November 28, 2006
SUMMONING CHENEY... Two days ago, Laura Rozen wondered why the White House was being so cryptic about Vice President Cheney's trip to Riyadh on Saturday to meet with Saudi King Abdullah and Crown Prince Sultan. Today, Robin Wright and Tom Ricks of The Washington Post provide the answer:
Saudi Arabia is so concerned about the damage that the conflict in Iraq is doing across the region that it basically summoned Vice President Cheney for talks over the weekend, according to U.S. officials and foreign diplomats. The visit was originally portrayed as U.S. outreach to its oil-rich Arab ally.
Pathetic. The U.S. government is so weak that the Saudis can summon our veep for a stern talking-to.
Speaking of Laura, looks like she was also right when she reported almost two weeks ago that the administration was debating the merits of throwing its full support behind the Shias as a way to settle the growing violence in Iraq. From the same Washington Post piece today:
But in a sign of the discord in Washington, the senior U.S. intelligence official said the situation requires that the administration abandon its long-held goal of national reconciliation and instead "pick a winner" in Iraq. He said he understands that means the Sunnis are likely to bolt from the fragile government. "That's the price you're going to have to pay," he said.
—Paul Glastris 11:56 AM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (75)
Pathetic. The U.S. government is so weak that the Saudis can summon our veep for a stern talking-to.
Golly, was it any surprise? The truly odd thing is that the Saudis waited until now to register their protests. Cheney may want the Saudis to support the double-or-nothing strategy of attacking Iran. It would be interesting to know whether they laughed at the idea or took it seriously.
Posted by: troglodyte on November 28, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK
How much control do the Saudi's even have on world oil prices anymore? I think as much as Cheney has on the outcome in Iraq. Maybe they'll just cry on each others' shoulders.
Or go hunting.
Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 28, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK
It must be bizarre for the Penguin to answer to anybody. Just more of the enfeebling that's going on in Washington. And the Preznit says Al Qaeda is responsible for all the violence in Iraq. Guess he is their de facto new leader, then.
Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK
That's an interesting characterization. If Cheney didn't go, would you praise that, or criticize the Bush administration for not doing diplomacy?
And, of course, the 'characterization' comes from unnamed sources, making them entirely unaccountable for their words, if not outright fictitious.
Posted by: American Hawk on November 28, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK
Evidently somebody got to AH's post before he could click the button and deleted all the substance.
Posted by: Bird Watcher on November 28, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK
Would you rather choke to death or burn to death in a fire? C'mon - pick a winner.
Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 28, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK
Just Love that word summoned.
I also like heel, stay, fetch, situp, rollover, and beg.
Posted by: lthethirdPaul on November 28, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK
"Saudis can summon our veep for a stern talking-to..."
Nothing to see here, move along. The Israelis can summon Bush, Cheney and/or the entire US congress at the drop of a hat.
Down the memory hole... anyone remember VERY early in the Bush II regime when George started making some comments about starting a serious peace initiative in Palestine that included dismantling settlements?
As I recall, he 'got the phone call' immediately and that effort went out the window literally the next day.
Dunno when or how the American people can regain control of their political system from big money. The longer it goes on, the bigger the bang is going to be when it all falls down.
Posted by: Buford on November 28, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK
But which Shias will be picked? SCIRI? Then the Iranians win. Sadr? Then the US loses. Nice choice.
Posted by: Dick Durata on November 28, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK
And, of course, the 'characterization' comes from unnamed sources, making them entirely unaccountable for their words, if not outright fictitious.
If only you had exercised that high bar of skepticism in the run-up to the war.
Posted by: Pennypacker on November 28, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK
A better name for the "pick a winner" strategy is Operation Genocide.
Posted by: reino on November 28, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK
Damn it all, Paul,you beat me to it.
I also like heel, stay, fetch, situp, rollover, and beg. - Posted by: thethirdPaul
The only question remains is: When do the B&D shots ala Lindy English come out with the princes leading Dick around on a choke collar show up?
Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK
But which Shias will be picked? SCIRI? Then the Iranians win. Sadr? Then the US loses. Nice choice
How about option 3? Install a dictator and his repressive govenment to keep the factions at peace with each other? Maybe Saddam Hussein is available!
Posted by: Ray Waldren on November 28, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK
support behind the Shias as a way to settle the growing violence in Iraq
Supporting Sadr is the only thing that will save our military stationed in Iraq. And time is running out even for that. Sadr may determine he does not need the US to run Iraq.
Posted by: Hostile on November 28, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK
Saudi Arabia is so concerned about the damage that the conflict in Iraq is doing across the region that it basically summoned Vice President Cheney for talks over the weekend, according to U.S. officials and foreign diplomats.
Wait, you mean they didn't want to give the presidental face, Bush, a stern talking-to? So I guess they went straight to the source of Whitehouse policy.
BUT Talking to Dick Cheney must be like talking to a nightmare, Dick only has one game, his game, Saudi would have to play his game are just not play. I'm sure it was like talking to a fricking brick wall and just as productive too.
Posted by: Cheryl on November 28, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK
A better name for the "pick a winner" strategy is Operation Genocide.
Posted by: reino on November 28, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK
We're already there.
Watch the BBC Channel 4 documentary on the Death Squads.
We already roll over for them. Negroponte probably helped set them up when he was over there.
As the neocons now see it, we have two choices:
1. Withdraw now, and hundreds of thousands of sunnis will be dragged out of their homes and shot in the streets.
2. Stay for another 10 years, and hundreds of thousands of sunnis will be "arrested" "interrogated" and later found in the streets with drill-holes, only this will happen at a much slower rate; bonus: Halliburton can continue to sell us raw sewage for our troops to drink at $8 billion per month.
The only reason #1 is attractive to the neocons, is that they can blame it on the Liberal Backstabbers.
Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 28, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK
partly related, an article on expansion of oil refining in the U.S., partly financed by Saudi Arabia:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/4363797.html
For military purposes, the U.S. should work toward fuel sufficiency. Then no one will care what the House of Saud thinks about anything.
Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 28, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK
I agree with the "pick a winner" strategy, actually. But it would be better for the US to leverage its support for either side by telling the "winner" that it has to either cutall ties with Iran and Hezbollah (Shi'ites), or cut them with Al Qaeda, and Syria (Sunnis).
Otherwise, it's a deal breaker.
Then, you tell them we are going to pick a side and kick major ass unless they reconcile and make peace.
Posted by: Hesiod on November 28, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK
>>partly related, an article on expansion of oil refining in the U.S., partly financed by Saudi Arabia:
Don't know about that but Kathleen Blanco recently announced yet another refinery along the Mississippi in LA which is a 50% JV with the Kuwaitis.
Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK
Hesiod wrote, ...or cut them with Al Qaeda, and Syria (Sunnis).
What makes you think the Syrians back the Sunnis?
(1) Syria is currently allied with Iran.
(2) Syria supports Hezbollah these days in Lebanon, a Shi'ite movement.
Posted by: liberal on November 28, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK
Pathetic. The U.S. government is so weak that the Saudis can summon our veep for a stern talking-to.
A hint of a threat to turn off the oil spigot is all it takes...
Posted by: e. nonee moose on November 28, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK
>>A hint of a threat to turn off the oil spigot is all it takes...
Posted by: e. nonee moose
Me, I'd place my bets on the fact that the dollar is looking really shaky (gee, why would that be?) and they're holding a shit load of 'em.
'Course Cheney's long since moved his $150M into non-US$ denominated investments off-shore.
Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK
Yes, they dutifully lowered oil prices before the election and now they are calling to say we're done. They're just not that into us anymore.
Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK
Many of you think we should agree to one-on-one talks with Iran and North Korea with no pre-conditions. Yet, you whine when we talk to Saudi Arabia.
In short, the liberal approach is to kow-tow to our enemies and stiff our allies. Sorry, I think that's backwards.
Posted by: ex-liberal on November 28, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK
Prince Abdullah summons Cheney!
A Cheney appears! Command?
