Bob Graham speaking out about 9/11 again. Also 2 archived articles Saudi flights after 9/11

[madfloridian]

Last edited Tue Dec 17, 2013, 12:40 AM - Edit history (1)

Bob Graham has been one of the most trusted sources not just about about the Iraq War, but about his knowledge surrounding the events of 9/11. He is out and about again on this topic. I was watching this long interview at Huffpost live with Bob Graham today, December 16, 2013.

Senator Bob Graham On Bush-Saudi-9/11 Coverup

He mentions that members of some Saudi families were able to fly when other flights were grounded. I think he has been quite upset over having so much knowledge of what really happened back then....and his inability to talk about it because he is sworn to secrecy. He refers to the families trying to get answers in court and otherwise, and he has empathy with them. That part starts about 5 minutes into the video.

I saved two articles about these flights. The oldest one is from 2001 from the Tampa Tribune.

Phantom Flight From Florida

TAMPA - The twin-engine Lear jet streaked into the afternoon sky, leaving Tampa behind but revealing a glimpse of international intrigue in the aftermath of terrorist attacks on America.
The federal government says the flight never took place.

But the two armed bodyguards hired to chaperon their clients out of the state recall the 100-minute trip Sept. 13 quite vividly.

In the end, the son of a Saudi Arabian prince who is the nation's defense minister and the son of a Saudi army commander made it to Kentucky for a waiting 747 and a trip to their homeland.

The hastily arranged flight out of Raytheon Airport Services, a private hangar on the outskirts of Tampa International Airport, was anything but ordinary. It lifted off the tarmac at a time when every private plane in the nation was grounded due to safety concerns after the Sept. 11 attacks.

A spokesman for the FAA said "It's not in our logs ... it didn't occur."

There was another from the St.Pete Times (Now the Tampa Bay Times) in June 2004.

TIA now verifies flight of Saudis

TAMPA - Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left.

The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky.

The Saudis then took another flight out of the country. The two ex-officers returned to TIA a few hours later on the same plane.

For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose.

But now, at the request of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, TIA officials have confirmed that the flight did take place and have supplied details.

Bob Graham is one of my favorite persons, one who has gained my respect in so many ways. I will never forget that in 2002 he told his fellow senators that if they did not read the entire NIE, not just the sanitized version....that blood would be on their hands.

2002 Senator Bob Graham D-FL about Iraq vote. "the blood's going to be on your hands"

The Palm Beach Post link is no longer available, but I saved the text and the article.

..."On Oct. 9, 2002, Graham — the guy everyone thought of as quiet, mild-mannered, deliberate, conflict-averse — let loose on his Senate colleagues for going along with President Bush's war against Iraq.

"We are locking down on the principle that we have one evil, Saddam Hussein. He is an enormous, gargantuan force, and that's who we're going to go after," Graham said on the floor. "That, frankly, is an erroneous reading of the world. There are many evils out there, a number of which are substantially more competent, particularly in their ability to attack Americans here at home, than Iraq is likely to be in the foreseeable future."

He told his fellow senators that if they didn't recognize that going to war with Iraq without first taking out the actual terrorists would endanger Americans, "then, frankly, my friends — to use a blunt term — the blood's going to be on your hands."

It was a watershed moment. Gone was the meticulous thinker who would talk completely around and through a problem before answering a question about it...

At that same link are the words of Bill and Hillary Clinton fully supporting the Iraq invasion. Stands in contrast to Graham's blunt honesty.

[riderinthestorm]

1. Proud to be the first to K&R this, madfloridian!

Great post

[madfloridian]

3. Thank you. Michael Moore, Bob Graham.. I thank them for their honesty.

https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/412668704275451904

[sabrina 1]

55. I remember when Bob Graham's opinions on what happened after 9/11 were of the utmost importance to

Democratic voters. How quickly we forgot the lies, the fact that those who claimed not to have had enough information to vote AGAINST the war, were exposed by Graham's meticulous record keeping. The shock when some Democrats who DID HAVE ACCESS to the full NIE, as Graham revealed, stood up and voted for that war especially AFTER we learned, from Graham, that every one of them had had access to the full report, but some refused to read it so that they could later claim 'plausible deniability.

And that is why I will never support anyone who voted for that war. They did so because the actually did support it, knowing well the lies the public was being fed. And no such person should ever be in a position of power.

I will never forget that in 2002 he told his fellow senators that if they did not read the entire NIE, not just the sanitized version....that blood would be on their hands.

Yes, Sen. Graham, they do have blood on their hands, and way more than any of us could have predicted at the time.

[JCMach1]

83. Exactly... a great Democrat who should have been President

sigh...

[billhicks76]

113. Agreed...Reinvestigate 911

This should be the #1 news story. Piers Morgan was going to have a big segment on it but it got curtailed. The lawyers probably got involved and the media like CNN failed us once again.

[spanone]

2. k&r...

[madfloridian]

4. Appreciated...

Peace to you also.

[spanone]

6. important post!!!

[KamaAina]

5. The official explanation:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch10.htm

First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001.24 To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened....

Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. The issue came up in one of the many video teleconferences of the interagency group Clarke chaired, and Clarke said he approved of how the FBI was dealing with the matter when it came up for interagency discussion at his level. Clarke told us, "I asked the FBI, Dale Watson . . . to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me." Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."...

Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights. The Saudi government was advised of and agreed to the FBI's requirements that passengers be identified and checked against various databases before the flights departed. The Federal Aviation Administration representative working in the FBI operations center made sure that the FBI was aware of the flights of Saudi nationals and was able to screen the passengers before they were allowed to depart.

