Report: Terror Funds Flow Through Saudi Arabia Fundraising by Al Qaeda Sympathizers Continues Unabated in the Kingdom By Douglas Farah Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 16, 2002; 7:43 PM The Bush administration's efforts to cut off funds for international terrorism are destined to fail until it confronts Saudi Arabia, whose leaders have tolerated some of its wealthy citizens raising millions of dollars a year for al Qaeda, according to a new report from an influential foreign policy organization. The report from the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, scheduled for release today, contends that the administration must pressure the Saudis-as well as other governments – to crack down on terror financing, even at the risk of sparking a public backlash that could jeopardize the Saudi government. "It is worth stating clearly and unambiguously what official U.S. government spokespersons have not," the report notes. "For years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for al Qaeda, and for years the Saudi officials have turned a blind eye to this problem." Administration criticism of Saudi Arabia, the top oil supplier to the United States and a crucial ally if the Bush administration takes military action against Iraq, has been largely muted since the Sept. 11 attacks, despite the belief of many law enforcement and intelligence officials here and abroad that al Qaeda relies on wealthy Saudis for most of its funding. Earlier this year, however, relations became strained when a defense consultant told a Penatagon advisory committee that Saudis were active at all levels of the terror chain. The Saudi government had no immediate response to the report. Its embassy in Washington put out a statement praising U.S.-Saudi cooperation in freezing terrorist assets and cracking down on charities, saying the support and financing of terrorism "cannot be tolerated." But the report drew a sharp rebuttal from the Bush administration. Robert Nichols, the Treasury Department's deputy assistant secretary for public affairs, said the report was "seriously flawed" and that his department considered it a "Clinton-era snapshot of what al Qaeda looked like in 1999 or 2000" without taking into account the new resources and strategies to combat terror financing. "We are not claiming victory, we are not spiking the football, but we are off to a good start," Nichols said. Administration officials said they were angry that Treasury and other agencies had not been invited to brief the panel. But Maurice R. Greenberg, the panel's chairman, said that in late August the council extended a written invitation to the NSC to address the group and an oral invitation to Treasury. Both were declined, he said. The report, prepared by a bipartisan panel of financial and terrorism experts, reveals no new details about U.S. or Saudi efforts to staunch terror funding. But it plainly asserts what many officials have said privately for some time. "I know a lot of people in the administration are really upset with this, but it essentially lays out what many of us have been saying," said one senior administration official. "That is, we need to come up with strategies that are as creative as those of the enemy, and that, like it or not, many of the financial roads to al Qaeda go through Saudi Arabia." While the United Nations and others have recently warned that the financial war on terror was sputtering, analysts inside and outside government said the conclusions of the panel carry particular weight because it is bipartisan. Greenberg is an influential Republican fund-raiser and corporate executive. The two co-directors, William F. Wechsler and Lee S. Wolosky, tracked terrorist financing while serving in the Clinton administration's National Security Council. The report concludes that al Qaeda retains access to millions of dollars and that as long as its financial network is viable, the terrorist organization "remains a lethal threat to the United States." Financing for Osama bin Laden's terror network is often routed through charities, front companies and shell banks in offshore havens. In recent testimony to Congress, senior administration officials, have acknowledged that al Qaeda retains the financial capability to carry out attacks against the United States and elsewhere. Administration officials have said that since Sept. 11, the United States has designated 240 people and organizations as terrorist supporters and blocked $112 million in suspected terrorist assets. "The problem (of terrorist financing) is of enormous magnitude," Jimmy Gurule, undersecretary of Treasury for enforcement, told the Senate Finance Committee last week. "We have made a dent, but we have a long way to go." The report touched on another sensitive issue, saying the administration's difficulties in tracking and disrupting al Qaeda's financial empire "have been exacerbated by the lack of interagency coordination within the U.S. government," citing duplication of tasks and information sharing difficulties among the CIA, FBI and Treasury departments. Nichols said that, while there were initially problems with inter-agency coordination, "the kinks have been worked out, and inter-agency cooperation is alive and well." The report was especially harsh on the Bush administration's relationship with Saudi Arabia. The administration "appears to have made a policy decision not to use the full power of U.S. influence and legal authorities to pressure or compel other governments to combat terrorist financing more effectively." Greenberg, chairman and CEO of AIG, said the administration needs to "much more forceful" in dealing with Saudi Arabia, and that the administration "should be all over" the Saudi government whenever terrorist financial ties were found. "Sitting in a corner is not the answer," Greenberg said. "Whatever we are doing, it isn't working." The report acknowleged that criticizing Saudi Arabia publicly and demanding a crackdown on Islamic banks, charities and wealthy sponsors of al Qaeda could create a backlash that would jeoprodize the survival of the Saudi government. But it said the risk of inaction was even greater, because it will allow terrorist supporters to "gain strength and influence steadily among their own population," which ultimately will put the Saudi government at risk anyway.
