Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies

The Washington Post ^ | Tuesday, August 6, 2002 | Thomas E. Ricks

[MinorityRepublican]

A briefing given last month to a top Pentagon advisory board described Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United States, and recommended that U.S. officials give it an ultimatum to stop backing terrorism or face seizure of its oil fields and its financial assets invested in the United States.

[Chest Rockwell]

As much as I would love to think about the prospect of the US controlling Saudi oil fields, it is a pipe dream. Sweet light crude dreams though...

[okie01]

"just first consider the source.....hold back and lets see on this one......" So, the only questions are:

1. Is this an unfortunate breach-of-security "leak"? If a Democrat attended, that could well be the case.

2. Or is this a pre-planned, purposeful "leak"? One that is designed to send a message to the House of Saud -- as in "straighten up and fly right"?

For the moment, I'm leaning toward the latter interpretation...

[Senator_Palpatine]

"The Saudis are fools and naive,you will find controlling them will not be difficult......"

"They will pay the price for their lack of vision...."

[LibWhacker]

And while we're at it let's ship that big black rock in Mecca (which is nothing more than a craven image of a . . . of a . . . well . . . of a BIG BLACK ROCK) to Gitmo. Then we should issue those Al Qaeda swine we have in custody there big sledge hammers and make them break it up into tiny little slivers -- toilet amulets, we'll call them -- which we can sell to Americans for a penny each to flush down their toilets for good luck. It's time, dammit, to rub some puppy nose in some serious s**t.

[chnsmok]

Good point. Very good point.

[wallcrawlr]

So we're going to treat them as they are our enemies?

F yeah!
Its about time.

USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA

[bloggerjohn]

What took them so long? I've been saying this for months. It was Saudi pilots, Saudi millions, and Saudi Wahabbist "religious" inspiration all along - that squashed the WTC. But they're our oil buddies so we put up with their "little" indiscrections and our gummint and media covers for them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: BOMB RIYADH!!!

[Thud]

We'll have to stand in line to bring down the Saud regime once we withdraw our official protection from it.

[Shermy]

Seize fields? Don't know...could use my "arm the slaves" idea from way back...arm the Indians, Pakis, Phillipinos who do all the work there, divvy it up between them.

Not likely, but what the heck...

[Shermy]

Kissinger? His views are bought and sold these days.

His Saudi defense should bring in some more lobbyist dollars for his coffers.

[thegreatbeast]

Man, I envy you guys! I haven't smoked any weed in many moons but if I can get my hands on some of the hallucinatory stuff you boys be smokin'...
First, Bush has shown a dogged reluctance to play tough with the Saudis even in the face of what we know about their culpability in sponsoring terrorism. Second, we don't have the Armed Services that could adequately serve as an occupying force and leave us enough left over to cover our other vulnerabilities. Third, neither the regional nor international communities would sit for us appointing our own puppet governments there. It would hit too close to home for all of them. We really would have the world against us. Fourth, occupying Saudi would be an open invitation for these terrorist groups to start "fires" in Malayasia, Europe and everywhere else just to distract us. nevermind what an vulnerability it would set up for us domestically.
No, this is the Washington Post tweaking Bush which, truth be told, may not be a bad thing.
Don't bogart that joint, my friend, pass it over to me.

[Thud]

You said:

"There is no doubt within the Administration that Iraq is going to be ours fairly soon. It's inevitable. Likewise, when the Iranian people depose the mullahs, we'll be invited in to help get them on the right track. The big question was, "What's next after Iraq and Iran?"

This article answers the question."

There's a three-month old article on Strategy Page, at http://www.strategypage.com/strategypolitics/articles/20020501.asp which said:

"Once we've secured the oil production of Iraq (which necessarily means our control of Kuwait's) and obtained a friendly regime in Iran, the continued existence of the Saud regime will no longer be in America's interest. The Saud regime is the dominant source of funding for terrorism, especially terrorism against the United States. I expect loss of Saudi funding will cause Islamic terrorism outside Arab areas and Pakistan to tube, and that in Arab areas will be significantly reduced.

The Saudi regime has major problems at home such that we might not be able to keep them in power much longer even if we wanted to (its domestic problems are what drives its funding of terrorism), and it certainly can't stay in power if the U.S. government attempts to bring it down through overt (blockade) or covert means. But as with Iran, we might not have to do anything to terminate the Saud regime.

American-fostered regime changes in Iraq and Iran, alone, could easily cause shaky Saudi domestic politics to spiral out of control, bringing down the monarchy and replacing it with something more radical and anti-American, though there are also liberal and democratic factions."

[jwh_Denver]

Imagine trying to justify that to our liberal friends.

FE! Who cares what they think or say? It's time to quit listening to their absolute BS. We've got deserts to put those people in. Plenty hot too.

[Publius]

American-fostered regime changes in Iraq and Iran, alone, could easily cause shaky Saudi domestic politics to spiral out of control, bringing down the monarchy and replacing it with something more radical and anti-American...

Bingo.

The one thing we can't permit is for the oil to fall under the hands of an anti-American Arabia. If the House of Saud falls -- and it will -- we have to gain control of that oil. That's why Saudi Arabia is next after Iraq and Iran.

[Thud]

Interesting.

[swarthyguy]

>>"describing Saudi Arabia as "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" in the Middle East.

They're actually saying this in 'unofficial' briefings to a whole bunch of official and unoffical officials.

Combine this with RUmsfeld taking the leashes off the Special Ops Forces.....Maybe VP Cheney's gonna run the show for a while now....

>>"it also represents a point of view that has growing currency within the Bush administration -- especially on the staff of Vice President Cheney and in the Pentagon's civilian leadership"

There goes the Saudi tourist traffic.

[UltraConservative]

I say we take over the oil fields permanently. We're the ones who dug for the oil, and then they nationalized it. It's time to take back what's ours. Compensate them with camals -- I'm sure they'd like that.

[happygrl]

A BIG BUMP to your post !!!

[duckln]

You got it backwards. The Saudis are first!

[happygrl]

... our congress and executive branch is owned lock, stock and barrel by the House of Saud.

I disagree. The article intimates that Cheney holds anti- Saud views.

And Congress, over the objections of G.W., passed a resolution strongly supporting Israel.

The State Department, on the other hand, ...