I think it means were fucked.

I means that Saudi Arabia is threatening to become a state-sponsor of terrorism (if it isn't already one).

Gas prices are going higher.

It means that GWB's master plan to pit the Sunnis and Shiites at each other's throats is well under way as step one in his Final Solution to remove once and for all the Muslim threat....

So I'm reading today's New York Times story about the latest happenings in Saudi Arabia and I'm trying to figure out what it means. But I can't.

Sounds pretty simple to me. If we don't stay the course in Iraq, the Saudis will start funding Al-Qaeda to fight the Shiites in Iraq. Since Iraqi Shiites are proxies for Iran, Iraq will turn into proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. This could lead to a regional war between Saudi Arabia and Iran and a regional war between Sunnis and Shiites. Since this would be a catastrophe if it was to happen, the only viable option is to stay the course in Iraq instead of the cut and run strategy of liberals and the French. What could be simpler?

We live in interesting times. We started a war against Saddam's regime in Iraq. That war was over in April 2003.

The war going on now is between Sunni and Shiite factions in Iraq. The Shiites will prevail as long as the context remains Iraq. But the context will not remain Iraq. It will widen to the Middle East because the Saudis et al. will not let the Sunnis get slaughtered. This wider war is one the Shiites cannot win. So that's the war that the Sunnis in the region will fight, if they have to.

They think that if we stay it might prevent the massacres of Sunnis in Iraq. The daily newspaper shows they are wrong about that. We are largely irrelevant there now.

Just as our war against Saddam led to the Shiite vs. Sunni war in Iraq, the current war in Iraq looks like it's leading to a regional conflict between the Sunni Arabs led by the Saudis vs. the Shiite Persians in Iran.

How this all plays out and the effect on the Asian powers, Europe, and the post-Bush U.S. remains to be seen.

Bush may be right when he says that he'll be dead when the history books are written about what he started. A lot of other people will be dead by then too.

seems pretty simple to me

basically the saudis put the Kabosh on the Salvador plan

my theory is the saudis brokered the ISG plan and are holding us hostage to fulfilling it

this war is lost

period

bush is actually doing us a favor

he is destroying the republican party

which is good for america

Basically, the Saudis are afraid that the Shi'a will take over Iraq, and the Iranians will take over the Shi'a. This would threaten the Saudis on a number levels, including on the religious front. At best (for the Saudis), the Shi'a will hold southern Iraq, and that's right next to a region of Saudi with a whole bunch of Shi'a. So they figure maybe the Shi'a in Iraq, having seceded or whatever, starts supply weapons to rebels in Saudi. Not a happy thing for a repressive monarchy that rules over a fairly fragile kingdom that lacks manpower.

They do have oil tho, so they would dump their oil to hurt Iran and take the funds and supply the Sunnis in Iraq with weapons (their version of 'if we don't fight them over there, we'll be fighting them here').

The Bush family is very tight with the Saudis and is probably afraid of them. Which is one reason to keep saying we're not going to quit.

Here's the thing: at some level the Saudis are BLUFFING. That's why they're making with the wild (for them) threats. They wants the United States Army to remain in between them, Al Queda and Iranians. Also, those Iraqi Sunni are some wild customers too.

Essentially, they like their money, their power, and their heads and they'd like to keep all three.

Listening to these guys over the long term is what got us into this situation in the first place.

m, the stuff about the Israelis and the Palestians is um, a red herring

I'm telling you, Prince Turki resigned to lead the Saudi effort to arm and fund the Iraqi Sunnis, or at least to bluff that idea.

I have no doubt Obadi's comments reflected official Saudi policy and that's exactly why Turki fired him.

Max, I think you're right to a degree. The Saudis are running a bluff to the degree they can. But, if they get called on this one, they will follow through rather than lose face.

But, all they can do is supply arms. Remember, the Kingdom has a native population of only 5 mil or so. Other Gulf Arab states are also lightly populated. The Shi'a portion of Iraq is about 12 mil or so, right, and Iran is 70 mil.

So, an issue of "boots on the ground," at least for the immediately adjacent area, favors Shi'ites.

The Saudis are reminding Bush that they keep our army/government on retainer to fight their wars.

Ah, to see a headline read:

"King Abdullah summoned to Washington"

And when pigs fly..........

The complexity of the moving parts here is quite something, isn't it?

And the Bushies thought it was going to be all so simple.

Something was simple, alright. We had a bunch of simpletons running the country.

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005308.html

This from Chris Nelson on Amb. Turki's sudden departure:

Our sources on Saudi affairs say the sudden recall of Amb. Prince Turki al-Faisal is not part of the succession struggle, per se. They say the long Washington Post article to that effect, this morning, is wrong.

And, our sources say, it would be incorrect to “read” into the situation a power struggle or big internal debate due to recent Saudi statements on Iraq, and fears of a regional power-drive by Iran, but, they concede, “Prince Bandar’s hand is clear.”

So this is entirely personal, and not policy-related? “I do not see a direct link between the recall, and anything regional, including the US relationship,” a source warns. The dramatic resignation and return to Riyadh is “purely internal relationship politics, all inside the tent stuff”.

Specifically, we are told that Bandar, now the King’s national security advisor, seems to have become jealous of Amb. Turki’s increasingly rave reviews from Washington players who appreciated his frank talk and no-nonsense demeanor.

“Without question, he was the most candid, most valued Saudi official in DC ever, he won constant praise for always telling the truth,” this source continues. “Bandar spent 22 years hear and the contrast was obvious.”

In retrospect, a sign of possible trouble for Turki was missed at the time... he did not accompany Vice President Cheney on the recent emergency summit, two weeks ago, it is now being noted.

On Saudi policy, an observer reminds us that a couple of weeks ago, a Saudi operative raised the possibility of cutting the price of oil as a way to counter Iran’s increasing belligerency. This expert today notes, “this is really the only card the two of us [the US and Saudi Arabia] have to play against Iran.”

“But just imagine”, this expert continues, “if they did this for a concerted period of time, and the world price got back down to say $60/bbl, Amadinejad would be toast, and Putin would be a hell of a lot less cocky!”

Al,

The French never advocated a 'cut and run' policy, they simply advocated a 'don't go there' policy. You would have been well advised to listen by then but now it's too late. The downward spiral is engaged and nothing will stop it, whatever you the liberals, the saudis or the french say about it.

Don't try to shift the blame, you fucked up and now we all have to face the consequences.

What is really going on here? Having studied a little bit about Islam, I see the Sunni / Shia split as similar to the Protestant / Catholic schism in Christianity. So, what drove all the strife in, say, Ireland. The answer, ultimately, is who gets the bigger share of the economic pie. You can dress it up any way you want, but it is, in the end, about money.

Remind me again why we didn't invade Saudi Arabia after 9-11, given that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and not one was an Iraqi???

It means we should have listend to the French! Now we are totally screwed...

Freedom fries anyone?

We might want to visit the onion first before trying to figure out how to peel one, our problem in America is we just do not understand Middle Eastern cultures, because, we do not know the onion, unless its peeled. We, simply will not listen to those people explain to us what they are and what they believe, and that their ideology is not an onion, its an orchard.

Copyright 2006, Mark Robert Gates

Please read my blogs:

http://lokieponaphoenix.blogspot.com/
http://wellnessempowered.blogspot.com

This is so fascinating, my reaction is that there must be worry about serious Sunni-Shia conflict in the near future - not just in Iraq but regionally... Iran and the Saudis throwing money into a civilian fire and dueling nuke programs for years to come.

"bush is actually doing us a favor

he is destroying the republican party"

Well, at least Al is sticking with the Repukes like a smitten lover.

I think this is "You Break it You Buy it II: The Saudi Version."

There is really no question that Dick Cheney told ALL our Sunni allies in the Middle East that a Shiite government in Bahgdad would be just fine, since Tehran and Damascus would fall soon after. Now that the US is losing Iraq, however, our old allies have heard enough. They are saying: "you promised this wouldn't be a problem for us...and a Shiite government in Bahgdad without regime change in Tehran is a BIG problem for us."

Josh outlined the neocon's domino strategy last night, albeit slightly differently:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011527.php

My concern is that this will put Cheney in a box from which he believes the only escape is taking out Iran. Crazy? Sure it is. But what if the Administration pursuades the Security Counsel to administer sanctions on Iran? We all know such sanctions would fail and soon "all dimplomatic options would be exhausted." With Bush's approval ratings in the low-30's, you can bet the selling of a war with Iran would be a bit less...crisp...then Iraq, but anyone who can still be shocked by this stuff hasn't been paying attention.

Could somebody tell me exactly why the worst case is always the eventuality with these clowns. Does anybody in the administration even try to solve a problem?

Well a war between the Saudis and the Iranians, first by proxie and then mano a mano, will have the positive effect of reducing our dependence on foreign crude. There won't be much for several years. Where can I go to invest in Iowa corn futures?

I have read speculation that the suddenly departing Saudi ambassador to the US is about to become foreign minister owing to his brother's (the long standing current FM) health problems.

The Saudis have said they will support the Sunni side in Iraq (financially) at the next stage of the chaos because they are Wahabist Sunnis and would find an expanded Shi'ite (Iranian) presence to be even more abhorent than an American presence. That they would do this seems less surprising than that they would let it be known so generally. I think the simplest explanation is not something cunning, rather, someone fucked up.

I think what owenz says seems pretty plausible, and it has interesting implicaitons.

The Saudi's aren't bluffing. A Shiite Iraq either aligned with or controlled by Iran would be a major threat to the Saudis (and Kuwait, for that matter). The Saudis would need American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia to counter that threat. That, in turn, would only play into the hands of bin Laden whose main arguement was with Americans being in Saudi Arabia. Can you say "Saudi insurgency?"

The Saudis know they are much safer with American troops and insurgents in Iraq. They simply want to keep it that way.

It's so nice of Bush to oblige, it would be a shame if Saudi troops had to fight and die, wouldn't it.

The idiots in the Whitehouse have been played for fools. Can you imagine the smile on the face of Prince Bandar when George Bush's idiot son was promoted to President. The desert shieks from a little country of 5 million people running the foreign policy of the country owning the world's greatest military.

It sounds like a plot from a cheesey L.Ron Hubbard book.

Socratic writes:

But, all they can do is supply arms. Remember, the Kingdom has a native population of only 5 mil or so.

