New York Times Features 28-pages as Lead Story

The battle to force disclosure of the secret 28 pages of the Congressional Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks, has reached new heights over the past 48 hours, culminating with the lead story in what is arguably the country’s leading newspaper — the New York Times. The lead, upper right-hand story in yesterday’s Times was entitled “Claims Against Saudis Cast New Light on Secret Pages of 9/11 Report.”

It begins:

Times reporter Carl Hulse (who attended the LaRouchePAC Jan. 7 Capitol Hill press conference on the 28 pages) writes that the new claims by Zacarias Moussaoui have brought renewed attention to the withheld section of the Congressional report, and then quotes Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) saying
“it is the right thing to do… Let’s put it out there,” and former Senator Bob Graham, who
“has repeatedly said that it shows Saudi Arabia was complicit in the Sept. 11 attacks.” Obama’s failure to follow through on his promise to declassify the 28 pages is highlighted by Bill Doyle, whose son was killed in the World Trade Center.

The Times then gives 9/11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow a chance to argue against disclosure. To anyone familiar with the workings of the 9/11 Commission, Zelikow comes across as a blatant liar—claiming that the Commission fully investigated the leads about the Saudis and found no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials funded Al Qaeda. In fact, Zelikow suppressed the 28-page section, firing one of its authors, who managed to access it after Zelikow had locked it up.

The Times then cites Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) saying that the Moussaoui claims could give momentum to the declassification drive; Jones reported that on Wednesday, he was approached on the House floor by members wanting to know how they can view the 28 pages.

The new chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), said he is skeptical of the value of releasing the 28 pages now, claiming that they are more of a “historical document”—a claim that was refuted by his predecessor, Sen. Graham, in the Jan. 7 press conference, when he said that they are as relevant as today’s headlines (which was at the time of the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris).

The Times notes that Democrats were much more aggressive in pushing for disclosure when George W. Bush was President, than they are now. But now, as the result of the pressure applied by the LaRouchePAC and others, the pressure on Obama and the White House is much greater than it was a week or a month ago.