I'm sure if you asked SeventhSon you'd get a different answer.
Yes, indeed, Graham and Rep. Goss were in Pakistan "shortly before 9/11." They were trying to get bin Ladin extradited. The Taliban said they would not hand him over, and Musharraf said he couldn't do anything about it.
It isn't a big surprise to anyone that the ISI was hand-in-glove with the Taliban. I can remember right after 9/11, that when Musharraf made his decision to "support" the U.S., he got rid of all the top ISI guys =because= they had been giving material support to the Taliban and by extension to bin Laden. It was a coup within a coup, a Very Big Deal in Pakistan.
It's possible you can fault Graham and Goss for failing in their August mission. One presumes that if they'd succeeded, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened. I have no idea what kind of support they had from the administration or what sort of negotiating situation they were in. But clearly, they failed.
The only reported link I have ever seen between Ahmed and the hijackers come from this article that your journal quotes:
In the days following Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad's dismissal, a report published in the Times of India, which went virtually unnoticed by the Western media, revealed the links between Pakistan's Chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad and the presumed "ring leader" of the WTC attacks Mohamed Atta. In many regards, the Times of India report constitutes "the missing link" to an understanding of who was behind the terrorist attacks of September 11:
While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI director-general Lt-Gen Mahmoud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday <8 October>, the day the US started bombing Afghanistan], the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday , that the general lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmoud. Senior government sources have confirmed that India contributed significantly to establishing the link between the money transfer and the role played by the dismissed ISI chief. While they did not provide details, they said that Indian inputs, including Sheikh's mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link.According to this article, the information about Ahmed's connection to Atta was delivered by Indian intelligence. Note that this is in October, and at that point Musarraf sacked Ahmed.
The rest of the conspiracy theory revolves around the idea that because the CIA and ISI had been working together closely for years, therefore Graham and Goss MUST have known that Ahmed was supporting Atta. (Presuming the Indian newspaper article is true in the first place and that's why and how Ahmed got sacked. Keep in mind that India and Pakistan are bitter, bitter enemies.)
I have always been of the opinion that the 28 pages may well contain references to Pakistan as well as Saudi Arabia. They are governments which are equally steeped in connections to Islamic terrorism, carrying on a strange, schizophrenic and precarious scramble to stay in power and deal with snakes. I can easily see a man like Ahmed playing a triple or quadruple game between the Taliban, bin Laden, Musharraf and the CIA. I can also be a bit skeptical about a single article in an Indian newspaper, although I have no way to prove or discount it.
Graham has just introduced legislation which attempts to address the issues of lack of communication between intelligence agencies. He's tried to get the 9/11 report into the open (not only the 28 pages, but much that was redacted earlier). He's warned against the continuing threat from al Queda.
None of that seems to me to suggest that he's trying to cover up something. The reverse, he seems to be trying to get things out in the open. If he's hiding something, he's taking a big risk by pushing the Bush administration so hard to declassify more.
On the contrary, I think it is his deep concerns about the threats to us that made him decide to run for president.
In the Washington Post article
Changed by Terror, A Nice Guy ConvertedHe has shed his nice-guy image in his criticisms of President Bush's handling of homeland security. Graham, a former chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is angry about what he regards as failed measures to protect the nation. He charges that Bush neglected terrorist enclaves in Afghanistan in favor of war with Iraq, allowing "Osama bin Forgotten," his nickname for the architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and al Qaeda to reconstitute.
Graham was seriously considered as a running mate by Bill Clinton in 1992 and Al Gore in 2000. But he says he never had the passion to bid for the top job himself until the terrorist attacks and their aftermath gave him a reason.
"The fundamental change is the fire which has borne out in my belly, my outrage . . . the disrespect that this administration has shown to the American people," Graham said in an interview. "America has turned in a sharp and very negative direction."