Should we release the "28 pages" to the public?

[Doc]

I'm sure you know about the 28 pages relative to 9/11 funding. If not you must live in a cave (LINK).

To me, I'm not sure why this stuff was hidden anyway

-If the Saudi's were funding then let it be known. Screw them. If they aren't are friends I'd rather know. IMO friend don't let support people who blow up buildings but that's just me. And if it wasn't the Saudi state sponsored but rather individual within that Saudi govt then fine. I'd rather know who they were.

-As for opening the US up for litigation, fine. Let other countries sue us when we fund terrorists who hijack planes and fly them into building and kill 3,000 people. I got no problem with that.

-Finally, the government has this back asswards IMO. They work FOR the people. I'm tired of these jamokes deciding what the people should and should not know. Who are they to decide?

[suncat05]

The entire reason we became involved in Desert Shield/Desert Storm was because the Saudis were fearful of Saddam launching his next attacks south from Kuwait into Saudi Arabia. Those concerns were valid.
And yes, if the information contained in those 28 pages is not classified, then said information needs to be released. We need to know who is and is not our friends and allies. And it doesn't matter if they're involved in the Saudi government or not, we can exert enough pressure on the Saudis to get them to deal with their problem children.
Of course, right now ALL of that is sort of moot with a loser like John Kerry spearheading the deal making department. And therein lies most of this problem, because it certainly feels like our people are working for their people against our people.

[CitizenBBN]

I'll start by saying that I do in fact understand the case for withholding such information.

The reason is that there is no such thing as "The Saudi government" in the way most Americans would think of it. The country is quasi-ruled by the House of Saud, but really it's a feudal system with various fiefdoms within the government as well as the Ulema (the ruling religious Wahhabi leaders) all with their own agendas.

So you have guys who are more pro-Western, and then you have guys like the late Prince Nayef who are much more Islamist in their leanings. The Royal Family is estimated to have about 15,000 members, with about 2,000 having influence and sway and being considered the core family.

So it's possible that people "in the government" were supporting Al Queda and even using government funds for it, yet the King and the pro-western factions didn't support it.

Americans will see it as "our ally Saudi Arabia betrayed us" but it's really "factions who oppose the pro-US factions in Saudi Arabia have worked to undermine ties to the US and advance radical Islam".

it's a fine distinction for many, but it means a lot in terms of our foreign policy. We made a HUGE mistake pulling out of Pakistan in the post-80s fall of the Soviet threat in the area b/c it weakened the pro-US factions there and allowed the Taliban and Al Queda groups to expand. We did so in part b/c of actions of those anti-US factions in the first place, plus the obvious human rights issues in the region.

If this release drives us away from supporting pro-Western factions in Saudi Arabia,who are trying to lower the level of influence of the Ulema, we are only aiding our enemies and getting exactly the result they wanted.

So I'm all for Americans knowing the truth of the situation, but unfortunately few Americans will bother to understand what that information means and what it tells us about the needed direction of our foreign policy.