This strikes me as being a theory that’s even more naive than I am.
Well, the biggest problem I see is that Iraq’s hostile territory that has to guarded and guarded against. It’s more of liability than an advantage. If we could do with less troops in Iraq, I believe that we would do so. However, we’ve got the number of troops in Iraq that we have in Iraq because we need that many to be in Iraq, (actually according the Pentagon report, we need more than we have). If the troops are in Iraq, they can’t be in SA. We have somehwere near 50% of our active duty troops tied up in Iraq at the moment. If we had to go into SA we should’ve gone into SA. Now, we’ll have to wait through the years until we can leave Iraq before we go into SA. In the mean time, we’re pissing off the neighboring states. If we go into SA, we’ll really, really, really piss off the Arab world. Vietnam would be like Grenada compared to fighting the Arab world as a whole.
Going to war w/ SA would have some impact on the world petroleum market don’t you think?.
Bob Graham did say that their investigation found evidence of the involvement of foreign governments (plural). The Saudis don’t seem too worried about what is in the report. The Bushes sure do. What other furrin gubmints could it be? In the spirit of the latest DARPA insanity, should we take bets? I bet on Pakistan and Israel.
As I’ve not seen any of the evidence that supports the conspiracy theories about Israel’s prior knowledge of the Sept tragedies I’m not inclined to take that bet, yet.
Pakistan seems like a logical choice in that they have heavy ties to the Taleban and AQ and the current WoT. So I wouldn’t take that bet either.
I would take a bet about Belize though. If anyone’s interested.
So, Collounsbury, where does Saudi Arabia’s supposedly benign financing of radical Wahhabism end, and that religious group’s promotion of international terrorism begin? The blind eye that the house of Saud turns toward its financing of “martyr operations” and other dubious “charities” cannot continue to be viewed as anything but malign. The House of Saud is not merely making deals with the devil, they are in bed with him. Their claims that the right hand knows not what the left hand does are unconvincing at best and culpable at least.
(Saudi enters, stage left, and strides forcefully across the stage to confront George, extreme right. He is in traditional robes and high dudgeon. NOTE: if high dudgeon is not available, a snit will be sufficient…)
SAUDI: Mr. President, we demand that you declassify and release these pages! We are falsely accused, and these pages prove our innocence!
GEORGE: (jutting out chin in manly defiance) No can do. Those pages are classified and relate to national security and I won’t be bullied by the likes of you! They will remain secret!
(Both parties wink broadly, while a titter runs through the crowd. If a titter is not available…)
This might be a little off topic, but I want to put forward the point that looking to Saudi Arabia might be a distraction - disinformation. Most of the ‘radical’ sites on the web have been saying for months (years now) that it is Pakinstan - more specifically the INI - that funded the hijackers. There have been many reports about Atta recieving a $100,000 check from the chief of the ISI - who, coincidentally, was in Washington on the morning of 9/11. While Al Queda is directly opposed to the Saudi royal family rule, they are obviously in line with the Taliban - who was directly funded by Pakistan. Saudi Arabia has publically asked for the classified pages to be declassified - and Bush refused. Sounds like a ruse to me…
I saw an interview with Bob Graham, who sat on the Intelligence Committe. When the interviewer asked about a possible connection to Saudi Arabia, he remarked that he didn’t want to go to jail for violating national security. My question is, who mentioned Saudi Arabia in the first place, and why aren’t they in jail for violating national security? Unless maybe it was a smoke screen?? If anyone is interested in this avenue of discussion, I can post cites for all this information.
I have been following this info since 9-11. A good book to read is “Unholy Wars” by John Cooley. The story about Gen. Ahmad sending Atta a check for $100,000 and then having breakfast with Goss and Graham on 9-11 would seemingly be a sensational one, at least deserving of further investigation. The only problem is, the only source for the Ahmad-Atta connection is the Times of India, and how credible is that source? How do they know the financial transactions of Pakistani generals? Or would India have a hidden agenda for casting Pakistan in a bad light?