Wait, if we pick the Shia won't the Sunni Saudis be even MORE angry?
Posted by: MNPundit on November 28, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK
In short, the liberal approach is to kow-tow to our enemies and stiff our allies. Sorry, I think that's backwards.
What is it? Opposite day?
That's exactly what Cheney did when he was summoned to Saudi Arabia, dumbass. As far as stiffing out allies, hello? Who denigrated 'old Europe?' Wasn't it that guy Rumsfeld who just had to resign in disgrace?
Posted by: Pale Rider on November 28, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK
>>Wait, if we pick the Shia won't the Sunni Saudis be even MORE angry?
Posted by: MNPundit
Ya think? Roughly 80% of the world's Moslems are Sunni.
But Pakistan will eventually get Kashmir which was the goal all along, right.
China is pleased.
Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK
What is it? Opposite day?
Nope, just a typically dishonest "ex-liberal" straw man. Notice that his/her/its preceding sentence was, er, misleadingly phrased as well.
I am grateful to "ex-liberal," though, for demonstrating once again that there's no honest means of defending the Bush Administration's mendacity, incompetence and corruption.
Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK
Pale Rider implies that the Bush/Cheney Administration was wrong when it criticized our allies in Europe, and was also wrong when it was nice to our ally in the Middle East. Apparently Bush/Chenry are always wrong, no matter what they do.
Posted by: ex-liberal on November 28, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK
Yes, ex-thinker, it's backwards, like most of your logic. The point is precisely that we kow-tow to our enemies—masquerading as allies—and stiff ourselves.
Anyway, we don't actually have allies anymore. In case you haven't noticed, everyone in the world and most of the US really, really hates George Dead Man Walking Bush. Blair is done, too, you know.
But perhaps the weather is nice in your Fantasy World.
Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK
Pathetic. The American People are so stupid we elected two oil men to the highest offices in the land. Twice.
Posted by: Boronx on November 28, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK
>>>In short, the liberal approach is to kow-tow to our enemies and stiff our allies.
Do you prefer the approach of starting a pointless war that you mismanage, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, Al Qaeda moving into a country, and billions of dollars in debt?
The only appropriate Conservative approach at this point is apology and suicide.
The first bill Democrats should pass in Congress is to ban all of the red states from the Electoral College.
Can we at least agree that Conservatives are bad people?
Posted by: reino on November 28, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK
In short, the liberal approach is to kow-tow to our enemies and stiff our allies.
When did Saudi Arabia become our ally? When have they ever done something that supported us that wasn't even more in their own interest? When did they start to crack down on religious zealotry? When did they stop funding the anti-western schools they have been paying for? What nationality was the nost common of the 9/11 hijackers?
Saudi Arabia has been far more dangerous to the United States than North Korea or Iran have ever been.
Posted by: freelunch on November 28, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK
Pale Rider implies that the Bush/Cheney Administration was wrong when it criticized our allies in Europe
"ex-liberal" was for stiffing out allies before he/she/it was against it, you see.
and was also wrong when it was nice to our ally in the Middle East.
"Nice to our ally in the Middle East." I love it. "ex-liberal" is so bereft of a defense of Cheney's kowtowing to the House of Saud that he/she/it has to redefine it to this extent. 'Nuff said.
Apparently Bush/Chenry are always wrong, no matter what they do.
Yes, their record pretty well supports this premise. It does not, alas, support your defense of them. Thank you, though, for demonstrating once again that there's no honest means of defending the Bush Administration's mendacity, incompetence and corruption.
Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK
The largest political group in Iran is the Sadr City Shi'a. They will most likely prevail in obtaining political power over the nation of Iraq. They may not be the preferred ally, but they are the eventual winners in Iraq because of their demographic and will.
