If this piece from Time is correct, it’s nothing short of explosive. It appears as though Abu Zubaydah has personally incriminated the Saudi royal family during a US interrogation:
Posner elaborates in startling detail how U.S. interrogators used drugs—an unnamed “quick-on, quick-off” painkiller and Sodium Pentothal, the old movie truth serum—in a chemical version of reward and punishment to make Zubaydah talk. When questioning stalled, according to Posner, cia men flew Zubaydah to an Afghan complex fitted out as a fake Saudi jail chamber, where "two Arab-Americans, now with Special Forces," pretending to be Saudi inquisitors, used drugs and threats to scare him into more confessions.
Yet when Zubaydah was confronted by the false Saudis, writes Posner, "his reaction was not fear, but utter relief." Happy to see them, he reeled off telephone numbers for a senior member of the royal family who would, said Zubaydah, "tell you what to do." The man at the other end would be Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, a Westernized nephew of King Fahd’s and a publisher better known as a racehorse owner. His horse War Emblem won the Kentucky Derby in 2002. To the amazement of the U.S., the numbers proved valid. When the fake inquisitors accused Zubaydah of lying, he responded with a 10-minute monologue laying out the Saudi-Pakistani-bin Laden triangle.
It’s long been suspected that the Saudis have been paying off al-Qaeda to keep them from directly attacking the Saudi Royal Family – however, until now there hasn’t been a direct link between the al-Saud clan and al-Qaeda.
However, if Posner’s accusations are correct, the Saudis are directly involved with not only funding, but shielding al-Qaeda. Furthermore, the fact that several key members of this conspiracy were killed in the same period under dubious circumstances is highly suspicious at the least.
It is clear that the Saudis have direct and high-level links to al-Qaeda, and have been providing funds and assistance to Qaeda terrorists. It is time that our supposed "allies" be called to account for their actions.
You know, there was a time in our country when government pandered to corporate money interests in shady backroom dealings, smoke-filled rooms, and other obfuscating means. I find it highly tacky and gauche that this administration feels absolutely unfettered to pander to corporate money in full view of the public eye.
Have some decency, please!
Exactly what the hell does that have to do with the Saudis?
It’s becoming increasingly clear that this adminstration is more than willing to sacrifice national security to preserve profitable relations with their Saudi bedfellows.
The Saudi government could probably confess to supporting or even masterminding the 9-11 attacks and Bush and Cheney would spin it so that the Saudis were blameless. One would expect that such a ploy wouldn’t even work on slow-witted Americans, but ANYTHING is possible with an administration that manages to blame the CIA for publicly proclaiming false intelligence information to the American people when the CIA was the one who requested they NOT make such a proclamation.
By the way Jay, first-rate reporting on the Friday bombing in Iraq that killed Minister Hakim and could likely spur a civil war. Oh that’s right! It was everybody EXCEPT you that reported on that event since any information that doesn’t support your nationalist pro-war-for-other-people worldview MUST be censored or silenced on this blog.
If you want full time news, go to CNN. Unless you want to pay my rent, I only work on this blog when I can and only report on what I can.
I will touch on the bombing, but there are any number of other blogs that have been discussing that issue in depth. This would be a good place to start.
And, BTW, it is not Minister Hakim. There are no "ministers" in Islam. The religions leader killed is Ayatollah (a term for a Shi’ite religious leader) Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim.
Don’t make arguments if you cannot get even the basic facts right.
I’d be a little more interested in Jay’s comments re: the Fox News/Al Franken lawsuit.
A dumb publicity stunt on all sides.
Personally, if anyone should be suing Franken it should be Harvard for deliberately misusing their name and letterhead.
Then again, Franken is a washed-up and bitter old has-been who hardly deserves the time or attention.
Thanks, Jay, for quoting the Fox News party line. Now, does anyone who’s actually read the book have an opinion?