Buried in the usual flood of Tony's rhetoric, we search for the concrete proposals promised and find .... nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Search for Tony's analysis of what the Bush administration is actually doing with respect to Saudi Arabia ( of which there are enough news and analysis reports that one could at least form an outline of the administration's behind-the-scenes policy ) and what do you find? Nothing.

In a piece that repeatedly refers to the Saudi as a source of funding for terrorist organizations, a concrete analysis of the Bush administration's efforts to attack the various funding networks would be a crucial topic.

Tony gives us nothing.

I would summarize the key points of this essay thusly: Bush is evil; the predominant source of terrorism in the world (via sponsorship)is Saudi Arabia; the US should expose the Saudi's princes' nefariousness; turn up the diplomatic heat on them by, primarily, going to the UN, and threatening; if the Saudis turn off the oil supply, there "may" exist alternative sources; then the pressure will be too great on the Saudis; they will stop sponsoring by-proxy terrorism; and then the Saudis will capitulate and the terrorism dominoes will all fall because the Saudi's are the big kahuna.

Utter, utter hogwash.

So what will the rest of the Mideast do while we conduct non-military war against the Saudis. Ever hear of the oil embargo? Know what Jimmy Carter's misery index is? If you think Dubya's economy is bad, try inflation and unemployment over 20%. Does that the fact that Western hating Mideast militants are willing to kill themselves in perpetuity attacking the West suggest to you that the Saudis are open to persuasion/bluster?

And just who in the UN will do anything to help us? The same ones that helped us in Iraq? Will the UN set up a 15-year Saudi compliance timetable, which if violated, will be enforced with ever tightening "tut-tut, bad Saudis" sanctions?

And what about this alternate source of oil or energy that "may" exist? Would you pardon us if, before we put millions of Americans out of work because of a radically slumping, oil-deprived economy, we get a little more info and something more than "may".

And you believe in the terrorist domino theory? You don't think a US effort directed against a very traditional, strongly religious kingdom might not motivate other terrorists and their wealthy backers? Libya?

And how would you maintain stability in an "overthrown" or supposedly reformed Saudi Arabia? What's the stronger sentiment in that country? Westernism or Islam?.

No, the problem is very hard. But an all out blame terrorism on Saudi Arabia campaign is clearly not the answer. Comparatively - comparatively - the Saudis are a friend in the Mideast. They gave us military bases which we have used in Mideast actions and have been a long time trading partneer. There's no doubt that some private sponsorship of terror is going on there. We need to keep persuading them to do something about that while we have some modicum of influence - as a friend. This is about like the war on drugs - it defies simplistic answers. Beware those who proffer the same.

Everything proposed here simply gives the enemy more time (lots of time) to prepare an answer to the eventual military solution we'll have to employ. War was the option the enemy chose, not us. Better to settle the conflict quickly on our own terms, than wait to implement a "perfect" solution (involving the UN, reduced oil consumption, etc) that never comes.

The most important reason to liberate Iraq was to provide an alternate model to the Arab shiekdoms and facist states. You can't replace what is currenlty a well-entrenched establisment in the Middle East, no matter how onerous it is, without creating a better alternative that common Arabs and others living there can go to. The worst stereotype we have of Arab peoples is Koran-memorizing sadist homicidal killers, but the reality is that most Arabs don't share in such petty dreams and would gladly jump on the alterntative, provided a real choice. They actually have that now in Iraq, which is nothing short of a miracle.

Don't knock Bush, not at all! He's got to be the only leader of any stature that has actually made the effort to change a region that is a cesspool of deceipt and murder into a place where people have a say in their own lives. Perhaps the execution has not been smooth or perfect, but the willingness to try more than makes up for it.

If Clinton was President, would the criticism be the same? I wonder.

If you look at projected Russian and Iraqi oil output, 2005 is the pivotal year, I think. It would be nice if we could get some of Venezuela's lost capacity online agian, too.

And I'm becoming more and more convinced that some of al Qaeda's most dangerous operators are/were Iraqi intelligence agents on semi-permanent loan. This is above and beyond the well-documented problems with Iraqi diplomats. So I don't share the view that the Iraq war does not address the Jihad problem.

Most of the folks reading this blog would agree that something must eventually be done with Saudi Arabia. Tony, can't you see that our presence in Iraq increases the pressure on Saudi Arabia?

With respect to gaining UN support for pressuring Saudi Arabia, it ain't gonna happen. We tried the UN route on Iraq for 11 or 12 years. What did it get us? The UN undermined it straight from the start, especially UN members France and Russia with their pursuit of economic deals with Saddam, mostly oil related. This will accrue in spades to pressuring Saudi Arabia, because 1) they haven't invaded another country, 2) they don't overtly opress their own people, 3) they have even more oil to bribe other UN members, and 4) they’ve never pursued WMD’s.

For all these reasons there's no way that'd we'd ever get UN support to go after Saudi Arabia, diplomatically, economically, or militarily; in fact, the dizzying cries of "US imperialism" and "it's the oil" would even be even louder.

Even if we throw out all other reasons for invading Iraq, doing it to increase pressure on Saudi Arabia to toe the line seems reason enough. It is at least a good first step.

Most of the folks reading this blog would agree that something must eventually be done with Saudi Arabia. Tony, can't you see that our presence in Iraq increases the pressure on Saudi Arabia?

With respect to gaining UN support for pressuring Saudi Arabia, it ain't gonna happen. We tried the UN route on Iraq for 11 or 12 years. What did it get us? The UN undermined it straight from the start, especially UN members France and Russia with their pursuit of economic deals with Saddam, mostly oil related. This will accrue in spades to pressuring Saudi Arabia, because 1) they haven't invaded another country, 2) they don't overtly opress their own people, 3) they have even more oil to bribe other UN members, and 4) they’ve never pursued WMD’s.

For all these reasons there's no way that'd we'd ever get UN support to go after Saudi Arabia, diplomatically, economically, or militarily; in fact, the dizzying cries of "US imperialism" and "it's the oil" would be even louder.

Even if we throw out all other reasons for invading Iraq, doing it to increase pressure on Saudi Arabia to toe the line seems reason enough. It is at least a good first step.

One thing to consider, is that even if all the Saudi funding of jihadis were to completely dry up tomorrow, all the jihadis would do is go somewhere else for their funding.

I can think of lots of countries where they could turn to for support. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebannon. Do not think there are not wealthy corrupt despots in these countries too, that would not gladly step in and provide the funding.

Sure, we need to dry up the Saudi funding of jihadis, but it will not miraculously fix the problem.

One other thing to consider is that one of the factors, that has driven gas prices up lately, is the Bush administration has been quietly diverting oil from the public supply, to top off the strategic oil reserve.

I forget exactly how much the reserve holds, but there is enough there to run the entire country, even at our current burn rate, for like 2 or 3 years I think. If you fact check me on this, and I'm wrong, don't vilify me since I'm just talking off the top of my head.

My main point is, I think the Bush administration has been quietly setting the US up, so that we can get off of Saudi oil as soon as possible.

My main contention with Tony, like so many other opponents of the war, is their patent inability to recognize any Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda, which as some enterprising folks over at Free Republic discovered, we knew from 1998.

The Saudi role in formenting terrorism against Western interests is largely in the ideological/financial department - not the armament, training, and WMD expertise. Iran and Sudan provide the latter, and Iraq until recently the former. More to the point, the vast majority of al-Qaeda's leadership isn't in Saudi Arabia - they're in Iran.

Criticism over the post-9/11 US policy towards Saudi Arabia takes a variety of forms, but liberal criticisms of it only recently reached new heights. I have my own criticism of the policy, but a lot of this is politics@work, the ideologues and policy-makers in Washington should have known that al-Qaeda was in league with Saudi Arabia since 9/12/01 if not beforehand. It's the same reason that people patently refuse to acknowledge al-Qaeda's connections to Iran, Sudan, Iraq, or the Chechens on similarly intellectually dishonest grounds in order to pander to set political worldviews. Of course, the fact that MILF still has al-Qaeda training camps up and running two years after 9/11 and that they receive arms from North Korea also catches few eyes.

