*
"The Obama administration supported the Saudi monarchs, who were accused of financially supporting several of the individuals involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The administration last month intervened to ask the high court to reject the appeal."
DO THE SAUDIS KNEELING WAR PROFITEERING SERVANTS, OBAMA, CLINTION,
BUSH AND THEIR DONOR, DIANNE FEINSTEIN SMELL MONEY IN MORE WAR WITH IRAN FOR
THEIR SAUDIS PAYMASTERS???
THE STENCH OF TRAITORS!
*
Hatred's
Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism . by DORE GOLD
In the global search
for culprits and causes in the rise of terrorism, former Israeli ambassador
to the United Nations Dore Gold shines a spotlight on a nation many think of
as a close ally of the United States: Saudi Arabia. As he explains in Hatred’s
Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism, Gold
believes that the Saudi government is greatly influenced by the Islamist sect
known as Wahhabism and, he explains, that influence has lead to Saudi support
of terrorism in the Middle East, Europe, the United States and around the
world.
|
9-11 the SAUDI, not IRAQI terrorist!
George W. Bush and his extended squalid family had never
known a Wall St. mow down crisis they didn’t scoop up another fortune. From
Neil Bush’s crimes during the savings and loans debacle we’re still paying for,
blueprint for the the freaking banksters have done to us this round.
Bush senior made a wad off WorldCom, as fucker Bush crawled
deeper under the bedcovers with the filthy Saudis. Now Bush Saudis, Inc.
operates ad CARLYLE GROUP, another global crime wave making the bucks off war
and anything else their influence peddling can squandel a backroom deal!
It was Bush cabinet member, lawyer James Baker part of CARLYLE GROUP, that went to town to
protect the SAUDIS from the American people that launched. Baker moved to
protect the Bush family partners from the wraith of the American people and the
Courts. Obama, also smelling Saudis money would make it impossible for
Americans to pursue their Saudis partners.
Oh, it was GEORGE bush that permitted the bin Laden and
Saudis lard buckets to fly out of the country when our airways were closed to
EVERYONE ONE ELSE BUT AIR FORCE ONE AND THE SAUDIS TERRORIST!
The Bush mafia started two wars with Iraq to protect their
filthy Saudis cronies! TWO WARS! Meanwhile the Saudis royal lard-buckets have
pumped a vast fortune into the WAHHABI FASCIST ANTI-AMERICA TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.
We all cringed at the sight of BARACK OBAMA over in Muslim
land kneeling to kiss the hem of the royal Saudi LARDBUCKET! Guess he smells
that good ol’ Saudi money for his presidential library???
Then we have Sen. Dianne Feinstein, an Obama and Clinton
(she has doled our bribes to half of the Senate to keep investigations of her
corruption at bay!) donor and the biggest war profiteer in American history!
With her first check after Bush bought this old whore as an insurance policy
against impeachment, Feinstein bought herself a $16 million dollar mansion only
miles from her S.F. hotel where she hires “cheap” labor illegals! (Feinstein
sent out letters that to her duped constituents that she would not vote for an
impeachment, and that means two votes as Boxer (also a Feinstein-Blum bribes recipient)
exist to siphon off “consultant fees” in the millions (where did you think her
fortune came from? Her bullshit book sales and 22 city book tours???) (Feinstein
Boxer both voted HELL NO to end the Dems fave source of legally accepting
bribes!). Feinstein has accumulated more than $50 million in mansions scattered
around the nation while in elected office by setting up highly lucrative deals
she and Boxer have pushed in the Senate! Her deals with RED CHINA alone have
raked in millions in bribes.
You saw Feinstein give half of Obama’s inaugural, with her
pimp husband, RICHARD BLUM sitting behind Obama picking pockets for deals Feinstein
and he could profiteer on!
Then we have HILLARY BILLARY, also two of the most corrupt
in history. They raked in big bucks siphoned to the BILLARY BULLSHIT LIBRARY
from all these freaking monster Muslim dictators! Don’t they all smell Saudis
money? Hasn’t Hillary voted for war and hopped up and down for her Saudis
paymasters like Obama and Bush who holds the lard-buckets’ hand as he acts like
a Saudis monkey on a string!?!
EVERY ONE OF THESE FUCKERS HAS VOTED FOR ANYTHING THAT WOULD
BENEFIT THE SAUDIS TERRORIST! WAR WITH IRAN IS SOMETHING THEY’VE BEEN ITCHING
AT FOR YEARS BECAUSE THE IRANIANS ARE ENEMIES OF THEIR FILTHY SAUDIS
PAYMASTERS!
MEANWHILE everyone one of these fuckers want OPEN BORDERS
WITH NARCOMEX, AMNESTY, ENDLESS GRINGO-PAID DREAM ACTS, NO WALL, NO I.D.
REQUIRED OF LA RAZA VOTERS, EXPANDED WELFARE FOR WALL ST AND LA RAZA, AND
ANYTHING THAT WILL ULTIMATELY KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED FOR THEIR WALL ST. FRIENDS.
AFTER THE BANKSTERS BIGGEST LOOTING OF AMERICA SINCE BUSH
AND THE SAVINGS AND LOAN RAPE OF THE 1980’s, OBAMA HAS AGAIN, FOR THE SECOND
TIME, RAKED IN MORE CRIMINAL BANKSTER LOOTINGS THAN ANYONE IN HISTORY!
THERE ARE MORE AMERICAN TROOPS PROTECTING THE KOREAN BORDER
THAN ON THE NARCOMEX BORDER!
WE CAN’T SAVE OUR COUNTRY UNTIL WE REMOVE THESE TRAITORS,
SAUDIS FOOTSTOOLS, AND WAR PROFITEERS!
*
Wsws.org
*
US/Britain prepare for war against
Iran
4 November 2011
Articles
in the British-based Guardian and Telegraph newspapers on
Wednesday have lifted the lid on military preparations by the US and Britain
for an attack on Iran that go well beyond routine contingency planning.
The
leaks pointing to a dangerous new military adventure take place amid a debate
within the Israeli inner cabinet and media over whether to unilaterally launch
air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Officials
and ministers in all three countries have denied the reports, but have repeated
the longstanding threat that “all options remain on the table”. However, the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is due to release a new assessment of
Iran’s nuclear programs, described to the Guardian by an unnamed Western
official as “a game-changer”, that could well provide the pretext for war. Iran
has consistently denied it has any plans to build nuclear weapons.
