US House votes to deny all aid to Saudi Arabia

[Up2Late]

Source: AFP

US House votes to deny all aid to Saudi Arabia

24/06/2007 06h26

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US House of Representatives has voted to deny all aid to Saudi Arabia, despite repeated assurances by the administration the desert kingdom was cooperating with the United States in the war on terror.

The ban is contained in a little-publicized amendment quietly slipped by a bipartisan group of lawmakers into a 34.2-billion-dollar bill financing US foreign operations in fiscal 2008. The massive bill, featuring a wide range of humanitarian programs, was approved by lawmakers in the middle of the night on Friday.

Similar measures on aid to Saudi Arabia have been passed by the House before. But the current one goes a step further by closing a legislative loophole that in the past had allowed the administration of President George W. Bush to waive these bans by invoking requirements of the war on terror.

The amendment, championed by New York Democrat Anthony Weiner, a strong supporter of Israel, states that "none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available" by the foreign operations bill "shall be obligated or expended to finance any assistance to Saudi Arabia" or "used to execute a waiver."

(much more at link)

<http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/070624060517.g2asi0bk.html>

Read more: http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/070624060517.g2asi0bk.html

---

Finally, some good news! Time to ask, though, why is this not in the U.S. News reports yet? This News is spreading quickly in the Middle-Eastern and European News Agencies.

[NMDemDist2]

1. the Saudis have more money than God, why would we send them aid anyway?

K&N

[wake.up.america]

2. Because even 1% buys a lot of cattle in Paraguay.

[SeattleGirl]

5. ????

:shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. I'd guess they're saying some of the money gets diverted as bribes

to pay for things like the rumoured Bush ranch in Paraguay.

[SeattleGirl]

13. Ah, okay.

I just wish that people who post things would explain what they mean a bit more, so the rest of us don't have to play a guessing game.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. Dubya is moving to Paraguay when he leaves office

At least that's the rumor. I believe he bought land down there.

[SeattleGirl]

4. My question exactly.

We are slathering money on the Saudi's, while many of our own citizens are living in deplorable conditions right here in America.

WTF is up with that????

I am so sick of this kind of crap. We're pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of China, the Saudi's have another big piece of us, and yet this Administration, as well as some previous Administrations, think that OTHER PEOPLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS COUNTRY AND THE PEOPLE LIVING HERE!

I realize that last line may sound as if I'm saying that we shouldn't care about other people in other countries, or that we shouldn't help those who need it, but that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that I doubt the Saudi's need money from us. Other places do not need money from us. Some do, yes. but not at the expense of the people in this country who need assistance. I'm tired of the attitude that being poor, or down on your luck, or whatever, is somehow those people's fault and they don't deserve any assistance. I know that this country HAS done some good for people in other countries, and I am absolutely fine with that; in fact, I'm happy that we do that.

But I am not happy that so many people here are ignored and neglected.

Excuse my anger here, but I just finished watching a half-hour documentary by Greg Palast called "Big Easy to Big Empty", about New Orleans, and it pissed me off all over again about the neglect, the taking advantage of, and the straight out kicking to the curb of people in this country, just because they don't have the right amount of money in their bank account, or, God forbid, that they don't have the right color of skin.

Here's a link to the piece of goleft.tv:

http://www.goleft.tv/

Knowing that we have been giving money to the Saudi's, in combination with watching this short documentary, makes my blood boil.

I hate jingoism, I am not against reaching out on a global level to help those who need it; in fact, I am very much in favor of helping others (I was raised that way), but that reaching out should be done to INCLUDE those here who need help, and not INSTEAD OF reaching out to those here who need it. Especially when that reaching out involves giving money to a group of people who already have more money than we do.

I'm with you, AZ. Why in the hell are we giving money to people who have more money than God?

[NMDemDist2]

6. what really pisses me off is that if you're an American the pukes say

"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, there's no free lunch, no more Cadillac Welfare Queens" yet we give tons of cash to the Saudis and the Isrealis, both who have plenty of money already to care for their own people.

arrrrghhhh :argh:

[SeattleGirl]

8. What people who say things like that love to overlook is that some

people don't HAVE boots, let alone bootstraps.

The contempt of The Have's for the Have Not's is absolutely disgusting to me.

Why in the hell do people like that (and really, even some people who don't have much) determine that the worth of a human being is directly equivalent to the amount of money in their bank account? Or to the kind of house they live in? Or the car they drive? Or whether they have a vacation home in addition to their own home? Or, one of my favs, to whether you are a home owner or a renter. (I'm a renter, and take care of my house, because it is my home. I don't think being a renter is equivalent to being a low-life, but that's a whole other rant.....).

[MrPrax]

33. Hear Hear

You struck upon some of the real discrimination that goes on in our societies. Moreover the traditional groups that historically defended the poor (church groups, left, unions) have taken a powder and preach exactly the type of thing you describe, even when their so-called philosophies demand that they act on behalf of the poor.

