A question about Rumsfeld & Prince Bandar.

[newscaster]

Since it is accepted that the Saudis do a lot of bankrolling the Arab terrorists around the world in addition to hold the United States when it comes to fuel for our cars, planes, buses and airplanes, this question popped into my mind.
Bob Woodward, in his new book, explain how Rummy and company explained the attack plan for the invasion of Iraq an d showed the prince the maps, charts and whatever other documents Rummy brought with him. Further, he did it before our Secretary of States was even apprised of those plans.
Since Bandar can be considered the enemy, isn't it possible that Rummy showing our plans to him can be called "Espionage?" or "Treason"? And is an arrest in order there?:wtf:

[MajorFlaw]

1. Don't hold your breath.

n/t

[lapfog_1]

2. It matters not

about the timing of showing Bandar the documents relative
to Secretary of State Powell.

Or even if the "decision" had been made to launch the war
or not. (That only matters if one wants to consider stmts made
by the pResident to be lies or not).

The simple fact remains that Don Rumsfeld and Cheney showed classified
documents marked "top secret" and NOFORN to a foreign national.
Even if that national had been Tony Blair and not Bandar, it's still
illegal.

The only possible defense that they can make is that "they - being
the persons who are in the position to decide what is classified
and what is not - decided in the moment to de-classify the documents
before showing them". But that argument is likely not to work, as
there is a paper trail that goes with each document when it is
re-classified, even temporarily. I doubt such paper trail exists for
the war plans that Bandar was shown.

Don't hold your breath about anything actually being done about this
illegal and possibly treasonous act.

[melbrooks]

3. I wonder how the Saudi are gonna make out on this deal? Do

you possibly think that this war has anything to do with oil?

[lapfog_1]

4. PNAC

It has everything to do with PNAC goals. Even stated in their
position papers. Permanent American bases "forward located"
especially in the Gulf region, a large American force near 1/3
of the known oil reserves of the world (all those Saudi oil wells
are near Iraq, not Yemen). If we happen to establish a friendly
democracy (oh well, a friendly dictatorship would be fine), that's
a plus, but we need those forces there when peak oil becomes reality
in ??? years (some say NOW, in which case, good timing huh).