House votes to ban aid to Saudi Arabia

Reuters ^ | Jun 22, 2007 | Richard Cowan

[bnelson44]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Friday to prohibit any aid to Saudi Arabia as lawmakers accused the close ally of religious intolerance and bankrolling terrorist organizations.

The prohibition, reflecting persistent tensions with the kingdom after the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001, was attached to a foreign aid funding bill for next year that has not yet been debated by the Senate.

It also faces a veto threat from the White House because of an unrelated provision.

A spokesman for the Saudi embassy in Washington declined to comment on the legislation.

In the past three years, Congress has passed bills to stop the relatively small amount of U.S. aid to Saudi Arabia, only to see the Bush administration circumvent the prohibitions.

[nycgal]

What business does anything abortion related have being on this bill? This type of thing has always puzzled and infuriated me.

[mmichaels1970]

I agree with you completely. I think they call it a “poison pill” or something like that.

[kabar]

According to supporters of the legislation, the United States provided $2.5 million to Riyadh in 2005 and 2006. The money has been used to train Saudis in counter-terrorism and border security and to pay for Saudi military officers to attend U.S. military school.

Pure grandstanding by the House. This isn't aid. I might add that the Saudis have been paying for everything they get from us, including all of the costs of our training mission to the Kingdom.

[wastedyears]

*this in place of some very colorful language*

[mmichaels1970]

Here's one...

H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Foreign Aid/Vote on Amendment to Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Prohibit Federal Funds in This Bill From Being Used to Assist Saudi Arabia. House Roll Call 74 Mar 15, 2005 Progressive Position: Yea Progressive Result: Loss In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Anthony Weiner (D-NY) to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill that would have prohibited any federal funds from this bill from being used to assist Saudi Arabia. (Each year, Congress appropriates the funds necessary for the running of the country for the coming fiscal year. Later in the year, Congress also generally considers an "emergency supplemental appropriations" bill to fund activities or areas of need that were, arguably, unanticipated at the time of the year's original appropriations process. H.R. 1268 was the Emergency Supplemental appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005.) Making the Progressive argument, Weiner stated that the Saudis were exporting terrorism and Wahabism (an extremely conservative–some say fanatical–sect of Islam) and that human rights were suffering in that country. Thus, he argued, none of the U.S. funds being appropriated in the Emergency Supplemental ought to go to the Saudis. Republicans countered that no funds were directed to the Saudis in the legislation as drafted, and that in any event, a prohibition against sending U.S. foreign aid funds to Saudi Arabia was already included and enshrined in law via the regular foreign aid appropriations bill passed in the previous year. The House defeated the Progressive position and Weiner's amendment by a vote of 196 to 231, with 39 Republicans and 44 Democrats crossing party lines in the vote. Thus, no explicit stipulation that Saudi Arabia could not receive U.S. foreign aid funds was included in the Emergency Supplemental appropriations bill.

That is from a lib website. I haven't even found a true Republican rebuttal about this.

Here is a key part:

Republicans countered that no funds were directed to the Saudis in the legislation as drafted, and that in any event, a prohibition against sending U.S. foreign aid funds to Saudi Arabia was already included and enshrined in law via the regular foreign aid appropriations bill passed in the previous year.

Congress is a mess, full of twists and turns and double-speak. THAT is what we need to clean up. But vote liberal if you want to.

[mmichaels1970]

Sorry...post #65 was for you (I accidentally posted it to me).

[takenoprisoner]

“Is Bush going to veto the bill? I won’t be surprised if he does.”

Base upon his past performance regarding aid/bribe to SA, he will veto it should it ever get that far.

SA is only a so called ally because we pay them to be one. Once we are independent of their oil, and we no longer pay rent to be upon their shores to fight the WOT, all will finally see what sort of friend they actually are. They will learn what many of us already know...
they are not our friend/s.

[frankiep]

Bottom line is that unless he vetoes this bill, which I doubt he will, Saudi Arabia will still be receiving our tax money.

Call me whatever you like, but the war is one of the two biggest issues we are facing today and funding our enemy is outrageous.

The other top issue is immigration. An issue where Bush has no problem going to Congress to do some arm twisting to get them on his side. Which begs the question, why does he feel it is appropriate to do arm twisting to get an immigration bill to contain what he wants, but not on a bill that will send taxpayer money to our enemies?

[GOPJ]

What? What? How’s this possible?

[pissant]

Nonsensical move.

[pissant]

Worthless Reuters -DNC propaganda

[Shelayne]

Figures they would do something like that and hope that they could get conservatives all riled up, knowing that President Bush is going to reject pro-abortion policies anywhere. They don’t care about Saudi Arabia getting a couple million dollars for anti-terrorism measures. They want the president to look like the “bad guy”.

Looks like it’s working. :^(

[EndWelfareToday]

Me? Personally! I'd rather see this headline "US NUKES MECCA" when talking about Saudi Arabia. Anything less in dealing with Riyadh is nothing more than the posturing of puppets and a waste of time in my humble opinion.

[R.W.Ratikal]

ROTFALMAO. Saudi Arabia is populated by billionaire princes. No matter how much we gave them they would hardly notice it in their bank account.

This is how the U. S. State Department works.

[rfreedom4u]

We’ve actually been giving them military type aid so the monarchy doesn’t fall. There is a widespread insurgency in Saudi Arabia that has major ties with al queda. If they overthrew the royal family we’d be in a worse situation. I guess we’ve chosen the lesser of two evils.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Its payment for military bases, get real people.

Those bases are their to protect the Saudis from their neighbors. THEY should be paying US.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Amnesty is a HUGE mistake and the President needs to lose on that one, and lose badly. Maybe be tought a lesson about turning his back on the base.

The nut didn't fall far from the tree after all.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Good explanation. That's exactly what is happening.

[red irish]

I know I have never understood why this government send billions of dollars to people who hates us. They also give money to Egypt!