The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.

Of course, the Warren Commission didn't find anything, either.

[madfloridian]

14. We know nothing, we found nothing...

[KamaAina]

15. Nice post, Schultz!

[madfloridian]

16. Ha...was just going to post this snip.

[JDPriestly]

61. Some links.

Why Were Saudi Passengers Flown Out of the Country After 9-11?
by Margie Burns

Is the White House really going to pretend that five skyjackers, including the fervently devout Atta, went to Vegas--separately and together at different times--only to fit in a little gambling? And what about those Saudi Royals who were in Las Vegas on 9/11--and allowed to leave the US?

APRIL 9, 2004--Days after September 11, 2001, with commercial flights grounded throughout the United States, the Bush administration allowed select commercial jets to fly out of the country. Four manifests from these flights have been released by Craig Unger, author of the nonfiction bestseller House of Bush, House of Saud. The passenger lists are posted online.

A September 13 flight from Lexington KY to London carried 15 passengers including eight Saudis; a Las Vegas-to-Switzerland flight the next day carried seven Saudis; a "VIP flight" from New York to Paris on September 22 carried 12 passengers including four Saudis; and another Las Vegas-to-Paris VIP flight on September 24 carried 24 passengers including 11 Saudis. Some individuals who jetted away would have been "persons of interest" in any traditional investigation, and others had round-the-clock knowledge of them.

Former Clinton and Bush counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke was asked about the flights at the April 8 hearing of the 9-11 Commission. Clarke responded that "someone" in the Saudi embassy had requested that some persons be allowed to fly out and that he refused, kicking the request over to the FBI, which permitted them.

more

http://baltimorechronicle.com/040904SaudiCIA.shtml

WASHINGTON - April 4, 2004 -- Posted 07:45 ET -- TomFlocco.com -- A copy of a previously unpublished manifest, obtained late Thursday night and dated September 15, 2001, provides evidence of a private Boeing-727 Saudi flight from Lexington, Kentucky to London. But the names on the manifest raise serious questions about FBI policies and procedures related to witness identification, criminal investigations and obstruction of justice.

Ahmad A. M. Alhazmi, 20, (Saudi passport no. B805019) is listed on the manifest with Prince Sultan bin Fahad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz, 19, (Saudi passport no. 406 A), son of Saudi defense minister Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz.

The name Alhazmi and its ties to laundered Riggs Bank cashiers checks may become a subject of interest when National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice testifies later this week--especially since young Ahmad Alhazmi has the same last name as Nawaf Alhazmi, one of the terrorists identified as an alleged hijacker of American Airlines flight 77.

http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/ManifestRaisesQues.htm

The Book of Bush (Alterman and Greene) and an article by Craig Unger that I show in my records as published by the LA Times in April 2004 entitled After 9/11: the Saudis Who Slipped Away might be helpful. Unger I believe wrote things for Vanity Fair.

Here is another link. I don't know how reliable it is, but it lists flight numbers.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/9/11_flight_passenger_numbers

BUT. . . full disclosure:

The 9/11 Commission also expanded on the following points in footnotes to the section of the report quoted above:
During the morning of September 11, the FAA suspended all nonemergency air activity in the national airspace. While the national airspace was closed, decisions to allow aircraft to fly were made by the FAA working with the Department of Defense, Department of State, U.S. Secret Service, and the FBI. The Department of Transportation reopened the national airspace to U.S. carriers effective 11:00 A.M. on September 13, 2001, for flights out of or into airports that had implemented the FAA's new security requirements.

After the airspace reopened, nine chartered flights with 160 people, mostly Saudi nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. In addition, one Saudi government flight, containing the Saudi deputy defense minister and other members of an official Saudi delegation, departed Newark Airport on September 14. Every airport involved in these Saudi flights was open when the flight departed, and no inappropriate actions were taken to allow those flights to depart.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

I remember reading an item in a Tampa newspaper in 2004 discussing the flight, but I cannot find a reference to it now. Did a flight occur that was covered up? Or, did the flight occur, but after planes were generally cleared for flight in the US?

I don't know. The research I did in 2004 had me convinced that the flights occurred. I wasn't there, however, so I really don't know for sure.

[Thinkingabout]

7. One of the families flying was the bin Laden family which had very close ties with the Bush family.

The bin Laden was part of the financial backing to the Bush family. A half brother to Osama, Salem bin Laden died in a lite aircraft crash in West Texas. Lots of corruption here.

[madfloridian]

41. I had forgotten that.

Thanks for sharing. Glad Bob Graham (and even Murdoch's NY Post) are getting it in the open again.

[sabrina 1]

56. And airc, two of those who were flown out had been wanted for questioning by the FBI.

[Ace Acme]

69. W's TANG buddy James Bath brought the bin Ladens in as investors in "Arbusto", W's oil company

Bath became a director of the BCCI, Bank of Credit and Commerce International (also known as the Bank of Crooks and Criminals International) which engaged in a whole lot of terrorist finance and money laundering before it was shut down. The owner, Khalid bin Mahfouz, had to pay a couple of hundred million dollars in fines in New York State to make an indictment go away.

[Thinkingabout]

73. Yep, all friends of Bush, there is lots to these stories all leading back to Bush.

[CherokeeDem]

8. When I lived in Miami...

I was fortunate to have a friend who had known Bob Graham for many, many years, and had the pleasure to meet him at her home on social occasions.

