Ground Zero Thought Experiment. (Leaving out the "thought").

Andrew McCarthy over at The Corner has managed to take the Park 51 Mosque argument to a bizarre new place. He's decided to ask a couple of questions based on his own hypothetical imaginings:

Imagine that there really were these fundamentalist Christian terror cells all over the United States, as the Department of Homeland Security imagines. Let’s say a group of five of these terrorists hijacked a plane, flew it to Mecca, and plowed it into the Kaaba.

Now let’s say a group of well-meaning, well-funded Christians — Christians whose full-time job was missionary work — decided that the best way to promote healing would be to pressure the Saudi government to drop its prohibition against permitting non-Muslims into Mecca so that these well-meaning, well-funded Christian missionaries could build a $100 million dollar church and community center a stone’s throw from where the Kaaba used to be — you know, as a bridge-building gesture of interfaith understanding.

What do you suppose President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, the New York Times, and other Ground Zero mosque proponents would say about the insensitive, provocative nature of the proposal?

He really doesn't get the fact that this argument doesn't work in his favour. Saudi Arabia would probably not allow a church to be built because Saudi Arabia does not practice a policy of religious freedom.

The fact that America does is one of the many ways in which America is different from Saudi Arabia.

However, it is people like McCarthy who are making the argument that America should emulate Saudi Arabia by arguing that followers of Islam should not have the rights afforded to them under the US constitution.

I would have thought that McCarthy would wish to celebrate the fact that his country is not like Saudi Arabia, that he would recognise those differences as something which reflects well on the United States.

It doesn't seem to occur to him that the argument he and the Ground Zero mosque protesters are making - telling religious groups what can and cannot be built - puts them much nearer to the mindset of those in power in Saudi Arabia than it does to the architects of the US Constitution.

I find it baffling that this thought has not even occurred to him.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Ground Zero mosque, Park 51 mosque, United States, Saudi Arabia

BAE admits guilt over corrupt arms deals.

There were many of us who were outraged at the time by Tony Blair's decision to directly interfere with a criminal investigation, when he stopped an investigation into the Al-Yamamah deal.

Blair's reasoning, that continued investigation would result in the Saudis refusing to share intelligence with the UK, was outrageous. The notion that companies and country's could avoid criminal culpability by issuing threats went against everything which most people know to be fair and right.

Thankfully, the Americans decided to take the case on and investigate what Blair was refusing to allow the British legal system to look into.

And, in truth, the findings are no great surprise. There was obviously a reason why Blair was so keen for people to stop asking questions.

The arms giant BAE yesterday agreed to pay out almost £300m in penalties, as it finally admitted guilt over its worldwide conduct, in the face of long-running corruption investigations.

For 20 years, the firm refused to accept any wrongdoing, despite mounting evidence of alleged bribes and kickbacks, much of it uncovered by the Guardian.

But BAE yesterday said it would plead guilty to charges of false accounting and making misleading statements, in simultaneous settlement deals with the Serious Fraud Office in the UK and the department of justice in Washington.

The admissions in the US covered BAE's huge £43bn al-Yamamah fighter plane sales to Saudi Arabia and smaller deals in the Czech Republic and elsewhere in central Europe. In the UK, the admissions cover a highly controversial sale of a military radar to poverty-stricken Tanzania, which the development secretary Clare Short said at the time "stank" of corruption, but which the then prime minister, Tony Blair, forced through the cabinet.

The deal with Tanzania was particularly despicable. In this instance Tanzania was sold a £28 million military air traffic control system, which only becomes outrageous when one realises that Tanzania does not have an air force.

Claire Short: "Every way you looked at it, it [the deal] was outrageous and disgraceful. And guess who absolutely insisted on it going through? My dear friend Tony Blair, who absolutely, adamantly, favoured all proposals for arms deals.

"It was an obviously corrupt project. Tanzania didn't need a new military air traffic control, it was out-of-date technology, they didn't have any military aircraft – they needed a civilian air traffic control system and there was a modern, much cheaper one. Everyone talks about good governance in Africa as though it is an African problem, and often the roots of the 'badness' is companies in Europe."

There's no way that Blair will ever issue regret over what he did, the man has simply become incapable of feeling such an emotion.

But, at last, the Americans have revealed what Blair wished to keep hidden: there was corruption involved in those arms deals, even if the details of that corruption will remain hidden.

And I am pleased to see that Tanzania are to be compensated:

The Serious Fraud Office said in its announcement yesterday that some of the £30m penalty BAE was to hand over in the UK would be "an ex gratia payment for the benefit of the people of Tanzania".

It's taken a while, but now that Blair is out of office the light is finally being shone on much of the stuff which he, when in office, worked so hard to keep from public view.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Blair, Saudi Arabia, Tanzania, BAE

Ministers under pressure to reopen BAE corruption probe

I made clear at the time that I found this simply astonishing:

So, according to Straw's version, the Saudi Arabians threatened to withdraw from co-operating in intelligence matters with the UK unless all investigations into this possible crime were dropped.

