“U.S. Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia”
By NoQuarter on July 28, 2007 at 3:50 PM in Current Affairs, Foreign Aid, Israel, Saudi Arabia
UPDATE below: “US accuses Saudis of telling lies about Iraq,” The Guardian
NYT:
WASHINGTON, July 27 — The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.
The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.
[...]
In talks about the package, the administration has not sought specific assurances from Saudi Arabia that it would be more supportive of the American effort in Iraq as a condition of receiving the arms package, the officials said.
The officials said the plan to bolster the militaries of Persian Gulf countries is part of an American strategy to contain the growing power of Iran in the region and to demonstrate that, no matter what happens in Iraq, Washington remains committed to its longtime Arab allies. Officials from the State Department and the Pentagon agreed to outline the terms of the deal after some details emerged from closed briefings this week on Capitol Hill.
[...]
In addition to promising an increase in American military aid to Israel, the Pentagon is seeking to ease Israel’s concerns over the proposed weapons sales to Saudi Arabia by asking the Saudis to accept restrictions on the range, size and location of the satellite-guided bombs, including a commitment not to store the weapons at air bases close to Israeli territory, the officials said.
The package and the possible steps to allay Israel’s concerns were described to Congress this week, in an effort by the administration to test the reaction on Capitol Hill before entering into final negotiations on the package with Saudi officials. The Saudis had requested that Congress be told about the planned sale, the officials said, in an effort to avoid the kind of bruising fight on Capitol Hill that occurred in the 1980s over proposed arms sales to the kingdom. …
I’d like to just quote the entire article, but that’s not kosher. Read it if you’d like all the details.
$20 billion to the Saudis. $30.4 billion aid to the Israelis. The conversation we can have about this is self-evident. I’m pooped from a long trip to see a doctor, so I hope you’ll pick it up from here. - - SusanUnPC
UPDATE: Right after I posted the NYT article, I thought to check Memeorandum to see if other blogs have picked up the story (other blogs are on on this, but I haven’t read their posts yet), and saw this appended article from The Guardian:
US accuses Saudis of telling lies about Iraq
· First time administration has made concern public
· Claims royal family is financing Sunni groupsEwen MacAskill in Washington
Saturday July 28, 2007
The GuardianThe extent of the deterioration in US-Saudi relations was exposed for the first time yesterday when Washington accused Riyadh of working to undermine the Iraqi government.
The Bush administration warned Saudi Arabia, until this year one of its closest allies, to stop undermining the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates, are scheduled to visit Jeddah next week.
Reflecting the deteriorating relationship, the US made public claims that the Saudis have been distributing fake documents lying about Mr Maliki.
Why am I not surprised, and why does this make sense, and why does it seem right on schedule?
From: MIND CONTROL CENTRAL
To: ALL DISINFORMATION AGENTS/NYT REPORTERS.
[Deleted by SusanUnPC)
Robert Stein, at his blog Connecting.The.Dots, has a good commentary on this, including this line, “There is nothing like a little arms race to promote stability in a trigger-happy region.”
Can you say bribery, boyz ‘n’ girlz?
WAR…WAR….WAR….
It’s what the neo-cons live for.
“some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq”
And the United States is playing WHAT kind of role in Iraq - in the entire region? Why I do believe the United State is THE single most counterproductive actor in the Middle East.
And the Bushies’ narcissistic habit of blaming everyone else in the world for the catastrophe THEY have created in Iraq is hardly surprising. It’s all Syria’s fault things are a mess, it’s all Iran’s fault things are a mess, it’s all the Saudis’ fault things are a mess. The only ones NOT responsible for the mess are the very ones who created it in the first place, and have done nothing since then that has not exacerbated it.
Shirin,
It is considered to be bad manners to mention the camel INSIDE the tent–as opposed to the camels OUTSIDE the tent–even when it is defecating into your lap. You’ll find that it is simply a matter of mind control which can be mastered with a little perseverance.
I’ll put it on my schedule to work on that, Montag. :o}
With any luck, Victor Bout will be the shipping agent for the arms to Saudi Arabia and the arms to Israel. Might as well keep it in the family.
Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers; purported to have been paying bribe money to Al Qaeda, now highly suspected of aiding the Sunni Insurgents in Iraq - the same ones killing our soldiers - and now the Cheney Administration - the same Psychotic Old Tired School Republicansas always - want to repeat the same, ignorant foreign policy plan that got us into this mess in the beginning. I read another report saying they were going to get Israel to agree to all this by giving them $30 Bil in arms and military support over the next ten years! We need to tell Israel - the ORIGINAL Middle East Terrorists - buh bye! and get our noses out of everybody else’s business. Same-tired-old-foreign-policy-that-fails. That’s all Republicans know how to do apparently.
Great timing, probably just another fund-raising activity right before the Presidential Elections. And like with the funds for Iraq, the Democrats will just nip this in the bud. It’s time we put the needs of the American people in the forefront and not those of lobbyists and major campaign contributors.
You propose the Democrats end the war/funding for the war with what?
How do you propose they overcome the 9+ votes they need to overcome cloture and/or the 17+ votes they need to override a presidential veto?
You criticize the Democrats but not the Republicans who vote against every measure to begin and/or end the war?
Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs and Keith Olbermann are all alike. They mock the Democrats’ inability to stop the war without EVER offering a single solution to the above two hurdles or strategizing how to get the Republicans to change their votes.
I’m fed up with the criticisms. I’d accept them if anyone had a clue how to get the Republicans to change their votes. Let’s start there first.
Media Matters reports that the media are falling for the Republican mantra of the “Do-Nothing Democrat Congress,” without mentioning WHY it’s not able to do much. Stephanopoulis likewise insists that “Congress is more unpopular than Bush,” when his own ABC poll shows otherwise. I guess if I keep saying, “I can fly!” often enough it “becomes” a fact too.
Funding the war is fundamentally different than, say, repealing the Military Commissions Act. In the latter case, no bill being passed means the status quo. Bush has every incentive to veto the bill. In the case of war funding, no bill being passed means the war is defunded. The incentives for a veto (or filibuster) are entirely reversed.
Democrats should pass a bill that defunds the war and let Bush veto it. They did this once, and then they caved. Instead, they should pass the same bill again, and again, and again. If the Republicans filibuster (as they surely will), then bring the bill up for a vote again, and again, and again. Either way, no bill gets passed that funds the war, and the war is defunded.
If this happens, the Republicans will accuse the Democrats of obstructionism. The Democrats will need to have the political courage and savvy to stand their ground and point out that they’re trying to pass a bill, but it is the Republicans that are obstructionist. If the Democrats can win a standoff in the court of public opinion, it will be Republicans who will be forced to cave, and that’s how you get enough Republican votes.
That the Dems caved after one try is why they are receiving much-deserved criticism and scorn. They didn’t even have the stones to last 2 rounds against a deeply unpopular president in favor of a popular position. Would the Democrats win a showdown with the president? I don’t know. But I do know they will loose if they don’t try.
The Bushies are nuts! They’re not even going to seek Saudi assurances regarding Iraq?! Nevermind that those assurances would probably amount to zip, even if they did seek them.
Douglas Farah talks about how the Saudis haven’t placed any financial controls or oversight on the charities and banks funding Islamic terrorists, despite assurances that they have. They continue to refuse to address the Wahhabi clerics fomenting hate. They’re also allegedly creating forged documents to convince the Bushies that Iran is involved in Iraq at the behest of Maliki, while Saudis go to Iraq to kill US troops. So the Bushies are getting a lot out of this: They can claim they have the proof of Iranian involvement and al Qaeda is in Iraq. Therefore, they claim, Bush’s strategy in Iraq is working.
Regarding Saudi forged documents, I just caught this story in Truthout from the UK Telegraph:
Maliki is calling for General Petraeus’ removal.