The
Guardian reported: “The [British] Ministry of Defence believes the US
may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key
Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it
will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep
reservations within the coalition government.” In anticipation, “British
military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and
submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months.”
An
article in the Telegraph confirmed that Ministry of Defence (MoD) had
signalled the need to act quickly based on claims that Iran was shifting key
uranium enrichment technology to a facility near Qom buried deep underground.
MoD planners told the newspaper there was a “shortening window of opportunity”
as a result. “You have got to get there early enough—once they dig into the
ground, it gets much more difficult,” one source declared.
Unnamed
British sources told the Guardian that US President Obama did not want
“to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November’s
presidential election. But they warned the calculations could change because of
mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by Western agencies.” One Whitehall
official commented: “President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming
months because he won’t want anything just before the election.”
Israel
could prompt Obama to plunge into a new war by launching its own strikes
against Iranian nuclear facilities, or threatening to do so. Last Friday,
prominent Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea, writing in Yediot Aharonot,
reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud
Barack were pressing the inner cabinet and security chiefs to agree to attack
Iran. The claim provoked a furious response from inner cabinet member Benny
Begin, who denounced the media debate as “utterly irresponsible” as it
“severely impeded the government’s ability to make decisions” on the issue.
The
Israeli government has already made advanced preparations for an attack on
Iran. The Ha’aretz newspaper reported on Tuesday that the Israeli
foreign ministry had begun a diplomatic campaign in mid-September stressing to
allies that there was not much time left to end the Iranian nuclear program
through diplomatic pressure and sanctions. On the military front, Israeli warplanes
last week conducted a long-range exercise—of the type required to reach
Iran—using a NATO airbase on the Italian island of Sardinia. On Wednesday,
Israel test-fired a long-range ballistic missile that also has the potential to
strike Iran.
Those
who claim that Israel and its American and European backers would not risk an
attack on Iran and potentially calamitous consequences ignore the fact that
their intelligence agencies have already been engaged in activities that are
tantamount to acts of war. It is widely acknowledged that Israel, with the
likely assistance of the US, was behind the cyber war operation using the
Stuxnet computer virus to sabotage Iran’s enrichment facilities, as well as the
assassination of several Iranian nuclear scientists over the past year.
More
fundamentally, the preparations for war against Iran are no more being driven
by concerns over its nuclear program than the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq
were motivated by “terrorism” or “weapons of mass destruction”, or the NATO
bombing of Libya was to protect the Libyan people. The US has recklessly
plunged into one war after another over the past decade in a desperate bid to
offset its economic decline by securing its hegemony over the energy-rich
regions of the Middle East and Central Asia.
The
neo-colonial invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have both turned into disasters,
which, as American commentators have repeatedly noted, have only enhanced the
standing of Iran in the region by removing two hostile regimes. Having failed
to secure a status of forces agreement with Baghdad, the US position will be
further weakened when it removes its remaining troops from Iraq by the end of
the year. The prospects are no better in Afghanistan as the US and its allies
prepare to wind back combat forces by 2014.
Far
from acting as a restraint, the worsening global economic crisis is impelling
US imperialism to use its military might to shore up its economic and strategic
interests at the expense of its main European and Asian rivals. That is the
twisted logic behind targeting Tehran, which is regarded in Washington as a
major obstacle to US ambitions in the Middle East and the main reason for its
failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, as in the case of Libya, a US-led
war on Tehran would seriously undermine the substantial economic interests of
China and Russia in Iran, as well as their efforts to forge closer strategic
ties.
The
Obama administration is also being driven by the deepening economic crisis and
rising class tensions at home that have been exposed by the eruption of the
anti-Wall Street protest movement. Despite the widespread popular opposition to
militarism and war that has developed over the past decade, the American
financial aristocracy is quite willing to take another irresponsible gamble to
shore up its interests in the Middle East and as a means of diverting attention
from the social devastation produced by its austerity agenda.
The
latest reports in the British press constitute the sharpest warning to the
American and international working class. As global capitalism lurches from one
economic and political crisis to the next, rivalry between the major powers for
markets, resources and strategic advantage is plunging humanity towards a
catastrophic conflict that would devastate the planet. The only social force
capable of ending the danger of world war is the international working class
through a unified struggle to abolish the profit system and establish a
world-planned socialist economy. That is the perspective of the International
Committee of the Fourth International and its sections in every country.
Peter
Symonds
*
Saudi Arabia backs US campaign
against Iran
By Sahand Avedis
21 June 2010
21 June 2010
Last
week, the Sunday Times of London revealed that Saudi Arabia has
conducted tests to let Israeli jets pass through its airspace for a bombing
raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The
Times quoted a US defence source: “They have already done tests to make
sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all
been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”
The
Times report continued, “The four main targets for any raid on Iran
would be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage
development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. Secondary targets
include the lightwater reactor at Bushehr, which could produce weapons-grade
plutonium when complete.”
These
reports come after years of sanctions and war threats by Israel and the US
against Iran, citing Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons programme.
The
significance of the Saudi plans lies in the fact that the targets are more than
2,000 km away from Israel. Even with aerial refueling, a successful raid would
be a difficult operation for the Israeli military, which historically evolved
to attack its neighbors, such as Egypt and Syria. It lacks the capability for
long-distance operations, particularly against a widely spread set of targets
in a country the size of Iran. The Times noted, “An open corridor across
northern Saudi Arabia would significantly shorten the distance” to be traveled
by Israeli fighter planes.
Given
the Times’s reputation as an outlet for leaks from Israeli
military intelligence, this revelation prompted extensive comment in the Middle
East. Saudi officials denied the report, claiming that they would not allow
Saudi territory to be used for attacks on a neighbouring country.
Such
denials are at best unconvincing, given that Saudi Arabia has a long history of
backing Washington’s operations in the Middle East—most notably, serving as a
base for US forces in the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq.
