How Does the Saudi Relationship With the Bush Family Affect U.S. Foreign Policy?
From: Craig Unger
To: Rachel Bronson
Subject: Bush Has Given the Saudis a Free Pass
Tuesday, July 6, 2004, at 9:47 AM PT
Rachel,
As far as I'm concerned, the elephant in the living room in American politics is that never before has a president of the United States been tied so closely to a foreign power that harbors and supports our mortal enemies. I'm talking about the Bush family relationship with the Saudis, of course. I believe that insofar as the Saudis have played a key role in fostering Islamist terrorism, Bush is compromised in leading a real war against terror.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that we're an oil-dependent nation that has to have a strong relationship with the oil-rich Saudis. But that shouldn't mean we have to give the Saudis a free pass. Bush has done exactly that and continues to—even though he is posing as Mr. Macho Tough Guy Wartime President.
How are the Bushes compromised? In House of Bush, House of Saud, I trace more than $1.4 billion in contracts and investments from the House of Saud to companies in which the Bushes and their friends have had key roles. (Michael Moore uses this figure in Fahrenheit 9/11.) Saudi money bailed out Harken Energy when George W. Bush was on its board of directors. That's how he made his fortune. Bush 41 and James Baker traveled to Saudi Arabia repeatedly for the Carlyle Group to woo Saudi investors and win contracts. The Bush family remains close to Prince Bandar, even though Bandar's wife actually funded two 9/11 hijackers—indirectly and inadvertently, of course. Indirect and inadvertent—that's the Saudi way.
Has it ever occurred to the Bushes that the Saudi families they consort with contributed—indirectly and inadvertently—to the same Islamic charities cited as funneling money to terrorists? I doubt it.
Let's focus on the most glaring favor the Bush administration did for the Saudis, which I discuss both in my book and in Fahrenheit 9/11. Right after the horrifying events of Sept. 11, when there were still restrictions on U.S. airspace, the White House authorized the evacuation of at least 142 people, most of them Saudi. About two dozen were members of the Bin Laden family.
Let's think about what this really means. The biggest crime in American history had just taken place. A massive criminal investigation was under way. These flights should have been a focus of that investigation—not a privilege granted to friends of the Bushes. I don't mean to suggest that the people on board were necessarily guilty of anything, but many of them certainly should have been the subjects of serious interviews done through formal investigative procedures. There is no evidence that happened. But it is unquestionable that the Saudis were given White House authorization to fly.
Perhaps it was merely grotesque incompetence, but at some horribly ugly moment in the Bush White House, someone made a decision about whether to really try to get to the bottom of this horrifying crime or to perform a favor of convenience for Bush's Saudi friends. Can anyone possibly defend this? Can you, Rachel?
Craig
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rachel Bronson
To: Craig Unger
Subject: Did Bush Give the Saudis a Free Pass?
Tuesday, July 6, 2004, at 10:25 AM PT
I'm looking forward to the opportunity provided by Slate to really dig deeply into the issue of U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia. I read your book carefully and have followed closely much of your commentary.
Let's get right to the heart of your concern. You write:
I understand that we're an oil-dependent nation that has to have a strong relationship with the oil-rich Saudis. But that shouldn't mean we have to give the Saudis a free pass.
I agree. But I'm not sure what free pass Bush has given them. I think the Bush administration has made a series of very serious and consequential mistakes, especially when it comes to the postwar planning in Iraq and how it is fighting the war on terror. But where is the free pass for the Saudis?
You mention that Saudis were allowed to leave the United States soon after Sept. 11. In Michael Moore's film, he interviews an FBI agent who was very disappointed that Saudis on those flights weren't carefully screened. But here's what a 9/11 staff commission report says about these flights (the 9/11 commission reports have been considered very fair and are often critical of the Bush administration, so I take their views pretty seriously):
The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country.
Twenty-two of the 26 people on the flight that took most of the Bin Ladens out of the country were interviewed by the FBI, and "many were asked detailed questions." Those on the flights had their names checked against the FBI database, and there was no suspicious activity, at least as far as the 9/11 commission is concerned, associated with those names. Richard Clarke, hardly a fan of the administration and hardly a lightweight when it comes to counterterrorism, knew of the flights and their passengers. Everything was handled "in a professional manner."
So, while I'm willing to be convinced that there was something underhanded going on, I haven't yet seen anything that would convince me.
