Government for Sale, to the Saudis [Anti-Bush Attack]

Bush administration officials and leading U.S. senators responded very differently to the news that Princess Haifa al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, had given many thousands of dollars to a person connected to two of the 9/11 suicide hijackers.

Their difference highlights a problem that needs addressing through congressional legislation; ways to prevent undue Saudi influence through the spread of its money.

Senators spoke out forthrightly and honestly on the issue raised by the princesss donations.

* Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.): "Either [the Saudis] have to change or the relationship that we have with Saudi Arabia is going to change dramatically. For too many generations, certainly years, they have pacified and accommodated themselves to the most extreme fanatical elements of Islam."

* John McCain (R-Ariz.): "The list goes on and on of Saudi failures and the central role that they have played in one way or another in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism all over the world."

* Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): "The Saudis are on all sides of every issue. We, in some ways, have had a good relationship with them over the years, and in other ways, it appears as if they're funding our enemies.

* Richard Shelby (R-Ala.): "The Saudis have got a lot of answering to do in my judgment."

The senators also criticized U.S. law enforcement's reluctance to deal with the problem of Saudi financing of terrorism. Lieberman noted, "The FBI and maybe other parts of our government have seemed to want to almost defend the Saudis, or not be as aggressive as they should be about the Saudis."

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) concurred: "It seems every time the Saudis are involved, we stop [doing a proper investigation]."

In contrast, the Bush administration offered excuses for the couple and glossed over the problems of law enforcement. Secretary of State Colin Powell poured cold water on the revelations: "I think it's unlikely that Prince Bandar or Her Royal Highness would do anything that would support terrorist activity" - a most unusual endorsement, given that the FBI is actively investigating this matter.

The State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, praised Saudi efforts to prevent the financing of terrorism as very strong, though he did concede that there is always more to be done.

The president's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, promoted the self-serving Saudi line that Osama bin Laden specifically recruited Saudi hijackers for the 9/11 attacks to "drive a wedge" between the United States and Saudi Arabia. (This idea is palpably false: That 15 out of 19 hijackers were Saudi was not a political ploy but the result of the fact, as Stephen Schwartz explains, that "Saudis are the largest national contingent by far in al Qaeda.")

[The most embarrassing display by the administration, however, came from the distaff side. Colin Powell's wife Alma and the president's mother Barbara - both of whom have a history of socializing with the princess - called Haifa al-Faisal on the telephone to express what the New York Times delicately termed their "support and sympathy."]

Why this undue solicitude for Saudi feelings? This hedging by the executive branch fits a pattern going back almost 60 years, to when President Franklin D. Roosevelt met the Saudi king in 1945.

Since then, U.S. politicians, diplomats, flag officers and lobbyists have enjoyed a cozy relationship with their counterparts on the Saudi side. The tie is premised on Americans - Democrats and Republicans alike -accommodating the kingdom's wishes and in return, being plied with substantial sums of money, either at the time or after they leave government service.

A culture of corruption, in other words, pervades the upper reaches of the White House and several departments; it does not, however, extend to Congress, perhaps because the Saudis do not understand the workings or importance of an elected body and so have not tried to buy it.

Effectively fighting the war on terror urgently requires the passing of legislation that breaks up the cozy power-money nexus in the executive branch by making sure that U.S. officials cannot tap into Saudi funds after they retire from government service.

Such laws should be high on the new Congress agenda when it convenes in January.

Saudi Arabia- Urinating Down Our Backs, And Telling US It’s Raining
By Lowell Phillips
Dec. 11, 2002

I’m a realist when it comes to foreign policy and as such have developed a certain tolerance for the distasteful deeds and repugnant characters necessary to insure our national security. This doesn’t,
however, mean that I relish thinking about them or kid myself into believing the tasks are pleasant or that the people are noble. But when they feign morality, spout indignantly and castigate the United
States from the gutter in which they dwell, cold rationalizations are a bit difficult to maintain.

We all know why it is we continued to deal with Saudi Arabia, and it is not because of any benevolent, peace loving ways. Their archaic nation sits atop an ocean of oil, and for the time being the global
economy is dependant on that subterranean opiate. No one with a grasp on reality is under any illusions that they are our allies in the classic sense of the word or that they are now, or have at anytime,
been interested in fighting terrorism directed at the west. Moreover, if there is anything that is known about Islamic terrorism, it’s that it flows from Saudi Arabia as freely as oil. This is why the recent
“poor little me” Saudi press conference has even we realpolitikers fuming and reaching for a vomit bag.