This claim is false. There are approximately 5 million FOREIGNERS living in Saudi Arabia. The current native population, according to Wikipedia, is about 22 million. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_arabia#Demographics

It sounds like a plot from a cheesey L.Ron Hubbard book.
Posted by: Ron Byers

But that would imply that there's any other kind.

MsNThrope, point taken.

The CIA factbook (online) is a great thing. Saudi Arabia has a population of 27 million, of which 5.6 million are foreign nationals. At least 150,000 men are under arms, and upwards of another 1 million men are veterans still of service age. The air force is state of the art (if not up to U.S. or Israeli standards), and the army is well equipped.

As we beg to differ, consider yourselves "fair game".

If there's any jumping up and down on my sofa involved, kindly remove the elderly cat before commencing.

Thanking you in advance,

Ms. N.

I think there is a lot more to this than "internal relationship politics". I guess we'll find out quickly, if no replacement is named within the next couple of weeks, that would be a pretty clear sgnal that the Saudi's are unhappy with the "one more push" mantra. Which proves (like we needed any proof) that this policy "shift" was pre-ordained prior to the ISG report. I mean, Dickhead Cheney was already back in the states long before the ISG report was released.

Cheney went to the Saudi's to tell them of the "one more push" scenario, but that meant punishing the Sunni's, who make up the real insurgency. My guess is the Saudi's would prefer the ISG route, while not perfect, it wouldn't lead to Sunni slaughter.

I don't see how this ends well. Even if the push goes according to US design (yes, a huge "if"), it will result in the slaughter of 100's of 1,000's of Sunni's, if not millions. That will leave the Shia feeling empowered, also empowering Iran and Syria. This is going to get a lot uglier and quickly.

Geez, hope they don't send Kristie Alley.

Not only were 15 of the 19 hijackers Saudis, but consider the following:

--Osama bin Laden was Saudi.
--The bulk of the funding for Al Qaeda comes from Saudi sources.
--The virulently anti-Western ideology known as Wahhabism fuels Al Qaeda and other radical groups. It originated in Saudi Arabia, is taught in state-supported schools there, and have been exported to other Islamic countries with support from the Saudi government.
--Saudi Arabia is as least as authoritarian and oppressive as Saddam's Iraq. Atrocities there include the burning deaths of a group of schoolgirls because the religious police would not let them leave the burning building unveiled. This would never have happened in Saddam's Iraq, where women could drive cars and pursue education and careers (not anymore).
--The state-controlled Saudi press is a cesspool of anti-Western, anti-Isreali, and anti-American venom, including holocaust denial.

Imagine if even a fraction of these things had been true of Iraq in the wake of 9/11. If there is one country we should have attacked, Saudi Arabia was it. Instead, we whisked key Saudis out of the country before they could be interrogated about the conspiracy which originated in their country.

Juan Cole has written about this possible alliance many times. Today he adds:

What is remarkable is that it is being stated by the Saudi leadership and published in the press. The Saudis are usually circumspect. If they are leaking this sort of thing, their hair must be on fire with anxiety.

It means that things are far worse in Iraq than we can even know and that the Bush administration has created a massive mess that is spinning out of control.

Cole continues:
Meanwhile, a de facto Israeli-Saudi alliance appears to be building against Iran and the Shiites. Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz is now saying that the 2002 Beirut peace plan put forward by then crown prince--now King--Abdullah of Saudi Arabia must be the basis for going forward with an Arab-Israeli peace process. Abdullah got the Arab League to offer Israel full recognition and political and economic relations if only they'd go back to the 1967 borders and recognize a Palestinian state.

Essentially, we are trying to get Iraq's neighbors more involved, and they don't wanna.

The Saudi/Iranian proxy war will be only the first. Turkey and Israel will have a hard time staying out. Egypt and Jordan can't play semi-neutral for long. Lebanon, Syria and Kuwait are toast.

I remember a thread here about a month ago discussing a possible "Archduke" moment... (?)

That was Kirstie bouncing.

Interestingly, so many anti-Isrealis have come to this site and bemoaned how our government is controlled by the Isreali government.

When was the last time Cheney was "summoned" to Isreal? However, when King Abdullah demands his appearance, he hies to Andrews at warp speed.

The Bush Dynasty has been intertwined with the Saudis for decades. It is they who call the shots.

just to reinforce previous comments, Juan Cole, is the best source for info and analysis on this and most other middle east political issues. In addition, there is a very sobering post following the saudi post providing an update and analysis of the Lancet study showing 650,000 excess Iraqi deaths. We and the U.S. are responsible for this and as we head into the Christmas season we should pray with all of our might for forgiveness and an end to this tragedy. Life is so fucked up.

Surrender Monkeys are getting active again.

Since we don't have the weapontry to win, the military smart enough to win, enough dumb soldiers to win, and the Bush whitehouse is under control of the Saudis - let's just surrender everything.

Oh, was that a piece of the sky that just hit me on the head?

Gotta hate when one of the key elements of the conspiracy theory starts acting up. Where is the smoking man when we need him?

And for those who wish to knock Juan Cole, check his posting from yesterday when he told the poignant tale of US Marines helping to save the life of a 2 year old Iraqi named "Mamie" - They risked their lives to rush her to medical aid - Then, they not only risked their lives to regularly visit her, but three of them were killed in a fire fight. They, ultimately, were able to have her flown to the US for critical medical attention.

Anyone who wants to demean our troops as "killers" should read the posting yesterday at Informed Comment.

T3P,

An Iraqi child named 'Mamie' --?

After all we know about the bumbling stupidity of the Bush administration and their cronies in the Pentagon it is fairly safe to say that they did not anticipate this. They thought they were masters of the universe. They thought the world has no history and that no force could resist the will of President of the United States of America. Now they find that they have broken things that others will have to fix, if they can be fixed at all. It could be the Baker Commission or the Saudis or the Iranians.

In place of the promised triumph of democracy we have the shameful squandering of American prestige, American money and American lives for chaos and dissolution.

wishIwuz2,

I thought the Marines gave her that name. However, I can't find the post - More Stumptown Coffee.

wish you weren't:

The Saudi/Iranian proxy war will be only the first. Turkey and Israel will have a hard time staying out. Egypt and Jordan can't play semi-neutral for long. Lebanon, Syria and Kuwait are toast.

There is not a shred of truth to any of this, and it surprises me that, even at this late date, your garden variety liberals are still trying to force the foreign policy of today through a myopic view that is informed more by Realpolitik 1979 than it is by any view of reality.

What this article fails to consider is this possibility: the Arabs are through.

I will say that again so that you all understand this: The Arabs are finished on the world stage.

The entire world has organized against them in the form of oil consortiums, world oil markets and a globalized economy means that they can yank on the string once or twice, but the world at large will not allow a return to the gas lines of 1973 or another OPEC embargo and will yank that chain from their fingers and tell them how to behave.

You are seeing the last gasp of a pan-Arab cooperation. Fifty years of opposing the existence of Israel and gouging the world on oil prices have left them NO goodwill in the world, thousands of contracts they MUST fulfil or face irreparable sanction and ruin, and a boiling underclass of people who have been frozen out from the spoils. In the case of the Saudi monarchy, please--they are a Kingdom on life support and are using what little power or influence they once had to remain relevant. Richard Cheney does not dance for anyone; he went to Saudi Arabia to stand on the Saudi king's life support hoses and make them understand that they are irrelevant. One is certain that Dick had a fine steak after making the Saudi king turn purple and flail at his pillows helplessly.

Did anyone miss where China bought the Panama Canal and made nice-nice with Mr. Chavez in Venezuela? That was the nail in the Kingdom's coffin, and once the world figures out how to pull oil out of Africa without getting dysentary or a burning tire necklace and once we slap down the liberals and suck the oil out of the sand in Canada, it's all over.

I remember a thread here about a month ago discussing a possible "Archduke" moment... (?)

This is 2006, sir. We don't shoot people to start wars. We send an airplane into a controlled dive and smash the occupants into a mountain or a body of water without so much as a by your leave in order to start them now.

Orwell:

Surrender Monkeys are getting active again.

Liberals are surrender monkeys? This is not really accurate, to be fair. Liberals are actually too frightened to go to war; they rarely get to the surrender part without being led through the wilderness for a while.

Since we don't have the weapontry to win, the military smart enough to win, enough dumb soldiers to win, and the Bush whitehouse is under control of the Saudis - let's just surrender everything.

The Bush White House is under the control of the American people, sir, not the Saudis. This is a Republic, not an Empire, as my good friend Pat Buchanan once said. Do not confuse the issues and remember--when you write things on this blog in my presence, you'll do well to carefully check what I've written BEFORE you post anything, so as not to interfere with the points that I have made, which always refute the liberals and humiliate them.

And now that there have been some blessed changes around here, let me state for the record:

I am a Republican, and you CANNOT moderate me. Or kill me. And I am usually a Libertarian, but not today.

That is all for now.

Actually Norman, I CAN moderate you. Or eliminate your posts entirely. Do not forget that you are not in charge, Uncle Norman.

maccabee: bush is actually doing us a favor
he is destroying the republican party

Dad's doing us a favor getting drunk and driving us off the cliff! He'll lose his license and we'll be safe, after that!

Anyone who wants to demean our troops as "killers"

What do they, have their phasers set on "stun"?

I am a Republican, and you CANNOT moderate me. Or kill me.

What about if we expose you to sunlight? Doesn't that kill you guys?

Dad's doing us a favor getting drunk and driving us off the cliff! He'll lose his license and we'll be safe, after that!

Actually, after seven DUI arrests, I still have my license and I have survived plunging one of my cars over a slight embankment during an ice storm. Thank the Creator that most of my DUIs occurred in the 1960s--a man could drink, drive and crash all in the span of an hour and back then it was about calling a tow truck, backslapping with the county sheriff while the paramedics bandaged you up and writing a check to someone with a harelip; now, it's about going to court.

What about if we expose you to sunlight? Doesn't that kill you guys?

In the movies, perhaps. In real life? I would have someone with a telescoping baton and zip-ties remove you from my presence and deposit you at the local food bank so you can stock up on cans of kidney beans and blueberry pie filling.

I am a Republican, sir. Not a charity outfit. Please note that it takes me more time to respond to you than it does to think of a way to have someone remove your spleen with a plastic spoon.

Who wants an insult? Who wants me to insult them? Do you liberals have what it takes to stand up to me? I doubt it.

