mitchell holman

Saudi Secrets Are Safe With Bush
by Joe Conason

Aug 7,2003
NY Observer

At the nexus of diplomacy and secret intelligence,
governments almost never speak forthrightly about
their purposes. When ranking officials decide what
can be revealed and what must be concealed, political
expedience is at least as important as national
security. And on the rare occasion when such an
official publicly demands the disclosure of
embarrassing information, as the Saudi foreign
minister did last week, an ulterior motive should
be assumed.

So regardless of any claims to the contrary, it
seems prudent to remember that the White House and
the House of Saud are likewise best served by keeping
all the sensitive files locked away. Both houses would
be unwise to risk speaking candidly about each other
now a caution that applies with special emphasis when
the residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue bear the name
of Bush.

On July 29, Prince Saud el-Faisal paid an extraordinary
visit to the Bush White House. For an hour, he and George
W. Bush discussed the 28-page section of the joint
Congressional report on 9/11 that evidently implicates
agents of his country?s government in the terrorist
attack. The princes ostensible reason for coming to
see the President whose family has long maintained
close connections with the Saudi royals was to ask Mr.
Bush to declassify those 28 pages because, as he
declared at a press conference: "We have nothing
to hide, and we do not seek, nor do we need, to be
shielded."

That glibly ridiculous assertion is contradicted by
the repressive habits of his familys autocratic regime,
which has a lot to hide from its own people as well as
ours. Besides, the prince knew before he landed in
Washington that the President would decline his plea.
Foreign ministers don?t meet with any head of state,
particularly not the leader of the worlds only superpower,
unless they already know what the meetings outcome will
be. In this instance, the Presidents negative answer could
have been ascertained via embassy cable within hours, or
by telephone within minutes.

As Senator Charles Schumer suggested, the prince visited
the President to improve the kingdom?s image rather than
to inform the American public. The Saudis requested the
release of the Congressional report?s incriminating pages
with absolute confidence in a denial by their old friend
George W., who insisted that releasing the reports
unflattering references to Saudi Arabia might somehow
undermine the "war on terror."

The New York Democrat, like other legislators of both
parties seeking to pry loose those 28 pages, discounts
that clichéd excuse. Senator Richard Shelby, the Alabama
Republican who oversaw the joint Congressional probe,
has said that "90 to 95 percent" of the pages being
withheld "would not compromise, in my judgment, anything
in national security."

Why, then, is the Bush administration so determined
to prevent the public from learning what Congressional
investigators discovered about Saudi connections to
9/11? Conventional answers involve the kingdom?s control
of the worlds largest oil reserves, its influence over
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, its
potential assistance in achieving peace between Israelis
and Arabs, and its proclaimed alliance with the United
States against Al Qaeda.

In steeply descending order of persuasiveness, all
those stated reasons possess some merit. The problem
is that the Bush administration?as well as the Presidents
family and its associates?is scarcely able to assess the
merits with any degree of objectivity. After all, if they
reveal damaging information about the Saudis, what might
the Saudis reveal about them?

For more than three decades, Saudi Arabia has
sought to influence American politicians, often
through investment in American business. While
they have occasionally sought out Democrats, they
are far more comfortable with Republicans and in
particular, with Bush Republicans. At the moment,
for example, the kingdoms defense attorney in a
lawsuit brought by families of 9/11 victims happens
to be James Baker, that ultimate Bushie whose résumé
includes stints as Secretary of State and Treasury.
(Mr. Bakers last big court case was Bush v. Gore.)

Commercial connections between the Saudis and the
Bushes extend from limited-partner investments in
George W.s failed oil ventures more than 20 years ago
to the Carlyle Group, a mighty merchant bank that
currently employs Mr. Baker, former President George
Herbert Walker Bush and a host of lesser family vassals.
Saudi money has also figured in several of the most
significant political scandals of the postwar era,
notably the Iran-contra affair and the Bank of Credit
and Commerce International blowup. Whatever the Saudis
might say about any of those matters is probably better
left unsaid not only to protect state secrets, but also
for the sake of Bush senior, the former C.I.A. director
and suspected Iran-contra conspirator.

