Daniel Pipes and Pat Buchanon agree... double dealing Saudis [Transcript from MSNBC]

I would like to bring to your attention two unusual television transcripts from Tuesday, August 27. In the first, Ali Al-Ahmed of the Saudi Institute says some remarkable things about the Saudi government (“They arrest everybody that sneezes in the country, except al Qaeda members”) and about U.S. policy (“America should not let Saudi Arabia have any role in the Iraqi liberation campaign because if they do, they put their hand in it, it will stink”).

In the second, I have a civil and even constructive conversation with Pat Buchanan.

On the Record with Greta Van Susteren Fox News Channel August 27, 2002 http://www.danielpipes.org/article/451

LINDA VESTER, GUEST HOST: Good evening, everyone. I'm Linda Vester, in tonight for Greta Van Susteren, and this is ON THE RECORD.

Tonight the president welcomed the Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar to the western White House [in Crawford, Texas]. …

The Crawford meeting begs the question again. Are the Saudis our friends or are they a threat? Daniel Pipes is in Philadelphia tonight. He's the director of the Middle East Forum and author of "Militant Islam Reaches America." In Washington, D.C., we have Ali al-Ahmed, executive director of the Saudi Institute. Gentlemen, welcome to you.

Ali, let me ask you-let's just get-let's strip this meeting down to what it's really all about. You think it's Saudi spin to make Crown Prince Abdullah look good before he goes to the U.N. next month.

ALI AL-AHMED, SAUDI INSTITUTE: Yes, I think the visit wanted to set up for the meeting to make sure that Saudi Arabia is in the good side of the United States. They have been having-Saudi Arabia have been hammered in the U.S. media and public opinion since September 11 because of their involvement in the attack. So they are trying to sort of clear up their image. They've spent at least $20 million on that since the first of the year.

VESTER: So Daniel, what do you think is in it for President Bush? I mean, you know, symbiotic relationship? What does he get out of the meeting today?

DANIEL PIPES, MIDDLE EAST FORUM: It's very interesting, Linda. This American-Saudi relationship has been in place since 1945, and it's always been a very private relationship, where diplomats and politicians in back rooms make deals. And now, since a year ago, it's become public. Questions of abducted children, of Saudi involvement in terrorism and the like, have made this into an issue which we're discussing on television. We didn't used to.

And the meeting today, I believe, was an attempt by our leadership to say, "Don't worry, Saudis. Everything is like it used to be. Don't pay any attention to what President Bush is said to have called 'irresponsible statements' by people out there. We politicians and diplomats, we can handle it."

VESTER: Well, you know, if our relationship is so good with the Saudis, then why, Ali, when President Bush raised the question of a Monica Stowers, who still cannot leave Saudi Arabia because she can't get her father's or her husband's or anybody else's permission, despite the fact the United States has filed this official request, I mean, how good is our relationship if the president can bring this up with the Prince Bandar and we don't get anyone coming out today saying, "OK, Monica Stowers is allowed to leave Saudi Arabia"?

AL-AHMED: I think the United States has not done enough for its people on that question. I think what Saudi Arabia needs to do is just basically allow these women to go and be able to petition in Saudi courts.

VESTER: Why do you think-then why do you-why do you think that President Bush wasn't able to prevail on his "good buddy," Prince Bandar?

AL-AHMED: When you meet-when Bush meets the Chinese, he makes a statement, you know, to try to build pressure. He has not done anything in that regard, unfortunately.

VESTER: Daniel, I mean, what do you think? I mean you would think that, you know, we would have some sort of statement today if the president raised it.

PIPES: Well, but it's heard of and precedented in the U.S.-Saudi relationship, which is a very odd one where American leaders, Republican and Democratic, have not stood up in a robust fashion for American national interests but have always had this sort of supplicant attitude that the Saudis must be deferred to. And the Saudi monarchy has its own national interests, which are very, very different from ours.

And so what we find is an American leadership, Republican, Democratic, going back over 50 years, that has not stood up for American interests. And that's been OK with the American population, which has not paid attention. But it's no longer OK. And the government is beginning to feel the heat. And I think it's very important that the media and the think tanks and universities and churches become aware of the problems we have and raise their voices.

VESTER: Ali, in fairness, we should mention that yesterday, the Saudis did arrest several al Qaeda sympathizers, or at least they say they did, including 11 Saudis, 11 of their own people accused of planning to blow up a U.S. military plane. Does that really mean that the Saudis are going to help us crack down on terror?

