Text: We're sorry. The text content of this page is no longer available.

Video: Analyzing the proposed deal

  1. Closed captioning of: Analyzing the proposed deal

    >>> now. well, the u.s. struck its largest arms deal ever and it's with a country we know, funds our enemies and may be our enemy. we learned today the white house will offer a $60 billion ariel arsonal to saudi arabia . 70 apache helicopters, 72 blackhawks and three dozen little birds for sale to the saudis . also, talk of supplying the kingdom with tens of billions more in naval defense upgrade. the sale reportedly aimed at shoring up relations with key arab allies in the middle east , namely saudi arabia . the country that routinely doles out amputations, this summer, for example, a 13-year-old girl was given just 93 lashes for having a smart phone in school. women, of course, forbidden from driving. cinemas, concerts in a society banned altogether. howho sexuality is punished by death. with friends like these, who needs enemies. and did we forget the 9/11 hijackers, the money we pay them for oil, they use the money to buy our guns to oppress our people while they provide one of the top sources of terror funding. here to help us understand why we would ever make this deal and more interesting to me, why the u.s. refuses to leverage against saudi arabia , bridgette gabriele. a pleasure to make the acquaintance. to what do you attribute the u.s.'s unwillingness?

    >> this is really concerning. so concerning that the president is not listening to the warning signs with saudi arabia . this is the country that funded osama bin laden . this is the country that exports two things. terrorism and oil, actually, three things. i believe this is a very dangerous move. it is unprecedented. we have been giving weapons to the saudis for the last five decades. this is the last we take this step in giving them such sophisticated equipment.

    >> and he's working on a book about saudi arabia 's future and what it means for the united states to demonize them or the culture. not hard to do. the facts are largely well-known. at the end of the day , thomas, do you see an alternative path of engagement other than continuing to buy oil and send guns?

    >> first of all, i so disagree with the entire premise of the way you've laid out the questions. first of all, we don't get a lot of oil from saudi ara rarabiarabia. second, we have --

    >> sounds like more reason why we should be tibl lean on them to not be so oppressive, no? why are we spending them guns to oppress their people?

    >> they don't use the guns to oppress their people.

    >> then why do only 70% of the people in saudi arabia are not allowed to own a home and that is because the government keeps the money and prevents them from buying homes or the treatment of the women and the rest of it. what do you mean it's not oppressi oppressive?

    >> wrong, wrong and wrong on home ownership . i don't know where you get those statistics.

    >> reuters . every statistic i've found that is not suspect, whether from saudi sources, american news sources, reuters , it's been 25% and 30%. the most recent, 30%. we probably should have done this in the preinterview. do you believe -- so basically, you don't think there's oppression in saudi arabia in.

    >> of course there is. of course there's oppression. saudi arabia is not a free country by our standards. of course not. but that's been true since the beginning of the relationship in world war ii .

    >> i know that. but why do we continue it? knowing -- i think we've learned some information since world war ii about the earth. why do we continue to same relationships that we have been without analyzing the reality of how it may be destroy ing our own realities. we harken back to world war ii and it's 2010 .

    >> because every president since roosevelt has found it useful. the saudis have been extremely helpful to news fighting a lot of the fights we have fought around the world. they financed the world against cuban influence in africa, against countries in central america . they provided money in our fight against the taliban.

    >> also provided the terrorist. bridgette, if you were to look at the unwillingness rhetoric to accept the nature of saudi arab arabia, what do you think -- what is it they don't want to deal with?

    >> they do not want to deal with reality. they believe they can continue working with saudi arabia , they're going to continue to be our friend and help with the war. but what war? the only reason they helped against the taliban is because osama bin laden turned against them. when you look at the middle east , you look at every country as a one-man regime. these are people that cannot be trusted. they export radical ideology all over the world. now, they're exporting out of the middle east and into different countries. they are teaching radicalism against the west, the united states . they are going to bring back oppressing women and gays. these are people we are still calling our allies. when are we going to realize they are not more than enemies in sheep's clothing. we need to become energy independent -- otherwise, we will not protect you because what we're doing now is by supplying the saudis with these arms, we are letting the royal family stay in power because right now, they are being threatened by iran. they are our friends because we are protecting their behinds and they are using us why we can.

    >> what's wrong with that analysis, thomas?

    >> it depends on whether you say the glass is half full of emptty. they do this in their own interest. every country acts in his own sbris at the end of the day . it's also true there are a lot of issues involved here, not just long-term stability in the oil market, but the contents for regional influence against iran. for saudi arabia 's influence over other less reliable negotiating partners. they bring a lot to the table. and for various reasons, including opposition to communism during the cold war , we have found it useful to, after all, saudi arabia was basically created by the united states . everything there was built by americans with american technology right down to the wheelchair ramps in the modern office buildings. this relationship has been, it's had its ups and downs , but has been useful. it is been written, stated, declared american policy since 1951 not to interfere in their internal affairs or the way it governs itself. that is our official government document from 1951 .

    >> seems like there's a lot of policies from education to energy infrastructure to a lot of our physical infrastructure that goes to 1951 . our health care system et cetera , but perpetuating something that's 60 years old, when you consider how much has changed, without reevaluating how much we may be destroying ourselves by hanging on to something from 1951 because it's a favor from the cold war . i'm not trying to be facetious.

    >> we could have a discussion on this policy, but we ought to do it on the basis of facts, not rants.

    >> i take issue with that statement because you're saying that my home ownership fact is wrong.

    >> yes.

    >> come on here and discredit knowing my facts, but reuters facts, the saudi arabian news facts is a useless way for you to solve problems. i think you're right that i think this conversation should be had and maybe you and i can get on the phone at some point, review a set of facts so we don't have to argue about them in public, waste everybody's time. it is a pleasure to meet both of you and i enjoy the opportunity to have some of a conversation with you.


Discussion comments


Most active discussions

  1. votes comments
  2. votes comments
  3. votes comments
  4. votes comments