Recent
months have seen increasing tensions between Riyadh and Tehran. Arab regimes
are pressing the US to adopt a tougher stance with respect to Iran’s nuclear
programme. In a meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Riyadh in
February, Saudi Foreign Minister Al-Faisal stated that the Iranian nuclear
threat demands “a more immediate solution” than sanctions.
In
March, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates helped the US to defuse
Chinese opposition to UN sanctions against Iran, by reassuring Beijing that
they would increase their oil exports to China, if sanctions against Iran cut
the amount of oil China could import from Iran.
In
addition to fears of the regional geopolitical implications of Iran’s nuclear
programme, the Saudi monarchy is concerned about the internal implications of
tensions between the Shiite-populist Iranian regime and the Sunni Saudi
monarchy. As a result, it has supported the US and European campaign against
Iran.
These
concerns were highlighted by the recent war between Shiite Houthi rebels and
the US-allied Yemeni government of Ali Abdullah Saleh in northern Yemen, near
the border with Saudi Arabia. The Saudi regime worried about the impact of the
Houthi uprising on its own southern Shiite population. In November 2009, the
Royal Saudi Land Forces entered into Yemen, with the support of joint Saudi-US
air raids on rebel strongholds. The conflict resulted in 133 Saudi casualties,
with close to 500 soldiers captured or wounded.
US-allied
Arab states accused Tehran of backing the Shiite rebels in Yemen and supported
the Saudis. In response, Tehran accused Saudi Arabia of waging an unequal war
against the Shiite population of Yemen, on orders from Washington.
The
longstanding sectarian tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in Saudi
Arabia have vast strategic implications for the Saudi regime and the world
economy.
Although
there is a large population of Shiites on the Yemeni border, Saudi Arabia’s Shiite
minority is concentrated in the “Eastern Province,” across the Persian Gulf
from Iran. This province contains most of Saudi Arabia’s oil resources. Shiite
opposition thus potentially threatens to disrupt Saudi Arabia’s crucial oil
production. Saudi Shiites are socially oppressed, facing restrictions on their
religious practices and, since the 1980s, on their employment in the oil
industry.
These
tensions are bound up with the lasting consequences of the 1979 Iranian
Revolution. From 1968, the year that Britain announced its withdrawal from the
Persian Gulf, until the revolution, the Iranian monarchy regime of Shah
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi maintained friendly relations with the Saudi kingdom.
The
Saudi regime saw the massive oil strikes that led to the 1979 Iranian
Revolution, and the Shiite populist regime that emerged from it, as a deadly
threat, however. The Saudi regime feared that opposition to monarchy and US
imperialism could spread to its own population, particularly as Tehran appealed
to the marginalised Arab Shiite populations against US-allied Arab monarchies.
Despite their hostility to the nationalism of the Iraqi Baath party, the Gulf
monarchies backed Saddam Hussein in the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, in which they
saw Iran as a far more serious threat.
Saudi-Iranian
tensions rose dramatically during the “war on terror,” as the US invaded or
toppled regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon—intensifying competition
between the Iranian and Saudi governments for influence in the Middle East.
The
coming to power of Shiite parties in US-occupied Iraq after 2008—notably the
rise of a Shiite anti-occupation movement in Iraq around Moqtada al-Sadr—was a
source of deep concern for the Saudi regime. It has been widely suggested that
Saudi intelligence was behind numerous bombings in Iraqi Shiite areas that
helped push Iraq into sectarian civil war.
The
2005 election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad led to a more assertive
Iranian foreign policy, including stronger support for the Shiite-based
Hezbollah movement in Lebanon. Saudi Arabia and the US, however, backed a
Lebanese government led by Sunni politicians Fuad Siniora and then Saad Hariri
after the 2005 US-backed “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon.
Iranian
reformists around Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami have constantly
attacked Ahmadinejad’s foreign policy. Mohammad Abtahi, one of the key
organisers of the 2009 Green Movement protests against Ahmadinejad’s
re-election, said in 2006: “[A]t a time when all the Arab and Islamic states
are at their lowest level of diplomatic relation with Iran, Ahmadinejad’s visit
to left-wing Latin American countries to resurrect the Socialist-Communist axis
would entail a huge cost for the Iranian Muslim nation.”
As
part of the broader US strategy against the Ahmadinejad government in Tehran,
media in US-allied Arab countries are waging a press campaign together with
elements of the Green movement.
According
to Iraqi news network “Nahrain Net”, Saudi intelligence last month instructed
Saudi-financed media throughout the Gulf to launch a campaign against
Ahmadinejad and promote the Green opposition on the anniversary of the Iranian
presidential election. The goal of the Saudis, according to the Nahrain Net’s
report, was to “demonstrate that there is a real crisis in Iran,” and that “the
events in the last 12 months have boosted the reformists vis-à-vis
Ahmadinejad.”
European
sources that leaked the news also claimed that the “Iran Section” of Saudi
intelligence has been trained in the US and Britain and familiarised with the
views of various sections of the Iranian opposition.
One
such media is Al-Arabiya news television station, which rivals Qatar’s
Al-Jazeera and Iranian-owned Alalam in the Arab world. Al-Arabiya launched a
Persian website before the June 2009 election and has dedicated the website to
the views of mostly London-based Green opposition leaders such as Ataollah
Mohajerani.
Mohajerani
also frequently appears in BBC Persian TV, as a spokesman for the Green
opposition. Alireza Nourizadeh, the director of the Centre for Arab &
Iranian Studies in London and a Western intelligence asset who promotes the
Green movement, is also a frequent source in al-Arabiya TV channel discussions
on Iran.
Alleged
connections between the Green movement and the Gulf regimes was the subject of
intense debate in the 2009 Iranian presidential election. In his debate with
reformist candidate Mirhossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad accused Rafsanjani of
colluding with a Gulf country in 2005, shortly after Rafsanjani’s defeat in the
presidential election, to subvert his government: “Mr. Hashemi sent a message
to one of the kings in a neighbouring country that he would overthrow the new
government in six months.”