AL-AHMED: Well, I choose to differ. The person who was arrested, or he handed himself to the authorities last week after the FBI issued a bulletin. He was vacationing in Egypt. He was so relaxed, he was able to come and go. And if Saudi Arabia was working on this, they have-he should have been arrested, for God's sake. They arrest everybody that sneezes in the country, except al Qaeda members, who have been arrested, detained and released, 160 people confirmed released who were in Afghanistan and fought along Taliban and al Qaeda.

VESTER: Interesting that the Pentagon has just chosen to exclude Saudi Arabia from a list of our allies in the war on terror. Why do you think that is?

PIPES: Well, this government in Saudi Arabia, looked at sensibly from an American point of view, is not our friend. I would say it's not our enemy, either. That's too strong. It is our rival. I think that's the way to see it. The Saudis see themselves as head of an international Muslim community, one billion strong, and they see themselves as promoting the interests of that community in their own very special and rather extremist way. And they see themselves as our rival.

And we should see them as our rival, as opposed to this rather silly notion of friendship, which our politicians keep on repeating, Democratic and Republican.

VESTER: Or perhaps just a mutually symbiotic relationship, Ali. I mean, one wonders if, for all the talk that the Saudis are making now about "No, you can't use the base if you ever attack Iraq," that, you know, when push comes to shove, that they'll just kind of find a way to let us through just because it's pragmatic.

AL-AHMED: I think the relationship is sort of illogical. However, I think America-my opinion is America should not let Saudi Arabia have any role in the Iraqi liberation campaign because if they do, they put their hand in it, it will stink. They are not in favor of free and democratic Iraq, so I think they should not be involved in the Iraq liberation effort.

VESTER: Those are harsh words. This is probably the first time I've heard it from a Saudi. Daniel Pipes, Ali al-Ahmed-gentlemen, thanks to you both.

MSNBC: Buchanan and Press August 27, 2002 http://www.danielpipes.org/article/452

BUCHANAN: The president of the United States invited the Saudi ambassador down to the ranch in Texas, which is something of a major gratuity, if you will, to the Saudis. And it's to repair a damaged relationship, somewhat damaged, by an issue we're going to raise right now with Daniel Pipes, who is director of the Middle East Forum.

Mr. Pipes, one of the problems the United States has in its relationship with Saudi Arabia was a briefing which Mr. Perle, Richard Perle's Defense Policy Review Board gave in which an individual, who turned out to be a LaRouche-y, briefed this very prestigious board and said, in effect, Saudi Arabia is the kernel of evil in the Middle East and its an enemy and, virtually, after we take down Iraq we've got to take down Saudi Arabia.

What is your take on what that briefer said, and what the president is doing right now in trying to repair the relationship? Is the president doing the right thing here?

DANIEL PIPES, DIR., MIDDLE EAST FORUM: What the briefer said, Pat, was that we have to reassess this relationship, Saudi Arabia is not our friend, but our enemy. What you see the president doing, especially today, is trying to repair that.

Now, what's extraordinary about this is that the U.S.-Saudi relationship, which has been an important relationship since 1945, has always been a private one. It was one between the diplomats of the two countries, the politicians.

Now for the first time, you have this briefer, but you've much more. You have the question of Americans being abducted and held against their will in Saudi Arabia. You have the recent court case against the Saudis for no less than one trillion dollars. And much more. It's now become a public issue. And what you have is the president saying, whoa, we want to keep this a private issue between you and me, Mr. Ambassador. Let's ignore what the rest of the people are saying. And...

BUCHANAN: Mr. Pipes, let me interrupt you right there. You said in your pre-interview that Saudi Arabia is not an enemy but it is also not a friend. If they're not a friend of the United States, and certainly Iran is not a friend, and Iraq is not a friend, why don't we just pull the five thousand American ground troops out of Saudi Arabia, get our ships out of the Gulf, and let these non-friends and enemies settle their own problems without the United States having to go to war there every 10 years?

PIPES: Well, I partially agree with you. It was a mistake to put those soldiers in Saudi Arabia. They should have gone to Kuwait or some other more friendly country. On the other hand, it is very useful to have American troops in a part of the world where there is a tremendous American interest. I mean, were the oil and gas to stop coming out of the Persian Gulf, our economy would obviously be very badly hit. So we have real interests there, but it was a mistake to put troops in Saudi Arabia, I agree with you.