Even after Saudi Arabia is gone and House Saud is expelled to the ashbin of history the damage has already been done. One of the reasons that the Bush administration has so far failed to attack Saudi Arabia largely deals with the fact that they are attempting cushion the impact of the explosion the Saudis have created. Look at Hizb-ut-Tahrir, for example.

Even stipulating that the Saudis are an irreplaceable souce of funding for the Islamist movement (which I tend to agree with), I don't see anything here but attempting to 'shame' them into stopping.

I don't begin to see how acting 'to bring the Saudi issues out of the close and into the glaring light of day' solves the problem of people who are convinced that we're evil and that if we don't change to suit them and their views, they will go on killing us.

Tony, you've gotta do a whole lot better than this if you want to have any impact at all.

A.L.

You see. This is what I'm talking about:

*Yemen Next Afghanistan*

It's a much larger and tougher problem than just drying up Saudi funding of jihahdis.

And when you say things like this, "...Bush is primarily concerned with the profits of his papa's buddies in the oil, energy, and military cartels...", that's when you lose me. You have just crossed the line from valid opinion, to just another whacko conspiracy nutbag.

Do you really think that is what Bush is primarily concerned with? Making sure that men who are already worth tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars become even wealthier? To say that Bush went into Iraq, and is ignoring Saudi Arabia for business advantage, well that's just sad, and only brands you as a Bush hater.

You can say a lot of things about the Iraq war, but it should be clear to anyone who has been paying attention, that Bush laid his political career on the line for a war, that he thought was necessary in order to protect America's national security. The risks were huge, compared to what we have ended up with. Chemical attacks on our troops, door-to-door fighting in Iraq, sucicide squads trained and recruited from other countries, I even heard comparisons that likened Baghdad to Stalingrad. None of it happened. The truth is the psy-ops war worked, and most of Saddam's generals either simply went home, or surrendered and didn't fight. The truth is they were waiting for us to return; for 11 long years. Many of them are still in POW camps South of Baghdad in fact.

This Iraq war could easily be the political undoing of Bush. But he did not do it, to distract attention from Saudi Arabia, and retain business advantage their for his Papa's friends.

Why are you giving this nutjob space on your site?

Tony, If you are going to make specific policy proposals then it helps to bullet them to make each distinct proposal easier to identify. When writing posts I find doing so helps to clarify my own thinking as well.

As far as I can tell Tony wants the US to lean harder on the Saudis. Not sure how we are supposed to measure compliance with our demands. Also, I doubt that the Saudi government knows the identity of most of its own citizens who are working in support of terrorism. So it seems to me that Tony's expectations what will be achieved with his policy prescription are a tad optimistic.

There are no easy answers. But I do think a more complex view of US national interests would help us reason better about what ought to be done.

please use fewer metaphors. they make it difficult to understand with precision what you are saying at several points in your article.

"I believe Bush is primarily concerned with the profits of his ..." to merely throw out an accusation this serious without any proof casts your whole article in a bad light. My goodness, its not even in a sentence, it's in parenthesis for heaven's sake! You at least provided a few links to bolster some of your other arguements.

Actually semm, many of his links do not bolster the arguments that they are associated with. He purports to support factual claims with links to wild-eyed myth-laden opinion pieces from discredited sources.

And notice that the deeper he gets into his "argument" the fewer the links.

This piece is about what I expected from Tony. Thin on facts, thin on logic, thick on silly rhetoric.

Fascinating and original take! Even if I don't agree with a word of it. A bit nutty, but hell, we're all a bit lost, aren't we? Virtues: refocuses some of the issues re: sources of terror and use of our (limited) resources in fighting terror within an (attempted) realist framework. You've just got to lose the conspiracy aspects (Bush is in Iraq for Daddy's friends) and wishful thinking (the French are going to rush to our aid in combating the Saudis).

Otherwise, a refreshing analysis that has the beginning of, er, something?

We will all get what we deserve.

While I am disheartened by the predictable partisan personal attacks and shameless evasion of issues, - I am not surprised at the truebeliever response to the points of this article. I had hoped there would be more focus on the Saudi's, and Bush shielding of the Saudi’s, and less on me personally, but alas - this attacking, sliming, and demonizing is typical and expected rightwingideologue response to alternate opinion or dissent, especially when backed by truth and facts.

I know you want me and anyone questioning your leader to shut up and go away, - but you can forget it.

I understand how difficult it is to accept the hard realities we all must endure. You guys go ahead and keep supporting Bush's deceptive, exceedingly costly and ill-conceived nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq against the wrong Muslims; and go ahead and believe the 87b dollar, US soldier every other day, many innocent Iraqis’ killed and injured, everything is moving according to the perfect Pax American plan, and all is fine and dandy myths and propaganda, - and we will all see what happens in the end. We do not share your enthusiasm.

You succumb to the RoveBush mindwarp and hold the delusion that another attack is being prevented by the valiant boy warrior compelled into an epic righteous christian crusade against the "evil one", - ignoring the fact that your own leadership and intelligence apparatus from every quarter of the world warns of, and is preparing for a terrorist event more devastating than 9/11.

I will remind you gentle people of the left and right shock and awe caused by the 87bn dollar supplemental, - none of it - NOT ONE PENNY - being accounted for in Bush’s 2004 budget, which I view as a gross and reckless miscalculation, - if not outright deception, and worthy of inquiry, review, and accountability.

I know you truebelievers want to ignore this ugly truth, - but the rest of us want disclosure and accountability.

The entire Iraq war is a book cooking cloaked nonaccountibility deception masking loss as profit and sticking the working people of America with the exceedingly costly and blood drenched liability after the fact.

I know for you guys, theendsjustifythemeans, - but you might want to pay a little less attention to Iraq’s security and prosperity and more to America’s, - which is sorely lacking.

The comparisons to Viet Nam are not quite accurate in my opinion. Rather, Iraq is more like the American Palestine, and terrorism will always be a part of the equation in Iraq under this construct.

This sad reality of course works well for Bush and his oil, energy, and private military cartels and cronies singularly profiteering from theneverending Iraq, Afghanistan and terror wars, because it both ignores the real problems in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan aiding and abetting wahabist depravity and jihadist insanity, - and instead mis or dis focuses attention and resources on exploiting Iraq wealth and resources - and also singularly benefits the oil, energy, and private military cartels and cronies.

Buttressing the neverendingwar agenda favored by the righwingideologues in the Bush fundamentalist republican oligarchy ignores the real threats to America in largely funded and nurtured by Bush's "good friends" in Saudi Arabia.

Ultimately I seek 1/16th of the attention focused, (in my opinion) on the wrong Muslims in Iraq, directed, instead on those other Muslims in the House of Saud, who (in my opinion) represent the life and blood of our true, (as opposed hyped) enemies, who proselytize jihadist islam, the slaughter of all infidels, and jihadist world domination.

With no substantiated refutation or meaningful retort, - and instead only the typical rightwingideologue slime and demonizing tactics attacking the messenger, while - tragically - ignoring the message, - the point is unfortunately lost.

I understand how difficult it is to face the hard realities we all must endure. You guys go ahead and keep supporting Bush's deceptive, exceedingly costly and ill-conceived nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq, against the wrong Muslims, and we will all see what happens. And months from now these questions will be raised for the first time and left and right will wonder where America is moving, and why

The comparisons to Viet Nam are not quite accurate in my opinion. Rather, Iraq is more like the American Palestine, and terrorism will always be a part of the equation in Iraq under this construct. This sad reality of course works well for Bush and his oil, energy, and private military concerns singular profiteering from the Iraq war, because it both ignores the real problem stemming from Saudi Arabia, and buttressing the neverendingwar agenda favored by the righwingideologues
If you are right and I am wrong, then we will all live happily ever after in Pax Americana splendor and I deserve the repercussions. If however I am right and you are wrong, we are all in deep ca ca.

