I have expressed my disgust many times over the years with the Bush administration’s kowtowing to Saudi Arabia. That notorious image of Bush holding hands with Saudi royalty in 2005 and doing sword dances with Wahabbists in 2008 sparked outrage on both the left and the right. The hand-holding has gotten us nowhere — and in fact, has made us less secure.

So I hope all the lefties who tore into Bush over his Saudi prostration will express equal disgust with President HopeAndChange’s literal bowing and scraping to King Abdullah. When JWF sent a link to the photo with Obama bent down like a serf (further than either he or Michelle dipped for Queen Elizabeth, by the way), I tried to give the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he dropped a contact lens or penny?

But no, here’s the video. Warning: Emetic alert!

Bleccch.

Is this diplomatic protocol?

And if so, when did diplomatic protocol start mattering to Obama, anyway?!

***

Har. Doug Powers figured it out:

My theory is that the president was only somewhat stooped over because he was trying to show King Abdullah what was on the iPod he brought over for him as a present.

The Bush administration argues that Saudi Arabia can not be compared to Iran, because Riyadh said it won’t develop uranium enrichment or spent-fuel reprocessing, the two most dangerous nuclear technologies. At a recent hearing before my Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman shrugged off concerns about potential Saudi misuse of nuclear assistance for a weapons program, saying simply: “I presume that the president has a good deal of confidence in the King and in the leadership of Saudi Arabia.”

Well, of course Ed Markey is wrong because, umm…because…err…the Saudis can’t afford it?

No, that can’t be it. Tell me why he’s wrong?

Because that sounds to me like another permutation of the faith-based non-proliferation policy.

BACKGROUND: Hey, this looks like a trend. From January:

Sarkozy, who has already signed civilian nuclear deals with Arab oil producers Algeria and Libya, has made no secret of his view that Muslim and Arab states have a right to atomic power.

Tuesday’s agreements set a framework for future cooperation on nuclear energy and allow France to establish a military base with an official capacity of 400-500 people in the UAE, which lies across a short stretch of Gulf waters from Iran, a document distributed by Sarkozy’s office said.

France’s Total confirmed on Monday it would develop two third-generation nuclear reactors in the UAE with Suez as its main partner and state-owned nuclear reactor maker Areva.

One thought to explain this trend: Professor Rice is something of a Waltzian neo-realist with a strong belief in power-balancing, one confirmed by her experience as a Russia specialist during the Cold War. Maybe the allies are hoping to guide the Arab states’ nuclear programs into a state like that of Japan–which I’ve heard described (facetiously) as “45 minutes from having a nuclear capability”. That way they can deter and contain an aggressive Iran from messing with them or with the flow of oil.

It’ll be like the Reagan days when we played off Iraq and Iran against each other. Except this time there’s fission involved. After all, when it comes to nuclear weapons, Waltz says that “More may be better“. And if we and our allies are involved in the construction of these programs, we’ll be able to keep an eye on them and know where to look if something odd is going on.

That assumes (as Markey notes) that we trust Saudi Arabia, as well as the Emirates, Algeria, and Libya (!!!!) to manage a nuclear program safely and responsibly, and not, say, leak any of the reactor waste products to a terrorist for packing up a dirty bomb. Or to start enriching uranium, like Iran is doing. Because we’re, uh, kinda having trouble stopping them.

All of which sounds kind of complicated. Me, I’ve got a better idea.

Exit question: Didn’t we just take the nuclear car keys away from Libya a few years ago?
____________________

{Post by See-Dubya.}

What’s Arabic for flipping the bird?

President Bush failed to win the help he sought from Saudi Arabia to relieve skyrocketing American gas prices Friday, a setback for the former Texas oilman who took office predicting he would jawbone oil-producing nations to help the U.S.

Bush got a red-carpet welcome to this desert kingdom, home to the world’s largest oil reserves, and promised to ask King Abdullah to increase production to reduce pressure on prices, which soared past $127 for the first time Friday. But Saudi officials said they already were meeting the needs of their customers worldwide and there was no need to pump more.

Their answer recalled Bush’s trip to Saudi Arabia in January when he urged an increase in production but was rebuffed.

Think President Bush will think twice about opening our doors to more Saudi aviation students and making a sword-dancing fool of himself in front of the world?

Nope.

They blow off Bush on oil production.

He tells them, “OK, we’ll give you nukes.”

Like Toynbee said: “Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.”

***

More: A commenter notes that the Sauds increased production by a scant 300,000 barrels last week. But as the White House itself said, it was token:

The White House said the increase would not be enough to lower gasoline prices, which are nearing $4 a gallon, and industry analysts called it mostly symbolic.

Justin Hart rightly takes the Bush White House to task for raising false hopes:

One rule I’ve learned about fundraising events over the years: If you set a goal and make it public you better meet it and BEAT it handily. The Bush administration cut itself again by publicly acknowledging that Bush would ask OPEC to increase production and then failing to obtain that result. If you knew there was little chance of accomplishing that goal… why publicize it as part of your mission!?

…no one said “just kidding.” What they said was that this was a serious possibility we needed to be aware of. They acknowledged that rape was against their religion, but as a sin, they put it in the same category as a woman working with a man in the desert trying to understand young Saudi men.

‘Ninety percent of Saudis would think it is not right,’’ Fahd said. “An Egyptian girl with an American man, or a girl alone, what is she doing here?”

The source of that quote may surprise you.

____________________
{Post by See-Dubya.}

Looks like they’ve done it again. Different authors, great piece, summing up a worldwide problem into what looks like around a thousand words. Some of it you probably already knew and suspected, but it’s a story that doesn’t get told enough–sometimes for very understandable, if infuriating, reasons. Anyway, Saudi funding:

The Saudi Government – largely through its embassy – is believed to have funnelled at least $120 million into Australia since the 1970s to propagate hardline Islam, bankroll radical clerics and build mosques, schools and charitable orgnisations.

But the Saudi cash that has flowed into Australia, that also allegedly has paid the allowance of hardline Canberra cleric Mohammed Swaiti, who has publicly praised jihadists, is dwarfed by the $90 billion Riyadh is believed to have pumped into promoting Islamic fundamentalism internationally.

There’s an important distinction to be made here between funding for actual terrorists and funding for Wahhabist mosques and studies generally. Even if you, dear reader, may not see much of a difference there, the world does, and it’s useful to bear that fact in mind as you see where the money comes from and where it goes.*

Of course, there’s also the other PR/goodwill money that goes to often awaits career diplomats whom the Saudis take a shine to**, and which universities are always glad to receive:

In Australia, Griffith academic Mohamad Abdalla has defended his decision to seek the grant, saying the money came with no strings attached. But critics, including the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s national security project director Carl Ungerer, say this is naive and the money is part of a Wahhabist “hearts and minds” campaign being waged by the Saudis in the Muslim world.

US-based Middle East expert and author Daniel Pipes says it is wrong to presume that all academics would follow their donor’s line merely to keep the stream of funds rolling.

“Academics have a distinct point of view and are not about to be bought and change their point of view for any sum of money,” he tells Inquirer. “But they are willing to shape their work and their views. So you can’t buy them but you can rent them. So someone who might have been inclined to ask tough questions will do something else. It’s subtle. It’s not like the Saudis come to town to buy up academics who grovel before them, as was the case with Griffith University.”

Last month, Britain’s MI5 director-general Jonathan Evans reportedly told his Government that the Saudi Government’s multimillion-dollar donations to universities, along with other funds from Muslim organisations in countries such as Pakistan, had led to a “dangerous increase in the spread of extremism in leading university campuses”.

There’s still more crammed in the article, including a deviously clever (though politically intractable and legally impractical) proposal by Steven Emerson to stigmatize academies who suckle too deeply at the Saudi petrodollar teat.

