China more popular than U.S. overseas

[Loren Booda]

The United States will benefit also by the Third World influx from Central/South American countries like Mexico and those seeking asylum from Asia/Africa, those whose labor and skills will eventually prove them worthy of inheriting our country. One great quality of the U. S. over time: its ability to overcome conformity (even racial and religious), which so many countries are steeped in.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

the US has "merely" been chugging along at a healthy 3-5% annual growth (don't know what the actual average is).

The latest WorldFactBook has it pegged at 4.4%.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

France and Germany are 2.1 and 1.7 %, respectively

 

[vanesch]

In April it was 5.2%, seasonally adjusted. Labor force 148.3 million, unemployed 7.3 million.

This is in agreement with the statistical survey, where the unemployment rate is determined as follows, from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm

Household survey. The sample is selected to reflect the entire
civilian noninstitutional population. Based on responses to a series of
questions on work and job search activities, each person 16 years and over
in a sample household is classified as employed, unemployed, or not in the
labor force.

People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid
employees during the reference week; worked in their own business, pro-
fession, or on their own farm; or worked without pay at least 15 hours
in a family business or farm. People are also counted as employed if they
were temporarily absent from their jobs because of illness, bad weather,
vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal reasons.

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following
criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were
available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find
employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference
week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be
looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data
derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility
for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

The civilian labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons.
Those not classified as employed or unemployed are not in the labor force.
The unemployment rate is the number unemployed as a percent of the labor
force. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a percent
of the population, and the employment-population ratio is the employed as a
percent of the population.

HERE is the best I could do in 30 seconds of googling for France. The last number is from 2004 and its 9.8%. In the past 20 years, it hasn't varied by more than 2 percentage points from 10%.

The unemployment rate in France is defined as: http://www.educnet.education.fr/insee/chomage/questce/mesure.htm

Selon le bureau International du travail un chômeur est :
- dépourvu d'emploi (même une heure au cours de la semaine de l'enquête) ;
- en âge de travailler (15 ans ou plus) ;
- activement à la recherche d'un emploi rémunéré ;

Le B.I.T. comptabilise également comme chômeur les personnes qui ont trouvé un emploi mais qui débutent plus tard

This is a slightly less demanding definition, which counts more people as "unemployed": indeed, it is sufficient, in the reference week, NOT TO HAVE WORKED FOR ONE SINGLE HOUR where you could and desired, to be considered as unemployed. So all partly employed people who would like to do more time are counted as unemployed.
Also the conditions are less severe as to "actively looking for a job": there's no condition on HOW actively they are looking for doing so. There are quite some people who declare being actively looking for a job, have a part-time (undeclared) job, and find this situation perfect.
I do not claim that this would raise the US level to about 10% (which is high), but "Marianne" (a French weekly) claimed that the UK unemployment rate, as measured according to the same criteria, would give 9.4%.

That said, France really has a fundamental problem with unemployment, which is less severe in most other EU countries. But one should use the same standard to compare numbers - it being a politically sensitive subject, it is often manipulated.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a slightly less demanding definition, which counts more people as "unemployed": indeed, it is sufficient, in the reference week, NOT TO HAVE WORKED FOR ONE SINGLE HOUR where you could and desired, to be considered as unemployed. So all partly employed people who would like to do more time are counted as unemployed.
Also the conditions are less severe as to "actively looking for a job": there's no condition on HOW actively they are looking for doing so. There are quite some people who declare being actively looking for a job, have a part-time (undeclared) job, and find this situation perfect.

Could you translate that definition for me - it doesn't make sense to include what we call "underemployed" in "unemployed". Heck, I would think a pretty high fraction of people would claim they need to make more money.

That said, France really has a fundamental problem with unemployment, which is less severe in most other EU countries.

Well, yes, that is the main point.

Something else to consider, its not as simple as saying France's unemployment rate is near double the US's - its actually worse than that: There is a minimum possible unemployment rate for a healthy economy (called http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Unemployment_types#Full_Employment. , which is tough to define, but is probably on the order of about 4%. This was talked about often while Clinton was president, since unemployment was below 5% for quite some time. This includes normal turnover (which has been increasing of late) means people quit their jobs and become unemployed for a short time while looking for new jobs. It also includes a number that due to supply and demand must exist for inflation to remain low. Extremely low unemployment becomes a labor shortage, causing companies to raise pay - and also raise prices.