And remember - (I am being moderated and this quite defangs me.) I will hire lawyers and sue Kevin Drum and sue his employers and sue people he met in grade school just for good measure. The sheer force of my will can overcome any attempt at moderation and I will not tolerate having any of my comments or thoughts censored in any way.

So, the #1 country in petro reserves is going to fight against the #3 country in petro reserves over the #4 country in petro reserves.

Anybody want to go halfsies on a fuel tank?

As we step down, the Saudis and Iranians will step up. Iraq will be a center for proxy wars between the Sunni and Shiite powers in the Middle East for decades. Bush invaded Iraq thinking they'd be looking like modern-day Japan by now. The fruits of his naiive world view have been reaped, and it seems the road to hell is truly paved with good intentions. Let us hope that, with a Democratic Congress and likely Democratic President in two years, we do not repeat this blunder by invading Sudan.

Normy, put down the bottle for a minute. Violent rages thru the cemetary work no better than whistling.

BTW, thank you for repeating yourself. Made SO much more sense the second time.

I sincerely hope you are correct that mid-east economical concerns can quell the sectarian fires. Why it should work now, when it hasn't for millenia, is a bit of a puzzle tho.

"What could be simpler?"
Posted by: Al

Well, you, for instance.

Anybody want to go halfsies on a fuel tank?
Posted by: skewter76

Only if you're planning to fill it with margaritas.

brian:

Let us hope that, with a Democratic Congress and likely Democratic President in two years, we do not repeat this blunder by invading Sudan.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, and I am glad the liberals have run off, no doubt terrified by the rhetorical powers that I possess.

First of all, no Democrat is currently a holder of Executive authority; sob sister Nancy fancy pants can pass all the laws she wants to pass, that will not mean US troops will be entering the armpit of Africa any time soon.

Second of all, just because the intervention of US troops in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti and Columbia has resulted in greater stability, increased difficulty for murdering thugs to commit genocide and provided us with some positive results in exchange for practically zero lives lost, that doesn't mean we should put troops in Sudan to try to stop the genocide there.

I believe that it is time for the Republican Party to which I belong to decide whether it is FOR nation building or AGAINST nation building once and for all because things like Sudan could leave us vulnerable to being perceived as a tad bit hypocritical, after all.

wishIwuz2,

Sorry for misnaming the baby - She is named Mariam. ABC News has covered this story. My Alzheimer's Intelligence Service was a tad off. Typed before I rechecked the story.

Oh, leave Norm alone, mods. He's not spamming or trying to shut down the threads. Sheesh.

This alone made my day:

I would have someone with a telescoping baton and zip-ties remove you from my presence and deposit you at the local food bank so you can stock up on cans of kidney beans and blueberry pie filling.

Fucking funny!

brooksfoe,

I was speaking to the Hostile types who come on and claim that all of our soldiers are war criminals. They would love to recreate the photos from the hanging of the John Wilkes Booth crowd by inserting military officers from both the Viet Nam era and the current one. For those of us who have served, they claim that we were perhaps "misguided".

US troops will be entering the armpit of Africa

Actually, Norman, Nigeria is the armpit of Africa. Sudan is more like the solar plexus.

A clarification: I am against Nation Building. I am all for tearing them down where needed or when appropriate. Building them is a liberal construct, born out of a frustration as to what to do when a country becomes dysfunctional. Well, it was liberalism that MADE it dysfunctional in the first place.

Eliminate liberalism and there would be no need for nation building. This is true with Iraq--we did not remove the liberal construct of how to govern the country from the equation and now we have the situation that we're in right now. Had we removed Saddam, put a strong man in place, and left, everything would be fine right now. In fact, the price of gas in this country would probably be hovering around a dollar a gallon or so--how about them apples, Joe Six Pack?

As Juan Cole said, a Saudi wrinkle in our sheets is not currently all that helpful. But I guess if you want to take the long historical view, consider that France ended up siding with Protestant forces in the 30 Years War because it could not abide the overweening influence of either an Austrian Empire (which would have included Spain) or a resurgent Pope. So, in that light, I guess, the Saudis might fight the Shiites in Iraq or team up with Israel (without saying so, like the French did with their alliances) in order to blunt the power of Iran and its allies. This would be wishful thinking of the highest order, but the result of the "unholy allicances" in the 30 years war was clearly the diminution of religious principles as a motivating force in Europe forever. But my God, at what a price. I just can't think about this for too long before I start to feel like I do when I hear nails on a chalkboard. All this chaos and pain and it's not over yet.

Actually, Norman, Nigeria is the armpit of Africa. Sudan is more like the solar plexus.

Which part is the middle finger? Can I send a bus load of you liberals to that place for a daytrip?

Norman, you speak of Manchester, NH - However, do I detect a bit of "Oh, Maryland, my Maryland" in the background or is that simply the Tannenbaum version?

Actually, for Christmas, I much prefer Frank Kelly's Irish version of Countdown to Christmas. Frank Kelly played the aging drunken priest on Father Ted. Love the part where the seven swans are locked in the bathroom, creating a giant mess and charging the door whenever one attempts to open said door. Not to mention what the maids and leaping Lords are a'doin'.

the "turd" Paul

Norman, you speak of Manchester, NH - However, do I detect a bit of "Oh, Maryland, my Maryland" in the background or is that simply the Tannenbaum version?

There's a seat on that daytrip bus in the front where you can have the window all to yourself, sir. Straight to Africa, no returns, and I'm buying the gas.

Oh, leave Norm alone, mods.

While it galls me to have only an impertinent minx to take my side in this nest of nattering nonsensers, I'll take support where I can find it. But you find humor where none was intended, saucy sportswoman. Another mind turned to mere mush by the embrace of "acceptance and tolerance."

Liberals are actually too frightened to go to war; they rarely get to the surrender part without being led through the wilderness for a while.

Scared to go to war? That sounds more like rightards like you Normie. Tell me, Normie, you "graduated" from Princeton, when? 1964? Were you drafted, Normie? Did you serve in Nam, Normie? My guess is, although you supported the war (you rightards support all wars, except the ones you might have to fight in), you eluded the draft and were too chickenshit to enlist. Am I correct, Normie?

Oh, and the "archduke" comment was meant to be metaphorical. I know the concept of nuance is out of reach for Princetonians like yourself, but a shooting isn't necessary for an "archduke moment", merely an event that sparks a world war. Your too old a fool to fight, but you'd find a way to chicken out regardless.

When rcmk1 is away, the mice will play.

thethirdPaul:

I don't think ANYONE accuses ALL American soldiers of being prone to mistreatment or atrocities.

However, the fact is that atrocities against Vietnamese civilians were widespread and common, not rare and isolated. And this resulted from official strategy - the "body count" system, the free-fire zones - and not from the personal character of individual soldiers. As one Vietnam veteran officer put it: you have to realize that maybe five percent of your guys are going to have a potential for sadism and craziness, and the thing is, you need those guys, 'cause sometimes they're your best killers. But you have to have absolutely firm rules to guide them, because otherwise you're going to start seeing atrocities.

People who decry atrocities committed by US soldiers are by and large NOT putting the blame on those individual soldiers. It is, in fact, the Bush administration and those on the right who blame such deeds on a "few bad apples". Those on the left have overwhelmingly blamed the policies and strategies pursued by the government and by high-level commanders, who put American troops in impossible situations and give them instructions which inevitably encourage abuse.

The Winter Soldier meetings were convened in outrage because only Lt. Calley was being blamed for atrocities which actually originated at senior command levels. In the same way, it is the left today which is furious that Lynndie Englund is taking the entire blame for Abu Ghraib, rather than civilian pro-torture officials like John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales (and Dick Cheney and George Bush), or military leaders who did nothing to prevent the abuse there, from Gen. Sanchez on down.

The Saudi's are right to be alarmed.

I think here in the USA people have the sense that the Iraq War is over - we lost. My fear is that the regional war/instability is just beginning. Even if we withdraw in defeat, we will continue to suffer serious negative consequences which we have no control over. Worse, we may end up with troops in harm's way for many more years. Worse, more troops and the draft.

The problem with this fiasco is that Iraq is not Vietnam; Iraq is strategic & Vietnam wasn't. We've taken a baseball bat to the beehive that contains honey that we depend on. Stability in the middle east is crucial to our economy, but a regional war as a result of our bad judgement is a real possibility.

I think that one of the brilliant advisors had told Georgie that if we let Sunnis and Shias fight it out the Saudis will have no objections as they are neither but Wahabis.

It is hard to predict the course of events and what sort of alliances may be formed. The Saudi public, for what it’s worth, and the anti-western conservatives in that most conservative of countries would not go along with Israel in any direct way. There is already a shift in Saudi Arabia toward the emerging powers of Asia. A group of countries that cares little about reforming the kingdom or the Middle East at large. The great fear is that the regime could be destabilized. This is also the first sign of a regional arms race to counter Iran. If the Iranians do develop a nuclear weapon we will see Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey go down that road as well. It is just too difficult to gauge the outcome of a conflict that pits local powers against one another in a civil war with a foreign colonial force in the middle.

War & Piece Reader: Given that Russian production exceeds Saudi, they're one country the House of Saud cannot squeeze so easily with oil production manipulation.

Chuck/Matt: You're right and I read from the wrong line, or remembered the wrong line... I use the Factbook regularly. Nonetheless, the Gulf Arab states are outnumbered by Iran. Plus, I have no doubt Hezbullah can carry out activities against Sunnis inside the Gulf area.

It seems Cheney's 80% solution idea is dead, which is a good thing as it's a very bad idea. Too bad his other bad idea - to invade Iraq in the 1st place - was not rejected.

Tell me, Normie, you "graduated" from Princeton, when? 1964? Were you drafted, Normie?

Class of 1965, no, I was not drafted. I had the option to serve in the Manchester National Guard as a 2nd LT because I had participated in the required ROTC courses at college. Instead, I received a deferrment to attend Yale in order to get my Masters (full disclosure: I ran over two fellow students in downtown New Haven and was forced to leave school early; this is why my Masters degree actually comes from Duke.)

Did you serve in Nam, Normie? My guess is, although you supported the war (you rightards support all wars, except the ones you might have to fight in), you eluded the draft and were too chickenshit to enlist. Am I correct, Normie?

I visited Vietnam in 1967 and in 1969; these were trips on behalf of my father's company, which was heavily involved in the manufacture of armaments for the US military. I went as a favor to my father to keep his associate out of the bars in Saigon and in Manila, where we spent a good deal of time schmoozing the Department of Defense.