In a condescending tone that made Tom Daschle seem like a rank amateur (no simple feat), the foreign policy adviser to Crown Prince Abdullah, Adel al-Jubeir, took to the podium to decry the portrayal of
his country as “the breeding ground for terrorists.” Although the term has no doubt been applied, this isn’t actually what we believe. Unlike his own nation’s depiction of Jews and Christians, we reject
labeling people as being born bad. No, they are not bred there, they‘re manufactured with the full knowledge and backing of the Saudi Royal Family.

He complained, “Our faith has been maligned in ways that I did not expect Americans to ever do”. Really? It looks more to me like citizens of the United States have fallen all over themselves to appear
“nonjudgmental”, avoided taking reasonable precautions lest they be condemned for “profiling”, and accused each other of “hate crimes” at the mere utterance of an off-color remark or generalized
statement. Maybe I’m confused. Perhaps he expected Islam to be denigrated here in a manner more familiar to him. Perhaps he expected followers of the Qur'an, attempting to spread the word, to be
imprisoned as the believers in the Christian Bible are in his own country. Or maybe he expected the crescent moon and star, the recognized symbol of the faith of Islam, to be outlawed as Saudi’s have
done with the Star of David.

He called it “unfair” that we should continue to point out that fifteen of the nineteen Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudis and wondered,

(start blocquote) ``If, instead of 15 of the 19 hijackers, you had only two or three Saudis on the planes, does anyone in this room think that Saudi Arabia, that our people, that our faith, that our
educational system would have been subjected to this severe and outrageous criticism, which borders on hate?'' (end blocquoted)

This may indeed seem “unfair” to a spokesman for a dictatorial government that maintains tight control over its media, but we tend to value little tidbits of information like that. The question itself is
irrelevant because 15 out of 19 were indeed Saudis. But lets suppose for a moment that the numbers were less damning. Had all the perpetrators been Fijian, that wouldn’t change the fact that Saudi
Arabia finances and exports one of the most virulently anti-western strains of Islam and that they were the acknowledged benefactors of the Taliban. As for the poor misunderstood Saudi education
system, it extends across the globe to include the World Assembly of Muslim Youth and the Institute for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America which distribute texts that condemn Judaism and
Christianity as “deviant religions” and forbids the taking of Jews and Christians as friends. Their other educational endeavors have included the distribution, free of charge, of the Protocols of the
Learned Elder of Zion, a proven fraud many times over that speaks of a Jewish world conspiracy and has inspired anti-Semitic bigots, including Adolf Hitler, for a century.

Despite the exasperation, the Saudi government has done little to convince Americans that they do anything but embrace terrorism and propagate hate. During Mr. Al-Jubeir’s April appearance on “Meet
the Press” he refused to label Palestinian suicide bombers as murderers and justified his government’s telethon that raised nearly $100 million dollars to support the families of “martyrs”. There was
scarcely a reaction to western outrage when the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the UK, Ghazi Algosaibi, composed a poem honoring suicide bomber Ayat Akhras, which stated she “died to honour
God's word” and that the “doors of heaven are opened for her”.

The Royal family has spoken out of both sides of their collective face as a matter of policy. While supposedly coming to New York to grieve for the victims of 9/11, a representative cast the blame for the
tragedy on the United States. When speaking to the west they claim to be “partners” in the effort to destroy al-Qaida, but when speaking to the Muslim world they steadfastly exonerate them and instead
accuse “Zionists” for the attacks. Though ostensibly working with the U.S. in the war on terrorism, they’ve obstructed investigations into al-Qaida activities within Saudi Arabia and designed their
Regional Policies to impede our efforts to depose Saddam Hussein. By the day new information of their connections to Islamic terrorists appears in the American press, and intelligence sources at home
and abroad, indicate that Saudi money is helping move Osama bin Laden’s organization from Afghanistan to Lebanon and Gaza, thus clearing any ambiguity in its relationship with Palestinian terrorist
groups.

I’ve taken more than my fair share of shots at the inattention and generally low level of knowledge on the part of the American people, but not even Joe Six Pack is buying what the Saudis are selling.
Growing American hostility may indeed chafe them but their ridiculous claims of purity and declarations of friendship in the face of limitless evidence to the contrary isn’t helping matters. For decades
they have danced on the edge of a razor and gotten away with it because of their value as an oil-provider, but the ball may soon be ending.

Though the harsh realities of foreign policy may necessitate unappealing associations, it’s not the smartest move to continually remind us whom we’re dealing with. When recently commenting on the
subject, I placed military intervention into Saudi Arabia and the occupations of Mecca and Medina that would go along with it “way down on the list” of preferable strategies. Potentially inflaming the
whole of the Islamic world to secure access to their oilfields I considered too risky a course of action. But the more the “Royal Family” talks, the more doable the proposition becomes. I suggest they stop
kidding themselves that they have anyone fooled and enjoy their remaining time in the sun. Thanks to their duplicity and big mouths the clock is ticking.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.