Nor am I interested in insults. I believe we are on the same side. Where we differ is on the nature of the Saudi regime. There are two views. The neo-con view is that the regime is no different from Al Qaeda. Be advised there are other views. I don't always agree with Buchanan, but he is right on this one. And citing Dore Gold or any of the other neo-cons is not very convincing. But it does explain where you are coming from.
Keep in mind. In 1990 we went to war to preserve the Saudi regime. 41 was not of a mind that they were terrorists. During Reagan's presidency we worked with the Saudis to "fund the terrorists" in Afghanistan. This was a very effective tool in the war with the Soviets. But make no mistake. We were not only funding the "terrorists" in Afghanistan we were arming them! Those who are about demonizing the Saudis love to cite those efforts ... leaving out our role in the matter.
Look, we are not going to agree on this. My only request is that you consider sources other than the neo-cons. You may not want to believe it, but there are two sides to this question. You can start with Buchanan.
EOM
The Saudi regime itself spawned the greater evils there that I hinted upon in the earlier post. We used each other to defeat what we saw was a greater evil threat (Communist expansion) at the time, but the nature of the threat to our civilization had changed, and I guess if you want to leave it at that, I'll agree to disagree.