* Remember that one of Al-Qaeda’s goals is to destroy the debauched and un-Islamic royal family. I’m no expert in the intricacies of Saudi politics, but I can see this from the Royals’ perspective: the rulers could sincerely want to walk the line, (which I don’t think exists, but I may be wrong, or the Saudis may be deluding themselves) and try to be anti-al-Qaeda and yet pro-Wahhabism. The latter position perhaps because of conviction but also because they want to cultivate street cred among their populace that they’re authentic Muslims, no matter what Al Qaeda and their other radical detractors say. Kind of the Saudi equivalent of Hillary Clinton’s new prayer-warrior pose.

**To be clear, this aspect isn’t mentioned in the article, but I once heard Daniel Pipes discuss it in a lecture and I thought it was worth a mention.
_______________

{Post by See-Dubya}

In Afghanistan, it’s dancing on TV. In Saudi Arabia, the new forbidden thing is Facebook. Add it to the long, endless list of stuff Muslims don’t like. Yeah, I wish I were kidding you:

A young Saudi Arabian woman was murdered by her father for chatting on the social network site Facebook, it has emerged.

The unnamed woman from Riyadh was beaten and shot after she was discovered in the middle of an online conversation with a man, the al-Arabiya website reported.

The case was reported on a Saudi Arabian news site as an example of the “strife” the social networking site is causing in the Islamic nation.

Saudi preacher Ali al-Maliki has emerged as the leading critic of Facebook, claiming the network is corrupting the youth of the nation.

“Facebook is a door to lust and young women and men are spending more on their mobile phones and the Internet than they are spending on food,” he said.

The woman was murdered in August but her death was highlighted following Maliki’s comments. Social customs and religious rules oblige women in Saudi Arabia to cover their head and figure with a veil so that men are not distracted by the female form.

Critics also allege that Facebook is an avenue for the promotion of homosexual relations in Saudi Arabia. More than 6,500 people have signed the online petition in a bid to stop the conservative Muslim kingdom following Syria in banning access to the network from local internet servers.

There are estimated to be more than 30,000 Facebook users in the oil-rich kingdom. Many Saudi women use nicknames and post comic images or drawings on their pages instead of photographs. Some Saudi bloggers have dubbed the network “Faceless”.

That’s soon to be “Headless,” if the Religion of Perpetual Outrage prevails.

***

Flashback: A Saudi woman in America posted her real photo on Facebook a few years ago and stirred up a storm.

You can take a look at the data here.

Kurtz wrote:

The first question we can ask is whether all institutions that ought to be reporting foreign gifts are in fact doing so. The University of Michigan reported a number of foreign gifts between 1992 and 1996, yet appears not to have reported any gifts after that date. Is this because the university has received no large foreign gifts since 1996, or because it has failed to report them? Or is there another explanation for the absence of reports over the past 12 years?

Questions like these are best pursued by local bloggers and reporters at college newspapers, who can find out whether their school is aware of foreign-gift-reporting requirements and perhaps obtain an on-the-record statement confirming that no foreign gifts of $250,000 or higher have been received within a given period.

This definitely deserves more follow-up:

As an example of reports that raise intriguing questions worthy of follow-up, let’s look at some gifts from the United Arab Emirates to Harvard University. Let me emphasize again that my comments here do not reflect settled conclusions, but are meant only to suggest lines for further inquiry.

It was widely reported in 2004 that Harvard University had returned a $2.5 million gift from the president of the United Arab Emirates. (See here, here, and here.) The gift had originally been earmarked to fund an endowed professorship in Islamic religious studies at Harvard Divinity School, but was held up when students at the Divinity School alleged that the institution making the gift had hosted speakers claiming that the Holocaust was perpetrated by Zionists, and that Israel was behind 9/11.

