Posted on 10/03/2001 1:49:22 AM PDT by CommiesOut
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
"To some extent the future hinges on the unresolved question of how to pass down the absolute monarchy once all 44 sons of the founder, King Abdel Aziz al-Saud, are gone."And now that the royal clan numbers roughly 7,000 princes, there are also questions about how much longer some members can treat the kingdom like their private club."
------------------------------------------from your referenced link
I am sick of hearing that someone is a "Saudi Prince" without the disclaimer that there are 7000 of them AND breeding as fast as they can.
Americans need real information now more than ever. Which news media will step up to the plate?
Another great one...this time from an absolutely impeccable source.
Also look at the date...Long before the present mess.
Here's how it looks now. It's all about oil, of course. The British established the kingdom in the 20's to protect it. But right from the beginning there was trouble because Saudi Arabia is Islam's Holiest land. Somehow a compromise was worked out.
We took over from the British after WWII and continued the policy. Everything was fine (a few bumps). The Saudis kept getting richer and we got our cheap oil.
But recently things have started to go bad. The Arab-Israeli conflict wasn't settled. Demographic and economic pressures built up. Pan-Arab fundamentalists got really strong as a result of the Afghan-Russian conflict. Probably other things too.
Osama bin Laden has become the focus of all this. He's almost certainly heavily supported by many Saudis. Everyone (except the American masses knows this). The game is they look the other way. What else can they do? Anything else would provoke an explosion. If we can catch Osama somewhere else that's ok, but not in Saudi Arabia.
It worked fine until the WTC. Now it's not fine. No American government or business person wants this to come out. It's dynamite.
But Osama does...and he'll succeed. It's too big and too obvious. Some time soon he'll make some move which will prevent deniability.
I can't prove this. It's still supposition. Maybe it's wrong.
Isn't this an antithetical statement?
A caller to FOX news mentioned a banner at the bottom of the page that said "Clinton Admin sought Bin Ladin but failed to get him due to lack of intelligence".
He asked why the banner had been removed, because he liked it and thought it was true. The ancher answered that because of limited space, sometimes the wording was a mishap or something like that. The anchor was John Gibson and he had an evil grin on his expression. Very funny.
Political Left Beginning to Finger clinton for Terrorists' Success
The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.
"The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States," said Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then.
If anything, this means it was the Louis-Freeh-led FBI that is to blame, not the Clinton White House.
For truth.
That is exactly my take on the Washington Post article. Mostly CYA with some facts thrown in.
Some of us haven't forgotten. Wonder why so many in our country have...
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.