The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Formerly classified, 28 pages of a probe into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks are a mystery no longer. Their release 14 years after Congress made the rest of its report public was supposed to end suspicions of an official Saudi role in the horror. It did not.

Nearly 15 years has passed since terrorists weaponized four jetliners full of passengers. Two plowed into the World Trade Center’s twin towers. One hit the Pentagon. And another (headed to an unclear destination) crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. The locked-up 28 pages addressed possible ties between the Saudi royal family and government and some of the terrorists.

President George W. Bush withheld that section, arguing that its disclosure could jeopardize U.S. intelligence sources. Others say he wanted to protect U.S.-Saudi relations for a number of reasons, one being the Bush family’s close ties to the royal family.

The declassified pages dealt with part of a massive FBI investigation into the catastrophe of 9/11. They included reports that two of the hijackers had been in contact with suspected Saudi intelligence officials in San Diego. There was evidence of communications between an al-Qaida operative and a diplomat in the Saudi Embassy in Washington. That kind of thing.

Unsettling but no “smoking gun.” Much of the information, we are told, was preliminary and unvetted.

“We need to put an end to conspiracy theories and idle speculation that do nothing to shed light on the 9/11 attacks,” Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement after the 28 pages’ release.

Not so fast, responded some prominent doubters. One is former Sen. Bob Graham, who headed that same committee in 2002. “I think the linkages are so multiple and strong and reinforcing,” he recently told Yahoo News, that it’s hard not to believe that a “support network came from Saudi Arabia.”

The gun that most definitely smokes is Saudi financing of extremist Wahhabi Muslims now terrorizing and destabilizing large parts of the globe. Their hate-filled theology inspires both al-Qaida and its rival, the Islamic State.

“Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide,” then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in a 2009 cable, according to WikiLeaks. To this day, the money continues to flow into Europe, Africa and Asia.

Kosovo is a startling example. Its population had long adhered to a moderate version of Islam and viewed Americans as liberators from their Serbian foes. Then Saudi money flooded the country with mosques and radical clerics. What was a relatively easygoing European society started turning intolerant and fundamentalist.

Wahhabism authorizes the killing of Muslims who do not adhere to its strict code, never mind others. Radicalized Kosovars now intimidate and attack journalists, politicians and even old-line Muslim clerics. Many of its young are abandoning their home to fight for the Islamic State.

What once sounded outlandish — the idea that Saudi officialdom had anything to do with the Sept. 11 outrage — now seems within the realm. And that has fueled bills in Congress to let survivors of the 9/11 tragedy sue the Saudi government and others.

The Obama administration opposes such suits as a bad precedent. Its argument is a strong one, even as we understand the desire to wrest some reparation for the 9/11 tragedy.

There will never be a time to stop asking how almost 3,000 people came to be murdered on U.S. soil in a matter of hours. The declassified 28 pages may clear up some suspicions, but others remain. The questions are not going away.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at

Photo: The Tribute in Light is illuminated next to the Statue of Liberty (C), One World Trade Center and the Empire State Building (L) during events marking the 14th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York September 11, 2015. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) is under mounting criticism for refusing to support a Democratic bill that would make access to abortion the law of the land, as the U.S. Supreme Court, experts believe, prepares to reverse its historic 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Senator Collins, who repeatedly claims to be pro-choice, is being criticized after years of supporting then-President Donald Trump's judicial nominees at every level of the federal judiciary, including two of his three Supreme Court picks.

Keep reading... Show less

French President Emanuel Macron, left, and US President Joe Biden

Reprinted with permission from Creators

About France and its submarines: Australia's decision to cancel a $60 billion contract to buy them and purchase American nuclear subs instead had to hurt. In response, France's foreign minister called the U.S.-backed move a "stab in the back," and President Emmanuel Macron recalled his ambassadors from both Washington and Canberra.

The backstory should take precedence over the drama flowing from the rift between America and its oldest ally. It centers on a growing alarm at Chinese aggression in the Pacific and how seriously the U.S. and its Pacific allies are taking it.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ }}