|
The
Daily War Watch
How DARE You!
November 8, 2001
by
J B
Well, it's finally happened. The Saudis have lashed out in
full force at the U.S. press corps, accusing the media of
engaging in a deliberate campaign of denigration. The charges
are led by Crown Prince Abdullah, who has no great love of
the United States, period. (This fact is well known.)
Why... it's... a... CONSPIRACY!!!
It's a diabolical plot to damage Saudi Arabia's reputation
and to drive a wedge between Saudi Arabia and the United States.
How DARE the media say such things!
Of course, they have to do this, because the U.S. media executives
and reporters do not actually live in Saudi Arabia, so they
are not subject to the usual repressive techniques, though
it is quite possible that the President has been sorely tempted
to have a few public excecutions performed to put the rest
in line, since this wedge might be harmful to his clan's financial
interests.
As usual, it is the fact that the existence of such a wedge
is reported, rather than the fact it exists, which is treated
as scandalous. Par for the course. Wouldn't it be so much
better if we could just censor this stuff? No more free media
damaging American diplomatic interests. Ever.
Of course that's just a fantasy, but oh, if it were only
true... if you're the censor.
Accompanying this tone are reports in the Washington Post
that the Saudis have become highly sanctimonious. The tone
goes something like...
"Don't talk to us like that!! WE'RE the ones Osama is after,
not you!! We're the ones that are in REAL danger!! Don't give
us that sort of lip! We're the soft target! You're pretty
damned SAFE!!!!"
...Yeah, something like that.
So here we have the Saudis accusing the media of driving
a wedge between two countries who are allegedly not joined
at the hip and who are allegedly not so close that the Saudi
regime relies on the U.S. to remain in power. Well, isn't
that funny. You'd think that the Saudis would be complaining
much louder if the media was suggesting that Saudi Arabia
was the loyal ally of the U.S., helping in every possible
way, and that Saudi Arabia was going well above and beyond
the call of duty...
The administration is defending Saudi Arabia vigorously while
not mentioning anything about why it should be defended and
what the Saudis have done to be helpful.
A salient quote from the Washington Post: "Given a
choice, we'd rather look good in downtown Riyadh than downtown
Washington. The senior levels of your government appreciate
this, they understand this, and they cut us some slack on
it." Well isn't that nice.
So what is the point of defending this nation in the American
media when it is in on the streets of Riyadh that popularity
really matters?
Well, it's probably simply that they don't want Congress
to start believing the American media and to start asking
too many questions. (Hint: Questions = bad. Blind loyalty
= good.) McCain says the Saudis have been playing a double
game. (The truth, but they can't handle the truth! Hush, McCain,
hush!) Lieberman says that the U.S. cannot tolerate a nation
like Saudi Arabia that, in many ways, continues to stand because
the U.S. supports it, yet spreads that hatred. (Yo, Lieberman.
My man. They're not supposed to know that, so keep your trap
shut, dude!)
Some people wonder why I don't like the abuse of the term
"anti-semitism". Well, this is a good example of why:
"Abdullah has been even more scathing. "The ferocious campaign
by the western media against the kingdom is only an expression
of its hatred toward the Islamic system" and Saudi Arabia's
religious practices, he said in a recent speech, according
to the Arab News, an English language daily."
So if you criticize Saudi Arabia, that is proof that you
hate Islam, and that your real concern with Saudi Arabia is
that it is Islamic.
Tell me, haven't we heard this somewhere before?
Now, between you and I, we can say this: Probably George
Bush would feel a lot better if Saudi Arabia was, say, Christian
Arabia, a nation run by expatriate American fundamentalist
Christians dedicated to producing oil and defending production
of oil with military force, and very little else. Unfortunately,
there's all these Moslems in the way who can't get it through
their heads that Christ is King and America is the next best
thing to God on this planet. By what right do they oppose
this divine will?
That's just to say that they may find such thoughts reassuring,
but they can't be caught saying it, because there's simply
too much money at stake.
Back to the real world...
"Brent Scowcroft, chairman of Bush's Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board, said the Saudis "are cooperating. Quietly."
"They're scared," Scowcroft said. "Osama bin Laden is a Saudi."
We're scared. Osama is a Saudi. In fact, if he was not a
Saudi, getting to him would be a lot easier.
