| Submit your comments on this article |
| Arabia |
| House Votes to Block Aid for Saudi Arabia |
| 2004-07-16 |
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #8 the actual $ aid is small if you read the article - it's the discounted military equipm't and tech transfer that it allows them to purchase. Good thing to shut it down before it falls into the command structure dominated by strict wahhabis (I know, I know...it already has) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-16 10:35:11 PM |
| #7 I agree with #3 and #6. There is no nuanced justification for giving foreign aid to a regime that a) supports Wahhabism/anti-American jihadist mindset and b) a filthy rich corrupt regime that refuses to share the oil-derived wealth with the Saudi population at large. Oil is not the sole property of the House of Saud. I had no idea that we were sending aid to Saudi Arabia. GWB is darn lucky that aid was blocked this year FINALLY when he's running neck and neck with Kerry - this kind of idiotic foreign aid package if approved would have cost Bush votes, in light of 9/11 and the pre-dominance of Saudis in the hijacker group. What is Bush thinking??? I'm really angry with giving aid to Saudi Arabia. How dare the WH try to promote this nonsense! It's an event like this that makes me think that GWB is luckier than he is smart...lucky that the aid package was defeated and lucky that his opponent, John Kerry, is so mediocre. If GWB were running against a Democrat with class and smarts like Zell Miller, he'd lose. GWB's continued genuflection to the Saudi princes is shameful. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-07-16 10:29:57 PM |
| #6 Good grief!!! The GOP is playing directly into the hands of the leftist Kerry crowd in continuing to support the Wahhabi cult. I heard the same trash in the 1980's about why conservatives 'must' support Saudi Arabia. It was trash then and really sinks now! The GOP should have drafted this bill blocking, not a few million, but every last dime to Arabia until the House of Saud is toppled from the 'oil-based' power they have to promote global Wahhabi linked jihadism. 15 out of 19 on 9-11 were SAUDIS. This moronic display is how elctions are lost! |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-07-16 9:02:38 PM |
| #5 Try to "big picture" seemingly ridiculous situations like this, and maybe get a different perspective. First of all, most of this aid is going for arms, most of which are probably bought from the US, and are being used to defend them against Iran. Second thing, the Saud have prolly long since committed any revenues to the point where cutbacks might incite civil war--but marginal funds from the US can be used in a discretionary manner without risk--and possibly for things they US wants to happen in Saudi. Third, the US has interests in the Kingdom that it would rather pay for (and pay to protect), than leave up to the good graces of their hosts. Say a large FBI office, guarded by men who know that their check comes from the US, not the Interior Ministry. A lot of loyalty *can* be bought. Fourth, the funds can be monitored, to insure that they are accountable. If bribes are being paid, we want them to go to our friends, not our enemies. This list can go on and on. In international circles there are always strings attached. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-07-16 11:54:12 AM |
| #4 The vote was a stinging defeat for the Bush Administration which had strongly opposed the measure saying it would "severely undermine" counterterrorism cooperation with Saudi Arabia and U.S. efforts for peace in the Middle East. I think it is impossible to "severely undermine" cooperation with the Magic Kingdon. The fact the Kingdom exists undermines any attempt we make to rid the planet of Islamic terrorism. |
| Posted by: Dragon Fly 2004-07-16 11:35:24 AM |
| #3 Why the f*ck would we GIVE money to the Saudis? They should be paying us for keeping Gulf oil traffic flowing. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2004-07-16 10:45:51 AM |
| #2 If this fits with administration policy, it's been well disguised. I'm sure this will be cleaned up now that the point has been made, though. |
| Posted by: VAMark 2004-07-16 10:06:57 AM |
| #1 "a stinging defeat for the Bush administration"... or do they really mean the State Department? |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-07-16 10:04:41 AM |