PRESS: Mr. Pipes, let me just ask you the bottom line question, I guess. How can we go around the Arab world preaching democracy? That what we're all about is bringing democracy to the Arab world and supporting a corrupt monarchy like you got in Saudi Arabia.

PRESS: Well, that's what we say we want in Afghanistan, that's why we say we want to topple Saddam Hussein!

PIPES: Well, actually, we have pushed democracy in Latin America, East Europe, East Asia, but distinctly we have not done that, until June 24, when the president gave his speech about bringing democracy to the Palestinian Authority. It has been not our policy in the Middle East.

I think it should change. And, what you're suggesting is that we should start pressing the Saudis for democracy. We have simply not done that over the decades, we haven't done it in Saudi Arabia, we haven't done it in Morocco, we haven't done it in Jordan, we haven't done it in Egypt, we haven't done it in the Middle East. Time for a change.

PRESS: I want to move on to Iraq, because you recently wrote in the "New York Post" where you say that if you look at all the options the only option in Iraq is a military campaign, the only option left and you know as well as I just to remind all of our viewers that we'd go into there, here's how the sides are going to line up [visuals on screen follow].

OK, countries supporting a U.S. attack on Iraq at this point. Only one, the U.K. In fact, only one man, probably, Tony Blair. We're not even sure the British people are behind him.

Countries against the attack at this time. Now just look at this: Australia, Bahrain, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy--Japan, Jordan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Yemen.

PIPES: That's a great list. How about I give you a different list? I'm going to give you a list of countries supporting the United States...

PRESS: Do you really believe that this war is in our best interests, going it alone?

PIPES: I sure do. Let me put it in a different way. Countries supporting the United States are, obviously, very few. And how about another list, of countries supporting Iraq? None! It's us against the Iraqis, with the rest of the world sitting it out. Who do you think is going to win that war?

BUCHANAN: Let me not only agree with you, who is going to win it, but once the shooting starts, people will have to take sides, and my guess is nobody will line up with Iraq, and some will line up with the United States.

BUCHANAN: Mr. Pipes, I want to ask you this, though. During the Cold War, we had liberals and leftists were yelling for democracy and they didn't like our allies, they said they were flawed. And they helped take down the Shah under Jimmy Carter and they helped take down Somosa in Nicaragua. And we wound up with the Ayatollah and that horrible situation in Iran and we wound up with the Sandinistas down there, right there, in Nicaragua.

Are folks like you not inviting the same sort of thing; we got-not a single democracy in the Arab world, understandably. But you make them demo - more democratic-more expressive of the will of the Arab street and won't they all be in favor of a war on Israel and do you really think it's going to be better in Saudi Arabia when the monarchy goes down?

PIPES: Your point, Pat, is a very good one. You're making a very good point. Which is that we have a better relationship with the rulers than we would with their democratic successors and we have to go very carefully. I agree. I am not calling for a democracy now - getting rid of the rulers and replacing them with elections next month. I'm saying what we should do is start pressing for the development of civil society; we should push for freedom of movement and speech, for rule of law, political parties, and so forth...

BUCHANAN: Let me interrupt you right there. I would agree with all that if we could get it, but aren't they going through sort of what we went through in the 16th Century, the religious wars among the Christian nations and also with the French Revolution and all that, aren't they being dragged through and having an internal battle with modernity and isn't it in our interests to get out of that and let them resolve that themselves?

PIPES: It's in our interests that they modernize and it's in our interests to help them modernize and I think we know how. We are very modern and we can help them. Look, we've done that elsewhere. Look, for example, at Japan. We defeated the Japanese and then we guided them towards a democracy. We did the same with Germany. We should be doing the same thing with Iraq.

BUCHANAN: In Japan it certainly did in the 1920s. It's qualified, and certainly in Germany up until 1933.

PIPES: Well, by that token there was a much more decent system in Iraq before 1958. Look, the key point I'm trying to make is in a very cautious and slow and deliberate manner, we should look to the Middle East as we have to other parts of the world and encourage the opening of the political process. Slowly, carefully.

BUCHANAN: Mr. Pipes, I want to ask you this, though. During the Cold War, we had liberals and leftists were yelling for democracy and they didn't like our allies,
they said they were flawed. And they helped take down the Shah under Jimmy Carter and they helped take down Somosa in Nicaragua. And we wound up with the
Ayatollah and that horrible situation in Iran and we wound up with the Sandinistas down there, right there, in Nicaragua.

