people on 9/11, and your response to this horrific news is “NO COMMENT?

Just what are the American people expected to think about this?

But it is impossible to believe that when Maltbie and Frasca shut down Samit's investigation of Moussaoui, and both knew a huge al Qaeda attack was in the works, because of the FBI treat that was sent to Rolince in April 2001, that they did not know that thousands of Americans were going to perish in these attacks as a direct result of their actions to block Samit's investigation of Zacharias Moussaoui?

[dotymed]

42. AND THEY KNEW THE MEANS OF ATTACK

This was evident by all of the government officials told not to fly commercially on the 11th. How can America not fully investigate this? This is just more proof that our government is run by a criminal enterprise. Americans must take to the streets, not just for 9-11, but for all of the criminal actions, lack of media reporting and the refusal of our "representatives" (most), to implement rules wanted by the majority of Americans.....ie...single payer, meaningful election reform, etc...

[Stephanie]

55. God I'm getting flashbacks - "Ashcroft Flying High"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main...

WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001
Ashcroft Flying High
Cabinet Members Normally Fly Commercial Airlines

(CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.

"I don't do threat assessments myself and I rely on those whose responsibility it is in the law enforcement community, particularly the FBI. And I try to stay within the guidelines that they've suggested I should stay within for those purposes," Ashcroft said.

Asked if he knew anything about the threat or who might have made it, the attorney general replied, "Frankly, I don't. That's the answer."

Earlier this week, the Justice Department leased a NASA-owned G-3 Gulfstream for a 6-day trip to Western states. Such aircraft cost the government more than $1,600 an hour to fly. When asked whether Ashcroft was paying for any portion of the trips devoted to personal business, a Justice Department spokeswoman declined to respond.

All other Bush Cabinet appointees, with the exception of Interior and Energy with remote sites to oversee, fly commercial airliners. Janet Reno, Ashcroft's predecessor as attorney general, also routinely flew commercial. The secretaries of State and Defense traditionally travel with extra security on military planes.

The Justice Department insists that it wasn't Ashcroft who wanted to fly leased aircraft. That idea, they said, came strictly from Ashcroft's FBI security detail. The FBI had no further comment.

[rschop]

61. re: God I'm getting flashbacks - "Ashcroft Flying High"

Notice he quits flying commercial just after the July 17, 2001 warning from CIA Director George Tenet and CIC CTC chief Cofer Black, a warning that said that the US was about to be attacked by the al Qaeda terrorists, an attack that will cause mass casualties of Americans.

In 7 1/2 years no one has ever said what was this "threat assessment" by the FBI actually was. It has never been explained.

"The Justice Department insists that it wasn't Ashcroft who wanted to fly leased aircraft. That idea, they said, came strictly from Ashcroft's FBI security detail. The FBI had no further comment."

So whatever the warning was from Tenet and Black it was clearly so specific that Ashcroft did not want to fly commercial aircraft during the rest of his term for AJ business.

But he was in charge of the FBI. Why did they not have the FBI investigate and prevent this hijacking Ashcroft had been clearly warned about. And what is even a bigger question why did Ashcroft not even think to have the FBI check the aircraft manifest for the aircraft we was to fly on to make sure no al Qaeda terrorist were about to take over his flight. This needs to be explained!

Instead he flies on private aircraft while the rest of America was never told about this horrific threat and has never been told that they were in immense danger from an aircraft hijacking by the al Qaeda terrorists.

And in less than 2 months after he quits flying on commercial aircraft, the US is hit with the biggest terrorist attack in our history, using hijacked aircraft. Clearly this must have been just a coincidence.

But the bigger issue is why when all of the main stream media knew about Ashcroft’s change in travel plans, knew that there was some humongous threat to travel on US commercial aircraft, why did they not investigate this and get to the bottom of this threat so all of those people killed on 9/11 would not have had to perish in these attacks.

Maybe the main stream media should apologize to all of America for their massive failure to get to the bottom this horrific news. Just maybe, but I would not hold my breath!

[Zhade]

69. Funny how many air force bases the planes flew near, and yet NO fighters scrambled until too late.

Sure, they didn't know. And I'm the fucking pope!

[earcandle]

14. If you look both ways, the progressive way out is the fair way out. But,

if you look to protect the past rather than learn, we are
stuck with these stupid leaders, who demand that we be
stupid, too!

The only way out of this catch 22 is to have loved ones talk
down their mercenary sons and daughters, their militia sons
and daughters, their military sons and daughters, their NRA
sons and daughters, their KKK sons and daughters, their
Coo-Coo sons and daughters that are part of the problem, not
part of the solution to reconsider and make it worth their
while with great training at cool jobs!  Then they will come
home following their tales behind them. 

We got to stop this hurling toward absence that has a lot of
people in a fantasy daze, and we are just fucking fodder.  We
and everyone else who are not in their club.  These people are
way too full of themselves.  This isn't rocket science,
pursuing the law.  We need to pursue the law and make it safe
for our children to come home.  Our damaged babies..... I mean
all of us on this planet suffer in the same way.  When America
feels it, things change.


Time for change, whether Obama likes it or not.  I think he
will like it if we force his hand and bring us home.  He is
certainly the clearing for it.  Lets do it.  

Use the democratic process.  Keep doing what we are doing. 
It is working. 

love, davis

[bulloney]

17. You can thank Jim Baker and his law firm for protecting the Saudi Royal Family in this suit.

Nobody has a problem with that in the MSM, but last fall, Obama was a terrorist because of his "ties" with William Ayers.

[Cass]

39. Excellent point!! nt

[No Elephants]

79. Off topic, but that is one reason my blood runs cold when I see "domestic terrorist" tossed

around lightly.

[liberal N proud]

18. But they were such good friends with bu$h

How can this be so?

[Ganja Ninja]

19. Where's all the right wing war mongers on this?

They were all for attacking Iraq so how come no war drums for attacking the Saudis? Could it be that the zombies have no minds of their own and haven't been primed for a Saudi war by Rush and FOX? It's the perfect opportunity to hold Obama up as being weak and passive and lord knows they haven't missed a chance yet to piss on him.

[Botany]

21. Wasn't a member of the Saudi Royal family supporting one of the 9/11

terrorists in San Diego?

[leveymg]

24. The acc't at Riggs Bank was held in the name of the wife of the Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bandar

Riggs Bank was owned by Joe Albritton, who had employed G.H.W. Bush as a Director at First Internation Bancshares in 1977-78, after Bush was fired as CIA Director. Before leaving CIA, Bush, Sr. had set up a covert operation funding arrangement with Prince Turki al-Faisal known as The Safari Club, whereby Saudi GID intelligence was given free reign to carry out global covert ops -- resulting in the creation of al-Qaeda, the AQ Khan network, and creation of BCCI, and the looting of the S&Ls -- in exchange for Saudi funding of CIA operations that had been banned by Congress during the Carter Administration.

Prince Bandar is also the member of the Saudi Royal family most publicly associated with running Yamamah ("The Dove"), a $100 billion plus slush fund that is used to pay off British and American politicians.

The 9/11 hijackers who got funds from the Riggs Bank accounts were Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar, who went on to crash Flt. 77 into the Pentagon.

Of course they want to bury the details about al-Qaeda funding. It directly ties al-Qaeda to the Saudi Royal family and the Bush wing of the CIA, and all the other really bad stuff they've been doing over the years.

[tclambert]

22. Saudi Arabia is the real enemy.

I said so even before we attacked Afghanistan. In a way, Iraq was a big misdirection play to distract us from the Saudi link. Right after 9/11, Bush pledged to "follow the money." They shut up about the money pretty quick when it became apparent the money trails led back to Saudi Arabia and the royal family.

Saudi Arabia has been playing a dangerous double game for a long time. On one side, they act like our friends, especially friends of the Bush family. On the other side, they give billions to extremists, including active terrorists, and support the most radical schools whose teachers recruit future terrorists.

[closeupready]

37. Yes. You have it 100% correct.

n/t

[Ikonoklast]

56. They have to in order to stay in power.

The House of Saud is still considered to be usurpers on the peninsula by a great many in the Arab world.

If it wasn't for oil money placating those that would overthrow them, the Saudis' heads would have all been on pikes many a year ago.

They, and those that enable them, are no friends of this nation.

[The Stranger]

66. That such bullshit. The "Saudis" are not one big monolithic entity.

No doubt some of them sympathize with terrorists. Fucking dazzling deduction there. But their government and anti-terrorists agencies also have no mercy and have attacked relentlessly anyone who fucks with their "kingdom." No one ever seems to want to talk about this part of it.