*
Freedom House
http://www.freedomhouse.org
Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade
American Mosques
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/45.pdf
Basics Project: Terrorism – Ideology
http://www.basicsproject.org/terrorism/ideology.htm#Wahhabism
*
Hatred's
Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism . by DORE GOLD
In the global search
for culprits and causes in the rise of terrorism, former Israeli ambassador
to the United Nations Dore Gold shines a spotlight on a nation many think of
as a close ally of the United States: Saudi Arabia. As he explains in Hatred’s
Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism, Gold
believes that the Saudi government is greatly influenced by the Islamist sect
known as Wahhabism and, he explains, that influence has lead to Saudi support
of terrorism in the Middle East, Europe, the United States and around the
world.
|
*
Is Saudi Arabia Waging Resource Aggression Against the
American People and the World Economy?!
*
Posted November 8, 2007
Imagine waking up to the following nightmare headline
"Canada Interdicts the Head Waters of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers
and All Water Flows From Its Territory Into the Great Lakes." One's
reaction would not be passive nor that of our government to such a blatant act
of resource aggression. And if you permit a glib interjection, any
argumentation that , "well its water on their side of the border"
would hold no water whatsoever. The deterioration of relations between the
United States and Canada would be immediate, grave, and threatening.
Yet in degree, this is the current status of our resource
relationship with the Saudis. Consider the following. On March 5, 2007 in a
first page article "Oil Innovations Pump New Life Into Old Wells",
the New York Times reported that Nansen G. Saleri, the head of reservoir
management at the state owned Saudi Aramco reported that Saudi Arabia's total
reserves were almost three times higher than the kingdom's officially published
figure of 260 billion barrels. He estimated the kingdom's resources at 716
billion barrels. Mr. Saleri continued that he wouldn't be surprised if ultimate
reserves of Saudi Arabia reached a trillion, (1,000,000,000,000) barrels!
This amazing revelation coming from the reservoir manager of
Aramco underlines the degree to which the Saudis have perverted the current
world oil market. The Saudis are the putative leaders of OPEC and their
capabilities and objectives determine OPEC's policy goals. It is clear as the
International Energy Agency phrased it in their recent report, "The
greater the increase in the call of oil and gas...the more likely it will be
that they will seek a higher rent from their exports and to impose higher
prices ... by deferring investment and constraining production."
Saudi Arabia, given its enormous reserves, could readily
produce significant additional quantities of oil in order to abate the steep
run up of oil prices. At these price levels the fact they and OPEC are
maintaining the major portion of their production cuts made at the beginning of
this year (OPEC's production cut of 1.7 million barrels/day altered by a
production increase of only 500,000 barrels/day starting this month) is smoking
gun evidence of their extortionist intent. By holding oil off the market, oil
which they clearly have in ample supply, they are gouging the world's
economies, pricing their product at levels that have no market rationale
whatsoever. They are preying on the world's need for oil. It is an act of
resource aggression against the world's consumers much as Canada's hypothetical
interference with the headwaters of our major river ways would be an act of
aggression against the United States.
Please note in my title I referred to waging resource
aggression against the American people. The government was not mentioned
because in this imbroglio our administration is in effect Saudi Arabia's, as
well as OPEC's and the oil patch's greatest ally. In the near seven years of
its Presidency, virtually nothing has been done to constrain Saudi Arabia's
policies. On the contrary our President and Vice President are so wedded to the
oil industry's interests that the enormous increase in oil prices during their
tenure can well be ascribed to willful lack of any forceful policies to counter
the Saudi extortion. This has manifested itself in many ways.
Let me just cite a few:
‑ In the near seven years of the Bush presidency, virtually
no serious steps have been taken to significantly abate demand for fossil
fuels;
*
The Specter of
Muslim Disloyalty in America
Posted By Raymond Ibrahim On September
13, 2010 @ 12:03 am In Homeland Security, Politics, Religion,
US News | 61
Comments
Islamist enmity for infidels, regularly manifested
in the jihad, is by now moderately well known. Lesser known, however, but of
equal concern, is the mandate for Muslims to be loyal to fellow Muslims and
Islam — a loyalty that all too often translates into disloyalty
to all things non-Muslim, including the American people and their government.This dichotomy of loyalty to Muslims and enmity for infidels — which, incidentally, corresponds well with Islamic law’s division of the world into the abode of war (deserving of enmity) and the abode of Islam (deserving of loyalty) — is founded on a Muslim doctrine called wala’ wa bara’ (best translated as “loyalty and enmity”). I first encountered this doctrine while translating [1] various Arabic documents for The Al Qaeda Reader [2]. In fact, the longest and arguably most revealing document I included in that volume is titled “Loyalty and Enmity” (pgs.63-115), compiled by Aymen Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s number two.
‑ The nations Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been used to
underpin escalating prices by continuing purchases even as prices exploded,
thereby signaling the governments acceptance and approval of these price
levels, and worse by declaring the doubling of the Reserve just as crude oil
prices were retreating to $50/bbl earlier this year.
‑ Neither through "friendly persuasion" nor as a
Dutch Uncle, making Saudi Arabia understand its price and production policies
are intolerable. This even though we are in essence the guarantors of last
resort of Saudi Arabia's independence as evidenced by the some $100 million
dollars a day being expended from this nation's treasury on our naval flotilla
stationed off the Saudi Coast in the Arabian Gulf‑ thereby serving as a bulwark
against Shia Iran that without our presence would have designs and capabilities
against Sunni Saudi Arabia;
‑ By the fawning obsequiousness our high government
officials have shown toward Saudi officialdom, (see "The Price of Oil,
OPEC and Our Laws and Now Welcome to Vichy" 5.4.06) or be it Price
Bandar's open access to the Oval Office while he was Ambassador in Washington
and thereafter.
‑ Or as exemplified by the symbolic holding of then Price
Abdullah's hand at the Crawford Ranch meeting (see "Cheney in Saudi Land,
Don't Hold Abdullah's Hand" 01.16.06; and "President Bush's Most
Respectful Letter to King Abdullah on Energy Cooperation" 06.22.06 ) whose
coziness resulted in an almost immediate upward ratcheting of oil prices.
The administration's oil industry buddies are ecstatic at
the windfall the entire oil sector has reaped by the quadrupling of oil prices
to levels undreamed of before the advent of this Presidency, while many of the
nations citizens are having their household budgets ripped to shreds in order
to meet their home heating bills this coming winter. Rarely if ever in the
history of the Republic has there been such a divergence between the nation's
interests and those of the vested interests that formed this administration.
