
There have been numerous explanations churned out of Washington
in support of the Saud family. Some of these statements are illogical,
others disinformation, while still others are based on erroneous
facts. We will deal with some of these incongruous actions within
this newsletter. We see Arabs blaming the "Americans".
The US and Arab citizenry under the control of the Saud family
are both being abused. Again, the net winners in having the US
military protect the Saud family regime are the Saud family and
their chosen lobbyists, lawyers, public relations firms, consultants,
spin doctors and special interests in Washington. The net losers
are the Arabs suffering under the control of the Saud family,
US troops sent into the danger zone to protect them, the families
of US servicemen killed in bombings, US citizens enslaved and
tortured by the Saud family and the US citizenry at large.
On June 25 an explosion took place at
al Khobar Towers where US military personnel are housed. Nineteen
US servicemen were killed and dozens more were injured. But, as
we know, this was not the first bombing to target the US military
in Saudi Arabia. The November 13, 1995 explosion killed five Americans.
The Saud family authorities arrested and executed the alleged
perpetrators of the November 13 bombing. Yet, US authorities were
not allowed access to the suspects. Such access might have uncovered
information which could have helped to prevent the second bombing
and any future actions. Information about accomplices, future
plans for attack, etc would have been quite useful to US authorities.
Additionally, Saud family officials refused to allow the US military
to take prudent safety precautions for US personnel at al Khobar.
Although a policy of damage control by the US State Department
is attempting to downplay the importance of these requests, we
cannot help but imagine that a perimeter fence 400 feet from the
complex, as the US military requested, rather than the 35 yards
allowed by the Saud family would have saved American lives. The
Saud family continues to ignore repeated Washington requests for
concurrence. New York Times says: "Despite Saudi promises
of cooperation American officials have been frustrated by the
unwillingness of Saudi Arabia to allow agents of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation free rein, including the right to interview Saudis
who live near the apartments in Dhahran. The director of the F.B.I.,
Louis Freeh, has twice traveled to Saudi Arabia to insist on cooperation."D31


Saud family routinely pick the weak and defenseless to enslave and torture. They also draw upon these same people to show their resolve to convict "perpetrators" of crimes against their rule. The four Arabs convicted of blowing up US military personnel were never interviewed by independent parties let alone the US military. One cannot be certain of their guilt given the Saud family penchant of getting random confessions at all costs. The Saud family have had plenty of practice in the art of torture, especially on US citizens. They frequently elicit public confessions from those tortured. Many US citizens have had to sign releases or confessions to various fictitious crimes after being tortured. We have been told by human rights groups that most would sign anything upon being tortured, be they guilty or innocent. In a recent case the Saud family government judiciary beheaded a gay man for raping and murdering two women. It is said he was physically incapable of committing the rapes. He was allegedly in bed with his boyfriend at the time of the criminal acts. A sexual deviant with Saud family connections is said to have been the perpetrator of the crime but was never even interrogated.
President Clinton in the Washington Post reports: "Anyone
who attacks one American attacks every American, and we protect
and defend our own."D32 This statement is rife with hypocrisy.
The President has ordered US troops into an area which is high
risk, ostensibly to protect US oil vital interests. One cannot
say that when a soldier dies in this danger zone there is enough
pretext to stay and wait for the next US soldier to die, ad infinitum.
The Washington Post further reports: "When President Clinton
said that the attack 'underscores the struggle of all those who
share tolerance and freedom and security,' it was hard to see
how more than one of those values applied to the Saudi regime."D33
This Clinton statement speaks for itself. We have shown just brief
episodes of the enslavement and torture of vulnerable US citizens
in general and Vietnam Veterans in particular by the Saud family.
It seems we are dealing with "the bigger lie theory".
In future issues we will deal with realities and truths of the
matter to combat the disinformation put forth by the Saud family
Washington retainers.
The Saud family had better watch out
because if history proves right Washington will think nothing
of abandoning them. Washington has abandoned others for far less
than what is happening within the Saud family at present time.
Perhaps even now there are contingency scenarios being planned
by Washington to "leave with honor" the Arabian Peninsula.
If there is anything consistent about Washington it is its willingness
to pay lip service to those who rely upon its military commitment
only to be abandoned when the going gets rough. The Montinyards
and loyal South Vietnam troops were all abandoned by Washington
when the going got difficult during the Vietnam War. We have recently
found that Washington trained loyal South Vietnamese secret forces
for such operations as Phoenix. These forces were abandoned by
Washington and were systematically hunted down and executed after
Washington deserted them. It has recently been disclosed Washington
trained super loyal South Vietnamese to make incursions into North
Vietnam. We have since found that Washington wrote these brave
soldiers off even before their perilous assignments. Furthermore,
the State Department yet again has refuse to acknowledge the meager
benefits pleaded for by these valorous soldiers and their families.