Err spending bills originate in the house not the senate. No house spending bill = nothing for the senate to bloviate about.
No supermajority needed in the house either. Dems appear to control the house ( appearances are deceiving … neocons control the house and the senate and the executive branch and a bunch of boobs control the judiciary ).
It isn’t the job of Cafferty or Dobbs or Olberman to make strategy for the dem senate leadership, as for mocking them … is Lieberman still listed as a dem? does he still have a committee chair? Then mockery is about all they deserve.
What is the right is always saying about us “liburals”? Oh yeah, we eat our own.
It’s the Bushies and the GOP we should be the most angry with. The House at least is trying to end the war with bill after bill, and they’re also investigating the administration. We wouldn’t know about half the outrages going on if they weren’t. So a little credit is also due.
On the other hand, everything the House and Senate Democrats are doing is NOT enough. So what can we do? Keep screaming!
Susan,
us (spelled U.S.) promising $30.4 billion in ‘military aid’ to israel is a bunch of garbage. israel is one of the richest nation’s on the planet. why is our govt. continuing to prop up a nation that actively promotes human rights abuses against its neighbors. it has been video documented over and over again. and that $30.4 billion won’t include ‘economic aid’ that congress will be robbing from the u.s. treas. coffers to put into the israeli economic coffers.
our congress/white house are allowing israel to rob us (spelled u.s.) blind, while many americans go hungry and are homeless due to the loss of their jobs. and that is criminal on the congress/white house’s part.
Leslie, I agree that the Democrats are doing very well by investigating the administration, and also following through with Subpoena’s, contempt citations, etc. Where we do NOT agree is that they are trying to end the whateveryouwanttocallit in Iraq (I cannot bring myself to call it a war). Levin-Reid non-withdrawal amendment is a case in point. What most of the Democrats are really trying to do is find another way to achieve a permanent U.S. controlling presence while appearing to be trying to withdraw. Clinton and Obama, and others, have made it explicitly clear that they do not intend to leave Iraq.
Susan,
the weapons ’sales’ to israel is one of the biggest scam/ripoffs on the block. those ’sales’ are ’subsidized’ by u.s. taxpayer/u.s. treas. due to creative financing verbage that is inserted into weapons ’sales’ and economic ‘packages’ to israel. in the end, israel doesn’t pay or if they do its pennies on the dollar, as congress makes sure to give economic/military funding ‘aid’ first to israel and then israel uses that ‘aid’ to purportedly ‘pay for’ their weapons ‘purchases’. a shell game that needs to be stopped. those in the congress who are party to such a rico statue shell game need to be sent to prison.
its time that our u.s. weapons sales/aid and economic aid to israel ended.
We don’t disagree about withdrawal of combat troops only, versus total withdrawal. I’m for total withdrawal. What we disagree about is Democratic efforts versus the GOP’s non-efforts. I believe the Democrats are doing more to try to end the war than the GOP is, Shirin. That’s where you and I disagree. And, as I’ve repeatedly said in previous comments, I understand that the Democratic presidential candidates all want to maintain some presence in Iraq. For me, that means we have to work harder to convince the Democrats to leave completely. But none of the Republican candidates support any withdrawal. So as bad as the Democrats are, they’re still a lot better than the Republicans. And they’re our only hope for stopping Bush right now. Because if a Republican wins the White House in 2008, we may also be looking at war with Iran and a true dictatorship in the US.
Right on, Leslie. And let’s not forget the empty rhetoric of Republican senators like Lugar, Voinovich et al. — the Republican senators who speechify against the war, but then who vote as the administration instructs.
Just like Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, ranking member of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, who attacked AG Gonzales vigorously in the hearing but then, in a later press conference, backstabbed the Democratic senators who sent a letter to the Solicitor General requesting an independent counsel to investigate Gonzales for perjury. ‘course, Specter was on Air Force One that day, so he got his orders.