*
INTERESTING.... given the SAUDIS 9-11 INVADERS of AMERICA
are the biggest financiers of global Islamic terrorism!
Now if we could only get BUSH CRIME FAMILY,
BUSH-SAUDI-CARLYLE GROUP, HILLARY-BILLARY LIBRARY and BARACK OBAMA to stop
pandering to the royal saudis lardbucket wahhabist!
Understanding the Wahhabist Infiltration of America
Frank Salvato
Part of the reason many Americans don’t appreciate the
significance of Osama bin Laden’s declarations of war against the United States
and the West is because they are completely oblivious to the in roads radical
Islam has made within the United States. Radical Islamists (i.e.,
Islamofascists, Wahhabis) understand that the conflict must take place on
multiple fronts: militarily, economically, diplomatically and ideologically.
Because they understand the complexity of the confrontation and the ability of
the West to adapt to challenges – albeit lethargically – they employ multiple
tactics in their aggressive pursuit of victory. The West’s addiction to sensationalism,
epitomized by our limited attention to detail, unless it plays in the
superficial 24 hour news cycle, facilitates the successful infiltration of
radical ideology into Western society.
Much to the chagrin of the multicultural and the proponents of diversity, those who promote radical Islamist ideology thrive on the fact that the politically correct culture of the West – and the United States in particular – deems it inappropriate to question religious practices or teachings. With this politically correct “wall of separation” in place little if any scrutiny is given to the information disseminated within any given religious institution. This directly facilitates the ideological advancement of Wahhabism, the most radical and puritanical form of Islam, within the mosques of the United States.
To accurately understand the depth of infiltration of the
Wahhabist ideology on American soil we need to examine the ideology and how it
is advanced within the United States.
Wahhabism is a fiercely fundamentalist form of orthodox
Sunni Islam. After a brief examination of its tenets it is clear that it is one
of division, domination and hate.
Wahhabism originated circa 1703 and is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia. Wahhabists believe that any and all evolution of the Islamic faith after the 3rd century of the Muslim era – after 950 A.D. – was specious and must be expunged. Consequently, Wahhabism is the form of Islam that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahri practice.
This radically fundamentalist dogma is fanatically bigoted,
xenophobic and lends itself to serve as the catalyst for much of the
Islamofascist aggression being perpetrated around the world. It is a wrathful
doctrine that rejects the legitimacy of all religious philosophy but its own.
Wahhabism condemns Christians, Jews and all other non Muslims, as well as non
Wahhabi Muslims. Wahhabists believe it is a religious obligation for Muslims to
hate Christians and Jews.
It stresses a worldview in which there exist two opposing
realms that can never be reconciled Dar al Islam, or House of Islam, and Dar al
Har, or House of War, also referred to as Dar al Kufr, House of the Infidel.
When Muslims are in the Dar al Har, they must behave as if they were operatives
in a conflict who have been tasked with going behind enemy lines. The Wahhabist
ideology permits Muslims to exist “behind enemy lines” for only a few reasons:
to acquire knowledge, to make money to be later employed in the jihad against
the infidels, or to proselytize the infidels in an effort to convert them to
Islam.
Wahhabist doctrine specifically warns Muslims not to
imitate, befriend or help “infidels” in any way. It instills hatred for United
States because we are ruled by legislated constitutional law rather than by
tyrannical Sharia law. Wahhabists are instructed by edict to, above all, work
for the creation of an Islamic state where ever they may dwell.
It is because of the Wahhabist ideology’s cruel and
unyielding fanaticism that we in the United States should be concerned with its
prevalence within the mosques of our nation.
After the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 – an
unprecedented action by the fundamentalists of the sect, the Saudi Arabian government responded
by coming to terms with the fundamentalist Wahhabist movement of the Sunni
sect. The Saudis, in return for a declaration of non aggression, began to
finance the construction of mosques in countries around the world. An estimated
$45 billion has been spent by the Saudis to finance the building and
operational costs of mosques and Islamic schools in foreign countries,
including in North America.
*
Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global
Terrorism (Paperback)
by DORE GOLD
*
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com Review
In the global search for culprits and causes in the rise of
terrorism, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Dore Gold shines a
spotlight on a nation many think of as a close ally of the United States: Saudi
Arabia. As he explains in Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New
Global Terrorism, Gold believes that the Saudi government is greatly influenced
by the Islamist sect known as Wahhabism and, he explains, that influence has
lead to Saudi support of terrorism in the Middle East, Europe, the United
States and around the world. The historical portion of Gold’s argument, where
he traces the emergence of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the changing face of
Saudi leadership, is admirably extensive and detailed. His modern research is a
little more uneven, relying on statements by various Muslim clergy members,
letters to the editors of newspapers, opinion pieces, and other evidence that
is rarely damnable. Curiously, mentions of Israel and the long-standing Arab-Israeli
conflict are much more infrequent than one would expect from an Israeli
diplomat and scholar. But regardless of one’s opinion of Gold’s research or his
alarming conclusions, the book offers something not often found in modern
political nonfiction: a coherent structure, exhaustive research, and a clear
and consistent perspective on the ongoing threat of terrorism. --John Moe
--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
*
Saudi
Friends and Foes
By
Frank Gaffney
11/3/2010
It
seems that, thanks to Saudi Arabia, the latest effort to kill Americans with
sophisticated bombs failed. Thanks to Saudi Arabia, we are certain to be
subjected to more such attacks in the future.
The
preceding paragraph captures the double game we confront from a kingdom that,
on the one hand, is routinely characterized by American officials as a reliable
U.S. ally in the volatile Middle East, a crucial source of oil and a
trustworthy recipient of sophisticated weaponry. On the other hand, it is also the
wellspring of shariah, the supremacist totalitarian doctrine that is the law of
the land in Saudi Arabia and that animates and enables jihadists worldwide –
thanks to immense support from Saudi royals, government agencies, businessmen,
clerics and “charities.”
In
a report Sunday on the intercepted Hewlett Packard printers whose ink
cartridges were transformed into potent bombs and dispatched from Yemen, the
New York Times declared that Saudi Arabia in recent years had been forced to
“wake up to a reality it had long refused to acknowledge. The puritanical
strain of Islam fostered by the state, sometimes called Wahhabism, was breeding
extremists who were willing to kill even Muslims for their cause.” Now, the
paper concluded, “Saudi Arabia’s problem…has become the world’s problem.”
