# Another al-Qaida/Saudi Connection **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2002, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386 "2002-11-23T20:52:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2002, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/1 "2002-11-23T20:52:30Z")
There’s a new controversy breaking in the war on terror. It seems the government has evidence of direct funding of the terrorists in America by the Saudi government. Here’s an article over at [MSNBC](http://www.msnbc.com/news/838867.asp?vts=112320021210). It seems that the Congress has evidence even stronger than that which has been made public, and wants to let the American people know about it. The Bush administration is resisting, because they don’t want to damage relations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia: > [@](#): > > The leaders of a joint House-Senate Intelligence Committees investigation have vigorously pushed for the release of a classified report that lays out the evidence of the Saudi money flow. But Bush administration officials, led by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller, have adamantly refused to declassify the evidence upon which the report is based. Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Sen. Bob Graham declined to discuss the evidence gathered by the joint inquiry, but he said he was upset over the Bush administration’s intransigence. “This one stinks of people using classified information” for political purposes, said Graham. So, what do dopers think about this? It seems to me that the public evidence isn’t proof of official sanction of terror in America by the Saudi Royal Family, but it’s damned disturbing. Add to that the fact that most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden is a Saudi, the Wahabbist strain of Islam that is causing much of the fanaticism originates from and is supported by the Saudis, and it becomes very troubling. On the other hand, alienating Saudi Arabia would complicate the war on terror, and the situation with Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the heart of Islam in the Arab world. Having them allied with the U.S. is a big advantage, even if it’s only lip service. Should the classified information be released? Is this an issue Democrats should get behind to try to outflank the administration on the war? Is the Bush administration wrong for its _realpolitik_ approach to Saudi Arabia? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2002, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/2 "2002-11-23T22:21:02Z")
The Saudi’s are rich, but weak. They are in a very tenuous position. They try to survive by being useful to everybody. They hope to keep potential religious and political enemies distracted. There is no doubt a great deal of what might be described as “Saudi money” being funneled to Al Queda and its like minded organizations, but that shouldn’t be taken as agreement so much as hedging thier bets. The Saudi’s buy off the Wahabbists and other puritanical Islamists so that they don’t focus unwanted attention on the life styles of the rich. Much like the business oriented Republicans throw the occassional bone to the religious right in America, better to have them in the tent pissing out than vice versa. Sooner or later, the Saudi regime will mistep. My guess is that this is an underlying factor in the importance the Admin places on a more commanding military “presence” in the Mid East. The House of Saud will fall, the question is whether, only when. Then someone else will control all that sweet light crude. But who? ---
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2002, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/3 "2002-11-23T22:23:00Z")
_Then someone else will control all that sweet light crude. But who?_ Hopefully America. It could be the first step towards remuneration for 9/11. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2002, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/4 "2002-11-23T22:51:11Z")
> [@](#): > > It seems the government has evidence of direct funding of the terrorists in America by the Saudi government. Um, unless I’m missing something, I don’t see the “Saudi government” here, as in “the whole entire whacking Saudi Government, bureaucrats and diplomats and all”–I see merely yet another out-of-control royal. I suppose you could start with, “she gets an allowance from the government, which is actually her family, and she gives the money to terrorists in America…” and extrapolate that to, “…so that means that the Saudi government is giving money to terrorists in America”. But it’s way, _way_ out there in Logic’s Left Field. From the link: > [@](#): > > Sources familiar with the evidence say the payments—amounting to about $3,500 a month—came from an account at Washington’s Riggs Bank in the name of Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, the wife of Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and the daughter of the late Saudi King Faisal. After Al Bayoumi left the country in July 2001—two months before the September 11 terror attacks—payments for roughly the same amount began flowing every month to Osama Basnan, a close associate of Al Bayoumi’s who also befriended the hijackers. A federal law-enforcement source told NEWSWEEK that Basnan—who was recently convicted of visa fraud and is awaiting deportation—was a known “Al Qaeda sympathizer” who “celebrated the heroes of September 11” at a party after the attacks and openly talked about “what a wonderful, glorious day it had been.” So