Senator Bob Graham

met with Pakistani intelligence during 9/11 attacks

Senator Graham's charges of a coverup by the Bush administration about the 9/11 "intelligence failure" is what the intelligence people call a "limited hang out" (fessing up to a small crime to divert attention from the more serious, actual crime). He tried (and failed) to get political attention to promote his own candidacy for President claiming that 9/11 was an intelligence failure.

On 9/11, Senator Graham was having breakfast with the head of Pakistan's intelligence service (the ISI) -- the same official charged with wiring $100,000 to Mohammed Atta -- while the hijacked planes were flying into buildings. And he went to Pakistan just before the attacks. Perhaps one day there will be a publicly available transcript and audio or video of their discussions, it would be useful for future historians documenting the Decline and Fall of the American Empire.

I was in Pakistan two weeks ago, met with the President and other leading officials of that nation.
- Senator Graham, September 14, 2001
Was it an 'intelligence failure' to give red carpet treatment to the 'money man' behind the 9-11 terrorists, or was it simply 'routine'?
On the morning of September 11, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees.
"When the news [of the attacks on the World Trade Center] came, the two Florida lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Sen. Bob Graham and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the Pakistani official when a member of Goss' staff handed a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. "We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan," Graham said.
Tuesday, April 15, 2003 9:53 a.m. EDT
Sen. Graham Urges Possible Missile Attack on Syria
In a sharp departure from the cautious stance adopted by most in his party, Democrat presidential hopeful Sen. Bob Graham is urging the Bush administration to consider launching a missile attack on Syria.
Yes, this is the same Sen. Graham who opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom.
After a speech Saturday to Miami's Aventura Turnberry Jewish Center, Graham said that U.S. officials "ought to consider launching cruise missiles or another form of warfare on terrorist camps in Syria after giving Syria time to dismantle the camps," reported the Miami Herald.
"We should lead the international community in dealing with that issue," the presidential candidate advised.


(note: in 2004 - the "flocco" website shifted to promoting "no plane" nonsense, but this archived article is reasonable)
Graham Continues 9/11 Cover-Up Charge on Sunday Showsby Tom Flocco
May 11, 2003
(posted 21:00 ET)
In a revealing interview on Bob Schieffer's CBS-TV Sunday news show, "Face the Nation," presidential candidate and Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) persisted in his charges that the Bush Administration was covering up information about terrorist activities they knew were being carried out in the United States long before the September 11, 2001 attacks.
"This administration has probably been one of the most secretive administrations in American history. And one of the areas over which they have thrown a particularly heavy blanket has been information about terrorism, including terrorism [against] the United States," Senator Graham said.
However, for those still concerned about the real mysteries of September 11, such issues as: 1) poorly documented visas -- issued fraudulently by immigration officials failing to follow the law, 2) restrained -- even failed -- standard U.S. military air defense protocols, 3) millions of dollars in suspicious pre-attack stock market insider trading profits as yet unclaimed and unrevealed within a still-unpublicized Securities Exchange Commission 9/11 "Control List," 4) redacted presidential intelligence documents, plus other unanswered questions directly related to prior knowledge of the attacks all seem fair game -- given the explosive evidence.
Presidential candidate Graham also added that "By continuing to classify that information so that it's not available to the American people, the American people have been denied important information for their own protection; for the protection of the communities, local agencies have been denied information which would help them be more effective first responders, and the American people do not have the information upon which they can hold the administration and responsible agencies accountable," the senator said. "I call that a cover-up."
More strangely (given the astonishing evidence), directors and subordinates of government entities such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Justice Department (DOJ) -- and current senior Bush Administration officials and cabinet members -- have not publicly testified regarding their activities, discussions and meetings in the months and days leading up to September 11.
But even if the "Independent" 9/11 Commission is, by some miracle, able to compel by subpoena the testimony of the President, his brother the Governor of Florida, and other senior officials with their subordinates, etc., there should be serious concern as to whether there is enough talent on the Commission to deliver tough, truth-seeking interrogation -- again, given the incredible prior knowledge implications leaking out in spite of administration secrecy.
Therefore, if Graham's 9/11 congressional report ultimately fails to address the real issues of September 11, some of which are enumerated above, the fact that the president's lawyers may classify it, redact it, modify it, or even withhold it from the public altogether will make little difference regarding the ascertainment of the real truth surrounding the attacks.
Numerous pundits and news people in Washington have already noted that one of the key issues in the 2004 presidential race will center around which candidate will do the best job in protecting Americans from terrorists -- a key poll issue.
Moreover, as more pieces of information continue to leak out over time, the public will be less and less likely to fall for whitewashed and redacted reports -- but especially a 9/11 Commission literally loaded with a conflicted political coterie of party operatives from both sides of the aisle, all toting a variety of hidden agendas.
"Foreign Governments Are Aiding Terrorists in the United States"
(Senator Robert Graham, CBS Face the Nation, 5-11-2003)
Graham has begun to hit on a political hot button which is propelling his name quickly and forcefully into the forefront of the daily news cycles, developing further name recognition for the Senator from Florida for those Americans who are unfamiliar with him.
In the afternoon today, John Loftus -- former federal prosecutor and current investigator for attorney Ronald Motley's lawsuit on behalf of 9/11 victim families against the Saudi government and others -- revealed additional information on Fox News related to Graham's earlier cover up charge .
"The United States government is sitting on information indicating they knew that Saudi royal family members were funding terrorists in our country long before the attacks on September 11," adding "contributors to Muslim charities in America are even taking tax deductions to fund terrorists already here in the U.S."
Asked where he was obtaining this information, Loftus said "Our investigators for the Motley firm are buying up old Al Quada computers and acquiring the information from the hard drives."
The astonishing validation in recent news reports of presidential prior knowledge that a major attack would occur against the American people on U.S. soil is only superceded by still-hidden evidence regarding the specificity of the details, how the information was obtained, and the complete list of pre-9/11 meetings and briefings recipients. This, as supposedly redacted papers were sent to the people's elected representatives -- thus far mum about that subject.
Given the Commission's conflicts of interest, probable lack of superbly talented interrogators, and "stacked deck" subpoena procedures, etc., the likelihood that 9/11's secrets will be exposed is very small.
So small, in fact, that it may be time for American citizens to force Congress to re-open the People's 9/11 case, since elected leaders are the only ones who can be held accountable by a citizen electorate for their actions -- or the lack thereof.
For if the majority of the American people ever find out that there is already enough incontrovertible evidence to indicate that so-called 9/11 negligence was really intentional, there will be hell to pay.
Moreover, all the weak congressional report redactions, executive privileges, and even Executive Order 13233 on presidential document secrecy will not prevent ultimate administration accountability.
That's why the President's lawyers are floating "executive privilege" and "classified congressional report" trial balloons.