PDA

View Full Version : new republic: 28 pages implicate top saudi officials


zimv20
Aug 4, 2003, 05:17 PM
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=ackermanjudis080103


there's been considerable speculation about the 28 pages blanked out from the section entitled "Certain Sensitive National Security Matters." The section cites "specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers," which most commentators have interpreted to mean Saudi contributions to Al Qaeda-linked charities. But an official who has read the report tells The New Republic that the support described in the report goes well beyond that: It involves connections between the hijacking plot and the very top levels of the Saudi royal family. "There's a lot more in the 28 pages than money. Everyone's chasing the charities," says this official. "They should be chasing direct links to high levels of the Saudi government. We're not talking about rogue elements. We're talking about a coordinated network that reaches right from the hijackers to multiple places in the Saudi government."


The official who read the 28 pages tells The New Republic, "If the people in the administration trying to link Iraq to Al Qaeda had one-one-thousandth of the stuff that the 28 pages has linking a foreign government to Al Qaeda, they would have been in good shape." He adds: "If the 28 pages were to be made public, I have no question that the entire relationship with Saudi Arabia would change overnight."

mactastic
Aug 5, 2003, 10:01 AM
Ah the lovely House of Saud. When are we going to realize that until we deal with Saudi Arabia we will not be significantly dealing with the terrorism problem? Just a hunch here, but I'm guessing the $25,000 Saddam was giving to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers pales in comparison to the many millions given to fundamentalist muslim groups, specifically alQuaeda, by high-ranking Saudi officials, as well as actual members of the royal family. The Saudis continue to fund anti-American madrassas that educate students in ways of hate towards Jews and Americans. Some of these schools are right here in the US! Yet we haven't called the Saudis on this, nor the second-class-citizen status of Saudi women. (Remember Laura Bush's indignation with the Taliban for their oppression of women?) To me, our cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia is unconsionable, and indefensible. If the Saudi's weren't sitting on the world's largest stockpiles of oil, it would be a very different story. (I would like to think.)

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 6, 2003, 06:51 AM
I wonder how different things would be now had the US aggressively pursued alternate fuel sources after the oil crisis in the 70s. i guess it's hard when the big 3 dominate policy in that area.

IJ Reilly
Aug 6, 2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
I wonder how different things would be now had the US aggressively pursued alternate fuel sources after the oil crisis in the 70s. i guess it's hard when the big 3 dominate policy in that area.

If solar power had a directly military application, we'd probably all have solar cells on our roofs today, and nobody would be talking about OPEC, Iraqi or Saudi oil, or how to make coal burn cleanly in power plants.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 6, 2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
If solar power had a directly military application, we'd probably all have solar cells on our roofs today, and nobody would be talking about OPEC, Iraqi or Saudi oil, or how to make coal burn cleanly in power plants.

Or if Ford had figured out how to get rich off it.

And now anytime some community wants to set up a wind tower some people flip out because it will ruin their views. Meanwhile people who have them in their towns talk about how cool they look and how they even bring in some tourism.

IJ Reilly
Aug 6, 2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
Or if Ford had figured out how to get rich off it.

I'm not sure I see the Ford angle -- the automobile companies are victims of technological momentum and little else as nearly as I can tell. My point being, we made huge national investments in nuclear technology because of the military applications, and built all of those nuclear tea kettles to generate electricity for little other good reason but that the technology was available. I have little doubt that if we'd invested even a substantial fraction of those dollars in other methods of generating power (especially solar), we'd be looking a much different, and almost certainly better, world today.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 6, 2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'm not sure I see the Ford angle -- the automobile companies are victims of technological momentum and little else as nearly as I can tell.

I wasn't really referring to Solar specifically, just alternative fuel sources in general. Perhaps you're right, but I would like to have seen more pushing for autos fueled by something other than gasoline done by the Big 3 et al, years ago. I think they could have helped the ball get rolling..and didn't Ford just announce that at least 1 of its SUVs will have worse fuel economy than the prior year's model? First time that's happened or something...

Sorry if this getting way OT