she sent them some money, so what? It apparently doesn’t surprise anyone, and it doesn’t necessarily mean the Saudi government is behind either sending the money or the 9/11 attacks. [http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/23/saudi.fbi.911/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/23/saudi.fbi.911/index.html) > [@](#): > > There is some evidence that the students received a payment through the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States, according to the inquiry. > > But sources said there is no conclusive evidence the Saudi government intentionally funded terror activities against the United States. Fifteen of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis. The Saudi government has condemned their actions. > > A U.S. government official said it is not unusual for wealthy Saudi families to send money to less affluent Saudi students. In addition, the official said, that money often is sent through the Saudi Embassy. > > \< snip \> > > A senior White House official – traveling with U.S. President George W. Bush in Romania – said the Saudi government was cooperating with the FBI probe. So, if the [big air quotes] “Saudi government” knowingly, intentionally gave the money to terrorists in America, why are they cooperating with the FBI? Yeah, it’s disturbing, but it’s disturbing the way Britain’s Prince Edward boycotting the Miss World pageant is disturbing. Can’t these royal offspring get lives? Must they continue to putter around? And, one doesn’t say “the British royal family, or the British government”, is boycotting the Miss World Pageant–one says, “Prince Edward is boycotting the pageant.” Since it’s apparently just another royal with too much time on her hands and money to burn, I don’t see why releasing the report should be such an issue, except to duly elected official nitpickers intent on consolidating their power in Congress. From the [CNN.com](http://CNN.com) article: > [@](#): > > Newsweek reported that the financial records had created an intense struggle between congressional leaders and Bush administration officials over whether the information – which could be highly embarrassing to the Saudi government – should be disclosed at the same time the White House is seeking Saudi support for possible military action against Iraq. Makes perfect sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2002, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/5 "2002-11-23T23:04:55Z")
That’s certainly the public version. However, there are classified documents that are reportedly more incriminating, and which the Senate Intelligence committee is pushing to have de-classified so they can present the evidence to the public. The Bush adminsitration is stonewalling this. If this were just a ‘rich princess does something stupid’ story, it wouldn’t have the Senate Intelligence Committee so riled up. I believe the insinuation here is that the connection goes right back to the heart of the Saudi Government, but that the money came through the wife of an ambassador in an attempt to hide the transactions. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2002, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/6 "2002-11-23T23:37:13Z")
So, what, you’re inviting us to speculate about the contents of the super-duper extra secret Intelligence Committee documents? Why, I bet they show that this princess is actually a secret agent for Saddam Hussein, who was using her to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into American college campuses, where legions of al Qaeda-led Muslim students will fan out across the nation to replace our regular coffee with mustard gas disguised as Folger’s crystals. Really, what’s the point of this? Just looking for an excuse to slag the eminently-slaggable Saudis without having to resort to any of those pesky that so often get in the way of a good slagging? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2002, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/7 "2002-11-23T23:55:36Z")
Gee, Minty. I thought it was an interesting story, one worthy of public debate. There are plenty of debatable things here. For instance, is the Bush administration right to block the release of documents that may incriminate the Saudis, for _realpolitik_ reasons? If the Saudis turn out to actually have supported terrorists inside the U.S., what should the government response be? I’m sure you can find other things worth talking about in this. It seems to be a pretty important development. I think I just caught you off guard because it’s hard to know how to apply a political spin to this story. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/8 "2002-11-24T00:04:33Z")
How can you debate in a near absence of facts? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/9 "2002-11-24T00:08:31Z")
> [@](#): > > For instance, is the Bush administration right to block the release of documents that may incriminate the Saudis, for realpolitik reasons? Dunno. Kinda depends on what the documents say, don’t it? > [@](#): > > If the Saudis turn out to actually have supported terrorists inside the U.S., what should the government response be? Dunno. Kinda depends on which Saudis and what support, don’t it? Well, that about wraps it up for this thread. Good night, everyone! ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/10 "2002-11-24T00:49:10Z")
