Not true. Some Saudis fund Al Qaeda.
And some Saudis fund the Baath party in Syria, to compete with the Iranian based Muslim Brotherhood, now outlawed in Syria.
The Saudi government does not want a Shia dominated country right next door. The House of Saud is afraid of losing control of the gateways to Mecca, and of being deposed.
The government of Iraq is the House of Saud. And they will fund US troops to have them stay in Iraq.So will Kuwait and the UAE. And if the Saudis pay, as a matter of an international security agreement with the Bush administration, there is not a thing the Dems could do about it. All three of these nations have the money to do so, and owe their economic largesse to the United States of America
Reagan set that example, and I am sure President Bush will follow that example rather than leave Iraq to the Iranians. Why do you think VP Cheny made that emergency trip to Riyadh about a month ago?
It would not be legal for the House of Saud to transfer money, or goods, to the US military. You can't designate your taxes to only go to Defense, and the Saudis can't designate "gifts" to the US to only go for troops in Iraq. All US expenditures must be authorized by Congress, not just appropriated by them. It's not even the same situation as with the Contras, who were a third party, whom the Saudis (or whoever) were funding, with a little coordination by Ollie North.
The Saudis could hire a pot full of Mercenaries to do the work, but they can't rent the US Department of Defense, unless Congress authorizes it.
That's not likely to happen since it's not about the money, Dems love to spend money, it's about seeing the US defeated and the Republicans kept out of power, at least Congressional power, for a generation or more.