Reports indicated that Harvard agreed to return the gift in 2004. So it is intriguing that in 2005 we see two $1-million gifts from the UAE to Harvard (without any donor name) and an additional $1.5 million contract between Harvard and the UAE. We then see an extremely large gift of $14,586,957 from an unnamed “non-government” source in the UAE to Harvard University in 2006.

While there may be nothing untoward here at all, further investigation seems appropriate. Were the gift reports of 2005 merely a kind of bookkeeping indication of the gift that passed through and was then eventually returned to the UAE, as promised? Or are we dealing with completely separate and subsequent gifts? A skeptic might wonder whether the gift reportedly returned was somehow quietly re-gifted later on. But of course there may be no connection at all between the gift famously returned to the UAE and the later gifts to Harvard from unnamed donors. In any case, more information would be most welcome.

Now, the National Association of Scholars has launched its own project probing foreign donations:

he NAS believes that timely, thorough, and accurate reporting of foreign gifts facilitates transparency in higher education. Complying with the law by publicly reporting large foreign gifts helps allay undue concerns about foreign influence over American higher education. Reporting foreign gifts also alerts the public to those few cases that do raise legitimate concerns about the role of foreign donors in American higher education. In short, public information on foreign gifts facilitates an important debate about the place of American higher education in the world.

The recent release of the Department of Education’s records on foreign gifts to American institutions of higher education has given rise to concerns that some colleges and universities may not be reporting large foreign gifts in a timely or thorough fashion. In view of these concerns, the NAS has agreed to act as a clearing house for reports that we believe raise legitimate concerns about the foreign gift reporting practices of particular institutions. The purpose of posting such concerns on this site is to encourage timely and accurate reporting of large foreign gifts. The NAS does not endorse, or claim to have reached any final conclusions, about the specific reports posted here. Our purpose is simply to help those who we feel are raising legitimate questions about gift reporting practices find a public forum.

While we do not endorse the reports we post as part of this project, we will sift submissions and decline to post any that are, on their face, simply rumors or ungrounded accusations. The NAS reserves the right to exercise its own judgment about which reports to post. We are looking for reputable reports based on significant evidence.

The NAS encourages colleges and universities to issue public statements about the accuracy and thoroughness of their foreign gift reporting practices. We are eager to post such statements at this site, particularly such statements as are issued in reply to any concerns about gift reporting practices posted here.

* If you know of news reports, stories in college newspapers, or reputable reports by bloggers raising legitimate questions about a given institution’s foreign gift reporting practices, we invite you to e-mail them to nasonweb@nas.org.
* If you know of news stories, or have information about large foreign gifts to a particular institution that are not included in the recently released federal data, you are also invited to send that information to our email.
* Again, the NAS seeks to provide a forum in which legitimate concerns about foreign gift reporting in higher education can be expressed. We are also eager to provide a forum in which colleges and universities can publicly respond to and allay public concerns. As an organization, the NAS does not specifically endorse or draw any final conclusions about the reports from the public, or the statements from institutions of higher education, posted on this site.

This is an excellent project for student journalists and bloggers in college towns to take on. Pay special attention to the Saudi bucks.

Get digging!

Mrs. Clinton’s task is to beat Mr. Obama, and her crowds on Sunday reacted well when she said they could hold her accountable for her “solutions” while Mr. Obama was offering only “speeches.”

“I want you to come to the White House and say, ‘I heard you in Akron; when are you going to produce those jobs?’ ” Mrs. Clinton said at the rally here. And, regarding the high price of oil, she has taken to saying as she did here, “I’m not interested in holding hands with the Saudis — I’m interested in holding them accountable.”

Debra Burlingame e-mails:

Really? Then how about you and your husband being accountable and disclosing the details of the tens of millions of dollars the House of Saud and other Gulf sultans are giving to Clinton projects like the presidential libary in Little Rock? The Clintons have steadfastly refused to disclose their donor list, as well as reams of records relating to the first lady’s “experience” during her husband’s two terms.

Voters in Ohio should ask Sentator Clinton how she will hold the Saudis accountable when she is in the White House if her husband is holding his hand out in Little Rock.

