At least that’s the way it appears at the moment. According to a new article in The New Republic the hand-wringing by high Saudi officials, whining that they want the redactions in the 911 report un-redacted is just a show. And GWB is a principal actor.

If their request were granted it would mean the end of US-Saudi relations as we know them. This just may be the most devastating story of the year, because if it’s true Bush will be proven to be a prevaricator and hypocrite beyond redemption. It will mean that he has knowingly protected those who make terrorism possible, its bankrollers.

The article quotes at length a high official in the know, and it’s a true bombshell.

“[A]n official who has read the [9/11] report tells The New Republic that the support described in the report goes well beyond [support for charities]: It involves connections between the hijacking plot and the very top levels of the Saudi royal family. “There’s a lot more in the 28 pages than money. Everyone’s chasing the charities,” says this official. “They should be chasing direct links to high levels of the Saudi government. We’re not talking about rogue elements. We’re talking about a coordinated network that reaches right from the hijackers to multiple places in the Saudi government.”

This week, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal flew to Washington for a hastily convened meeting with President Bush. Faisal publicly demanded that the 28 pages be declassified, but he had to have known in advance, and welcomed the fact, that his request would be denied–ostensibly friendly nations don’t normally send their foreign ministers to meetings halfway around the world to be surprised. For his part, Bush has insisted that revealing the 28 pages would compromise “sources and methods that would make it harder for us to win the war on terror.

[….]

The Bush administration has, of course, good reason for not wanting to ruffle the Saudis by declassifying the 28 pages. Saudi Arabia sits atop 25 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and, through its dominant position in OPEC, essentially controls the global energy market.

This is astounding. If it’s all so obvious to the official quoted, it is certainly obvious to the White House. What it boils down to is the report has information that can help lead to key players behind 911, and these links and any reference to them have apparently been blacked out.

Could this be what Democrats have only dared dream of? If so, it could alter the war on terror, and the nation’s opinion of its beloved president. After all, if it’s 911-style terrorism we seek to obliterate, it seems Saudi Arabia — far more than Iraq — is the logical place to focus. But then, lots of people have been saying this for nearly two years now (Thomas Friedman of the NYT has brought it up many times.)

Bottom line: By deleting information about the Saudi connection to the 911 terrorists, Bush has protected them. Why? The only sensible answer, according to the article and to common sense, is the cliche, it’s all about oil. I never subscribed to that cliche, but I’m about to change my mind.

[via Josh Marshall, who says he’ll soon be providing some new inside information about the WMD search in Iraq.]

UPDATE: The cat is definitely out of the bag. It is even a banner headline over at Matt Drudge.

Edited, 11:58 a.m. SGP time, then again at 4:38 p.m. as new facts emerge.

Four total suckers fall victim to Singapore scam artists. How could they be this stupid:

FOUR people were duped into handing large sums of cash to strangers last weekend.

In each case, a man asked to borrow the victim’s cellphone, then asked for the victim’s bank account number so someone else could transfer money to it. No transfer was made, after which the man asked for a loan.

One of them actually gave the scammer his ATM card and PIN!

And that is the most exciting news out of Singaore today….

I stumbled fortuitously onto a new site today and went on to spend way too much time there. It’s not for the casual browser — lots of stuff on politics and religion and Freud and long book reviews, a great piece on how trustworthy the BBC can be, and a whole lot more. The fellow is obviously a genius, and I could imagine hanging around here for many hours at a time. Again, definitely not for lighthearted entertainment.

It also has some of the best articles I have ever read on the McMartin daycare witch hunt and related scandals.

[One hour later.] I just went and browsed through it again. This is a magnificent site.

I had no idea a writer for the NY Post could be this hilarious:

July 29, 2003 — Dead men tell no tales – except at the New York Times.

The obituary of comedian Bob Hope, who died Sunday, carried the byline of Vincent Canby – a Times writer who has been dead himself since 2000.

If there are any mistakes, obviously don’t call the writer.

In fairness, the Times Web site, which posted the story last night, did say that the writer had died in 2000.

Was it a post mortem obit? If not, was Canby able to collect a kill fee before he left?

Joe Lelyveld, the Times interim executive editor – who passes the baton to William Keller tomorrow – said it is not the first time that a writer has “predeceased the subject.”

We all want to give our colleagues – and fellow working stiffs – their due, but isn’t the practice a little unusual?

Usually when an editor sends someone to the morgue, he means the area where long-ago clippings are stored. “He wrote the piece and we don’t take his name off it,” said Lelyveld. “Notice our dead reporter did not report that Bob Hope had died Sunday.”

“He wrote the piece a few years ago,” said Lelyveld, “and not much has happened in Bob Hope’s life since.”

That ends that mystery. At least he didn’t bury the lead.

If you haven’t seen this yet, be sure take a look. The public defender who presented this legal brief all about the word Fuck is going to have a bright future ahead. Ingenious.

[Via Daypop]

I always felt the argument that the significance of what a president (or anyone else) says is proportional to the number of words used to say it is patently absurd. This little cartoon drives the point home.

[From Bush for Dummies, via Idle Days]

I hope my last post on President Bush didn’t come across as too critical. My sole criticism (in that post) was in regard to his public speaking abilities when he can’t lean on a script. I was truly amazed at his incoherence yesterday, three years into this presidency.

From everything I have heard, I believe if I met George W. I would truly like him. Apparently he comes across as amiable, compassionate and empathetic, at least when the meeting is on a one-to-one basis and he’s out of the public spotlight. And there’s no doubt he is intelligent. That doesn’t alter my opinion about his (in)ability to think and speak on his feet.