Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Missed Calls: Is the NSA lying about its failure to prevent 9/11? (James Bamford) [View all]seafan
(9,387 posts)18. Senator Bob Graham was on the trail of these guys, but the FBI refused to issue subpoenas.
From some of my documentation from 2012:
Senator Bob Graham sat for an interview with Salon on Sep 8, 2004.
.....
Why do you think the White House is so intent on keeping that information from the public?
I think there are several possible reasons. One is that it did not want the public to be aware of the degree of Saudi involvement in supporting the 9/11 terrorists. Second, it was embarrassing that that support took place literally under the nose of the FBI, to the point where one of the terrorists in San Diego was living at the house of a paid FBI informant. Third, there has been a long-term special relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and that relationship has probably reached a new high under the George W. Bush administration, in part because of the long and close family relationship that the Bushes have had with the Saudi royal family.
In the book, you describe being furious with the FBI for blocking your committee's attempts to interview that paid FBI informant. You write that the panel needed the bureau to deliver a congressional subpoena to the informant because he was in the FBI's protective custody and could not be located without the bureau's cooperation. But the FBI refused to help. What happened? And what do you think the bureau was trying to hide?
We had just finished a hearing and had asked various representatives of the FBI to come into a conference room and discuss our strong interest in being able to interview the San Diego informant. It was clear that the FBI representatives were not going to voluntarily allow that to happen, and we had already prepared a subpoena, which I had in my coat pocket. I walked over to the principal representative for the FBI, Ken Wainstein, and I was approaching him with this subpoena, he clasped his hands tightly behind his back. I tried to hand him the subpoena, but he acted as if it were radioactive. Finally he said he didn't want to take the subpoena, but he would get back to us on the following Monday. Well, nobody ever got back to us. It was the only time in my senatorial experience that the FBI has refused to deliver a legally issued congressional subpoena.
Later, the FBI congressional affairs officer sent a letter to Porter Goss and me, saying, "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." What that tells me is the FBI wasn't acting on its own but had been directed by the White House not to cooperate.
.....
Why do you think the White House is so intent on keeping that information from the public?
I think there are several possible reasons. One is that it did not want the public to be aware of the degree of Saudi involvement in supporting the 9/11 terrorists. Second, it was embarrassing that that support took place literally under the nose of the FBI, to the point where one of the terrorists in San Diego was living at the house of a paid FBI informant. Third, there has been a long-term special relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and that relationship has probably reached a new high under the George W. Bush administration, in part because of the long and close family relationship that the Bushes have had with the Saudi royal family.
In the book, you describe being furious with the FBI for blocking your committee's attempts to interview that paid FBI informant. You write that the panel needed the bureau to deliver a congressional subpoena to the informant because he was in the FBI's protective custody and could not be located without the bureau's cooperation. But the FBI refused to help. What happened? And what do you think the bureau was trying to hide?
We had just finished a hearing and had asked various representatives of the FBI to come into a conference room and discuss our strong interest in being able to interview the San Diego informant. It was clear that the FBI representatives were not going to voluntarily allow that to happen, and we had already prepared a subpoena, which I had in my coat pocket. I walked over to the principal representative for the FBI, Ken Wainstein, and I was approaching him with this subpoena, he clasped his hands tightly behind his back. I tried to hand him the subpoena, but he acted as if it were radioactive. Finally he said he didn't want to take the subpoena, but he would get back to us on the following Monday. Well, nobody ever got back to us. It was the only time in my senatorial experience that the FBI has refused to deliver a legally issued congressional subpoena.
Later, the FBI congressional affairs officer sent a letter to Porter Goss and me, saying, "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." What that tells me is the FBI wasn't acting on its own but had been directed by the White House not to cooperate.
.....
And from September 9, 2011: New evidence links Saudi Arabia to 9/11 hijackers, says Bob Graham
SARASOTA Weeks after terrorists brought down the World Trade Center, FBI agents swarmed into a Sarasota gated community to investigate the mysterious disappearance of a wealthy young Saudi couple who apparently had ties to some of the hijackers.
The couple and their two children abandoned their home abruptly, just a week or so before Sept. 11, leaving behind cars, furniture and food on countertops.
According to one published report, the FBI discovered phone calls between the house and at least two of the hijackers and several other terrorism suspects stretching back a year.
Yet until a Fort Lauderdale website reported the news this week, no mention of the couple has ever appeared publicly not in the Sept. 11 commission report, nor in FBI briefings to congressional investigators, former Florida Sen. Bob Graham said Friday.
Graham called on President Barack Obama to reopen the case.
.....
The couple and their two children abandoned their home abruptly, just a week or so before Sept. 11, leaving behind cars, furniture and food on countertops.
According to one published report, the FBI discovered phone calls between the house and at least two of the hijackers and several other terrorism suspects stretching back a year.
Yet until a Fort Lauderdale website reported the news this week, no mention of the couple has ever appeared publicly not in the Sept. 11 commission report, nor in FBI briefings to congressional investigators, former Florida Sen. Bob Graham said Friday.
Graham called on President Barack Obama to reopen the case.
.....
Here is some of your related research, leveymg, that should be in this thread as well.
We've got to keep on picking at these evil threads.

Because ** and Cheney still walk free.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
75 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Missed Calls: Is the NSA lying about its failure to prevent 9/11? (James Bamford) [View all]
Octafish
Sep 2015
OP
But, you know, CIA was designed to be the "fall guy" for Presidential covert activities. Plausible
leveymg
Sep 2015
#24
President Truman didn't expect the cloak and dagger stuff when he signed it into law.
Octafish
Sep 2015
#27
Maybe in the day when the CIA answered to the President. Today, I believe it's the other way
rhett o rick
Sep 2015
#33
There were at least 2 Saudi double-agents together in San Diego: al-Midhar and Alwaki
leveymg
Sep 2015
#22
Back at you. Thank you, this would otherwise be a dark blind alley of smoke and mirrors.
leveymg
Sep 2015
#70
Here's the inside story from the FBI liaison at CIA CTC. This has some new info, below
leveymg
Sep 2015
#23
PNAC. The Bush family needed a Reichstag fire type event to jumpstart war in the ME
riderinthestorm
Sep 2015
#41
Reminds me of the English kings plundering other countries and bringing back treasures
Rosa Luxemburg
Sep 2015
#49
Senator Bob Graham was on the trail of these guys, but the FBI refused to issue subpoenas.
seafan
Sep 2015
#18
At the very least, 3000 counts of Negligent Homicide. A multi-count indictment.
leveymg
Sep 2015
#26
The fact that the same close nit group of officials and intelligence agencies 1)"failed" to prevent
GoneFishin
Sep 2015
#13
Bob Graham: FBI hindered Congress’s 9/11 inquiry, withheld reports about Sarasota Saudis
Octafish
Sep 2015
#68
Thanks for the post, seafan, it's very eye-opening. I have never seen this before and I am still
Ghost in the Machine
Sep 2015
#20