Background: The Clintons’ Saudi-funded library.

Appealing to Saudi Arabia to encourage higher oil production to help lower prices is not in the long-term interest of the United States, Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson said on Wednesday.

The White House said President George W. Bush hopes that as a result of his talks this week with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, OPEC would be encouraged to increase production to help alleviate high oil prices, which have touched $100 a barrel.

Appearing on CNN, Thompson was asked whether, as president, he would turn to Saudi Arabia for help as Bush did.

Thompson, a former Tennessee senator, said the problem was a “little bigger” than Saudi Arabia.

“It’s not in the United States’ long-term interest to go hat in hand begging people to do things that in the end we know they’re not going to do,” Thompson said.

That’s straight talk.

***

Related video: Thompson’s latest (and last?) ad.

The AP caption:

US President Bush, left, shares a laugh with Saudi Prince Salman, brother of Saudi King Abdullah, while watching a traditional sword dance at the Al Murabba Palace and Natural History Muesum in Al Janadriyah, Saudi Arabia, Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2008.

What’s yours?

***

Flashback: The Clintons’ Saudi-funded library
Flashback: Merry Christmas from Saudi Arabia
Flashback: The Saudi 9/11 scholarship program

Bill Clinton’s presidential library raised more than 10 percent of the cost of its $165 million facility from foreign sources, with the most generous overseas donation coming from Saudi Arabia, according to interviews yesterday.

The royal family of Saudi Arabia gave the Clinton facility in Little Rock about $10 million, roughly the same amount it gave toward the presidential library of George H.W. Bush, according to people directly familiar with the contributions.

The presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has for months faced questions about the source of the money for her husband’s presidential library. During a September debate, moderator Tim Russert asked the senator whether her husband would release a donor list. Clinton said she was sure her husband would “be happy to consider that,” though the former president later declined to provide a list of donors.

…A handful of major donors’ names to the Clinton library were disclosed in 2004 when a New York Sun reporter accessed a public computer terminal at the library that provided a list of donors. Soon after the article appeared, the list of donors was removed.

The amount of the contribution from Saudi Arabia and several other countries, as well as the percentage of the total given by foreigners, had not been revealed.

The Post confirmed numerous seven-figure donors to the library through interviews and tax records of foundations. Several foreign governments gave at least $1 million, including the Middle Eastern nations of Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, as well as the governments of Taiwan and Brunei.

In addition, a handful of Middle Eastern business executives and officials also gave at least $1 million each, according to the interviews. They include Saudi businessmen Abdullah al-Dabbagh, Nasser al-Rashid and Walid Juffali, as well as Issam Fares, a U.S. citizen who previously served as deputy prime minister of Lebanon.

The Drudge Report is teasing a second strike at the Clinton library donors by the NYT tomorrow. Looks like the Hill-a-copter can’t fly high enough to avoid Obama’s RPGs.

Meantime, Bill Clinton is saying his Hail Marys. He gave Charlie Rose his assessment of his wife’s chances:

“It’s a miracle she’s got a chance to win.”

There is a menace growing rampant right in our midst — the increasing numbers of overstayers and illegal aliens who have taken to the streets and neighborhoods to pursue the art of beggary without fear of being caught and deported.

More visible in Jeddah than in any of the major cities of the Kingdom, these illegals have flagrantly taken their art of panhandling to practically every street corner in full view of the people charged with the task of detaining them. Another army of such people can be spotted rummaging through trash bins in search of anything of value that could be pawned off to recyclers for a few extra riyals.

Just why is this phenomena on an unchecked upswing is anybody’s guess but I suspect the problem is two-fold. Most of such illegal aliens hide or destroy all forms of personal identification on their arrival at this country. Once rounded up, it becomes practically impossible for the authorities to determine where to deport them.

The other problem lies in the lack of proper detention facilities. Once caught, what do you do with them? To overcrowd our meager detention facilities with the people on the loose and cause a human tragedy of great proportions?