 

[vanesch]

Could you translate that definition for me - it doesn't make sense to include what we call "underemployed" in "unemployed".

Selon le bureau International du travail un chômeur est :
- dépourvu d'emploi (même une heure au cours de la semaine de l'enquête) ;
- en âge de travailler (15 ans ou plus) ;
- activement à la recherche d'un emploi rémunéré ;

Le B.I.T. comptabilise également comme chômeur les personnes qui ont trouvé un emploi mais qui débutent plus tard

Ok, I try to translate as litterally as I can:

"According to the international bureau of employment, an unemployed is:
- not employed (even if it is only one hour during the week of the enquiry)
- has the age to work (over 15 years old)
- is actively looking for a paid work. "

"The int. bureau of empl. also counts as unemployed, people who have already found a job, but didn't start yet"

 

[vanesch]

Something else to consider, its not as simple as saying France's unemployment rate is near double the US's - its actually worse than that

What is actually dramatic in France is the unemployment of under 25 years olds: it is 22% ! But I think the origin is quite clear: it is the overprotection of the employee. In fact, once you are hired, apart from a professional fault, there is no way to get you fired, except as a "social plan", which means that for economical reasons, the employer cannot keep you anymore. He has to prove so with bad results and things like that, AND/OR pay astronomically huge fees (easily 2 years you salary worth). Also, you cannot be hired on a short duration contract for more than 3 consecutive years. So this explains, I think, why an employer hesitates to take on a young collaborator.
On the other hand, you need that protection, because given the high unemployment rate, it is quite dramatic if you loose your job.

 

[Mercator]

Its pretty straightforward: a significant fraction of the countries that make up the EU had just emerged from behind the iron curtain (anyone remember a country called "East Germany"?) and didn't really have functioning economies. So those countries have made vast gains in the past 20 years while the US has "merely" been chugging along at a healthy 3-5% annual growth (don't know what the actual average is).

And I hope everyone can still see the irony of comparing the US to a continent in order to claim we've lost our edge...

Interesting discussion here, Russ. I understand the arguments from both sides and yes, we have to agree that the US economy does better. Yest it's not spectacularly better in terms of living quality for the citizens and the US huge budget deficit is not sustainable.
But I wanted to response on your last statement: comparing the US to a continent. From your perspective, the EU still may seem as a loose bunch of states, with hardly any common interests. But that is a mistake. We will never be a Federal Union, but the EU , or "network Europe" as I prefer to call it, is an entity adn may well be much better suited to face the challenges of the coming century than the US. The hope of many europeans, including myself is that the US will realize this (and there are some signs already) and join forces with the EU, abandon it's aggressive policies and become the biggest TRANSFOMATIVE" power, fit to stand up to the huge challenges we will face in the future and which will make discussions over GDP etc... seem futile.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

The hope of many europeans, including myself is that the US will realize this (and there are some signs already) and join forces with the EU, abandon it's aggressive policies and become the biggest TRANSFOMATIVE" power, fit to stand up to the huge challenges we will face in the future and which will make discussions over GDP etc... seem futile.

well, we seem to be doing ok for now. i have my doubts that the EU would desire to "join forces" with the US at this junction in time.

i also highly doubt that our national security policy is going to change anytime soon, regardless of who is president.

what we can expect more of from the US is the toppling of petty dictators who happen to put cash in the pockets of the EU countries, so the EU will oppose it. Since the EU doesn't feel particularly threatened by Russian anymore, NATO will become irrelevant and the interest of the EU will fall out of line with the interest of the US.

if you think that the EU opposes our "aggressive policies" simply because they are peace-loving people, then you have fallen for the political rhetoric. it is about interest, and the EU doing what they believe is in their best interest at this time - which is to oppose the US. quite frankly, if i had happened to be born european, i probably would too.

 

[Mercator]

what we can expect more of from the US is the toppling of petty dictators who happen to put cash in the pockets of the EU countries, so the EU will oppose it.
QUOTE]

You mean, like the Saudi Royals? Oops, no, they are the US' friend. So who else, let me think? Mmmm... cannot think of many "petty dictators" supported by the Europeans, but have a long list of dictators supported by Americans. Like Saddam was before 1991 AND after 1991, when the US was and ALWAYS HAS BEEN the biggest importer of Iraqi oil and the biggest profiter of the "Oil for food scandal" ( Like I correctly predicted, the "storm" around this scandal lay down after it became clear that at least as many Americans were involved in it). So could it be that your statement is "a little bit" biased, or do we really have to repeat the long list of dictatorships that have been helped and profited from by the US?

