Cheney-Bush Favor Saudi Over US Interests:
SAUDI ARABIA
Under the Influence
As a presidential candidate in 2000, then-Gov. George W. Bush promised that, if elected, he would use the full weight of the White House to pressure oil-producing countries to increase production if there was a gas-price crisis. He charged, "The president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price" and promised that as president he would "convince them to open up the spigot to increase the supply." Yet, when Saudi Arabia led the fight within OPEC last month to cut production and raise prices, the president "refused to lean on the oil cartel" and refused to even "personally lobby OPEC leaders to change their minds." Now, with esteemed journalist Bob Woodward reporting that the Bush administration and top Saudi officials agreed to manipulate oil prices in conjunction with the 2004 election, President Bush's passivity towards Saudi Arabia is raising disturbing questions. Why won't the administration exert serious pressure on the regime both on oil and terrorism policy? Why does the president continue to refer to Saudi Arabia as "our friend" when the country has potential ties to the 9/11 terrorists? Why, as author Daniel Benjamin reported, did the administration weaken efforts to scrutinize potential Saudi money-laundering schemes before 9/11? A look at the president's "deep personal ties with Saudi officials" – and his financial connections to the Saudi royal family and powerful Saudi businessmen – may provide clues.
BUSH'S PERSONAL FINANCIAL TIES TO SAUDIS RUN DEEP: According to various sources, Bush has been awash in Saudi money for years. Journalist/author Craig Unger in his new book "House of Bush, House of Saud" traced millions "in investments and contracts that went from the Saudis over the past 20 years to companies in which the Bushes and their allies have had prominent positions - Harken Energy, Halliburton, and the Carlyle Group among them." According to the Boston Herald, that includes a $1 million gift from Prince Bandar to the Bush Presidential Library in Texas.
THE BCCI-BUSH-SAUDI-TERRORIST NEXUS: The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), which was investigated by Congress in the 1980s, appears to be at the nexus of the Bush-Saudi connection. It's principal was Khalid bin Mahfouz, a man USA Today reported was among Saudi businessmen who, even after the U.S.S. Cole attack, "continued to transfer tens of millions of dollars to bank accounts linked to indicted terrorist Osama bin Laden." Under Mahfouz (who was later indicted for his actions at BCCI), the Wall Street Journal noted in 1991 that there was a "mosaic of BCCI connections surrounding Harken Energy" and "number of BCCI-connected people who had dealings with Harken — all since George W. Bush came on board." And according to U.S. officials who investigated the bank in the 1980s, "BCCI was the mother and father of terrorist financing operations." A secret French intelligence report "identifies dozens of companies and individuals who were involved with BCCI and were found to be dealing with bin Laden after the bank collapsed. Many went on to work in banks and charities identified by the United States and others as supporting al Qaeda."
WAS BCCI'S INDICTED PRINCIPAL A BUSH BUSINESS BACKER?: Author Kevin Phillips, a top Republican strategist under President Nixon, reported in his new book, "Bush made his first connection in the late 1970s with James Bath, a Texas businessmen who served as the North American representative for two rich Saudis (and Osama bin Laden relatives) - billionaire Salem bin Laden and banker and BCCI insider Khalid bin Mahfouz. Bath put $50,000 into Bush's 1979 Arbusto oil partnership, probably using bin Laden-bin Mahfouz funds." Also of interest: Former CIA Director James Woolsey testified to the Senate on 9/3/98 that Mafouz's sister was married to Osama bin Laden. And according to the conservative American Spectator, "Bush has given conflicting statements about Bath's investment in Arbusto, finally admitting to the Wall Street Journal that he was aware that Bath represented Saudi investors."
BUSH CAMPAIGN TIES TO THE SAUDIS: A 12/11/01 Boston Herald report found that "a powerful Washington, D.C., law firm with unusually close ties to the White House has earned hefty fees representing controversial Saudi billionaires as well as a Texas-based Islamic charity fingered last week as a terrorist front." The influential law firm of Akin, Gump, whose partners "include one of President Bush's closest Texas friends, James C. Langdon, and Bush fundraiser George R. Salem," has represented three wealthy Saudi businessmen – BCCI's Mahfouz, Mohammed Hussein Al-Amoudi and Salah Idris – "who have been scrutinized by U.S. authorities for possible involvement in financing Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network."
