On 9/11, several Saudi Arabian citizens who were part of the Al Qaeda network killed over 3,000 innocent people at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and on United 93. Saudi Arabia faced no repercussions for their role and President Bush responded by holding hands with an old family friend (They’ve got numerous business dealings with his father and him in the past and I’m sure in the future. Apparently that Saudi money helps keep the family compound in Kennebunkport in tight shape).
In the last few days we’ve been subject to a p.r. campaign by the administration and their allies in the media focused on supposed Iranian funding of the Shiite faction in the Iraqi civil war. But at the same time, Saudi Arabia is funding the Sunni side. Once again, Saudi Arabia gets a pass.
Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.
Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.
But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.
Related
Can One Nation Enslave Another?
4,000 Die In Iraq For Bush’s Lie
Bush’s Speech
It was Saudi money that helped finance Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programs.
You play fast and loose with the non-action of the Saudi government versus thea ctions of private Saudi citizens.
I thought those were the good terrorists.
I always said that if the US had gone to war with Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, there would of been a lot more unity in this country.
I also wonder why kerry didn’t plaster that picture of bush and bandar holding hands on every surface possible.
I always said that if the US had gone to war with Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, there would of been a lot more unity in this country.
I also wonder why kerry didn’t plaster that picture of bush and bandar holding hands on every surface possible.
I always said that if the US had gone to war with Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, there would of been a lot more unity in this country.
I also wonder why kerry didn’t plaster that picture of bush and bandar holding hands on every surface possible.
Dugger,
1.The wealthy in Saudi Arabia are either Royal Family or friends of the Royal Family. There is no private class of wealthy not related to the government.
2. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship. The borders and banks are controlled by the government, which is the Royal family.
There are no separate actions of private Saudi citizens sending millions to Iraq.
Just as with the Saudi support that went to Osama, and to the Pakistani Madrassas, and to supporting the terrorists who lived here, and to the London Arabic school that teaches that Jews and Christians are pigs and animals that deserve to die, it all comes from members of the Saudi Royals. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/05/nfahd105.xml
3. George W. Bush has given the Saudis everything they ever wanted, including removing their arch enemy, Saddam Hussein. He serves the Saudis with much more slavish devotion than he has ever shown the citizens of this country.
As long as he’s in the White House, there will be no investigation of his friends, the Saudi Royals. No matter how many Americans die because of them.
“There are no separate actions of private Saudi citizens sending millions to Iraq.”
rooth, Do you have non ideological sources to verify this assertion - which I doubt.
And being a relative of someone does not mean that your actions are controlled by that someone. Bubba was not responsible for Roger.
“There are no separate actions of private Saudi citizens sending millions to Iraq.”
rooth, Do you have non ideological sources to verify this assertion - which I doubt.
And being a relative of someone does not mean that your actions are controlled by that someone. Bubba was not responsible for Roger.
You never seem to need citations in triplicate with footnotes when you make an assertion, and yours are usually demonstrable bollocks rather than common sense.
Bubba was also not running the banks, the press, etc., etc. in a one-party, no questions system.
Thus, if private money, presumably from Royal family members sympathetic to the Iraqi insurgency, did flow inot Iraq, the press there would never hear about it.
“Bubba” may not be responsible for “Roger”, but “Roger” can get away with just about anything and get a pass.
nimmer,
Very defensive on rooth’s behalf. I merely asked if he/she and an independent verification of the assertion. I buy it as his/her opinion, not as certified, genuine fact. Do you have a source, yourself, for the assertion?
duros,
My mind is open to Saudi malfeasance. I just need to see it documented and outside of a heated domestic political context involving Bush and Republicans. My take is that the Saudi government would like to be our allies (hence the bases, etc) but that there is a strong grass roots level anti-US, religious oriented hatred of the US in certain circles. Seems to me that the charges of Saudi ‘evil’ that I ahve heard are really more of a nature, truly, of why did the Saudi government let their citizens do this - rather than the Saudis did this. So, the degree of freedom of and Saudi government control over individual Saudis is the question. Seems to me than at many eastern and mid eastern countries have trouble controlling the actions of their citizens. Many could be potential ‘Lebanons’.
She doesn’t need one. You certainly never seem to for your bollocks, she doesn’t need one for what is pretty much a fact of life. You want a source, look up Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia or anything else.
Funny how you’re more nuanced about the Saudis than the Iraqis.
It does strike me as odd that you’re willing to give the Saudis the benefit of the doubt, but you’re ready to go into Iran guns blazing on scant little evidence.
Do you mean The Lebanon?
Why is Typepad dragging its ass across the carpet?
Because of Clinton.
lol
I sent a letter to the editor of my local newpaper asking this exact question - why aren’t we attacking Saudi Arabia? I’ve seen pictures of Bush holding hands with the Saudi shieks. Is there a secret homoerotic love affair between Bush and the Saudis that keeps him from holding them accountable for their actions? This really needs to be investigated as it is much more serious than Bill Clinton’s normal middle-aged fling with a younger American woman. Every aspect of George W. Bush’s sexuality needs to be examined in great detail in the public forum, including his long-time homosexual affair with Ambassador Victor Ashe. Bush’s bisexual escapades with foreigners is a grave national security risk. Where is Ken Starr when you need him?
duros
I’m not ready to go into Iran, guns blazing. Only if hard intel tells us they are nuke ready. And then surgical - not Iraq III.
