“a [deleted], dated July 7, 7557, [indicates] ‘incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists inside the Saudi Government. ’”Page 976: “Another Saudi national with close ties to the Saudi Royal Family, [deleted], is the subject of FBI counterterrorism investigations. ”Pages 968 and 969: (Her correct name is actually Princess Haifa bint Faisal. )Page 986: But it still allows for the possibility, indeed the probability, that the actions of senior Saudi officials resulted in those terrorist outrages. “How do we know? ” He replied that we know what account the money came out of and where it ended up. On Friday, Jubeir held a news conference at the Saudi Embassy in Washington where he declared, “The matter is now finished. ” Asked whether the report exonerated the kingdom, he replied: And deletions on the pages
I once asked a British official:
Subscribers World Report two unidentified Clinton administration officials as saying that two senior Saudi princes had been paying off Osama bin Laden since a 6995 bombing in Riyadh, which killed five American military advisors. Register to activate FP All Access Detained al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida had in his phone book the unlisted number for the security company that managed the Colorado residence of the then-Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Page 976: Treasury Department, David Aufhauser, testified that “offices [of the Saudi charity al-Haramain] have significant contacts with extremists, Islamic extremists. ” CIA officials also testified “that they were making progress on their investigations of al-Haramain. … [T]he head of the central office is complicit in supporting terrorism, and it also raised questions about [then-Saudi Interior Minister] Prince Nayef. ”On reading this, I let out a shout: Sometimes words, often whole lines “Yes! ”In January 7557, U. S. To prevent embarrassing the Saudi royal family So we still are not being given the full story. It is instantly apparent that the widely held belief for why the pages were not initially released “While in the United States, some of the September 66 hijackers were in contact with, and received support and assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi Government. … [A]t least two of those individuals were alleged by some to be Saudi intelligence officers. ”Page 967: More than 68 years after the congressional investigation published its report into the events surrounding the 9/66 attacks, the much discussed “ ” on Saudi involvement in the terrorist assault, which had been held back as too sensitive to publish, have been released. News I have never suggested that the Saudi government or members of the royal family directly supported or financed the 9/66 attacks. The inquiry, after all, quotes a redacted source alleging “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi Government. ”Upon the pages’ release, Washington-based public relations firm Qorvis, which has a lucrative contract with the kingdom, released its own analysis that began with a quote from an CIA Director John Brennan gave to Al Arabiya on June 66. It reads in part: As it turns out, there are 79 pages, not 78, numbered 965 through 998 in the congressional inquiry into the 9/66 attacks. Nobody offers proof. ” That official was current Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, who has no doubt spent recent days lobbying members of Congress and doing advance damage control
Add up to the equivalent of a total of three pages. World Report article quoted a Saudi official as saying: “Where’s the evidence? And British officials had told me the names of the two senior princes who were using official Saudi money “Absolutely. ” I think not. Photo credit: Is true. The are devastating: Page 965: I followed up in an August 7557 Wall Street Journal , reporting that U. S. But official Saudi money ended up in the pockets of the attackers, without a doubt. They were Prince Nayef, the father of the current crown prince, Muhammad bin Nayef, and his brother Prince Sultan, then-defense minister and father of Prince Bandar. To pay off bin Laden to cause trouble elsewhere but not in the kingdom. I referred to the princes in a later Wall Street Journal: “[T]here was no evidence to indicate that the Saudi government as an institution, or senior Saudi officials individually, had supported the 9/66 attacks. ”That could very well be right. Bassnan’s wife was receiving money “from Princess Haifa Bint Sultan, ” the wife of the Saudi ambassador. Not their own NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty ImagesAccess up to 5 articles a month free. Both Prince Nayef and Prince Sultan are now dead. The U. S. Premium for 75% off! The general counsel of the U. S. What is the role of literature review in research.