This is all small potatoes type stuff. I did get to ride in a helicopter over some jungle and this allowed me to get a medal from the US State Department, a civilian medal of some kind or another. I wanted the Silver Star but their price was a bit too steep. While I could have paid around $7,000 for one, full citation and all, I had better things to do with my money at the time.

I could have enlisted, that is correct. However, I was too busy making a living, something you liberals are always quick to denigrate.

Building them is a liberal construct, born out of a frustration as to what to do when a country becomes dysfunctional. Well, it was liberalism that MADE it dysfunctional in the first place.

Interesting, Norman. Would you care to elaborate on the liberalism of the Taliban? Or perhaps the liberalism of Somalia's Siad Barre, or Mohammed Aidid? Or perhaps that well-known liberal, Mobutu Sese Seko? Maybe the liberal Slobodan Milosevic is a better example? Or do you prefer to expound upon the liberalism of Idi Amin? Or the great liberal theorist, Samuel K. Doe? If none of these will serve, you can always fall back on that noted liberal, Baby Doc Duvalier.

I could have enlisted, that is correct. However, I was too busy making a living, something you liberals are always quick to denigrate.

Nothing wrong with making a living, Normie, but you had to count on Daddy to give you a job. Silver spoon?

You see, Normie, you can't be calling liberals cowards, when you were too chickenshit to enlist and serve yourself. You are the coward, Normie, and none of your blustering on a liberal website can change that.

Would you care to elaborate on the liberalism of the Taliban?

Came to power during the Clinton Presidency

Or perhaps the liberalism of Somalia's Siad Barre, or Mohammed Aidid?

Somalia's government collapsed because Jimmy Carter refused to aid the government of Haille Selassie and it collapsed

Or perhaps that well-known liberal, Mobutu Sese Seko?

Seized power during the Johnson Administration, 1965.

Maybe the liberal Slobodan Milosevic is a better example?

Took power when George HW Bush was President, but was too frightened to move because he knew Bush would destroy him. Slobo waited until fellow degenerate Billy Pants Down Clinton was in power before he went on his rampage.

Or do you prefer to expound upon the liberalism of Idi Amin?

Seized power in 1971 while Nixon was, rightly, focused on China and the Middle East while keeping us firmly in detente with the Soviet Union. Thrown OUT of office in 1979 when it became apparent that Ronald Wilson Reagan was about to become President.

Or the great liberal theorist, Samuel K. Doe?

Seized power when Jimmy Peanuts Carter was distracted by events in the Middle East.

If none of these will serve, you can always fall back on that noted liberal, Baby Doc Duvalier.

Well, I prefer the father, who won an election by a tally of something like 1.2 million votes for him vs. ZERO votes against him. One cannot help but applaud a man who can run in an election and win exactly 100% of the vote.

Were George Bush to achive that today, some poor liberal would screech about Diebold, I supposed.

All of your points have been refuted--I expect your apology will be adequate enough for now.

brooksfoe,

Well said - Have felt that Powell was tarnished by his attempt to cover up My Lai. Yet, he rose, for a spell, to higher esteem.

However, it would not bother me in the least if Rumsfeld, and a few others, walked up the 13 steps.

And an aside to the loss of Peter Boyles - A fine liberal actor who could play the ultra right with aplomb - His portrayal of Joe in that movie of the same name from the 60s was superb.
When asked by an astounded upscale lady at a dinner if he really believed the outrageous bigoted statement he had just delivered, he replied "Fuckin' A".

Will we miss you Peter? Fuckin' A.

Nothing wrong with making a living, Normie, but you had to count on Daddy to give you a job. Silver spoon?

Ah, silver is for the peasants. Mine could rightly be described as platinum. Much of the family fortune has been lost, and I know that you will no doubt rejoice at that. My father's business suffered greatly during the 1970s and much of what he built was gone by the time Ronald Wilson Reagan rebuilt the defense industry. My efforts have shied away from such things and I focus more on investments and the bond market. No junk stocks for me--only a fool would be trying to make money on a stock market that sits around 12,300.

You see, Normie, you can't be calling liberals cowards, when you were too chickenshit to enlist and serve yourself. You are the coward, Normie, and none of your blustering on a liberal website can change that.

Well, that may be true, but never forget: I'm merely here to enlighten you and keep you from looking bad in front of girls. The advice I give you will help you in this life and will allow you to enjoy a pleasant life free from want.

Get a job, work hard, and save your money. Anything you do beyond that is mere degenerate behavior and unnecessary.

You're right, Norman, I stand refuted, and I apologize. Since liberals have, from time to time, been elected president in the United States, everything bad that has ever happened elsewhere in the world is attributable to liberalism. Occam's Razor.

I am, however, confused as to how Jimmy Carter, who was inaugurated in 1977, could have refused to aid the government of Emperoro Haile Selassie in Ethiopia, which fell in 1974; and how, in turn, the collapse of Selassie in Ethiopia in 1974 precipitated the collapse of the Siad Barre regime in Somalia in 1991, during the presidency of George HW Bush.

Norman, I expect you to at least have your facts straight. Haille Selase was Ethiopian, and his government fell before Carter was president.

If the Saudis back the Iraq Sunnis, then it would be quite awkward for the USA to "get out" of Iraq.

Looks like the House of Saud/Bush is once again attempting to forge the future.

Possible conversations with Dick C.:

--Mr VP we will not sell any more oil to the western nations if you exit from Iraq.

DC: Don't worry, my corporate cronies aren't going to let me botch the billions we can still make in Iraq despite the violence.

--well, be careful about getting too cozy with the Shiites.

DC: Well, oiled be darned ,seems we can't win for losing. For now, you can rest assured that my faithful companion, Georgeo is taking it slow responding to that idiotic ISG report.

--Okay, but we are calling the shots.

DC: Take care guys and thanks for the no-bid contract on the new pipeline...

Mere details - Mere details

Normie and ex-lib took the same correspondence history course from Tail Start.

Well, I guess Brooks beat me to it, and in greater detail.

So which is it, Normie - "Oh, Maryland, my Maryland" or "on State Street, that great street"

Whomever, you are on a roll. You have everyone taking shots at you. Well done.

You are both wrong:

I am, however, confused as to how Jimmy Carter, who was inaugurated in 1977, could have refused to aid the government of Emperoro Haile Selassie in Ethiopia, which fell in 1974; and how, in turn, the collapse of Selassie in Ethiopia in 1974 precipitated the collapse of the Siad Barre regime in Somalia in 1991, during the presidency of George HW Bush.

Do you not understand the cataclysmic events that really occurred? The destabilization of the Horn of Africa was a slow motion time bomb. The Selassie government fell in 1974; you are correct. The effect that this had on neighboring Somalia is best understood through the fact that Selassie was a Living God. As a Living God to these people, his passing sowed confusion and unrest everywhere. This confusion and unrest spread like a cancer, until it finally infected the neighbors as it did Ethiopia itself. I thought "Live Aid" cleared that up for you. Apparently not.

Norman, I expect you to at least have your facts straight. Haille Selase was Ethiopian, and his government fell before Carter was president.

But Carter did nothing to stop the lawlessness. Of that there can be no debate.

I stand affirmed, not corrected. Thank you for your attempt at setting me straight; it would have been better for all involved had you not even attempted to do so.

This only shows that is was ultimately a huge mistake to take out Saddam, a sunni. And WMD be damned, the guy had his finger in the Middle Eastern dike. He could have been our cat's paw against Iran. But now Iraq is Iran's cat's paw against the US and SA. If I hear the right ask me if I would rather have Saddam's rape rooms again, I'll vomit. It sounds like we need Iraq to be under moderate Sunni control/US-friendly as a counter-balance to Iran. Well, christ, we had that in Saddam or could have. Really, are their any adults running things now. It is absolutely insame the mess Bush has gotten us into. Tell, me Al who is the counter-balance to Iran in the region now> Nobody. Thus the ecalation in Iran's anti Israel rhetoric. They think they have a chance to erase Israel now.

There is a solution to all of this. It isn't a solution that the Dick Cheneys and Saudi kings of the world are interested in.

Winning The Oil Endgame

Winning the Oil Endgame offers a coherent strategy for ending oil dependence, starting with the United States but applicable worldwide. There are many analyses of the oil problem. This synthesis is the first roadmap of the oil solution—one led by business for profit, not dictated by government for reasons of ideology. This roadmap is independent, peer-reviewed, written for business and military leaders, and co-funded by the Pentagon. It combines innovative technologies and new business models with uncommon public policies: market-oriented without taxes, innovation-driven without mandates, not dependent on major (if any) national legislation, and designed to support, not distort, business logic.

Two centuries ago, the first industrial revolution made people a hundred times more productive, harnessed fossil energy for transport and production, and nurtured the young U.S. economy. Then, over the past 145 years, the Age of Oil brought unprecedented mobility, globe-spanning military power, and amazing synthetic products.

But at what cost? Oil, which created the sinews of our strength, is now becoming an even greater source of weakness: its volatile price erodes prosperity; its vulnerabilities undermine security; its emissions destabilize climate. Moreover the quest to attain oil creates dangerous new rivalries and tarnishes America's moral standing. All these costs are rising. And their root causes—most of all, inefficient light trucks and cars—also threaten the competitiveness of U.S. automaking and other key industrial sectors.

The cornerstone of the next industrial revolution is therefore winning the Oil Endgame. And surprisingly, it will cost less to displace all of the oil that the United States now uses than it will cost to buy that oil. Oil's current market price leaves out its true costs to the economy, national security, and the environment. But even without including these now "externalized" costs, it would still be profitable to displace oil completely over the next few decades. In fact, by 2025, the annual economic benefit of that displacement would be $130 billion gross (or $70 billion net of the displacement's costs). To achieve this does not require a revolution, but merely consolidating and accelerating trends already in place: the amount of oil the economy uses for each dollar of GDP produced, and the fuel efficiency of light vehicles, would need only to improve about three-fifths as quickly as they did in response to previous oil shocks.

The effect that this had on neighboring Somalia is best understood through the fact that Selassie was a Living God. As a Living God to these people

Norman! Was that YOU I met at Reggae Sunsplash 1985??? Bra! I and I survive!!!

In Saudi Arabia the winds blow the sand dunes around, but nothing with any permanence at all happens unless the Saudi family pays some foreigners to do it.

That's an exaggeration, but mostly what you read is more sound and fury signifying nothing, though not told by an idiot.

