Fri. Jul 25, 2003
Our Friends Get Redacted
Our Friends Get Redacted – Everybody has got their own special spin on the Congressional report about 9/11 (Computer World: “Inadequate IT contributed to 9/11 intelligence failure”).
I want to talk about our friends, and the Bush administration’s reluctance to reveal anything about their involvement. Friends shouldn’t have anything to hide, should they? It’s most perplexing…
From the Washington Post: “More than 800 pages of findings, recommendations and narrative detail were published at 2 p.m. today. Even so, long passages were deleted, especially those dealing with possible connections between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia.”
“Just enough was declassified to make clear that the joint committee, which was co-chaired by Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) during the investigation, was highly concerned about suggestions that Saudi Arabian government money was going to support at least some of the hijackers. The investigators quoted several unnamed U.S. government officials who said Saudi Arabia has not been cooperative with efforts to halt terrorism and track down bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader.”
A lack of cooperation from our good friends? I’m sorry, I’m going to have to see some proof of that. Oops, it’s been redacted.
From MSNBC: “Dozens of pages were heavily edited or even blacked out to protect classified information. An entire section on whether there was Saudi support for the hijackers was deleted, as were 26 pages on their foreign financing.”
“The most significant set of events, in my opinion, are in the section of the report that has been censored and therefore wont be available to the American people,” said Sen. Bob Graham, who is also quoted in the AJC: “Without naming Saudi Arabia, Graham, a Democratic candidate for president, said: ‘It is my conclusion that officials of a foreign government aided and abetted the terrorist attacks on our country …. Our investigation developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11th hijackers while they were in the United States.’ ”
Now, wait just a durn minute, he’s a Democrat running for President, of course he’s going to bash Bush’s friends! Give me a Republican view for counterbalance.
From last week’s news: “Last week, Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) told CNN that declassified information in the report would ‘shed some light, maybe not all the light’ on the attacks.”
“ ‘I can tell you this, there are a lot of high people in Saudi Arabia, over the years, that have aided and abetted Osama bin Laden and his group,’ Shelby said, alleging the Saudis had done so with direct donations and via charities.”
Want more peeved Senators? Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.: “For whatever reason, there is an attempt here to conceal evidence that implicates the Saudi regime in a terrible tragedy – a tragedy that claimed the lives of over 3,000 Americans and put hundreds of thousands of troops in harm’s way by leading us into two wars.”
Here’s three men who’ve seen all there is to see on this matter. They are our elected representatives, from diverse backgrounds. And they are all calling “Bullshit” on this one.
In addition to pointing out that the 28 deleted pages contain information the American people have a right to know (i.e., it does not compromise national security), these representatives also noted they had to fight hard to get one data point about Saudi Arabia released … or else there might have been nothing in the released report about our good friends, the Saudis.
“The report contains new evidence suggesting that Omar al-Bayoumi, a key associate of two of September 11 hijackers Khaled al-Mihdar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, may have been a Saudi government agent, sources told Newsweek.”
“It documents extensive ties between al-Bayoumi and the hijackers, while claiming the FBI failed to keep tabs on al-Bayoumi although it had learned he was a secret Saudi agent.”
“Among the evidence was the fact al-Bayoumi took part in a meeting in January 2001 at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles. After that, he headed to a restaurant where he met future hijacker al-Mihdar and al-Hazmi, whom he took back with him to San Diego.”
al Bayoumi, why is that name familiar? From Dan Darling at Winds of Change: “I did some digging and discovered that this isn’t Mr. al-Bayyoumi’s first appearance. He also surfaced last winter in connection with the scandal involving Princess Haifa (the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US) giving money that wound up in the hands of the 9/11 hijackers. Al-Bayyoumi being a Saudi agent certainly makes this earlier scandal a lot more interesting.”
Indeed, his connection to Princess Haifa is most interesting: “There is also no mention in the text of the $2,000 (1,700) cheques that were apparently paid by the wife of Saudi Arabia’s US ambassador, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, into Bayoumi’s bank account.”
