It's been reported widely this week that the IMF warned Saudi Arabia may run extremely low in financial assets in five years unless they sharply reduce their spending. It's also widely suggested that the funds being depleted so fast are due to low oil prices (nevermind the Saudis wanted them low and have kept them low for multiple reasons) and to costs related to regional wars.
Why isn't the reporting more accurate? Why can't the Independent or the Guardian or the lousy New York Times or the Washington Post reporters include just a couple more salient facts and less euphemism? "Regional wars?" Why not say the Saudis are spending massive funds in support of terrorists and terrorism in Syria and Iraq? Why not say that the Saudis spent billions to overthrow the democratically elected president of Egypt and keep that sissie in power? Why not say the Saudis are spending massive funds bombing the poorest nation in the Middle East to smithereens, hiring soldiers from other countries to do what they cannot do themselves on the ground, committing war crimes, patrolling the sea to stop enough food, water and medicine for the millions of people affected by the Young Hothead General's need to prove his manhood?
Why not say that the Al Saud family are the biggest thieves on earth, that their greed and corruption appears to know no bounds? Daily there are reports of the massive theft of public money and plots on how to get more of it at the highest levels of the Saudi dynasty. The 12 to 16 billion dollar Lockheed Martin deal announced this week? How many of those billions is baksheesh? How much is the share of Mohammad bin Salman in that baksheesh?
Even some reporters whose work I respect get a fail, and the royal lovers at SUSRIS get the cake.
No comments:
Post a Comment