Saudi Arabia, Off The Hook

May 20, 2005 7:21 AM

The 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudi. Suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudi. And we're allies? I am no foreign-policy expert. I am no virtuoso of nuanced and wicked international relations. I know not of intricate deal making and smarm sucking and backstabbing and glad handing and the Bushes raking in millions from clandestine oil deals with the Saudi kingdom. Ahem.
posted by mk1gti (15 comments total)

see also
posted by matteo at 7:26 AM on May 20, 2005

I don't see why this is necessarily a problem. A lot of terrorists in Northern Ireland are Irish but it doesn't stop the UK and Ireland being allies. A government is not responsible for the actions of individuals unless it mandates those actions. Are you suggesting this is the case? Also, your link says precisely nothing that is new.
posted by biffa at 7:30 AM on May 20, 2005

didn't we just do this the other day?
posted by dabitch at 7:40 AM on May 20, 2005

This is nothing but idiot crap.
posted by caddis at 7:42 AM on May 20, 2005

This seems all so familiar. Its still depressing because of the implications and the lack of follow up on the connections and exposure to the public at large but I think we've covered this territory already.
posted by fenriq at 7:45 AM on May 20, 2005

Nothing new here, of course, but I always enjoy reading Morford's over-the-top ranting about the nothing-new-stuff (which is typically dismissed, as was the recent British memo about how we allies had to find intelligence to back up an imminent war which Bush denied was in the planning stages, as being "nothing new.")

All right, it's "nothing new" that we went to war with a country that didn't threaten us while we gave big fat wet kisses to tyrants whose oil we need so badly that we are afraid to suggest to them that they do something about all their countrymen killing us, but it still pisses me off.

And, by the way, the fact that this is all "nothing new" is supposed to justify the fact that it isn't in the "news." Because "everybody knows about it." Except they don't, because it isn't in the news.

Thus: Saddam is (or was) the chief threat to the American way of life because Dear Leader says so. Don't look behind the curtain, and for God's sake don't put the truth on the front page!
posted by kozad at 7:46 AM on May 20, 2005

A government is not responsible for the actions of individuals unless it mandates those actions.biffa: Doesn't the government there condone/spread anti-semitism and anti-americanism? And isn't that tantamount to mandating terrorism, given the climate? Saudi royalty has sold out to both sides, they won't be around much longer anyhow, but in the meantime they're buying extra minutes with american blood.
posted by modernerd at 7:47 AM on May 20, 2005

The flood of ex-CIA "tell-all" books share a common theme: attack Saudi Arabia. Likewise, remember that LaRouchie wingnut who made the presentation to the Defense Policy Board pushing the same sort of hyper-hawk nonsense.

Now it's leaking across the political spectrum.

What's the deal? Is this related to the fact that the national strategic petroleum reserve will be full at the end of June? (Which is partly responsible for the recent sag in oil prices.) This is something new here and it's going to have repercussions.

Whenever I hear the beat of the war drums, I have to ask: who's doing the pounding and why?

I don't have any firm answers, but I smell a policy shift coming up.

BTW: the "attack the Saudi's" rant is sheer bullshit. Al Qaida and the jihadists are seeking a coup in Saudi Arabia. They have backing from some elements who would like to see a turnover at the top, but the notion that the House of Saud and Bin Laden share a political program is utter nonsense.

So, once again, why are we being bombarded with this nonsense? What's up with that?
posted by warbaby at 7:49 AM on May 20, 2005

What's up with that?

Please allow me to explain. :-)

MORFORD ROCKS! Any link to his material always lightens my day as his humor is the best.

BTW, you may be correct that another movement is afoot to shift the blame for Iraqi violence to "outsider interference."
posted by nofundy at 8:00 AM on May 20, 2005

Saudi royalty has sold out to both sides, they won't be around much longer anyhow, but in the meantime they're buying extra minutes with american blood.
posted by modernerd at 7:47 AM PST on May 20 [!]


Who would replace the royal family? Is there a clear cut successor? Is it likely to be extremists? Given the country's supply of radicals, things could get much worse, no? I don't know much about SA, obviously...can someone shed some light on the possible future of the country?
posted by jikel_morten at 8:00 AM on May 20, 2005

I agree with Kozad. This should be on the front page. It is news that our leaders have launched a war with popular support based on a series of outright fabrications and misrepresentations. It will continue to be news until those leaders are held accountable for their misdeeds.
posted by oddman at 8:10 AM on May 20, 2005

How would turning our backs on Saudi Arabia, or attacking them, improve anything for the US?
posted by caddis at 8:12 AM on May 20, 2005

The 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudi. Suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudi. And we're allies?

That is because there is a major disconnect between the ruling class and the people in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. feels that as long as the keepers of the Kingdom are in their pocket the rest of the country doesn't matter. For a historical look at how this plays out, please see "Shah of Iran".
posted by spock at 8:22 AM on May 20, 2005

"Who would replace the royal family? Is there a clear cut successor? Is it likely to be extremists? Given the country's supply of radicals, things could get much worse, no?"



The same could have been said about Iraq. I think the point is not that we should attack Saudi, but that we shouldn't have attacked Iraq.
posted by ScotchLynx at 8:34 AM on May 20, 2005

Wow that headline completely convinced me that we must invade Saudi Arabia!
posted by DigDugDag at 8:42 AM on May 20, 2005