The Saudi Arabians? The country which had fifteen of it's young men fly planes into the Twin Towers is now in a position to threaten to withdraw intelligence aid to country's threatened by al-Qaeda?

Am I living in some parallel universe? Since when did a country that had fifteen of it's citizens take part in the world's worst terrorist atrocity get to, effectively, threaten other country's security - by withdrawing intelligence co-operation - unless they ceased investigating them for possible crimes?

I am pleased to say that the High Court sounded equally astonished yesterday when they issued their damning verdict on Blair's interference with the inquiry into Prince Bandar's allegedly illegal deal on the grounds that to continue the inquiry would damage national security.

The judges rejected claims that the inquiry had to be closed down for security reasons because "lives were at risk", and said the success of Saudi blackmail attempts had been unlawful. The judgment named Saudi Prince Bandar as the man behind what they characterised as an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

The judges said: "We fear for the reputation of the administration of justice if it can be perverted by a threat ... No one, whether within this country or outside, is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice. The rule of law is nothing if it fails to constrain overweening power."

The court said that the Saudis should have been made to understand "the enormity of the interference with the UK's sovereignty, when a foreign power seeks to interfere with the internal administration of the criminal law. It is not difficult to imagine what they would think if we attempted to interfere with their criminal justice system".

This was yet another Blair decision which I found blatantly illegal. I am pleased that the High court have found they way they have. The government must now decide whether to reopen the investigation into the Al-Yamamah deal. And if Brown doesn't there are plenty of others waiting in the wings to take this matter further.

Among those waiting to see what Gordon Brown will do is the anti-bribery committee of the OECD, who spent last week in London grilling British officials about the apparent flouting of an international treaty. Investigators in Switzerland and the US Department of Justice, who took up the Saudi case when Britain abandoned it, will also be awaiting the government's next move. Ministers have so far refused to assist the US which has made requests for documents under a mutual legal assistance treaty.

Campaigners and MPs yesterday called for Brown to distance himself from his predecessor and allow the BAE inquiry to restart. Susan Hawley, of Corner House, one of the two groups of campaigners who brought yesterday's case, said: "The judges have stood up for the right of independent prosecutors not to be subjected to political pressure and they have made sure that the government cannot use national security arrangements just because a prosecution is not in their interests."

It's over to Brown now to see if he will reject the judgment of Blair which has now been deemed illegal by the High court. Or is also going to be blackmailed by the Saudi authorities?

Click title for full article.

Tags: Brown, Saudi Arabia, Prince Bandar, Al-Yamamah deal, High court ruling, Blair

Bush in Middle East: Who is isolating whom?

Tags: Bush, Iran, Israel, Middle East

Steve Bell on that Middle East Tour

Blair called for BAE inquiry to be halted.

Tony Blair personally called for a halt into the criminal investigation concerning possible bribery involving Saudi Arabia, and he did so despite the Attorney General attempting to dissuade him that it was not right for the government to intervene in criminal investigations. This has all been revealed by court documents which the Guardian is linking to on it's website.

Government memos stamped "Secret" reveal that the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, twice tried in vain to stop Blair interfering in the criminal investigation. His chief of staff told the cabinet secretary, Gus O'Donnell, on October 3 2006: "The attorney general is of the firm view that, if the case is in fact soundly based, it would not be right to discontinue it."

As I covered at the time, the Saudis were threatening to withdraw intelligence assistance to the UK if the case proceeded; a simply extraordinary threat from a nation who had seen so many of it's citizens take part in the 9-11 attacks on the US.

This followed Saudi threats of "repercussions" if the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving the Saudi royals and the arms group BAE was allowed to proceed.

But Blair wrote a "Secret and Personal" letter to Goldsmith on December 8 2006, demanding he stop the investigation. He said he was concerned about the "critical difficulty" in negotiations over a new Typhoon fighter sales contract, as well as a "real and immediate risk of a collapse in UK/Saudi security, intelligence and diplomatic cooperation".

Blair said these were "extremely difficult and delicate issues" but he knew that constitutionally "any intervention you make ... must be your decision alone". Politicians normally have no right to interfere in a criminal case.

Here, as usual, Blair not only demands that he must be obeyed, but by stating that "any intervention you make ... must be your decision alone", he demands that Goldsmith also takes the heat for Blair's decision.

Goldsmith attempted to refuse Blair's pressure and met him three days later to tell him that "while he could see the force of [Blair's] points ... he was concerned that halting the investigation would send a bad message about the credibility of the law in this area, and look like giving in to threats."

Blair at this point told Goldsmith that "higher considerations were at stake".

Blair also reportedly vetoed a proposal that BAE could plead guilty to lesser corruption charges, saying that this would not assuage the anger of the Saudi royal family.