I suppose the class struggle in Saudi Arabia has been perverted into a battle between religionists and the bourgeois, instead of between the workers and the bourgeois.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pjt7]

32. Money guy's & military guy's

own O

[Blaze Diem]

43. I'm with you on this one Badgerman. Good Call. Agree with you Completely.

Where's the man I voted for Nov. 08?
I listened to his speeches, thought he was truthful, believed he meant what he said.
Has he gone through those Bush policies "line by line" yet? Has he?

Honestly there are times I catch myself wondering if Obama was another 'selection', like GW.
Could it have been possible? Was it all a ploy to unite the American people in some unity of fools, following a system who simply appointed a man to step into Bush's shoes, to protect what the Bush empire dismantled & changed as to our Nation?

Was he selected to pacify and lend a big dose of 'hope' to quiet the masses that raged against the Neocon game being played against us since the 'selection' of 2000?

As the 2008 election neared, I absolutely could not see the Bush crime family et.al. giving up their supreme power they had laid claim to.

Until I see President Obama step forward solidly on the side of the American people through policy change & prosecution of those who blatantly raided our National Treasury for personal gain, I am sorry to say that I believe they have indeed NOT conceded their power.

I want to see some BIG FEET held to the fire for destroying our Nation, those lives who are precious to this country that are forever lost or changed, and either begin to fix what was broken or hold those who plotted & carried out the destruction of this great Nation, accountable.

Every concession & compromise President Obama makes on the side of those who decimated our country brings me closer to my original belief that those in power in the Bush regime have & will never give their power up to those who wish to reverse the progress they've made in changing America to suit their agenda.

I remain a skeptic until I see this President lean heavily on the side of the American public who put all their trust in him.
Those who believed he could and would do all he could to restore the Country to its people.
I'm still waiting for that man to show himself, and my faith is fading.

Was Obama selected to appease the public while the regime of the past 8 years quietly slipped away, reassured their destructive policies would remain in place?

I sincerely want President Obama to start proving me wrong.

Blaze

[pleah]

26. K&R

[tanyev]

27. Marking to read later.

[Wednesdays]

28. K&R

[Alcibiades]

29. If we were going to invade a country linked to 9-11

Saudi Arabia would have been a natural choice, as they have the most oil. Of course, our Middle East policy has been captured by the House of Saud, so there's no way that was ever going to happen.

[barbtries]

30. how can they claim sovereign immunity

if the attacks were backed by a government that's an act of war. goddamit

[leveymg]

33. Private parties normally can't sue gov'ts. Foreign Torts Claims Act waives that immunity

This is an FTCA suit. The USG can move to oppose such an action on foreign policy grounds. Courts are usually pretty deferential.

[FailureToCommunicate]

34. Sure wonder if any of the lawyers kept a copy "just in case" Justice Dept wanted them destroyed

[dysfunctional press]

35. as long as we keep sucking the saudi oilcock, they can do as they please.

and they know it.

[RoccoR5955]

36. I've said it all along...

The SAUDIS are the real enemies, but Bushco, Inc. are too tied to them, what with the Carlyle Group, and other entities.
If they wanted to attack someone after 9/11, why not Sauteed Arabia, which is where the attackers, and bin Laden came from, and are citizens?
They just wanted to carve up Iraq's oil resources, among themselves, so that their corporations could make more profit.

[benld74]

38. Saudis Philanthropy at its worst! ROYAL FAMILY my ASS!

When someone has ssssssssoooooooooo much efin money, they are SUPPOSE to assist those less fortunate than themselves. So they assist fellow Islamists that are seriously off their meds? THAT is SICK!
Here's to the hope they get their heads outta their sand covered asses and becoe a part of the world society instead of the secret society they make themselves!

[mod mom]

41. Bush's buddies.

[valerief]

44. The older I get the more I think truth is just a passing fancy. nt

[Joanne98]

45. Must be some hot financial documents.

documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. The Justice Department had the lawyers’ copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.