In the end, I am questioning Bush shielding and insulate the House of Saud from investigation into strong evidence of at least complicit involvement in the horrors of 9/11, and certain financial and political attachment to wahabism and the funding and nurturing of mass murder organizations.

You guys can choose to ignore this ugly reality, and parrot the Rove “good friend” hagiographic liturgies, and walk lockstep with the Bush rightwingideoloug party line, - but I request, and with plenty of solid evidence on my side – an investigation, and ultimately a redress of the House of Saud. All we need is an inquiry.

I know you fly like bats from any hard scrutiny of your leaderships policies, but the facts are heavy on our side and airy on yours, - and the potential impact is huge. Erase WMD, as we did basically prior to 9/11, and all of these debates loose significance.

You guys ignore the warning of your own leadership, and all the world intelligence organizations who are universally, and clearly concerned, about the sequel to 9/11.

You think because another attack has not been executed on America, that everything is fine and dandy, moving according to plan. Well its' not. You guys can bury your head in the sand and bow to Bush ignoring obvious failure and neglect, - be we intend to implement new leadership that will correct this wayward course and pilot America into a future of peace and prosperity. All Bush, the fundamentalis repulican oligarchy, and you truebelievers seek is neverendingwar.

I'm so glad that we're all evil (and you gotta love the obligatory moral equivalence between Christian fundamentalists and al-Qaeda) and otherwise irredeemably suckered by Karl Rove's propaganda machine.

That being said, you still have yet to explain what you plan to do other than bringing more attention to the Saudi role in formenting Islamic terrorism. Do you favor economic sanctions? Military action, even if it means attacking Mecca or Medina? I can continue onwards with the numerous problems inherent in any action against Saudi Arabia, to say nothing of the fact that my own contention is that they've bought off just as many Democrats as Republicans.

One of the main problems I have here is not with your analysis of the situation in regards to Wahhabism, but rather with your repeated claims about the situation Iraq all the while dancing around the ample evidence of the Iraqi/al-Qaeda connection that you can find readily available on this site. You don't counter the evidence, explain why you think that Zarqawi isn't a global threat or why Saddam wasn't providing assistance to his chemical weapons plots in Europe, you simply dismiss all of the evidence as lies, lies, and more lies concocted to justify what you already perceive as an illegitimate war. That's all well and good, but it's about as fundamentalist a mindset as one can find regardless of your own religious preferences or lack thereof.

I also take issue with your analysis of Iraq as a America's Palestine. The current citizens of Iraq currently have access to far more religious, economic, and political freedom than any denizen of the West Bank or Gaza could ever dream of. They aren't ruled by a kleptocracy (the PA) that is so inept that fundamentalist organizations provide the only legitimate source of social services. More to the point, if there's any equivalent to the KDP, the PUK, and Ayatollah Sistani in the West Bank, I see no sign of it at this point. And then course there is the fact that ~60% of Baghdad resident supported the war against Saddam Hussein. A similar number in the Palestinian territories support suicide bombings, according to most polls I've seen. Different mindset, different results.

There is also the whole idea of national (and politicized religious) self-determination in the Palestinian territories that is wholely absent from Iraq. The US is not planning to make Iraq part of our country. Inhabitants of the West Bank who end up on the wrong side of the security fence might be able to argue differently about Israel.

Regarding additional terrorist attacks, you're probably right on this Tony. OTOH, if Zarqawi was still free to give his goons Iraqi-sponsored WMD training and tech, sooner or later one of his cells would succeeded and we would be looking at hundreds of dead people. Throw in a crop duster over a major metropolitan area. That's the imminent threat for you from Iraq, as I noted a couple weeks ago, entirely apart from the WMD concerns. By going to war we nipped that threat right in the bud - before it could carry out a successful strike against us and our allies.

This is also something the anti-warriors are quite aware of, which is one of the reasons why their inacceptance of the al-Qaeda link to Iraq is matched only by flat-earthers in a patent refusal to acknowledge the evidence. Same thing with al-Qaeda and Iran, the Chechens, ect. If Iraq was helping al-Qaeda the way that evidence would seem to indicate they were, they were a threat, Saudis or no Saudis. Saudi money you can stop and freeze after it's been transferred, but I doubt that works with ricin, cyanide, or sarin ... to say nothing of the reports on what happened to the Iraqi VX.

Actually, Tony, most of the folks in this section would be more than happy to see the Saudis go down hard. Most are also more than worried about another attack - they see it as a "when" question, not an "if" question.

A wise debater would have built on that. "Know yourself, know your opponent..." With respect, you did neither in this response - and frankly, I'm disappointed in you.

Worse, here we go back to the predictable pattern of Bush, Bush, Bush. You would have been FAR better off defending the nuts and bolts of your proposed plan to deal with the Saudis as principal backers of the jihadist threat, and addressing the legitimate questions raised by participants here. Starting with a 1-2 paragraph summary of your action proposals to reset the terms of debate, then moving on to "why would the U.N. help America in any way", and "...so, what if this doesn't work? What then?"

I gave you the guest blog for a couple of reasons. One was to give you the best opportunity I could to show our readers that there's substance behind your comments. Alas, whatever points the column may have won you were probably just wiped out by this response.

As the Frantics' hilarious Tae Kwan Leep skit notes: "anger is a weapon only to one's opponent."

When you decide that you want to investigate and communicate a forward-looking and necessary course of action more than you want to hate George W. Bush, your ability to convince people of your ideas will improve about fivefold. And if this stuff matters as much as you believe it does, why won't you make that small scarifice in order to help avert the threat? Or will your fears come to pass, in part because you couldn't be bothered to put in the effort to change?

Think about it. Seriously.

Tony,

I'm not sure what your personal experience of the Middle East is, if any.

I did a limited amount of business there in the 1980s, both with Israel and indirectly with the Saudis. I did not come back with a liking for either country or culture, frankly, but one thing I did gain was an appreciation for some of the approaches that do and do not work there.

I'd like to address two different dimensions to your post & comment: first, the analysis and then, the proposal for action.

Re: the analysis, there is no doubt that some members of the (very large) Saudi royal family have directly funded the spread of Wahabi Islamicism and therefore also terror acts. Some of those princes are at cynical secularists, some religious fundamentalists, most (but not all) dream of somehow magically recovering Arab supremacy across the world. They hate the West for the mirror it holds up to their own weaknesses while also sneering at its "decadence".

There is also no doubt that the oil industry is multinational first and foremost, that its major players have concerns, interests and perhaps loyalties that MAY in any given situation go beyond their countries of origin.

But what your post totally lacked is any recognition of the factors, interrelationships and motivations that constitute the reality on the ground in the Middle East. For instance, the Saudi leadership are sitting on a demographic and economic timebomb. There are something like 14000 members of the royal family alone, most of whom have little power, less motivation to accomplish anything in life through work/ scholarship/ philanthropy and -- significantly -- diminishing wealth as well. You want to put pressure on the Saudi crown prince??? Get in line -- there's nothing you could do that comes close to the internal pressures in that place right now. If you think Bush et al are somehow corruptly in cahoots w/ the Saudis, wait until you see more Saudi money go to subvert any diplomatic or economic pressure brought to bear on them by the US. Talk about blowback potential -- our economy has already suffered from our use of economic sanctions in places like Iraq (not to mention the high expense of all those years of enforcing no-fly zones). You think our current economy is awful?? I lived through the stagflation of the 1970s, when interest rates reached 20% on mortgages and more on consumer loans, when you could only buy gasoline on alternate days at high prices and when the US dollar dropped greatly in purchasing power overseas. With the current debt load of the federal govt, we are far more susceptible to unintended consequences of this sort today. And before that, as a child I lived through the unemployment of the 1950s, when there were far fewer safety nets than today, even after recent budget cuts in our states and counties. So please to put things in perspective .. today's economy is facing structural challenges due in part to global trade & the impact of technology, but things have been much worse in living memory.

