https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hres428/text http://www.gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hres428ih/html/BILLS-113hres428ih.htm I certainly support this measure. More transparency with 9/11 related materials and the U.S. government in general is a good thing. I keep hoping for President Obama to fully stand by his declaration that his administration is the most transparent in history. I anticipate, however, that this motion won't come to fruition. The intelligence community is notorious for hiding information, the chair people of the so-called oversight committees vigorously defend the IC pretty much no matter what they do and President Obama has shown, over time, that his word cannot be taken at face value. But, if for some strange reason that all the stars align correctly, and this effort passes, would you welcome it?
How do they know that anything on the 28 pages are neccessary for a 'full and public understanding of events and circumstances'?
Perhaps they've been read-in? I don't know. What is evident is that information has been withheld from public consumption, and that is true too with the National Archives, F.B.I., etc. More transparency is desired.
Indeed, especially as the Government feels the need to snoop in on us post 9/11. At the very least, we deserve to know how and what the government did on that day in response to the horrific attacks.
You're basing your opinion on a wrong assumption. The government is the party that planned and carried out the attacks. Haven't you seen the proof? "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA#t=2720 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg "Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org" http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm This video does a good job of explaining the government's motives for planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa1AYlP47cI&list=PL88ADBF347A541776 Anyone who looks at the above info and still maintains that the government didn't do it should watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xzmprkpxac If the above link goes dead, do a YouTube search on, "Why Can't They See The Truth? Psychologists Help 9 11 Truth Deniers".
Obviously, however, I'm not the only American wanting more transparency out of the self-proclaimed most transparent administration in history.
http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/ Saudi Arabia. It has long been thought by many that they had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. It is time to open up the declassified portion of the report and see exactly where guilt falls.
http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/20...t-in-this-case-transparency-is-the-way-to-go/ Congressmen Lynch says transparency is the way to go on this one and that the information in the 28 pages will affect our decision making in the future.
I very much doubt the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had anything to do with it....they had too much to lose..
Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Iran, Israel - they've all ran intelligence operations inside the U.S. at one time or another, or still are to this day in the case of Russia, China and Iran. Hezbollah and al Qaeda run agents into the U.S. to this very day, as does al Shabaab. Have you ever heard the expression, "If you have diplomats you have spies,"? Everyone does that, including the U.S. Wherever the State Department breaks ground and puts an embassy, there will be spies, predominantly C.I.A. And its not like spies from embassies around the world aren't being utilized on a daily basis. They do their function. And they do it at great risk because host countries have a counterintelligence element to their intelligence community. And a part of the 9/11 narrative is that once the nineteen hijackers made it safely inside the United States, they avoided all forms of detection by our intelligence community who had honed their skills hunting Soviets during the Cold War. The hijackers learned some tradecraft while training in Afghanistan, surely, but undoubtedly, they would have required assistance once they made it inside the U.S., and that's when state-sponsorship comes into effect. Whether it was the Pakistani I.S.I. or the Saudis, there was a professional attempt to conceal the hijackers from the might of the U.S. intelligence community.
Really? Tell us more. Would you like to join the World Public Union? They are all about transparency in government. The more the merrier!
Not seeing something right in front of them The saudis have been making serious coin for year supplying us with oil,allowing our bases on their soil and generally having good business relations with us and most of our allies..the royal family is pragmatic,if anything....it just wouldn't make sense for them to kill the golden goose,so to speak.
Sure, they've made money off business deals and our presence but that doesn't mean everyone is happy about it. And in the instance of Pakistan, they've had long standing grievances with the U.S.
