Rand Paul, Ron Wyden to Introduce 28 Pages Resolution in Senate
By Brian McGlinchey
The growing, nonpartisan drive to declassify a 28-page finding on foreign government support of the 9/11 hijackers is about to take an enormous step forward with the introduction of a Senate resolution urging the president to release the material to the public. Dramatically compounding the issue’s visibility, the resolution is being introduced by high-profile Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul of Kentucky.
A spokesperson for Senator Paul told 28Pages.org that Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden will cosponsor the resolution, which will serve as the upper chamber’s companion to House Resolution 14. Wyden is a member of the Senate intelligence committee.
Paul will unveil the Transparency for the Families of 9/11 Victims Act at an outdoor Capitol Hill press conference on Tuesday, June 2 at 10:00 am, joined by Representatives Walter Jones (R, NC), Stephen Lynch (D, MA), Thomas Massie (R, KY) and former Democratic Senator Bob Graham.
Senator Ron Wyden
Jones, Lynch and Massie introduced H.Res.14 and have been championing the issue—and seeking like-minded senators to lead the cause in the upper chamber—since December 2013.
Aided by Graham, who co-chaired the joint congressional 9/11 inquiry that wrote the 28 pages as one chapter in a far larger report, their success in securing the leadership of Paul and Wyden represents a critical milestone for the 28 pages movement.
As Paul and Wyden seek cosponsors for the resolution, there are 11 senators whose support should—on principle, if not politics—be automatic: Patrick Leahy (VT), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Harry Reid (NV), Barbara Boxer (CA), Patty Murray (WA), Dick Durbin (IL), Jack Reed (RI), Chuck Schumer (NY), Bill Nelson (FL), Tom Carper (DE) and Maria Cantwell (WA).
What do these 11 Democrats have in common? Months after the December 2002 release of the congressional intelligence report that holds the 28 pages, each of them signed a 2003 letter to President George W. Bush protesting his decision to redact the 28 pages and urging him to release them. In part, that letter read:
Unfortunately, because all but two pages of the entire section have been deemed too secret for public disclosure, the American people remain in the dark about other countries that may have facilitated the terrorist attacks.
It has been widely reported in the press that the foreign sources referred to in this portion of the Joint Inquiry analysis reside primarily in Saudi Arabia. The decision to classify this information sends the wrong message to the American people about our nation’s anti-terror effort and makes it seem as if there will be no penalty for foreign abettors of the hijackers…Protecting the Saudi regime by eliminating any public penalty for the support given to terrorists from within its borders would be a mistake.
Among those 11 natural candidates to join the Paul-Wyden resolution, one stands out: Schumer led the 2003 letter-writing effort. At the time, he said, “The bottom line is that keeping this material classified only strengthens the theory that some in the U.S. government are hellbent on covering up for the Saudis. If we’re going to take terrorism down, that kind of behavior has got to be nipped in the bud and shedding some light on these 28 pages would start that process.”
The 28 Pages and the Ongoing Scourge of Terrorism
Calling the resolution the “Transparency for the Families of 9/11 Victims Act” is an important acknowledgement that 9/11 family members deserve to know the full circumstances of their loved ones’ murders—and to access information that could be useful in lawsuits they’ve filed against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Then again—given the broad impact of 9/11 and the ensuing “War on Terror,” 9/11 transparency is truly owed to every American citizen and to people all around the world.
Former Senator Graham and House leaders of the 28 pages movement who’ve read the 28 pages argue that their release is vital to the ongoing struggle with terrorism.
According to Graham, “the 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11 and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier.” He has also said the U.S. government’s shielding of Saudi Arabia’s role in funding extremism helped pave the way for the rise of ISIS.
The House’s Lynch made a similar point in a 2014 story written by the Boston Globe’s Bryan Bender:
(Lynch) believes the information has direct bearing on the new war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and other militant Sunni Muslim groups that are believed to be drawing some of their funding from the same Arab states that America considers key allies.
The revelations are central to understanding “the web of intrigue here and the treacherous nature of the parties we are dealing with — the terrorists and their supporters,” Lynch said in an interview.
Kentucky Republican congressman Thomas Massie, in a memorable 2014 press conference, described the experience of reading the 28 pages as “shocking” and said “I had to stop every couple of pages and…try to rearrange my understanding of history…It challenges you to rethink everything.” (Watch it here.)
9/11 family members say President Obama, on two different occasions, gave assurancesthat he would release the 28 pages. Last September, responding to a report on the 28 pages by CNN’s Jake Tapper, the White House’s National Security spokesperson said, “Earlier this summer the White House requested that (the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) review the 28 pages from the joint inquiry for declassification. ODNI is currently coordinating the required interagency review and it is ongoing.”
It takes the average adult about 28 minutes to read 28 pages, but more than 8 months after the White House statement—and almost 14 years since the September 11 attacks—the pages remain under close guard in the basement of the United States Capitol.