The US can join with them to pound the Sunnis into submission, join with the Sunnis and attempt to pound the Shi'a into submission, as Saddam did, keep the course and risk all out destruction of its forces on the ground or withdraw and let the people fight it out. Letting the people fight it out leaves many poor outcomes available, including the overthrow of the Saudi royalty, which might be a good thing. I think the least amount of death and suffering and geo-political upheaval is with the Shi'a alliance option. I am sorry for the loss of life of any group and would have preferred the US not invade Iraq, but once the invasion happened the political hegemony of the Shi'a in Iraq was an almost certainty. The alliance with the Shi'a should have been the first thing the US did after Saddam's downfall. Consociational democracy was never going to work in a tribal society which suffered decades of Baathist dictatorship.
Posted by: Hostile on November 28, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK
The first bill Democrats should pass in Congress is to ban all of the red states from the Electoral College.
Maybe we could declare the Confederacy the victors in their rebellion and kick them back out of the Union. Sure, they have oil, but we can always buy that from somewhere else.
Posted by: freelunch on November 28, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK
Well, disarray in Junior's administration notwithstanding, at least "the twins" are projecting
the requisite image of "party-on" abroad:
The Argentinean press blitz followed a report on "The Blotter" last week that Barbara Bush's purse and cell phone were stolen last weekend while dining at the popular San Telmo outdoor marketplace despite being guarded by the Secret Service.
Stories of the twins' visit took on wild proportions in the Argentinean press. One tabloid headline had the young women running nude in the hallway of their hotel, a report the hotel staff denied to ABC News.
According to sources, the U.S. embassy encouraged the two girls to cut their stay short because the added attention was making their security very difficult.
But to the dismay and anger of some U.S. embassy and security staff, the girls stayed on.
Duuuuude!
Posted by: barrisj on November 28, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK
Can we at least agree that Conservatives are bad people?
There is nothing conservative about these people.
Fiscal irresponsibility is not conservative.
Suspending Habeus Corpus is not conservative.
Unprovoked invasions of countries is not conservative.
Posted by: Shared Humanity on November 28, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK
Apparently Bush/Chenry are always wrong, no matter what they do.
Could not have said it better and it is pretty self-evident. You are the master of the obvious.
Posted by: Shared Humanity on November 28, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK
People used to say "At least the Nazis built the Autobahn". But that was because they needed wider roads to move tanks over. I can't think of a Bush/Cheney move that was even THAT sensible.
Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK
>>Maybe we could declare the Confederacy the victors in their rebellion and kick them back out of the Union. Sure, they have oil, but we can always buy that from somewhere else.
Posted by: freelunch
You and the horse you rose in on.
Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK
I wonder if Cheney held hands - or is that little disrespect reserved for Bush?
Posted by: Tripp on November 28, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK
>>>People used to say "At least the Nazis built the Autobahn".
At least Cheney shot a Republican lawyer in the face.
At least Bush didn't throw up in any emperor's lap.
Posted by: reino on November 28, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK
At least Brownie did a heckuva job.
At least we were greeted as liberators.
At least Abu Ghraib was perpetrated by a few bad apples.
At least the 9/11 widows are enjoying their husband's deaths.
At least George Bush only drinks near-beer.
Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK
Apparently Bush/Chenry are always wrong, no matter what they do.
Posted by: ex-liberal
Hey, you can learn!
Posted by: craigie on November 28, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK
There is nothing conservative about these people. Fiscal irresponsibility is not conservative. Suspending Habeus Corpus is not conservative. Unprovoked invasions of countries is not conservative.
Frankly, I disagree. The above positions may not be "conservative" in the common English language of that word as a synonym for prudent, careful, etc. But "conservative" as a right-wing political philosopy generally does correlate with favoring the rich over the poor and middle class, militarism, and an assault on civil rights.
Posted by: Stefan on November 28, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK
At least Bush discredited the Republican Party and gave Democrats control of Congress. Top that, Liberal Blogosphere!
Posted by: reino on November 28, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK
Substitute "authoritarian" for "conservative" and you will have correctly framed the politics.
There is nothing conservative about these people. Fiscal irresponsibility is authoritarian. Suspending Habeus Corpus is authoritarian. Unprovoked invasions of countries is authoritarian.