Saudi is the country we should be invading. They're the key to a moderate Islamic world and stability in the Middle East.
Yeah, invade them.....and anyone else!! Why don't we just get the hell out of that part of the world and stop wasting our tax revenue on bullsh*t like the middle east. 9/11 Was due to us having troops in Saudi and the Israeli Occupation of Palestinians. Osama Bin Laden said it himself. Why are we even in this deranged part of the world. We're not getting involved in Tibet, African or other third world nation squabbles. Dammit, just sell them U.S. goods and and stop our politicians from politicizing everything and realize this country is strong because of its economy and capitalist system and democracy. By creating resentment in the world with our international actions, we are jepordizing our place at the head of the global economy. Foolish, very foolish!
Hey I'm with you Khan. Lets just up and leave the Middle East, Deport anyone remotely associated with that part of the world, not allow anymore imigrants from the Middle East, and all our problems would be solved. No more resentment once we turn our backs on that part of the world.
Keep pumping the oil out of Russia and develop that as our source of oil instead of Saudi Arabia. Or better yet, pump the oil out of Alaska. I would enjoy watching the Saudi economy crumble when they have no demand for their exports. Did I say economy? I meant royal family.
Kahn, you are truly the most biased opinion on this BBS when it comes to Middle East foreign policy. 1) Your proposed solution rewards the terrorists 2) Oil is central to our national security. 3) Sell them goods? Sure -- right after they comply with UN provisions they agreed to as part of the truce in 1991.
There have been some new cars that are bringing us closer to having models on the showroom floor that run on hydrogen. If we pull out, I don't see how that rewards the Terrorist. Sure, they feel like they are free of our "Imperial" rule, but if people stop needing oil, then the Middle East is screwed. Let them be alone for 10 years and watch them fall even closer to the stone age. They'll beg us for help. We deny them, and tell them we'll be back when Human rights aren't being violated and terrorist aren't getting main stream support. While we're at it, we could at least get in the good graces of the Saudi people if we stop supporting the royal family. I've read one of the reasons Saudi's are mad at us is because they think we're hypocrites for supporting an oppresive King as long as we get their oil. Their anger towards us is justified, but they don't have a right ot attack us. The only problem is that plastics are made from oil if I'm not mistaken. I guess I cave in and say ok to drilling in ANWR, just hope there is a significant amount of oil there and not just a year's supply. Speaking of oppresive regimes, nobody ever mentions Burma. They had an election and the people actually voted no to their military dictator. Instead of stepping down, the Army killed a bunch of people and locked away the results. What sucks even more is that there are still companies that do business with Burma here in the USA.
Ah, the Council on Foreign Relations. I like how their collective opinion is reported as though it were newsworthy.
