The 28 Pages

On Sunday, President Obama said this about about Hillary’s email scandal: “There’s classified & then there’s classified.”

Perhaps that’s what has led him to decide, after 15 years, the 28 pages on the Saudis’ role in 9/11 can finally be released (or at least reviewed for declassification; given the way the 60 Minutes script ignored evidence about Bandar bin Sultan, I suspect they’ll still protect him).

The ostensible precipitating factor was a 60 Minutes show that, as I understand, didn’t expose anything we haven’t known for a decade (for comparison see this declaration Bob Graham submitted last year in a suit against the Saudis). But given the way 60 Minutes have become a house organ for the Intelligence Community, and given the way Nancy Pelosi had a statement (emphasizing her long role in Intelligence oversight, such as it exists) endorsing the disclosure all ready to go,

“As the former Ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and top the House Democrat on the Joint Congressional investigation looking into the 9/11 attacks, I agree with former Senator Bob Graham that these documents should be declassified and made public, and that the Bush Administration’s refusal to do so was a mistake,” Pelosi said in a statement. “I have always advocated for providing as much transparency as possible to the American people consistent with protecting our national security.”

I gotta believe this was all orchestrated.

After pretending the Saudis have been good faith partners for 15 years, in spite of abundant evidence evidence they have always continued to support terrorism as a tool in their bid for power, it seems, the Intelligence Committee has finally decided it was convenient to be able to discuss the Saudi role in 9/11.

Mind you, if the IC was really serious about discussing what bad partners the Saudis have always been, they should also declassify the other abundant evidence that the Saudis have been playing two sides with us.

But that would discomfort a good many Americans, I suspect.

10 replies
  1. Hieronymus Howard says:

    Sometimes I like to be an irritating grammarian & declaim on other people’s verb choices.  It may be that discomfort is exclusively a noun & the verb would be discomfit.  The present participle is discomfiting & the noun = discomfiture.  But I can see why you’d not want to use it as it looks & sounds archaic.
    Two minor bad string alerts:
    about about
    evidence evidence

  2. GKJames says:

    Safe to assume that Brennan, the Saudis’ water-carrier in Washington and their hit-man in Yemen, will object?

  3. bamage says:

    RE: “But that would discomfort a good many Americans, I suspect.”

    I think not very many, really. Just, you know, the very very few who actually COUNT (from their perspective).


  4. Betty says:

    The 9/11 problem is somewhat historical, but the Yeman problem is contemporary. Most Americans have no idea of the suffering going on there at the hands of the Saudis with US assistance. Very sad.

  5. Denis says:

    Marcy: “I gotta believe this was all orchestrated.”

    I gotta’ believe you’re dead on the bulls-eye there. IOW, typical Obama blather. If releasing the 28 pages is the right thing to do, why wasn’t it done in 2009?

    Bernhard over at MOA made an even more salient point: This is not freedom of information or transparency talkin’. It’s coercion.

    Whenever the White House wants something important from the Saudis it launches a campaign to declassify the 9/11 findings which would turn Saudi Arabia into a public enemy. This comes on top of the recent interview Obama gave to the Atlantic in which he questioned the U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia. The politicized Fitch rating agency just lowered Saudi credit worthiness. What does Obama want the Saudis to do?

  6. Freddy M Dillard says:

    If you have time, can you be more specific about the evidence of Bandar bin Sultan’s role in the 9/11 attacks.

  7. PeasantParty says:

    No, they will not mention Bandar. They certainly don’t want to piss him off again after the past two times. Our military will be sabatoged again and again. I also don’t think they will include all the facts against the Sauds or Israel. It is just another step at appeasement and small incremental releases to keep the masses from going postal on them. Besides, they know the banking mess is soon going to get American’s mad as hatters.

  8. wayoutwest says:

    I can’t wait for the release of these 28 pages that may embarrass the House of Saud but will probably contain no smoking gun or any proof they were involved in 9/11 directly or indirectly. The poor seekers of the truth will have to develop and spin more theories to cover the humiliation of being successfully attacked by the small independent AQ who didn’t seem to need any assistance to carry out the 9/11 attacks because of our lax security and dysfunctional intelligence bureaucracy.

    It seems many people don’t realize the ruling part of the House of Saud is quite small and are mortal enemies of AQ, OBL and now the IS while the other app. 30 Million Saudis have various allegiances with some even wanting the downfall of the HoS and some individuals and charities are financially supporting groups such as AQ and the Islamic State who plan to overthrow these hereditary secular dictators.

  9. PeasantParty says:

    Maybe the release is timed and used as a reason to expand the war on terror. I wouldn’t doubt those behind the scenes cold war freaks have that as a plan. Maybe Bennett Ratcliff, or Laney Davis know the answers. I’m sure they are still backing Clinton in campaign cash and access.

Comments are closed.