He is a true gentleman, and statesman; a tiny bit eccentric but it is part of his charm. I have nothing but respect for him.

And that plane out of Tampa certainly did land in Lexington, KY where I live now. The Saudis own many horse farms in the area and fly their 747s here on a regular basis. I'm certain the passengers on the flight from Tampa got on a private Saudi plane here. My family who lived here at the time (I only returned in 2006) said it was common knowledge that the plane did fly into Bluegrass Field.

[madfloridian]

9. "a tiny bit eccentric, but it is part of his charm" I agree.

He always speaks carefully, always from a basis of careful research.

[NBachers]

102. I voted for him in Florida. I hoped that Kerry would choose him as a VP running mate.

Bob Graham was a huge resource that was neglected.

Maybe Graham For Anything had a point . . .

[JDPriestly]

47. You are correct, CherokeeDem. I did some research on this in 2004. You are correct.

[Skidmore]

10. This is not new news.

That Saudis, particularly the bin Laden family, were gathered up and flown out of the country was reported then and we discussed it on DU back then too.

[riderinthestorm]

11. I can't speak for madflo but I do believe she's posted it because of Micheal Moore's comments

in regards to the news story today.

As a reminder perhaps?

[madfloridian]

13. Yes, and Graham's recent interviews as well. MM is all over it at his twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/412668704275451904

Thanks, yes that is why I posted it.

[madfloridian]

12. There are posts and interviews that inspired this. No, it is not news. But it should be.

Don't you think?

Yes, I was one of the ones discussing this here back years ago. I assumed since Michael Moore (see his twitter feed) and Bob Graham were now being in the news again about this that I did not need to explain.

[Ace Acme]

75. It's news to everyone who doesn't know it.

And I bet that includes most people who rely on NPR to tell them what's going on in the world.

[madfloridian]

76. That's true.

You are right.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

24. Oh yes it is! It's BIG news. And it's going to get BIGGER. Fast, I hope. I want Bush and Cheney

in prison before Cheney's batteries are discharged.

[Skidmore]

30. My point was that this has been a known set of facts

for many years now.

[Corruption Inc]

38. Yes it has, and we've all been told to "look forward".

We get told to think a lot of things, but history doesn't change just because someone tells us not to think about it.

[sabrina 1]

94. And those of us, including Bob Graham, were all told to shut up about it. I remember thinking that

if Dems won the WH and Congress, and we sure worked hard for that, motivated mainly by the thought, foolish as it turned out to be, that finally the liars and criminals and torturers would at least be investigated. And then we were told to simply ignore those massive crimes against humanity, and just 'move forward'. But we didn't, I hope they realize that people of conscience NEVER move forward from such egregious crimes and that covering up for those crimes makes you complicit and decent people will never be complicit in such crimes.

Graham must have suffered greatly when he realized that the crimes he was aware of, were not going to be prosecuted or even investigated.

But the truth never changes, no matter how many powerful people try to protect the criminals. South America is a perfect example of criminals getting away with their murderous crimes against humanity, for half a century in some cases, but not forever because sooner or later, when you create so many, many victims, as Bush/Cheney did, justice cries out for accountability and always will.

Too bad the people we placed our trust in, decided to protect them. THAT was a blow.

[Ace Acme]

79. I was so disappointed that Justice Rehnquist died before he could be held accountable

... for Bush v. Gore.

[sabrina 1]

57. It is to many people who were not paying attention at the time.

I remember going to see Fahrenheit 9/11 several years later and meeting a guy who was in the Navy at the time. He was crying after seeing the movie, and told us he had had NO IDEA about anything he had just seen, no idea of the lies that had been told and he felt totally betrayed. I remember thinking that he had probably been better off not knowing until he was no longer on active duty.

It's been buried for too long, we should have never 'moved forward' from these massive crimes, leaving the perpetrators free to still hold the power to influence this government.

Hopefully one day in the not too distant future, they will be finally held accountable, even if it is to diminish any power they still have.

And to remind people when they go to vote, who supported all of this, knowing that it was all based on lies.

[Ace Acme]

72. Fahrenheit 9/11 Blew my Mind

I said "Wait a minute, how come I never heard about any of this on NPR?"

So I decided to confirm the claims that Moore made. It took a few months, but it all checked out.

One very telling factor was the dishonest nature of the "debunking" websites.

Also Christopher Hitchens's blustery and rather hysterical review, which started out claiming that the movie was
"The Lies of Michael Moore" but which doesn't actually identify any lies and ends up concluding "the film is so
flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point."

Not exactly Hitchens's finest hour, that.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2004/06/unfairenheit_911.3.html

[sabrina 1]

96. I lost all respect for Hitchens at that time and never read anything from him

again with any kind of trust. MM destroyed his 'arguments' point by point yet he never acknowledged how wrong he was. To me, Hitchens was nothing but a poseur, a wannabe 'brilliant' journalist, which he was not.

Moore is an American hero, he had the guts none of our so-called journalists had when he made that film out of frustration with the lack of reporting on facts that were not that hard to find obviously.

And he suffered for it. But in the end, he was right. And that is what mattered most to him.

Shame on all of those who chose to remain silent during that time, who claim to be journalists.

All Moore did in that documentary was to publish the news the Corporate Media knew, but refused to publish.

I went to Hitchens' blog during that time and was astonished at the sheer unprofessionalism, the lack of anything to back up his assertions, of his diatribes.