No I just think most are ignorant to the larger scheme of things: Biased??? Against Whom?? I am against aid for the Saudi's, for Jordan, for Egypt and for Israel. Why are we bludgening our economy by getting involved in these messes. So who am I biased for? America, that's who I have a bias for. And give me a break in regards to the "Oil is central to national security" do you think any country has a problem exporting oil to another country for money?? No way. The problem is our getting involved and taking sides in conflicts because of political baloney that is leading to volatility in the oil markets. And don't give me that 1991 baloney, even the Kuwaiti's who they attacked, don't think that the US should attack Iraq. Who the hell are we to block trade to a country in the world because we don't agree with them. We should simply sell Coca-cola and Dell computers all over the world and use the IMF to help weaker economies gain strenght and increased reliance on US goods. Instead we give billions every year to Israel, Jordan, Egypt and other nations so they're nice to each other. Well that is a waste of my tax dollars. Fund their economies, increase US corporate presence in these nations, but don't get involved in their politics if it will adversely affect our international trade. BigTexxx, What I am saying is that why are we getting involved in some third-world country religious fanaticist nonsense. We stuck our nose in and now we're getting pulled in more and that is not something that we want. Every action leads to an equal and opposite reaction. Let the middle east rot if it so desires, if they can't get their act together then screw them. I'm not putting our lives and tax dollars to work in attacking nations and creating additional anti-US sentiment abroad. Why are we so entrenched in the Middle East??? There is 10 times as much violence and hatred in Africa and areas in the far east yet every damn day I have to read about this conflict and our involvement there and i'm sick of it. There are dictators all over the world, why not take them all out! C'mon...every group must strive for freedom themselves and we will encourage it, but keeping an economy afloat like we do in Israel is nonsense. On average we give close to $15,000 a year to every citizen of that country. Without the US handouts it would collapse in a second. My tax dollars aren't a crutch for Egypt to keep its represive dictator in power. And if the Saudi People aren't happy with their totalitarian "monarchy", then is our military their to support its iron fist rule? If so, can you blame the animosity towards the US? What if when we were fighting for Independance against an oppressive English rule, the German's were the backbone of the English rule. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. VooDooPope, Seeing how my family is from Pakistan, obviously thats not what I meant. But I think I need to explain myself very slowly and simply for you next time. I said limiting political ties and taking sides in conflicts that are not ours. We should promote each economy through the IMF and if needs be directly to promote US global companies, and not make political moves that will adversely affect our most prized asset, our economy.
This is my favorite part: You do what you can to help me out, even if you get lynched in the process. I hope I'm not asking too much.
If I found the secret to hydrogen car, I'd sell it and guess to whom, the highest bidder which would be a Saudi. Also, you'd be surprised but there is alot of torurism to Saudi Arabia. Ever heard of Hajj. I think that I am more biased the Glynch and Kahn.
Originally posted by F.D. Khan ...9/11 Was due to us having troops in Saudi and the Israeli Occupation of Palestinians. Osama Bin Laden said it himself. ... Osama's only consistent demand over the years has been American withdrawal from Saudi Arabia. He added the Palesntinian cause later, austensibly to garner additional support from the muslim community.
The statement: <b><i>On average we give close to $15,000 a year to every citizen of that country.</i></b> prompted me to look for the facts. The current population of Israel is listed at between 6 million and 6.5 million people. Low population estimate: <A HREF="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html">The World Factbook 2002</A> High population estimate: <A HREF="http://www.jewishpost.com/jp0807/jpn0807q.htm">Israel's Population: 6.5 Million</A> Low estimate: $15,000 <b>X</b> 6,000,000 = $90,000,000,000 <i>(90 Billion)</i> High estimate: $15,000 <b>X</b> 6,500,000 = $97,500,000,000 <i>(97.5 Billion)</i> Those numbers seemed much higher than what I have seen in the press over the years. <A HREF="http://www.hotpolitics.com/tax4israel.htm">U.S. Tax Dollars at Work: Calculating Foreign Aid to Israel</A> <i>........Aid to Israel from 1949 to 2001: According to an October 27 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, cumulative aid to Israel from 1949 through fiscal year (FY) 2000 was $81.38 billion......... ......Building up from the amount listed in the CRS, I have included-with details to follow-$4.28 billion from the DOD and $1.72 billion from interest accrued due to early aid disbursement. This comes to a total of $87.38 billion through September 30 of this year (the end of FY 2000). Add to this amount the $3.98 billion for FY 2001: This number includes $840 million in economic aid, $1.98 billion in military aid, $60 million for refugee resettlement, $250 million from the DOD budget, and $85 million in interest. The resulting grand total of the above calculations is $91.36 billion in aid to Israel through FY 2001........</i> Seems like the annual number that you implied was actually the cumulative. From a source that is definitely not Pro-Israel: <A HREF="http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1298/9812043.html">Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (December 1998)</A> <i> .......And this year, in addition to its more than $3 billion in combined military and economic assistance from the U.S. foreign aid budget, the Israelis received $104.1 million from the Pentagon’s budget for their efforts.</i> Do you have a link to support your statement? <b><i>On average we give close to $15,000 a year to every citizen of that country.</i></b>
