HorsefeathersHorsefeathersHorsefeathers

August 02, 2003

OUR FRIENDS THE SAUDIS

Despite the State Dept.'s insistence that the Saudi tyrants are our friends, the truth is slowly emerging. In the wake of reports that the Saudi royals, their spies and henchmen clerics are deeply implicated in 9-11, Horsefeathers reprints below its assessment written one year ago. It is time to give Prince Bandar the boot, even if that means fewer parties for State Dept. appeasers. Then implement the recommendations of Horsefeathers.

WE MUST MAKE THE SAUDI PRINCES FEEL OUR PAIN
         A few weeks ago Vice President Cheney acknowledged that there will without question be other terrorist attacks on America. The cloud of terror still hangs over the heads of the people of America. Not much has changed in nine months—even after the defeat of the Taliban and the destruction of thousands of Al Qaeda soldiers in Afghanistan. Why are we waiting for another shoe to drop? History will surely ask why the most powerful nation on earth should submissively accept a fate meted out by a flock of Saudi princes and their paid assassins. Perhaps there is an alternative to the strategy of resignation.
        We are putting pressure on the wrong targets. Going after members of Al Qaeda—even the handful of leaders—is like trying to push on water—you displace a few cubic centimeters and make a few ripples—but you can’t get rid of it.
        Those, in the long run, most responsible for the climate of terror in this country are the political leaders of the Wahabbian Muslim world, the princes of Saudi Arabia. And while 3 thousand Americans (and perhaps hundreds or thousands to come) have died and billions of our treasure have been despoiled, not one morsel of pain or discomfort has been experienced by those who are in the most powerful position to influence Al Qaeda—the princes of the royal family and their friends and contacts in the Muslim world. Why would they be motivated to be of assistance to the U.S., except in the most attenuated way, as long as they have nothing at stake?
        The press has begun—in advance of the government—to recognize the two-faced position that the Saudis have occupied for years, but somehow it is afraid to articulate the next logical step in an effective war against terror. We must make the political leaders of Saudi Arabia participate in our pain, our deaths, our destruction.
        When they begin to feel such pain they will quickly become highly motivated to take whatever steps are necessary to reduce attacks on America. They will stop economic and moral support to Al Qaeda. They will put pressure on religious leaders, their press, their national and local political leaders, who in turn will put pressure on the so-called Arab street to stop beating the drums of terrorism. They will also become much more cooperative about supplying information to us, from whatever source, that will be of assistance in interdicting those they cannot directly control.
        What the U.S. government should do immediately is (1) formulate a list of targets that are highly valued by the Saudi leadership (as distinct from the Arab street). These will be a mixture of sites that are treasured by Saudis for economic, military, political, religious or cultural reasons. I would assume economic sites—such as oil fields and sea ports, ships, etc.—would be high on such a list. Next might be the personal toys of the princes—racing stables, palaces, etc. Population centers should be on the list with the qualification that if such become targets a 48 hour warning to the Saudi government would make them responsible for evacuating such targets. The final items on the list would be the most powerful symbols of their culture (just as they singled out our World Trade Center for destruction)--Medina and Mecca. Hopefully, it would not come to that, but we must be willing and show that we are willing to go that far—to show that we mean business, that all of the oil in Arabia is not worth one more American life.
(2) The Saudis should be informed privately and/or publicly that targets on the target list will be instantly hit by missiles when the next terror attack occurs. It may be hard to find Osama Bin Laden but it is not hard to find 10 or 15 per cent of the Saudi oil fields. And 25 per cent the next time, and so on. This would be non-negotiable. We must make it clear that no matter who carries out the next terror attack—whether they identify themselves or not—the next target on the list will be struck. To prevent such automatic strikes the Saudis would have to start getting into the anti-terror business in a very big way.
(3) We must stop worrying about being fair, just, and gentlemanly. We must turn a deaf ear to world opinion, European posturing, and the siren songs of well meaning liberal ideologues who want to hold us to standards that are only appropriate in a peacetime liberal democracy. In our present situation, fairness, justice, and due process are not only meaningless but dangerous to the health of innocent people.

Yale Kramer

Posted at 09:42 AM by




Comments

The Iraqi invasion was also a way of sending a message similar to this to the Saudis, among others. "Don't even look like you _might_ be guilty, or we'll take over your country, toss you out of office, and maybe kill you and your children."

Posted by: markm on August 3, 2003 12:40 PM

WOW! Finally someone who said what I've been saying for at least a year.

Posted by: mary on August 3, 2003 04:03 PM

Too bloody right! (as we Aussies say.)

Why is this so hard for all the lefty-academic/feelgood peacenik hand-wingers out there to grasp?
Fear of retribution is all that keeps uncivilized bastards in check, ultimately and to refuse to use that fear is just another form of moral cowardice.

Hell, I just love this blog....

Posted by: Keith on August 3, 2003 07:03 PM

While it would be nice if Bush Jr. would get serious about the Saudis' role in Sept.11th and other terrorist attacks including future ones, that is not likely unless he is forced by events to do so. The Bushies have far too many ties to the Saudis which has given the Bush family tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars of profit in the oil business. The Bushies, Poppy is still on the Saudi payroll, are pretty much owned lock, stock and Bar Harbor by the Saudis and both the Bushies and the Saudis know it.

One of the cynical reasons given for our invasion of Iraq was that it would divert attention from the real source of Bin Laden's terror organization, the Saudi ruling families. Unless the Bush Administration believed its own lies about WMD, always a possibility, I believe that invading Iraq was indeed done in part at least, to divert attention from the Bushies' friends the Saudis.

Question comes up why are the Democrats not making a big fuss about the on-going cover up of the Saudi ties to Bin Laden? After all this could be considered treason. Answer is 1) the Democrats have taken and are taking plenty of money from the Saudis, either directly or more likely indirectly through the oil companies so they (the Democrats) are on the Saudi payroll if not so much as Bush is.
2) Talking tough about the Saudis sounds war like and among most Democratic voters in the primaries war and saber rattling are real negative items. Thus the Democrats attack Bush for hyping up the Iraqi WMD threat and not for ignoring the real base of Bin Laden terror in Saudi Arabia. The only Democratic Presidential candidate that is challenging this bi-partisan silence is Sen. Robert Graham of Florida. He looks like the only hope currently to even begin to tell the truth of the role of the Saudis in Sept. 11th.

Historians a generation or two from now, if they are honest, will be amazed how America swallowed whole the camel of Saudi role in Bin Laden's Terror Network, while straining at the nat of Saddam's ties to Bin Laden.

Posted by: David All on August 4, 2003 07:30 PM

Here's a different twist on the iraqi invasion. Is it totally impossible to believe the Bush Jr. secretly promised his dad to kill or remove sadaam for trying to kill Sr. Isn't it normal for a son to want to do this? I'm not saying it's the only reason for invading iraq, but it appears to me that Bush Jr. was just a little obsessed with Iraq. I too agree with others that he looks the other way in regards to the Saudis. How much more evidence does he need to realize they are not our friends? The Bush family ties run deep with the Saudi royals more than any other American. Until this is exploited in the press, he will not lift a finger to go after them unless his own survival to get re-elected demands it. At his address to the nation right after 9/11, he promised to go after terrorists wherever he finds them. But more importantly, he promised to treat those countries that harbor & support terrorists as terrorists themselves. I have yet to see this in regards to Saudi Arabia. if the Dems really want to bury Bush, they could do it on the Bush / Saudi ties alone.

Posted by: jerry on October 24, 2003 06:29 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?



<< Back to Horsefeathers