You're absolutely right for being pissed at politics and especially the current crop of political offerings...bizarre if you think about it. The top running Democrat is a woman who couldn't give a shit about the poor, but will insist on using her sex nonetheless to present an image of compassion, the next one is an African-American who would MUCH rather do the 'Cosby-lite' and talk about the more positive aspects of the community and so by default, the poor problem is left to a trial lawyer to kick around. If you notice that the OTHER big name, a former VP, he's more into the environment. In other words, these are 'issues' that people with money care about.

Stunning really when you think that the economy is a disaster and there is a great deal of suffering by people in the US who through no fault of their own -- very loyal citizens who did everything they were told -- nonetheless can't get a break politically.

The hypocrisy of poverty, materialism, consumerism and war is stifling...and obscene when people lose their homes and jobs (and all the consequences that entails for society as a whole, not to mention the burden that is placed on a recovered economy) do to the actions by these same people.

Democrats have been so gamed by themselves that even discussing something called a New Deal would get shouted down by right wingers who would otherwise be Repukes if there weren't so many religious fundies holding court in that party who they also hate because they are organized.


Good post!!

[Up2Late]

14. No need to apologize for your anger on this one, I feel the same way...

...but I think you said it better that I ever could.:pals:

[SeattleGirl]

16. Thank you.

It's sad, though, that it has to be said at all, isn't it?

:pals:

[PaulaFarrell]

15. I'd suspect most of that 'aid' is military

i.e. we are giving money to the Saudis so they will buy our weapons, in effect, corporate welfare for US weapons manufacturers. In fact, a lot of US 'aid' works like this - we give them money to buy our products to prop up our industries.

[Truth2Tell]

39. Yep

The money never even leaves the U.S. - just gets transferred straight from the Treasury to the accounts of Lockheed Martin. A lot of World Bank and IMF aid takes similar paths - never even crosses a border.

[Bitwit1234]

22. REMEMBER bush put rove in charge of the restoration of NO

he is supposed to be coordinating the recovery effort. Guess that's why things are going to hell in a hand basket. He has more important things to do. He is screwing over the American people trying to suppress the vote of democrats.

[entanglement]

27. Did anyone actually bother to read the article?

Here is a direct quote from the article: "oil-rich Saudi Arabia has never been a large recipient of US aid..."

As I mention upthread, this is (likely) part of the struggle between the elites of two perpetually warring factions: AIPAC and the House of Saud, et al. There are no "good guys" in this fight.

[amandabeech]

32. I think you've got it.

I hope that this doesn't piss off all our oil and chemical (natural gas) suppliers in the Middle East.

[mmonk]

45. You've hit on it.

The neoconservative movement also has had Saudi Arabia as a sort of target also.

[LiberalEsto]

46. PLUS they treat women like garbage

the heavy veils, the lack of education and freedom - Saudi women can't even drive cars or go around withou male escorts. Why should our tax money go toward propping up this disgraceful misogynistic situation?

[Selatius]

12. They need weapons and war machines to prop up their grip on power.

Without that, they would be vulnerable to internal revolutions. Billions in subsidies have been provided to them to keep their kingdom propped up.

[entanglement]

26. From the article: "oil-rich Saudi Arabia has never been a large recipient of US aid"

More likely, its part of the hidden power struggle of the Israeli lobby against the House of Saud and their cronies.

[progressoid]

35. yeah, and this, "Anthony Weiner, a strong supporter of Israel"

Gee, wonder if that affected his motive at all...

[progressive_realist]

44. Less than a million dollars a year

According to this document I found in a few seconds of googling:

http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/cbj/2007/ for the master document
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/60654.pdf for the section of interest

The figures for Saudi Arabia are on page 475. If you want a real eye-opener, scroll back a few pages and look at the numbers for Egypt and Israel (the two largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid, IIRC). Their numbers reach in the billions and are almost exclusively composed of aid to buy weapons from us.

On the other hand, it appears Saudi aid is limited to subsidizing their officers taking military training courses here in the USA, and anti-terrorism assistance. This amendment is apparently meant to eliminate the latter. Without further information on what this money is actually used for, I can't even hazard a guess as to whether this is a good or a bad thing.

[Recursion]

59. Foreign aid is actually domestic spending most of the time

It usually looks bad for a Congresscritter to write in a multi-billion dollar contract for a weapons company or transportation company or whatever that happens to be in his district; but, send that money to Cairo or Tel Aviv or Tashkent with the provision that it be used on that same contract, and it just gets lumped in as "foreign aid".

[trashcanistanista]

57. I was thinking the same thing. Not only do they not

work, they don't even know how to work. It is the wealthiest nation in the world.

[aquart]

3. And what will the Senate do?

[Peace Patriot]

7. Don't they own much of our debt paper and half the land in the United States

already? (I'm exaggerating--but substantial, lucrative holdings in the U.S. The apartment you are renting might be owned by a bin Laden!)

And we've been giving them aid?

Christ, the fleecing we've taken, friends! It's just staggering.

Billions to Colombia, too, where they take chainsaws to union organizers and dump their parts into mass graves--"they" being rightwing paramilitaries with very close ties to the Uribe government (Bush's pals). (Very close, as in the chief of the military, and former chief of intelligence, and numerous Uribe office holders.)

Money we don't even have. Future money. Our children's children's money. To the fatcat sultans of Saudi Arabia and the chainsaw murderers of Colombia.

Well, I'm glad we're no longer paying our tea tax to keep Osama bin Laden in kidney machines, and to keep his relatives in race horses and palaces. But the billions to Colombia was continued! Some labor Dems put up a fight and got some slight cuts, but the Dems passed the package. And so, we continue to sponsor death squads--who are also big drug traffickers--U.S. Chem toxic pesticide spraying, to drive peasants off their farms and into urban squalor, so the big drug lords and Monsanto can move in, and the government that protects these activities.

----------------------------

Throw Diebold, ES&S and all election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

[SeattleGirl]

9. I love it! A modern day Boston Tea Party, but with electronic

voting machines! Sign me up!!! I'll be there!

God, wouldn't that be something, to actually do that (though perhaps we should just smash the hell out of them, and recycle the parts into something not harmful; I don't really want to pollute Boston Harbor).

[EST]

18. Too much additional pollution-further destroy marine life.

How 'bout we throw the rascals who make lousy, self-serving decisions concerning voting computers into the harbor?
No doubt they, too, would add to the pollution, but at least the critters could eat 'em.

[SeattleGirl]

19. See my post #9. I didn't want to add to the polution either, so I

had an alternative to dumping the fucking machines into Boston Harbor, yet still getting rid of them. :)

[Truth2Tell]

40. Yes, read "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast

The U.S. has a long-standing relationship with the Saudi Royal Family whereby we buy massive amounts of oil using U.S. Dollars, and in return they use those Dollars to buy U.S. Treasuries. The $$ never leaves the U.S. - we just "owe" them. Like the Chinese.

[Divine Discontent]

10. K&R #5 off to the greatest for this GREAT bit of news!

bout damn time! GO House! how big will the msm report this? little blurb? if it was the repukes who did it in say, 2002, it'd been all over the news...

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<<---- top '08 stickers

[tblue]

41. It's on the ABCNews site, but nowhere else yet that I can see. Hmmmm....

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3308064

Wonder why this is 'not' news...

[Divine Discontent]

62. I had a hard time refinding this news story on yahoo news (in fact I didn't)

I found it again on google news, by searching saudi aid, but if it were repubs that were doing this it would be up for a day, this came and went in a couple hours... thanks for the link... there are repub operatives SURELY at these news companies that move things off the main page after they've been placed there by real reporters.. .YOU KNOW THERE IS!

[zoya]

17. saudi aid

So much for the MEast talks in lieu of war against Iran.

[SeattleGirl]

20. I had already figured that the ME talks were going to be a sham anyway.

Bush and Cheney get too much of a hard-on to actually try diplomacy (and besides, there is more money in war than in peace for the likes of them).

[Phrogman]

21. I was in Ad Damman during Operation Desert Sortie, that was...

the clean up mission after Desert Storm and I got to witness the survey of the port area. Thats where the dents in their warehouse and broken or worn areas of the port facility were surveyed so that the Saudis could bill Uncle Sam for the damage from the war operations.

And the thought suddenly came to me, we bombed the wrong Arabs.

[Vinca]

23. Have I got this straight?

We borrow money from China to give "aid" to a country that has oil, a monarchy drowning in wealth AND that provided the majority of the 9/11 hijackers????? It's like a bad dream that never ends.

[SeattleGirl]

24. Honey, we have fallen so far down the rabbit hole, it's going to take

a long time to get out.

Yes, you have it straight, I'm so sorry to say.

As I mentioned up thread, we are now a wholly owned subsidiary of China.

We, via the Bush Family Evil Empire, also have our heads very far up the Saudi's asses.

It is to weep.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. I'm so glad this is bi-partisan

because it shows that even some Republicans know that supporting an uber-rich country who provided the bulk of the 911 hijackers and who propagate a twisted form of hate-filled Islam is lunacy.

[pinto]

29. Good move.

[dkofos]

30. Good for them, the saudi's don't need it. But neither do the israeli's

and we want to double aid to them.

[MsMagnificent]

31. By that inclusion

of Weiner's stance (else how is it appropriate here?) the article implies that this is to the benefit, or at least desire, of Israel.
Why? -and that question goes to both our countries politics

Wasn't it the Saudis that came up with that highly respected (by most) Israeli-Palestinian peace plan a few years ago? The one that guaranteed the recognition of the State of Israel by all Muslim nations?

Therefore it makes me wonder if this seemingly out-of-the-blue vote could be purposely coincidental with Netanyahu's visit?
In any event these conjectures, if valid, would certainly answer the bipartisanship surprise of this vote.
Which begs the question if AIPAC is the only thing that can move our two major parties to cooperate with each other? Now there's a scary thought!


Don't get me wrong, I'm not against this bill! There's no reason on earth the U.S. should ever be giving aid to any rich country, especially one that owns so much of the U.S.! ...unless giving aid is now an American euphemism for bribery, which sadly with the recent state --and I hesitate to use this word in conjunction-- morality of politics could quite possibly be...
But the fact is we have given aid to Saudi Arabia for quite a long time now, amazingly even moreso after 9-11; so the whole thing is exceedingly curious, even at any time.
I'm just stumped for Why and Why Now?.

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. It is in my nature to be contrary. Devils' advocacy alert.

Most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi, as well as OBL.

What if the aid is a encouragement to get the Saudi royal family to clamp down on the jihadists in their midst?

I'm not suggesting that cutting off aid to SA is a bad thing. I'm just sayin'.

[JerseygirlCT]

50. The Saudi royal family have been fomentors of terror right in

their own country. Ask a woman. Or anyone not Wahabbi Sunni Muslim.

I'm skeptical of their opposition to AQ, myself. I think they're wiley enough to want to appear as if they're opposed to them, and certainly there have been attacks on Saudi soil. But I don't think philosophically they differ all that much.

So any money paid to them in the way of bribery isn't really likely to have much of a pay-off, IMO.

I'd much rather see us doing what we can to strengthen more moderate regimes, like Jordan, than supporting fundmantalist, human-rights abusing tyrannies like SA's.

[rucky]

36. This will get so vetoed.

[gatorboy]

54. Maybe this is what congress is hoping for.

It would be interesting to hear Bush publicly admit to vetoing a bill because it refuses to send money to a country where a majority of the 9/11 terrorists were from.

[onehandle]

37. Fantastic! Punish them for financing and manning 9/11. nt

[K in FL]

38. I would bet OBL is in Arabia

These people have been hiding Bin Laden since we invaded Afghanistan. That country is a safe haven for all jihadists. As the original article states 61 percent of the suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis. Bandar Bush has been playing this game with all of us for 5 years. He knows who the true orchestrators of 9-11 were. Saudi Arabia is the country that had TV telethons a few years ago to raise money for the families of successful bombers.

[IndianaGreen]

42. Not enough! The US should disengage from the entire region.

Not one dollar, nor one bullet, should go to any of the countries in the Middle East, including WMD honcho Israel.

[bahrbearian]

53. When Israel speaks, congress listens.

[yojon]

43. Could these be bribes paid directly to the royal family?

Do they need our bribes? Maybe it is 'tribute money' like the Romans used to collect from their colonies.

[JerseygirlCT]

51. Money to the kingdom IS money to the royal family. I don't think there's

much difference.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

47. Good for them, I guess.

It's hard to feel good about anybody being denied charity, but then I figured (1) America needs that money more than Saudi Arabia does, and (2) it probably wouldn't have been used to improve the lot of the Saudi people anyway.

But please keep in mind that a people shouldn't starve or suffer for the actions of their government, especially when said government wasn't democratically elected. I think that's an idea that DUers should be able to appreciate.

[ButterflyBlood]

48. Good news

Our tax dollars have no business funding repressive theocracies.

[orleans]

49. oh, too bad. you know the saudi's really need our help.

:sarcasm:

[Haole Girl]

52. Interesting

I'll mull over this for a few days...or maybe years...to try to figure it out.

I've never understood our relationship with that "Kingdom." Well, except for the oil part...and, I know, that may seem sort of self-explanatory. Or, is it?

:crazy:

[spanone]

55. Because the media is as incurious as george.

[mitchum]

56. I look forward to the day the House of Saud is put up against the wall

[Recursion]

60. And then what?

The worst thing about the Sauds and Mubaraks of the world is that by stifling opposition so much they leave only militant radicals as an alternative -- to some extent precisely so they become essential to us.

[mitchum]

61. You know, I honestly would have less of a problem with that...

than I do with the US's cozy relationship with the House of Saud. In a way the people of the kingdom would at least be practicing self-determination.
And this is coming from someone who has a wedding gift from King Abdullah sitting in the next room. They are dangerous corrupt pigs.

[rayofreason]

58. The Saudis have enough money.

Cooperate or not - I don't care. They should work with us just to save thier own hides from the demons they nurtured.

No aid to Saudia Arabia.