Brian McGlinchey is the founder and director of 28Pages.org
Help release the 28 pages: Call or write to Congress today.
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter and build the 28 pages movement.
- jkeogh's blog
- Login to post comments
Good to hear
Now both chambers of Congress will be involved, including a presidential candidate in Paul. I'd like to pin down Bernie Sanders on this as well.
And if the point is to identify individuals that aided and abetted the attacks, then we need to make it known that it's not just foreign sources. Ralph Eberhart did exactly that from his official post as NORAD commander. http://www.911truth.org/activities-general-ralph-eberhart-911-attacks/
Opportunity
The issue of the 28 pages presents an opportunity to present the fuller case of the 9/11 false flag and shift people's positions around. A limited hangout cannot be allowed to happen. Here's why I think it's useful:
1. Resistance by Obama and the govt to release the information looks bad -- it shows they have something to hide. Also, it looks very insensitive to defy the will of 9/11 families. People don't want those who sponsored the attacks (allegedly) to be let off the hook. Not releasing the pages appears to protect the guilty. Releasing the pages opens the door to all the other unanswered questions by family members.
2. If the classified pages contain information about Israeli complicity, it's a game-changer. That will shatter illusions about our greatest supposed ally in the region. If the pages pertain strictly to Saudi Arabia, the ties of these individual to the Bush administration will surface. And by extension, the ties of Bush officials to 9/11... such as Eberhart and Dick Cheney: http://www.911truth.org/911-report-testimony-altered-hide-cheney-role-pentagon-hit/
3. The very act of releasing the pages breaks a taboo of not asking questions and shows we've been misled. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan (who we invaded) are mentioned. This sets the stage for getting more of the truth. Saudi ties to patsies will only be the tip of the iceberg. People will want to know what else there is. It opens the door to all the other suspects and to demolition evidence. Besides, the story about the pages offers opportunities to present evidence.
Advantages and risks, for them
The U.S. gov. still hauls out 9/11 because it's worked so well for them, and for the policies they want to pursue. But, there are also potentially risks that if they haul it out once too often, more will recognize the official story for the broken-down contraption that it is.
Which might have something to do with the recent hit pieces--seemingly from out of the blue--on 9/11 truth activists (here I'm referring both to the Osama bookshelf baloney, and also the piece in the alleged ISIS publication that denounces 'conspiracy theorists' in language suspiciously close to that used by corporate-media 'debunkers'). They seem like preemptive strikes, launched just in case they're needed, to remind the wider public ahead of time that we are very, very, very bad people to be associated with.
I wish I could be more optimistic about people's receptivity. That depends on how many who have still bought into the OCT are prepared to see through, or look beyond, not only the major news media, but also pseudo-'alternative' media--as I do not expect the latter to be any more willing now than they have been all the countless times before to go beyond 'blowback' and incompetence theory. That is, when they're not joining in with the major media in slamming us as 'kooks.'
And, yes, demolition is important in addition to the Saudi connection--and this also isn't a bad time to bring up all the other fronts on which the OCT is vulnerable which the government and media have tried to bury: e.g., insider trading, the failure to intercept flights (and why official excuses don't hold water),* Cheney and the Office of National Preparedness, the anthrax attacks that were likewise blamed on Muslims only to be traced to a U.S. military lab, etc.
Maybe a good time also to call attention to some of the more recent publications, such as Kevin Ryan's 'Another Nineteen,' Sibel Edmonds' 'The Lone Gladio,' Graeme MacQueen's book on the anthrax attacks (if nothing else, a way to throw the 'bookshelf' meme right back in their face).
*(Note, BTW, that today is the anniversary of Rumsfeld's memo of June 1, 2001, on flight-interception protocols.)
Is Israel mentioned...
In the 28 redacted pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry’s report?
Their report talks about creating a new agency “along the lines of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in World War II, chartered with a corporate culture of taking prudent risks, and operating exclusively from non-official cover (NOC) platforms.”
In describing what this new agency should be, they praise Israel…
“This new agency should endeavor to learn from both the successes and failures of Israeli HUMINT efforts. Their aggressive tactics and inventive use of non-official covers may serve as a useful guide for this new agency. The Israelis have had notable successes in penetrating terrorist organizations and we should learn from their efforts. The new agency may also want to consider some level of partnership with the Israeli HUMINT services, in light of the amount of overlap in the terrorism and proliferation threats to both our national interests.” - [JICI Report, pgs. 622-623]
Would this report praise Israel, only to name them later as supporters of the attacks? I think that’s HIGHLY unlikely.
Bob Graham has ONLY ever talked about Saudi Arabia with one exception that I know of in 2003 on PBS, he made a statement that said there were plural Governments involved.
“I agree with what Senator Shelby said the degree to which agencies were not communicating was certainly a surprise but also I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.”