Shameful, and history will record the cowardice of our so-called journalists. We were listed somewhere around 47 on the annual 'free press' list at that time, and rightfully so. Americans were among the least informed about what was going on in their own government, of all the democratic countries, not to mention even third world countries, at that time. A total failure of journalism.

[Ace Acme]

97. Apparently Hitchens had an alcohol problem

... and I suppose that at some point that would bring a guy to a state of extreme subjectivity.

I do give him credit for doing the waterboarding experiment, though. He lasted fifteen seconds.
Apparently Khalid Sheikh Mohammed could go for almost 2 minutes.

[Berlum]

17. "Smirk." - xCommander AWOL Bush (R) & Intimate Buddy Bandar Bush (R)

[madfloridian]

18. More about why I remembered the articles now. Strange bedfellows...

Murdoch's NY Post backing up Michael Moore and Bob Graham. Odd indeed.

http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/12/15/murdochs-nypost-today-backs-michael-moore-bush-saudi-claims-from-fahrenheit-911/comment-page-1

"Moore must get a lot of satisfaction out of this. It’s only taken a decade for a conservative pundit writing in a conservative newspaper to endorse his movie.

Indeed, Paul Sperry’s editorial is a direct echo of a 2003 Vanity Fair story by Craig Unger, author of the book that was the underlying information for the Oscar winning movie. That book was called “House of Bush, House of Saud” and it still available for Kindle. The Vanity Fair article was called Saving the Saudis, publishing ten years ago. Here’s the link: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2003/10/saving-the-saudis-200310

Today’s piece by Sperry is shocking first because he is a conservative. But second, Sperry’s piece questions why huge portions of a Congressional report about 9/11 remain redacted– blacked out–in his piece called “Inside the Saudi Cover Up.” http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/

The story could just as easily have been called “Inside the Bush Cover Up.” It’s amazing that NY Post editor Col Allan ran it, and that Rupert Murdoch would have approved it. The Post has always mocked Michael Moore, and certainly backed George W. Bush endlessly.

...Even stranger, the NY Post via Sperry is now featuring Sen. Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida. Sperry writes: “Democrat Bob Graham, the former Florida senator who chaired the Joint Inquiry, has asked the FBI for the Sarasota case files, but can’t get a single, even heavily redacted, page released. He says it’s a “coverup.”

[CJCRANE]

63. I think Murdoch is possibly doing several things with this story:

1) Getting the story out ahead of the competition but only to a limited audience
2) Using it to rile up the tea partiers and undermine the federal government
3) Using the "fruit of the poison tree" technique where you use a compromised messenger to taint a story

So what on the surface looks like a story that goes against his interests can actually be used to achieve many of his aims.

It's a bold gambit, I hope it backfires on him.

In fact, I'm half expecting Ted Cruz to pop up again and try to make some capital out of this (but only indirectly allude to it).

[sabrina 1]

99. Or maybe even he realizes that no one is protected from the Bush/Cheney lies and crimes and

he wouldn't be the first Bush supporter who finally came to the realization that no matter how loyal you might have been when they needed it, when YOU become a victim of their policies, they are not going to be there to protect you.

Murdoch is in trouble along with his son regarding his own spying on innocent people. He may also end up in trouble here. His beloved assistant is now on trial in the UK. I know I expected him to skate on the charges, and certainly his assistant. But it looks like she at least, has been abandoned.

I have no doubt that he knew the facts, and way more than we ever knew, surrounding the 9/11 tragedy and the War in Iraq. But he was a loyal propagandist and did his job well for his bosses.

But now his operation is in trouble and for all we know he has asked for help and didn't get it.

Publishing this story right now might be his way of telling them 'I can destroy you all with what I know' if you do not exercise your powers to get me out of this'.

It would not be surprising to see something like this happen.

We were not able to do to them what an insider like Murdoch could do if they angered him enough and he's in his eighties now. He is no doubt worried about his son who is also in trouble in the UK.

But how ironic if that turned out to be the case. That what Liberals failed to do, bring the criminals to justice, was done by their very own, most trusted, propagandist, because they failed to come to his rescue.

Just speculating, but it is surprising to see him publish a story like this and there must be some reason for it.

Regardless, the facts are the facts no matter who publishes them and I hope others will dig into this and keep the story going whatever his reasons are.

[Jefferson23]

19. You may have already read this, but just in case..I think you'll find it of relevance.

The Deadly Pawns of Saudi Arabia

Last edited Tue Dec 10, 2013, 05:22 PM -
by PATRICK COCKBURN

Donors in Saudi Arabia have notoriously played a pivotal role in creating and maintaining Sunni jihadist groups over the past 30 years. But, for all the supposed determination of the United States and its allies since 9/11 to fight “the war on terror”, they have showed astonishing restraint when it comes to pressuring Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies to turn off the financial tap that keeps the jihadists in business.

Compare two US pronouncements stressing the significance of these donations and basing their conclusions on the best intelligence available to the US government. The first is in the 9/11 Commission Report which found that Osama bin Laden did not fund al-Qa’ida because from 1994 he had little money of his own but relied on his ties to wealthy Saudi individuals established during the Afghan war in the 1980s. Quoting, among other sources, a CIA analytic report dated 14 November 2002, the commission concluded that “al-Qa’ida appears to have relied on a core group of financial facilitators who raised money from a variety of donors and other fund-raisers primarily in the Gulf countries and particularly in Saudi Arabia”.