Posted by: bellumregio on November 28, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK
Picking one side in a civil war (or in this case one faction of one side--there is no cohesive "side" for either Shiite or Sunni)in order to pound the other side into submission/compliance/surrender will result in a couple of definite consequences:
1. Mass slaughter, probably to the point of complicity in genocide (honestly, this is what picking one side and "pounding" the other means)
2. Mass outrage among Sunni Muslims worldwide--even more outraged than they are now, that is.
The consequences of the outrage will almost certainly escalate the violence and the killing, whether through increasingly desparate fighting in Iraq, increased terrorism directed at the US, or general chaos spreading through the streets of other Arab countries and destabilizing governments, or all of the above.
Yep. That sounds like a great idea. It may possibly be the only course worse than the one we are currently on. Which one of these clowns thought of what is probably the only way to increase the violence in the region beyond the almost unimaginable level it is at now? I mean, really, honestly, this can't be serious.
Posted by: Sinister eyebrow on November 28, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK
The problem as I see it is that if Bush and Cheney are courting Saudi support (or following Joe Lieberman's advice and getting Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan in the mix), then the Bush administration is going to be picking the side of the Iraqi civil war that Al Qaeda is on.
Today's Washington Post included a graf that states that Al Qaeda has become a stabilizing force in Anbar province. It appears they have a dog in this fight and it's the same dog as Saudi Arabia.
It seems to me that picking sides is going to mean which enemy of the US is Bush going to start working alongside - Al Qaeda or Iran.
Posted by: Matt Browner Hamlin on November 28, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK
At least liberals are now as anxious to own guns as conservatives.
Posted by: cowalker on November 28, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK
kenji:
And the Preznit says Al Qaeda is responsible for all the violence in Iraq. Guess he is their de facto new leader, then.
If al Qaeda hasn't yet presented the Preznit with an honorary title (whatever the Arabic is for Honorary Commander of al Qaeda Recruitment for Life) they are simply not giving credit where credit is due.
Posted by: cowalker on November 28, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK
ex-lib writes:
Pale Rider implies that the Bush/Cheney Administration was wrong when it criticized our allies in Europe, and was also wrong when it was nice to our ally in the Middle East. Apparently Bush/Chenry are always wrong, no matter what they do.
Right, it's okay to criticize our freely elected democratic allies in Europe, but it's wrong to criticize a dictatorship where the majority of the terrorists of 9/11 came from.
Posted by: Andy on November 28, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK
Right, it's okay to criticize our freely elected democratic allies in Europe, but it's wrong to criticize a dictatorship where the majority of the terrorists of 9/11 came from.
Posted by: Andy
Obviously, something to do with the depletion of North Seas oil reserves.
Or ours.
Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK
Sinister eyebrow, you make good points, but the last few decades of Sunni rule was achieved with mass murder. It seems to be the Sunni neighbors of Iraq whose reaction you are fearful of. That is a legitimate concern, but I do not know if that should be our major concern.
I think our major concern ought to be preserving as many Iraqi lives as possible. Iraq is mostly Shi'a. I think no matter what happens, short of the genocide of the Shi'a, they will prevail to become the dominate political force in Iraq.
Bush has created a no win situation. If we help the Shi'a subdue the Sunnis we alienate other ME Sunnis. If we help the Sunnis, we go against the demographic tide and have to use Saddam-like tactics to subdue the Shi'a. If we stay our troops may be annihilated by both Sunni and Shi'a. If we leave will the other players in the region fill the vacuum, and/or Iraq become the rogue state neo-conmen fear. If our military is destroyed by staying, Iraq's fate will have a similar outcome as leaving. Perhaps if we leave the sectarian fighting will subside after a few bloody battles and the people will weary of fighting amongst themselves or perhpas the fighting will escalate and destroy all other ME nations. There are no good choices.
Posted by: Hostile on November 28, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK
Who knows what’s going on? China is now Saudi Arabia’s largest customer while the US share of Saudi exports has declined. This coupled with American unpopularity in the Middle East and the American penchant for dictating domestic polices has weakened the long-standing “special relationship” between the Saudis and the United States. Chinese imports have also increase and so has direct Saudi investment in China. Abdullah’s first trip as king was to China and India. Asia is shrinking the influence of the US and the western alliance. The Cheney administration is just accelerating the process by actually tipping the scales in the direction of ultra-conservatives like Prince Sultan who are anti-Washington in every way.
