9-11 hijackers tied to Saudi government, Graham says in new book

By Frank Davies

Knight Ridder Newspapers


WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.

The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers "would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration," the Florida Democrat wrote.

And in Graham's book, "Intelligence Matters," obtained by The Miami Herald on Saturday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Graham also revealed that Gen. Tommy Franks told him on Feb. 19, 2002, just four months after the invasion of Afghanistan, that many important resources - including the Predator drone aircraft crucial to the search for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida leaders - were being shifted to prepare for a war against Iraq.

Graham recalled this conversation at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa with Franks, then head of Central Command, who was "looking troubled":

"Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan."

"Excuse me?" I asked.

"Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq," he continued.

Graham concluded: "Gen. Franks' mission - which, as a good soldier, he was loyally carrying out - was being downgraded from a war to a manhunt."

Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee from June 2001 through the buildup to the Iraq war, voted against the war resolution in October 2002 because he saw Iraq as a diversion that would hinder the fight against al-Qaida terrorism.

He oversaw the Sept. 11 investigation on Capitol Hill with Rep. Porter Goss, nominated last month to be the next CIA director. According to Graham, the FBI and the White House blocked efforts to investigate the extent of official Saudi connections to two hijackers.

Graham wrote that the staff of the congressional inquiry concluded that two Saudis in the San Diego area, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassan, who gave significant financial support to two hijackers, were working for the Saudi government.

Al-Bayoumi received a monthly allowance from a contractor for Saudi Civil Aviation that jumped from $465 to $3,700 in March 2000, after he helped Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhdar - two of the Sept. 11 hijackers - find apartments and make contacts in San Diego, just before they began pilot training.

When the staff tried to conduct interviews in that investigation, and with an FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who also helped the eventual hijackers, they were blocked by the FBI and the administration, Graham wrote.

The administration and CIA also insisted that the details about the Saudi support network that benefited two hijackers be left out of the final congressional report, Graham complained.

Bush had concluded that "a nation-state that had aided the terrorists should not be held publicly to account," Graham wrote. "It was as if the president's loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America's safety."

Saudi officials have vociferously denied any ties to the hijackers or al-Qaida plots to attack the United States.

Graham ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination and then decided not to seek reelection to the Senate this year. He has said he hopes his book will illuminate FBI and CIA failures in the war on terrorism and he also offers recommendations on ways to reform the intelligence community.

On Iraq, Graham said the administration and CIA consistently overplayed its estimates of Saddam Hussein's threat in its public statements and declassified reports, while its secret reports contained warnings that the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was not conclusive.

In October 2002, Tenet told Graham that "there were 550 sites where weapons of mass destruction were either produced or stored" in Iraq.

"It was, in short, a vivid and terrifying case for war. The problem was it did not accurately represent the classified estimate we had received just days earlier," Graham wrote. "It was two different messages, directed at two different audiences. I was outraged."

In his book, Graham is especially critical of the FBI for its inability to track al-Qaida operatives in the United States and blasts the CIA for "politicizing intelligence."

He reserves his harshest criticism for Bush.

Graham found the president had "an unforgivable level of intellectual - and even common sense - indifference" toward analyzing the comparative threats posed by Iraq and al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

When the weapons were not found, one year after the invasion of Iraq, Bush attended a black-tie dinner in Washington, Graham recalled. Bush gave a humorous speech with slides, showing him looking under White House furniture and joking, "Nope, no WMDs there."

Graham wrote: "It was one of the most offensive things I have witnessed. Having recently attended the funeral of an American soldier killed in Iraq, who left behind a young wife and two preschool-age children, I found nothing funny about a deceitful justification for war."

Here we go again.

We can believe everything Graham wrote(sour grapes?) but let's not believe anything the Swift boat veterans write.

It's obvious what you choose to believe, Bill.

Let's assume what Graham writes is correct, and the Saudi Arabian Government is our enemy.

First of all, what do you propose we do?

Military action?

OK, let's look at that.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the United States had no viable place from which to base an invasion of Saudi Arabia (take a look at a map and explain to me how you logistically support an invasion against Saudi Arabia through the bottlenecks offered by Kuwait and Qatar).

So, if you are interested in either military action or the threat of military action against Saudi Arabia having any real weight, you need to invade Iraq first.

Oh, yeah...we did that.

Now, let's look at how realistic the idea of overt military action against Saudi Arabia is. Saudi Arabia has both Mecca and Medina within its borders. Invasion of Saudi Arabia is liable to bring the entire Muslim world actively into conflict with the United States.