Seven years pass after the CIA report was written during which the US invades Iraq fighting, among others, the newly established Iraq franchise of al-Qa’ida, and becomes engaged in a bloody war in Afghanistan with the resurgent Taliban. American drones are fired at supposed al-Qa’ida-linked targets located everywhere from Waziristan in north-west Pakistan to the hill villages of Yemen. But during this time Washington can manage no more than a few gentle reproofs to Saudi Arabia on its promotion of fanatical and sectarian Sunni militancy outside its own borders.

Evidence for this is a fascinating telegram on “terrorist finance” from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to US embassies, dated 30 December 2009 and released by WikiLeaks the following year. She says firmly that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide”. Eight years after 9/11, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, Mrs Clinton reiterates in the same message that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups”. Saudi Arabia was most important in sustaining these groups, but it was not quite alone since “al-Qa’ida and other groups continue to exploit Kuwait both as a source of funds and as a key transit point”.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/09/the-deadly-pawns-of-saudi-arabia/

[dem in texas]

20. Article in Vanity Fair

Several years after 9-11, Vanity Fair wrote an article about Bush and the push to war. In the article it was mentioned that all the members of the Saudi royal family that were in the US were loaded on a jet and flown out of the country. That was when all planes were grounded, a day or two after 9-11. I can't remember the whole story, that part stood out to me.

[madfloridian]

25. Was it this one? Found the link in a post above.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2003/10/saving-the-saudis-200310

Great article. He is the guy who wrote House of Bush House of Saud.

http://www.amazon.com/House-Bush-Saud-Relationship-Dynasties/dp/0743253396

[BelgianMadCow]

62. House of Bush, House of Saud

is what I read after State in State of Denial. It's plain weird to finally see the truth (be allowed to) come to light on DU.

But none the less.

[alp227]

21. K&R + Wayback Machine link to 2001 Tampa Trib article "Phantom Flight from Florida"

http://web.archive.org/web/20011108145853/www.tampatrib.com/MGA3F78EFSC.html

[madfloridian]

26. I keep forgetting about the Wayback Machine.

I forgot to use it. Thanks for that.

[KoKo]

22. K&R! Thanks for furthering this!

[madfloridian]

23. Bob Graham is no conspiracy theorist. His word is like gold.

When I listened to his interview posted today, then came here and saw the Michael Moore/NY Post stuff....those articles came to mind.

I think Graham is tormented by knowing stuff he can't tell.

[KoKo]

27. There's a 4 Part interview with him, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1269438

And agree that he is so tormented about what he can't say..but Paul Jay did an incredible interview with him. It's a long watch...but, worth it!

[madfloridian]

28. Thanks for that link. He's been a busy guy this month.

[warrant46]

29. Bush the Elder, Carlisle and the CIA arranged this

Some day these skunks behind the curtain will be unmasked

[George II]

31. A couple of inconsistencies - one may be a typo....

....the post said there was a 747 waiting for them in Kentucky (Lexington) There is no airport in that city with runways long enough for a 747 to land and take off.

In one of the linked articles, the aircraft mentioned was a 727, which took the three to London. A 727 could land and take off from Bluegrass Airport in Lexington, but could only fly half the distance to London. At that time Canadian airports were closed too.

[madfloridian]

52. If you do a search on 747, bluegrass airport...

there are articles and videos showing such planes there.

[George II]

54. You're right - I just watched a video of one landing. Unbelievable since...

....that airport is so small. I guess without having 300 people on board they're much lighter.

Landing is easier (distance-wise) than taking off. I'd like to see a video of one taking off to see how close to the end of the runway they get.

[madfloridian]

58. I did see one like that.

I found it on Bing, which I seldom use....one of those sites that opened a new window without a visible way to link to it.

I also saw one that was showing a take off, but can't find it.

Here is a pic of the Sheihk of Dubai''s 747 parked there.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1035855

[George II]

64. It turns out that they fly in a couple of times a year for the Keeneland thoroughbred auctions...

....and one of the families owns a huge thoroughbred racing and breeding farm right near Bluegrass Airport.

I never would have guessed that a plane like that would be able to land there. One learns something every day.

[Holly_Hobby]

32. So.

Let's drag ALL the truth out of the dungeon. Is that stuff archived or lost for good? Skinner?

[madfloridian]

33. I figure that the Tampa Tribune, the St Pete Times, and esp Bob Graham...are the real thing.

So I posted it.

[Holly_Hobby]

44. Yes, and thank you

This info came out right after 9/11, but was relegated to the "conspiracy dungeon". I thought it would be interesting to drag that old thread out into the light. However, I don't think Graham was quite as specific as his last statements.

[Old and In the Way]

34. I was told I was full o sit about this - the bin Laden Family

and the House of Saud did fly free of constraints while the rest of us did WTF we can't go anywhere....

[madfloridian]

36. Hoping times are changing...

[Dawson Leery]

35. k/r

[madfloridian]

37. ....

Thanks for the rec and kick.

[noise]

39. What a disconnect

Government officials tell us they must have sweeping powers to prevent terrorist attacks. Yet the very same officials are covering up Saudi links to 9/11 hijackers. They have also never explained the bizarre conduct of US intelligence in regard to the very same 9/11 hijackers. By that I mean NSA, FBI and CIA officials have never explained what happened in regard to al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. Last night NSA chief Alexander once again lied about the reason the NSA failed to detect the hijackers. He claimed the failure was due to the lack of a massive data collection program. In truth the NSA had legal authorization to track the hijackers communications by using FISA. For some reason they do not do so. Nobody at the NSA has ever been honest about what happened.

