Hiding Intelligence that Matters
Also in World
Why the Ft. Hood Massacre Is George Bush's Fault
Thom Hartmann
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz
10 Suicides a Year at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin
The Victims At Fort Hood Are Casualties of War: Why Won't the Government Count Them Among the Dead?
Aaron Glantz
Bob Graham's new book contains two explosive charges: one, Omar al-Bayoumi, a man who helped settle two of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego was really a Saudi spy; two, the White House has directed what amounts to a cover up of the intelligence failures connected to the 9/11 attacks.
If the charges sound familiar, it's because they are based on facts uncovered by the Congressional Joint Inquiry that the Florida senator co-chaired, and whose findings were released in a report in the summer of 2003. At the time, the White House refused to declassify 27 pages of that report, which allegedly dealt with financial and logistical support that some of the hijackers may have received from Saudi sources.
But Graham goes further in connecting the dots than the report in the book, which is titled "Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America's War on Terror." He claims that Omar al-Bayoumi who offered assistance to two of the 9/11 hijackers – was likely a full fledged Saudi spy:
Al-Bayoumi was a Saudi national, serving his nation as a spy. [His] responsibility was to keep an eye on Saudis in San Diego Once the future terrorists arrive in San Diego, the spy holds a dinner in their honor, introduces them to like-minded individuals, helps them procure official identification, and made the initial payments for their apartment.But for all the material included in Graham's book, he fails to prove decisively that Bayoumi had any advanced knowledge of the hijacking plot itself. Indeed, the independent 9/11 Commission, which interviewed Bayoumi in Saudi Arabia, suggests that the two 9/11 hijackers in question also suspected him of spying for the Saudis and therefore tried to keep their distance.
That spy, Omar al-Bayoumi, describes their meeting as coincidental Except that we had now discovered that al-Bayoumi wasn't just acting out of the goodness of his heart – in the five months that Khalid al-Mihdhar spent in San Diego and the ten months that Nawaf al-Hazmi spent there, al-Bayoumi's income rose in conjunction with his support for them, and that increase comes from two sources, a Saudi government contractor and a member of the Saudi royal family On September 11, America was not attacked by a nation-state, but we had just discovered that the attackers were actively supported by one, and that state was our supposed friend and ally Saudi Arabia.
The other person we wanted to talk to was the informant himself. The problem was that the FBI was extremely resistant to our request to interview him, arguing that they had already investigated him and that he was an innocent, with no knowledge of the plans of the men he had befriended. The FBI could not, however, explain a number of inconsistencies in the informant's statements, inconsistencies that our staff – not the FBI – had uncovered in reading the files. Of course, the FBI's investigation of the informant was a self-investigation, so we were skeptical of their conclusion: it might have been colored by self-interest. We kept pressing them to produce the informant. Because only the FBI knew where to find him, it was able to control our access to him.When Graham tries to give the FBI a subpoeana to deliver to the informant, the FBI refuses to pass it on. When the Congressional investigators are finally able to reach the informant's lawyer weeks later, the lawyer says that Shaikh is willing to talk only if he is granted immunity a request that the Inquiry turns down on the grounds that they did not know what information he had to offer.
At the end of the whole FBI experience, one thing was clear: we would not be hearing what the informant had to say This whole episode invited the question why the FBI was so unwilling to have us talk to their informant, or speak publicly of him We wouldn't learn until November 18, 2002 why the FBI had been so uncooperative In discussing the case of the informant, the letter [from the FBI] said, "the Administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source. Nor did the Administration agree to allow the FBI to serve a subpoena on the source." We were seeing in writing what we had suspected for some time: the White House was directing the cover-up.And here is the real target of the book's outrage: not Saudi Arabia, not the FBI, but the Bush White House itself. The administration has steadily resisted any investigation of the 9/11 attacks, what the U.S. government could have done to prevent them, and a possible Saudi relationship to some of the 9/11 hijackers, at every step along the way.
Laura Rozen reports on national security and foreign policy issues from Washington, D.C. for the American Prospect, the Washington Monthly, Tom Paine, and other media, and for her weblog, War and Piece.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »
| More Books: | ||
|
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention? Belief: A new book points out that the ancient Christians -- and even early Americans -- did not share the blind faith of today's fundamentalists. By Devilstower, Daily Kos. November 10, 2009. |
Former Wall Street Player Reveals the Inside World Behind Shady Bailouts to Bankers Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace: An interview with Prins, former managing director at Goldman Sachs, now a razor-sharp financial muckraker and author of the new book, "It Takes a Pillage." By Joshua Holland, Nomi Prins, AlterNet. October 30, 2009. |
An Atheist's Review of the Book of Genesis Illustrated by a Legendary Comics Artist Belief: This isn't Beatrix Potter here. It's more like "Dangerous Liaisons" by way of Quentin Tarantino. With tents, sand, and sheep. By Greta Christina, Greta Christina's Blog. October 24, 2009. |
Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.