The rising number of illegals from African and Asian communities has spawned minicities within the city. These minicities are run and governed by gang leaders of these respective communities. Crime has been a major byproduct of their unchecked activities. Drugs, prostitution and even armed robbery can be attributed to the residents of these neighborhoods where even cops fear to enter. And as the spider’s web of their activities grows wider around the city, no neighborhood is safe any longer.

So well controlled and managed are some of these illegal communities that it may serve our municipality well to take some lessons in city organization and planning from these rogues. So how can we go about fighting this menace?

I propose that detention centers large enough to house a hundred thousand or so illegals be built in the desert east of Jeddah with proper facilities. The current neighborhoods housing them must be raided and these individuals rounded up.

Those who can produce documentation and prove their nationality can be deported to the country of their origin.

Edwards assails U.S. arms sales to Arabs

Democrat John Edwards said the Bush administration’s plan to sell $20 billion worth of weapons to friendly Arab states amounted to a foreign policy of convenience and he will take a tougher stance with Saudi Arabia if elected president.

John Edwards. “Tougher.” Tee-hee.

Edwards said the United States should require the Saudi government to shut down the movement of terrorists across its borders, help stabilize the Iraqi government and participate more seriously in regional security before they are offered weapons.

Such a nutroots quandary: Attacking Bush’s Saudi coddling=good. Singling out Arab countries=bad. What to do? What to do?

At least we now have Johnny E. on record supporting national security profiling and border enforcement somewhere in the world. Just not here at home.

***
Put this on a bumper sticker, John Edwards: Jihad in America is real. Every time another al Qaeda-linked operative pleads guilty, the war on terrorism deniers roll their eyes. Downplay the seriousness of the plots. Decry racial profiling. And question the timing. The usual suspects will have the usual responses to yet another in a long line of self-confessed soldiers of Allah on American soil–this time, the Ohio shopping mall bomb plotter Nuradin Abdi:

A Somali immigrant the government says plotted to blow up an Ohio shopping mall pleaded guilty Tuesday to conspiring to provide material support to terrorists. Nuradin Abdi, 35, entered his plea before U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley a week before his trial had been expected to start Aug. 6.

The Justice Department accused Abdi of suggesting the plan to attack a Columbus shopping mall during an August 2002 meeting at a coffee shop with now-convicted terrorist Iyman Faris and a third suspect, Christopher Paul.

Faris is serving 20 years in a maximum-security federal prison in Florence, Colo., for his role in an al-Qaida plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. Faris scouted the bridge and told al-Qaida its plans wouldn’t work, court papers have said.

Federal agents arrested Abdi the morning of Nov. 28, 2003, the day after Thanksgiving, out of fear the attack would be carried out on the heavy shopping day. He was arrested at 6 a.m. while leaving his Columbus home for morning prayers.

Prosecutors say Abdi gave stolen credit card numbers to a man accused of buying gear for al-Qaida, and lied on immigration documents to visit a jihadist training camp.

I wrote three years ago about how American’s insane asylum policies allowed Abdi to slip through. More on his co-conspirators here. Last year, another jihadi plot to attack malls came to light with the indictment of Chicago-area Muslim Derrick Shareef.

Tra-la-la. Nothing to see here, move along. Just another hapless “lone nut” who meant no harm when he provided material support to aid violent jihad, which doesn’t exist in the make-believe world of John Edwards and his ilk.

***

Forget about jihad, of course. Many Dems are busying themselves with impeachment. Lawhawk catches Nancy Pelosi playing both sides of the issue in an interview with left-wing journalists. Turns out she’d be for it if she didn’t feel like she had to be against it as speaker of the House:

If she were not in the House–and not Speaker of the House–Nancy Pelosi says she “would probably advocate” impeaching President Bush.

But given her current role as party leader, at a breakfast with progressive journalists today (named after our great friend Maria Leavey) Pelosi sketched her case against impeachment.

