STOP THE COVER-UP!
Exposing Saudi Role in 9/11
Key to Stopping Global Terror
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche
Jan. 10—It was a remarkable coincidence that the press conference of Bob Graham, former Senator and co-chairman of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into the events of Sept. 11, 2001, took place on the same day, Jan. 7, as the terrorist attack against the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Senator Graham, Congressmen Walter Jones and Stephen Lynch, as well as family members of the victims of the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, blamed Presidents Bush and Obama, who have kept classified an entire chapter of the Commission’s original report, for the fact that the real background of the Sept. 11 terrorism remains covered up to this day, and therefore the wave of terror has not ended. The failure to release this information continues to threaten the world, “as we saw this morning in Paris,” Senator Graham stressed. (See transcript, below.)
This press conference, which was exclusively broadcast live by larouchepac.com, will most likely mean the end of the cover-up by these two American administrations. The Joint Congressional Inquiry worked for a whole year, from 2001 to 2002, interviewing hundreds of people, studying tens of thousands of documents, and finally releasing an official, comprehensive 800-page report. The fact that its former co-chairman appeared personally before the press was itself a sensation, the more so because he blamed the classification of the 28 pages of this report for the fact that terrorist attacks such as that in Paris could occur. The widespread coverage in the American and various international media, the reposting of the recording of the press conference on many websites in several countries, as well as the attention given to it by national and international parliamentarians and experts, should ensure that this scandal can no longer be swept under the rug.
Terrorism in Paris
What is the relationship of those 28 pages to the attack in Paris? Is this heinous act really correctly described as an “assault on the freedom of expression and freedom of the press, which nothing can justify,” as Chancellor Angela Merkel immediately declared?
Previous investigations had shown that all three assassins were recruited to al-Qaeda by Djamel Beghai, alias “Abu Hamza,” who in turn was involved with jihadist networks operating out of mosques in London, including the Finsbury Park Mosque, where the real Abu Hamza was the imam for years, and whose name Djamel Beghai adopted as a pseudonym.
The real Abu Hamza had been extradited to the United States in 2012, and is on trial there for terrorism and recruitment of terrorists. His main defense has been that he was working simultaneously for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and also for the British MI5 intelligence service. Abu Hamza, whose real name is Mustafa Kamel Mustafa, was sentenced on Jan. 9 by a New York court to life imprisonment for his involvement in several terrorist actions.
The two main perpetrators of the attack on the satirical magazine in Paris, Said and Chérif Kouachi, had been under observation of the French and other Western intelligence services for quite some time. Chérif had been sentenced in 2008 to three years in prison, and both brothers had returned in the Summer of 2014 from Syria, where they were most likely fighting on the side of the so-called rebels against the Assad government. In other words, they participated in a war sanctioned by the United States, NATO, and France, whose protagonists were armed by the French government among others, as President François Hollande mentioned in August 2014.
Playing the ‘Islamic Card’
The West’s involvement with terrorist groups in the Middle East did not begin with the war against Assad. At least since Zbigniew Brzezinski proposed in 1975, at a meeting of the Trilateral Commission in Tokyo, playing the “Islamic card” against the Soviet Union, the West has had a hand in the activities of various factions. These include the mujahideen in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and today ISIS—groups which, depending on the circumstances, we have either been fighting or, at the next moment, proclaiming them “moderate rebels,” we have been equipping with weapons, and deploying them against Qaddafi, Assad, or other disagreeable opponents.
The U.S. House Select Committee on the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012, where Ambassador Stevens and three other people were killed, is still grappling with the results of this policy. The committee is headed by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.). It is expected that in the Spring or Summer, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice, among others, will be summoned by the Committee to discuss the instructions given to Rice by Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes, telling her to lie about the circumstances surrounding the attack.
In the Jan. 7 press conference, Senator Graham trenchantly pointed to the role of Saudi Arabia, whose support for Wahhabism, the most extreme form of Islam, is encouraged by the continued classification of the 28 pages of the report on 9/11. Support and financing for these terrorist groups has increased all over the world: Al-Qaeda was a creation of Saudi Arabia, as were regional groups such as al-Shabaab and ISIS, which is only the most recent of such creations. Anyone who assumes that the problem would be solved by smashing ISIS is naive. “The consequences of our passivity to Saudi Arabia have been that we have tolerated this succession of institutions—violent, extreme, extremely hurtful to the region of the Middle East, and a threat to the world, as we saw this morning in Paris,” said Graham.
Highly placed sources in France as well as in the United States, who have access to privileged information due to their position, are united in their assessment that the attacks in Paris were not only intended to destabilize France, but also as a shot across the bow to President Hollande, who has recently incurred the wrath of certain Anglo-American circles for calling for de-escalation toward Russia and an early end to the sanctions.
Is it therefore justified to speak only of “an attack on freedom of expression and freedom of the press,” for which “radical Islam” is broadly and solely responsible? Or will this “representation” itself, as it is now so elegantly described, provide a plausible explanation, while actually sailing under a false flag? Of course there is “Islamic extremism” here, but it serves a political agenda.
Yatsenyuk and Operation Gladio
It is interesting in this context, that Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk (known to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland as “Yats”), in an interview with Germany’s ARD TV, could claim—without being contradicted—that everyone remembers how the Soviet Union “invaded” Germany and Ukraine. When Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov asked the German Foreign Ministry for an explanation of Yatsenyuk’s extremist statements, the reply he received was that the German government had no comment. But Berlin would certainly not call into question German responsibility for the deaths of Soviet citizens during the Second World War. If one wanted to interpret this reply favorably, the best one could suggest is that the Foreign Ministry should win the Nobel Prize for walking on eggshells.
Closer to reality, however, would be to illuminate NATO’s Operation Gladio, where so-called “stay-behind networks” were maintained during the Cold War in the event of war with the Soviet Union, networks comprised of former Nazis, anti-Communists, and—in the case of Ukraine—the networks of Stepan Bandera. The control of these networks by the CIA, MI6, and the BND is well documented.
Seventy years after the end of the Second World War, some people obviously still have the same perspective, according to the motto: “My scoundrels are good scoundrels, but your scoundrels are criminals.” This double standard in the approach of the oh-so-liberal and democratic West is painfully obvious.
Thus the Chinese publication Global Times noted that when it comes to terrorism in Paris, the West demands the right to unrestricted solidarity. But when it comes to terrorism against China, the West dismisses this as a Chinese “assertion” (with the implication that terrorism is a legitimate protest against the Chinese government).
And Konstantin Kosachev, head of the Russian Federation Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote on his blog:
“When Islamic militants are killing in Paris, while Ukrainian ones burn people alive in Odessa, the reaction of Europe should be the same.... Will [the Europeans] swallow this? Will the European politicians keep silent, once again pretending that nothing has happened?”
In his press conference, Senator Graham called for politics to return to the standard set by President Lincoln: that the Republic can endure only if the government tells the population the whole truth, because that is the only way citizens can have trust in their leaders. It is exactly such trust that today has been largely lost between the governments and the populations in the United States and Europe.
If the German government wants to change this situation, it should initiate an investigation into the implications of Senator Graham’s press conference, and end the outrageous cover-up of the “Yazi” coup in Kiev.
Translated from German by Susan Welsh