No wonder the ambassador expresses such denial: “Reports that Omar Al-Bayoumi is an agent of the Saudi government are baseless and not true. It is unfortunate that reports keep circulating in the media describing him as an agent of the Saudi government with attribution only to anonymous officials. This is blatantly false.”
He’s not an agent of the government, but my wife puts money in his account anyway. OK, fine, Bandar. But you might want to order up another round or two of ads in your ongoing campaign to convince us you really are our friends, because a lot of us are unmoved. Like CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen: “I think the Saudis have obviously had a long period of time in which, in one way or another, they’ve supported groups like al Qaeda [...] But it is very interesting that Saudi [Arabia] sort of continues to get a pass from this administration for reasons that aren’t entirely clear. I’ve talked to people directly involved in the investigation. Now, this is before the Riyadh attack, but they used words like ‘despicable,’ ‘obstructionist’ to describe Saudi cooperation into the 9/11 attack.”
Could it be one friend trying to help another who is clearly having problems with The Truth? “There has been a large element of denial on the part of the Saudi Government. The Saudi interior minister claimed for months that no Saudis were involved in the 9/11 hijacking. Until quite recently he claimed there was no al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia itself.” “Quite recently” means, “until Al Qaeda mounted an attack within Saudi Arabia and the government rapidly arrested dozens of them.”
There’s just so many mixed signals here. The people at grunt level who interface with the Saudi government find them despicable, the Royals have displayed complete denial over any Saudi-Al Qaeda connection of any type, while our President says they are our friends yet covers up details about a critical part of our relationship.
Why would you delete information about your friends, when it surely would support their strong denials of any involvement? The usual reason for such a deletion is a fear the hard data would compromise our more sensitive intelligence gathering methods. Are we using those on our friends? Could it be that the information would reveal the Saudis are not the friends of the American people?
Then why do they remain the friends of the Bush administration? Why do they keep covering for them? Why is Saudi comfort more important than freedom of information for the American people about the worst attack this country has suffered in 60 years?
Perhaps the Bush administration thinks if they can bull through this tight passage, it will shortly fade as a public issue. If so, it’s a uncharacteristically naive strategy. They would have been a lot better off getting out in front of this. Now.
Those 28 pages are going to come out, by Congressional demand (they’ve declared they’ll seek it), or via a standard issue DC leak. And it will happen long before November, 2004.
To borrow some imagery from a banned Madonna video, the Saudi issue is the hand grenade in George’s lap. He can defuse it now, or he can wait for someone else to pull the pin in the next year or so, killing his chances for re-election.
If the American people come to learn (or even strongly suspect) that the Bush administration has in some way been covering up Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks, no matter what the reason, he is political toast. His only hope is to air whatever information there is, explain away whatever qualms might result, and get on with it while there’s still time for a chance at recovery. And if there’s nothing sinister to hide, that’s all the more reason for these 28 pages to be released.
One way or another, no matter what the facts are, this redacted information stands to hurt one person far more than any other; George Bush. And that is precisely why he is the one who must release it. Because sooner or later, someone else surely will.
Published 06:12AM, Fri, Jul 25 2003
Category: Saudi Arabia
Previous: «« Harsh Photographic Reality ««
Next: »» Tales of Near Misses, Defiance, Defeat »»
Peanut Gallery
If the price of oil should rise drastically (as if the price of natural gas already hasn't) in this sputtering economy, gas lines may be the least of our worries. But if this is indeed a time of war, Americans may be called on to (god forbid) make some sacrifices. I wouldn't mind standing in line at the gas pump if the reason I'm doing so is that our government published all the details about the Saudi involvement and we finally stood up for what's right, and not what's expedient. In a hopeful light, to me, (since I'm from the Northeast and know what's happening to the huge forests up there) the Northeastern governers have decided to all adopt the environmental standards of the unsigned Kyoto treaty. Many of those governers are Republicans. Gov. Pataki (sp?) is leading a big push to convert a huge portion of energy consumption in NY to alternate sources. Way to go.