The
truth is that the Saudis’ problem has been the world’s problem for some time
now. It is a problem that becomes more intractable, not less, as our government
and others refuse even to come to recognize, let alone come to grips with, the
Kingdom’s double game whose malevolent elements are directly fueled by what the
authorities of Islam – especially those who operate in the kingdom – call
shariah, rather than Wahhabism.
How
has Washington chosen to respond instead? By and large, it has seen what it
wants to see in the House of Saud and averted its gaze from what it does not
want to see. Accordingly, the Saudis’ episodic help with countering terrorism
is lauded, while their vast material and ideological contribution to its spread
is largely overlooked. Their contribution to instability in the Middle East is
discounted and their “peace plan” for ending the Israel-Palestinian conflict on
terms that would assuredly endanger the Jewish State is enthusiastically
embraced.
Similarly,
the Saudis are never held accountable for their role as prime-movers behind the
“stealth jihad” – the effort to insinuate shariah into nations like ours
through the text books, mosques, Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, media
ownership and other influence operations they underwrite. This dangerous
practice is often lubricated by the Saudis’ generous financial and other
relationships with former senior U.S. government officials and prominent
businesses, who can be counted upon to discourage probing questions or more
prudential policies here.
At
the moment, this “see-no-evil” approach is manifested by President Obama’s
proposed sale of $60-plus billion worth of advanced American arms to Saudi
Arabia. Unless Congress objects in the next few weeks, large quantities of
sophisticated fighter planes, helicopters, missile systems and bombs will be
transferred to the Saudis over the next decade.
Such
weapons are, of course, unlikely to do much to help the Saudis with what the
New York Times euphemistically calls their “problem” with “extremists” and
“militants.” The latter are, after all, simply acting upon the Saudis’ own
politico-military-legal code, shariah.
These
arms may or may not assure the Kingdom will provide down the road the sort of
help its intelligence services reportedly gave us in recent days in countering
“their problem” as it continues to metastasize around the world. Even less
certain is whether this massive infusion of U.S. military equipment will have
any appreciable impact in contending with the Saudis’ other problem – and ours:
a nuclear-armed and ever-more-aggressive Iran.
What
does seem predictable, however, is that at some point these arms will wind up
in the hands of people who are not even our fair-weather friends. Candidates
would include those among the 5,000 Saudi princes who take seriously their duty
under shariah to wage holy war against infidels like us. Then, there are the
followers of Osama bin Laden – some of whom are actually affiliated with al
Qaeda, others of whom simply emulate him – who seek to supplant the Saudi
royals and would love to have access to the Kingdom’s arsenal and oil wealth to
pursue their jihadist ambitions against Israel and the United States.
Another
possibility is that a nuclear-armed Iran may become so dominant a force in the
Persian Gulf that it manages – one way or another, perhaps by direct force of
arms or perhaps by collusion with the Shiites who populate the Saudis’ most
oil-rich region – to acquire this array of formidable American-supplied weaponry.
While the dangers associated with such an eventuality may be mitigated
somewhate by the need to have U.S. contractors maintain and support such
weapons, they cannot be denied.
The
United States simply can no longer afford to look the other way on Saudi
double-dealing. The time to establish whose side they really are on – and are
likely to be on in the years to come – is before we arm them to the teeth with
weapons that could come back to bite us.
Frank Gaffney
Frank Gaffney Jr. is the founder and president of the Center
for Security Policy and author of War Footing: 10 Steps America
Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World .
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Frank Gaffney's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Frank Gaffney's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to
*
US Supreme Court declines to hear
case of 9/11 families
By Joe Kishore
30 June 2009
30 June 2009
The
US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case brought by families of 9/11
victims against Saudi Arabia, four members of the Saudi royal family, a Saudi
bank and a charity. The action lets stand a lower court ruling that the Saudi
members cannot be held liable in US courts.
The
Obama administration supported the Saudi monarchs, who were accused of
financially supporting several of the individuals involved in the September 11,
2001 attacks. The administration last month intervened to ask the high court to
reject the appeal.
The
family members claim that Saudi princes contributed to charities that funded Al
Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers.
In
August 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan upheld a 2006
district court ruling that the Saudi officials and entities were protected
under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The families argued that lower
courts had made conflicting rulings on the scope of sovereign immunity, and
that the Supreme Court should therefore intervene.
The
Justice Department has sought furiously to prevent the release of documents
assembled by lawyers for the families, which, according to a New York Times report,
“provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other
extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.” The government has had
copies of the documents destroyed and has sought to prevent judges from even
looking at them.
The
US government has worked systematically to conceal from the American people
evidence of Saudi support for at least two of the hijackers, part of a broader
cover-up of the many unanswered questions that still surround the 9/11 attacks.
The
documents gathered by the 9/11 families—including a classified section of the
2003 joint congressional inquiry into the attacks—likely include material on
Nawaf al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, two Saudi nationals who were aboard the
planes that crashed on 9/11. They were known by US intelligence to be members
of Al Qaeda at least since 1999.
Despite
their previous association, the two men were allowed into the US, where they
found accommodations with the help of a Saudi intelligence agent (Omar
al-Bayoumi) and, later, an FBI asset (Abdussattar Shaikh). Al-Bayoumi received
financing from Princess Haifa, the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US,
Prince Bandar.
The
suit filed by the families focuses solely on the role of Saudi Arabia. However,
the more fundamental question is the role of sections of the American state.
The Saudi royal family has had long and intimate ties with American
intelligence, and the broader exposure of Saudi links to the attacks threatens
to unravel the entire official story of the September 11 attacks.
*
Obama administration seeks to quash suit by 9/11 families
By Barry Grey
26 June 2009
The Obama administration has intervened to quash a civil suit filed against
Saudi Arabia by survivors and family members of victims of the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks. The suit seeks to hold the Saudi royal family liable,
charging that it provided financial and other support to Al Qaeda and was
thereby complicit in the hijack bombings that killed nearly 3,000 people in New
York and Washington DC.According to an article by Eric Lichtblau in the June 24 New York Times, documents assembled by lawyers for the 9/11 families “provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.” However, the article states, the documents may never find their way into court because of legal challenges by Saudi Arabia, which are being supported by the US Justice Department.
