Put your hands up

TownHall.com ^ | November 28, 2002 | Cal Thomas

[xsysmgr]

Raise your right hand if you believe the official Saudi Arabian explanation for how money supposedly sent to an Islamic charity in this country by the wife of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States "unwittingly " wound up in the hands of two of the 9/11 terrorists. The explanation is that she was surprised by what was, at best, money laundering by someone.

Raise your left hand if you believe that the Bush administration's "road map " for "peace " in the Middle East, which mandates the creation of a Palestinian state, will not be used as a staging area for a final assault by Palestinians and the Arab states to eliminate Israel.

With both hands in the air, you have now assumed the surrender position, which is precisely what the enemies of America and Israel seek.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) correctly said that the Saudis "have played a duplicitous game, and that is they say to the terrorists,'We'll do everything you want, just leave us alone.' That game has got to stop. " But will it? The corollary to that mindset is the belief by many in the State Department that if Israel will just give her enemies a state, then peace on Middle Eastern earth and goodwill toward all in the region will spring forth.

Criticism of Saudi Arabia is bipartisan. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said: "The Saudi royal family has been engaged in a Faustian bargain for years to keep themselves in power. " Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) said that Saudi leaders "have to decide which side they're on. " That wouldn't be a bad decision for the Bush administration to make regarding Israel as it seeks to impose an unworkable formula that will undoubtedly lead to a final assault against the only democracy in the region. All terrorism has a common source - hatred against the West, Christians, Jews and all things radical Islamists cannot bend to their will.

ABC News reported last Monday (Nov. 25) night that the CIA is circulating a document among 12 prominent bankers around the world, seeking information about a suspected connection among the bankers, Osama bin Laden and the Saudi royal family.

The Bush administration apparently believes Saudi Arabia can do no wrong, even while the rest of us believe what our eyes and common sense tell us, which is that it is at best supporting, and a worst doing, a considerable amount of wrong.

On a related matter (and all matters are related in the Middle East) the groundless faith that an imposed Palestinian state will allow Israel to live within safe and secure borders and end generations of hatred by Arabs for Jews continues to be refuted by evidence to the contrary.

Last June, President Bush laid down certain conditions he said Palestinian Arabs must meet if they wished to win U.S. support for a state. Among them is that they must "dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, " "end the incitement " and "elect new leaders not compromised by terror. " The president said they must also embrace democracy and free market economics. None of these things has happened. In fact, as recent terrorist incidents have shown, precisely the opposite is occurring. But the administration presses ahead with a "road map " toward a Palestinian state anyway. Why?

Among the many problems with a Palestinian state is the difficulty Israel would have invading a sovereign nation should it need to respond (and it certainly would) to attacks from Palestinian soil. A sovereign Palestinian state could also import large weaponry with no restrictions. Would the United States tolerate a Taliban state on the Canadian or Mexican borders?

Denial takes many forms. For the Saudis it is a useful way of changing the subject. For the United States, denial of the facts about the Saudi link to terrorism and the danger of a Palestinian state makes us (and Israel) even more vulnerable to the frequently predicted future attacks on our (and their) territory. One wonders if those charged with ensuring "homeland security " and promoting peace in the Middle East will have an explanation for failing to see the obvious when it is staring them in the face?

[ffrancone]

Why won't folks let this administration solve one problem at at time? Dems I understand. Dems always think we should solve something other than the immediate problem because that means they can avoid addressing the immediate problem. But Cal Thomas and McCain can't excuse their myopia because they aren't democrats.

The House of Saud looks pretty bad. Long term, it has to change. But consider the alternative--most likely a Wahhibi run oil giant. It's the next Taliban with huge amounts of money and the leverage to blackmail the euroweenies. Not an especially pretty picture.

How to handle the transition in Saudi Arabia will be difficult and delicate. I don't pretend to have any good ideas. I'm glad the adults are in charge in Washington (and not the Wooden One). But agitating for the fall of the house of Saud right before we invade Iraq seems uncommonly irresponsible.

I don't expect much from McCain. But Thomas is normally a pretty clever fellow and I expect him to think through the consequences of his actions better than this.

[babygene]

I think it is you (and others who look the other way when it comes to the Saudis), that haven’t thought things through.

Saudi Arabia has in the past and continues to export to the rest of the world one of the vilest weapons of mass destruction. (Islamic fundamentalists). They have been responsible for the brutal killings of millions of Christians and Jews throughout the world. Not to mention the 3000 Americans murdered on 9-11.

Iraq is not nearly as dangerous to the United States, or the world at large, as Saudi Arabia. Saddam is a crazy murderous dictator, but he is not a evil religious zealot. Yes he has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people as well as at least one of his external enemies (Iran), but he’s small potatoes compared to the Saudis who have killed millions through the export of their religious extremism.

[Tacis]

The Saudis NEVER supported terrorists with checks to nonprofit organizations. They do it with wads of cash brought into the US (or any other country, for that matter), by diplomatic pouch. There is a Saudi paymaster in the UN delegation in NYC who can provide cash to any location in the US within days.

But, it may not be true that Bush is ignoring this. The war against Iraq has to be more. It is amuch bigger thing. Regime change in Iraq almost necessarily means regime change in Saudi and Iran, too. Once the oil supply in Iraq can't be withheld from us, the Saudis can be forced to destroy Wahabi and to turn over control of the holy places to those more reasonable. The Saudis can't be persuaded to return to the wilderness and the oil turned over to a democratically selected government with international oversight. Iran is not far from a revolutionary democracy.

Iraq is a domino and, when it falls, the whole area will become civilized. The oil wealth that now goes into Saudi pockets can help the entire Muslim world grow to the west. And, in doing so, become so busy with it's own evolution that it no longer obsesses about Israeli existance.

[ffrancone]

I think it is you (and others who look the other way when it comes to the Saudis), that haven’t thought things through.

Saudi Arabia has in the past and continues to export to the rest of the world one of the vilest weapons of mass destruction. (Islamic fundamentalists). They have been responsible for the brutal killings of millions of Christians and Jews throughout the world. Not to mention the 3000 Americans murdered on 9-11.

Did you read my post? From what did you conclude that I don't understand just how bad the Saudis are? I believe I said the opposite. My argument is based on when, not whether.

Actually, we agree about the stuff in your second paragraph. But it would be crazy to try to bring down the House of Saud NOW.

Let's say we ignore Iraq and take down the house of Saud. What happens? 1/4 of our oil supply is controlled by Wahhibi fundamentalists. AND, Hussein still has WMD. Is this a good idea?

Reverse the order. Take down Iraq today. Then deal with Saudi Arabia. Don't you think its a just little easier to impose our will on the Sauds without a bunch of WMD on our flank in Iraq.

Think it thru. I would love to see those smarmy princes get turned out on the street. I would love to see it happen now. But it would be really stupid to do so NOW.

Have patience, Grasshopper :). The Saudis have had 40 years to mess up the world. Another year or two isn't gonna make much of a difference at all.

[babygene]

"Let's say we ignore Iraq and take down the house of Saud. What happens? 1/4 of our oil supply is controlled by Wahhibi fundamentalists. AND, Hussein still has WMD. Is this a good idea?"

Why would the fundamentalists control the Oil? What's wrong with us controling it.

The problem with your sinerio is that when we attack Iraq, the house of saud probably will fall. They will install a fundamentalist government and it won't be friendly to us.

If we take them out, we have some say in their new government.