So it was Blair all along. And it is another example of his one man style of government. Indeed, he had personally assured the Saudis in the previous July that the investigation into the Al-Yamamah deal would be stopped.

The diplomat is said to have delivered a 12-page letter drawn up by a Saudi law firm demanding a detailed explanation of why the investigation was still continuing.

The Saudis had been given the impression during a meeting with Blair in July last year that the inquiry would be stopped, say the sources.

“The Saudis are claiming in this letter that the British government has broken its undertaking to keep details of the Al-Yamamah deal confidential,” said a source who has read the document.

So, the court papers reveal Blair delivering on his promise to the Saudis over the head of his own Attorney General.

Blair's decision was widely criticised at the time by both his own MP's and international bodies, but by that time Blair was heading for the door and simply didn't care what we thought of him.

What's interesting about these papers is how they reveal Blair, far from acting as part of a collective, is actually making the decisions on his own whilst demanding that the Attorney General give him cover. Not unlike the way in which he behaved in the run up to the Iraq war.

It's hard not to see this as a very distinct pattern in Blair's behaviour. Push through your own highly controversial views, force the Attorney General - through his pathetic inability to resign on a point of principle - to accept your logic, and then claim your actions are legal by citing the opinion of the very Attorney General who has opposed you all along.

It's astonishing. And yet, that is what Blair did; time and time again.

Click title for full article.

Candidates slam Saudi rape verdict

Bush, so quick to condemn other nations in the Middle East, is, as usual, strangely quiet when it comes to condemning any atrocity involving Saudi Arabia. Even if that atrocity involves a raped woman being given 90 lashes.

Tags: Bush, Saudi Arabia, 90 lashes, rape victim

Robert Fisk: King Abdullah flies in to lecture us on terrorism

I spoke yesterday about my outrage over the comments of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia concerning the shortcomings of the British government and worldwide terrorism. Robert Fisk has today turned his attention to this supreme act of gall.

In what world do these people live? True, there'll be no public executions outside Buckingham Palace when His Royal Highness rides in stately formation down The Mall. We gave up capital punishment about half a century ago. There won't even be a backhander – or will there? – which is the Saudi way of doing business. But for King Abdullah to tell the world, as he did in a BBC interview yesterday, that Britain is not doing enough to counter "terrorism", and that most countries are not taking it as seriously as his country is, is really pushing it. Weren't most of the 11 September 2001 hijackers from – er – Saudi Arabia? Is this the land that is really going to teach us lessons?

The sheer implausibility of the claim that Saudi intelligence could have prevented the London bombings if only the British Government had taken it seriously, seems to have passed the Saudi monarch by. "We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain but unfortunately no action was taken. And it may have been able to maybe avert the tragedy," he told the BBC. This claim is frankly incredible.

The sad, awful truth is that we fete these people, we fawn on them, we supply them with fighter jets, whisky and whores. No, of course, there will be no visas for this reporter because Saudi Arabia is no democracy. Yet how many times have we been encouraged to think otherwise about a state that will not even allow its women to drive? Kim Howells, the Foreign Office minister, was telling us again yesterday that we should work more closely with the Saudis, because we "share values" with them. And what values precisely would they be, I might ask?

Saudi Arabia is a state which bankrolled – a definite no-no this for discussion today – Saddam's legions as they invaded Iran in 1980 (with our Western encouragement, let it be added). And which said nothing – a total and natural silence – when Saddam swamped the Iranians with gas. The Iraqi war communiqué made no bones about it. "The waves of insects are attacking the eastern gates of the Arab nation. But we have the pesticides to wipe them out."

Did the Saudi royal family protest? Was there any sympathy for those upon whom the pesticides would be used? No. The then Keeper of the Two Holy Places was perfectly happy to allow gas to be used because he was paying for it – components were supplied, of course, by the US – while the Iranians died in hell. And we Brits are supposed to be not keeping up with our Saudi friends when they are "cracking down on terrorism".

Like the Saudis were so brilliant in cracking down on terror in 1979 when hundreds of gunmen poured into the Great Mosque at Mecca, an event so mishandled by a certain commander of the Saudi National Guard called Prince Abdullah that they had to call in toughs from a French intervention force. And it was a former National Guard officer who led the siege.

Saudi Arabia's role in the 9/11 attacks has still not been fully explored. Senior members of the royal family expressed the shock and horror expected of them, but no attempt was made to examine the nature of Wahhabism, the state religion, and its inherent contempt for all representation of human activity or death. It was Saudi Muslim legal iconoclasm which led directly to the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan by the Taliban, Saudi Arabia's friends. And only weeks after Kamal Salibi, a Lebanese history professor, suggested in the late 1990s that once-Jewish villages in what is now Saudi Arabia might have been locations in the Bible, the Saudis sent bulldozers to destroy the ancient buildings there.