The U.S. government knows many unflattering stories
about the Saudi rulers. Unfortunately, they know many
and perhaps worse about ours. The preference for silence
and secrecy is understandably mutual.

mitchell holman

Saudi Secrets Are Safe With Bush
by Joe Conason

Aug 7,2003
NY Observer

At the nexus of diplomacy and secret intelligence,
governments almost never speak forthrightly about
their purposes. When ranking officials decide what
can be revealed and what must be concealed, political
expedience is at least as important as national
security. And on the rare occasion when such an
official publicly demands the disclosure of
embarrassing information, as the Saudi foreign
minister did last week, an ulterior motive should
be assumed.

So regardless of any claims to the contrary, it
seems prudent to remember that the White House and
the House of Saud are likewise best served by keeping
all the sensitive files locked away. Both houses would
be unwise to risk speaking candidly about each other
now a caution that applies with special emphasis when
the residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue bear the name
of Bush.

On July 29, Prince Saud el-Faisal paid an extraordinary
visit to the Bush White House. For an hour, he and George
W. Bush discussed the 28-page section of the joint
Congressional report on 9/11 that evidently implicates
agents of his country?s government in the terrorist
attack. The princes ostensible reason for coming to
see the President whose family has long maintained
close connections with the Saudi royals was to ask Mr.
Bush to declassify those 28 pages because, as he
declared at a press conference: "We have nothing
to hide, and we do not seek, nor do we need, to be
shielded."

That glibly ridiculous assertion is contradicted by
the repressive habits of his familys autocratic regime,
which has a lot to hide from its own people as well as
ours. Besides, the prince knew before he landed in
Washington that the President would decline his plea.
Foreign ministers don?t meet with any head of state,
particularly not the leader of the worlds only superpower,
unless they already know what the meetings outcome will
be. In this instance, the Presidents negative answer could
have been ascertained via embassy cable within hours, or
by telephone within minutes.

As Senator Charles Schumer suggested, the prince visited
the President to improve the kingdom?s image rather than
to inform the American public. The Saudis requested the
release of the Congressional report?s incriminating pages
with absolute confidence in a denial by their old friend
George W., who insisted that releasing the reports
unflattering references to Saudi Arabia might somehow
undermine the "war on terror."

The New York Democrat, like other legislators of both
parties seeking to pry loose those 28 pages, discounts
that clichéd excuse. Senator Richard Shelby, the Alabama
Republican who oversaw the joint Congressional probe,
has said that "90 to 95 percent" of the pages being
withheld "would not compromise, in my judgment, anything
in national security."

Why, then, is the Bush administration so determined
to prevent the public from learning what Congressional
investigators discovered about Saudi connections to
9/11? Conventional answers involve the kingdom?s control
of the worlds largest oil reserves, its influence over
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, its
potential assistance in achieving peace between Israelis
and Arabs, and its proclaimed alliance with the United
States against Al Qaeda.

In steeply descending order of persuasiveness, all
those stated reasons possess some merit. The problem
is that the Bush administration?as well as the Presidents
family and its associates?is scarcely able to assess the
merits with any degree of objectivity. After all, if they
reveal damaging information about the Saudis, what might
the Saudis reveal about them?

For more than three decades, Saudi Arabia has
sought to influence American politicians, often
through investment in American business. While
they have occasionally sought out Democrats, they
are far more comfortable with Republicans and in
particular, with Bush Republicans. At the moment,
for example, the kingdoms defense attorney in a
lawsuit brought by families of 9/11 victims happens
to be James Baker, that ultimate Bushie whose résumé
includes stints as Secretary of State and Treasury.
(Mr. Bakers last big court case was Bush v. Gore.)

Commercial connections between the Saudis and the
Bushes extend from limited-partner investments in
George W.s failed oil ventures more than 20 years ago
to the Carlyle Group, a mighty merchant bank that
currently employs Mr. Baker, former President George
Herbert Walker Bush and a host of lesser family vassals.
Saudi money has also figured in several of the most
significant political scandals of the postwar era,
notably the Iran-contra affair and the Bank of Credit
and Commerce International blowup. Whatever the Saudis
might say about any of those matters is probably better
left unsaid not only to protect state secrets, but also
for the sake of Bush senior, the former C.I.A. director
and suspected Iran-contra conspirator.

The U.S. government knows many unflattering stories
about the Saudi rulers. Unfortunately, they know many
and perhaps worse about ours. The preference for silence
and secrecy is understandably mutual.