From KEN LAYNE:
The Times of London now prevents anyone from actually reading its articles, but the summary of today's top story says quite enough:
Saudis paid Bin Laden 200m
Senior members of royal family paid Bin Laden not to attack targets in Saudi Arabia, and money was used to fund training camps in Afghanistan.
And the Bush administration says these guys are our allies? We are paying a very heavy price for not having taken steps to discourage oil consumption over the past fifteen years.
Posted by DeLong at August 26, 2002 09:49 AM | TrackbackThomas Friedman
New York Times - 8/25
"Nothing has subverted Middle East democracy more than the Arab world's and Iran's dependence on oil, and nothing will restrict America's ability to tell the truth in the Middle East and promote democracy there more than our continued dependence on oil."
Posted by: on August 26, 2002 10:44 AMI've been saying for some time that the mechanisms used by large corporations and multi-millionaires to shift money around, hide it, and evade taxes are very convenient for terrorists too. My guess is that Al-Qaeda has some very sophisticated people in finance.
Don't think of Osama as a third-world insurgent. Think of him as a rogue billionaire. (He wasn't quite, but at one time I think his personal fortune was well past a hundred million).
I have some stuff up on money-laundering and Al-Qaeda finance on my site and would be glad to have it looked at by someone who actually knows something about finance, etc. -- I don't.
www.vanitysite.net/launder.htm
Posted by: zizka on August 26, 2002 01:29 PMTroubling. Aren't the House of the Sauds, personal friends to the Bush'es?
By the way, we're this close from hydrogen fueled vehicles. Isn't it past time we pushed a little harder in this direction? Or is it not in somebody's interest way up on Capitol Hill? Must not have been on Enron's list of advices to the Administration.
Check out Time's invention of the year.
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on August 26, 2002 01:45 PMWell fuel cells aren't that near production yet, and there's still the tricky issue of how to produce and deliver the hydrogen.
In the meantime perhaps it would be best to hedge our bets by applying some strict Federal gas standards to the SUVs. If the US auto fleet had similar average fuel consumption to the European auto fleet I would expect the US's oil import bill could be halved.
Posted by: MJ Turner on August 26, 2002 02:15 PMNote (as Layne and his cohorts don't) that the $200m payoff is actually an accusation laid out by lawyers in the trillion-dollar case against three Saudi princes, a bunch of Sudanese warlords and whoever else they can think of. So this isn't some piece of unbiased investigative reporting. I'll wait until the proceedings start before passing judgement, and so should everyone else.
Posted by: nick sweeney on August 27, 2002 12:02 PMWell for starters Brad, I think we're down to what..9% Saudi oil?
And didn't I see your old boss over there a few months back, giving speeches and what not?
Fishing for votes, perhaps?;-)
Funny thing about energy... so why do the Dems block US exploration while re-regulating US energy, consequence sapping all venture capital from all kinds of alt enrgy companies. That sector is a wreck.
It's odd how good intentions, like an Albright's, have a way working out...isn't it.