[madfloridian]

46. At the end of the Graham interview, 1st link..he is very upset at the secrets he must keep.

He is almost agitated near the end of the interview. He calls on other journalism outlets to cover this issue.

[Ace Acme]

77. Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were both known al Qaeda operatives, both known to be inside the USA.

Al-Mihdhar had just returned from spending a year in a known al Qaeda communications hub in Yemen, communications of which were monitored separately by the NSA and the CIA, and which had audio bugs inside as well.

The FBI was informed about their presence, and a debate ensued about whether to initiate a limited intel investigation or a full-scale criminal one. The intel investigation was launched--one rookie FBI guy in NYC, Robert Fuller, on 8/28/01. But within a few days Fuller was on their trail. He wanted to do a credit card check. His superior, Dina Corsi, discouraged him from doing that.

Bob Woodward claims “If the FBI had done a simple credit card check on the two 9/11 hijackers who had been identified in the United States before 9/11, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, they would have found that the two men had bought 10 tickets for early morning flights for groups of other Middle Eastern men for September 11, 2001. That was knowledge that might conceivably have stopped the attacks.” (see State of Denial, p. 79-80)

[noise]

80. To date

the public has never heard from Dina Corsi or her boss Rodney Middleton. If they were interviewed by the 9/11 Commission those MFR's (interview summaries) are still classified. We have also never heard a word Rich Blee who was in charge on the CIA Bin Laden unit. Imagine if instead of arresting Soviet/Russian mole Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames the FBI and CIA covered for them or promoted them. In regard to pre-9/11 intelligence Blee, Middleton and Corsi withheld information about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar which enabled the hijackers to carry out the attack. Middleton evidently retired shortly after 9/11. Blee was promoted in 12/01 to be new chief of reopened Kabul CIA station. Corsi has been promoted more than once.

[noise]

107. OIG interviews were recently declassified

Inspector General interview summaries with Dina Corsi, Robert Fuller and Craig Donnache

[truedelphi]

40. TRUTH comes into the light, FINALLY! What a weird week this one is.

Started out with colleague saying Colbert tore a new one for that POS David Keith, on a subject I dare not mention unless in a dungeon.

Then I come to DU and another subject I dare not mention, again for fear of the dungeon, seems to be the rage today!

Yippee! Truth coming into the light.

[Berlum]

42. + 1

and R

[AzDar]

43. K & R

[madfloridian]

45. At 18:30 into Graham's interview. "Is the US now such a servile nation...that we must capitulate..

that we can't react in a way that a person of honor would do?"

He rambles a little here in his Bob Grahamish way, but he gets his point across.

The question to him was what happens if the US Saudi relationship falls apart over this issue.

Be sure to watch that whole interview. It is a combination of a good interviewer and an honest man who has real concerns about the truth.

[elleng]

48. He's a fine man,

and the first presidential hopeful for whom I contributed, for 2004. He dropped out, and I went with Wes Clark.

Met Senator Graham at Politics and Prose last year, when he visited the book store to promote paperback edition of his novel, Keys to the Kingdom.

He's clearly frustrated at his inability to share everything he knows.

[TomClash]

86. Politics and prose

Wow, that takes me back.

[elleng]

87. You've lived in DC area?

[TomClash]

88. Briefly

But I also traveled there for some campaign work and other things.

I actually thought you once worked in NY and we knew each other. But I think I was mistaken.

[elleng]

89. I was BORN in NYC,

lived there, L.I., OH, Chicago, Denver, DC and now, MD, near DC, not far from Politics and Prose.

[heaven05]

49. 9/11

the whole incident stinks to high heaven of multiple complicity by whom.....? Hell I don't know. But dr. judy woods science behind tower's collapsing is pretty compelling to me.

[madfloridian]

50. Graham's novel Keys to the Kingdom written as way to expose some knowledge...

that could not be expressed in other ways. I really had not paid attention to this novel, but the reviews at Amazon for it are amazing.

http://www.amazon.com/Keys-Kingdom-Bob-Graham/product-reviews/B006J3UPWA/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1

One of the reviews:

Keys to the Kingdom by Senator Bob Graham

This book is a frankly dismaying and terrifying look at the political intrigue surrounding our home land security.

The credentials of this author are beyond impeccable. He states that this is a novelized form of events around and after 2001's attack. 30 to 40% of the story is reputed to be factual which is why this book is so scary.

...Senator Graham has crafted a true page turner that wasn't as entertaining as it was compelling. It is a commentary on the perfidy that infects those in power, regardless of whether it is political or business power.

From the WP 2011:

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-06-24/entertainment/35233829_1_bob-graham-book-signings-beefcake

Graham started the book five years ago as a means of voicing concerns over the “unanswered questions” about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He says “about 40 percent” of the book is based on factual experiences, pulled from his time spent in the Senate, where he was privy to state secrets. He wrote about security concerns in “Intelligence Matters,” a 2004 nonfiction recounting of security problems around 9/11, what he saw as the Bush administration’s failures to respond to the crisis, and the runup to the war in Iraq. He says he was frustrated that the book wound up heavily redacted by security agencies.

After his 2005 retirement, he was lecturing at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard when Joseph S. Nye Jr., then dean of the school, suggested that a way around the impasse might be turning to fiction, as Nye had done with “The Power Game: A Washington Novel.”

Nye, now a University Distinguished Service Professor at the school, remembers the conversation.

“We talked about it a little bit. . . . In fiction you can explore some sensitive issues and extrapolate your own dreams, nightmares,” he said. “It gives you a leeway that you don’t have in prose.”