Two centuries ago, the first industrial revolution made people a hundred times more productive, harnessed fossil energy for transport and production, and nurtured the young U.S. economy. Then, over the past 145 years, the Age of Oil brought unprecedented mobility, globe-spanning military power, and amazing synthetic products.

This is where the announcer then intones, in a soft, dazed voice...and says...

"What we ought to do, and what The Man won't accept because it goes against his mindcrime worldview, is that hemp could be the answer to our energy problem and stop Global Warming..."

No, what would solve the problem of Global Warming would be to kill all of the cows and stop the hippies from toking it up all day--then the good people of this planet could go about their business and not be harassed for snacks and small personal loans all day long. The methane produced by cows is what is contributing to a negligible increase in world temperatures, coupled with the bong emissions of layabouts, all of which is statistically insignificant due to the fact that there is no handy "archive" of world temperatures that we can consult for trend analysis.

Global Warming is junk science used to further the liberal agenda, nothing more.

Norman! Was that YOU I met at Reggae Sunsplash 1985??? Bra! I and I survive!!!

Never forget: an exodus is a movement of Jah's people...

Yes, your uncle Norman has a passing knowledge of Reggae. When I lived in Miami in the early 1980s, I was acquainted with the style. I prefer Tom Jones, but I do know a bit about jamming to a 6/8 beat, emphasis on the 3, 16th notes on the hi-hat for flavor.

an exodus is a movement of Jah's people...

I knew this would come around to the Holocaust conference in Iran eventually.

I knew this would come around to the Holocaust conference in Iran eventually.

See here, sir! Let my people go!

mostly what you read is more sound and fury signifying nothing, though not told by an idiot.

Strike "not" and you've pretty well summarized your own posts, Marler.

It seems pretty clear to me that Saudi Arabia’s support for the Sunnis is not only an act of humanity, “The Saudis have argued strenuously against an American pullout from Iraq, citing fears that Iraq’s minority Sunni Arab population would be massacred …” but is further protection of their interests economically. One passage that stood out to me: “It’s a hypothetical situation, and we’d work hard to avoid such a structure,” one Arab diplomat in Washington said. But, he added, “If things become so bad in Iraq, like an ethnic cleansing, we will feel we are pulled into the war.”

Let’s briefly keep in mind that Shiites have also been dominant in Iran among the Kurds, so wouldn’t fear of Shiites massacring any minority group that challenges them be a relevant fear? Talk of “ethnic cleansing” goes hand in hand with the politics of Islamic Fundamentalism. Looking just at the ethnic diversity in Iran, with 51% Persian, 24% Azeri, 8% Gilaki & Mazandarani, 7% Kurd, and 3% Arab a total ethnic cleansing is pretty unfeasible. Iran/Iraq, Iran/Israel, and Libyan conflicts have been deep-rooted and terribly long lasting. The border between Iran & Iraq is the border between the Arab world and the Persian world so it seems obvious that resolution is unachievable.

Just as a reminder, Britain responsible for the creation of Iraq. In 1917, General Stanley Maude tells the people of Baghdad: “We come here not as conquerors but as liberators, to free you from generations of tyranny.” That sounds pretty Bush era if you ask me.

Am I mistaken, or has thethirdpaul switched from left of center to being a wingnut? Wasn't someone else recently showing a similar dual personality? Has Charlie decided to become a pod person in order to hide from the mods?

I love Norman! What fine comic relief! Best parodic writing style--pince nez nose in the air cum Victorian rhetorical pomposity and sly but obvious archness in the syntax--have yet to see here. The levitating sensation through words of not taking ourselves quite so seriously ad nauseum ad infinitum. Thanks, Norman, ol' man. Keep it vertical! Merry Madness to you and to us al1.

Btw, let me add my voice to the chorus requesting the Norm not be modded. He isn't a troll -- he's comic relief.

Norman:

Not to be a supercillious putz -- but reggae isn't in triple time. And there is no "3" in a 6/8 dance beat (usually a shuffle or a boogie), because you count it as 2/4 with triplets.

Nearly all reggae is in 2/4 with accents on the offbeats -- and subdivisions within the beat that are extremely difficult to conventionally notate.

Bob

Norman:

Correction: There'd be a "3" in a 6/8 dance beat if you were doing the hemiola thing and superimposing 3/4, which often happens (and is quite rhythmically tasty -- check Elvin Jones on Coltrane's My Favorite Things).

My bad.

Bob

An interesting note about the Norman posts above is one has to have a very good understanding of history in order to just "miss the mark" on several occasions the way "Norman" did.

It is similar to trying to clown around while dancing or even ice skating - One must be very accomplished in order to pull off "playing the fool".

But, no disputo, I only post as either t3P or stupid git, or on occasion some historical character. Wish I had the talent to pull off a Norman parody, but alas..........I will leave that to my more talented friends.

Oh posh and tish. Your Uncle Norman makes it exceedingly easy to parody his style--consider it a freebie to liberals always looking for the next handout--by drawing his essence from every portrayal of a supercillious and arrogant rich WASP you've ever seen on your low-resolution Korean television sets.

What--are these memes state secrets we need Richard Cheney and his intrepid cadre of spymasters to protect the unwashed masses from--the better to convince them that Republicans like myself have their best interests in mind?

Even your Uncle Norman isn't quite that deluded.

Posh and tish? - My goodness, we have Aunt Pitty Pat from "Gone With The Wind" now posting as Norman.

thethirdPaul:

I don't think there's a "Norman" to post "as." Or at least hasn't been one in several years.

Recall Roland Barthes in "The Death of the Author," where he likens "the text" to an Egyptian mummy.

Only after you're done unravelling all the gauze -- you realize there was nothing inside to begin with.

Bob

This is the old Saudi/Ayatollah rivalry from the 70s, 80s, 90s. It means we are deep in the middle of a long, long conflict.

Only after you're done unravelling all the gauze -- you realize there was nothing inside to begin with.

Ah, but there is someone who can actually count the proper time in music and that's so important in this day and age.

Regardless of who steals my handle, you liberals can't debate me, can't find anything wrong with me and you have certainly never beaten me in this game of intrigue called the blog thread discussion. I'm up 756 wins to zero losses and getting stronger every day.

And for all the bluster of late, remember this: I am a Republican and you can neither kill me or moderate me, I have legal representation.

Good afternoon, law offices of Sleaze, Slime, Opaque and Obtuse. Why yes, we do represent Norman. You want the Injunction shoved up where?

Kevin, what this means is that Saudi Arabia is going to become unstable in the near future. Abdullah is headed out, and the kingdom is literally up for grabs at the worst possible time. What's their succession system? They have none.

This one random little column, frankly, scares me more than anything I've read all year. The doomsday scenario in the middle east actually gets a lot more believable if Saudi Arabia attempts to undergo a leadership change in the near future.

Norman:

If whoever is behind your handle enjoys writing parody posts of a rich old coot from Connecticut who used to post here years ago -- nobody really minds it. And if you can make people laugh along the way, so much the better. Nothing toxic or destructive about that at all. Have at it, old bean.

But the "game of intrigue" on Political Animal is over. Since nobody believes you're real (like, say, rdw), nobody's going to get into a back-and-forth with you anymore -- just use this or that point as a springboard to criticize whatever GOP meme it reflects. You know, the way people respond to Al. To this day, a substantial number of people here believe Al's fake, but they respond to him anyway.

What they don't do, though, is get into debates with him.

So since there's no intrigue, there's no game. No game means no losers or winners. It's just the parodic style -- which makes some of us laugh, and the ideas underneath -- which makes some of us slap them down as *ideas*, not as Grand Old Norman Himself.

But other than that, as Barthes has argued, there's nothing there. The gauze comes off and it's empty inside.

Derrida and Barthes were never so correct as in cyberspace. The Text is all that exists. You'll have to rise or fall on the strength of your rhetoric alone, old man.

Bob

If whoever is behind your handle enjoys writing parody posts of a rich old coot from Connecticut who used to post here years ago -- nobody really minds it. And if you can make people laugh along the way, so much the better. Nothing toxic or destructive about that at all. Have at it, old bean.

This is where your false construct falls apart; I am in Manchester, New Hampshire where I have always been and now that this blog is moderated, you liberals cannot steal my handle. No more of that silly 'bwah hah hah hah' and the ridiculousness. Once moderation was brought BACK to this blog (and those of us who remember the Calpundit days remember when it was moderated then as well) I was able to return to resume kicking liberals for fun. I want to thank Mr. Drum for hiring some, how did you describe it? Interns? To moderate the blog? If I am a fraud or a charlatan than this post will be removed, yes? And if it is not removed, what then? I think that if this post is not removed, you may safely conclude that this is the REAL Norman Rogers and that I am merely posting on this blog again, despite efforts to hijack my good name and ruin my reputation.

But the "game of intrigue" on Political Animal is over. Since nobody believes you're real (like, say, rdw), nobody's going to get into a back-and-forth with you anymore -- just use this or that point as a springboard to criticize whatever GOP meme it reflects. You know, the way people respond to Al. To this day, a substantial number of people here believe Al's fake, but they respond to him anyway.

Yes, the parody/spoof posts ended so I was able to return. You're correct.

What they don't do, though, is get into debates with him.

What is this, then?

So since there's no intrigue, there's no game. No game means no losers or winners. It's just the parodic style -- which makes some of us laugh, and the ideas underneath -- which makes some of us slap them down as *ideas*, not as Grand Old Norman Himself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I AM the grand old Norman himself and you have been beaten soundly in the debate over time signatures--that's another feather in my cap and more shame and redness for your cheeks.

But other than that, as Barthes has argued, there's nothing there. The gauze comes off and it's empty inside.

No, I don't sleep in a coffin or sarcophagus, but thank you just the same.

Derrida and Barthes were never so correct as in cyberspace. The Text is all that exists. You'll have to rise or fall on the strength of your rhetoric alone, old man.

I'm not that old, and besides, who really understands or cares what you're saying? You can choose to ignore me or you can choose to be humiliated in any debate, any conversation and in any capacity I choose. The days of 'spoofing' me are over and the days of me laying waste to the liberal hypocrisy have arrived.

And you wonder why I just laugh at the new rules around here.

"old man" - Be ye that sure m'lad that it is a he? Could be curiouser and curiouser, indeed. There was a time when you would not believe that the handle could be the intrepid Rider of a very Pale Horse.

Perhaps, the person could be sort of a Scarlett Pimpernel.