During the 1970's the Shah of Iran was abandoned by the Carter
Administration with many Iranians loyal to Washington executed
by the Ayatollah Khomeini government. In 1983 the Reagan Administration
sent Marines to support the Lebanese government. Richard W. Murphy
in the New York Times reports; "we lost 241 servicemen in
Beirut, President Ronald Reagan withdrew the largely symbolic
force after having earlier cited its presence as defending a 'vital
U.S. national interest.' "D34 It should be of no comfort
to the Saud family to see yet again the Clinton Administration
espousing "vital interests" when talking of the Saud
family government. Murphy, in the New York Times continues; "the
two terrorist incidents in Saudi Arabia have claimed more than
the number of our soldiers who died in Somalia in attacks that
brought our speedy retreat from that country."D35 Is it any
wonder that members of the Saud family hierarchy resort to sizable
covert payments to Washington insiders in order to insure they
are warned beforehand of a Washington abandonment so they can
escape in their waiting personal jets. Washington has to either
abandon the corrupt Saud family in the near future or commit many
more US troops to support the regime. It is our objective to see
that if and when the Saud family are abandoned by Washington they
are refused asylum within the US as systematic torturers of US
citizens. We would like to have each and every Saud family member
investigated for crimes against humanity. We will also work towards
repatriating the monies the Saud family have stolen from the Arabian
Peninsula Arabs.

Washington has finally admitted what
we long have suspected. Jack Anderson and Jan Moller in the Washington
Post report: "After five years of denying any American soldiers
were exposed to chemical weapons in the gulf, the Pentagon suddenly
called a news conference late Friday afternoon to announce 'new'
information about possible chemical exposure. ... Before Friday's
announcement, the Pentagon had denied any and all reports that
American soldiers could have been exposed to chemical weapons
in the gulf. Even in the wake of last week's revelation, Defense
Department officials still say there is 'no clinical evidence
that U.S. troops were exposed to chemical weapons.' "D36
Desert Storm Syndrome Poisoning victims are suffering the same
consequences as Agent Orange victims forsaken by Washington. We
find it hard to believe that Washington consistently abandons
US military and loyal friends when they loose there influence
and are no longer needed.
Dear Reader:
Why is the US military in Saudi Arabia? We are told that the purpose
is to defend vital US interest, ie access to Persian Gulf oil
(President Bush on international television once said the US military
was there to protect the Saud family rather than oil access.).
The particular task for the Air Force at the moment is to fly
Operation Southern Watch over southern Iraq. Nevertheless, if
there were not such an operation the US government would have
to invent one to keep US forces there. However, we must ask when
does protection of US vital interest in access to oil cross over
the line to become an attempt to preserve the rulers of a repressive
and corrupt "royal family", ie the Al Saud, against
the desires of the Arabs they control? Is this and should this
be a US vital national interest?
We do not believe that it is in the US national interest to protect
the Al Saud at all costs, including the lives of US military personnel.
The US government has lost sight of its true interest in the region
which is access to oil. The US government also espouses that it's
policy is to promote democracy and foster human rights for all
citizens. Where is the democracy in Saudi Arabia? Where are the
human rights of its citizens or even US citizens residing within
Saudi Arabia? Yet the US government continues to send US citizens
to protect this corrupt regime while being silent about democracy
and human rights. There are those who would argue that the alternative,
viewed as being rabid Muslim extremists, would be worse. Yet it
is US government policy of supporting the oppressive Saud family
that fuels the extremists energy and support. It leads them to
view the US as the enemy and to take American lives in order to
achieve their goals. There are many citizens in Saudi Arabia who
oppose the regime and are not extremists of any sort. They are
not anti-American or anti-democratic, yet they are discouraged
and dismayed by US policy in the region. Why, they ask, do Americans
allow their government to support such a repressive regime? But
even more compellingly, they ask why do Americans allow their
government to do nothing when US citizens are tortured and enslaved
by the Saud family? Why do Americans do nothing when US military
lives are lost protecting this very regime, the same regime that
refused to allow US military officials to take all the precautions
they deemed prudent to protect their troops? These are difficult
questions and deserve answers. We as US citizens must demand answers
from our government to these questions before we allow more American
lives to be lost in Saudi Arabia defending a regime that calls
US troops "our new slaves" and recklessly exposes them
to danger while continuing to oppress its own citizens.
Herb Mallard
National Press Club member
Co-Chairman