[sabrina 1]

93. Wow, what a brilliant suggestion from Nye, to get around all the redacting and cover ups, to write

it as a novel! I will have to read that, thank you for the links, MF. Very informative as usual.

[stevenleser]

51. Bob Graham is one of the good guys.

I was lucky enough to get to meet and talk with him on two occasions.

[WinstonSmith4740]

53. I have a little bit of a problem with this...

I think he has been quite upset over having so much knowledge of what really happened back then....and his inability to talk about it because he is sworn to secrecy.

He is not a priest, and this is not a confessional. Nor is he a doctor or lawyer that could claim client priveledge. He is an elected representative in a (supposedly) open society. If the evidence points to wrong doing on the part of elected officials, the American public has the right to know about it, and he has the obligation to tell us. I remember hearing here at DU and other democratic websites about how Saudis who lived here were picked up after 9/11 and flown out of the country. But these are the ONLY places I heard about it, and given the atmosphere at the time (Bush was a minor god who saved us somehow), if I tried to bring it up, the epithet of "terrorist-lover" and "traitor" were of course invoked. I personally didn't give a rat's ass about being called names, so I just gave it my best "Mona Lisa" smile and said, "Wait. It'll come out someday, and we'll talk again."

I hate to play the "just think..." game, but really. Imagine how different things may have been in this country if this had been brought out before the 2004 election.

[sabrina 1]

59. It was made known before the 2004 election. But the propaganda machine, otherwise known as the MSM

corporate owned as it is, played a huge role in diverting attention away from anything that might interfere with Bush's second theft of an election.

Maybe people forget the atmosphere we were living in back then, but to be in a position where you could reveal anything that might be a threat to the Bush/Cheney crimiinal organization, was likely to put you in a very dangerous position and that is not hyperbole.

Graham did speak out back then. He did what he could from the position he was in to try to inform the public, or to get some of his colleagues in Congress to conduct an investigation into the crimes many of US knew were in progress at the time.

He didn't get much backing from his colleagues who were either totally supportive of the lies, or too afraid to speak out. Kucinich certainly did, and he was attacked and smeared and painted as a loon, even right here on a Dem Forum.

Michael Moore made Fahrenheit 9/11 to cover all the information the Corporate Media covered up, and he too was painted as some kind of nut case, even right here on a Dem Forum.

The American people can NEVER claim they 'did not know' because the information was out there, unlike previous eras where the people actually had not access to information.

The bottom line is the American people chose to allow the 'politics of fear' to influence them and knee-jerk reacted rather than try to determine the facts for themselves, which anyone who tried, could have.

But most to blame imo, are the Democrats who voted for Bush's lies re Iraq because we KNOW as Bob Graham revealed, that they HAD ACCESS to the information they needed to decide whether we were being lied to or not. They chose not to read it so that they could claim a lack of knowledge later on.

So now it's up to the people. Will they vote for someone who, even though she knew she could access information that could have changed her vote, decided not to and voted FOR the lies or will they stand on principle and demand that our Party provide us with a candidate who does not have that stain on their record?

So far I am seeing a lot of people say they will 'hold their noses' if they have to. That makes all of them complicit in the cover up especially since they know what they are voting for.

I know I won't be supporting anyone who participated in that crime. And if everyone else refused to do so, she would not be the candidate in 2016.

[rhett o rick]

66. You say you wont support her, but the Powers To Be are very clever. They will run Attila the Hun on

the Republican Party ticket and you will "have" to vote for Ms. Clinton. You just will have to unless you write in Ralph Nader just to piss off the conservative Democrats.

[Jackpine Radical]

78. I'm getting to the point where i think tht game could be played 2 ways.

Let the Democratic Party give us a candidate whom we can in good conscience vote for,
.
.
.
or
.
.
.
Be prepared to watch us vote for a candidate of our choosing, not theirs, even if it means voting third-party and watching the Corpodem go down to defeat.

I'm sick of Good Cop Bad Cop.

[Ace Acme]

81. Howard Dean questioned the 9/11 Reports and the Voting Machines

... and he was kicked upstairs to the DLC where he could not run for office.

[rhett o rick]

82. You are not alone. During the Bush lost decade the conservatives turned the

heat up on the lower class frog to the point where he about jumped out of the pot. In 2008 the temperature was turned down to a slow boil. The frog is going to die either way. This frog would rather go out fighting.

It might be a blessing if the Republicans run Christie. He will take a lot of the new "Con-Dems" back to the Repuke Party they abandoned. This might encourage the Dem Party to run someone progressive. I doubt it. The Dem Party is completely under the control of Corp-America.

I want to ask the "we love the status quo" idiots, how they envision this ending except in total disaster. Ms. Clinton will continue the status quo and the lower classes will sink into serfdom. I guess the idiots think it cant happen to them.

As I say, if you want to defeat the Republicans, dont nominate a Republican Lite.

[BelgianMadCow]

91. but given that good conscience can, easily or less so, be manipulated by brilliant speeches

a good candidate would have to have a solid record in order to merit trust.

A democratic party kindly asking a certain Bernie Sanders to run on their ticket, maybe?

[Jackpine Radical]

104. My ONLY problem with Bernie is his age.

He will be 75 in 2016. Certainly there have been leaders that old, but the US Presidency (and even campaigning for it) is a grueling ordeal. And we really need a 2-term President to even begin righting the course. He would be 83 upon leaving office.

Nevertheless, I would welcome a Bernie Primary candidacy in 2016 as a way of opening the "Overton Window" on the left.


And I absolutely agree with you that a few speeches alone do not make for a trustworthy candidate. God knows, if he had lived up to the promise of his speeches, most of us would be trying to clone Obama.

[sabrina 1]

95. No one ever has to do anything they do not want to do. And no, I don't care if they run Atilla the

Hun. They MUST learn that we will not be manipulated, this cycle has to be broken. I will focus all my attention on CONGRESS. If we had a truly progressive Congress it would not matter if Atilla the Hun was in the WH, he would not be able to do much of anything.

And of course now is the time to let them KNOW we will not accept a candidate who was so irresponsible that she risked the lives of millions of innocent people rather than inform herself properly when the information was available to her, before she cast the most important vote of her political career, a vote that literally meant life or death for millions of people.

Anyone who BELIEVED Bush, is not fit for public office.

So, let the party know now that we want a candidate we can vote FOR or else. It would be unethical to vote for someone who cast such a vote imho and the last thing I want to be is complicit in these crimes.

[Ace Acme]

98. Hear, hear about Congress.

The Constitution provides that we can have a revolution every two years, if only we vote for it.

So what's stopping us? Personally, I think anyone who voted for the USA PATRIOT act should be removed from office in 2014.

[sabrina 1]

100. I couldn't agree more. It's way past time to start holding them accountable for their votes.

[Titonwan]

108. I enjoy your writing!

And I agree with your posts. Principle is important.

[sabrina 1]

110. Thank you, that is a very nice thing to say.

[madfloridian]

60. He often pointed out the wrongdoing.

He is not the only one who could have spoken out, not by a long shot. We were all treated like that if we ever questioned Bush at all. The atmosphere was stifling to the truth.

His nature is to honor his intelligence knowledge and take the classified nature seriously.

He would have risked legal retaliation if he had said more. Just think what might be at stake for this country when the truth finally does come out in one big blast. Wikileaks might be small in comparison. There would be questioning of all our policy in the middle east, more than questioning.

There should be that, but he is not the only one who can do it. Read my post above about his novel Keys to the Kingdom.

There be far more criticism of those who haven't even tried to tell the truth.

[madfloridian]

65. OK What's up? The Washington Times has an article about 9/11 as well. Why all of a sudden?

I won't link, but easy to find on a search. Dec. 15 date.

[Berlum]

70. E vent U all Y

[TomClash]

85. Pick a fight with the President

And he responds . . .

There are only about a million of us who have waited a long time for this day.

[sabrina 1]

101. Interesting. I will look for it. I wondered why Murdoch would be publishing this also.

My theory, and it IS just a theory is that he may be angry that his former bosses have not used their considerable power to protect him, his son and his beloved assistant who is now on trial in the UK from all these 'problems' and he is sending a message, 'you leave me and my loved ones to our own fate without lifting a hand to help us, and I can destroy you all'.

Now the Washington Times too? Very odd. But again, remember the story the Washington Times published years ago about child abuse and porn etc among Republicans, Bush Sr. airc and possible criminal behavior in the Reagan WH? Airc, they did that to get the attention of Bush Sr, to let him know the harm they could do if they chose.

I do not remember all the details now, but I know that story was discussed here on DU where I get the information.

One way to get the attention of those you feel are betraying you for all your hard work on their behalf, is to send a warning in your news media that you have information that could seriously affect them.

Just a thought, but it is odd that it should be Murdoch and the Moonie Times.

[madfloridian]

103. I remember that...

Wasn't it about Boys Town? True or not it did great harm. Don't remember details. I notice they are calling for Obama to declassify, but there was much blame for Bush.

[rhett o rick]

67. The NSA and FBI had enough intelligence data to stop 9/11. Why didnt they? nm

[Rosa Luxemburg]

92. They were probably awarded with medals

[Spitfire of ATJ]

68. I used to get into argument with Wingers claiming it had been debunked,...because Hannity said so.

[Uncle Joe]

71. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, madfloridian.

[madfloridian]

84. More than welcome.

Good to see Bob Graham talking about it again. Hard to remember a time when he hasn't been a political leader in Florida in some capacity...Florida house, Florida senate, Florida governor, US senator.

[wildbilln864]

74. k & freakiun r!

thank you Mr. Graham.

[BelgianMadCow]

90. What's a rec without a kick?

problem solved

[pjt7]

105. Thanks for the post

So where is any of this going to bring about 911 Justice?

Also, will this help expose the fact that Saudi Arabia Gov is CURRENTLY arming & supporting & brainwashing thousands of Islamists to murder others in (SYRIA)?

[sabrina 1]

106. Yes, the Saudis are arming thugs to murder people in Syria. They were involved in Libya too.

No we don't see much about their nefarious deeds in our Corporate Media.

This country has some shady allies whose crimes are overlooked.

The Saudis seem to have some kind of hold over this country.

For over six decades now we have backed all kinds of dictators, and we are still doing so while publicly condemning others for sometimes far less egregious behavior.

Maybe it's time to start a review of the entire foreign policy which doesn't appear to have benefited us much, according to people like Feinstein who claims we are in more danger than ever.

[SDjack]

109. Graham's duty is to support the Constitution and the People, not some one that he gave

an oath of silence. Come on, Bob -- do the right thing and spill your guts. That's what representative government is about.

[wildbilln864]

111. and a kick again! eom.

[blkmusclmachine]

112. Those Saudi men were flying over the US right after 9/11, looking for cheap-to-buy real estate,

courtesy of George "My Pet Goat" Bush.