Think Globally, Blog Locally!

Idi Amin died recently -- in Saudi Arabia. Where else? I have seen very little about this monster cannibal -- the "Butcher of Africa" (also notorious for his comradely sponsorship of terrorism at the Entebbe airport), reported anywhere except by blogs like Mike Silverman and Little Green Footballs.

What made Idi Amin such a welcome guest of our "ally" Saudi Arabia for so many years? I mean, they're so jaded that I don't think mere cannibalism and mass murder of Ugandans would particularly give the Saudis a hard-on for the guy. Do you think maybe his torture murder of an elderly Israeli woman named Dora Bloch might have had anything to do with it? Not that she matters to anyone in the mainstream press, but here is an account of that poor woman's death:

....an Israeli commando team storms the plane and frees all of the hostages, she had been transported earlier to a hospital. When the hostages were rescued, an angry Ugandan president, Idi Amin, reportedly showed up at the hospital to personally strangle her with his bare hands.

With my gas pump money?

How is it that Saudi Arabia is able to avoid scrutiny in the mainstream press?

I don't know, but God bless the bloggers! Today Glenn Reynolds took time away from his vacation to remind everyone that the Saudi-September 11 "connection still isn't getting enough attention":

Saudi Arabia was deeply implicated in the attacks of September 11. A close associate of the al-Qa'eda hijackers, Omar al-Bayoumi, is alleged to have been working as a Saudi agent, operating from the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles.

The Bush administration has censored an entire section from the report, detailing the Saudi role in the events leading up to the attacks.

Lest anyone get the wrong idea here, I am not one of these kooks who maintains Bush knew all about the attacks in advance, or that this is all part of the Great Plot by the Globalist Trilateral Skull and Bones Commission to rule the world. There were good reasons for our alliance with Saudi Arabia, as the Telegraph pointed out:

During the Cold War and even later, Soviet-backed secular Arab nationalists, from Nasser and Gaddafi to Saddam and Arafat, posed a greater threat to the West than militant Islam. Saudi Arabia, the richest and longest-established of the Arab states, was treated as a valued ally. American and European governments, accustomed to cordial relations with the Saudis, turned a blind eye to its state religion.

Only after the September 11 attacks did the global extent of the Wahhabi menace become clear. From Algeria to Bali, from Tunis to Tel Aviv, from Moscow to Riyadh, Islamist suicide bombers left a bloody trail behind them. In the background lurked the shadowy network of Wahhabi influence.

During World War II, the U.S. was allied with Stalin. Once his evil designs were crystal clear, the Soviet Union was recognized and dealt with as the dangerous enemy they were. What's the deal with the Saudis?

My local newspaper, The Philadelphia Inquirer relegated the important story to the inner pages, assigning a new spin: whether or not the knowledge of Saudi involvement could have stopped the attacks.

The informant also may have been introduced to Hani Hanjour, who U.S. officials believe piloted that hijacked plane.

Blacked out in the report is a 28-page section that the officials say criticizes Saudi Arabia's government and details its lack of interest in tackling Muslim extremism.

The report finds no single piece of intelligence or information that could have stopped the attacks, stating at one point: "The joint inquiry did not uncover a smoking gun."

Only a tiny minority of American citizens (100,000 or so who read Glenn Reynolds link to the Telegraph) are able to read the following words:

"Saudi Arabia was deeply implicated in the attacks of September 11."

"lack of interest"

"Blame to go around," says Democrat Roemer.

(Would it be too reckless to characterize that remark as "understatement?")

Read the whole thing (if indeed this sordid little driblet of censored pabulum can be called a "whole thing") -- and weep.

A side note: I am sorry if I bored anyone by carrying on about Idi Amin, who, as a non-issue, does not deserve top-level coverage anywhere. But during the original Operation Desert Storm back in 1990, I wrote an emotional letter to the Saudi government about how I as an American taxpayer was upset that they sponsored Idi Amin. No reply yet! (And knowledgeable friends told me at the time that all I would get for my efforts would probably be a place on some official list of troublemakers. But as I keep saying, the First Amendment is a good form of exercise!)