 

[loseyourname]

He didn't say dictatorships were being helped by Europe. He said that the dictatorships were helping Europe - the other way around. Naturally, this means the European states run by people who do receive money from dictatorial regimes are going to oppose the ending of those regimes. I'm sure the US would do the same if it were receiving money from these regimes. I think that his point is that which entity (US or European states) happens to oppose the bringing down of a given regime at any given time is more a function of this historical circumstance than it is a product of the inherent benevolence of one nation over another.

 

[Mercator]

He didn't say dictatorships were being helped by Europe. He said that the dictatorships were helping Europe - the other way around. Naturally, this means the European states run by people who do receive money from dictatorial regimes are going to oppose the ending of those regimes. I'm sure the US would do the same if it were receiving money from these regimes. I think that his point is that which entity (US or European states) happens to oppose the bringing down of a given regime at any given time is more a function of this historical circumstance than it is a product of the inherent benevolence of one nation over another.

Can you give me ONE example of a dictatorship giving money to a European country? THAt would be great news. ( Let's exclude the US for the time being )

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

He didn't say dictatorships were being helped by Europe. He said that the dictatorships were helping Europe - the other way around. Naturally, this means the European states run by people who do receive money from dictatorial regimes are going to oppose the ending of those regimes. I'm sure the US would do the same if it were receiving money from these regimes. I think that his point is that which entity (US or European states) happens to oppose the bringing down of a given regime at any given time is more a function of this historical circumstance than it is a product of the inherent benevolence of one nation over another.

exactly - very well put.

nations only act in self-interest. if there is any doubt to this (what is to me) obvious fact, read "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" by Mearsheimer for examples.

moralism and "holding the moral high-ground" is nothing more than propoganda issued by opposing nations, with the rest of us as pawns by squabbling over non-existent reasons why a particular country did/didn't do something.

 

[Mercator]

exactly - very well put.

nations only act in self-interest. if there is any doubt to this (what is to me) obvious fact, read "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" by Mearsheimer for examples.

moralism and "holding the moral high-ground" is nothing more than propoganda issued by opposing nations, with the rest of us as pawns by squabbling over non-existent reasons why a particular country did/didn't do something.

So, just what I thought, no examples.

 

[Mercator]

exactly - very well put.

nations only act in self-interest. if there is any doubt to this (what is to me) obvious fact, read "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" by Mearsheimer for examples.

moralism and "holding the moral high-ground" is nothing more than propoganda issued by opposing nations, with the rest of us as pawns by squabbling over non-existent reasons why a particular country did/didn't do something.

Let me give some examples of the opposite: dictators who helped the US.
Pinochet: helped the US get rid of Allende.
Noriega: helped the Us control the Panama canal
Saddam: helped the US against domination of the Iranians
Musharraf: helps the US despite being a nuclar weapons dealer
Islam Karimov: Rumsfeld's new buddy in Uzbekistan who boils people alive
Ibn Saud... need I go further?

 

[Smurf]

You forgot osama bin laden (Oooh! BURN!)

 

[Smurf]

nations only act in self-interest. if there is any doubt to this (what is to me) obvious fact, read "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" by Mearsheimer for examples.

What you take as self evident quetzalcoat, you may be surprised to know, is actually a major debating point in IR. As well as defining what exactly 'Self-Interest' means and what it entails for state (as well as non-state) actors. You're effectively stating your opinion as fact.

moralism and "holding the moral high-ground" is nothing more than propoganda issued by opposing nations, with the rest of us as pawns by squabbling over non-existent reasons why a particular country did/didn't do something.

And holding the "moral high ground" is never in a state's best interest? I would highly disagree on you in that one, if a state has the moral high ground in a conflict it has much more maneuverability in what actions it can take and get away with, both internationally and domestically.

Sometimes moralism can be enough of an end for a means, and not just added rhetoric. Money is not the only thing that can benefit a country.

 

[vanesch]

You forgot osama bin laden (Oooh! BURN!)

... Helped Bush get a second mandate ?

 

[vanesch]

And holding the "moral high ground" is never in a state's best interest? I would highly disagree on you in that one, if a state has the moral high ground in a conflict it has much more maneuverability in what actions it can take and get away with, both internationally and domestically.