WHY THESE TIES ARE IMPORTANT: Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, told the Boston Herald "that these intricate personal and financial links have led to virtual silence in the administration on Saudi Arabia's failings in dealing with terrorists like bin Laden" and in oil policy. He said, "It's good old fashioned 'I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine.' You have former U.S. officials, former presidents, aides to the current president, a long line of people who are tight with the Saudis, people who are the pillars of American society and officialdom. So for that and other reasons no one wants to alienate the Saudis, and we are willing to basically ignore inconvenient truths that might otherwise cause our blood to boil. We basically look away. Folks don't like to stop the gravy train."
IRAQ
'There Is No Plan'
Hearings continue in the House and Senate as lawmakers try to figure out how the United States became mired in Iraq and why there still is no viable strategy for victory. administration officials outlined a new process where the United States would remain in firm control after the June 30 transfer, but the details did little to reassure many. "There is no plan," declared Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ.). The country remains wracked with violence, money is quickly running out and more American troops are needed. After a briefing yesterday in which USAID administrator Andrew Natsios provided an upbeat picture of the democracy efforts and Iraqi gratitude toward President Bush, an "exasperated" Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) told him, "I feel like we live on different planets." Said Dodd, "We have got to have more security, and we have got to have a stability plan. As bad as it is now, it could really get a lot worse."
HEIGHTENED EXPECTATIONS: President Bush has repeatedly hailed June 30 as the magic date for the transfer of power in Iraq to Iraqis. Just last week, the president said, "We have set a deadline of June 30th. It is important that we meet that deadline. As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America." However, it turns out the power transfer may be largely symbolic and thus potentially dangerous. "The Bush administration's plans for a new caretaker government in Iraq would place severe limits on its sovereignty, including only partial command over its armed forces and no authority to enact new laws." Why this is a grave problem: The inflated rhetoric about transferring power to the Iraqis may have raised false expectations that could actually "backfire in another surge of violence" as Iraqis realize the United States, and its 100,000-plus troops which will stay in the country, actually retains control. "It might be actually worse if we don't deliver what was expected on June 30,'' said U.S. Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ). "If the expectation of the Iraqi public is not met I think it could be a very real long-term setback.''
PAYING TO DECEIVE OURSELVES: According to Knight-Ridder, the Iraqi exile group headed by power-hungry Cheney pal Ahmed Chalabi "may have violated restrictions against using taxpayer funds to lobby when it campaigned for U.S. action to oust Saddam Hussein." The White House cited the Chalabi group's fabricated stories about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in its rationale for going to war. Thus, if this new "allegation is true, it means that U.S. taxpayers paid to have themselves persuaded that it was necessary to invade Iraq."
AMERICANS STILL MISLED: The effect of the administration's misleading and, at times, downright false assertions in the leadup to war in Iraq is still reverberating. According to a new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll, "a majority of Americans (57%) continue to believe that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, including 20% who believe that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11 attacks. Forty-five percent believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found. Sixty percent believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38%) or a major program for developing them (22%)."
IRAQ – MCCAIN CALLS FOR HONESTY AND ACTION: In a strongly worded speech to the Council on Foreign Relations yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) pulled no punches, calling Iraq "'our biggest foreign-policy test in a generation' and one that should serve as a 'wake-up call' for Washington policy makers." The straight-talking senator called on the Bush administration to own up to mistakes if the United States is to achieve victory. "Yes, I think things have been done wrong," McCain said. "Yes, I think things should have been done better. I can't tell you how upset I've been for months when we didn't send the troops that we should have." In "an exasperated tone, McCain went on to ridicule Bush's bland assertion that the Pentagon didn't request additional forces in Iraq: 'To say that it was because the commanders on the ground didn't ask for extra troops, what's that about? It's the leaders that decide. Napoleon said that 'war is too important to be left to the generals.'" |