The idea that the Saudis hold some Energy Sword of Damocles over our heads is an archival myth. In the 70's, they had the option of an embargo because their coffers were full of freshly pumped cash. Today, they are in tight financial straights, with up to 40% unemployment among young men, and the average Saudi income having dropped to one third what it was in the 80's. Their government is struggling to tread financial water. They simply don't have the capital to back up any desire to turn off our oil spigot. It would hurt them more than it would hurt us. It would be an economic suicide attack on a national scale, and it is unlikely the Royals would survive it. In addition, although you can't break it up neatly as it comes in at the docks, only 15% of our oil imports come from Saudi Arabia. And Iraq's substantial supplies aren't even online yet. They do not have the fatal grasp we imagine. And finally, we Americans have very short memories. Earlier this year, gas prices spiked by 30 to 40 cents per gallon, nationwide. Musta hurt really bad, and ruined the economy, eh? Or, do you even remember it? I have no doubt that oil is in some way at the root of this. But it isn't from a fear the Saudis could or would ruin our economy with an embargo. There is some other aspect of the relationship that is at the crux of it.
[sneeze]Carlyle Group[/sneeze] Implicating the¥nÔSdis is one thing; implicating Daddy is another.
I went out and travelled by motorcycle (read: cheaper fuel) across America from Atlanta all the way to Seattle and back across to the Dakota's 3 weeks ago; from there across Minnesota & Wisconsin, down into Illinois, Kentucky and Tennesee. From what I heard, saw & experienced, fuel is the Number 1 concern in the heartland mentioned above. I was vexed to understand that the vast majority thought Iraq was behind the WTC tragedy. Be that as it may, the segment of America I dealt with is frightfully-fearful of long gas lines and higher prices in the immediate future. To the extent that they knew where the oil comes from, they are convinced that Saudi Arabia enjoys a special-status & can do no wrong vis-a-vis the United States. I can amplify on that if you like, but the gist of the comments I heard was that Saudi Arabia can do no wrong; -as long as the gas keeps flowing.
According to most polls I’ve read, more than 80% of Americans do not believe that the Saudis are our allies. I think I’ll choose to believe those polls. Wealthy Saudis financed and carried out the worst terror attack that any nation has ever suffered. Thousands of people died and the streets of downtown NYC smelled like burnt death for months afterwards. It was an attack on the scale of Pearl Harbor. Would the heartland have given the Japanese a free pass after that attack if the Japanese were supplying our oil? I like to believe that the answer is no. If I believed that the ‘heartland’ forgives the Saudis for financing mass slaughter, and for all the terror attacks they are likely to finance in the future, then I would believe that we should just hoist the Saudi flag alongside ours for the pledge of allegiance and start enjoying our dhimmitude. Instead, I’ll believe the polls - for now.
“...the segment of America I dealt with is frightfully-fearful of long gas lines and higher prices in the immediate future” People are only "frightfully-fearful" of things they have recently seen or experienced, or things that loom as imminent. There haven't been gas lines of any type in this country in 25 years. There hasn't even been any credible threat of such lines. We had gas prices spiker by over 20% earlier this year ... and it had so little impact people hardly even remember it. “Saudi Arabia can do no wrong; -as long as the gas keeps flowing” Sorry, I don't buy that. At all. If you can prove to Joe and Jane Middle American that Saudi Arabia had a hand in aiding or financing the 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 of their fellow citizens, I think you'll hear Joe and Jane Middle American angrily start talking about how they'll gladly pay $2, $3, or $4 for a gallon of gas in order to help bring down the Saudi house. You seem to portray Middle Americans as relatively fearful short term thinkers who will toss their principles in the name of their own convenience and self interest. That describes your average nationally known politician, and I think you may have been watching them too long. They are our elected representatives, but that doesn't mean they represent our behavior. Perhaps I just have a lot more confidence in your average American than you do.
