|
EDITOR'S NOTE:
This article originally
appeared in Slate
on July 6, 2004 and is reprinted here with
permission.
How Does the Saudi
Relationship With the Bush Family Affect U.S. Foreign Policy?
An E-mail Debate between Craig
Unger and Rachel Bronson
|
|
From: Craig Unger
To: Rachel Bronson
Subject: Bush Has Given the Saudis a Free Pass
Tuesday, July 6, 2004, at 9:47 AM PT
Rachel,
As far as I'm concerned, the elephant in the living room in American politics
is that never before has a president of the United States been tied so closely
to a foreign power that harbors and supports our mortal enemies. I'm talking
about the Bush family's relationship with the Saudis, of course. I believe
that insofar as the Saudis have played a key role in fostering Islamist
terrorism, Bush is compromised in leading a real war against terror.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that we're an oil-dependent nation that has
to have a strong relationship with the oil-rich Saudis. But, that shouldn't
mean we have to give the Saudis a free pass. Bush has done exactly that and
continues to -- even though he is posing as Mr. Macho Tough Guy Wartime
President.
How are the Bushes compromised? In House of Bush, House of Saud, I
trace more than $1.4 billion in contracts and investments from the House of
Saud to companies in which the Bushes and their friends have had key roles.
(Michael Moore uses this figure in Fahrenheit 9/11.) Saudi money bailed
out Harken Energy when George W. Bush was on its board of directors. That's
how he made his fortune. Bush 41 and James Baker traveled to Saudi Arabia
repeatedly for the Carlyle Group to woo Saudi investors and win contracts. The
Bush family remains close to Prince Bandar, even though Bandar's wife actually
funded two 9/11 hijackers -- indirectly and inadvertently, of course. Indirect
and inadvertent -- that's the Saudi way.
Has it ever occurred to the Bushes that the Saudi families they consort with
contributed -- indirectly and inadvertently -- to the same Islamic charities
cited as funneling money to terrorists? I doubt it.
Let's focus on the most glaring favor the Bush administration did for the
Saudis, which I discuss both in my book and in Fahrenheit 9/11. Right
after the horrifying events of Sept. 11, when there were still restrictions on
U.S. airspace, the White House authorized the evacuation of at least 142
people, most of them Saudi. About two dozen were members of the Bin Laden
family.
Let's think about what this really means. The biggest crime in American
history had just taken place. A massive criminal investigation was under way.
These flights should have been a focus of that investigation -- not a
privilege granted to friends of the Bushes. I don't mean to suggest that the
people on board were necessarily guilty of anything, but many of them
certainly should have been the subjects of serious interviews done through
formal investigative procedures. There is no evidence that happened. But, it
is unquestionable that the Saudis were given White House authorization to fly.
Perhaps, it was merely grotesque incompetence, but at some horribly ugly
moment in the Bush White House, someone made a decision about whether to
really try to get to the bottom of this horrifying crime or to perform a favor
of convenience for Bush's Saudi friends. Can anyone possibly defend this? Can
you, Rachel?
Craig
From: Rachel Bronson
To: Craig Unger
Subject: Did Bush Give the Saudis a Free Pass?
Tuesday, July 6, 2004, at 10:25 AM PT
I'm looking forward to the
opportunity provided by Slate to really dig deeply into the issue of
U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia. I read your book carefully and have followed
closely much of your commentary.
Let's get right to the heart of your concern. You write:
| "I
understand that we're an oil-dependent nation that has to have a
strong relationship with the oil-rich Saudis. But, that shouldn't mean
we have to give the Saudis a free pass." -- Craig Unger |
I agree. But, I'm not sure what free
pass Bush has given them. I think the Bush administration has made a series of
very serious and consequential mistakes, especially when it comes to the
postwar planning in Iraq and how it is fighting the war on terror. But, where
is the free pass for the Saudis?
You mention that Saudis were allowed to leave the United States soon after
Sept. 11. In Michael Moore's film, he interviews an FBI agent who was very
disappointed that Saudis on those flights weren't carefully screened. But,
here's what a 9/11 staff commission report says about these flights (the 9/11
commission reports have been considered very fair and are often critical of
the Bush administration, so I take their views pretty seriously):
| The Saudi flights
were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to
ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national
security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the
9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. |
Twenty-two of the 26 people on the
flight that took most of the Bin Ladens out of the country were interviewed by
the FBI, and "many were asked detailed questions." Those on the
flights had their names checked against the FBI database, and there was no
suspicious activity, at least as far as the 9/11 commission is concerned,
associated with those names. Richard Clarke, hardly a fan of the
administration and hardly a lightweight when it comes to counterterrorism,
knew of the flights and their passengers. Everything was handled "in a
professional manner."
So, while I'm willing to be convinced that there was something underhanded
going on, I haven't yet seen anything that would convince me.
Is Bush compromised by his Saudi money? $1.4 billion is a lot of money. But,
what did Bush do that other presidents would not have done, given the money he
received? The fact that Bush 43 declared war against Iraq actually argues
against the idea of Bush being in the Saudis' pocket. The Saudis were way out
in front arguing against this war. They didn't want it; they worried about the
post-conflict environment, about chaos on their border if things went badly,
about a democratically elected Shiite neighbor if things went well. Yes, Saudi
Arabia provided the United States with enormous help in the war, but they
didn't want it. They, for some reason, thought we could instigate a coup in
Iraq, something I still think was entirely unrealistic, given that we had
already tried that, and it hadn't worked. Operation Iraqi Freedom went
directly against a key Saudi Arabian foreign policy preference. That hardly
suggests that Bush is in their pocket.
Finally, I believe the focus on the Bushes starts the story much too late.
The Saudis have been close friends of many Republican administrations. The
Republicans, after all, are a party of big business, and oil is a heck of a
big business. Adnan Khashoggi, an infamous world-renowned Saudi arms dealer,
was a big supporter of Richard Nixon. In the 1980s, Saudi Arabia had
extraordinarily good relations with the Reagan administration. Saudi Arabia
has been closely involved with U.S. politics for decades. Bush may have taken
it to a new level, but it is still not at all clear to me that it has mattered
all that much.
Rachel
Also:
Rachel
Bronson is a senior fellow and director of Middle East Studies at the
Council on Foreign Relations, where she is currently writing a book on U.S.
policy toward Saudi Arabia. Craig
Unger is the author of House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret
Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties. He appears
in Fahrenheit 9/11.
|
PRINT
OUT