“The question of impeachment is something that would divide the country,” Pelosi said this morning during a wide-ranging discussion in the ornate Speaker’s office. Her top priorities are ending the war in Iraq, expanding health care, creating jobs and preserving the environment. “I know what our success can be on those issues. I don’t know what our success can be on impeaching the president.”

Notice that fighting jihad on the homefront is not on that list of priorities. I’m giving Lawhawk the last word here:

Pelosi’s view is one of 9/10, and one that proved to have fatal outcomes.

This is what passes as leadership in the House. Keep this in mind when you think that your vote doesn’t count or if you intend to sit out in 2008. Your votes do have consequences, and should have consequences.

Believe it or not, the Saudis have figured out how to make an end-run around America’s K-12 curriculum safeguards, thereby gaining control over much of what children in the United States learn about the Middle East. While we’ve had only limited success paring back education for Islamist fundamentalism abroad, the Saudis have taken a surprising degree of control over America’s Middle-East studies curriculum at home.

How did they do it? Very carefully…and very cleverly. It turns out that the system of federal subsidies to university programs of Middle East Studies (under Title VI of the Higher Education Act) has been serving as a kind of Trojan horse for Saudi influence over American K-12 education. Federally subsidized Middle East Studies centers are required to pursue public outreach. That entails designing lesson plans and seminars on the Middle East for America’s K-12 teachers. These university-distributed teaching aids slip into the K-12 curriculum without being subject to the normal public vetting processes. Meanwhile, the federal government, which both subsidizes and lends its stamp of approval to these special K-12 course materials on the Middle East, has effectively abandoned oversight of the program that purveys them (Title VI).

Enter the Saudis. By lavishly funding several organizations that design Saudi-friendly English-language K-12 curricula, all that remains is to convince the “outreach coordinators” at prestigious, federally subsidized universities to purvey these materials to America’s teachers. And wouldn’t you know it, outreach coordinators or teacher-trainers at a number of university Middle East Studies centers have themselves been trained by the very same Saudi-funded foundations that design K-12 course materials. These Saudi-friendly folks happily build their outreach efforts around Saudi-financed K-12 curricula.

So let’s review. The United States government gives money — and a federal seal of approval — to a university Middle East Studies center. That center offers a government-approved K-12 Middle East studies curriculum to America’s teachers. But in fact, that curriculum has been bought and paid for by the Saudis, who may even have trained the personnel who operate the university’s outreach program. Meanwhile, the American government is asleep at the wheel — paying scant attention to how its federally mandated public outreach programs actually work. So without ever realizing it, America’s taxpayers end up subsidizing — and providing official federal approval for — K-12 educational materials on the Middle East that have been created under Saudi auspices. Game, set, match: Saudis.

Rick Moran has more at The American Thinker and wonders:

“Who could ever believe that a foreign country would be able to influence the curricula of American schools in such a way? And do it without any oversight by the federal government?

Maybe the feds could start a program “No Slanted View Of Middle Eastern History Left Behind.”

The curriculum in our government schools is lousy and polluted enough without the stealth infiltration of Saudi propaganda. Time for some oversight and loophole-closing. Anyone in Congress awake?

***

Flashback: This is a Saudi textbook.

Sixteen Saudis have been transferred from the US prison in Guantanamo Bay to Riyadh, and immediately detained by authorities, US and Saudi officials said.

At least 53 Saudi nationals remain incarcerated at the US military facility in Cuba, Major-General Mansour al-Turki told the official Saudi Press Agency.

He said a total of 77 Saudis have now been returned from Guantanamo.

A Pentagon statement said: “These detainees were determined to be eligible for transfer following a comprehensive series of review processes conducted at Guantanamo Bay.”

Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, the Saudi interior minister, on Monday expressed his satisfaction with the level of co-operation between his country and Washington.

SPA quoted him as saying King Abdullah, the Saudi ruler, is keen to free all detainees held at the controversial detention camp.