In the name of Islam, Saudi organisations have destroyed hundreds of historic structures in Mecca and Medina and UN officials have condemned the destruction of Ottoman buildings in Bosnia by a Saudi aid agency, which decided they were "idolatrous". Were the twin towers in New York another piece of architecture which Wahhabis wanted to destroy?

Nine years ago a Saudi student at Harvard produced a remarkable thesis which argued that US forces had suffered casualties in bombing attacks in Saudi Arabia because American intelligence did not understand Wahhabism and had underestimated the extent of hostility to the US presence in the kingdom. Nawaf Obaid even quoted a Saudi National Guard officer as saying "the more visible the Americans became, the darker I saw the future of the country". The problem is that Wahhabi puritanism meant that Saudi Arabia would always throw up men who believe they had been chosen to "cleanse" their society from corruption, yet Abdul Wahhab also preached that royal rulers should not be overthrown. Thus the Saudis were unable to confront the duality, that protection-and-threat that Wahhabism represented for them.

Prince Bandar, formerly Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington, once characterised his country's religion as part of a "timeless culture" while a former British ambassador advised Westerners in Saudi Arabia to "adapt" and "to act with the grain of Saudi traditions and culture".

Amnesty International has appealed for hundreds of men – and occasionally women – to be spared the Saudi executioner's blade. They have all been beheaded, often after torture and grossly unfair trials. Women are shot.

The ritual of chopping off heads was graphically described by an Irish witness to a triple execution in Jeddah in 1997. "Standing to the left of the first prisoner, and a little behind him, the executioner focused on his quarry ... I watched as the sword was being drawn back with the right hand. A one-handed back swing of a golf club came to mind ... the down-swing begins ... the blade met the neck and cut through it like ... a heavy cleaver cutting through a melon ... a crisp moist smack. The head fell and rolled a little. The torso slumped neatly. I see now why they tied wrists to feet ... the brain had no time to tell the heart to stop, and the final beat bumped a gush of blood out of the headless torso on to the plinth."

And you can bet they won't be talking about this at Buckingham Palace today.

Click title for source.

Tags: Robert Fisk, King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia, Terrorism, UK

Saudi king chides UK on terrorism

Displaying a lack of irony that borders on breathtaking, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah - the leader of the country which supplied 15 of the 19 hijackers who carried out the 9-11 attacks on New York - has criticised Britain's attitude to tackling terrorism.

Speaking through an interpreter, the Saudi monarch said he believed most countries were not taking the issue seriously, "including, unfortunately, Great Britain".

"We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain but unfortunately no action was taken. And it may have been able to maybe avert the tragedy."

The Saudi leadership maintains that it passed the UK information that might have averted the London bombings of 2005 if it had been acted on.

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says Whitehall officials have strenuously denied this, and a subsequent investigation by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) found no evidence of any intelligence passed on by the Saudis that could have prevented the 7 July 2005 bombings.

The king's visit has provoked controversy over Britain's relationship with Saudi Arabia.

A demonstration is planned outside the Saudi embassy in London later in the week in protest at the country's human rights record.

Not only do Whitehall strenuously deny that Saudi Arabia offered such intelligence but I have written on this blog before about Saudi Arabia's outrageous threat to withhold intelligence regarding terrorism from Britain unless the UK government halted an investigation into the fact that Prince Bandar appeared to have been illegally paid billions of dollars in the Al-Yamamah deal.

And then Jack Straw, in a final attempt to convince us that this was, indeed, about "national security", dropped the bombshell:

Yesterday Mr Straw clashed with David Howarth, the Lib Dem MP for Cambridge, during heated exchanges in the Commons. Mr Howarth told MPs: "The government called off the inquiry for reasons of national security but it now turns out that the threat to national security was the threat of withdrawal of cooperation from the very same quarter that was subject to investigation for corruption. Isn't it simply shameful and dishonourable to give way to that sort of pressure?"

Mr Straw replied: "The world is not perfect ... the government faces a choice of seeing cooperation on national security being withdrawn, and it rightly made the judgement. We face some very serious terrorist threats. We vitally need cooperation as we have received, from among others, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

So we really don't need any lectures in how to deal with terrorism from a man whose country supplied so many of the attackers on 9-11 and, indeed, from the leader of a country which threatened to withhold vital intelligence unless we halted investigations into corruption charges against Prince Bandar.

There are even allegations that two of the 9-11 hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, so it really is stupefying to have to listen to lectures on the need to take terrorism seriously from such a tainted source.

What's he planning to lecture us on next? Women's rights?

Did you know that Saudi Arabia treats its women one barely noticeable notch above that of the brutal Taliban? Saudi women cannot vote. They are not allowed to drive. They cannot be admitted to a hospital or examined by a doctor or travel abroad or leave the house without the express permission and/or company of an immediate male family member, and of course they must, at all times, be covered from head to toe in black sackcloth and if they dare venture outside or break the fashion code in any way they could very well be arrested and jailed indefinitely and beaten and even killed, no questions asked.

Human rights?

Political prisoners in Saudi Arabia are regularly tortured. Journalists are regularly arrested and persecuted and beaten for being too outspoken against the deeply repressed and closed kingdom. Human rights groups have been appalled by the oppressive and dictatorial Saudi society for years, perhaps no more so than following 9/11, when scrutiny was at an all-time high due to the obvious Saudi kingdom's connections to al Qaeda and terrorism.

And, at a time when the Americans are chastising Iran for interfering in the Iraq war, why are we ignoring the fact that the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq are actually from Saudi Arabia?

We are sick to death of listening to George Bush feign concern for the freedom of Iraqi's and Iranians whilst blithely ignoring the worst excesses of the oppressive regime of Saudi Arabia.

Human rights only appear to matter to the US when they coincide with it's geopolitical concerns. The silence and complicity of the Bush regime towards Saudi Arabia bears out that fact.

But to have to listen to King Abdullah - of all bloody people - lecturing us on the need to take terrorism seriously is like being scolded by Liberace for being too camp. Abdullah's comments are simply jaw dropping in their audacity.

Click title for full article.

Tags: King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia, 9-11, terrorism, UK, Prince Bandar, the Al-Yamamah deal

Saudis cautious on plans for Middle East conference with Israel

Saudi Arabia have said that they would be interested in attending a peace conference with Israel as long as it dealt with "the substantive matters of peace, the issues of real substance and not form or insubstantive issues".

In other words they are not up for attending another of Olmert's non-meetings where the only matter on the table for discussion is "Palestinian terrorism".

He added if that were the case "it becomes of great interest for Saudi Arabia and should we then get an invitation from the Secretary [Rice] to attend that conference we will look very closely and very hard at attending the conference."

Saudi Arabia, and other members of the Arab League, which met in Cairo on Monday, do not want to attend a Middle East conference that would be little more than a photo opportunity for the Israelis. They say any such meeting must be based on the Arab land-for-peace formula, calling for Israel to return to its 1967 borders. They also say the talks should not be limited to the Palestinian conflict but should also cover Israel's occupation of Syrian land.

This is a very important sign that Saudi Arabia might consider attending, but the caveats that the Saudis are insisting upon are also important. The Israelis need to show that they are serious about handing back land that they have illegally occupied for forty years, all the while building on that land - and moving it's civilian population on to that land - despite continued UN resolutions demanding that it desist from doing so, and in defiance of international law.

Of course the Saudis have already come up with their own peace initiative for resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, an initiative that the Israelis were at pains to influence, although the Saudis refused to bend to Israeli pressure.

I notice in today's Ha'aretz newspaper that the possibility of the Saudi's attending is being put down to the recent offer of an arms deal from the US, as if the Saudi Peace initiative did not exist.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal announced Riyadh's willingness to consider attending at a press conference with Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates prior to the former's departure for Israel.

"When we get an invitation from the minister [Rice] to attend, when this takes place, we will study it and we will be keen to attend," he said.

However, he stressed, "we are interested in the peace conference, one that deals with the heart of the peace process, the issues of peace, the core issues, not one that is just a podium for meetings and talk that do not enrich peace." Without guarantees that the conference will address these issues, therefore, Saudi delegates are unlikely to attend.

The Saudis are keen to attend as long as Israel is serious about wanting to talk about substantive issues that lead to peace in the region. Olmert is already signalling that he is preparing to play the same old game:

Olmert also used his meeting with Rice to detail the gestures that Israel has made to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas recently. However, he said, it is too soon to speak about transferring parts of the West Bank to PA security control; such a step would first require increased security cooperation and reduced terrorism.

I wonder how such a logic would play out in any other occupation. For instance, I wonder if the Americans would dare say that they would not end their occupation of Iraq until all resistance to that occupation ended? Were they to do so the Americans would simply be guaranteeing their presence in Iraq for a very long time. Indeed, the British used such tactics when they were attempting to hold on to India. And now, Olmert repeats the tactic, ignoring the fact that the occupation and the violence are directly linked and that one fuels the other.

The prime minister added that Hamas must be "kept out of the game" as Israel explores new cooperation with the Palestinians.

And, showing the perfect example of the new "democracy" that the US is keen to export to the region, the Israelis are stating that they will negotiate only with the people that the Palestinians did not choose as their democratic representatives.

Livni spelled it out:

"There is a Palestinian government which meets the requirements of the international community, a government that believes in the vision of the two states, a government that shows determination to change the situation, and Israel is not going to miss this opportunity," she said.

Of course, when Livni speaks of "the international community" she is using a code which roughly translates as "the US and Israel".

She continued:

Nevertheless, she added, any progress will be conditional on the PA's ability to control the territory and fulfill its security obligations.

In other words, end any violence caused by the occupation before we can even consider ending the occupation itself. Cart. Horse. Horse. Cart.

The Saudis are right to be cautious, as judging by what the Israelis are saying so far, it's same old... same old...