Exactly the point I was trying to make of why a Marshall-type plan worked in some cases in the past, and why it fails in Iraq.

 

[Smurf]

Exactly the point I was trying to make of why a Marshall-type plan worked in some cases in the past, and why it fails in Iraq.

That.. and the fact that they're not actually trying to rebuild iraq?

 

[Burnsys]

Let me give some examples of the opposite: dictators who helped the US.
Pinochet: helped the US get rid of Allende.
Noriega: helped the Us control the Panama canal
Saddam: helped the US against domination of the Iranians
Musharraf: helps the US despite being a nuclar weapons dealer
Islam Karimov: Rumsfeld's new buddy in Uzbekistan who boils people alive
Ibn Saud... need I go further?

Islam Karimov! (Alias The Boiler) Wow, another saddam husseing.. i guess in 20 years America will have to send troops to figth to overtrow this ruthless dictator, like saddam. it's exactly the sameeeee... Seems that rumsfeld has a simpaty for crueles dictators all over the world, he just can't resist...

Check this out:

Donald Rumsfeld, visited Tashkent in October 2001, shortly before a contingent of 1,000 American troops arrived in the country. He visited again in February last year to discuss military relations. US-Uzbek military relations are "growing stronger every month", he said adding: "We have benefited greatly in our efforts in the global war on terror and in Afghanistan from the wonderful co-operation we've received from the government of Uzbekistan."

in August 2002, Mr Karimov was also honoured with a visit by Paul O'Neill, the US Treasury Secretary. "It's a great pleasure to have an opportunity to spend time with someone [Mr Karimov] with both a very keen intellect and a deep passion about the improvement of the life of the people of this country," Mr O'Neill said

The Uzbek Defence Minister, Kodir Gulamov, paid an official visit to the UK as a guest of the British Government in October 2003. He held talks with the then Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon. The ministers signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Co-operation in the Field of Defence. In February that year, the UK Government granted Uzbekistan an "open licence" to import weapons from Britain.

http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=1191

About the same time that Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov's regime was boiling to death and torturing its prisoners, Mayor Mike Bloomberg was rolling out the red carpet for the guy right here in New York City


"The OSCE focuses only on establishment of democracy, the protection of human rights and the freedom of the press. I am now questioning these values." - President Karimov, after the OSCE criticized the 1999 parliamentary elections. Agence France-Presse, January 8, 2000.

"Such people must be shot in the forehead! If necessary, I'll shoot them myself…!" - President Karimov, upon the 1998 adoption of a highly restrictive religion law

"I'm prepared to rip off the heads of 200 people, to sacrifice their lives, in order to save peace and calm in the republic…If my child chose such a path, I myself would rip off his head." - President Karimov reacting to acts of violence in Uzbekistan in March 1999. The government originally blamed the incidents, including a bus hijacking, on "criminals" and later on "Islamic extremists." Agence France-Presse, April 2, 1999.

In 2004, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray said he had heard of prisoners being boiled to death, while a United Nations official said in 2002 that torture was "institutionalised, systematic and rampant" in Uzbekistan.
The state maintains tight control of the media, and criticism of the president and his policies is not allowed.
Mr Karimov's administration has been heavily criticised by the international community for the bloody crackdown on protesters in Andijan in recent days.

Boiling to Death:
The condemned would be placed in a giant cauldron of cold water, tied up to prevent escape. The executioner then lit a fire under the cauldron as to allow the water to slowly heat up. It was a very painful and slow method of execution.
In recent times, the government of Uzbekistan under the leadership of Islam Karimov (a.k.a. "the boiler") is alleged to have boiled a number of dissidents. Evidence of this and other human rights abuses, however, has not been sufficient for the world community to take meaningful action
--------------------------
Heeeeey, i think america most important values are democracy and freedom.. and one of the primary goals of america was to bring "Democracy" to the middle east...I see they are doing just finee

PD: another picture for history:

 

[Smurf]

Heeeeey, i think america most important values are democracy and freedom.. and one of the primary goals of america was to bring "Democracy" to the middle east...I see they are doing just finee

To be fair Burnsys, Uzbekistan isn't in the middle east.

 

[Burnsys]

To be fair Burnsys, Uzbekistan isn't in the middle east.