Is Bush compromised by his Saudi money? $1.4 billion is a lot of money. But what did Bush do that other presidents would not have done, given the money he received? The fact that Bush 43 declared war against Iraq actually argues against the idea of Bush being in the Saudis' pocket. The Saudis were way out in front arguing against this war. They didn't want it; they worried about the post-conflict environment, about chaos on their border if things went badly, about a democratically elected Shiite neighbor if things went well. Yes, Saudi Arabia provided the United States with enormous help in the war, but they didn't want it. They, for some reason, thought we could instigate a coup in Iraq, something I still think was entirely unrealistic, given that we had already tried that and it hadn't worked. Operation Iraqi Freedom went directly against a key Saudi Arabian foreign policy preference. That hardly suggests that Bush is in their pocket.
Finally, I believe the focus on the Bushes starts the story much too late.
The Saudis have been close friends of many Republican administrations. The Republicans, after all, are a party of big business, and oil is a heck of a big business. Adnan Khashoggi, an infamous world-renowned Saudi arms dealer, was a big supporter of Richard Nixon. In the 1980s, Saudi Arabia had extraordinarily good relations with the Reagan administration. Saudi Arabia has been closely involved with U.S. politics for decades. Bush may have taken it to a new level, but it is still not at all clear to me that it has mattered all that much.
Rachel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Craig Unger
To: Rachel Bronson
Subject: Entering the End-Game Stage
Tuesday, July 6, 2004, at 2:00 PM PT
After months on the talk show circuit, it's a rare pleasure to encounter someone who is not from the Jerry Springer school of politics. That said, I will try to stick to the facts.
It's not hard to argue that the Bush administration has given a pass to the Saudis. Consider the confirmation hearings of Robert Jordan as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia just 10 days after 9/11. "Tragedies of this magnitude show us who our real friends are. ... " Jordan said. "We seek to build an international coalition against terrorism. They have answered that call superbly."
Not a word, of course, about the role of Saudis in the attacks that killed 3,000 people. Or how wealthy Saudis helped fund terrorism.
Jordan, a former lawyer at Baker Botts (that's James Baker's firm), was accompanied at the hearing by another Baker Botts partner who helped expand the firm's Middle East practice. That's a basic point that my book and Fahrenheit 9/11 share—cracking down on the Saudi role in terror takes a back seat to oil-industry interests.
Jordan's sentiments have been echoed repeatedly by the Bush White House. There's been enormous Saudi resistance toward investigating Saudi charities that fund terrorism, but nothing about that from the White House. In Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill makes it clear that the Saudis have not been cooperative.
In addition, every time the Saudis say they're going to crack down on al-Qaida, something happens that shows the Saudis are really being torn in two directions at once. For example, after various al-Qaida terrorist attacks, Interior Minister Prince Nayef and Crown Prince Abdullah have actually pointed the finger at Zionists rather than at al-Qaida. But nary a peep out of the White House.
At least you're agnostic about to the Saudi evacuation. The 9/11 commission has been tougher on the administration than I expected, but remember that it's a bipartisan commission that is supposed to come up with a consensus—not a great recipe if you're looking for truth. Not surprisingly, there are divisions within the commission on partisan lines. Not surprisingly, their interim report on the Saudi evacuation is deeply unsatisfying.
Let me give just one example. The report says that the first Saudi flight took place on Sept. 14. But the first flight actually took place a day earlier, on Sept. 13, when restrictions on private planes were still in place. That means it took place when permission to fly was required from the highest levels of our government. I gave them this information months ago. Since then it has been corroborated by airport authorities in Tampa, Fla. When the commission knowingly omits crucial information, that suggests politics is involved.
Then there's Richard Clarke. True, he is a fierce critic of the Bush White House who has said that the Saudi evacuation was correct. But Clarke is also a brilliant and savvy bureaucrat who has been candid in saying he was part of that decision. Do you really expect him to characterize what he did as stupid or wrong? When I interviewed him, he told me that he granted approval for the Saudi departure contingent on it being vetted by the FBI. In the end, he said, "I have no idea if they did a good job." Given the FBI's sorry history, I have a hard time believing in their infallibility. One of the commission's findings is that the FBI did not even check the Saudi passengers against their terror watch list—an astonishing and horrifying oversight just a few days after 9/11.
Finally, there's the Iraq war. On this score, I agree with you completely. George W. Bush is not his father's son, and as a result I believe the Bush-Saud relationship has entered the end-game stage. I bet Bush Sr. and James Baker are secretly horrified at what young Bush has done.
I also believe Bush's policies are leaving the United States with the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, we are giving the Saudis a pass on terrorism. On the other, thanks to the Iraq war, no moderate Arab leader can risk being friends with us. The U.S.-Saudi relationship may be coming to an end. And when it comes to our energy needs, that could leave us running on empty.
Craig
Rachel Bronson is a senior fellow and director of Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, where she is currently writing a book on U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia. Craig Unger is the author of House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties. He appears in Fahrenheit 9/11. |