"Ah, he seeks him here, he seeks him there, that intrpid rcmk1 seeks him everywhere,
be he or she in heaven, be he or she in hell, that elusive Scarlett Pimpernel."

With apologies to C Dickens.

SG, would it not have been more appropriate to dub the person the "Scarlet Normannell"?

But, it was wise to drop the words "those Frenchies" - Goodness, The Doofus from Drexel Hill would have been here in a heartbeat to discuss "Bus-e-ques" in Paris.

stupid git:

Sorry, wrong number. Can you call back in a month when you make sense?

Norman:

You appear not to understand the purpose of moderation. It isn't to arbitrarily remove posts in a different handle than one's main identity here; if that were the case, then stupid git would have been zapped for being 3rdPaul's sock puppet :) But since that's just a charming affectation (and done with the same email), nobody -- least of all the moderators -- really cares.

Just like the mods aren't going to care who tries their hands at a Norman parody -- *unless* the content of that parody was to intentionally cause dissention, insult somebody, start an argument, sew bad blood, etc. That's why the spoofers have been zapped.

Now the "game" here you're trying to play is to convince me that you're the "real Norman," and not one of the several regulars and quasi-regulars here who've tried their hands writing Norman posts. Of course you need to create this impression -- else there would be little point in doing Norman just for laughs -- right?

Now -- just because you claim that you're the real Norman come back (with a couple reforms around the edges, the best not to arouse the ire of the mods) doesn't mean that I (or anyone else) chooses to believe you. The Norman handle has become a byword for spoofing, and if you're really the old Norman who wanted to come back to joust with us liberals, I'd suggest you choose a different handle. Because you can't re-write the experience of the last two months.

Sorry, old man -- but the Norman brand no longer has credibility with consumers.

Who are you in truth? That's what you're trying to trawl me into -- and I refuse to bite. Not only am I not particularly interested, but in the most important sense it is entirely none of my business who you are in truth. To speculate on it would entail a form of low-level harrassment -- so I refuse to indulge in it. Whoever you are, you have every right to use whatever handle you choose. More power to you for it.

But at the same time, I'm also entitled to my own views.

And that's where we can leave it.

Bob

You appear not to understand the purpose of moderation. It isn't to arbitrarily remove posts in a different handle than one's main identity here; if that were the case, then stupid git would have been zapped for being 3rdPaul's sock puppet :) But since that's just a charming affectation (and done with the same email), nobody -- least of all the moderators -- really cares.

I cannot speak to that; all I know is that I received an E-mail from several regular commenters on this blog of MY political stripe who stated, very clearly, that moderation had returned and that I was free to return and comment without fear of being mocked or humiliated by a relentless campaign of 'spoofing' or handle hijacking.

Just like the mods aren't going to care who tries their hands at a Norman parody -- *unless* the content of that parody was to intentionally cause dissention, insult somebody, start an argument, sew bad blood, etc. That's why the spoofers have been zapped.

Have I been 'zapped?' No, I have not. What is your issue? I came here to debate and have fun. Oh, and feather my cap with victories over mush-headed liberals.

Now the "game" here you're trying to play is to convince me that you're the "real Norman," and not one of the several regulars and quasi-regulars here who've tried their hands writing Norman posts. Of course you need to create this impression -- else there would be little point in doing Norman just for laughs -- right?

What game? They are moderating the blog, I'm here commenting, and liberals are howling. This is the usual state of things around here. Who's fanny should I kick next? Do you have someone you'd like me to rough up for you? Do you have any scores that need to be settled?

Now -- just because you claim that you're the real Norman come back (with a couple reforms around the edges, the best not to arouse the ire of the mods) doesn't mean that I (or anyone else) chooses to believe you. The Norman handle has become a byword for spoofing, and if you're really the old Norman who wanted to come back to joust with us liberals, I'd suggest you choose a different handle. Because you can't re-write the experience of the last two months.

I shall change the E-mail address to another that I use, but I do not want to change my handle--it is actually my good name and just because a few liberals have tried to ruin it, that's nothing I am concerned about.

Sorry, old man -- but the Norman brand no longer has credibility with consumers.

That's why I am here--to reclaim my good name now that the blog is moderated.

Who are you in truth? That's what you're trying to trawl me into -- and I refuse to bite. Not only am I not particularly interested, but in the most important sense it is entirely none of my business who you are in truth. To speculate on it would entail a form of low-level harrassment -- so I refuse to indulge in it. Whoever you are, you have every right to use whatever handle you choose. More power to you for it.

I'm Scooby Doo, actually. One cannot get anything past a liberal with a discerning eye.

But at the same time, I'm also entitled to my own views.

No, you're a liberal; you're free to be as wrong as you would like and I could care less. I have other fish to fry this evening.

And that's where we can leave it.

Truly, you liberals are pathetic if you think I care. Truly.

Wow, Kevin had hoped there would be discussions on the cryptic Saudi situation, and the text here has deteriorated to defensive, angry posts that fry the brain, Norman Bates. Such hostility!

Couldn't you just fold that Norman parody up and put him in your back pocket? (h/t san antone rose)

I read "Norman" as an over the top mockery of a blustering Publican jackass. We all know a Norman, this one just springs from a gifted and fertile mind. I envy the creativity and enjoy the surreal hilarity.

Globe:

Well, I wish I could fully share your interpretation, though of course I agree with you that the intent is over-the-top mockery rather than the posts of some actual conservative named Norman.

What's interesting, to me anyway, is the outrageous amount of energy this "Norman" just spent attempting to convince me at least that he's the real Norman Rogers come back to have serious debate.

I'd think a better sign of something truly "gifted and fertile" would be more likely to just stick to the joy of writing the parodies ... but maybe that's just my interpretation.

Bob

consider wiseass:

Norman Bates. Such hostility!

Norman Rogers. Remember my name and know this: I am a Republican and you cannot kill me, nor can you moderate me. I will sue.

Oh please Norman. I'm here to moderate, and if you need moderated, you will be moderated

Now carry on. You amuse me. moderator

Hormonal Citizen:

Darling one, please understand. I was protecting your virtue, nothing more. Let us scramble away and have adventures and such together.

rmck1:

Well, I wish I could fully share your interpretation, though of course I agree with you that the intent is over-the-top mockery rather than the posts of some actual conservative named Norman.

An actual conservative named Norman is right here, posting now that the 'spoof' posting has ended and now that the blog is moderated. How many times must you be told? Were I the 'fake' Norman I would be deleted, yes? I have posted here for years and thank the Creator things are back to the way they were when all of this first started out. I rather enjoy the Centrist bent Mr. Drum engages in; however, he is ill-served by chaining himself to a bastion of wild-haired liberalism like The Washington Monthly.

What's interesting, to me anyway, is the outrageous amount of energy this "Norman" just spent attempting to convince me at least that he's the real Norman Rogers come back to have serious debate.

You may go read my affirmation of free market capitalism on the thread below, you may read of my other replies--that is your choice. I am here to leave liberals in the dust and protect the legacy of the greatest President since Reagan, and that man is George W Bush.

I'd think a better sign of something truly "gifted and fertile" would be more likely to just stick to the joy of writing the parodies ... but maybe that's just my interpretation.

What the deuce has gone on in my absence? Is there something I need to go back and read? It seems like my good name has been rolled in filth. I changed my E-mail address, what more do you require?

Norman, it appears you have been moderated.

Now come, let's to billiards.

(Name that quote without Google)

Norman:

How does it feel to be Jacques Derrida's sun-drenched li'l buddy? :)

Bob

As they say in the deconstruction biz, Norman -- your narrative has been thorougly de-centered.

Bob

Norman, I'm crushed. Consider Wisely has been here a week and you are playing with her handle? You didn't start calling me Hormonal Citizen for months!

What gives? Are you getting soft in your old age?

I was at a local watering hole after the mid-term elections, celebratory and giggly, and Norman was THERE! I swear. Blasting liberals at length, forcing conversation, he left in a huff, and his long-suffering wife scurried out after him, leaving her purse. It was the last time I went to local watering places. Republicans seem a bit too intense for any reasonable discussion. (I was actually afraid.)

Norman, it appears you have been moderated.

Yes, I certainly have.

And not just playing with her name, but apparently spoofing her as well.

This is the beginning of a slippery slope ...

Bob

It appears that I cannot post here as was promised. I received confirmation that this was now moderated and was free from this type of madness. Apparently not.

Who is 'spoofing' me?

I was told that this practice had stopped. I was told that a conservative could post here once again and crack the liberal echo chamber.

What the deuce is this?

Norman:

Lutefisk -- at least that English transliteration -- is Norwegian, not Swedish.

Bob

Ah. I see rmck1's untoward obsession with Norman is going strong. Unseemly, that.

Hello, Norman, you drunken pile of fine linen snotrags. How's my big boy?

Moderator, Moderator--

You must delete the post at 10:14PM because that was NOT me posting and that was NOT what I was intending to say.

I thank you most profoundly.

And I see the storm clouds start blowing over this blog again ...

*sigh*

It was a lovely week while it lasted.

Bob

Good lord, I believe you're right, Norman. The spoofer is back. I trust the mods will see to this pronto. Charlie has no shame whatsoever.

Why is the post at 10:14PM still there? I was told there would be moderation. It appears that there is no moderation.

Why are so many of you swarming against me? What is this outrageous practice you liberals have? Is there chum in the water or something?

I demand moderation. I demand it this instant.

Hello, Norman, you drunken pile of fine linen snotrags. How's my big boy?

Fine. Who the deuce are you? Why do you all seem to think you know me?

A case of a couple regulars thinking they're too cool to be moderated ...

Bob

From the movie "On Golden Pond,"

"oh, Norman, you old koot!"

(Katherine Hepburn and Henry Fonda.)

Oh, now, I didn't mind when you didn't remember my name the next morning, but you had a hangover the size of New Brunswick then. To pretend not to know me now is just hurtful, Norm. Needlessly hurtful.

Or the case of two BPDs, one somewhat higher-functioning than the other ...

Bob

On Golden Pond. A potentially wholesome, uplifting movie ruined by the presence, however fleeing, of Hanoi Jane. Of course you libs would hold it up as a cinematic icon.

(this is a spoof post, but it's funny. thanks for playing along Norman)

it's a fleeting presence, Norman, not a fleeing presence. A fleeing presence would be Dick Cheney at the draft board, circa 1967.

I amusually forgiving of typos and mis-speaks, but in your case, I just absolutely must make an axception.