Are folks like you not inviting the same sort of thing; we got-not a single democracy in the Arab world, understandably. But you make them demo - more
democratic-more expressive of the will of the Arab street and won't they all be in favor of a war on Israel and do you really think it's going to be better in Saudi Arabia
when the monarchy goes down?

Can't wait to see the defenders of the "Anti-Semite charge" tackle this one. Why would an anti-Semite bother asking this question boys and girls?

Appologies accepted!

"I always pegged Pat as more anti dark skin than anti jew. "

Pat had a black pro-life lady, Mrs. Foster, as his VP in the last election. Pat is pro-American and that is considered as anti-jew, anti-black, anti-Brit, anti-Hispanic, etc. etc. etc. because he opposes their special interest politics. He is also smeared as a socialist because he opposes NAFTA deals which send American worker jobs to foreign countries for some transnational corporation's bottom line.

When addressing this subject one has to go clinical. Objectively I feel that it is as reasonable for northern Europeans to seek to protect their majority status in the nations that they have it in today, as it would be for any other race to seek to protect their own status within the nations they inhabit.

I would never dream of celebrating the demise of any ethnic group within our nation. Yet a couple of years ago Gray Davis and Bill Clinton celebrated in public the designated day that the white populace of California dropped below 50%. Today approximately two years later, the northern European populace of California has dropped to 46.5%.

I think we all have to do some soul-searching here. IMO, from the observations that I have made, it is not the northern European population segment in this nation that is faxated on race, and trying to manipulate the process for their own avantage.

I do however think it reasonable for them to be able to express at least the same aspirations that other races do for themselves in this nation. Although I would say, that if in my lifetime I witness northern Europeans celebrating the demise of another race, I'll be voicing some rather strong opinions about it! Contrasting what goes on today, my comments will be directed at them and not the race that is losing population status.

...Agreed. That is divisive, but, multiculturists believe flooding the US are hoping that in numbers, they can achieve a socialist nation...

...Only in education about freedom of individuals in a constitutional repubic will be the right way to save this nation...

...If that fails, then God help us...

...Only in education about freedom of individuals in a constitutional repubic will be the right way to save this nation...

And thats the problem. Not that the numbers of 'non-whites' in America is increasing. The problem is that NONE of the children born in America are being taught our history, or the greatness of the individual and what individuals can achieve in America.

They are all being taught 'group identity' and that they are a member of their 'group', not an individual. 'Group Think' and 'Group Identity' and the elimination of the individual will be the downfall of America. Not an increase in the non-white population.

One thing that drives liberals crazy is the success, both academic and financial that minorities who are NOT born here achieve when they move here. They move here to do just that and they teach their children to strive for personal growth, education, and success whereas those born here are taught the opposite.

One thing that drives liberals crazy is the success, both academic and financial that minorities who are NOT born here achieve when they move here. They move here
to do just that and they teach their children to strive for personal growth, education, and success whereas those born here are taught the opposite.

I am not convinced you hit even close to the target here. I believe there are plenty of excellent examples to contradict your premise. The most prominent is the complaint of minority immigrants that their children don't get a fair shake. While they complain of language barriers, overt racism, lack of funding and other hurdles, the children of Asian immigrants continue to not only outstrip children from other minority groups, but often the byproduct of generations of American citizens.

The truth is all too many immigrants and minorities have come to the conclusion that our society owes them everything on a platter. And I think the children of US citizens fall into that trap as well all too often these days.

I witness too many immigrants scarfing off the fat of our land, both parents and children to buy into the honest work ethic you espoused here. And I would add that as regions sink into overcrowding and poverty, the numbers of all groups that abuse the system rises exponentially, not just minority or illegal immigrant groups. That's why I see the flooding of this nation by massive numbers of poor under-educated people to be so devistating. It's a seeding for planned failure, for community destruction, for national suicide.

I witness too many immigrants scarfing off the fat of our land, both parents and children to buy into the honest work ethic you espoused here.

Good example being the 10,000 Somali refugees we are importing. Probably as a feel good gesture to the congressional black caucus.

Somalis rarely work but get all kinds of enhanced and immediate government handouts since they are refugees. Why would any Somali in his right mind want to move to cold climate Maine where there are few jobs? Yet they do by the thousands once they get to the USA. Answer is the welfare money goes further there.

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.