More than 12 years after the attacks, why would anyone be asking if the attacks were an act of terrorism or an act of war? The answer lays in our government’s penchant for keeping information from the public in the name of national security. Some of us wonder about how often the government uses its power to classify information as top secret to cover up the embarrassment of an agency or of high level individuals inside our government. Parts of the investigation into the Bay of Pigs fiasco are still classified. Much of the investigation into the assassination of President John Kennedy is still classified. And, more than twelve years after the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, much of that investigation is still classified.
After the attacks of 9/11, the public was told that the attacks were perpetrated by a terrorist group known as al Qaeda acting alone without any support from a foreign government. As a result, we ourselves a perpetual “War on Terror”, we have the unpatriotic Patriot Act, and an all-powerful Homeland Security Agency and more.
Were there evidence that the attackers were supported by a foreign state, the attacks would not have been classified as an act of terror; but as an act of war.
Paul Sperry, a Hoover Institute fellow, recently had this article published at the New York Post, in which he details why he believes there may be a cover-up going by our government over the role played in these muderous attacks by Saudi Arabia.
Following the attacks. there was a “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.” Speers reports that very few members of Congress have read the heavily redacted report, let alone the part redact, which includes 28 blank pages “inexplicably censored ” by President George Bush. Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) recently read the redacted version of the report and said they were “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks. They, of course, can not mention the name of the state involved; but they are proposing that “Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report.”
Speery reports that some information based on CIA and FBI documents has leaked out that points a Saudi Arabia. We shouldn’t be surprised by that since 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Using this leaked information, Speery names certain Saudi intelligence officers and certain members of Saudi consulates in Los Angles and San Diego who received some of the hijackers and provided them with rooms, rent and phones. These hijackers were introduced to an American Muslim cleric by the name of Anwar al-Awlaki. Sound familiar? Later, Speery reports that Awlaki and these hijackers would show up in Falls Church, Virginia:
FALLS CHURCH, VA.: In 2001, Awlaki and the San Diego hijackers turned up together again — this time at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a Pentagon-area mosque built with funds from the Saudi Embassy. Awlaki was recruited 3,000 miles away to head the mosque. As its imam, Awlaki helped the hijackers, who showed up at his doorstep as if on cue. He tasked a handler to help them acquire apartments and IDs before they attacked the Pentagon.
Awlaki worked closely with the Saudi Embassy. He lectured at a Saudi Islamic think tank in Merrifield, Va., chaired by Bandar. Saudi travel itinerary documents I’ve obtained show he also served as the official imam on Saudi Embassy-sponsored trips to Mecca and tours of Saudi holy sites.
Most suspiciously, though, Awlaki fled the United States on a Saudi jet about a year after 9/11.
Speery, also, implies that then Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bandar, may have had a hand in this treachery:
WASHINGTON: Then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar and his wife sent checks totaling some $130,000 to Bassnan while he was handling the hijackers. Though the Bandars claim the checks were “welfare” for Bassnan’s supposedly ill wife, the money nonetheless made its way into the hijackers’ hands.
Other al Qaeda funding was traced back to Bandar and his embassy — so much so that by 2004 Riggs Bank of Washington had dropped the Saudis as a client.
The next year, as a number of embassy employees popped up in terror probes, Riyadh recalled Bandar.
There is much more in this article is worth your time to read.
So, was 9/11 a terrorist attack or an act of war? Unless the resolution proposed by Congressmen Jones and Lynch gets overwhelming public pressure for the release of the investigation report, we, the public, will continue to be treated like mushrooms. One has to wonder, if the Congressmen were “absolutely shocked” by what they read in the redacted version of the report, what would have been their reaction to a unredacted report?
I agree with Paul Speery when he wrote:
Astonishing as that sounds, few lawmakers in fact have bothered to read the classified section of arguably the most important investigation in US history.
Their findings must be released, even if they forever change US-Saudi relations…
Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?