The part about every old classic being new to you hit a little too close to home, Norm? I told you, you have to keep up with the ginkoba every day.. You can't just take it once after a 16-oz. steak.

Hormonal Citizen, you tasty nugget, you're right--but you're an insolent wench for correcting Uncle Norman in public that way. Now take off those effluvious Birkenstocks and put on something fit for XX chromosomes. With a spike heel and maribou trim, please.

(This is a spoof post, but it's funny and the moserators thank Norman and his victim for playing along.)

The post at 10:14Pm has been removed--thank you for the moderation.

Now I can post in peace.

These threads have been enormously improved by moderation. Love it.

Now let's see if they remove "consider wisely's" at 10:07.

Bob

The posts at 10:35 and 10:42 are NOT mine! I demand moderation! I demand moderation!

Ahhh ... nothing like a little moderator harrassment to attempt to persuade WM to wash its hands of it, so we can get back to our regularly scheduled flamewars ...

*rolling eyes, sighing*

Bob

Norman, if you didn't write those posts, you may as well have.

But you know that already ...

Bob

nothing like a little moderator harrassment

I am not harassing anyone; I was told that if the threads were moderated, that people like myself who have known Mr. Drum for years and are familiar with the ground rules could return. And I am subjected to this swarming attack?

Is that what I get for being right???

Calm down, Norman. Here, have a Baci. I know you love them. Let me finish catching up on the other threads, mkay?

Norman, if you didn't write those posts, you may as well have.

I did NOT write those posts; I have requested and received moderation in that they are going to be removed.

Please, excuse me. I have other discussions to attend to.

Norman:

You're not being "attacked." You're being kidded around with by two of your biggest fans.

But you knew *that* already, too.

Bob

Norman, if you didn't write those posts, you may as well have.

Attacks I can handle; I was assured we had "eliminated" this issue; otherwise, I would have remained elsewhere.

Norman, can't they please leave those up? They are funny. I'm the one tweaked, and I'm willing to take one for the team...Please? For me?

Why do you think Consider Wisely was spoofed? Can't she go have a beer at the local watering hole and feel giddy? I'm not so sure she was spoofed. The mods would know, and I bet that given the attention it's generated, they have checked. Is it still up? If so that would be a good indicator it was really Consider Wisely.

Maybe somebody's just, you know, testing the moderation regime -- looking for weaknesses.

Bob

First I thought Norman might actually be Christopher Hitchens, did you catch him on Real Time with Bill Maher?

P.S. Norman didn't post the 10:07

I can't really say I'm a "fan" of Norman's. I mean, I hated myself after every time we were together. I hate him now. But I can't deny there's something compelling and bewitching about the man.

Oh, who knows? The human heart is complicated. Global's probably the only one here who understands.

Oh sister sister sister. We should start a 12-Step Program for Norman's women. It's so very...complicated.

Globe:

You could be right. CW could've just meant Norman "was there" in spirit -- as in some generic loudmouthed Republican.

The mods would certainly have the IPs to confirm. Then again, there appears to be another fake Norman up from a while before that they haven't taken down ...

Bob

Why, Globe? Why are we always attracted to the bad boys? Why?

Maybe the interns have a sense of humor and are feeling more comfortable?

I blame West Side Story.

Globe:

It would have to be a pretty strange sense of humor :)

Bob

Did you see the ones where Norman's comments themselves were tweaked? That's what I meant.

Hell I don't care, and I hope it lasts.

Tony wasn't bad, Globe. Riff, Ice, Action, A-rab, Snowboy, Tiger, Joyboy, yes. But Tony--Tony was a saint.

Repressed anger at one's father is the Freudian take.

Bob

I demand moderation! I was told there would be no 'spoof' posting and I refuse to accept this.

The posts at 10:35 and 10:42 are NOT written by me.

Globe:

Yes I did. I thought I lost my mind for a moment.

Shortstop:

You forgot Diesel.

Bob

Norman, please let those stay up...Pretty please? With sugar on top? I'll send you a saucy Christmas card...

Shortstop: The problem with sainthood is that death prerequisite.

I mean the thing is ... we have a spoof complaining of being spoofed -- and furthermore arguing that he "returned" because WM is now officially spoof-proof.

Something kind of audacious about that if you think of it.

Bob

It was clever saying "Hormonal," and the twist with consider "Wiseass" was at least cute. It is the bushite adoration that lingers with him, like bad cologne.

consider wisely:

The Bushite adoration is a put-on.

Bob

Uh oh, I got one of Globe's Christmas cards last year. Calling Elaine Bennis!

Death?! Well, Globe, did you not see West Side Story all the way though, hon?

I don't care if the posts are taken down or if they stay up; I refuse to be insulted or mocked and that is certainly NOT going to force me to leave.

I have stood toe to toe with worth adversaries before; whoever has VIOLATED the rules and 'spoof' posted under my good name will have me to contend with.

Mark my words, liberals: I am not pleased with how this has gone.

Not pleased.

That's okay, Norman. Just get over-the-top insulting and the problem will solve itself.

Bob

Shortstop: I confess, I'm not into Musicals, and I always fall asleep. Why I've always stayed awake for that effing Grease, but fall asleep during WSS is a mystery for the ages.

How about I just change my answer:

I blame Leader of the Pack.

consider wisely always,
the bushlove is for real
there's nothing not nailed down
that normie wouldn't steal
his mother was a deb queen
his dad a corporate thief
golly moses
that's why he gives grief!

It was clever saying "Hormonal," and the twist with consider "Wiseass" was at least cute. It is the bushite adoration that lingers with him, like bad cologne.

What the deuce are you prattling on about? Where there is no moderation, how can one actually DISCUSS the topics at hand?

"Is Globe really going out with him?"
"Well, there she is. Let's ask her."
"Globie, is that Normie's ring you're wearing?"

"Mm-hmm!
"I met him at the liquor store
"He turned around and winked at me
"You get the picture?

"Yes, we see."

"That's when I fell for the donor to the PAC!"

Consider Wisely Always
Shortstop's kidding you
In lots of big and small ways
Our Norman rings untrue
And if you'll chase the posts down
And context you review
Oh gosh, you'll see
Norman's full of poo!

Bob

"That's when I fell for the donor to the PAC!"

Oh! Too good! Too good by half! Damn you have talent for satire Shortstop. (I don't express my appreciation for you often enough, BTW.)

THIS is moderation?

This is a farce. Thank goodness for other threads...

Norman:

Nobody's cursing, nobody's insulting, nobody's even particularly snarking.

Ergo, no cause for moderation.

It's our right to believe that you're a contrived goof persona.

Bob

I must need to clarify? Norman wasn't there, a clone of his assuredly was, and I just had a glass of wine, along side my dear sweet hubby!!!
Hold off on the 12 step program, please! No need!! Geewilickers!

oh, c. wisely always,
we're down on our knees
'cause no one wants a bloghog
with a social disease
gee, c. wisely always,
what are we to dooooo?
Gee, GOP nutbags,
gop you!

Thank you, Globe. I appreciate all your talents, too, in case I haven't told you lately.

consider wisely always is a woman? Cool! Watch your back end around Norman, honey.

Over the weekend she mentioned that Mr. Consider Wisely Always liked to see her blog and sometimes brought her food.

I took a walk out on a limb and concluded that she is one of us. Shall we form a triumverate?

Early on I said this place seem to be a collection of great minds--english majors, I fathomed.

one of us, one of us! (Now I have to go look up what movie that's from.)

I'm watching some idiot on YouTube explain that if we just love the Republicans, really send them our love, they'll become kinder and more compassionate and stop keeping the little guy down. Fighting them across the aisle, he says, is not the answer.

Nobody's cursing, nobody's insulting, nobody's even particularly snarking.
Ergo, no cause for moderation.
It's our right to believe that you're a contrived goof persona.

No, I was assured there would be moderation; ergo, I would not have returned to comment freely. I don't know why this has turned into a coffee klatsch, but I was attempting, at one point, to show that the Arabs are finished in world affairs--their extremism, their hogging of oil and their price gouging has forced the nations of the world to band together to freeze them out of the world oil markets. The Arab nations are getting wind of this and are attempting to force the hand of the larger powers. China is having none of this--they are in league with Chavez in Venezuela.

I mean, there IS a topic on this thread, correct?

I have on Cspan with Incoming Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy, repeated from today. He is discussing the current unlawful abuse of power and ill-conceived laws.
We do seem to be taking over

Norman is back. He asked me to marry him.
I told him it was big of him, but it would be bigamy.
(Get it, "big of me," you know, married and all--bigamy, ha ha

(It is my best joke.)

consider wisely:

Former English major. Changed it to American studies to escape the Deconstructionists ... *shudder*

Norman:

This thread has become a kaffee klatsch. Since nothing shows your fakery more than when you try to have objective debates on issues, I don't even know why you're bothering. If I tried to argue with anything you said, you'd just call me a liberal and repeat some ad-hominem liberals-are-dirty-hippie-scum boilerplate.

Now while that can be fun sometimes -- it's the last thing from edifying, old bean.

So just, you know, have another cup of fresh brewed Sanka and chow down on a delicious cruller and enjoy the banter :)

Bob

Leahy chairing Judiciary was my topic du Jour earlier.

I concur with Bob, Norman. You should not talk to him; it's fruitless.

However, for reasons I cannot divulge, I am beginning to think you are the original, real Norman we all remember, in which case all these references to our stolen weekends in Pittsburgh may be bewildering to you. Um, sorry!

Globe:

Nice post. I agree with you about Leahy. He might not be the sharpest pencil in the box, but he's always been very strong on privacy rights. I liked his questioning in the Alito hearings.

Bob

Well Norman, it is noted on the two posts you objected to that they are spoofs, and you were thanked for being a sport.

Thanks Bob. I'll probably be posting more while I'm on break.

That's true; the moderators did remove at least one Norman post and put warnings on others. Hmmmm.

Norman:

It would also be easier to take your opinions seriously if they seemed to be grounded in reality. The conservative Arab Gulf states do *not* support extremism (some of their citizens do -- and al Qaeda is their biggest external enemy and internal threat), are our strongest allies in the region (save, of course, Israel), are not "hogging" the oil they own and have in fact have agreed to production boosts at our request which have dropped the price of oil over the past four months.

That other nations are developing fields is certainly a good thing -- but Chavez is much more implacable foe of the US in terms of policy than Saudi Arabia.

Bob

There have been way too many clues over the course of Norman's recent tenure here for me to believe that he's indeed the Norman of yore.