The Lebanon reference merely refers to the compelte lack of government control over private citizens or private citizen groups. The same thing seems to be happening in Pakistan to a lesser extent. The Saudi ‘dictatorship’ is completely different from the classic, pervasive totalitarian dictatorship that controls every aspect of life.So I question whether the Saudis control all of their rich princes and what they do with their money.
And nimmer, (as I have said before) I probably would not have invaded Iraq in the first place. My positions are based on the reality of our being there. And I refuse to ignore the larger perspective of the issue: that probably the country is better off long term. I do question if its worth the price we have paid and are paying (I don’t know).
I don’t see too many people here talking realistically about they would do about Saudi or even Iraq. Do you acknowledge the consequences of just quitting in Iraq (I know you may think we better off doing that, but do you see the negatives?) How do we handle Saudi - considering our economic posture in this country and the straegic importance of our Saudi bases? Whats the answer today? Not ten years from now. Gonna ay ’screw’ the Saudis cut relkations and do withiout the oil. Maybe we get Jimmy Carter -like unemployment. That OK? Hint” this is why mainstream Democratic politicians aren’t out there bragging about taking down the Saudis.
“And being a relative of someone does not mean that your actions are controlled by that someone. Bubba was not responsible for Roger.”
Agreed, but
it would have been nice to have asked them (The Saudi’s flown home on 9/12 and 9/13) what they knew before flying them home… while the rest of us were stuck at the nearest airport for 3 days.
So, yes Dugger, in your brave new america being the relative of someone suspected of mass murder should actually gets you a free pass? or only if you are Saudi?
I’m not saying we should cut off ties to SA or invade them or anything like that, but I would like to see us asking them tough questions and demanding answers. I mean, they quite literally have us over a barrel and we never get “up in thier grille” about anything.
Especially with this President.
The most recent Saudi Ambassador to the U. S., Prince Turki Al Faisal is the man who brought Osama Bin Ladin into the key role of financier and moneyman for the Mujahadeen during Afghanistan’s U.S. supported war with the U.S.S.R. in the 80’s. (Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies)
He left his position as General Intelligence Directorate for Saudi Arabia on September days before September 11th and was quoted suggesting that September 11th was an Israeli plot within days of the attack.
Nonetheless, this did not prevent him from becoming the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. between 2005 and 2006.
There is a definite double standard for Saudi’s. This guy has more connections to Al Queda than half the Afghani farmers (handed over by warlords for $) now rotting in Guantanamo.
mdhatter,
You are aware, right, that Bush critic Clarke was the one who personally authorized the Saudi departure. Please say you know that and you don’t believe Bush was helping 9-11 plotters or enablers.
O’T
Recycling old Mikey Moore paranoia:
“In December 2004, Turki was awarded libel damages from Paris Match for its claims that he was connected to the attacks. In 2005, a US federal judge ruled that Saudi officials including Turki were immune from the lawsuit. Turki has severely criticized al-Qaeda, calling it an “evil cult.”
Dugger, Richard Clarke did not personally authorize the Saudi departure. That was a conspiracy theory floated before his 9-11 commission testimony where he states he did not approve it, but kicked it to the FBI.
Talk about nutjob Conspiracy Paranoia.
regardless, it was an executive branch decision, and arguably a treasonous one.
where does the buck stop?
Tune in for as many more Novembers as it takes you to figure it out.
mdhåtter | Feb 13, 2007 6:31:18 PM
“Tune in for as many more Novembers as it takes you to figure it out.”
Ahhhhh, the good ‘ol days when pedugger was rendered speechless for weeks.
midder,
My recollection is that Clarke said he did. I’ll have to research.
work on those Iraq claims that turned out to be true, while you’re at it.
‘K? Thanks.
midder, It was Clarke. I was right. Easily Googleable.
Duros, Did you want me to verify Dem or Rep claims. There are tons of both.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
-Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, leave the country,” Clarke told Vanity Fair. “My role was to say that it can’t happen unless the FBI approves it. . . And they came back and said yes, it was fine with them. So we said `Fine, let it happen.’ ”
Second, what was the source of the “unmistakeable evidence”. I would guess Bush.
midder Thre are 50 more quotes. Many of them pre Bush. Give it up Bubba.
And is your argument really that Democrats aren’t accountable for their votes - Bush is????????
So, you say much of the unmistakable evidence is pre-Bush, aka ancient history.
I am saying, that Bush presented false, dated, dubious, or misleading data to make his argument that Hussein had WMDs and to get the war that he wanted from the day he entered the white house.
No one should have voted for that resolution. The Republican Majority Leader said that voting for that resolution was a horrible mistake and that he let his party and country down by letting it come to a vote.
Resolution aside, it achieved what Bush claimed was necessary: forcing Hussein into compliance. Inspectors were on the ground, they showed all US leads to be garbage, and Bush still chose to go to war. There were no WMDs, Bush has no credibility, Bush fucked the war up failed to plan for the aftermath, failed to adapt, and enacted policies like torture that have made Iraq into an unwinnable situation for this country, as well as flushing the credibility and moral high ground of the nation down the toilet.
And lastly, quoting someone who says there is evidence from 4 years ago or however old that quote was, is not providing a list of Bush Administration promoted and presented claims that turned out to be true.
I seem to recall armageddon aluminum tubes, vacuum cleaner engines of destruction, and ice cream trucks of doom. THere was the forged paper Yellow Cake from Hell. And on and on and on. Tell us the claims that were actually true. “We know where the weapons are”, and MUSHROOM CLOUDS!!!!