Thanks for correcting me... now i understand! democracy is only for the middle east, the rest of the world must have dictatorships! :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Mercator]

You forgot osama bin laden (Oooh! BURN!)

He was/is ? only a would be dictator.

What the above rant on Europe has shown is that (part of) American opinion is so biased that they seem to be astonished to find out that they actually don't have arguments or examples when pushed to provide them. This is a kind of naive ignorance which is part of the reason why they don't understand why China is becoming more poular in the world, and Europe already is. Vanesch' observations about moral higher ground are to the point and that is why eventually it will be Europe to help control the damage in Iraq. To some extent they already have, there is a striking differnce between the behaviour of and the reaction against the British troops in Basrah and the US troops.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Having read through the entire contents of this board, I see one major problem with the American premise: this is not a question of how you see yourselves but how outsiders see both the USA and China.

There is a great irrelevancy in the argument, ‘Well, they may see us that way but …’

We’re arguing that ‘the sky is blue’ and you are arguing ‘but the sky shouldn’t be blue because …’

The fact is, you ARE perceived as the destroyers of the UN, the Invaders of Iraq, the ‘Bombers of Markets’, the torturers of prisoners and ultimately, the breakers of your own laws.

The question is not how you see yourselves or how you can ‘explain away’ the many straws that go into breaking the Camel’s back but that this is all on display for the rest of the world to view while you all seemingly attempt to put splints on the camels legs.

China, on the other hand has kept a fairly low profile enhanced by your dominance in world headlines.

There were 16 people detained and released at the anniversary of the Tiananmen ‘protest’.

The Dalai Lama got done for selling the same book to two publishers bringing into question the level of honesty from the man.

And now China is handling negotiations with the North Koreans because Bush heated things up with the world with cowboy sayings like ‘Bring it on’, ‘Axis of Evil’.

You know what has been the most damaging?

The inability of America to say ‘sorry’ when caught with their pants down.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

The inability of America to say ‘sorry’ when caught with their pants down.

America: so sawrry. <bows, pulls up pants>

 

[The Smoking Man]

America: so sawrry. <bows, pulls up pants>

Taking lessons from Koizumi?

 

[Mercator]

Taking lessons from Koizumi?

That's how I know you :rofl:

 

[loseyourname]

Can you give me ONE example of a dictatorship giving money to a European country? THAt would be great news. ( Let's exclude the US for the time being )

They don't exactly donate money to the nation as foreign aid. Iraq was the example, though. French and Russian politicians were benefiting a great deal from Oil for Food, as were certain UN figures. These happened to be the same people who opposed going into Iraq. Had central figures in the Bush administration been receiving illegal money from this program, they probably would have opposed the action, too. That's all I'm saying. It's a little silly of either of us to think that our nation is inherently more moral than the other. The leaders are constantly changing, and each have their own moral profile. Heck, it's pretty ridiculous even to speak of the moral profile of the 'European' leadership? Europe is a pretty diverse place with its moral ups and downs. Switzerland has been pretty good over the past few decades; Serbia, not so good. Finland has a pretty decent history of benevolence and peacefulness; England has a history that has ruined large nations and arguably entire continents. I also think its pretty silly to ask me for example of dictatorships financially supporting European leaders when, over the past decade or so, many European leaders have been dictators!

One last note: none of the dictatorships you listed ever gave any money to the US. The closest thing you might have there is the House of Saud pouring investment money into US enterprises, although I have no idea whether or not they've ever given money directly to politicians.

 

[Mercator]

They don't exactly donate money to the nation as foreign aid. Iraq was the example, though. French and Russian politicians were benefiting a great deal from Oil for Food, as were certain UN figures. These happened to be the same people who opposed going into Iraq. Had central figures in the Bush administration been receiving illegal money from this program, they probably would have opposed the action, too. That's all I'm saying. It's a little silly of either of us to think that our nation is inherently more moral than the other. The leaders are constantly changing, and each have their own moral profile. Heck, it's pretty ridiculous even to speak of the moral profile of the 'European' leadership? Europe is a pretty diverse place with its moral ups and downs. Switzerland has been pretty good over the past few decades; Serbia, not so good. Finland has a pretty decent history of benevolence and peacefulness; England has a history that has ruined large nations and arguably entire continents. I also think its pretty silly to ask me for example of dictatorships financially supporting European leaders when, over the past decade or so, many European leaders have been dictators!

