Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the hirelings and traitors who deal with the chief financier of the global jihad:
The Saudis are looking to implement a border surveillance program. Raytheon is “reportedly showing interest in the contract estimated to worth between $7 to $8bn.”
Why is Raytheon dealing with the Saudis? Why is anyone?
Saudi Arabia has spent untold sums on behalf of precisely the same ultimate goal as Bin Laden: the submission of the non-Muslim world to Islam. His main weapon is terrorism, paid for by many rich and not-so-rich Saudis, as well as by residents of the U.A.E., which deserves to come out and take a bow as well; the Saudis’ main weapon is propagation of the faith through the building and staffing of mosques (not only in all the historic capitals of Christendom, but all over the United States); of madrasas (which busily churn out people in poor Muslim countries incapable of anything other than Jihad -- the Taliban emerged from Saudi-financed mosques for Afghani refugees in Pakistan, for example, and then went back and with Saudi help and diplomatic recognition, seized control of Afghanistan); and of bribery, direct and indirect, of ex-diplomats and ex-C.I.A. agents.
Congress: look at the dispatches sent back from Saudi Arabia from 1970 to 1977 by Mr. Raymond Close, until he quit to go into business with two Saudis, later ending up in the BCI mess, and tell us what how well, or ill, he was informing the American government about the nature of Saudi Arabia. And what about the American ambassador in the same period -- James Akins. What was he reporting during and after the 1973 price rise about what that money would likely be used for, with suggestions as to energy policy and the wisdom of relying on that "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia. Compare, please, what Close reported, and Akins reported, with what was offered in J. B. Kelly's Encounter article from 1979, "Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies".
It would be salutary to expose the workings of the hirelings and traitors who prevented the United States from seeing that Saudi Arabia was never an ally, and never a friend, and could not be, given the nature of its ruling belief-system. And in failing to understand that, the government failed to come up with policies, three decades ago, that could have recaptured oligopolistic rents and saved this country and the West several trillion dollars. The behavior of those who made their millions and tens of millions from the Saudis by promoting them, defending them, and obscuring their real attitudes and of course the use to which much of that OPEC money was put, are collective participants in one of the greatest acts of perfidy, as yet unrecognized, in the history of the United States. Certainly what they have done and continue to do -- all while receiving Saudi and other Arab sums, either directly, as noted, or indirectly, is notin the interests of the United States, or of Infidels anywhere.
Perhaps there should be a citizens' lawsuit, intended to recover the sums paid out to all these ex-diplomats and ex-C.I.A. men and others who abused their offices and deliberately misled the American government about the nature of Saudi Arabia -- often, while they were still in office.
This scandal is as yet completely unremarked by official Washington. Other things -- liquor and wild women at Watergate parties -- apparently are of greater moment. What Congressman, what candidate, will make the buying-up of influence, through former diplomats and intelligence agents, journalists and diplomats and heads of false academic centers, as well as through corporations, a matter for public discussion, formal investigation by Congressional committees, and media attention? The oil money will not stop, and the Saudis and other Arabs will not cease to try to buy influence wherever they can. Things can only get worse -- if spotlights are not brought in.
The men at Raytheon, for example, or all those who came out in force to lobby for the AWACS sale a quarter-century ago (Whitney, United Technologies) and who are in the thick of bidding for this or that contract in Saudi Arabia, ought to get out of their corporate headquarters in Lexington and take a walk at lunchtime. In one direction, they can visit the homestead not only of Capt. John Parker, but that of his grandson, the noted abolitionist Theodore Parker. Neither would have found anything to approve in Saudi Arabia -- and just as Jefferson, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and so many others took the measure of Islam, they would have taken the measure of Saudi Arabia.
If they followed in the footsteps of these men there would no bidding on contracts by American defense contractors such as Raytheon and many other eager suppliers of advanced technology, in the eager effort directed at "recycling petrodollars" rather than at diminishing the total amount of those petrodollars available to be recycled. And there would be no doing the bidding of the Saudis by so many former diplomats, journalists, businessmen, academics, who are directly or indirectly recipients of Saudi and other Arab largesse.
And in the other direction, on another day, the "Corporate Relations" people who have decided to curry corporate favor with the sheikhs by doing nothing to displease and everything to please them, could go into town and visit the scene of the first battle of the American Revolution. There they could gaze at the statue of that same Captain Parker standing, musket in hand, on the Battle Green.
Try, and not only at Raytheon though Raytheon is physically closest, in assorted corporate suites, to think about Capt. John Parker, and of his grandson Theodore Parker. And then think about the American soldiers who are in Iraq and Afghanistan being asked to deal in one way with only one instrument of the Jihad. Then think about all the varied instruments of Jihad. And think about Saudi ideology -- behind the smiling facade that Prince Bandar used to offer. And then think about what the future will bring, beginning with the islamization of Western Europe. Give it a try.
Corporate America should be brought to account: what has Saudi Arabia done for you? And what, since 1973, have your companies done in lobbying, in contributing to a general misperception of Saudi Arabia, in official Washington? What have you done to promote, or to disabuse people of, the idea that Saudi Arabia is our "ally," our "staunch ally"? What have you done to make sure that our leaders would decide that no coherent energy policy, no steadily increasing taxes on gasoline, no taxes on oil, no subsidies to mass transit, no government investment in nuclear, wind, solar energy -- during this past one-third of a century of energy-policy paralysis -- were necessary?
Did Saudi Arabia make you an offer you couldn't refuse? A little shame, Raytheon? A little compunction, Exxon-Mobil and all those other oil companies that should long ago have been urging taxes on gasoline, and should long ago have transformed themselves into "energy" companies -- for who knew better the real Saudi malevolence toward Infidels than those with experience in Saudi Arabia? And all those arms sellers -- Grumman, Lockheed, United Technologies -- should they have done a little more than do Prince Bandar's bidding when various measures came up? Should they have been a little less willing to contribute funds to what in the end are institutions that promote Saudi interests, including a sanitized version of Islam and of the House of Al-Saud?
A little embarrassment at this point? The beginning of a hint of a glimmer of a little concern beyond third quarter earnings? Anything?