Posted by kallahar on May.06.02 at 09:29 am PDT.
kallahar writes Bush made the statement that we will make no distinction between the terrorists themselves and the countries that harbor them. But what happened when Saudi Arabia gave $119 million to support palestinian suicide bombers? Nothing. Read more for the press release from the Libertarian Party.
WASHINGTON, DC -- Did President Bush "harbor a terrorist" last week by hosting Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah, whose government has allegedly made cash payments to the families of terrorist suicide bombers?
That's the question Libertarians are asking in the wake of a Fox News report that the Saudi Interior Ministry made secret payments of $5,340 each to the families of suicide bombers and Palestinian commandos who had been killed in recent attacks against Israeli targets.
"President Bush has said that regimes that support terrorism are no better than the terrorists themselves," said LP Executive Director Steve Dasbach. "But if the Fox News story is true, isn't Saudi Arabia a regime that supports terrorism? And by entertaining the Saudi prince at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, wasn't Bush giving aid and comfort to that terrorist regime?"
According to the April 26 report, documents discovered by Israeli intelligence officers in a raid on the West Bank contain a list of high-profile Palestinian suicide bombers whose families have each been paid $5,340 by the Saudis. A Saudi spokesman declined to comment on the documents, and Bush administration officials did not dispute the report.
But that isn't the only allegation that the Saudis have been supporting terror networks, Dasbach noted. On April 13, the Saudi ambassador to London, Ghazi Al-Qusaibi, published a poem in Al-Hayat criticizing America and praising suicide bombers. In the piece, al-Qusaibi writes, "May Allah witness that you are martyrs."
And last week Secretary of State Colin Powell told a Senate panel that some of the $109 million collected in a Saudi telethon may have gone to the militant Hamas organization.
"Americans have a right to know if the War on Terrorism, which is intended to save innocent lives, is also being driven by politics," Dasbach said. "After all, Bush's public pledges to bring terrorists to justice contain no exception for the Saudis or any other U.S. allies. Perhaps the president feels he must countenance Saudi support for terrorism because of its vast petroleum reserves, or because he is building a coalition for an attack on Iraq.
"Yet none of that matters to the victims of terrorism. The innocents slain in a bloody terrorist bombing in the Middle East are just as dead as the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Bush mocks the sacrifice of both by selectively condemning the perpetrators.
"It appears that Bush has created two sets of rules in his Global War on Terrorism: One for 'axis of evil' states like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea -- and one for U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia."
That's why Americans shouldn't be surprised that the War on Terrorism has turned into another typical government program, in which politicians decide at whim who gets rewarded and who gets punished, Libertarians say.
"Rather than further politicizing the Global War on Terrorism, Bush should end it," Dasbach said. "The president has no business waging an endless, undeclared war around the globe. If he can produce specific, credible evidence directly linking other nations to an attack on the United States, he should seek a congressional declaration of war. Otherwise, he should refrain from putting politics ahead of the legitimate fight against terrorism."