[RedCloud]

47. Bush tricked them out of their right to sue...

http://www.oilempire.us/911families.html

About halfway down:

milies sue U.S., reject 9/11 `bribe' (Toronto Star 12/23)
www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thesta... _Type1&c=Article&cid=1072134612206&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

By Tim Harper
Toronto Star
Tuesday 23 December 2003

Families sue U.S., reject 9/11 `bribe', ignore deadline for compensation. Payouts average $1.8 million.
WASHINGTON—For some, it's blood money, a repugnant payoff they feel they have no choice but to accept.
For a handful of others, the process of claiming compensation is too painful: they find themselves paralyzed by grief and unable to reopen emotional wounds barely healed from the deaths of their loved ones in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
But as many as 73 families see the process of U.S. government compensation as an attempt to protect those who should be held accountable for what they believe was mass murder.
They ignored a midnight deadline last night, their last chance to apply for government cash.
And today, they begin a new stage in an arduous odyssey and will sue their government, airlines and state and local authorities.
"This may be uncharted waters, but I was thrown in a pool on Sept. 11, 2001 and had to learn to swim," said Monica Gabrielle, who lost her husband Richard in the World Trade Center attack.
"I am doing this for my husband. He was a gentle man, and he was alive, trying to get out of that building that day. The dead. The dying. The smoke. The terror. No one should have suffered like that. I want accountability. I need answers."
The compensation fund has been controversial since President George W. Bush signed it into law 13 days after the attacks. For those who lost family members, it was always about protecting airlines, federal, state and local authorities from billions of dollars of lawsuits.
To receive the federal money, recipients must sign a waiver giving up their right to sue anyone involved in the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history.
A late surge of claims on deadline yesterday meant close to 95 per cent of the 2,976 families who lost loved ones in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania were expected to finally take the money.
To get there, they had to accept a monetary value on the lives of those closest to them, after making a case based on birth and marriage licences, diplomas and degrees, even videos. They will, on average, receive $1.8 million (all figures U.S.) each.
Families of 24 Canadian victims are eligible for compensation and most have applied.
Brian Alexander, a New York lawyer representing a portion of the victims who have launched the lawsuit, said he knew of no Canadians involved.
He said those who have chosen to sue have put no dollar figure on awards and each claim will be individually tailored.
"A widow who is 80 years old is not in the same category as a widow who lost her husband at age 30 and has four kids at home," he said.
Some $1.5 billion had been paid from the government fund by the weekend. Compensation for individual deaths has ranged from $250,000 to $6.9 million. Those physically injured as a result of the attacks have received compensation ranging from $500 to $7.9 million.
"Only in America could there be a program like this," fund administrator Kenneth Feinberg told CNN yesterday.
"You wouldn't find a program paying an average $1.8 million tax-free to eligible families. This is an unprecedented, unique program and exhibits I think the best in the American people."
Yet Gabrielle says it is a bribe by the government so victims can be coerced into washing their hands of the affair.
She is also resentful that the government is determining the worth of loved ones.
"This is about mass murder," she said. "I want to know who was responsible.
"No one has been fired. No one has been demoted. The same people who are guarding us today on an elevated security alert are the same people who were working that day."
Gabrielle said she is looking at a special 9/11 commission headed by former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean to answer the question of responsibility.
Kean has battled the White House, New York and aviation authorities for access to documents. He has a May deadline.
"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean told CBS last week.
He said later he was talking of lower level officials, but Gabrielle and others want to know more about the safety of the buildings and airport security.
Even those who have accepted the money see it only as the lesser of two evils.
Irene Golinski, 53, whose husband died in the Pentagon attack, was still grappling with the decision to put 9/11 behind her or continue with a lawsuit.
"It's almost like it's a payoff to save the airlines and not hold any of those people responsible for what happened," she said.
Feinberg's office detailed some awards. The beneficiary of a 36-year-old project manager earning $231,000 and with one dependent was paid $3.48 million, while the beneficiary of a 26-year-old military officer with no dependents and a $44,000 salary got $1.84 million.

[Badgerman]

48. k/r

[sofa king]

49. I would like to see that list of donors compared with Saudi donors to the GOP at the same time.

I expect to see the two lists being very similar. I've long contended that the reason why John Ashcroft killed all investigation into Saudi Arabian financiers of terrorism is because the people funding the Taliban and al Qaeda were also funding the American Taliban, and specifically the Bush crime operation.

