What Are The Saudis Up To?
I've been hearing for years about the Bush-Saud connection. But, I didn't realize there was a Clinton-Saud connection.
From the NY Sun via LGF.
President Clinton's new $165 million library here was funded in part by gifts of $1 million or more each from the Saudi royal family and three Saudi businessmen.
The governments of Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar and the deputy prime minister of Lebanon all also appear to have donated $1 million or more for the archive and museum that opened last week.
Democrats spent much of the presidential campaign this year accusing President Bush of improperly close ties to Saudi Arabia
Perhaps as a result, the Saudi donations to the Clinton library are raising some eyebrows. Mr. Unger said he suspects that the Saudi support may have something to do with a possible presidential bid by Senator Clinton in 2008.
"They want to keep their options open no matter who's in power and whether that's four years from now or whatever," the author said. "Just a few million is nothing to them to keep their options open."
The Saudi royal family and the governments of Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar donated at this "Trustee" level, as did the governments of Brunei and Taiwan. Also listed as trustees are three Saudi businessmen - Abdullah Al-Dabbagh, Nasser Al-Rashid, and Walid Juffali.
This whole business smells to me. They also donated similar amounts to the Bush I library. And I'm sure they will to the Bush II Library. It seems to me a way to get around the campaign finance laws which forbids foreign donations.
15 Comments:
Former CIA analyst Mike Scheuer cited 10 different moments, from information supplied by the CIA, when bin Laden could have been killed in air strikes. All 10 occurred during the Clinton administration.
Do you have a point?
If you want to play the blame game, the blame doesn't rest on Clinton, it rests on Reagan since it was his administration who had Bin Laden trained and supplied.
Reagan made Bin Laden.
Ridiculous. Read the book. Bin Laden's appeal has nothing to do with the Soviet-Afghan War.
I have a feeling that Scott's main point is the connection between million dollar Saudi donations and the fact the Clinton Administration never aggresively went after Bin Laden....who happens to be a Saudi.
Maybe the money was a thank you note??
Yes, thank you Donald. None of the last four Presidents is individually to blame for Bin Laden's rise to popularity, but according to Scheuer, the continuance of very unpopular U.S. policies in the Middle East which of course were not changed by any of them makes Bin Laden's case against the U.S. particularly strong. As a matter of note, however, my opinion of President Clinton has dropped since I read Imperial Hubris.
"Bin Laden's appeal has nothing to do with the Soviet-Afghan War."
I'm not arguing about his appeal, I'm stating that without the help and the actions of the Reagan Administration, Bin Laden would never have become the man he is today.
Thus Reagan "made" Bin Laden.
So let me get this straight: the U.S. shouldn't have assisted the muhjadeen (sic) in their fight to repel the Soviets?
I know that if we look at history, we can find many instances of people we supported that turned around and bit us in the ass later. Saddam being a prime example. But, does that mean we shouldn't of supported them back then.
I have a feeling that Reagan's support was not for Bin LAden exclusively; but for the anti-Russian forces as a whole.
Imperial Hubris is full of BS, frankly. The scuttle that Clinton alledgedly was offered bin Laden by Syria and didn't take their offer is a falsehood. The Syrians offered to turn bin Laden over to the Saudis in order for the Saudis to turn him over to the Americans. It was the Saudis who refused, despite Clinton's pleas to them. Clinton went after bin Laden as much as he could...but the Republicans were screaming "wag the dog" the entire time. Clinton had little political capital...and the Republicans were so bent on going after him that it was nearly impossible for Clinton to have any national support for this type of work.
Reagan's responsiblility lies in the post Soviet era of Afghanistan. Reagan made many promises to the Afghanis...in terms of rebuilding infrastructure and other major financial assistance. Once the Soviets left...Reagan bailed. Bush 41 failed to follow up either.
Bin Laden was part of the mujahadeen. He turned sour toward the US in great part due to the failures of Reagan and 41 to keep their promises.
Carla, did you read all of Imperial Hubris?
Carla, I don't think you did read Imperial Hubris because the Clinton-Syria allegation was not cited in the book and the 10 incidences in which Clinton could've killed bin Laden were cited by Scheuer in press interviews, also not in the book. Before casting off an entire piece of nonfiction as BS you ought to read it first.
"I have a feeling that Reagan's support was not for Bin LAden exclusively; but for the anti-Russian forces as a whole."
Oh I completely agree Don. The Administration had the mentality of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", thus they supported Bin Laden. A fools move because it is a foolish philosophy. The enemy of your enemy is nothing more than the enemy of your enemy--it doesn't make them your friend.
It doesn't matter what the Reagan's Admnistrations intentions were, it is the results that matter.
I think it almost unarguable that we were right to back the muhjadeen in Afghanistan--the Soviets' defeat there is another reason why the Cold War is over now. However, Reagan but really Bush I (the war ended in 1989) did unfortunately back out on American commitment to the Afghans. Like the Cold War, however, this is just one reason Bin Laden is where he is today, not the reason. There is plenty of culpability to go around, none of Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush excepeted.
I guess the reason why I blame Reagan is because he, or at least his Admnisitration believed in the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy very much so.
Afterall, Saddam was also propped up by the Reagan Administration because of this philosophy. He was then supplied with the chemical and biological agents that allowed him to create WMD by Reagan as well.
I believe very strongly that the Afghan cause was good and sensible (as opposed to the post-war commitment) so therefore I applaud Reagan for what he did and refuse to broadbrush this foreign particular policy action into the enemy-enemy-friend phrasing that you use. As I see it, and we agree DV, Iraq was a bad mistake but, to me, separate of Afghanistan.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home