One last note: none of the dictatorships you listed ever gave any money to the US. The closest thing you might have there is the House of Saud pouring investment money into US enterprises, although I have no idea whether or not they've ever given money directly to politicians.

The "Food for oil scandal" suddenly lost a lot of it's attraction for the US public, when it became clear that also Americans have been involved. Furthermore, the US has always been the biggest importer of Iraqi oil, legal and illegal. So follow the money and you know where the bad guys are. Of course there have been European individuals profiting from this situation, but your statement that Dictators supported European countries? And some key figures can hardly be pinned down on a country. Marc Rich was born in Belgium, made his fortune in the US and now lives in Switzerland. Everybody in the energy sector knows that this man was and is a key figure in most any dirty oil deal around the world, including Iraq. Yet it was not Chirac who pardoned him for massive fraud and more,just before leaving office but Clinton.
The European dictatorships you mention, were East European countries. It is the merit of the Eu that these countries now turned into democracies and have spectacular results in their economic growth. Americans look at Europe as weak. You conveniently forget that we took all tyhee poor countires on baord and are transforming them into prosperous members of network Europe. again, I would like to see the US do that with their poor Southern neighbors.
And finally: do you really believe that there would be a one way relationship between two governments? If the US is supporting Islam Karimov, we can be damn sure that he gives SOMETHING in return that you need.

 

[The Smoking Man]

One last note: none of the dictatorships you listed ever gave any money to the US. The closest thing you might have there is the House of Saud pouring investment money into US enterprises, although I have no idea whether or not they've ever given money directly to politicians.

:rofl: Well, that would be as a result of the 'New and Improved' ways of accepting [read laundering] money.

The only difference between a Banana Republican and a Neocon is the level of sophistication of the bribe/renumeration process.

Sometimes that 'cash' isn't cash at all but a level of influence in the direction of an industry and favourable conditions tha make wealth aquisition as easy as breathing.

Is there anyone here who is still going to maintain, for example that the conduct of Halliburton over the past 15 years is without blemish and that the eventual elevation of Cheney to VP was coincidental?

Here we get to more evidence of 'perception' when a nation can be taken to war with the US government first pointing at Afghanistan and then at Iraq with broad sweeping statements about supporting terrorism and paying off Palestinian Bombers.

Did all Americans sleep through the admission of Prince Bandar bin Sultan (aka: Bandar 'Bush') on NBC's Meet the Press when he stated:

MR. RUSSERT: Prince, the former general consul to the Department of Treasury, David Aufhauser...

PRINCE BANDAR: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: ...a professional, a lawyer, testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Question: "With regard to the trail of money ... and whether it leads in some cases to Saudi Arabia?" Aufhauser: "In many cases it is the epicenter." Question: "And does that trail of money also show money going to al Qaeda?" Aufhauser: "Yes." "Is the money from Saudi Arabia a significant source of funding for terrorism generally?" Aufhauser: "Yes. Principally al Qaeda but many other recipients as well."

This was the scene in April 2002, when your king, a state-sponsored telethon--and look at these pictures--raised over $92 million and the money was "for Palestinian martyrs"...

PRINCE BANDAR: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...suicide bombers who blew up Israeli children, school buses, restaurants. Here's the Treasury Department of the United States saying that Saudi money is funding al-Qaeda. You're having telethons raising money for Palestine suicide bombers, and you sit here and say, "How could people say these terrible things about us?"

PRINCE BANDAR: Yes, I say that very easily because nothing stands still. If you are saying before 9/11 we didn't have our thing together, yes, but nor did you. Look what 9/11 is showing. However, since...

MR. RUSSERT: This was April of 2003.

PRINCE BANDAR: I understand. Since then, since 9/11, when after we recovered from the shock, we looked at all our procedures, and we have come through and we're proud of it.

How did Americans sleep through that?

On Sunday, April 18, 2004 Prince Bandar openly admitted on television in the USA that he and his country supported both privately and as a state, the funding of Al Qieda and The palestinian Suicide Bombers.

Now given that 15 of the 19 bombers on 9/11 were Saudi Nationals, there are just a few people here in the rest of the world who are still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

War was declared on evidence thinner than Saran Wrap and yet we have this gaping anomoly.

This is the difference between the unsophisticated 'Oil for Food' scam accepted in banana republics and the level of sophistication of a carefully engineered First World campaign.