> If Osama bin Laden were on Saudi soil and in the control of the Saudi
> government, if Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia were to announce
> that he would not hand him over to the United States because it was
> his duty to give 'panah' [shelter] to a Brother Muslim, if such an
> announcement were not accompanied by strong diplomatic
> representations that every member of Al Qaeda within reach of the
> Saudi government would shortly lose his head...
>
> ...then the United States would be bombing Saudi Arabia now.
.
Welcome back, Brad.
The US has informed the UN Security Council that it reserves the right to attack more countries than Afghanistan as part of its "fight against terror." Iraq is the main target. Yet Iraq doesn't harbor Osama bin Laden. The US recently openly sabotaged Daniel Ortega's candidacy in a free election in Nicaragua as part of the "fight against terror." Yet Ortega never harbored Osama bin Laden. The US is pressuring Lebanon to dismantle its second-largest political party, Hezbollah, which is a perfectly legitimate civilian institution representing about half the Lebanese public. Yet Hezbollah never harbored Osama bin Laden.
None of these three -- Iraq, Hezbollah, or Daniel Ortega -- had anything to do with Sept. 11. Yet the US has already acted far more strongly against them than against the Saudi regime, which has direct, proven links to Al Quaeda. Or against Pakistan, which is full of current and former ISI officials openly aiding the Taliban and Al Quaeda.
The point is that the US is using the public outrage over Sept. 11 as a battering ram to accomplish whatever its pre-existing foreign policy goals were *before* Sept. 11. Since confronting the Saudis has never been a US goal, it's off the agenda, even though it might have some real relevance to fighting anti-US terrorism.
Seth