Re: proposed actions .. have you ever played the kid's game Pickup Sticks? Sometimes the best way to get at the central problem is to work from the edges in. That's especially true when there are dangers and risks to balance ... the risk that an oil price shock would send Western economies into massive depression being one of them. I've been following the macroeconomic trends for a decade now. If we can get through the next 10 years or so with nothing worse than limited recessions in the major economies, then global trade should even out the economic landscape sufficiently for all countries to be better off. But that won't happen automatically & the possibility of a major world wide depression is very real. It's utterly irresponsible to suggest attacking a major oil supplier as if there were no predictably harsh economic consequences for the poor in the US and elsewhere. Those alternate sources of oil? Take a hard look at how long it will take to bring them on line. Ditto for constructing new nuclear power plants. We should be pursuing all those things plus serious conservation plus new technologies, but that takes TIME. In the meanwhile, there's a complex, dangerous world situation to confront. Or rather, there are several interrelated threats to be dealt with, any of which could blow up in our faces tomorrow if handled with the kind of all-or-nothing emotional response you demand.

Yes, Iraq is going to be long, hard, expensive, risky, ambiguous and a mess ... more of one than this Administration came close to predicting. And yes the Bush tax cuts are unsustainable in the face of rapidly ballooning public deficits which, given the amount of dollar-denominated Treasury debt still out there from the Reagan & Clinton days, threaten the value of the dollar in serious ways. And yes, I'm really concerned about Pakistani Islamacists with nuclear weapons, Iran's successful pursuit of the same & the murderous intent of Islamacist fanatics. And yes, yes ... Saudi funding of these networks has got to stop.

But it is incredibly naive -- I'm sorry, there's no better word, unless it be "uninformed" -- to think that the Saudi ruling princes can be openly, unambiguously and successfully pressured into massive repentance and reform by the US. It is equally naive or uninformed to think we have many viable military options for accomplishing that goal directly or that other countries would join us in such an effort. (Among other things, do you know how much smart weapons cost, how long it takes to replenish stocks of them for another war, how many trained military specialists we can deploy as needed? Answer: lots and lots of money which will go to corporations you probably hate, 6 mos to a year & not enough.)

Should the US try to pressure the Saudis overtly, you can be sure that massive amounts of Saudi wealth would go into pockets in Europe, Africa, Asia ... some US politicans opposed to whichever administration was in power ... to influence others against us. Take into account as well the impact of a likely decision on the part of OPEC to refuse to sell oil to the US if we do. And remember the not so small fact that Mecca and Medina are recognized major holy sites and that endangering those sites would indeed trigger a world war ... against the US and its interests, on the part of pretty much every other country. All of which suggest that pressure on the Saudis is not a one way street and must be applied with precision and care.

I really sympathize with the frustration, fury and demand for action in your post and your comments. My daughter was near the World Trade Center on 9/11. My neighbors include the families fire fighters who worked in the city. And I'll be damned or dead before I allow my country, my way of life, my daughter to be destroyed by Wahabi fanatics. It's because so much is at stake that our response must be both strong and effective, not just emotional or based on the fantasy that we could just go in and blow things up. The real world isn't a video game, there are lots of complexities and we only get one chance to do it right.

Wrong again, Tony. In fact, your return to the whacky, confused, insult-laden rhetoric is expected. Your posting was criticized by me for being filled with nothing and your response only confirms my comments.

As Joe says, I have zero interest in defending the Saudis. As for defending President Bush's actions toward them, I'm not even bothering because you've done nothing competent to attack his policy with respect to them as I noted. Your screeds do not even attempt to describe the administration's actual actions with respect to the Saudis.

Finally, the most annoying part of your screeds remains your completely false claim to be full of facts, evidence, etc. when you actually present none. Your hydrophobic frothing about fundamentalists rightwing ideologues demonstrates that your only interest is maintaining your clown routine no matter how much Joe wastes his time on you.

"backed by truth and facts"

You should rephrase this to "backed by op-eds written by Bush haters"

You were heavy on opinion, rhetoric, and maetaphor and extremely light on facts.

For example, you didn't even address any of these facts:

1. Saddam actively sponsored Hamas, and sent tens of millions to provide for the families of Hamas suicide bombers. He even bragged about it.

2. Terrorists figures Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, of Achille Lauro fame, were given refuge in Baghdad.

3. The key figure in the 1993 bombing of the WTC twin towers, that was not apprehended by the FBI, his buddy Yousef was caught, was given haven in Baghdad. There is considerable evidence, that links Saddam to this bombing.

4. A Palestine Liberation Front terrorist training camp was maintained outside of Baghdad, complete with airplane chassis for hijacker training.

5. US and Kurdish forces destroyed a base and training camp for Ansar-al-Islam, an Al-Qaeda terrorist group, during the war. The camp had a crude poison lab, and evidence was found that indicated that the group had made the deadly toxin ricin.

6. Remember the assasination attempt of Bush 41 that was thwarted by Kuwaiti security? Those were Iraqi security agents they caught.

7. Recently, another major terrorist facility in the desert of central Iraq was destroyed by US forces.

8. Recently, Iraqi intelligence documents uncovered in Iraq indicate that Iraqi officials traveled to Sudan in 1998 to meet with OBL, for the purpose of seeking an alliance against America.

9. Remember, that OBL released a tape that urged jihadis to flock to the defense of Iraq?

10. A high-level Al-Qaeda associate who was in Baghdad receiving medical treatment after fleeing Afghanistan was captured there shortly after the fall of the Iraqi capital.

When you look at the FACTS, it is clear that Saddam supported the 9/11 attacks, and while there is no hard-evidence yet, he may have even provided funding for them.

US forces found murals, cigarette lighters, paintings and all kinds of memorabilia celebrating the 9/11 attacks that were proliferated throughout the country. While this proves nothing it certainly shows that Saddam had no qualms about terrorism against the US.

Where to start.

Tony proposes police actions instead of unending war. Sounds good to me. I think he should explain how he proposes to police Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Without defeating them. In war.

The oil problem. We just start using oil sands etc. Tony fails to explain the logistics of ramping up production from 10,000 BPD to 10,000,000. Not to mention the economics of the deal. Actually Tony didn't do too bad here. The direction is already set. Tony just leaves out time and cost. The infrastructure Tony wants could take 10 or 20 years to build. The war is on now. Shall we ask the Saudis to hold off until we are ready?

If a politician gave such a speech as an opening gambit to policy change I might applaud.

As a serious stastement of what to do though this statement is no help.

Tony if you are out there. Please explain how police action would work. To start.

One point about Saudi acceptance of Wahhabism has always stuck out in my mind (kudos to Derbyshire over at NRO for making it): Why does a religion that is reportedly so overwhelmingly popular require such a totalitarian police state in order to stay entrenched among the general populace?

I won't argue with Tony's writing here, but my only itch is why does he remove spaces between certain words? For example, "rightwingideologue."

While I disagree with a number of Tony's arguments, both with regards to his suggestions for dealing with the Saudis and on other issues, he does make one useful point that's being overlooked: The Bush Administration isn't getting anywhere as much heat as it deserves for the devil's bargain it has made with the Saudi government.

Anyone who takes a close look at the Bush-Saudi relationship will quickly realize that there's much more than realpolitik at work. That the Bush Administration is thoroughly in bed with the House of Saud, and that the intimate nature of this relationship clouds their judgement when dealing with this odious regime. Just piece together the following facts:

1. Bush Jr. made his first millions in an oil venture that involved a number of Saudi investors, including, coincidentally, members of the Bin Laden family.

2. Bush Sr. continues to do extensive business with the Saudis, in both the oil and defense industries, by means of his relationship with the Carlyle Group.

3. Halliburton, the oil exploration company that Dick Cheney was once CEO of, has extensive ties with the Saudi government, and has won a number of development contracts from them over the years.

4. Colin Powell considers himself a good friend of Prince Bandar, the current Saudi Ambassador to the United States, and at one time was even a racquetball partner of his.

5. James Baker, Secretary of State under Bush Sr. and a close friend of the Bush family, has done extensive consulting/PR work for the Saudi government.