I normally resent the use of the loss of a mere 6000 people
or so, or whatever the grand total comes to, to cite moral
authority, but in this case, let me say this: America was
the nation that was struck, not Saudi Arabia. We should be
the ones who are scared. We are the ones who should be receiving
the sympathy of Saudi Arabia, not the other way around because
they're scared. Well, what about America's dead and wounded?
Are the Saudis going to pay for the therapist bills like they
helped pay for the Gulf War?
Under the circumstances, this outright whining about how
the world isn't giving Saudi Arabia a fair shake sounds a
bit hollow.
Now this gem: "The administration's insistence that it could
not be happier with Saudi cooperation in the current anti-terrorist
effort is intended in large part to reassure the Saudis themselves.
In his own recounting of Bush's Oct. 25 call to Abdullah,
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "The president noted
that he is very pleased with the kingdom's contributions."
Well isn't that reassuring.
We're telling the Saudis that everything's all right, that
everything will be okay. We're... comforting them. Our comforting
them is being treated as more important than getting results.
How many more Americans are acceptable casualties until Clan
financial interests are overridden by the sheer stench of
the blood of countrymen? I wasn't kidding when I said that
Saudi Arabia was the battlefield. It's more and more true
every day.
I really hate quoting like this, so if anyone from the Washington
Post reads this, please accept that you guys get full
credit here, and my contribution is political commentary on
news that is now in the public domain thanks to your hard
work:
"The Bush administration believes that much of al Qaeda's
funding is funneled through organizations that provide humanitarian
aid to Muslims around the world. Much of the money for those
organizations, Treasury officials have said, comes from wealthy
Saudis. The Saudis have responded that tithing for those less
fortunate is one of the five pillars of Islam and that if
some of the money goes astray, it is only after it leaves
the kingdom and passes through European and U.S. banks."
This argument basically says, "We're just being... generous.
You can't blame us for generosity in giving out humanitarian
aid. And if you can.. then blame yourselves. This money passes
through your banks.'
Actually, I blame Phil Gramm for that, but that's another
tale...
Perhaps it is more acceptable from a (cough) certain point
of view, but I, personally, did not regard funds for machine
guns, ammunition, explosives, and so on, as being humanitarian
aid.
And how about this: "Saudi domestic political and religious
concerns are often difficult for U.S. officials to decipher.
Reports of a rift between the straight-laced Abdullah and
his more westernized and pro-U.S. relatives in high positions
have been fueled recently by the unexplained, weeks-long absence
from Washington of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador
to the United States."
Perhaps this would be a little less of a concern if our ambassador
to Saudi Arabia was not an ignorant political hack who can't
understand a word of Arabic!!
"Bandar, the son of the defense minister, has been the most
direct U.S. pipeline to the Saudi government since his appointment
here in 1983. Depending on whom one talks to, he is either
seriously "out of favor" with Abdullah and lying low in Europe,
recovering from an illness, or engaged in high-level consultations
in Riyadh."
Out of favor!?
This is more like, he's the son of the primary enemy of the
Crown Prince in the succession to the throne. This is not
exactly a small thing here!
"But the administration has its own domestic politics to
deal with. Peppered with senators' questions about why the
administration should support a monarchy that allows no freedom
of political thought or religion, Powell cryptically agreed
that "unto dust thou shalt return the day you stop representing
the street."
This is not only declaring cowardice, but reveling in it
and thriving in it. This is declaring that the legitimacy
of governments in the Middle East depend upon the whims of
mobs. And why, may I ask, is this? I certainly don't represent
any sort of American "street." There is none. There may someday
be one if legitimate forms of expression (like writing this
article) are banned, but until that moment, there will not
be a "street"in this nation... so isn't it fair to say, there
only exists a "street"in Saudi Arabia because of the heavy
censorship there (like that which the Sauds prefer America
had?)
"When you don't have a free democratic system, where the
street is represented in the halls of the legislature and
in the executive branches of those governments, then they
have to be more concerned by the passions of the street,"
Powell said."
Precisely.
So why do we keep trying to erode the foundations of constitutional
government in THIS country? Please don't tell me we should
be more like Saudi Arabia. I don't want to wake up the neighbors
with my laughter.
Actually, there is one valuable lesson I can take from this.
I think I will start to refer to the right-wing Christian
"street."
Who says politics isn't educational.
Previous
Editions of The War Watch
|
