Maybe it is Saudi Arabia in those 28 blank pages? What if it isn't?

[NNN0LHI]

Maybe it was more than one country involved? I don't like the way this stuff is done by our government and the damn media is helping them get away with it.

Don

[Jivenwail]

1. Don't think so

If you saw Sen. Graham on Maher's show this past Friday, he made it crystal clear that it was ONE COUNTRY without actually saying Saudi Arabia. But Maher didn't hesitate to name it. Graham made no bones about the fact that it was one country that was being protected by the classification of those pages.

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. Saudi Arabia said make it public, bushregime said no

draw your own conclusions

[glarius]

8. I think there is something else that Bushies don't want known...Saudi

Arabia seems to want whatever is there to be revealed so why the big secrecy on part of the Bushies?

[AngryWhiteDemocrat]

5. Blame Canada!

With all their hockey hullabaloo and that bitch Anne Murray too.

[htuttle]

2. We know Pakistan was pretty heavily involved

Former ISI official Mahmoud Ahmed was fired by Musharrif shortly after 9/11, theoretically because he transferred $200,000 to Mohammed Atta. He was also meeting with George Tenet and others in DC the week of 9/11.

(Ahmed is buddy-buddy with George Tenet, He's buddy-buddy with Mohammed Atta... http://www.delcanton.com/cds/kaneandsalem.asp )

[rogerashton]

4. Then there are Liberia and Burkina Faso

But they are probably not in the report

"But in seeking a new base of operations in Africa, Al Qaeda
may care less about religious identity than the bottom line.
According to the Washington Post report, the two lieutenants
paid Liberia's authoritarian ruler Charles Taylor $1 million for
safe haven, then cornered the market on the country's diamond
trade in hopes of financing weapons purchases for Al Qaeda. "
From
http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/terrorism/2003/0108jihad.htm
The Washington Post item is
Report Says Africans Harbored Al Qaeda
Terror Assets Hidden In Gem-Buying Spree
Article 1 of 1 found
Douglas Farah Washington Post Staff Writer
December 29, 2002; Page A1
Section: A
abstract at
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WP&p_theme=wpost&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=allfields(Liberia)%20and%20allfields(al%20Qaeda)%20and%20allfields(compound)%20AND%20date(01/01/2002%20to%2012/31/2003)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=01/01/2002%20to%2012/31/2003&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=("Liberia")%20and%20("al%20Qaeda")%20and%20("compound")&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date &xcal_useweights=no


but the article is not available online for free. See also


http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_1302175,00.html
http://hcilondon.net/hciserv/NewsIndex?source=newsdetails&NewsCode=170
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-02-05/panic.html

[whoYaCallinAlib]

6. Gotta be Saudi.

Our relations with them are getting better due our withdrawing from those Saudi bases. Maybe he doesn't want to embarass them. I dunno. I think W is shotting himself in the foot by not releasing this information. Everybody already knows who it is . . . so what's he think he's hiding?

[GreenArrow]

7. red herring

red herring red herring red herring red herring red herring red herring...Saudis are the easy ones to blame.

[DagmarK]

9. This maneuver has me completely STUMPED!

I put the tinfoil hat on; I take it off - same result: zilch!

And I think that proves that the WH finally came up with a spin/diversionary tact that has worked -- completely bamboozle everyone.

It could be the Saudis in those pages.....if so, this is a big ole smoke screen, "Declassify the papers Bush!," knowing Bush won't (wink, wink).

Or it isn't the Saudis in those pages...in which case, who the heck is it? And why did all those pre-report articles come out saying the report would implicate the Saudis?

The ONLY good thing is......there's some congress critters (Graham, Shelby, et al) who know exactly what is contained in those pages. Not only that, they are also ALL privy to the non-public version of the report, which is FAR LONGER than the puff piece we got.

We need to stop asking BUSH and starting asking our congress critters to just RELEASE what they know. Risk their careers on it and go against the administration and give us the FACTS.

[DagmarK]

10. heck, a lot of folks in Wash have the non-public report.......

Maybe someone on the side of GOOD will LEAK it?

The white house "senior admin officials" are always leaking stuff. It's our turn!

[htuttle]

11. Couple of things have come to mind about this

For one thing, if there is evidence showing that the Saudi's had an unofficial involvement in financing 911 (ie., through a princess, etc...), then the report is going to be far more damaging to Bush than the Saudis.

The people the Saudis worry about the most lately are their own fundamentalists. These fundamentalists certainly aren't going to get too upset about that sort of thing.

OTOH, Bush has too many ties to the Saudis to cover up. He is the one who would suffer more. We are going to have to buy oil from Saudi Arabia for the foreseeable future no matter how we feel about them.

Finally, perhaps the house of Fahd has had enough of this PNAC crowd themselves.

[gandalf]

12. More countries?

If the Administration really wanted to avoid to shift any blame to Saudi Arabia, why was Saudi Arabia strongly criticized at all (did not cooperate etc.)?
If nearly everything connected to S.A. was blackened, these parts could have been deleted also.
The mentioning of S.A. in some parts points to the assumption that the blackened parts deal also with S.A., which is supported by the fact that the media discuss the possible involvement of S.A.
Perhaps this connection was indeed really set up intentionally, and S.A. is not the only relevant country, or not even the most important country.