I think I'm being mis-understood! My post was not to condone anything Saudi ! In fact, quite the opposite. I tried to say that in listening to people, I heard that they mostly do not like the House of Saud -- but understand why we are putting up with them (as relates to the original post). I would agree that all of us might be willing to pay upwards of $5 a gallon if it would once & for all put a stop to all the shenanigans. Gasoline out West averaged around $1.68 a gallon. The point I'm trying to make is that when that doubles or triples, it will become an uncomfortable figure. That it would double or triple is undisputable if Saudi oil supplies are cutoff or withheld. Your question had to do with what/why the Saudis enjoy a free-pass; my response remains: Oil.
Well, when you said “...the gist of the comments I heard was that Saudi Arabia can do no wrong; -as long as the gas keeps flowing,” that seemed fairly clear to me. Thus my comment to the contrary. “The point I'm trying to make is that when that doubles or triples, it will become an uncomfortable figure. That it would double or triple is undisputable if Saudi oil supplies are cutoff or withheld.” It is disputable. As I've said, Saudi oil represents fifteen percent of our total oil imports. If it dissappeared tomorrow, by the day after tomorrow, more than half that gap would have been made up by other suppliers, like Russia, and soon, Iraq. I do not beleive that if you reduce the supply of any product or commodity by 10 or 15 percent, you will cause the price of that product or commodity to double or triple. Yes, the laws of supply and demand would cause an increase in price ... but not 100-200%. And another law of supply and demand is that shortages that increase demand ... end up rapidly increasing supply from alternate sources. And the other side of the coin is reducing demand. If such a circumstance arose, and you were asked to do so, could you cut your usage of gasoline by 10 to 15 percent? I think the vast majority of Americans would say “Yes.” And in the worst case scenario (which our administration clearly isn't going to allow to happen), we now hold the ace card, just as they did in the 70's. Back then, they had vast financial reserves to ride out the embargo they imposed, and we had no oil reserves worth counting. They held the ace card; the ability to wait us out. Today, they have no financial reserves to tide them over, and we (as a result of the 70's embargo) have a fairly vast oil reserve built up (estimated to be 6 months worth, if needed). We hold the ace card; the ability to wait them out. “Your question had to do with what/why the Saudis enjoy a free-pass; my response remains: Oil.” I'm not saying you are entirely wrong. I am saying that the Saudis cannot effectively threaten us using oil as a weapon. Those days are long gone. There is something else at work here. I don't claim to know what it is, but it's fairly easy to demonstrate what it isn't: the threat of a Saudi embargo.
Ok, that's a good & reasonable argument you present. But if Saudi Arabia did not have oil, would we give a flying flip about that place? Yes, I agree with you that there is indeed something odd about the Saudi/America connection. Speaking from the perspective of my own experiences in the 50's, ARAMCO was all peace and light and engineering. The Saudi growl was a result of US support for the 1973 Mideast war. I think the very clever & efficient US strategy following the embargo was exactly right. 3-gallons for a buck went away, but we all managed. We'll manage again if needs be. What other interest does the US have in Saudi Arabia aside from oil? Danged if I know!
Recent Comments
- Ryan Ward (The Original Dither)
- Reid (The Not So Public Option)
- elburro (The Not So Public Option)
- Stephanie Hunter (The Not So Public Option)
- Reid (We Are Covered In Bipartisan Bull)
- Susan (We Are Covered In Bipartisan Bull)
ReidStott.com
Photography
by Reid Stott
A decade of web design experience. Two decades of photography experience. All available to you, and your project. View my portfolio online, then let's talk about your needs.ReidStott.com
Only one reason Saudi Arabia is appeased by the Bush Administration (and vice-versa): Oil. If Saudi Arabia gets ticked, as they did in 1973, gasoline lines here in the U.S. will be long and frightful places to be. Especially if the cost is up by 50-cents a gallon. Election coming up; Americans may be somewhat oblivious to everything else going on with this Administration, but a whack-in-the-pocketbook-at-the-pump would sure get folks noticing things.