I won't lie. I'm frustrated by the Bush administration and its behavior in the War on Terror. No, I don't believe that the war in Iraq was a distraction. I believe it was part of the War on Terror. My frustration is based on a belief that the administration refuses to recognize the threat from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. I realize that our State Department has had a blind spot toward the House of Saud for decades. After September 11, 2001, though we cannot afford to wear blinders with regard to anyone.
Now new information revealed by Gerald Posner seem to prove that the Saudi and Pakistani governments maintained relationships with Al Qaeda operatives before, during and after September 11. According to Posner, when Abu Zubaydah was captured, he expressed relief when he believed that his interrogators were Saudi intelligence officers. He then began naming names of top Saudi and Pakistani officials that were his contacts.
To borrow a word popular with young people, "Duh!" This is news? Given what we know about the movements of Osama and his cronies, and given what we know about the political climate in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, what is shocking about this?
My question is whether this revelation will be enough to make the Bush administration crack down on Pakistan and the House of Saud. We may need their help in some areas, but not at the expense of allowing them to actively support those that want to destroy us.
Please don't misunderstand. I'm not about to become a Democrat. Remember, Jimmy Carter, when trying to impress the Nobel Peace Prize committee advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament by the United States. The Progressive Caucus would require that we play "Mother may I?" with the United Nations before engaging in military action. Bill Clinton treated terrorism like a crime instead of an act of war and patted himself on his back when low level terrorist grunts were captured and prosecuted. This is the same Bill Clinton who, according to a new book, practically worked to avoid capturing or killing Bin Laden. Nope, trusting our national security to Democrats is not an option.
I just want to see the Bush administration wake up. The Saudis and Pakistanis have more in common with our enemies than they have in common with us. They cannot be trusted. They are not our friends.
3 comments:
How about libertarian? I'm not about to become a Republican, any more than you'd become a Democrat, but we tend to agree more than either of us figured possible.The end paragraph is a welcome sight.
Once 2004 is settled, I'm officially changing my registration to libertarian. I can't say I agree with the more radical right leaning ideas, or that they'd welcome me with anything close to open arms, but they're closer to where I want to go than EITHER wing of the government party.
It's not about any blind spot. It's about expediency. This administration, like those in the past, will use countries like Saudi and Pakistan because they are needed for intelligence gathering and for support. Saudi's importance is already waning, now that we're in Iraq and Operation Northern Watch is over. We shall see how our relationship with Pakistan evolves if the rebuilding in Iraq is a success.
You said: I just want to see the Bush administration wake up. The Saudis and Pakistanis have more in common with our enemies than they have in common with us. They cannot be trusted. They are not our friends.
I don't think all the Saudi's are involved in terrorist support. If Zubeyda named names, I would hope those in certain positions would be applying considerable pressure where it counts.
Nice site.
Dennis
Post a Comment