Click title for full article.

Tags: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Saudi Peace Plan, Palestine, Rice, Olmert

US Envoy Criticizes Saudi Arabia on Iraq

The timing is pointed and obviously significant. At a time when Gates and Rice are flying into the region to offer to bolster Saudi Arabia's defence, Zalmay Khalilzad - the US ambassador to the United Nations - has accused Saudi Arabia of undermining the US efforts in Iraq.

Khalilzad, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, said an opinion column he wrote for The New York Times this month accusing U.S. allies of pursuing destabilizing policies toward Iraq referred in part to Saudi Arabia.

"Saudi Arabia and a number of other countries are not doing all they can to help us in Iraq," he said Sunday. "At times, some of them are not only not helping, but they are doing things that is undermining the effort to make progress."

U.S. officials have stepped up public criticism of Saudi Arabia but remain cautious in dealing with a crucial ally in the region.

This is what I mean when I say that the Bush regime no longer have a plan. It is obvious from Khalizad's remarks that the Bush regime hope that by bolstering Saudi Arabia's defences against an emerging Iranian regional superpower, that they can somehow persuade Saudi Arabia - a Sunni country - to back the Maliki Shi'ia government of Iraq.

On their trip, Rice and Gates are expected to ask Saudi King Abdullah for greater cooperation in Iraq. The United States says it will push for forgiving millions in Iraqi debt dating to the Saddam Hussein era and security help for the government of Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.

It's very strange that whenever American politicians stray into this region they seem to forget that the leaders that they are dealing with also have the opinions of their particular Arab street to consider. American politicians always seem to consider that their interests are paramount and appear genuinely puzzled when others fail to share their viewpoint.

The notion that King Abdullah can back a Shi'ia government which is engaged in civil war against it's Sunni citizens is bonkers, and yet that really is Bush's new "big plan".

House Republican leader, Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri, summed up the American position perfectly when he stated:

"But on these issues regarding Saudi Arabia, we have a bigger problem in the House all the time, because of the disappointments with the Saudis, who have traditionally been good friends of ours, who have been allies in the region, but continually seem to not understand the situation we're in right now," Blunt said.

That cuts two ways, of course. It equally appears that the United States have simply no idea of how unpopular their intervention into Iraq has played in a Sunni country like Saudi Arabia. According to a 2006 poll 49% of Saudi Arabians want the US to withdraw with only 4% wanting the US to stay until Iraq is stable and only 7% wanting the US to stay until asked to leave by the Iraqi government. The poll also reveals that 49% of Saudis believe the threat of terrorism has increased since the invasion of Iraq with only 2% believing it has decreased. That's an overwhelming amount of resistance.

And now the US are sailing into Saudi Arabia and asking King Abdullah to commit political suicide.

Nor can one say that the Saudis didn't make their opposition to this war clear from the outset. Before the war the Saudi Foreign Minister made it very clear that US bases in Saudi Arabia could not be used for any attack on Iraq, even if the US managed to get the famed second UN resolution. Indeed, Prince Saud al-Faisal made it very clear to President Bush that, in his opinion, Bush would be "solving one problem and creating five more" if he removed Saddam Hussein by force.

Bush did not listen. And now Rice and Gates are asking Abdullah to go against everything he has previously stated and aid them in the war that Saudi Arabia advised them not to fight.

The worry for Saudi Arabians is that the 15-20% of Iraqis who are Sunnis will be massacred in any forthcoming civil war, it was this worry which caused them to advise against US intervention to forcibly remove Saddam.

Nor are Rice and Gates arriving with an offer that is anywhere near secure. The Israelis have made their opposition to this arms deal very well known and some Democrats are already talking of introducing legislation to prevent it from going ahead.

Two House Democrats, Reps. Anthony Weiner and Jerrold Nadler of New York, said Sunday they would introduce legislation to block the Saudi arms deal.

"We need to send a crystal clear message to the Saudi Arabian government that their tacit approval of terrorism can't go unpunished," Weiner said at a news conference in New York. "Saudi Arabia should not get an ounce of military support from the U.S. until they unequivocally denounced terrorism and take tangible steps to prevent it."

Weiner and Nadler noted that that 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001 were Saudi citizens.

It is in the middle of this poisonous atmosphere that Bush hopes to gain Saudi approval and backing for a war which they have always opposed.

I've said it before, the Bushites simply don't have a plan anymore, they certainly don't have one that makes any kind of sense.

They were warned not to take the lid off of this particular box, but - in their arrogance - they took it off anyway. Now they are demanding that everyone else helps them to put the lid back on. It's mindboggling.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Bush, Saudi Arabia, Iraq war, arms deals, King Abdullah

Fareed Zakaria

Tags: Daily Show, Jon Stewart, the Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Bush, the war on terror

Cafferty: "How's That Workin' Out For You, Mr. President?"

Tags: Cafferty, Democracy, Bush, war on terror, Palestine, Hamas, Fatah, Israel, Olmert

MoD accused over role in Bandar's £1bn

Silence is golden around the Ministry of Defence and the Attorney Generals Office as both are refusing to comment on the recent allegations uncovered by the BBC's Panorama programme concerning payments allegedly made to Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia totalling more that £1 billion paid as recompense for his aid in setting up the Al-Yamamah deal.

According to the BBC, MoD officials in Whitehall themselves processed quarterly "invoices" from the Saudi prince, who was seeking payment for "support services" for his role in the al-Yamamah arms deal.

The invoices were passed on to BAE executives, who would then wire the latest instalment of cash to accounts at Riggs bank in Washington. The transfers from an account held at the Bank of England went in batches of £30m a quarter for at least a decade.

The officials involved in handling any such payments are based at Deso, the MoD's arms sales unit. It is headed by Alan Garwood, a former BAE executive himself, and supervised by Paul Drayson, a businessman appointed by Tony Blair as arms sales minister.

BAE has already said it made the payments with the "express approval" of the MoD. The MoD arms sales department said last night that disclosing confidential information about the al-Yamamah contract, which was signed in the mid-1980s, would cause damage to national security. It also refused to say if payments to Prince Bandar were continuing today.

So both the MoD and the Attorney General are attempting to brass this one out by claiming that to answer questions would harm "national security".

Indeed, they intend to brass it out to the extent that they refuse to confirm or deny that such payments are ongoing, as even that might harm national security. Of course, what they are omitting, which Jack Straw recently alluded to, is that the threat to national security comes from the fact that the Saudis - the very people at the centre of the controversy - are threatening to withdraw all intelligence co-operation with the UK in the War on Terror if any investigation into this matter continues.

It is simply mind-boggling. The nation who had fifteen of it's citizens involved in the 9-11 attacks now threatens to stop intelligence in the War on Terror - which resulted from those same attacks - if anyone investigates whether or not Prince Bandar was involved in a £1 billion bribery scam.

And Lord Goldsmith has already stopped an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office for those very reasons, a decision which Tony Blair says has his full backing.

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrats' deputy leader, said last night: "If the Ministry of Defence was actually directly involved in running the payment system, this is absolutely shocking and reveals the depths of the government's complicity in this scandal.

"We must know if BAE's payments to Prince Bandar are still going on today".

It really isn't asking an awful lot to enquire into whether or not these payments are still ongoing, although the reticence of the MoD to answer such a simple request surely means one has to suspect the worst.

Prince Bandar, whilst not denying that the money was paid, has claimed that the money went into accounts of the government of Saudia Arabia and not into his private accounts. The programme makers have argued that this is a false distinction.

In last night's Panorama programme, a Riggs bank investigator, David Caruso, was quoted. He said: "There wasn't a distinction between the accounts of the embassy or official government accounts as we would call them and the accounts of the Royal Family."

He said the money was apparently used for embassy operations and for the Prince's personal expenditure.

Of course it would be much easier to accept that Bandar was telling the truth were he not also threatening to suspend all joint intelligence operations between the UK and Saudi Arabia in the War on Terror unless all investigations into this matter are dropped.

A threat like that puts every citizen in the UK at greater risk from terrorist attacks, and it's hard to believe that Bandar would issue such a threat if he had nothing to hide.

Prince Bandar said in a statement yesterday that the allegations in the Guardian were "not only untrue but are grotesque in their absurdity".

In this statement, Prince Bandar gets things precisely backwards. It is grotesque to threaten to withdraw all intelligence co-operation with the UK if this matter is properly investigated, and it is an absurdity for him to attempt to cling to the moral high ground whilst doing so.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia, Blair, UK, Jack Straw, Al-Yamamah deal, Panorama, Guardian, Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, bribery

BAE accused of secretly paying £1bn to Saudi prince

When an inquiry by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) was launched into the transactions behind the £43bn Al-Yamamah arms deal, the SFO is understood to have uncovered that BAE secretly paid Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia more than £1bn in connection with Britain's biggest ever weapons contract.

It is alleged by insider legal sources that the money was paid to Prince Bandar with the knowledge and authorisation of Ministry of Defence officials under the Blair government and its predecessors. For more than 20 years, ministers have claimed they knew nothing of secret commissions, which were outlawed by Britain in 2002.

This investigation was halted last December after the intervention of Lord Goldsmith who said it was "in Britain's national interest" to halt the investigation as there was little chance of achieving a conviction. Blair announced that he took "full responsibility" for the decision.

However, according to those familiar with the discussions at the time, Lord Goldsmith had warned colleagues that British "government complicity" was in danger of being revealed unless the SFO's corruption inquiries were stopped.

The abandonment of the investigation provoked an outcry from anti-corruption campaigners, and led to the world's official bribery watchdog, the OECD, launching its own investigation.

The fresh allegations may also cause BAE problems in America, where corrupt payments to foreign politicians have been outlawed since 1977.

So both Goldsmith and Blair were being - and I'm being polite here - less than truthful when they stated that they were acting in Britain's best interests and merely concerned that a prosecution would fail, they were actually acting to hide several British government's complicity in an act of possible illegality.

According to legal sources familiar with the records, BAE Systems made cash transfers to Prince Bandar every three months for 10 years or more.

BAE drew the money from a confidential account held at the Bank of England that had been set up to facilitate the Al-Yamamah deal. Up to £2bn a year was deposited in the accounts as part of a complex arrangement allowing Saudi oil to be sold in return for shipments of Tornado aircraft and other arms.

Prince Bandar has always been a colourful figure and is so close to the Bush family that he is nicknamed Bandar Bush. Indeed, such is his closeness to the Bush's that shortly after 9-11, at a time when all air travel was banned in the United States, he was able to persuade George Bush to allow several prominent Saudi Arabians to fly out of the country, including members of bin Laden's family. So this man is seriously well connected.

Neither Bandar nor BAE were keen yesterday to shed any light on these massive payments:

Prince Bandar, currently head of the country's national security council, was asked about the alleged payments by the Guardian this week.

He did not respond.

BAE Systems also would not explain the alleged payments. The company said: "Your approach is in common with that of the least responsible elements of the media - that is to assume BAE Systems' guilt in complete ignorance of the facts."

Its spokesman, John Neilson, added: "We have little doubt that among the reasons the attorney general considered the case was doomed was the fact that we acted in accordance with ... the relevant contracts, with the approval of the government of Saudi Arabia, together with, where relevant, that of the UK MoD."

The attorney general's office would not discuss claims about Lord Goldsmith's concerns of "government complicity" in the payments.

A spokesman said the SFO inquiry had been halted because of the "real and serious threat to national security".

What possible threat is there "to national security" by investigating whether bribes have been paid to secure arms deals? As so very often happens the Blair government appear to consider their personal embarrassment as "a matter of national security" to be avoided at all costs.

And BAE are no doubt telling the truth when they say that they had the approval of the MoD, but that doesn't automatically make what they were doing legal, it merely makes the MoD complicit in their possible illegality.

The Deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats last night called for an enquiry:

This is potentially more significant and damaging than anything previously revealed. It is unforgivable if the British government has been actively conniving in under-the-counter payments to a major figure in the Saudi government.

"There must be a full parliamentary inquiry into whether the government has deceived the public and undermined the anti-corruption legislation which it itself passed through parliament."

He added: "It increasingly looks as if the motives behind the decision to pull the SFO inquiry were less to do with UK national interests but more to do with the personal interests of one of two powerful Saudi ministers ... Tony Blair's claims that the government has been motivated by national security considerations look increasingly hollow."

Nor is the criticism only coming from the other side of the chamber:

Labour MP Roger Berry, head of the House of Commons committee which investigates strategic export controls, told the BBC that the allegations must be properly investigated.

If there was evidence of bribery or corruption in arms deals since 2001 then that would be a criminal offence, he said.

He added: "It's bad for British business, apart from anything else, if allegations of bribery popping around aren't investigated."

So, as Blair heads for the door, yet another sleazy truth leaks. And Blair once again claims that he is concerned with "national security" when the truth is much more mundane. He is using "national security" as a way of covering the fact that his government have been involved, by the very least by turning their back to, a series of payments that they knew were probably bribes.

One also wonders how this will effect British credibility as we demand that African nations cut out corruption whilst turning a blind eye to it at the highest levels of government when it occurs on our shores.

However, there will be no enquiry, just as Blair will allow no enquiry into the political decisions that led to the Iraq war. He will hide behind the excuse of national security and forbid any investigation into this. The man who said his government would be "whiter than white" is leaving office covered in stains.

Timeline:

Story of a £43bn deal

1985 Al-Yamamah agreement signed by Saudi defence minister Prince Sultan and the then defence secretary Michael Heseltine. Saudis agree to buy 72 Tornado and 30 Hawk warplanes. The deal - "the dove" in Arabic - will in time be worth £43bn to BAE

1989 National Audit Office (NAO) starts inquiry into allegations that members of Saudi royal family and middlemen were secretly paid huge bribes to land Al-Yamamah contract

1992 MPs and auditor general Sir John Bourn suppress NAO report after government claims it would upset Saudis. Report never published

2001 Whistleblower alleges BAE operates "slush fund" to keep sweet the Saudi prince in charge of country's air force, but MoD covers up allegations

2004 Second whistleblower discloses to Guardian further details of slush fund. Serious Fraud Office starts investigation into alleged BAE corruption

2006 Government halts SFO inquiry; investigators were about to gain access to Swiss accounts thought to have been linked to Saudi royal family

2007 OECD, the world's anti-bribery watchdog, rebukes Blair government for terminating SFO investigation, and launches own inquiry

Click title for full article.