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Minty is being unreasonable here? It seems to me that we have about as many facts as we have with many, many other issues that cause long debates to break out on the SDMB. But jeez, I’m not going to force a debate with you. If you have no interest in the subject, just go away. You don’t have to step in here and pee on everyone else’s cornflakes just because you’re not interested in the topic. ---
**Author:** ![Cabbage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@Cabbage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cabbage)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/11 "2002-11-24T01:32:45Z")
Abortion: Dunno, kinda depends on how you define “murder” and at what point a fetus becomes a human being. Creation/Evolution: Dunno, kinda depends on whether the Bible is literally true or not. God-Exists or Not?: Dunno, kinda depends on how you define “God” and whether…well, whether that “God” exists or not. Islam–Religion of War, or Religion of Peace?: Dunno, kinda depends on which Muslim you talk to. Other debates to be settled later, as time allows. Would the mods kindly link to this post at the top of the forum? It might save others the trouble of posting on these topics again. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/12 "2002-11-24T01:51:41Z")
First you have to show that there are documents. Then you have to show what the documents say. Then we can debate about the documents, whether they should be declassified and revealed to the American public or not. First, let us see whether there are documents. [http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/nation/story/642369p-4853306c.html](http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/nation/story/642369p-4853306c.html) > [@](#): > > Bush defends investigation of possible Saudi link to hijackers > By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press > Published 2:23 p.m. PDT Saturday, November 23, 2002 > > WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House on Saturday defended the FBI’s handling of a diplomatically sensitive investigation into reports that Saudi Arabia provided money that helped support two of the Sept. 11 hijackers. > > \< snip \> > > Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, which are conducting a joint inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks, expressed misgivings about the FBI investigation. Lawmakers believe the bureau has not examined vigorously the prospect that the Saudi government might have given money to two men who provided financial help to hijackers Khalif al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. > > \< snip \> > > Sen. Ron Wyden, a member of the Intelligence Committee, would not discuss details of the financing investigation but said, “So much of the focus on Iraq has clearly taken a toll with respect to some of the vigilance and oversight that needs to apply to others in the region.” > > \< snip \> > > Preliminary reports from the congressional inquiry have criticized the FBI and CIA’s efforts to fight terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks, particularly their failure to share information before the attacks - especially intelligence about al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi. > > Wyden said he expects the questions about Saudi financing will be included in the joint inquiry’s final report. A classified version is expected in December, an unclassified version early next year. [http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/2002-11-23/usw\_saudi.asp](http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/2002-11-23/usw_saudi.asp) > [@](#): > > In its draft report, the joint congressional committee staff said investigators should have followed up on the meetings of the four men to determine whether there was a Saudi connection to the hijacking plot, The New York Times reported. [ol] [li]The inquiry isn’t finished.[/li][li]The official report isn’t written. There’s a rough draft in circulation, that’s all.[/li][li]When the final report is written, a classified version will come out in December, bits and pieces of which will almost certainly be leaked to the press.[/li][li]And the unclassified version will be released “early next year”.[/ol]So all the American people have to do is be patient and All Will Be Revealed.[/li] So the “classified report” which the outraged legislators are supposedly demanding be declassified doesn’t even exist yet. Apparently the outraged legislators are demanding that the _rough draft_ be made public, which sounds stupid to me. George Lucas doesn’t release _his_ rough drafts, why should Congress? What the administration is fighting is not really pressure to “declassify documents”, but just the pressure to have all the juicy details of the FBI’s investigation made public, and since law enforcement agencies generally have a problem with revealing details of ongoing investigations, I’m not a bit surprised that they’re “stonewalling”. Like I said, it’s just a lot of duly elected official nitpickers intent on consolidating their power in Congress, creating an issue to liven things up during a boring lame-duck session of Congress. No debate here. And no secret Saudi conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Center either, sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/13 "2002-11-24T02:08:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Sorry to shoot down your conspiracy theory, Sam… Oh for Pete’s sake. All I did was post a cite from a reputable magazine, and ask for comment. FWIW, here’s another article, confirming that the white house is probing this situation, but also adding more facts that seem to downplay the seriousness of this: [http://www.msnbc.com/news/839095.asp?vts=112320021740](http://www.msnbc.com/news/839095.asp?vts=112320021740) ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/14 "2002-11-24T02:34:59Z")