The administration is taking extraordinary measures to kill the suit and suppress the evidence of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Last month, the Justice Department sided in court with the Saudi monarchy in seeking to halt further legal action. Moreover, it had copies of American intelligence documents on Saudi finances that had been leaked to lawyers for the families destroyed, and is now seeking to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.
Two federal judges and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled against the 7,630 people represented in the lawsuit, rejecting the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs cannot sue in the US against a sovereign nation and its leaders. The Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on whether to hear an appeal, but the families’ prospects have been weakened by the intervention of the Obama administration, which has called on the court not to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal.
The Times reports that it obtained the new documents from the families’ lawyers, adding that they are among “several hundred thousand pages of investigative material” assembled by the 9/11 families in their long-running suit against the Saudi royal family.
Lichtblau writes that the documents “provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of September 11, 2001.” However, there is a wealth of evidence in the public record strongly pointing to such a connection. And there is the 28-page, classified section of the 2003 joint congressional inquiry into 9/11 that deals with the Saudi role in the attacks. Lichtblau writes that “the secret section is believed to discuss intelligence on Saudi financial links to two hijackers.”
Then-President George W. Bush ordered that section of the congressional report to be classified, and its contents were blacked out in the findings released to the public by Congress. The Obama administration is continuing this policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy.
Lichtblau reports that the material obtained by the Times from the families’ lawyers includes “thousands of pages of previously undisclosed documents” that provide “an unusually detailed look at some of the evidence.” He cites as one example “internal Treasury Department documents” that show that the International Islamic Relief Organization, a “Saudi charity,” heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, “provided ‘support for terrorist organizations’ at least through 2006.”
He gives other examples of evidence of Saudi support for Islamist terrorists in Bosnia in the 1990s and witness statements and intelligence reports of money being given by Saudi princes to the Taliban and to “militants’ activities” in Pakistan and Bosnia during the same decade.
What are the motives behind the Obama administration’s efforts to cover up the connections between the Saudi monarchy and Al Qaeda?
The Justice Department, according to the Times, cites “potentially significant foreign relations consequences” should the 9/11 families’ suit be allowed to go to trial. This is undoubtedly a factor. The US has an immense political and economic interest in protecting the Saudi dictatorship, which is a major American ally in the Middle East, a supporter of Washington’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the world’s biggest producer of oil.
But there is a more immediate and compelling reason for suppressing any exposure of the Saudi connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11. The revelations would undoubtedly shatter the official explanations of the September 11 attacks and point to complicity on the part of US intelligence and security agencies.
Given its longstanding and intimate ties to the Saudi royal family and Saudi intelligence, it is not possible to believe that the CIA would have been unaware of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and at least some of the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals, as they were preparing to carry out the attacks on New York and Washington.
The ties between the Saudi and US intelligence establishments were strengthened during the US-backed war against the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan, beginning in 1979 and continuing through the 1980s. The US poured billions of dollars in arms and financing into this war, most of it funneled through the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency.
The Saudi regime also helped fund the anti-Soviet guerrillas, many of whom were brought to Afghanistan by Islamist forces in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden served as the Saudi regime’s personal emissary in this cause, helping to organize, train and equip Arab volunteers for the Afghan war. The movement now known as Al Qaeda was spawned through the interaction of these three intelligence agencies—the CIA, the ISI and the Saudis.
The bipartisan 9/11 commission, in its July 2004 report, echoed the Bush administration’s whitewash of Saudi ties to the terrorist attacks, declaring that it found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” Al Qaeda.
However, in a book published later that year, Intelligence Matters, then-Florida Senator Bob Graham charged the Bush administration with orchestrating a cover-up of Saudi involvement in the September 11 attacks. Graham was at the time the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which had carried out, along with its House counterpart, the joint congressional investigation into 9/11.
He wrote that “evidence of official Saudi supportî for at least some of the hijackers was ìincontrovertible.” Graham’s charges focused on the extraordinary cases of Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who were identified as hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.
The two men, both Saudi nationals, are undoubtedly the “two hijackers” to whom Times reporter Lichtblau refers in connection with the secret section of the joint congressional report on 9/11.
Both were known to US intelligence as Al Qaeda operatives at least since 1999. Malaysian agents, acting in concert with the CIA, photographed and videotaped them and others during a 2000 meeting of Islamist terrorist groups in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Nevertheless, after the meeting, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were allowed to fly to the US using their own passports and visas issued by US consular authorities in Saudi Arabia. While the CIA knew of their presence in the US, it did not inform the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to the FBI. (The CIA disputes this claim, insisting that it did alert the FBI). Nor did the CIA inform immigration authorities.
After landing in Los Angeles in January of 2000, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were met by Omar al-Bayoumi, an employee of the Saudi civil aviation authority. US investigators have concluded that al-Bayoumi was a Saudi intelligence agent.
Al-Bayoumi invited the pair to move to San Diego, where he found them an apartment, provided them with money and helped enroll them in flight school.
It has been reported that al-Bayoumi served as a conduit for thousands of dollars in funding for the future hijackers sent by Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US and a close confidante of the Bush family.
Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar lived openly in the US, one of them even having his name listed in the telephone directory.
Within months, al-Hazmi moved into the home of Abdussattar Shaikh, a retired professor at San Diego State University. Shaikh was on the FBI payroll, charged with monitoring the activities of Islamist groups in the San Diego region.
In his book, Graham wrote that the FBI concealed from the joint congressional committee the fact that its paid informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, had established a close personal relationship with the two hijackers.
When the committee staff discovered Shaikh’s role and the committee issued a subpoena to question him under oath, the FBI and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to serve the subpoena. Graham said that a senior FBI official wrote to him and the Republican co-chair of the joint committee declaring that the administration would neither allow the FBI to serve a subpoena on Shaikh nor allow the committee staff to interview him.
Graham wrote that this was the only time he had ever heard of the FBI refusing to serve a congressional subpoena. He commented, “We were seeing in writing what we had suspected for some time: the White House was directing a cover-up.”
