Guess who leads the world in terrorist financing?
posted at 12:45 pm on April 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
If you guessed Iran, then you need to try again. Syria? Nice try, but Bashar Assad should have stuck with opthalmology. North Korea? Hah! No, we have to look a little farther south from Damascus and Tehran, right into the capital of our ally, Saudi Arabia. The Bush administration issued a surprising rebuke to Riyadh yesterday, a sign that the Kingdom hasn’t kept pace with its counterterrorism promises:
Saudi Arabia remains the world’s leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks and has failed to take key steps requested by U.S. officials to stem the flow, the Bush administration’s top financial counter-terrorism official said Tuesday.
Stuart A. Levey, a Treasury undersecretary, told a Senate committee that the Saudi government had not taken important steps to go after those who finance terrorist organizations or to prevent wealthy donors from bankrolling extremism through charitable contributions, sometimes unwittingly.
“Saudi Arabia today remains the location where more money is going to terrorism, to Sunni terror groups and to the Taliban than any other place in the world,” Levey said under questioning.
U.S. officials have previously identified Saudi Arabia as a major source of funding for extremism. But Levey’s comments were notable because, although reluctant to directly criticize a close U.S. ally, he acknowledged frustration with administration efforts to persuade the Saudis and others to act.
Levey took pains to note Saudi operational cooperation against terrorists. However, they have not provided the kind of assistance they promised in eliminating the funding networks that keep the terrorists afloat. The charity front groups also remain clear of any effective oversight, a problem that the US has had since the days after 9/11.
The Saudis claim that they have taken other measures, but Levey and the Bush administration clearly see them as insufficient. The royal family says they have made it illegal to send money out of Saudi Arabia without going through “government channels”, but that has made little impact on financing. That’s especially true when considering the charity front groups that Riyadh avoids targeting for investigations. These charities often will have some legitimate projects that make government intervention unpopular but route considerable amounts of money to terrorism. Hamas and its front groups are the most obvious examples, but many others exist as well.
Of course, the US used to have a pretty sophisticated system to investigate banking transactions around the world to find connections to terrorists. It even resulted in the capture of a high-ranking al-Qaeda commander in southeast Asia. Unfortunately, the New York Times exposed the SWIFT program in June 2006:
The administration has told us on many occasions that one of the main fronts in the war on terror would be the financial systems. We have seen plenty of coverage on how the US has pressured various banking systems into revealing their records in order for us to freeze terrorist assets. If anyone wondered whether our efforts had any effect, all they needed to read was the stories of Hamas officials having to smuggle cash in valises in order to get spot funding for the Palestinian Authority. Their neighboring Arab nations pledged upwards of $150 million in direct aid, which banks would not transfer lest the US discover the transactions and lock them out of the global banking system.
That led to Canada’s withdrawal of cooperation from the efforts by the US, even though later determinations showed that the US did not violate any laws in its SWIFT program. The Saudis probably wonder when their cooperation will wind up on the front pages of the New York Times, too.
Still, one has to raise an eyebrow when the Bush administration goes out of its way to browbeat the Saudis, even mildly. Has all of DC grown tired of the doubletalk from Riyadh’s ruling clique?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I’m shocked, shocked I tell ya.
Geronimo on April 2, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Remember right after 9/11 the commercials on TV said Saudi was our Best friend and Biggest ally in the GWOT. HAH
joeswampy on April 2, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Gee, I don’t know. Can we get these two kids back together again?
I wonder if the people in the Barack Obama page that mentions that all the donations from the people in the Oil business is not money from the Oil business will come in here and tell us all that money from people in Saudi Arabia is not the same, since it does not come from the government of Saudi Arabia.
But hey - the democrats love to show that picture of Bush and the Saudi dude holding hands. So let’s show it too!!!!!!!!!!!
wise_man on April 2, 2008 at 12:58 PM
15 of 19 terrorists who slam planes into buildings agree.
lorien1973 on April 2, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Jeez I’ve been saying this for years. NOW somebody notices? We say we are in a war on terror but we kissyface with the guys doing the most damage.
As long as Saudi Arabia continues to teach terrorism to children in its schools, this will never be over.
fossten on April 2, 2008 at 1:14 PM
The only thing the US government can attempt to do to another government is to suggest that they make a change. We have absolutely no power to alter anything that their citizens do. We have a limited ability to speak to others in the government and make suggestions or voice our displeasure. Other than deciding to start an embargo, or raise tariffs on trade - what the hell else is the Bush administration supposed to do? What do you suggest? Fire cruise missiles into Mecca? Destroy their aspirin factories in retaliation?
I see a difference between what a government does, and what some of the citizens of that government does. Maybe I am the only one here who can.
wise_man on April 2, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Saudi Arabia is why we are flailing about without a rudder since 9/11. Bush relies on Saudi Arabia to explain Islam and Muslims to him. Saudi Arabia is where this war is conducted from. Hillary has Huma Abedin to explain Islam and Muslims to her, Obama has close family to advise him;-), Gordon English had Hesham Islam to explain Islam and Muslims to him…who will advise McCain? See any pattern here?
All charity in Islam can go to Jihad, it’s not something that needs investigating. It’s where 99% of “charity” has always gone.
BL@KBIRD on April 2, 2008 at 1:23 PM
We need to apply some more pressure to the House of Fraud.
NeoconNews.com on April 2, 2008 at 1:29 PM
wise_man
You impute normalcy to Saudi Arabia as a country as most people with a western mindset would. There is nothing normal about Saudi Arabia. They are the financial furnace of world Jihad. Letting them off is negligence. But history shows that proper actions are not necessarily taken in a timely way.
BL@KBIRD on April 2, 2008 at 1:33 PM
I have been screaming this from the rooftops for years. Saudi is the worst of the worst!
azcop on April 2, 2008 at 1:34 PM
This coddling by Iran (and Syria, as I remember linking to a foreign correspondent doco ages ago) is still going to result in them, eventually, getting bitten in the arse by those they’re trying to control..
Reaps on April 2, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Then what do you do - to do something about it, BL@KBIRD?
wise_man on April 2, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Perhaps I’m being too rough on the Saudi’s, they did offer Rudy a cheque to help with the clean up.
BL@KBIRD on April 2, 2008 at 1:36 PM
how are we defining “terrorism”? Cause if we use the US Army’s definition then we’re #1 by a long shot.
crr6 on April 2, 2008 at 1:37 PM
wise-man
I outlined one suggestion in the Headlines post called “Wahabbi poohbah, no Jews allowed”.
BL@KBIRD on April 2, 2008 at 1:40 PM
This pic has always turned my stomach.
labrat on April 2, 2008 at 1:44 PM
What about the money we frequently send to the pseudo-nation Palestine? That goes right to Hamas for terrorism. Maybe the Saudis don’t take us so seriously when we’re funding terrorism as well? We should take the beam out of our own eye and use it to bash the Saudis. Stop ALL terrorism funding!
StaticElectricityMan on April 2, 2008 at 1:46 PM
And yet the Eco-Dems keep us from defunding the Saudis by locking up access to our own oil and gas reserves. The GOP needs to get on the ball and exploit this fact.
DerKrieger on April 2, 2008 at 1:47 PM
*Read the comment: BL(at)KBIRD on April 2, 2008 at 12:50 PM*
Yeah, Good luck with that.
Are there any serious proposals or comments about what the Bush administration should do to get the citizens of saudi arabia not to contribute to terrorism?
wise_man on April 2, 2008 at 1:47 PM
develop nuclear energy and ANWR sheesh!
MNDavenotPC on April 2, 2008 at 1:52 PM
and the off shore, too before the Cubans and Venezuelans do…. oh wait……….
MNDavenotPC on April 2, 2008 at 1:53 PM
I’ve been reading some books about the 80’s (Charlie Wilson’s War, Ghost Wars), and one thing that I had never realized was the extent to which the Saudis helped win the Cold War. They provided large sums to the Contras in Nicaragua, the rebels in Angola, and the mujahadeen in Afghanistan almost whenever we asked them to, according to what I’ve read. Pakistan helped as well. Both countries used Islamism as a pacifier for their people and a counter to communist ideology, so in exchange for the fight against communism, we got a jihad problem. It was worth it, since communism was the greatest scourge in human history.
I’m not excusing the Saudis, but we did kind of owe them one, and they’ve controlled the world economy for decades. It’s extremely hard to disengage from them, but it needs to be done. Faster, please.
juliesa on April 2, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Wise_man
Heh, I should have told you it was more radical than a whahabists dream. It will take them nuking us to do that I admit. So we wait to get nuked.
A serious plan to get the Saudi’s to stop funding Jihad? You can’t embarrass Americas most important ally in the war on terrorism like that can you?
BL@KBIRD on April 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM
juliesa
What do we owe Saudi Arabia? A free pass to fund Jihad?
BL@KBIRD on April 2, 2008 at 2:08 PM
We should have sent our troops to Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq. Still not to late to make the switch.
MB4 on April 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Me, too.
How does that even come about? Do the aides get involved and discuss the protocol beforehand? Does the prince ask for W’s hand, or does he just grab it? Why doesn’t W just say that he understands it’s culturally acceptable by Arabs, but not in his own country? There’s no need to do it, so why do it?
Redhead Infidel on April 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Yeah, and it’s not just the Dems. Governors Crist and Bush of FL have kept FL off-limits to drilling, even though the risk of environmental harm is minimal, especially for gas wells. They just don’t want their tourists to be repelled by the sight. There’s much more energy in the Outer Continental Shelf than in ANWR, and no reason we shouldn’t be drilling it except for the NIMBYs. The state of TX receives lots of royalty $, and there are plenty of well-paying jobs in the industry.
juliesa on April 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM
juliesa on April 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM
I agree.. and the oil isn’t in transport for very long either.. where an oil spill is most likely to happen..
As for repelled by the sight, I would be glad that there is work for Americans and have the hopes I wouldn’t have to pay $3.50 a gallon to drive back home on..
sound environmental advice all around :)
DaveC on April 2, 2008 at 2:30 PM
We’ve got Vegas, they’ve got Mecca
L.A., Berkeley and Tribeca
mymanpotsandpans on April 2, 2008 at 2:36 PM
We’ve got Vegas, they’ve got Mecca
L.A.London, Berkeley and Tribecamymanpotsandpans on April 2, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Do we get three guesses and the first two don’t count?
This is nothing new, for many many decades the Saudi Royal family have been funding these Madras’s (sp) to brain wash their offspring in order to build their terrorist force.
Part of that brain washing is convincing all the poor and ignorant in that part of the world that they are poor and ignorant because of the “evil America empire” when in reality it is the fault of the oil rich privileged of the Saudi Royal family and their entourage that keep them poor and ignorant all the while building palace after palace instead of developing an economy based on products other than oil, developing an educational system instead of their jihad indoctrination “schools” and working towards a true democracy. Seriously, what would Saudi Arabia be without their oil income…NOTHING!
The Saudi Royal family doesn’t dare progress forward with the above I mentioned because if they did it would jeopardize their theocratic monarchy, in other words they are 1) protecting their power and money by keeping their people poor and ignorant 2) they are building a constant terrorist force in their “schools” and 3) they are fomenting hatred toward the west by blaming us for their people being poor and ignorant, thus encouraging them to Jihad.
I have said since the oil embargo of the 70’s that we needed to be oil/energy independent, it would be very difficult for the oil rich Saudi’s to fund their indoctrination schools and terrorism without the oil money, you take away their oil money then what economy do they have…flying rugs? Dry up all the oil money and the Saudi’s would collapse in very short order!
With “allies” like the Saudi’s, who needs enemies?
Liberty or Death on April 2, 2008 at 2:46 PM
That does it. I am not buying any gasoline made from Saudi oil.
saved on April 2, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Interestingly enough, the Royal family plays a very tricky game trying to balance their interests in playing nice with the U.S while also trying to appease more hardline/radical types within their own country so they can hold on to power. It’s not surprising most financing for radical groups comes from Saudi Arabia, because A) they’re rich and B) the country is the birthplace of Islam. No where does Islam have as strong a hold on society as it does in Saudi Arabia, so people are more exposed to hardline ideologies. Like in Iran, the government is radical and the population is more moderate, however in Saudi Arabia it’s basically the reverse.
mattyj86 on April 2, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Get rid of the Oil, you’ll get rid of Saudi Arabia and its influence.
That line was for the Liberals of America.
So, stop crying about gas prices and our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
Because YOU carry all the blame.
YOU are enslaving America.
Indy Conservative on April 2, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Get rid of the imported Oil that is. I have to explain everything.
And start drilling.
Indy Conservative on April 2, 2008 at 3:30 PM
No, bl@ckbird, and I didn’t mean to imply that in my comment. If it were up to me, we would invade them and take the oil that they only have because we drilled for it. Military is pretty stretched right now, though, and I hope we can get them to cooperate better by other means.
juliesa on April 2, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Are they holding hands in the picture? Surely someone doctored that picture.
txstar on April 2, 2008 at 4:05 PM
I completely agree, our security trumps environmentalism, or at least it should! It’s also important to note that while we do need to explore and drill for oil domestically we also need to build more refineries because without refineries all that oil we pump out of the ground will just sit around as we don’t currently have sufficient refining capacity, again thanks to the moonbat environmentalists!
Which brings me to something somewhat OT, you would think all these “environmentalists” wouldn’t work so hard to block the building of new refineries since the ones in use today are utilizing much older and more polluting technology. After all there is only so much upgrading you can do to a refinery that’s more than 30 years old, to really have a less polluting and more environmentally friendly refinery you have to build one from the ground up, retrofitting only goes so far.
This proves the “environmentalists” use mostly emotion and not sound science or common sense in pushing its agenda. Besides the whole refinery issue is the gas additive MTBE that the “environmentalists” shoved down the gas industries throat a couple of decades ago when they were clamoring for an additive to gasoline that would make it burn cleaner. The gas industry wanted to take its time to find an additive that would work safely but the “environmentalists” screamed “stall tactics” and demanded they come up with an additive sooner and this is why they ended up using MTBE. The problem with MTBE however is it is very miscible with water and of course it has eventually found its way into our ground water and because MTBE is so miscible with water it’s nearly impossible with current technology to separate it out not to mention the costs of doing so.
Bottom line is the “environmentalists” did more damage to the environment in the case of MTBE (as just one example of where they have done more harm than good) because they base everything on emotion and not sound science and common sense.
In our current situation in becoming less dependent on foreign oil the “environmentalists” are once again placing the environment before our survival needs and as Maslow pointed out survival needs come first…so yes, lets start drilling and building those refineries and just as important lets start pumping lots of money into the research of alternative energy sources…something we should have started doing in earnest back in the 70’s when the Saudi’s held us hostage with the oil embargo!
Liberty or Death on April 2, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Allowing your sworn enemy to prosper is folly.
Carter needed to have started the Alternate Energy Policy in 1978.
And everyone since has been derelect, as well .
The smarts are there, but not the hearts.
Time to join the two to our advantage.
Hydrogen-producing, trash-eating bacteria are an elegant start.
profitsbeard on April 2, 2008 at 9:31 PM
Why bother with Iraq, we should have marched into Saudi Arabia.
AprilOrit on April 2, 2008 at 10:34 PM
The Saudis are our enemies and will remain so. Every minute we spend talking to them, trying to persuade them to cease their religious war on the world and particularly the United States, is a minute wasted that we could have better used to place bombs on their heads, to return their jihad to their doorsteps with interest.
We need to stop dilly-dallying with these Neanderthals and start killing them. That’s the only thing these Saudi animals understand.
Tantor on April 2, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Nope. Holding hands. It’s what Saudi men do (it’s not sexual) and Bush is extending a courtesy to a foreigner. In this case, the Saudi King.
When leaders of nations go to other countries, they often ‘do as the Roman’s do’ while in Rome. In France, men do the ‘kiss cheek’ motion. I swear to god I have seen a photo of Bill Clinton doing this once, but haven’t been able to find any copy. I thought it was from the official Saudi website, and a few links on pages out there suggest that a photo shows it, but they are just walking side by side.
Liberals (and a few ‘conservatives,’ it would seem) delight in looking at this photo over and over for comedic value. I’ve even seen a doctored pic taken about the same time that Bush and the Saudi dude are talking, and someone photoshopped it to look like they are, kissing.
Woot.
Gotta give it to the democrats (and some ‘conservatives’) who love to bring this pic and more out to further slander the president with innuendo.
wise_man on April 2, 2008 at 11:26 PM