Classified Section of Sept. 11 Report Faults Saudi Rulers

No. No surprise there, but I was surprised at the Saudi response.
Reading a related article yesterday, the Saudi government poo-pooed this finding--and blamed it on American Democrats! They issued a statement to their citizens not to be concerned; America was going through another election cycle--and the Democrats came up with this to hold over Bush's head.

A slick bunch! (The Saudis :wink: )

Is this the blacked-out part of the report the libs have been developing conspiracy theories for---?

I think their version was supposed to read-- "Hidden in the Shadows, Bush, Sharon and Karl Rove used their really big remote controls to steer the planes into the WTC and Pentagon..."

the chairman of the report (a republican-cant remember his name) said that what was redacted out was 95% simply embarrasing to the white house and was not a matter of national security.

dyslexia
From what Sen. Graham [presidential hopeful] chairman of the committee that generated the report said the blacked out portion was primarily about the culpability of Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 attack. The reason it was blacked out was that we need to stay on friendly relations with the Saudis. They are HA HA our ally. In any event we are dependent on their oil and ability to stabilize the crude oil prices. By pumping additional crude when needed. In any event that is my understanding based on what was said.

If the Saudi's are so in thick with the Bush family, why did they refuse to participate in the Iraq invasion? I think they are a bunch of two-faced liars and having them side against the Democrats is a revelation.

Just for the record, I can't stand the Saudis (ruling family), and wish we would speak the truth about them and develop alternative energy sources.

That govt is more to blame for 911 than any other, IMO. It makes me sick that we continue to pussy-foot around with them.

Let's take over :wink: ...I mean... start getting our oil from Venezuela or somewhere else, and leave Saudi to the sand.

Their protection payments to the terrorists group is enough of a smoking gun for me.

Regarding alternate energy. Could you imagine if we were to spend the same amount of money on research into alternate sources of energy as we do in making war what science would come up with. NO need for oil would mean no war in the Middle east. Of cource the bought and paid for congress would never go for that.

AU--
I think I can connect your dots to your statement--No oil would mean we wouldn't have war in the ME--

I guess it could be extended as: Saddam took Kuwait for oil--we put our Satanic feet on Saudi soil to liberate Kuwait--Osama gets miffed at our Satanic feet, and launches al-Quaida--

But, we were there before Kuwait, right? Is the connection really that simple? (Open to your response--not sure when we first arrived in Saudi.)

Do you think our nasty influence would've set an Osama off without the oil factor? The Islamic fundies are not a tolerant bunch...

This is a case of our govnerment needing the Saudi oil so we'll just kind of white wash them as far as their involvement, just making insinuation which we have no definite proof of and then letting it fade away. Or at least proof that will ever be made public in our lifetime. I could be wrong -- I hope this has put the Saudi's on the toes and they will conscienciously reform.

Sofia
Would the west have been in the Middle East if it were not for the oil? Would the governments of the Middle east had the money to purchase arms? Would an Osama Bin Laden been the son of a wealthy family with unlimited funds or just a tall man riding on a camel and living in a tent? Would the West be interested in the tribal fighting in that area? Would that area return to and take it's rightful place among the backward nations of the world?

I see, AU. You did go back further than I had. Wanted you to know I wasn't arguing... I was trying to see your rationale.

And, I do.

Aramco (arabian american oil company) began operations in Saudi Arabia in 1933

dyslexia
If I am not mistaken at that time the oil company held the lease and the Saudi's recieved royalties. Some time after WWll they nationalized the oil wells. At least that is how I seem to remember it.

Au,

Do you think our alliance with ireal is related to oil? I think it's not (at least not to a significant degree).

Au, Aramco was nationalized in 1976 by the Saudi govt

oil imports into the USA 1. Canada 2. Saudi Arabia 3. Venezuela

Craven
Our alliance with Israel has nothing to do with oil. If Anything it acts as a detriment to our relations with the Mid Eastern oil producing countries.

We're watching the push-and-pull technicque of diplomacy when it comes to Israel and the oil producing Arab countries. Some we have decided to push (**** them until they hurt) and some we promise to pull it out before we come.