Bush’s extraordinary intervention to block questioning of FBI informant Shaikh was consistent with his administration’s actions in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when it allowed chartered planes to ferry some 140 prominent Saudis—including at least a dozen of Osama bin Laden’s relatives—to Boston for evacuation to Saudi Arabia. The pick-up flights were organized at a time when all non-military and non-emergency aviation had been grounded by government order. Bin Laden’s relatives were allowed to leave the country with little or no questioning by the FBI.
In his book, Graham himself posed the question of why the congressional committee was denied access to the San Diego FBI informant. After offering several possible answers, he suggested in deliberately obscure language a “far more damning possibility”—“perhaps the informant did know something about the plot that would be even more damaging were it revealed, and that this is what the FBI is trying to conceal.”
Graham did not spell out what “damning” information about the 9/11 conspiracy the informant might have revealed. But the role of the CIA, the FBI and the Bush administration in the case of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar suggests that it went beyond involvement by the Saudi government. It strongly suggests he was blocked from being questioned out of concern that he would reveal that elements within the US state apparatus knew of plans for an impending hijacking and allowed them to go forward.
Eight years after the attacks, no one has been held accountable for what on its face is the greatest failure of national security in US history. The question is: Was it a failure, or was a decision taken to permit a terrorist attack on US soil in order to provide the pretext for implementing plans for wars abroad and repressive policies at home that had been drawn up well in advance of September 11, 2001?
That a new administration is continuing the policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy and suppressing evidence of its complicity in 9/11 points strongly to the latter explanation.
*
Is Saudi Arabia Waging Resource Aggression Against the
American People and the World Economy?!
Posted November 8, 2007
Imagine waking up to the following nightmare headline
"Canada Interdicts the Head Waters of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers
and All Water Flows From Its Territory Into the Great Lakes." One's
reaction would not be passive nor that of our government to such a blatant act
of resource aggression. And if you permit a glib interjection, any
argumentation that , "well its water on their side of the border"
would hold no water whatsoever. The deterioration of relations between the
United States and Canada would be immediate, grave, and threatening.
Yet in degree, this is the current status of our resource
relationship with the Saudis. Consider the following. On March 5, 2007 in a
first page article "Oil Innovations Pump New Life Into Old Wells",
the New York Times reported that Nansen G. Saleri, the head of reservoir
management at the state owned Saudi Aramco reported that Saudi Arabia's total
reserves were almost three times higher than the kingdom's officially published
figure of 260 billion barrels. He estimated the kingdom's resources at 716
billion barrels. Mr. Saleri continued that he wouldn't be surprised if ultimate
reserves of Saudi Arabia reached a trillion, (1,000,000,000,000) barrels!
This amazing revelation coming from the reservoir manager of
Aramco underlines the degree to which the Saudis have perverted the current
world oil market. The Saudis are the putative leaders of OPEC and their
capabilities and objectives determine OPEC's policy goals. It is clear as the
International Energy Agency phrased it in their recent report, "The
greater the increase in the call of oil and gas...the more likely it will be
that they will seek a higher rent from their exports and to impose higher
prices ... by deferring investment and constraining production."
Saudi Arabia, given its enormous reserves, could readily
produce significant additional quantities of oil in order to abate the steep
run up of oil prices. At these price levels the fact they and OPEC are
maintaining the major portion of their production cuts made at the beginning of
this year (OPEC's production cut of 1.7 million barrels/day altered by a
production increase of only 500,000 barrels/day starting this month) is smoking
gun evidence of their extortionist intent. By holding oil off the market, oil
which they clearly have in ample supply, they are gouging the world's
economies, pricing their product at levels that have no market rationale
whatsoever. They are preying on the world's need for oil. It is an act of
resource aggression against the world's consumers much as Canada's hypothetical
interference with the headwaters of our major river ways would be an act of
aggression against the United States.
Please note in my title I referred to waging resource
aggression against the American people. The government was not mentioned
because in this imbroglio our administration is in effect Saudi Arabia's, as
well as OPEC's and the oil patch's greatest ally. In the near seven years of
its Presidency, virtually nothing has been done to constrain Saudi Arabia's
policies. On the contrary our President and Vice President are so wedded to the
oil industry's interests that the enormous increase in oil prices during their
tenure can well be ascribed to willful lack of any forceful policies to counter
the Saudi extortion. This has manifested itself in many ways.
Let me just cite a few:
‑ In the near seven years of the Bush presidency, virtually
no serious steps have been taken to significantly abate demand for fossil
fuels;
‑ The nations Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been used to
underpin escalating prices by continuing purchases even as prices exploded,
thereby signaling the governments acceptance and approval of these price
levels, and worse by declaring the doubling of the Reserve just as crude oil prices
were retreating to $50/bbl earlier this year.
‑ Neither through "friendly persuasion" nor as a
Dutch Uncle, making Saudi Arabia understand its price and production policies
are intolerable. This even though we are in essence the guarantors of last resort
of Saudi Arabia's independence as evidenced by the some $100 million dollars a
day being expended from this nation's treasury on our naval flotilla stationed
off the Saudi Coast in the Arabian Gulf‑ thereby serving as a bulwark against
Shia Iran that without our presence would have designs and capabilities against
Sunni Saudi Arabia;
‑ By the fawning obsequiousness our high government
officials have shown toward Saudi officialdom, (see "The Price of Oil,
OPEC and Our Laws and Now Welcome to Vichy" 5.4.06) or be it Price
Bandar's open access to the Oval Office while he was Ambassador in Washington
and thereafter.
‑ Or as exemplified by the symbolic holding of then Price
Abdullah's hand at the Crawford Ranch meeting (see "Cheney in Saudi Land,
Don't Hold Abdullah's Hand" 01.16.06; and "President Bush's Most
Respectful Letter to King Abdullah on Energy Cooperation" 06.22.06 ) whose
coziness resulted in an almost immediate upward ratcheting of oil prices.
The administration's oil industry buddies are ecstatic at
the windfall the entire oil sector has reaped by the quadrupling of oil prices
to levels undreamed of before the advent of this Presidency, while many of the
nations citizens are having their household budgets ripped to shreds in order
to meet their home heating bills this coming winter. Rarely if ever in the
history of the Republic has there been such a divergence between the nation's
interests and those of the vested interests that formed this administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment