At the summit of the G-20 nations in April, Obama bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia—then denied it—and despite the video and the still photos, the media told us “are you going to believe Obama or your lying eyes?” Obama obviously bowed, only weeks before Obama went to the Middle East and touted his Muslim heritage. His speech in Cairo was like a coming out announcement by a Muslim debutante. He said about himself all the things no one else was allowed to say about him before the election when some Americans may have had reservations about a president so steeped in Islamic culture. Some have said that this was Obama relating to the peoples of the world so he can bring them together and declare an end to all wars. The terrorists who bombed a hotel in Pakistan less than a week following his speech didn’t get Obama’s memo that they are members of a peaceful religion. Perhaps he doesn’t understand that, to some in his audience, “world peace” means a global Islamist government subjugating everyone to a caliphate. This trip to the Middle East had an awkward stop in Saudi Arabia, perhaps so that Obama could have the king greet him in broad daylight to show Americans back home that he didn’t bow. He didn’t bow this time, at least not literally. But just days before his trip he genuflected to the Saudi royals and subordinated American victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks as though they were subjects as well.
The Obama Department of Justice argued that family members of the victims of the terror attacks should not be allowed to sue the Saudi Royal family for helping to finance Al Qaeda. The lawsuit accuses the Saudi royals of financially backing Al Qaeda through direct contributions and through so-called charitable organizations set up with the intent of sponsoring terrorism, according to documents filed by insurance companies on behalf of victims and surviving family members of the attacks that killed three thousand Americans. The legal brief filed on behalf of Obama’s justice department Solicitor General Elena Kagan, according to the New York Times, stated “the Supreme Court had historically looked to the executive branch to take the lead on such international matters because of ‘the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.’” But that is just what a bill signed by President Clinton allows victims of terrorism to do. The “Flatow Amendment” to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act was intended to give the families of terrorism victims relief by legally pursuing state sponsors of terrorism. This is the very definition of what the Saudis have done by supporting al Qaeda.
One might think that there must be some reasonable explanation for Obama taking this action. There is not. It was Obama’s preference for the Saudi princes over their American victims. Kagan’s argument that these matters are better handled by the state department is ridiculous. This is a judicial matter, not a diplomatic one. Besides, if the Justice Department had remained silent on the issue a court, not Obama, would have been the authority to decide if the Saudis were liable. The Justice Department’s argument was that the evidence should not even be allowed to be heard by the court.
Democrats have been curiously silent on the issue of Obama’s affection for the Saudis, especially considering when Bush was president his relationship with the Saudis was a constant source of conspiracy mongering among the left. Senator John Kerry sought to exploit Bush’s need for the Saudis’ cooperation in the war on terror in the 2004 election. And who could forget the Democrats favorite film of that year, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9-11, which masqueraded as evidence of the Bush administration’s complicity with the Saudis in the attacks for which is was named. Obama has now declared whose side he is on; now the question is will the Democrats prove to be as duplicitous on this issue as they do on most everything else?