Every news report that I’m aware of about the 28 redacted pages has only ever mentioned Saudi Arabia. Here is the first report to my knowledge. Notice the title.
Have any of the politicians that have read the pages, and are on the bandwagon to get them released, ever spoken out against Israel? To my knowledge, no. Would any of our politicians speak out against Israel?
I know that Justin Raimondo and Ryan Dawson are saying that Israel is mentioned in those pages. Justin Raimondo has been doing so as far back as 2003 so far as I know. Truthfully, I suspect Ryan Dawson is riding on the coattails of the coverage the effort to get the 28 redacted pages released is getting to pimp the idea that “Israel did 9/11.”
I know that I am accused of protecting Israel, and because I'm Jewish, people have a field day with that myth. If there was any reason to suspect that Israel is mentioned in those pages, I would be the first to promote it, but I don’t see any. Those who truly are aware of my track record concerning Israel and 9/11 or Israel at all know what the truth is.
I don't even say that the allegation concerning the $100k wire transfer and Pakistan is mentioned because I have been led to believe they are not in there by Bob Graham.
Edmonds' perspective
From a few weeks ago--Boiling Frogs Post, May 6, 2015 (you can skip ahead to about 15:00, when the real discussion begins; before that is a lengthy introduction concerning the podcast's format, etc.):
http://tracesofreality.com/2015/05/06/bfp-roundtable-28-pages-the-911-smoking-gun/
Essentially, Sibel Edmonds is thinking that this has a lot to do with the proxy war in Yemen; that the Saudi rulers are waging the war only with great reluctance, and the threat to disclose the 28-pages is a way of keeping them in line.
And Pearse Redmond cautions against expecting any 'smoking gun' revelations:
'A deep-state event is designed so that there never will be ONE culprit.'
(Also, kind of humorous at 36:29--when Sibel declares, 'the U.S. created 9/11,' then starts looking around for her tin-foil hat.)
Another possibility
There are a lot of things happening quietly and behind the scenes on the currency front (but hidden from most Americans due to our derelict media and seemingly collective lack of interest). Long story short, the status of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency--what's called the petro dollar--is unravelling. Saudi Arabia has already starting selling some oil here and there that is NOT demoninated in petro dollars. Petro dollar is the ONLY reason the dollar hasn't collapsed under the weight of all the derivatives. Dollar collapse is the single largest threat to US world hegemony. The 28 pages might very well be used like a cudgel to persuade our pals in the desert not to back away from the petro dollar standard. By the way, Gold Wars by Kelly Mitchell is the best book on the global economy I've ever read.
Good point
Of related interest, by F. William Engdahl at Global Research:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-blows-itself-up-with-its-own-bomb-us-strategy-backfires/5451747
Question about Oaths?
Since Bob Graham has ALREADY spilled the beans about Saudi Arabia, (it's confirmed by him -- not a rumor) then why can't these members of Congress who've read the classified pages openly acknowledge the same? Apparently Graham has not broken a security oath. He says that he can't go into the *details* because it's classified, but that it shows Saudi Arabia funded the attacks. Everyone should want to know why we've been lied to about this -- why we protected people allegedly responsible for 9/11 and what connections exist between our government and the sponsors of the attacks. Bush/Bin Laden/House of Saud and lies about the Bin Laden raid can churn around in the can of worms.
So if naming the foreign country (s) is fine, then Jones, Lynch, Massie, Paul and Wyden should openly do that now en force.
As Joe said, I can't wait to open this CAN OF WORMS.
pressure
Production of 'redacted' knowledge [evidence] of those financing the attacks, whether limited hang-out or any other IIO ploy, allows Public examination of the the untested Commission Report assertion p.172 : “To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 911 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.”
Obviously, it was of 'practical significance.' The redaction occurred in 2002. Therefore contents were known to the Administration prior to publication of the Commission Report. Either the 'origin of the money' was found beyond Saudi-as per the language regarding 'origin', or the assertion was a known lie written into the record. Always handy to know.
This echoes in the time-line with the recent Senate Intelligence Report finding testimony drawn under torture in the black sites, used by the Zelikow Commission in the construct of Commission narrative, was 'flawed and fabricated.'
Also, in terms of the overall dissonance, MSM announcing 'Saudi financed 9/11 US attacks' automatically creates schism in any discussion with those defending the OCT.
That US 'PARTNERS' in the GWOT are the financiers of the attacks producing it in New York- and were known to be in 2002, is contradictory and immediately confusing to those arguing the government line..
Precedence...
Former Senator Mike Gravel: I Put the Pentagon Papers into Congressional Record for Public Benefit
Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution establishes an absolute free-speech right for members of Congress on the floor or in committee, even if they are disclosing classified material. It states that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/10/mike-gravel-senator-put-pentagon-papers-public-record-urges-udall-torture-re...