“So as bad as the Democrats are, they’re still a lot better than the Republicans. And they’re our only hope for stopping Bush right now. Because if a Republican wins the White House in 2008, we may also be looking at war with Iran and a true dictatorship in the US.”
Why isn’t this just as likely to happen with the Democrats in power? It’s even more likely because the Democrats still have the ability to shut up progressive dupes who think they’re different from Republicans. The Democrats have supported the war from day one and refuse stop funding it. They are also on record as being in favor of war with Iran. As for a dictatorship, they have voted for the Patriot act and Military Commissions Act and have done NOTHING to restore Habeus corpus or anything else.
“We don’t disagree about withdrawal of combat troops only, versus total withdrawal.”
No, we do not disagree about that - sorry if I gave the impression that I thought we did.
As for the rest, I do not entirely agree that the Democrats are doing more to end the “war”. What the mainstream Democrats are doing now is about a drawdown - a reduction of forces, if you will - not an end to the so-called “war”. Where we can agree - sort of - is that this IS not as bad as what the Republicans are doing because at least the Democrats are recognizing that something has to change, and constant escalation is not the correct direction.
We agree, I think, that at least the Democrats are looking in a direction that is closer to what needs to happen, and at least they appear to be responding somewhat to the public will, which the Republicans are not doing at all. And we agree that it may be possible to convince the Democrats that full withdrawal is what has to happen.
It IS very worrying, though, that even Barbara Lee has been touting Levin-Reid as calling for full withdrawal.
There is a bi-partisan concensus in the US that the US has the right to intervene militarily wherever and whenever it sees fit. This makes the politics in Washington much more complicated that Democrat vs. Republican.
There are at least three major factions. The neo-cons basically want an American military empire. The large majority of neo-cons are Republicans. The second faction is descended from the neo-liberals (neo-neoliberals). This faction wants an American economic empire. They support American military intervention to remove uncooperative governemnts and to open markets, but only as a last resort. The neo-neoliberals are predominantly Democratic. My guess is they constitute a bare majority of Democrats. The third faction is more an eclectic group of people (from Ron Paul to Dennis Kucinich) who are horrified by both the neo-cons and the neo-neolibs.
The problem with being in the third faction is that one party is controlled by the neo-cons and the other by the neo-neolibs. There is a chance of cracking the neo-neolib control of the Democratic party. However, the full force of bi-partisan concensus will try to marginalize any candidate who doesn’t buy into either the neo-con or the neo-neolib world view. The media and beltway pundits are the gatekeepers and enforcers of this concensus. They will make sure we know who is and who is not a “serious” candidate.
Barring an electoral surprise or a national crisis like a major economic downturn, either a neo-con or a neo-neolib will be in the White House in 2008. This means US troops will be in Iraq until they are forced out, or all the oil is gone.
I hate to be so pessimistic, but I really don’t know what to do about it. I feel like I’m living through the next chapter in Barbara Tuchman’s “The March of Folly”. It is possible to see that this is going to end badly, but it doesn’t seem possible to do anything about it.
What is really troubling…I believe the Bushies are thinking long-term, beyond Bush’s term in the White House. Part of the reason why the GOP has been so willing to support the Bushies is that they may also be taking the long-term view of a future where there is one-party rule. Where they can establish a dictatorship. It’s very troubling that the Democrats may also find it difficult to resist that, and want to keep in place some of the arguments of a unitary executive. Bush has established a precedent to ignore Congress, the Courts and the Constitution.
That’s one of the biggest arguments for impeachment by the House, regardless of whether the Senate could convict.
People who post here know a lot about this ugly, criminal business that our Country/Congress Critters/Elite/Corporations are up to.
Perhaps, if more regular AMERICANS could watch a simple but scarey movie — average people in our Country would “get it” and understand just WHERE their hard earned tax dollars are going??????
Nicolas Cage in “Lord of War”….
Worth a try to save lives and the future of our World. We have lost our way… we must find our way back to a real DEMOCRACY.
—————-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295/
An arms dealer (Cage) confronts the morality of his work as he is being chased by an Interpol agent (Hawke). more
The primary goal should be getting to the terrorists. Notions of controlling Iraq and Iran should be put aside. With that, it should be clear that the US does not need Saudi cooperation concerning Iraq and Iran, but Saudi cooperation concerning catching terrorists. The US government can offer substancial positive consequences (without weapons) if terrorists are caught. The president should be given the tools needed to provide that.
The primary goal should be American national security, with a co-primary goal of world security. Going after terrorists in Iraq that weren’t there before we invaded, are increased by our presence, and will be evicted after we leave weakens our national security.
Iran harbors virtually no terrorists. It’s activity in terrorism is mainly confined to sponsoring Hezbullah, an organization without global reach that kills a tiny number of Israelis every year. While such minor threats to Israel as Hezbullah, and not-so-minor threats because of nuclear proliferation, are a concern (on account of the co-primary goal mentioned above), attacking Iran has a high probability of making all those threats much worse.
As for Saudi Arabia, the ruling class of Saudi Arabia are wahabists with a very strong sympathy for salafi jihadism. We have enough Saudi princes high-fiving each other over their cell phones after 9/11 to make clear where Saudi sympathies lie. Osama bin Laden is one of those Saudi princes, and while the Bushies want you to believe he is some kind of anomaly, let’s not forget that much of Al Qaeda’s funding comes from Saudi Arabia, as well as most of the 9/11 hijackers. Cooperation with the Saudis is always a two-edged sword, and I would feel a lot better about it if I didn’t harbor suspicions of our presidents’ being a Saudi cat’s paw.
Catching terrorists is a waste of time, if in the catching you create more terrorists than you catch or kill. That is clearly what is happening in both Iraq & Afghanistan, and Bush seems committed to expanding that same failed policy elsewhere in the world. Given that, it is imperative to deny him the tools to do that.
Shargash,
Yup.
SusanUnPC writes: $20 billion to the Saudis. $30.4 billion aid to the Israelis.
“Let’s you and him fight,” in other words.
Back in the day, when we’d argue all the world’s problems late at night in our college dorm rooms, sooner or later, someone would say “hell with it, kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out”, and we’d all laugh like crazy. We laughed because no sane person would seriously advocate this as foreign policy.
I’m not laughing any more.
The Guardian article writes: Reflecting the deteriorating relationship, the US made public claims that the Saudis have been distributing fake documents lying about Mr Maliki.
A bold claim. What is the text of the document? Anyone?
This has never made any legitimate sense whatsoever to me. Notice I said legitimate, I’m aware of the lobbying that makes it happen.
I don’t care what the whiney ass Lieberman or anyone else says, I really don’t believe Israel or it’s military policy does anything of any benefit for the security of the United States. As far as I’m concerned, if they need help, they can ask the U.N., or if the U.N. doesn’t help, they can try some real genuine diplomacy. We have no business being Israel’s surrogate parent/sugar daddy, any more than we have any business being Iraq’s guide to a bright future.
On another note,
Just curious, not that I really expect that anyone in Congress actually knows, what is the actual value of this hardware. Are we selling at a profit, break even, or a loss?
Out here in the San Fernando Valley, I’ve got some neighbors over in Pacoima and Sun Valley who are active in street gangs. Where’s OUR aid package?
So let me get this straight: Saddam was a counterweight to Iran. So we overthrew him. Then we installed a predominately Shia puppet government with ties to Iran. But we don’t like that, because they have ties to Iran. So, to contain Iran as a counterweight to the Shia majority in Iraq’s government with ties to Iran, whom we installed, we’re sending billions in arms to the Saudis, Oman, Kuwait, most of the Gulf states and…oh yeah, Israel is getting nervous too. This will send a message to the Iranians that we have the means to contain them, despite our empowering them. And our military support for autocratic regimes, such as the House of Saud, doesn’t contradict our stated goal of spreading democracy throughout the region.
It ain’t and it never was, just about oil.