[freedomnorth]

50. K&R n/t.

[Javaman]

51. In before eventual banishment. nt

[Vidar]

58. Going after the Saudis would have been justified, easier & far more profitable,

so we invaded Iraq. I f Korea attacks, let's seize Cuba.

[leveymg]

60. Good point. But, don't know about the "easier" part.

There are several problems with trying to arrest members of the Saudi Royal family or, in the alternative, invading KSA.

One of them is the fact that the Saudis were major financiers behind the development of the Pakistani nuclear program. If the House of Saud had wanted Osama bin Laden to have an atomic bomb, he would have had one within 48 hours.

That's why, as Posner relates it, three Saudi sheikhs, and the Pakistani Air Marshall, ended up having medical emergencies or fatal accidents shortly after FBI agent Ali Soufan tricked Abu Zubaydeh into revealing their names as al-Qaeda financiers.

[Vidar]

72. Interesting. Did not know that.

[yoyossarian]

59. He's always so kissy-face with the greatest PIRATES in the world!

President Evil Online!
has risen from the grave!

[noise]

64. US officials could clear up the confusion in 24 hours if they wanted to do so

For years we have been told that al Qaeda was a independent terrorist group opposed to both the Saudi royal family and the US government. OTOH, journalists, politicians and intel agents have all suggested that there was pressure on US intelligence to back off terrorist investigations linked to Saudi Arabia. Michael Scheuer stated (in a Book TV interview with Steve Coll) that before 9/11 the Saudi royal family supported Bin Laden. Scheuer has previously stated that there were about nine or ten chances to kill Bin Laden before 9/11.

Peter Lance raises key questions about alleged "triple agent" Ali Mohamed who was supposedly able to fool US agencies for years. Lance also raises good questions about the failed efforts to apprehend KSM.

James Bamford has raised good questions about CIA withholding of al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar information and about bizarre NSA conduct.

Lawrence Wright has raised good questions about CIA withholding of al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar information going so far to characterize this conduct as "tantamount to obstruction of justice (in the Cole investigation)."

Cooperative research and DU member rschop have detailed the efforts of Alec Station and the FBI UBLU to obstruct the search for al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar.

It is long overdue for US officials to stop hiding behind all these foreign trails and tell the public the truth.

[pjt7]

67. Any chance Virginia Senator Jim Webb

could be the honest, strong politician who get's @ what really happened that day?

[rschop]

87. re: James Bamford has raised good questions about CIA withholding of al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar information

From prior post:

"James Bamford has raised good questions about CIA withholding of al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar information and about bizarre NSA conduct."

Bamford actually got FBI Agent Doug Miller to admit that the FBI told him to keep his mouth shut and say he could not remember when he was asked by DOJ IG investigators about his January 5, 2000 cable on Mihdhar.

In case you did not see the posts, look at posts #73 "Who blocked the FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi and why?" and #81, "Who blocked FBI Agent Harry Samit's investigation of Moussaoui and why?". I tried to summarize the information on the web site www.eventson9/11 which has the actual US government documents from the Moussaoui trail that confirm that the CIA working with FBI HQ agents intentionally allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11. In case you have not seen this information before look at Defense Exhibits #939, where Tom Wilshire indicates in email back to his CTC CIA managers, Richard B, Cofer Black and George Tenet that Mihdhar will be found at the next big al Qaeda attack. This email is dated July 23, 2001. On August 22, 2001 he and FBI IOS HQ Agent Dina Corsi are told that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US.

So what do Corsi and Wilshire do with this horrific information? They shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, knowing that this is the only FBI investigation that can find Mihdhar and Hazmi in time to head off the huge al Qaeda attack that both Corsi and Wilshire are aware of.

And you tell me that the main stream media cannot find these documents.

I DON"T THINK SO!

Maybe they just do not want to find these documents. And maybe this why the refer to them as lame stream media.

Almost 3000 people were killed when Corsi and Wilshire, with the knowledge of many other people at both the CIA and FBI HQ shut down Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and main stream media just somehow cannot find these documents when they are located right on the US official web site for the Moussaoui trial. Maybe they can claim that they have just never heard of Moussaoui either.

[rschop]

89. re: Main stream media can't find these documents?

From prior post:

“And you tell me that the main stream media cannot find these documents.

I DON"T THINK SO!

