• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How credible is FBI agent Robert Wright's claims?

geggy

Muse
geggy
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
598
As many of you already know about the 28 pages of Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities report that the Bush adminstration refuses to release to the public because it could very well implicate the US in their relationship with Saudi Arabia

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . Sense of the Senate on declassifying portions of
the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities
Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) The President has prevented the release to the American
public of 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence
Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks
of September 2001.
(2) The contents of the redacted pages discuss sources of
foreign support for some of the September 11th hijackers
while they were in the United States.
(3) The Administration's decision to classify this
information prevents the American people from having access
to information about the involvement of certain foreign
governments in the terrorist attacks of September 2001.
(4) The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has requested that the
President release the 28 pages.
(5) The Senate respects the need to keep information
regarding intelligence sources and methods classified, but
the Senate also recognizes that such purposes can be
accomplished through careful selective redaction of specific
words and passages, rather than effacing the section's
contents entirely.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that in light of these findings the President should
declassify the 28-page section of the Joint Inquiry into
Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the
Terrorist Attacks of September 2001 that deals with foreign
sources of support for the 9-11 hijackers, and that only
those portions of the report that would directly compromise
ongoing investigations or reveal intelligence sources and
methods should remain classified.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s102803.html
Click to expand...

FBI agent Robert Wright holds a press conference. He makes a statement that has been preapproved by the FBI. As one account puts it, "Robert Wright's story is difficult to piece together because he is on government orders to remain silent.... [T]his is in distinct contrast to the free speech and whistle-blower protections offered to Colleen Rowley, general counsel in the FBI Minneapolis office, who got her story out before the agency could silence her. Wright, a 12-year bureau veteran, has followed proper channels" but has been frustrated by limitations on what he is allowed to say (see September 11, 2001-October 2001). "The best he could do [is a] press conference in Washington, D.C., where he [tells] curious reporters that he [has] a whopper of a tale to tell, if only he could." Wright says that FBI bureaucrats "intentionally and repeatedly thwarted [his] attempts to launch a more comprehensive investigation to identify and neutralize terrorists." He also claims, "FBI management failed to take seriously the threat of terrorism in the US." [Fox News, 5/30/2002; Federal News Service, 5/30/2002; LA Weekly, 8/2/2002] Larry Klayman, a lawyer representing Wright, says at the conference that he believes one reason Wright's investigations were blocked "is because these monies were going through some very powerful US banks with some very powerful interests in the United States. These banks knew or had reason to know that these monies were laundered by terrorists. And there are very significant potential conflicts of interests in both the Clinton and Bush Administrations-with the country primarily responsible for funding these charities, mainly Saudi Arabia. We have both Clinton and Bush, and in particular this Bush Administration, who is as tight with Saudi Arabia as you can get." He also says, "Corruption is knowing when something is not being done, knowing when the American people are being left unprotected and when you make a decision not to do something to protect the American people... And you effectively allow 9/11 to occur. That is the ultimate form of government corruption-dereliction of duty. That's subject in the military to prosecution, to court martial.... Frankly, if not treason."

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=colleen+rowley&event s =on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descrip tions=on&dosearch=on
Click to expand...
 
Origin of the Funds
To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used
for the 9/11 attacks. As we have discussed above, the compelling evidence appears to
trace the bulk of the funds directly back to KSM and, possibly, Qatari, but no further.163
Available information on this subject has thus far has not been illuminating.164 According
to KSM, Bin Ladin provided 85–95 percent of the funds for the plot from his personal
wealth, with the remainder coming from general al Qaeda funds. To the extent KSM
intended to refer to wealth Bin Ladin inherited from his family or derived from any
business activity, this claim is almost certainly wrong, because Bin Ladin was not
personally financing al Qaeda during this time frame.165 Ultimately the question of the
origin of the funds is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of
funding. If a particular source of funds dried up, it could have easily tapped a different
source or diverted money from a different project to fund an attack that cost $400,000–
$500,000 over nearly two years.
We know that a small percentage of the plot funds originated in the bank account of
Shehhi, which apparently came from his military salary. Binalshibh drew on these funds
to wire approximately $10,000 to Shehhi in the United States, as well as to support his
own role in the plot to some degree. Al Qaeda does not necessarily have to completely
fund terrorist operatives. Some, like Shehhi, have means and can fund themselves, at
least in part, a factor that makes the fight on “terrorist financing” all the more difficult.

Page 147 http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_Monograph.pdf
Click to expand...

To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000-$500,000 over nearly two years.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm
Click to expand...

..
 
geggy said:
How credible are FBI agent Robert Wright's claims?
Click to expand...

Now that you have that whole "capitalization" thing out of your system, care to share your opinion on the matter, given YOU started the thread. Seems appropriate, doesn't it?

TAM:)
 
I think, based on what little information was presented, he is claiming that the FBI agent should have been able to spew whatever information he wanted under the premise of the Whistleblower Protection act.

Too bad that doesn't cover classified material.
 
Wright was taken off an investigation into Hamas' fundraising/finances in 1999. In other words, he has nothing to tell us about 9-11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom