At least someone can make the White House share information

July 28, 2007

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration sold fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, sparking a considerable controversy about Israel and a regional arms build-up.

In 2007, just as we’re learning about the aid Saudi Arabia is giving to Sunni militias in Iraq, the Bush administration is planning a large arms deal with the president’s long-time allies.

The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.

The proposed deal, which includes advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, has raised eyebrows, but administration officials hope to resolve concerns by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, which would represent a significant increase over the assistance Israel received over the last 10 years.

But the amusing part of the news is this: “The Saudis had requested that Congress be told about the planned sale, the officials said, in an effort to avoid the kind of bruising fight on Capitol Hill that occurred in the 1980s over proposed arms sales to the kingdom.”

In other words, what does it take to get the Bush administration to communicate with a Democratic Congress about matters of foreign policy? Directives from the Saudis.

Good to know.

Good for the Saudis. I wish all countries would insist on Congress being informed of all proposed sales or trades. Less chance of corruption with everything being open to scrutiny.

  • Great… We’ll see how powerful the Israel Lobby is now. JDAMs and electronics upgrades?

    Israel freaked out when the Saudis received F-15 Strike Eagles and AWACs planes. They only stopped whining when the Saudis were told they weren’t getting the latest software and electronics, only really dumbed down stuff unlike the Israelis who got the top end and then sold some of it to China.

    Besides the Israelis get 30.4Billion compared to the Saudi’s 20+ Billion.

  • […] administration officials hope to resolve concerns by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, which would represent a significant increase […]

    On my tax dime? I have an alternate plan: don’t sell the Saudis any arms and don’t beef up Israel’s military power. IOW: don’t aid and abet the arms race in the ME.

  • Let’s talk about the conflicted. What will Sen. Joe Lieberman do? Will he approve the deal or be disloyal to Bush? Enquiring minds want to know.

  • OK — this may be a very dumb question, but here goes…..
    WHY are we giving weapons to the Saudis in the first place? I mean aren’t they involved in the terrorism against us? Isn’t giving them weapons basically giving them the means to kill and maim even more of our soldiers in Iraq?

    I’m totally confused. Any enlightenment anyone can provide would be greatly appreciated.

  • Doreen – We’re not giving the arms to the Saudis – we’re selling them.

  • Fine, the question then is why are we SELLING them to them? Why are we putting weapons into the hands of ANYONE in the mideast, especially those who may very well use them against us? We’re several of the 9-11 guys Saudis? I mean, what is the rational behind this?

  • Doreen, @7,

    Because, as a USSR official once said (long time ago): Americans will sell their enemies the rope with which to hang them, if it brings them profit short term.

  • Libra has it. As far as I know, the United States is one of the largest, if not the largest, global suppliers of arms and military hardware.

  • Selling the arms to the Saudis is a tacit acknowledgment that George and Dick’s Excellent Iraq Adventure has made their position more perilous. By reacting in this way to the danger that they themselves created Bushco also manages to provide another $20bn to defense contractors. In Republican parlance this is known as a “double”.

  • why are we selling arms to anyone in this powderkeg?????much less to everyone?????

  • My head is going to explode trying to figure this out. From April, Report: Israel stalling Gulf arms sales and then in June, US Congress passes bill outlawing aid to Saudis, which says “The US has financed Saudi military exercises and arms over the last few years and according to the new bill will stop doing so.” Were we giving them the arms before and now they are willing to pay for them? It looks like promises of more aid to Israel is what finally allowed this questionable deal with Saudi Arabia to go through despite Congress passing bill that says otherwise.

  • Good for the Saudis. I wish all countries would insist on Congress being informed of all proposed sales or trades. Less chance of corruption with everything being open to scrutiny.

    Wow, way to turn it around, bjobotts. Bush, who comes from an oil-fortune family, never listens to anybody- even to the appoint of avoiding his duties of accountability and transparency to congress and to the American people- except for the Saudis, and you call that integrity.

  • It looks like promises of more aid to Israel is what finally allowed this questionable deal with Saudi Arabia to go through despite Congress passing bill that says otherwise.

    It sounds to me like the difference is between aid and selling the weapons.

    We’re several of the 9-11 guys Saudis? I mean, what is the rational behind this?

    Unless they might have been state actors (working at the behest of the Saudi governmen) or unless the Saudi government gives or transmits weapons to Al Qaeda, what does it matter? Strange comment.

  • Unless they might have been state actors (working at the behest of the Saudi governmen) or unless the Saudi government gives or transmits weapons to Al Qaeda, what does it matter?

    Um, it matters a lot. Saudi Arabia is doing next to nothing to close down the madrassas teaching anti-American radlicalism. They are doing next to nothing to secure their border to prevent militants from going into Iraq to kill American soldiers and further disrupt the ability of Iraq to stabilize. They threaten to sell less oil if we keep promoting ethanol. In myriad ways, they have shown themseves to be something much less than a friend.

    So what do we do? Reward them with a massive infusion of military hardware. Yeah, they are paying us billions, it is not aid – but it is still restricted technology. Which is to say, their mere eligibility to purchase it says “you’re ok with us.” Which, given the paragraph above this one, they really should not be. I dont think there was anything particularly strange about the comment. The 9/11 terrorists may not have been state actors on behalf of the Saudis, but they surely were a product of the Saudi way of doing things, and the Saudis have done little to change those conditions since.

  • It sounds to me like the difference is between aid and selling the weapons — Swan, @14

    I don’t know what the deal might be between US and Saudi Arabia or US an Israel but, in dealings with Poland, there’s no “difference between aid and selling the weapons”. The “aid” is in the form of selling the weapons — *at a discount* — and, in return for the discount, getting something you want.

    What could that “something” be? A small number of Polish soldiers participating in the Iraq misadventure, to bolster the perception of a “coalition”. A permission to position US missile bases there. A blind eye and a helping hand in establishing the “black holes” for the “detainees” to be interrogated out of sight.

    Israel’s deal, however, has to be better than the one that Poland managed to finagle. Because some of the — American-made — arms that Poland is buying at a discount… it’s buying from Israel. Cheaper than buying directly from US…

  • But what does it matter that the 9/11 perpetrators were Saudi nationals? You’re ignoring my point, “zeitgeist”. My point is that that fact doesn’t make it any more pressing that we not sell weapons to the Saudis (without something more) not that there isn’t anything else the Saudis are doing to fail us as allies in our efforts against terrorism. Your other points about what they are doing or aren’t doing may be the something more, but they have nothing to do with how relevant or irrelevant Doreen’s question was.

  • I was responding to this i nmy last comment:

    Um, it matters a lot.

    Libra, I don’t know a lot about the regulations or standards for how the U.S. conducts its foreign relations but I think I’ve heard before that the difference between calling something as aid or an arms deal matters for the purposes of our law (such as just what’s being discussed- if we outlaw military aid to a country, does that mean we can no longer sell to them). I’m not going to look it up because this isn’t my thing, but if a blogger would write a story about this Saudi thing and discuss it, that would be a helpful story for a lot of people to read.

  • 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, and we are willing to give/sell/make a deal with the Saudis a few years later for arms. Are you saying this makes sense to you? We are willing to put arms into the hands of the country that was most responsible for 9/11 in terms of where the majority of the terrorists were from, and that is considered an irrelevant question? You don’t see any problem with this?

    • Comments are closed.