6. Robert Jordan, who until recently was the US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, is a friend of Bush Jr., and was previously a personal lawyer.

7. Bush Sr. also considers himself a close friend of Prince Bandar, and his wife Barbara once quipped that the only people allowed to smoke inside their home are Bandar and Bush Jr. Also, when Bandar's wife, Princess Jaffa, made headlines due to her inadvertent funding of a couple of the 9/11 hijackers, Barbara personally called Jaffa to console her.

I'm not trying to float a conspiracy theory here. The story is pretty straightforward. The Saudis, by means of forming various business and personal ties, have bought out the support of the Bush Administration. And I consider it unfortunate that, in spite of all the much-deserved condemnation that the Saudis have received from conservative circles since 9/11, much less condemnation has been directed towards the Bush Administration for refusing to take the hard line against the Saudis that's needed for the war on Islamist fundamentalism and terrorism to be taken seriously. One doesn't have to agree with Tony's proposed remedies to see that there is a serious underlying problem here.

if we take down the house of saud this very instant, the funding they provide to nations like pakistan and countless others will disappear. later in this decade, later in this war, i think we all agree this is needed. but to do so now pretends that we have already solved the pakistan problem. what exactly would happen if we cut off that much of the status quo from propping up pakistan? would that nation continue in the delicate balance it has been in or would it finally fall to the jihadists we are afraid of. if the latter were to happen, what would stop the need for an american war in the dense multimillion person cities of that potentially hostile nation? we could rely instead on india to do the dirty work for us, but then we have a hot nuclear south asia... and i thought that was part of what we are trying to avoid?

i dont mean at all to imply that this is only about that region and about what happens if we pull the plug on funding before we have other things in place. an even bigger concern on my part is what happens to the will of the western world in general, and the american public specifically, to change the entire middle east and islamic world? will we still be able to honestly reform a nation like iran or syria or countless others if we attack saudi arabia first? or should we take a longer view of our campaigns and keep the saudis on the fence while we clean up the rest of the neighborhood?

if we are going to cut off the flow of all of this money so totally, we better well develop the alternatives first. textiles, free trade, an end to farm subsidies, and alternative energy growth all need time... and there wont be a war on terror of any merit if bush doesnt win reelection.

i agree with others here that 2005 is a pivotal year. i dont think we are going to see another major american lead war until after the 2004 campaign. north korea may be the exception to that, but i am of the opinion that a chinese lead "humanitarian" intervention with american approval would be the best way of dealing with that. for military and political reasons, north korea should be resolved within the next year and before november of 04, one way or another. what im really watching out for is what we are going to do about syria/lebanon and iran. if there is not sufficient nonmilitary induced change in those regimes between now and the summer of 05 i think that is where the next big front in this war will take us.

after that, we can begin to talk seriously about bringing down the scimitar on all of the heads of the house of saud.

one exception to what i said above...

i think if things are going well enough in iraq and afghanistan that determination to continue this critical war begins to falter in the minds of the public and of world leaders, the timetable for lebanon may speed up. a marines heavy cleanup of the hornets nest that is hezbollah and syria dominated lebanon could be a small enough deployment, yet high enough return action that could really shake things up in the early summer of 04.

First I apologize for my rushed retort. You are all right and correct to slap me down for that response.

There are so many points I want to argue and refute, and many that I accept as sound, that I do not know exactly where to start, so I beg your indulgence in allowing me to return to the key points I hoped to make in the article.

1) Elements of the House of Saud are the primary funding and nurturing source for jihadist islam.

2) Human rights violations as a result of the Faustian arrangement between the House of Saud and the depraved wahabi jihadist imams are pervasive in Saudi Arabia. We just don't talk about it.

link

link

link

Thanks for your responses.

i dont think anyone is ignoring the house of saud or its siginificance in funding global terror or maintaining a human rights nightmare in saudi arabia. assuming that the discussion and attention you want for this issue is happening, then you no longer have any substance to your comments tony. it is not enough to say over and over again that we have to talk about something but then when we do you dont have any actual thoughts on what we should be doing. back up what you want to see.

we are paying attention.... where is your suggested solution?

One Thousand thanks for your rich and eloquent comment rbk. I would like to learn more about the (impending?)"housing bubble" I keep reading about and would value your insight.

The “suggested solution” I make is the inspiration to begin a discussion in the first place and then investigating, analyzing, and formulating and ultimately implementing a plan to redress the Saudi issue. Obviously, I do not have all the answers. Yet, this discussion and finding and finally implementing solutions is the suggested solution I hope to provide.

Let me correct some mis-conceptions. I'm just a poor concerned father living in New York asking questions. Formulating solutions to these complex combustible issues will certainly require the expertise and wisdom of many individuals far more qualified than I

I do NOT support attacking Saudi Arabia, or anyone. I do support striking at and rendering harmless legitimate threats. I want to make a clear distinction and mark a divide between the reigning policy and agenda, and the diplomacy, global cooperation, and peace minded approaches I seek. Yet - if, - IF as a last resort, after exhausting all diplomatic efforts, or in the face of imminent threats – military response is necessary then we shall unleash the dogs of war, and the full force, ferocity, precision, and humanity of the unchallengeable US military upon those threats. War should always be THE last resort option, never the first. I view rapid response strikes at threats and police actions as distinct from War.

When and if military response becomes warranted, then I would prefer quick strike rapid response hit squads, or clean teams, or predators utilizing some of the 30+ Billion dollar a year blackworld technologies at our disposal - sent where ever necessary, when ever necessary, and against any legitimate threat any where, any time. (The case and justification for strikes and and/or targets must be valid, legal and open, and US actions must accord with international and Constitutional legal and judicial framework.)

The argument that we could start a war with Islam by striking at Mecca, Medina, and Riyadh is moot in my opinion because jihadist are already engaged in a declared and open war with us, - the jihad is ON - and there is nothing these freaks could do, that they are not already doing if and when we did strike at targets in Saudi Arabia and the heart of islam. Diplomacy first, but should greater Islam choose the jihadist way- they will have jihad, and woe to us all.

I reject the D Day, huge land force presence invasion occupation scenarios. Israel is the model I would employ. Moussad is very cunning and patient. They locate targets, plan a mission, execute the Mission where ever the target may be including in the heart of, or most intimate redoubt in enemy territory, poof said target, and return home.

One magical sniper, one predator, or a cruise missile can resolve many problems much more efficiently then a massive land force. There are indeed events that would necessitate invasion and occupation scenario's but this bloody, costly, and destructive response should be the last resort and option, - not the first.

First we have to realize – and in my opinion we do not now - that there is very serious conflict and danger with regard to certain elements of the House of Saud (remember the Saudi "dirty dozen"?) providing the primary funding source for all the jihadist mass murderers.

One last issue I must put to bed. Princess Jaffa, aiding and abetting the San Diego al Queda cell partly responsible for 9/11 was certainly not "inadvertent"; and the fact that "Barbara personally called Jaffa to console her.", is cold comfort.

You may believe the airy Rove homily that her San Deigo minder just happened upon a couple of al Queda and fellow Muslims who at fate would have it just happened to be planning the mass murder operations of 9/11 and that this chance encounter, was “inadvertent” and pure coincidence – but the ugly truth is that large sums of money flowed from her personal accounts into the hands of the San Diego cell involved in the mass murder of 9/11. LET's INVESIGATE the rather important matter.

Again investigation and disclosure will reveal the facts, shine light on the activities and connections, and either vindicate or damn Prince Bandar and his wife, and investigation is what I seek.

this attacking, sliming, and demonizing is typical and expected rightwingideologue response to alternate opinion or dissent, especially when backed by truth and facts.

...after reading the rest of Foresta's response to all you awful people who dared to disagree and dissent with him, I find this statement by Foresta to be incredibly ironic.

With that comment, Tony, you admit that in fact you have NO CONCRETE PLAN. Nothing concrete to contribute at all.

Here's a hilarious example of why you can't be taken seriously, Tony. These two consecutive paragraphs:

Jihadist want to kill us, and we cannot negotiate any resolution. Jihadist only respect and understand the sword and we must give it to them.

I do not believe in the war constructs, and would like the entire "war on terrorism" reframed into prosecuting mass murderers and those that aid and abet them for crimes against humanity.

Those two paragraphs alone demonstrate your lack of credibility.

Another example of your incoherent writings:
"I do NOT support attacking Saudi Arabia, or anyone. I do support striking at and rendering harmless legitimate threats. "

With that statement, you contradict your entire case against Saudi Arabia.

Further, you often say you "reject" things ... amusingly, you cannot refute the arguments in question. So all we get is a silly sentence in which you "reject" something.

The bottom line Tony is that I don't consider you any better than a troll because when your silly rhetoric is stripped away, when your contradictory and confused statements mutually destruct, there is nothing left.

I gave you the guest blog for a couple of reasons. One was to give you the best opportunity I could to show our readers that there's substance behind your comments. Alas, whatever points the column may have won you were probably just wiped out by this response.

You mean you didn't anticipate Foresta would respond in that manner? Or were you just hoping he could make a rational posting, and that he'd be able to respond to criticism without wailing about them being rightwingidealogues, entranced by Rove, unable to see Foresta's imperial vestments, etc, etc.?

Well, it was nice of you to let him try, but I think he let you down.

Americans may feel that nothing is being done with respect to Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis don't seem to share that view.

Why did Jordan resign? Did he really 'express a preference' for Abdullah as successor? Did he really object to the educational curriculum, and to mosque incitement?

The knee-jerk response to mere comments, as seen in the english language and the arabic language (via MEMRI) press is to view any suggestion or criticism as arrogant imposition of values. Many of the royals share that view. A few, perhaps Bandar, perhaps Abdullah, are aware of the box they're in. The Riyadh bombing may have helped, tactically; likewise the lawsuit (which State and the WH have not blocked).

No perceived "American puppet" will take or consolidate power in Saudi Arabia, but we can hope for and very quietly work toward the better outcome.

Your excellent comment Alene Berk cuts to the heart of the initial focus on diplomacy approaches I suggest. If the Saudi's truly do not share America's perceptions it does not matter.

No one imagines either party can hide from the fact that members of the Royal Family aid and abet terrorist organizations. If you are so sure of the necessity of attacking Iraq based on shapeshifting, thin, airy, and far fetched intelligence, how can any of you deny redress of Saudi funding and nurturing of jihadist mass murder gangs, including al Queda, and complicit involvement with the horrors of 9/11?

We all recognize that the many converging and intersecting issues regarding Saudi politics, the lurid intrigues and abuses by the royal families in Saudi Arabia and America, and the fact that Bush shields these “good friends” from any scrutiny, review, or redress, are of significant concern, and directly impact the security and prosperity of America.

The only relevant measurement and action is an immediate massive reduction in the flow of money pouring out of the House of Saud and into the hands of jihadist mass murderers and terrorist gangs. That's not happening fast enough, Baker's expensive PR and spin does not change that fact, nor will America sit quietly any longer while Saudi aiding and abetting mass murderers and crimes against humanity, continues.

It’s complicated and dynamic issue yes, but the Saudi problem is rather important in the context of increasing accessibility to WMD.

America cannot ignore, excuse, or forget the Saudi funding and nurturing of mass murder and jihadist terrorist gangs.

The point of the article and why I feel vindicated, (though I will wear a few stings and welts for many days) is that we agree and many core and pertinent issues.
For example:

1) The Saudi's are not "good friends" of America.

2) Saudi’s fund jihadist terrorist organizations.

3) America’s addiction to Saudi oil (oil in general) is a kind of Saudi weapon the US must neutralize. We divide here at tactics, and while I see many varied idea's I think we all agree solutions will be complex, and the subject warrants more discussion and investigation.

4) The American military is unchallengeable, and capable of achieving any military objective and prosecuting with exceptional ferocity, efficiency, and humanity any mission necessary to secure and defend America, American interests, and our allies.

We divide again here on when and how the US military should be employed, and on the tactics necessary to achieve the various objectives.

We divide also on America's capability of achieving the much more epic, far more costly and bloody, separate, and different military objectives of nationbuilding and democratization

5) Jihadist access to WMD would be bad for business.

6) These several issues warrant our focused attention and redress.

Thanks for the surgical commentary, and many great points and ideas

Tony, thanks for making another attempt to respond here. I'd like to comment on several points you make.

First, regarding our military capability. As some of you know, for the last 2 years I have been teaching on a visiting or adjunct basis at one of our military academies and my husband is a retired officer. So although I myself am a technical / business person, I've been around a fair number of military people and have experience with some military technologies. It is absolutely true that our capabilities are unmatched. But what isn't true is that we can apply those capabilities everywhere / anywhere we want. Our volunteer forces are heavily strained right now, we have to resupply smart munitions which will take time, we have to build new launching places for rapid deployment and covert operations (a major effort of Rumsfeld, by the way, and one he should get far more recognition for than he has to date). I am very proud of our armed forces and of the technology lead we have, but I also know that others are working hard to try to catch up and that we do have some very real limits regarding how much we can take onto our plate at once. You're right to note that the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq places a great strain on us in the short term.

A major limitation we have is the number of special ops forces, translators and psych ops specialists we can deploy with expertise in Asian, Middle Eastern and African Islamic countries. I've been fretting for years about the tendency of many American students to blow off foreign languages and culture studies & we see the results right now. One reason Mossad is so successful is that they can deploy people who have spoken Arabic since they were children and who can move among other groups as if they were natives. Without that kind of covert cover, and the intelligence it can produce, Mossad would be a lot less successful at what they do.

I tend to agree that we should execute rapid strike operations where/when possible, but they are not a panacea. Can you spell out why you prefer these to "war" and how you see them as different from "war"? Again, Rumsfeld has been fighting to shift the focus of our military staffing, training and planning towards more flexible arrangements, but this takes time and my Army friends insist there are real costs and risks associated with this approach.

I have grave reservations about the possibility of responding to terror through international "legal" frameworks. I put "legal" in quotes because I think that the moral and treaty-based nature of international forums is at best very muddled. With a few exceptions, there really is NOT such a thing as international law governing military operations, in my opinion and that of experts I've talked with. Whether diplomacy can deal with terror networks and the funding activities of, say, Saudi princes is also in my opinion very questionable. By and large, diplomacy only works when both sides have something to gain by it. We should do what we can through diplomatic channels, but inevitably they will fail because so many players like France and Russia have things to gain (or think they do) from the status quo that threatens us.

On a second issue, namely economic impact of pressuring the Saudis, once again our massive foreign-held debt leaves us vulnerable. A lot of the Treasury bonds and bills outstanding today are held by Saudis and others around the world. A deliberate sell-off of them would cause the value of the US dollar to plunge disastrously. Such a sell-off has not happened (very much) in part because right now it does not make economic sense for those who hold the bonds -- but a wealthy group who were willing to take financial losses in order to harm the US economy could do a whole lot of damage.

Here is, I think, the irony in this discussion. Tony, my sense is that you are greatly frustrated at what seems to be GWB's inaction regarding Saudi complicity in terror networks. You want their role to both be acknowledged and also to be dealt with in the context of various international agreements and relationships. I have sympathy with both desires, but think neither will have the effect you want.

From my perspective it seems likely that the Bush administration is indeed both pressuring the Saudis and also doing so in various ways that DO take into account the potential international consequences of that pressure -- especially the economic ones. In the short term, we need those Saudi princes who are NOT fanatics to work with us to slow down the flow of money to al Quaeda and other Wahabist networks and to identify immediate threats of terrorist violence that are being planned. We also need, if possible, to prevent a major price hike for oil (going into winter in the northern hemisphere) and/or a dollar sell-off. And we had better be careful not to leave a power vacuum that the most fanatical Saudi clerics could fill, with a regime that is even less helpful to us.

The biggest weapon we have with which to take down the corrupt Saudi princes is the Iraqi oil industry. Not so that we capture or expropriate that resource for ourselves unjustly, but simply so that Iraqi is producing and selling oil at the rate their reserves could support. That action would significantly curb both Saudi wealth and influence. For that reason, I believe our occupation of Iraq and our difficult, expensive and dangerous work there is actually the most effective resonse the Administration could make to your call for action against the house of Saud. The terror networks know that -- it's why so many sabotage acts are being carried out against the Iraqi pipelines.

A final thought -- it really is the case that Halliburton is by far the most likely organization to be able to get the Iraqi oil industry rebuilt and working again. It was for this reason, as well as because of their existing logistics master contract with DOD, that I am not overly bothered by the role Halliburton is playing in Iraq. I'll be furious if they don't do a good job, and they should not be allowed to make a really outrageous rate of profit (allowing for risk), but so long as they do a decent job, they are directly answering your call to take down the power of the Saudi princes who are directly and indirectly responsible for terror and repression.

Tony's summary is deeply unconvincing, on a couple of grounds:

1). Our problem is not just the Saudis. In 1981, Arab students at my university stood in the television lounge of the student union and applauded the news of Anwar Sadat's assassination. Challenged, they made it clear they had little use for his peacemaking. These were men of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's generation. There is an appetite for war there that you and I can scarely imagine. My working assumption is that America has no friends in the Middle East, only enemies, or, at best, neutrals who are biding their time before becoming enemies.

2). The American military is not "unchallengeable," as I'm sure the Vietnamese could explain. The fact of the matter is we don't now have a force adequate to the task at hand. We conducted Gulf War I with the equivalent of a WWII field army, 500,000 troops; Gulf War II used the equivalent of a corps, 125,000, and we settled for that few not because more weren't needed, but because more weren't available. We have almost nothing in the way of a combat-ready strategic reserve.

3). Tony's preference for Israeli-style pinprick raids is a recipe for defeat. It is already a recipe for Israel's defeat -- it's losing, not winning. I'll believe otherwise when I see Arafat sue for peace. Israel lacks the wherewithal to fight to victory, so it has to fight for stalemate. Unfortunately, it's in a struggle where it can only lose once, and is fighting people who only have to win once.

Viet Nam is the wrong comparison. It is more like the Gaza, where the occupying Army is viewed with hostility, and terrorist activity is an ongoing and constant relentless concern and occupation. Again this is the question we must ask, - is the Iraq war helping or harming America's security concerns? And is it a good idea to ignore and actually shield the House of Saud from culpability in aiding and abetting mass murder and other crimes against humanity?
Bush defenders, - against and in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, - evidence America is denied the right to know, or be privy to, or have any investigation into relating to the many questionable activities regarding intelligence used as justification for, and selling of, the Iraq war.

America was "shocked and awed" by the first installment of the Iraq war, and the very first honest appraisal of the cost and immensity of American commitment to Iraq. We question the agenda, and the tactics, and we demand disclosure, and investigation, and transparency from your leadership.

And we want an investigation into the funding and nurturing of jihadist mass murderers by the House of Saud.

I believe the name of Prince Bandar's wife is Haifa, actually.

The reason I brought the Iraq evidence into play is because I think it does make a significant difference because ultimately what we are dealing with here is a question of targets as far as which poses the gravest threat to the United States. Saudi Arabia is unquestionably tied to al-Qaeda, as is Iran, as is Sudan, as is Somalia, as do some elements of Pakistan, as did Iraq and all of these nations (or in Somalia's case, failed nation) need to be dealt with in some fashion or another. If you consider the Bush's administration's evidence to be insufficiently convincing, I would recommend that you read my latest special analysis that links to information dating back from 1998 claiming ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

Are the Saudis a threat? Undoubtably. However, the access of al-Qaeda to WMD as a result of Iraqi training can (legitimately, IMO) be considered an even greater threat and one that requires a swift and necessary response.

Why is this relevant? Because it deals with the fundamental argument against the current US policy. We can probably both agree that attacking Afghanistan and destroying al-Qaeda's base was a good idea, but it is after that point where differences of opinion crop up. You feel that they should have immediately gone after Saudi Arabia in some fashion, while I see Iraq as being more of the key issue here. Still others see Pakistan or Iran as the chief enabler of the global jihad. These are legitimate differences of opinion, but they also go to the crux of the matter as far as what the US should do.

iraq was critical for putting some real fear into all of the other sources of terror support that have been mentioned (saudi arabia, pakistan, iran, etc). they know now we are serious about change and not just about striking back at alqaeda in afghanistan. the problem now is that they dont think we can do it twice. that is what the next war will be for.

I will read your special analysis Dan Darling, but you might want to read this

link

Tony, my head is starting to hurt reading this. You say:

"...a forceful, and fiery ultimatum to the Arab world, directly at the heart of Islam, explaining in no uncertain terms that aiding and abetting, and certainly - Allah forbid - any direct involvement in mass murder, and terrorism constitute grievous crimes against humanity, and will be prosecuted at all costs."

I've asked, and others have asked..."What's in the ultimatum?" ... and from closely reading all your stuff, I still don't know.

Is it:

1) Stop doing the things we don't like or we'll occupy Mecca and Medina?

2) Stop doingthe things we don't like, or we'll identify the people we think are responsible and launch a Hellfire on them?

3) Stop doing the things we don't like or we'll perform a 'precious cargo' operation, snatch you, and put you on trial in the Hague?

4) Stop doing the things we don't like or we'll stop bying your oil?

Because the answer to that question determines how seriously we take your arguments. EVERYONE wants the radical Islamists to stop fomenting terror (well, almost everyone, but everyone worth talking to...).

The question is, how?

A.L.

Simply, I question and reject the morphing of the waronterror, and America's just response to the horrors of 9/11 - deceptively, under the radar, and behind Americas back into the much more epic, far more overarching and predatory imperialist ambitions of the Pax Americana war agenda.

The simple answer A.L. is a combination of "2" and "3". Target those responsible for mass murder and other crimes against humanity, and those who aid and abet them and hunt, capture, or kill every single target.

Thanks rkb for providing another expansive series of points and commentary, and in answer to these responses, - let's find some common ground. I appreciate your insight.

First, Halliburton's cloaked activities and no bid contracts reach into many more realms and enterprises than oil services. I simply cannot trust the book cookers at Halliburton, and with no bid, no review, no recourse, or remedy for failures, excessive cost overruns, and other abuses, - and suggest that Halliburton’s awards, activities, and ACCOUNTING, warrant an investigation.

This comment -
“. but a wealthy group who were willing to take financial losses in order to harm the US economy could do a whole lot of damage." is particularly chilling.

Is this not exactly the problem we face in Saudi Arabia?

If I understand you correctly, and forgive the harsh framing, but America (Bush) intends to maraud the Iraqi oil to reduce strain on Saudi supplies and help finance and gain a toe hold in the Middle East, by lodging a huge military force in the region to allow for the advancement of some larger, (as yet unspoken, and it better not be Pax Americana) political and economic agenda, and hopefully sending of fear through-out the Muslim world, who will then reverse thousands of years of religious and cultural evolution and adopt secular democracies through-out the middle east??

First, I question the moral integrity of such ambitions and divide here forever on ever tolerationg piracy,imperialism, and empire as acceptable America policy.

Second, the costs in blood and money makes this kind of epic undertaking impossible

This is why, and I accept responsibility for my inability to articulate the message, - the language, policies, and objectives must change from war constructs, to police actions, criminal prosecutions and manhunts for mass murderers and those that aid and abet them.

War is a conflict of nations, and clash of arms to decide ideological, economic, political, or sometimes personal disputes that have failed diplomatically.

Police actions are specific missions targeted at specific criminals, based on good evidence, legal jurisprudence, and thorough investigation proving criminal activity or serious or imminent threats.

The unspoken objectives define our course. Do we want to defeat our enemies, or do we want to reform the Middle East, and that will hopefully defeat our enemies.