> [@](#): > > All I did was post a cite from a reputable magazine, and ask for comment. No, all you did was post an entire conspiracy theory. > [@](#): > > There’s a new controversy breaking in the war on terror. > > It seems the government has evidence of direct funding of the terrorists in America by the Saudi government. It seems that the Congress has evidence even stronger than that which has been made public, and wants to let the American people know about it. The Bush administration is resisting. > > Add to that the fact that most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden is a Saudi, the Wahabbist strain of Islam that is causing much of the fanaticism originates from and is supported by the Saudis, and it becomes very troubling. > > Should the classified information be released? > > Is this an issue Democrats should get behind to try to outflank the administration on the war? > > [T]here are classified documents that are reportedly more incriminating, and which the Senate Intelligence committee is pushing to have de-classified so they can present the evidence to the public. The Bush adminsitration is stonewalling this. > > If this were just a ‘rich princess does something stupid’ story, it wouldn’t have the Senate Intelligence Committee so riled up. > > For instance, is the Bush administration right to block the release of documents that may incriminate the Saudis, for realpolitik reasons? “There are secret classified documents that show that the Saudi government was funding the terrorists in America! And there must be something to it, because the Senate Intelligence Committee is all riled up about it! And the Bush administration is refusing to release these documents to the American people, because they’re just cravenly currying favor with the Saudi royal family!” Admit it, Sam, you jumped the gun. 😃 The sky is not falling. No film at 11. ---
**Author:** ![reprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@reprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reprise)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/15 "2002-11-24T02:49:20Z")
According to [this report](http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,5546593%255E1702,00.html), the princess is the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US. How embarrassing. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/16 "2002-11-24T03:16:03Z")
Cripes, Sam’s remarks hardly brand him a conspiracy theorist. If the US had a hundredth the evidence pointing towards an Iraq/al Qaeda connection as we do pointing towards a Saudi/al Qaeda connection, the invasion would have happened last year. By the same token, if the administration wasn’t absolutely certain that the Saudi’s had nothing to do with 9/11 they should have checked them out thoroughly. Apparently that was not done, and that failure, as the tired phrase goes “puts america at risk for a repeat of 9/11.” It may turn out that Bush played the _realpolitik_ with the Saudi’s correctly, but from the facts that’ve been made publicly available, it appears that he did so based on insufficient information. That’s disturbing no matter what your political affiliation. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/17 "2002-11-24T03:19:00Z")
Jeez, DDG. It takes a lot of chutzpah to quote someone in full, then misquote them in the same message. I very carefully said, “It SEEMS that…”, and “REPORTEDLY…” All I added was that this information, IF TRUE, was troubling in light of the other Saudi involvement in 9/11. But, for the comprehension challenged let me repeat: I am NOT drawing any conclusions. I don’t know what to think of this. I just thought it would be an interesting thing to talk about it. ---
**Author:** ![eenerms](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/cdc98d/32.png) [@eenerms](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eenerms)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/18 "2002-11-24T03:30:25Z")
There are well over 5000 Saudi Royals. It is necessary to point out that the rich Saudis give monies to the less fortunate studying or receiving medical treatment in countries outside of Saudi Arabia all the time. The Royals give to hundreds of people. The chances of the Princess knowing exactly who she was writing checks for and where the money who go afterwards is slim. OBL wants the downfall of the House of Saud. Why would anyone affiliated with the Saudi Royal family pay money to someone who wants to distroy it? Doesn’t make sence. That being said, Crown Prince Abdulla is walking a fine line, trying to yank Saudi Arabia into the 21 centry and also keeping its tribal culture and his power in tack. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/19 "2002-11-24T03:45:41Z")
Chutzpah Central here, I guess. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2002, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386/20 "2002-11-24T03:49:21Z")
IT SEEMS there is a giant human face carved into a mountain on Mars, and REPORTEDLY the head of NASA is refusing to release photos taken of the face by our orbiting satellites. IF TRUE, this would be very troubling in light of the movie _Mars Attacks!_. But I am NOT drawing any conclusions. I don’t know what to think of this. I just thought it wouldbe an interesting thing to talk about. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-al-qaida-saudi-connection/138386.md?page=2)