I suspect the 28 pages will reveal nothing if John Bolton wants them released

[Ichingcarpenter]

Former Bush UN ambassador calls for release of 9/11 documents


Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton on Sunday called on the Obama administration to release the 28 redacted pages of a 2002 congressional investigation into the 9/11 terror attacks.

In a radio interview with John Catsimatidis, the former Bush administration official said he had not read the secret pages but believes they should be released to the public.
“I think the thing to do is — because we could speculate for the next several hours on what these pages say — absent some possible compromise of U.S. sources and methods of intelligence-gathering, I’d just make all 28 pages public. Let’s see what’s in there, and then we can talk about it,” Bolton said.

“I think its important to note that the Saudi government itself has said for 10 or 12 years now that they agree to make the pages public, so I don’t know what the Obama administration’s holdup is. I think the sooner we get them out and let the American public see them, the better off we’ll be.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/277402-bolton-calls-on-obama-administration-to-release-redacted-pages


I still want to see them but with Bolton supporting it also
I think he knows more than I do on what they include.

[dembotoz]

1. tend to agree ...john bolton does not inspire trust

[AgerolanAmerican]

2. Bolton never struck me as being in the loop

Seemed always to be that kind of guy who is kept outside the inner circles... a useful idiot.

I'd give a nonzero possibility that he genuinely doesn't know the contents.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. Even if that's true he still takes orders from the inner circle

and they would know what's in them.

[Chan790]

5. I don't think that's actually true though.

In any administration, you're going to have need of people that don't and can't be connected to your closest cadre of support. It's political necessity, a hedgerow against claims of corruption and conspiracy. Bolton was chosen because he's a true believer in the ideology he preaches, not because he's a loyal ally. Nobody goes into institutions like the UN and argues as forcefully for a position as he did unless they truly believe it, not because it's their job or orders from within the circle or a useful lie.

Wolfowicz did his job. Rice took orders from within the circle. Powell told useful lies. Bolton...actually believes what he was saying. If you watch how they approach the positions they advocated and the way they argued for them, it becomes obvious. The first two are diplomats, first-and-foremost. Powell is a useful tool--a blunt object.

Bolton really believes beige people are an existential threat to the US and that war is the best solution to most problems.

I can truly believe that he doesn't know what is in those pages...and that he suspects even the worst and thinks that they contain exactly what we think they do. Also, that they might be a valid pretext to war with the Saudis...and unlike Bush and Cheney, I doubt he has a problem with that on any level because to him, they'd have it coming.

[leveymg]

4. I suspect that 97perc is already pubic, but that 3 perc could blow our minds

F-cking John Bolton. Crazy bastard.

[karynnj]

6. If Bolton is for it, it means he thinks it helps him or hurts us

From various previous reasons given, the one that has made the most sense to me is that those 28 pages examined the allegations that were out there in 2002/2003 related to Saudi involvement. My guess is that those 28 pages examined the possibility of direct or indirect Saudi government support for the attack and found the proof too inclusive. (ie there likely was money from Saudi regime connected people that went to the hijackers, but it is hard to prove that that money was not given for education - which many Saudi nationals studying abroad get. )

The reason, if this is the case, is that releasing everything found that points in that direction - even including the conclusion that I stated as a guess that there was no definitive proof - would create a field day for conspiracy buffs and it would harm our relationship with Saudi Arabia at a point where we do not need additional anger in that area.

There will also be many that might point out that no such similar caution was taken with regards to charges against Iraq in 2002 or Iran for at least a decade. I absolutely agree with this observation. I have sometimes wondered what weds us to having Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States as our allies, but it appears that no matter the administration, we seem stuck with them.

So, that brings me back to Bolton -- I would suggest that given that their likely nominees are Trump or Cruz ... and ours is Hillary, he sees a possibility of using that to his advantage. I suspect that he cynically would be only to happy to obliquely revive the arguments over going to war with Iraq - even though he was a major cheerleader. The contrast of attacking Iraq, which did not attack us, while sheltering Saudi Arabia would affect ONE large group of people in this country -- the Democratic left. Reviving the issues of the early 2000s will not harm the Republicans - none of their likely nominees are closely associated with Bush. If he thinks it won't hurt the Republicans, but would demoralize part of the Democratic base, he might go for it.

It might be that they would aim more directly - ignoring Iraq. The report, even with conclusions that all of that was inconclusive, can easily be used to gin up hatred against SA. Not to mention, we could ALL list negative things about SA. It is easy to tie ANY administration to Saudi Arabia. I can imagine we would then hear more of Clinton speaking to Saudi diplomats (as EVERY Secretary of State does - there are pictures of Obama and Kerry or either Bush or Bill Clinton), the approved arms deals and the contributions to the Clinton Foundation. None of the likely Republicans ever had a foreign policy role and it is easy to see Trump or Cruz demonizing Saudi Arabia.

Winning the election would trump whatever geopolitical reasons there ever were to back SA for either of those demagogues.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

7. Or he knows it will cause great strain between United States and Saudi Arabia, which...

...could lead to war. And we all know how bolton loves war.