Instead of Indonesia being helpful in the fight against terrorism, they will be a combatant on the other side. Instead of Malaysia being helpful in the fight against terrorism, they will be a combatant on the other side. Instead of Thailand being an ally in the war on terror, they will likely choose to be neutral (out of necessity). Instead of Pakistan being an ally in the war on terror, they will be an enemy. The same will be true of a number of former Soviet states, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar, Dubai, Somalia, Sudan, etc.

The war is not on Islam. No reason to make it on Islam.

Um,... Nobody said anything about war on Saudi Arabia or Islam. The article infers that the Saudis are not exactly our friends (The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers "would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia"). Recognizing that, we should exercise care when dealing with them.

Gee, Bobbo, so the article says the obvious? So why post it?

What is the famous quote? "Governments don't have friends, they have interests"?

If it's so obvious, why bring up the war alternative? Nothing in the article suggests war, just you.

Considering that it infers that we should have gone to war with Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq, it does infer it. And it also fails in any way, shape or form to actually think through the consequences of what it does say. No real surprise there though.

I suggest that you reread Shelly's post. The only inference that we should have gone to war with Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq, is yours.

So, what do think it is suggesting? 9/11 hijackers tied to Saudi gov't and? What?

>So, what do think it is suggesting? 9/11 hijackers tied to
>Saudi gov't and? What?

That seems to be the message. And: Watch your back when dealing with Saudis.

New player:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=7&u=/nm/20040908/ts_nm/russia_school_dc_135

We already knew that. So what you are saying is that it is an article to say the obvious. And maybe to attempt to make political points?

I believe that was the obvious intent right from the start. I never indicated otherwise. Why debate over what we both agree on? 81 Newbee's comments (#15) and Shelly's response seem to say it all.

Instead of Indonesia being helpful in the fight against terrorism, they will be a combatant on the other side.

And what leads you to believe that Indonesia is being helpful in the fight against terrorism? Do some reading on the carefully orchestrated legal sham that is going to allow all the Bali bombers to walk free.

Hells Bells, the Indonesian government are terrorists themselves, why would they want to fight terrorists. Their aid and support of thugs in East Timor is being repeated in Papua. And condoned by the Australian and US governments.

---

Paul D

Paul,

The Bali Bombers will walk. And then will disappear from the face of the Earth. They were put on trial to satisfy westerners. They are released to satisfy the Indonesian people. And they will disappear to satisfy the concerns of the Indonesian government and military who don't want bombers of any sort wandering around not controlled by them.

It isn't the west. It works differently. It still works. And Indonesia is being helpful. They were directly involved in the information that led to the arrests in Thailand of Al-Queda personnel.

Hopefully you're right, and you certainly know the people better than me. But quite frankly from a purely Australian viewpoint Indonesia scares the cr@ppers out of me - far more than any Middle Eastern country. I wouldn't trust the Indonesian government as far as I could throw it.

---

Paul D

I'm not suggesting we trust them, just suggesting we not actively give them a reason to be an enemy. They are far more dangerous than the majority of the idiots in the Middle East.

I'm with Bill . About-to-be-former Senator Graham is both an idiot and a Democrat. (Hmm, I wonder if those are mutually inclusive terms!!)

Ray

>I'm with Bill . About-to-be-former Senator Graham is both an
>idiot and a Democrat. (Hmm, I wonder if those are mutually
>inclusive terms!!)
>
>Ray


So just because he is a democrat and wrote something that you disagree with, you call him an "idiot". Very intelligent OldRay. Very intelligent indeed.

It is my belief that few if any of the Arab nations want even a partially democratic state as a neighbor.I believe that MOST of them have contributed to terrorists .They also keep the palestinians in their plight to further their own interests.A lot of money including some from the USA has been sent to help, and has been siphoned off by their "leaders".They are used as shock troops in their quarrel with Isreal.I don't believe that many people believe that Saudi Arabia was not among the sponsers of terror.They may have come around too late because they are now a target.If Iraq becomes a state with a goverment that is run by the Iraqui people the rulers of other Arab countries will be, to put it bluntly,"up a creek without a paddle"Sadam was their unsung hero and they really miss him !!!!!! many of them are probably stirring the pot and encouraging the men who come to Iraq to join the fight against us.We will not go to war against Saudi Arabia .Our Industries would die without the OIL.
As for taking out Sadam I was in favor of the effort.I wish we had had the will to take out Hitler while he was still a two bit dictator .I am probably too old to see the end results BUT if Iraq eventually is a success a real peace might be possible in that neck of the woods.Unfortunately religion may get in the way !!

Thank you, John. Finally a sensible reply! You are correct on all points. Anyone too dimwitted to understand the reason I posted this thread is not worth discussing it with, and I, for one, will not.