My opinion is that colonization and religious reformation require war, and military states to keep the peace. Eliminating threats require intelligence, investigation, and police action targeting specific individuals, systems, or gangs.

The difference is not a question of what weapons are employed, and I would expect that the entire conventional arsenal, and every blackworld devise and system at American disposal would be brought to the field to eliminate specific threats, - but remaining in the field is a far more epic undertaking requiring many systems, much more complex logistics, and many more boots.

Yet, and there could be a time when war is inevitable, I still stand in total rejection of the Iraq war. Wrong Muslims. Iraq is the only secular Muslim society in the Middle East and has 20% of the world’s conventional oil.

Those other Muslims, - the wahabi freaks in Saudi Arabia who fund and nurture all the jihadist mass murder gangs, including al Queda sitting on 40% of the worlds oil, and in the heart of Islam, are - or should have been the primary target.

I reject the war constructs, but even if war was necessary, - it should be in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. If all your economic and political justifications are valid in Iraq, how much greater would those same justifications be for the exact same mission in Saudi Arabia.

Lastly - and I appreciate all of these great comments, and the spirit of debate in this thread, so forgive me for holding divides, but trust that we seek the same ends, and I value your insights.

Bush and Rove conducted a relentless information war, and marketing campaign demonizing Saddam and (in my opinion deceptively) justifying war with Iraq for almost a year.

Until that level of political pressure is exerted on Saudi Arabia, - I will continue to doubt Bush commitment toward redressing his "good friends" in the House of Saud, and demand that attention be paid.

Most of the Gross-Harnan letter appears to deal primarily with the lack of human intelligence on Iraq in the WMD area according to the article. The WMD question and human intelligence is a certainly a big one, but it doesn't relate to Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda or the variety of sources that I have been able to amass over the course of the summer to that effect.

Claims that intelligence was politicized must sufficiently account for a number of factors ranging from known European intelligence distortions (which I think caused a lot of the anonymous claims by the US), the fact that Iraq was supplying Russia with information on al-Qaeda's activities in Chechnya, Zarqawi and his rather substantial array of activities, Ansar al-Islam, and the 1993 WTC suspect who was harbored by the Iraqi government. Claims that it was all smoke and mirrors (which is what I gather you're reading from the article?) simply are not at all credible because they do not square with the facts at hand. Any claims about US intelligence distortion must sufficiently account for all of these factors. I don't expect the senators in question to do that, it isn't there job, but some clarification would be nice.

This is why, as I said, US intel on Iraq is really at the heart of the war on terror as far as priority targets go. If the intel on Iraq was accurate at least as far as the regime's complicity with al-Qaeda goes, then I would argue vehemently that such actions by the Iraqi government in of themselves constitute casus belli for the war entirely apart from the WMD question.

("If the intel on Iraq was accurate at least as far as the regime's complicity with al-Qaeda goes, then I would argue vehemently that such actions by the Iraqi government in of themselves constitute casus belli for the war entirely apart from the WMD question.")

What if the intel on Iraq was inaccurate, (as I believe, and more and more evidence appearing everyday would indicate) or even more alarming, what if that intel was manipulated, and deceptively used to justify the war in Iraq?

Let's look into it in earnest, share openly information and determine some common understanding of the facts.

I appreciate your opinion and accept that some contact between Iraq and al Queda may have occurred over the years, (although my reading of available intelligence proves the linkage airy and not credible).

The more closely and seriously this important issue is examined, - the more disclosure, the more transparency, the more we the people demand and receive an accounting and an explanation from our leadership - the greater will be our understanding of this singularly critical issue.

I suspect based on the available evidence and a long ugly legacy of secret policy, cloaked activity, book cooking, and profiteering, that the Bush administration will resist and make every effort to avoid this scrutiny and review. The choice is yours.

My mind is made up. America has the right and duty to know for certain if the President manipulated suspect or not credible intelligence to deceptively justifying the war and nationbuilding enterpise in Iraq.

Responding the rbk's comment again, we both agree that presently our military commitments are seriously strained and stressed by the huge force presence and enormous financial commitment currently focused in Iraq, - we divide however on why we are being forced to swallow and burden this costly and bloody commitment against the wrong Muslims in Iraq.

Avoiding, stonewalling, and dismissing investigation and disclosure of the current leaderships' conduct, policies, and agenda is the party line, - and necessary to keep what I refer to in all seriousness and in the most accurate and potent terms I can musters as – the Bush fundamentalist republican oligarchy operating business as ussual without constraint, review, or accountability. I want to alter that dynamic.

The subversive fiction that daring to question this president will in some twisted way harm or undermine the troops is simply not credible.

Our troops are best served by leadership whose policies and agenda are based upon and defend the core principles defining America, not the narcissistic oleaginous interests of the oil, energy and private military cronies and cartels, and the rightwingideologue fantasies of the Pax Americana war agenda.

The endsjustifythemeans retorts admonishing the greater good of decapitating a realy nasty tyrant and liberating the good people of Iraq, do not involve, and can in no way excuse the hyping of intelligence this leadership used relentlessly for more than year to justify the war.

We want answers, and we demand disclosure, and accountability from the leadership.

What do you want?

Here you go again, Tony:
"I reject the war constructs, but even if war was necessary, - it should be in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq."

For Tony, 'I reject ...' is a code word for 'I have no rebuttal for ...'.

Well at the very least you are acknowledging that some contact took place between Iraq and al-Qaeda. That at least is some progress as far as an eventual understanding between the two of us goes.

If I might be permitted to selectively reply to some of your comments:

"What if the intel on Iraq was inaccurate, (as I believe, and more and more evidence appearing everyday would indicate) or even more alarming, what if that intel was manipulated, and deceptively used to justify the war in Iraq?"

Then the individuals responsible for it need to be dealt with. Severely. They jeopardized our national security and their idiocy cost the lives of numerous servicemen both in the actual war and now in the guerrilla conflict. My position is simply that I do not believe that this occurred because most of the evidence presented appears to be coming either from anonymous sources whose credibility we have no real way to judge or from individuals who appear to have an axe to grind against the administration. And don't pretend for a moment that all of those who are making this an issue do not stand to gain from such a situation. But by the same token, this does not make their charges inaccurate or any less important.

Most of the cooked books allegations generally stem from the issue of the still-elusive WMDs, which is justifiably so. However, attempts to paint Zarqawi as a leader of a Jordanian terrorist group entirely unconnected to al-Qaeda ... are simply not plausible for the reasons I have taken great care to document here as well as due to the fact their ultimate source (Shadi Abdallah) is hardly the most trustworthy of individuals.

"The more closely and seriously this important issue is examined, - the more disclosure, the more transparency, the more we the people demand and receive an accounting and an explanation from our leadership - the greater will be our understanding of this singularly critical issue."

I tend to agree, and I suspect that this may surprise you. As the Iraqi regime is no longer in a power it would strike me as though some declassification is in order to help us ascertain the truth in such matters.

"I suspect based on the available evidence and a long ugly legacy of secret policy, cloaked activity, book cooking, and profiteering, that the Bush administration will resist and make every effort to avoid this scrutiny and review. The choice is yours."

This is entirely possible, though I doubt it for a number of reasons. As far as the broader question of strategy as well as morality (I myself am a devout Catholic and as such if there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq I see very little way that this could qualify as an example of Just War as defined by St. Augustine, especially when juxtaposed to US behind-the-scenes involvement in Liberia) - was what we have been told about the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda true?

To date, about the only real explanations that I have heard is that Zarqawi was not al-Qaeda or that the whole thing was made up by Bush and Co "for domestic consumption." You can read my latest analysis to see how I define that.

"The subversive fiction that daring to question this president will in some twisted way harm or undermine the troops is simply not credible."

I don't believe that I ever implied that it did. Certainly these are all very important issues that need to be addressed.

"Our troops are best served by leadership whose policies and agenda are based upon and defend the core principles defining America, not the narcissistic oleaginou