Maybe they just do not want to find these documents. And maybe this why the refer to them as lame stream media.

Almost 3000 people were killed when Corsi and Wilshire, with the knowledge of many other people at both the CIA and FBI HQ shut down Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and main stream media just somehow cannot find these documents when they are located right on the US official web site for the Moussaoui trial. Maybe they can claim that they have just never heard of Moussaoui either.”

See the Moussaoui court document web site at http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exh... / for the documents that the main stream media is somehow just unable to find. Maybe someone can email them these documents.

But an even bigger question is why has the FBI not been investigated for criminally obstructing their own DOJ IG investigation of CIA officer Tom Wilshire blocking Doug Miller's cable on Mihdhar?

But an even bigger question is who would do this investigation of the FBI as the FBI is the top law enforcement agency inside of the US?

NOW THERE'S A REAL DILEMA!

[Zhade]

68. "with the Justice Department siding with the Saudis in court " -- gee, I thought Obama meant change?

So much for that, with his Department of inJustice doing shit EXACTLY LIKE B*S*'S DID!

[Zorra]

70. It's the new transparency in government. The corruption is in full view.

Why bother to hide it?

They simply promised transparency. They didn't say that they were going to do anything about the corruption.

[newspeak]

84. I'm one who believes some of the Saudi royal family were involved

we close a major military base in SA, we attack Iraq (no friend to SA), we become a recruiting tool for AlQuaeda. It seems our government has given OBL everything he wanted, why? And my question would be, what is Pakistan's involvement? Remember, Gen. Mahmoud (sp) of Pakistan allegedly wired money to Atta. * forgives Pakistan's debt to the US (well, that really helped our economy). It's the ISI that find the body of Daniel Pearl. SA and Pakistan seems to have some ties there.

SA has one of the worst human rights records (I mean even Iran allows their womenfolk to vote and drive). Yet SA is supposed to be one of our allies. I don't see our government decrying the human rights record of SA, especially like they did in Afghanistan. All of a sudden it was we have to liberate those poor women--women that it seems they weren't interested in until it seems the Taliban wouldn't deal with the US over the pipeline. Believe me, as a woman, I have no love for the Taliban and I have no love for some of the laws in SA.

I remember Bill Moyers interviewing someone on terrorism in Iraq. I remember the gentleman stating that most of these terrorists were coming in from SA and blowing away and murdering Iraqi civilians. My first thought is, why aren't we more closely guarding the border towards SA or are these so-called terrorists being allowed in (like turning a blind eye).

What I see is a nest of vipers from SA, Pakistan and even the USA--we attacked the wrong country and it seems that was the intent all along.

[yurbud]

86. if your friend kills your wife and you buy him a beer, could cops conclude you wanted him to do it?

That's what the Bush administration and now largely the Obama administration's reaction to Saudi involvement in 9/11 looks. Rather than punish them in any way, we continued to treat them as a trusted ally without a moments hesitation, and used the attack as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. At worst, in terms of 9/11, Afghanistan was the landlord to hit men serving the Saudi mob.

A declassified FBI doc showed that a Saudi intel agent picked up two of the hijackers at LAX when they arrived in the US, set them up in an apartment in his building, and funneled them checks from the Saudi ambassador's wife until the 9/11 attacks. That doesn't sound like "wealthy Saudis" but the actual Saudi government.

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2008/03/foia-doc-...

If the Saudi government committed the attacks and our government did nothing in retaliation and used the attacks as a pretext for other military action, that sounds like the Saudis were doing the Bushies a favor rather than committing random acts of terrorism.

Former ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar, has a pretty clear track record of involvement in terrorism, both to protect himself AND to help the Washington establishment (clearly not the rest of the United States). For example, when a British corruption investigation came too close to the Saudi royal family, Bandar threatened another terrorist attack like 7/7, and Tony Blair took it seriously enough to tell the investigators to back off. Way back in our brief military foray into Lebanon in the 80's, CIA director Casey turned to Bandar to arrange a car bombing of a sheik for us.

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2008/02/bandar-bu...

If Obama doesn't deal with this honestly and prominently, we will be vulnerable to having our foreign policy driven by terrorist attacks orchestrated by these friends of the oil industry to serve their purposes.

[G_j]

92. kick

[rschop]

93. K&R