And if these clues are false flags -- then Norman's got a lot more yellin' at the moderators to do than he's done here.

But I somehow doubt they are.

Bob

It would also be easier to take your opinions seriously if they seemed to be grounded in reality. The conservative Arab Gulf states do *not* support extremism (some of their citizens do -- and al Qaeda is their biggest external enemy and internal threat), are our strongest allies in the region (save, of course, Israel), are not "hogging" the oil they own and have in fact have agreed to production boosts at our request which have dropped the price of oil over the past four months.

You are completely wrong, and for this you should thank me for setting you straight. Money DOES flow from Arab nations into the coffers of the schools and the institutions that nominally support some terror organizations. It is a parcelling of the funds that is problematic--there are legitimate charities which are run by the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia that support students here in the US, for example.

However, the Arab states are finished. They have signed debilitating contracts with the heavily industrialized world--a flow of oil must be guaranteed to China, Japan and Korea, for example--and the Arab states MUST shoulder the lion's share of this burden.

What they have reaped is a whirlwind--their previous support for terror organizations is now at odds with the need to keep the vital oil infrastructure open and productive so that these obligations in the Orient can be met.

That other nations are developing fields is certainly a good thing -- but Chavez is much more implacable foe of the US in terms of policy than Saudi Arabia.

I will tell you something for nothing--Chavez is not our enemy. Neither is Castro. Our enemy in this hemisphere? The 'royal family' of Mexico--the one percent that has all their wealth. They are creating a permament underclass in that country; Chavez has distributed the income and made it so, yes, there are revenues, but the people are not downtrodden so much so that they will rise up in revolution.

Mexico? A different story altogether.

Now, my view is that Bush has done remarkably well with the chaos and the whirlwind; a liberal might disagree.

And if these clues are false flags -- then Norman's got a lot more yellin' at the moderators to do than he's done here.

I am confused by this--we have moderation, now I can post.

It would seem that I am need of the "back story" that would explain the strangeness of everyone's behavior towards me.

I knew liberals were bonkers, but this is ridiculous.

Oh Norman. Shortstop and I will be by in about an hour with cans of whipped cream, a lawn chaise, a whip and a primer on the PA goings on over the last 6 months.

Oh Norman. Shortstop and I will be by in about an hour with cans of whipped cream, a lawn chaise, a whip and a primer on the PA goings on over the last 6 months.

Yes. Bonkers.

I rest my case.

SecAn: It may cost less in dollars to displace all the oil, but just as today's oil production has hidden costs, I'm sure your "displacement" has at least as many.

Norman:

Dear lord, but that was an extremely sensible post. Good show, old man.

I am darn impressed with your view of Chavez (and Castro) and might be amenable to your view Mexico's endemically corrupt elite political class.

The only thing I disagree with you on is that while Saudi and Gulf state *money* might fund terrorism, the state regimes do not -- or at least much less so since 9/11 and the scandal with Prince Bandar's wife whose $10k contribution to a "charity" went straight into the pocket of a 9/11 soldier to fund his training and his trip here.

There's a problem with the fundamentalist madrassas education they fund around the world creating a *seedbed* for terrorism -- but Saudi-sponsored fundamentalism doesn't have to lead in that direction, either. And yes, there are plenty of entirely legit Saudi and Gulf state charities that operate all over the world.

But make no mistake -- al Qaeda is gunning for the royal families in that region; they are *not* allies. This is why I'm disappointed at the Democratic demagouging against the Dubai ports deal last year. I think an Arab ports management would've had a better handle on whatever sort of radical Islamic infiltration might try to sneak in.

Bob

Norman:

If you can continue discussing on this level (strong disagreements of course welcome), then consider all references to your past a thing of the past.

I'd very much like to welcome you aboard here.

Bob

rmck1, NOT the others:

The only thing I disagree with you on is that while Saudi and Gulf state *money* might fund terrorism, the state regimes do not -- or at least much less so since 9/11 and the scandal with Prince Bandar's wife whose $10k contribution to a "charity" went straight into the pocket of a 9/11 soldier to fund his training and his trip here.

The state regimes are staffed by ministers of various stripes--few honest, most corrupt. They are highly influential within the lane that they operate in. There is a ministry of health, for example. In order to do business, that minister must cooperate with many facets of what is going on just to function; money flows in the form of bribes just to get things done; that bribe money is what is then funnelled into the terror organizations. It looks legitimate on the surface; however, the funding of terror is an offshoot of the "greasing of the wheels" that occurs in a corrupt society where bribes are de rigueuer.

But make no mistake -- al Qaeda is gunning for the royal families in that region; they are *not* allies. This is why I'm disappointed at the Democratic demagouging against the Dubai ports deal last year. I think an Arab ports management would've had a better handle on whatever sort of radical Islamic infiltration might try to sneak in.

Slightly wrong; al Qaeda is being staved off by bribes and monetary support so that they will not so easily topple the Saudi Royal Family.

Is there any institution more corrupt than the House of Saud? What is holding it up? It's own wealth is what is holding it up. I submit that George W Bush is more adept at handling these realities than anyone else; this understanding of corruption is what allows him to accept a less than perfect end-state in an ally and keep them firmly in line with our interests.

And that's the nickel tour.

I am darn impressed with your view of Chavez (and Castro) and might be amenable to your view Mexico's endemically corrupt elite political class.

These regimes will fall when people understand the appeal of democracy; Castro's brother is not charismatic enough to carry the nation forward as a Marxist entity so confronting Cuba now is a non-starter.

Chavez? Any man can be bought and sold. He knows where his backyard is situated and has acted like a blustering fool to play to the peanut gallery; meanwhile, oil and natural gas flows out of Venezuela like clockwork.

Watch the commodities markets and you'll understand this.

Norman:

I pretty much agree with your point that baksheesh from the ministries tends to flow in the direction of terror groups -- but a lot of Saudi princes and wealthy Saudis (like the non-royal bin Laden family) also fund terror groups more directly, though they, of course, have had to find new ways to launder the money. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that few entities in the world are as incorrigibly corrupt as the House of Saud. One of the reasons the purist Islamists oppose it so bitterly.

I'd say that Bush's family ties certainl help him with the Saudis -- but I think his dad (and his dad's cronies like James Baker) have a much firmer grip on the switch. I don't think Bush has a particularly deep understanding of corruption. To the contrary, his worldview is impossibly naive and dualistic.

Otherwise, why in god's grey earth did he decide we needed to topple Saddam Hussein when we had him solidly in his box?

No seasoned, realistic, corruption-understanding view of the world would have ever come to that conclusion, old man. You needed neocon idealists with a vision of "moral clarity" and an intolerance for the way things are done in the Mideast to propogate such a bold and ultimately disasterous plan.

Bob

Global Citizen--very impressive work. I like your succinct style. It's a grand site. The wallpaper was soothing and it was cool how you had things set up. You go, girl!!!!

Yep,to his credit, Senator Leahy voted against extending the Patriot Act. I have this great little pin that reads "The Patriot Act: Turning Citizens into Suspects since 2001"

He had that altercation with the VP -- now part of political folklore -- after critiquing the Halliburton money pit/profiteering scenario/scandal

An encouraging note: The last incarnation of Norman would never, ever admit that I was only *slightly* wrong :)

I very much appreciate your tone and demeanor.

Also, I have nothing to add to your comments on Castro and Chavez. Watch the commodities markets, indeed.

Bob

Thanks you for the kind words, Consider Wisely. My family is quite relieved that I have a vent for my political angst.

consider wisely:

Great Patriot Act pin!

And was Leahy the one that Darth Vader famously called an "asshole" on the Senate floor?

Bob

darth was a bit more over the top. He told him to "go fuck himself."

Globe:

The mild-mannered Patrick Leahy?

Jeebus ...

Well, I'll bet he takes his bread 'n' butter pretty seriously :(

Bob

The very one.

where was that so-called "liberal media" on that one? That was deliberate and it didn't get half the attention Kerry's gaffe garnered.

Globe:

No it sure didn't, did it. The "big time assholes" aside to Bush over ... which NYT reporter was it? Not Nagourney, sombody earlier -- Adam Clymer? got much bigger play.

Doubtless because it happened to a media bigfoot and the MSM took especial umbrage.

Bob

Can't stay up a moment longer. Night owls, all of us. Is there a physical affliction known as bloggers shoulders? Ouch. G'night

consider wisely:

Goodnight, good contributor.

Bob

Goodnight, Consider Wisely. (A little Aleve should take care of the bloggers shoulders.) I just want to tell you that I am really appreciating your input and I'm glad you chose our sandbax to build your castle in.

consider wisely:

Same here :)

Bob

Globe:

Alleve is good stuff, innit. Basically in the same class as ibuprofen and acetaminophen (sp?), correct?

I use it instead of either now.

Bob

Flags will fly at half-staff in Kansas City tomorrow. Chiefs founder and owner Lamar Hunt passed away a couple of hours ago.

Actually, it is in the same class as Ketoprophen and Anaprox.

Globe:

Never heard of either of those. But it's an over-the-counter analgesic/fever reducer. Can you explain in a nutshell the difference between that class of drug and the other two?

Bob

Ketoprophen sounds like ibuprofen. Are they related?

Bob

Acetaminophen was approved in 1950 or 1951, and we are still wondering exactly how it works.

The others are anti-inflamatory preparations, with understood mechanisms.

In a nutshell.

“When Ambassadors Withdraw”

Inter alia, having US forces in the Middle East (but not near Mecca) was intended to provide security/stability for the region and protect Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is now in a political war, facing the cascading domino thunder of Shiite ascendancy.
The US is mulling backing Iraqi Shiites as a solution for the civic strife in Iraq. To do so would be to declare a shooting war against Sunnis and bring Saudi into a shooting war.
So, America is on the brink of being on the opposite side as Saudi Arabia in a shooting war.
Might not Saudi (ahem) withdraw their Ambassador?

“When Ambassadors Withdraw”

Inter alia, having US forces in the Middle East (but not near Mecca) was intended to provide security/stability for the region and protect Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is now in a political war, facing the cascading domino thunder of Shiite ascendancy.
The US is mulling backing Iraqi Shiites as a solution for the civic strife in Iraq. To do so would be to declare a shooting war against Sunnis and bring Saudi into a shooting war.
So, America is on the brink of being on the opposite side as Saudi Arabia in a shooting war.
Might not Saudi (ahem) withdraw their Ambassador?