July 30, 2003
What is in those pages?
The N.Y. Times states in yesterday’s paper:
President Bush refused today to declassify a 28-page chapter of a Congressional report on the Sept. 11 attacks. He said disclosure of the deleted section, which centers on accusations about Saudi Arabia’s role in financing the hijackings, “would help the enemy” and compromise the administration’s campaign against terror.
Why would the administration on the one hand admit what the information is about and then not release the information? In the absence of facts, the public is left no choice but to either blindly take on faith the need for secrecy, or, speculate about what is being hidden.
The President said yesterday that they contain information important to national security. That may be true if Bush considers his reelection an important national security issue, which I am sure he does.
Those pages outline ties of money from the Saudi government family to Al-Queda. Why would the President want to hide the details? Simple. If it were made public, the public, including members of his own party, would clamor for cutting off trading ties to Saudi Arabia. This would end 10% of America's import of oil. Yep, it has always been about OIL.
If the U.S. were to lose 10% of its oil import, prices on gas and home heating oil this coming winter would spike. So, would the costs of manufacturing and shipping for companies and corporations. This would not be good news for the economy as the President trots down his campaign trail in January toward reelection.
Should we discontinue trade with Saudi Arabia if they supported Al-Queda? Would we be willing to suffer some financial hardship as a result? The administration's own comments indicate that such allegations are in fact, the subject matter being withheld from the public. Would we reelect this President if the economy did not rebound?
Should we reelect this President if he does not reveal what is in that 9/11 investigative report, which, the people of America, have a right to know about? Our intelligence community failed us. Will we now tolerate supporting the financiers of the 9/11 attacks with continued normal trade relations?
Posted by David R. Remer at July 30, 2003 06:41 PMThis is a game the administration is playing with the cooperation of the Saudis. The redacted material is most likely an embarrassment to both the Bushies and the Saudis. This particular game allows both to avoid facing the embarrasing facts while striking a self righteous pose. The Bush family has had their hands in the Saudi’s purse for decades. The Saudis, for their part, know plenty of Bush family history that would be embarrasing if made public.
SO, we have this strange game that is currently being played out in the press - even as no reporer is willing to point out the obvious, though inconvenient, facts.
For those who are really interested, read Robert Baer’s _Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Oil_.
Posted by: SOB at July 30, 2003 07:27 PMIt’s no stretch to think that the “enemy” Bush is referring to in his statement is the winner of the Democratic party primary. There is little reason to doubt that the information that is contained in those 28 pages would shed an ugly light on both his administration and the Saudi government.
Posted by: Ken at July 30, 2003 07:53 PMWhy don’t we just de-classify ALL of our classified sources? You know, so that the rest of the world can have a “transparent” view of Americas intelligence gathering capabilities. Leave the conspiracies to Art Bell ok?
Posted by: pete at July 30, 2003 10:41 PM“For those who are really interested, read Robert Baer’s _Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Oil_.”
Or you could try to actually think about the situation at hand by NOT reading propaganda from the left that will only fuel your ignorance.
Posted by: pete at July 30, 2003 10:43 PMI have it on good account that the “missing 28” reveal Pete is a troll. ;-)
Posted by: Robbie D at July 31, 2003 10:34 AMHa. That is good Robbie. You consistantly come up with stuff that cracks me up. :)
Posted by: pete at July 31, 2003 01:17 PMA cogent argument would be nice Pete, instead of the usual right wing left bashing which has become the trademark of many who are only able to rehearse and repeat what is taught them.
How about venturing a right wing guess as to what is in those pages? Or is blind faith in your leader all that you feel is required? No curiosity or questioning of authority required. Questioning of authority was in fact required by the founding fathers, one of them actually coined the phrase. Any idea who, Pete?
