Looking over the piece it's mainly an amalgamation of snippets that have been available for years with the addition of a 28 page redacted section of the 9/11 Commission Report some believe implicates certain nation-states in the attack. That would be the same report that called the attackers "rootless, non-state actors". Some of us have never completely bought that description.
Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan's name was dropped, suggesting his 'donations' in 2001 were material support to the west coast highjackers. So that begs the question--is/was Bandar a cigar-smoking, NFL watching, scotch drinking double agent like Ali Mohammed, or was he or the Kingdom being blackmailed by bin Laden and other associates? Neither outcome would be surprising.
Sperry claims some of his FBI contacts think Bush is a traitor for spiking their investigations into the House of Saud after the attack. That still doesn't mean the House of Saud was behind the attacks.
Actually, this section of Sperry's article stands out the most, emphasis added:
A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks. Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law.
So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”Is it "state" or perhaps "states"? They ain't saying (or they'd have to kill us). If the mystery 28 pages implicates Saudi Arabia, well just try to imagine Bush pointing the finger at the hub of Islam a few months after the attack, entirely based on circumstantial evidence linking certain monetary transactions back to Kingdom officials. The American public would have demanded an attack on the KSA, which just happens to house Mecca and Medina. Talking about a global war against Islam. Many would just not understand.
Or let's say Iran was implicated. Lots of problems there as well. Bill Clinton was once convinced they shot down TWA 800, and stood by idly after Iranian proxies killed US service personnel at Khobar Towers---in Saudi Arabia (1996). Even George Warmonger Bush didn't attack Iran despite their involvement in killing US soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan during the Iraq war.
Or how about Pakistan? AQ Khan was roaming around at the time peddling their nuclear technology to various rogue states, including a meeting with bin Laden.
And of course there's Iraq, where Saddam Hussein had never stopped fighting the "Mother of all Battles". Yes, that would be preposterous of course.
Or going for bigger fish, how about involvement from Russia or China, the latter angling to keep us our of the Gulf Region and the former trying to protect their own oil interests.
Lots of sticky diplomatic problems involved in making warlike proclamations of that nature, even now. But consider this--Obama knows everything. If there's something in the closet he could use for leverage, would he do it? Or, if there's something there that makes him look bad, would be keep it buried? Judge yourself.
In the meantime rehashing the mother of all conspiracy theories, or more recent ones, would certainly make for an excellent distraction going into the new year. Of course that itself is a conspiracy theory!