Posted by: bellumregio on November 28, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK
Did think it was a nice touch for Dick to swing by Dubai and muck some stalls for the Sheikhs.
Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 28, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK
"Pathetic. The U.S. government is so weak that the Saudis can summon our veep for a stern talking-to."
Goodness, we (Right Wing Neocon imbeciles, actually) really ARE beholden to middle east oil!!
Why is it that Right Wingers hate America?
.
Posted by: KG on November 28, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK
Sounds as though Cheney's doing to the Saudi's what Monica did for Clinton . . . .
.
Posted by: KG on November 28, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK
Seeing that all of the traditional US allies in the region are Sunni (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi), and with Cheney's stubbornly hawkish view on Iran, if we did choose sides it seems like we would be with the Sunnis.
By working covertly with the Saudis and other Sunnis in the region, Cheney could make an attempt at ousting Maliki, crushing the Shia militias from both the air and the ground, and set up his showdown with Iran.
Not that any of that would be positive for our country, just that it follows logic after the democratic interlude of our mission tipped the scales unfavorably for us in Cheney's view, and now must be corrected...
Posted by: Stefan Markey on November 28, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK
"There are no good choices."
Yup. Once you've driven the car off the cliff, it really doesn't matter which way the car ends up facing -- it's still going to hit the ground in the end.
Of course, Michael Ledeen over at The Corner thinks he has the answer: attack Iran and Syria. You see, those two countries are "fragile, brittle, and anxious" and once we attack, "revolution could erupt."
Man, what is it with these people and their complete disconnection from reality?
Posted by: PaulB on November 28, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK
Arent' there some Mandaeans or Zoroastrians we could take sides with instead?
Posted by: B on November 28, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK
'The U.S. government is so weak that the Saudis can summon our veep for a stern talking-to.'
Wrong, the Bush administration is so compromised they can be summoned to Saudi Arabia. Things have gone too-far for them, the risk is affecting them now, they don't like that. But consider that all-but-two of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and middle class professionals. The whole-thing stinks of involvement by the Saudi ruling-clans. If, and I say 'if', because the 27-pages that were withheld of the 9/11 Commission's findings involve Saudi-involvement that would hurt the Bush administration.
We MIGHT see these documents come-to-light if the Democrats don't hold any connections to the same-interests, but they want to save the office of President. That's why it won't go as far as it should. Class-loyalties usurp genuine patriotic-ones. But in the case of the Bush administration, it's probably also a matter of mutual-blackmailing. Only now, the Saudis probably rightly-assume that the Cheney-gang are done-for anyway.
Posted by: Matt Janovic on November 28, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK
ex-lib writes:
Pale Rider implies that the Bush/Cheney Administration was wrong when it criticized our allies in Europe, and was also wrong when it was nice to our ally in the Middle East. Apparently Bush/Chenry are always wrong, no matter what they do.
Right, it's okay to criticize our freely elected democratic allies in Europe, but it's wrong to criticize a dictatorship where the majority of the terrorists of 9/11 came from.
Posted by: Andy on November 28, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK
Well no, not if they don't personally make you mountains of money, no. Good comeback, very good!
Posted by: Matt Janovic on November 28, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK
American ChickenHawk,
I'm a little late with this but how do you show your face around here when all the pre-election
shit you were talking got slammed in your face?
Posted by: Ralphy D on November 28, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK
matthew marler: For military purposes, the U.S. should work toward fuel sufficiency. Then no one will care what the House of Saud thinks about anything.
"I think energy independence is going too far." - John Hofmeister, President of Shell Oil 6/19/06
Posted by: mr. irony on November 29, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK
Summoned for a stern talkng to?
He should be summoned to have his hands cut off in the public square.
Posted by: Rich Levy on November 29, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK