Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Former CIA director: Saudis partially to blame for 9/11
AP | 1-11-2

Posted on 01/11/2002 12:52:08 PM PST by Magician

WASHINGTON - Saudi Arabia, says former CIA Director James Woolsey, "deserves a very large part of the blame for Sept. 11. I do not think we should do anything more with them right now than be cordial."

Woolsey's is a minority view. It certainly is at odds with that of the Bush administration and of other outside experts, several of whom believe the United States has no choice but to enhance cooperation with the reclusive but strategically placed oil-rich kingdom.

Woolsey's biting comment about Saudi Arabia refers in part to the Saudi practice, both at the government and private levels, of financing true-believing Muslim activists in distant lands, including Central and South Asia.

In some cases, their militancy has been transformed into support for terrorism, and the Saudis' lack of internal controls to keep tabs on these radicals has come back to haunt them.

American diplomats report that the Saudis were horrified to learn that 15 of the 19 al-Qaida terror network operatives who participated in the Sept. 11 suicide hijackings were Saudi nationals.

Woolsey, who served as CIA director from 1993 to 1995, says the United States should hold the Saudis accountable.

"The Saudis have exported an extreme form of Islamist philosophy," he says. "Much of the money for al-Qaida has come from Saudi Arabia."

James Philips of the Heritage Foundation agrees that the Saudis acted irresponsibly in "allowing their money to slosh around in volatile parts of the world."

But he says the Bush administration is right to look at the big picture, pointing to the Saudi role as the world's single largest oil exporter and as a voice of moderation in the Arab world.

Phillips adds that if the Saudi monarchy were to fall, th successor regime almost certainly would be far more hostile to the United States.

The Bush administration has been unswerving in defense of Saudi cooperation in the war on terrorism, insisting that the Saudis have willingly done all that has been asked of them. This has not prevented a slew of media accounts suggesting that the Saudis have been less than fully cooperative.

A recently retired US diplomat who is a veteran Saudi-watcher says Saudi cooperation has been grudging.

The Saudis have been engaged in a delicate balancing act, taking steps to preserve their long-standing alliance with Washington in a way that doesn't alienate local Islamic militants long opposed to the United States for its support of Israel, the former diplomat said.

The most notorious Saudi militant, of course, is Osama bin Laden, purported mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. One of his chief grievances is the presence of US forces - "infidels," as he sees them - on Saudi territory. Many of bin Laden's compatriots share his outrage.

Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said the Saudis thought they were buying stability by financing Islamic emissaries, but the strategy backfired.

It was the United States, he said, that persuaded the Saudis to carry out these activities in Afghanistan during the 1980s to counter the Soviet military presence there.

After the Soviet withdrawal and the breakup of the Soviet Union, he said, many Americans urged the Saudis to continue their operations as a hedge against Russian expansion into the former Soviet republics of Central Asia.

Cordesman proposes increased cooperation with the Saudis, including data sharing on terrorist finances, on Saudis who leave their homeland and on those who live in the United States.

He added that the Saudis must also do a better job of monitoring Islamic radicals operating inside their own country.

"If you want to get results, you need partnership," he said.

Cordesman has little patience with what he calls the lobby in Washington trying to blame the Saudis for the events of Sept. 11.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said the Saudis thought they were buying stability by financing Islamic emissaries, but the strategy backfired.

In English, this means that the Saudi policy of bribing/financing (call it what you may) radicals had unintended consequences. Namely, the creation of a world wide network of terrorists capable of causing chaos almost anywhere.

Also, while the current Saudi regime is not politically anti-U.S., the variety of Wahhabi Islam they export to the U.S. (80% of mosques in this country are Saudi financed and are of the Wahhabi sect) is virulently anti-Western and, believe it or not, has as its goal the creation of an Islamic state in the U.S.

1 posted on 01/11/2002 12:52:08 PM PST by Magician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Magician
I wonder how much longer Mr. Woolsey will be with us? Strange, bad things always seem to happen to EX-CIA Directors, eventually.
2 posted on 01/11/2002 1:01:03 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Magician
Yep.
3 posted on 01/11/2002 1:19:34 PM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Magician
Saudi Arabia, says former CIA Director James Woolsey, "deserves a very large part of the blame for Sept. 11. I do not think we should do anything more with them right now than be cordial."

First of all, this falls into the "well - DUH!!" category.

Secondly, I'm not certain that we should even be "cordial".

4 posted on 01/11/2002 1:20:29 PM PST by phasma proeliator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Magician
Phillips adds that if the Saudi monarchy were to fall, th successor regime almost certainly would be far more hostile to the United States.

Not if we (or a proxy) installed it.

5 posted on 01/11/2002 1:22:51 PM PST by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
Israel would like that territory...

:-)

6 posted on 01/11/2002 1:25:11 PM PST by phasma proeliator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Magician
The Saudis, along with Iraq and Iran, fund and incite terrorism behind the scenes because they have "return addresses" were they to 'openly' attack US or Israel.

We'd nuke them in a minute if they were overt in their actions.

7 posted on 01/11/2002 1:31:13 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Magician
(80% of mosques in this country are Saudi financed and are of the Wahhabi sect) is virulently anti-Western and, believe it or not, has as its goal the creation of an Islamic state in the U.S.

Damned shame more people don't relaize this fact.

9 posted on 01/11/2002 1:53:23 PM PST by beowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: phasma proeliator
"...Israel would like that territory..."

Not if it still had the Saudis living in it.

10 posted on 01/11/2002 2:09:16 PM PST by Magician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Magician
True, very true.

but of course - the idea is that they wouldn't be...

11 posted on 01/11/2002 5:50:57 PM PST by phasma proeliator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: phasma proeliator
Secondly, I'm not certain that we should even be "cordial".

Thirdly,I'm wondering why he didn't say anything about this when Bubba bin Bombing was president?

Fact it,NOTHING is going to be done to muzzle Saudi Arabia. Too many politicians,their friends,and family members are in bidnez with the Saudi Royal family. This goes beyond oil,too,as the Crown Prince is supposed to be the majority owner of one of the biggest banks in the US. He also owns a LOT of stock in multiple US corporations. In short,he is bullet-proof.

13 posted on 01/12/2002 4:04:28 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: phasma proeliator
Israel would like that territory...

And what makes you think that would be any better for the US than the Saud's owning it?

14 posted on 01/12/2002 4:06:05 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: phasma proeliator
but of course - the idea is that they wouldn't be...

Going to order them into the "showers" using your best German accent?

15 posted on 01/12/2002 4:07:45 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ZAPATA
I've always said on this forum that the U.S. and Britain should seize the Gulf oil fields - just the oil fields. They belonged to us until they were nationalized in 1974. The Saudis and Kuwaitis would get a small royalty per barrel like they used to. It is the best way to DEFUND THE TERRORISTS.

The Saudis are also funding about 80% of the mosques in this country, and they thus make sure that American Muslims are increasingly of the extreme and fundementalist Wahhabi sect. These people literally believe that they will eventually create an ISLAMIC STATE here in the U.S. Again, anything that would impoverish the Saudis would help avoid future problems right here in this country.

16 posted on 01/12/2002 5:45:21 AM PST by Magician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
"Going to order them into the "showers" using your best German accent?"

Well, Not exactly what I was thinking...
perhaps they would find things more 'comfortable' in a seperate part of the world... say Siberia - the Russians could do wonders to improve their "attitude".

17 posted on 01/13/2002 10:10:40 AM PST by phasma proeliator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson