Cracks in the House of Saud

Frontpagemag/Washington Times ^ | 1-21-04 | Arnaud de Borchgrave

[tracer]

asIpredictedbump

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[nuconvert]

"the horrifying conclusion is that the royal family is not only divided but certain princes sympathize with Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization"

A flair for the dramatic?

Since this has been known to everyone with any interest in the royal family, it's not horrifying or surprising news. It's business as usual for the royals.

[risk]

Someone posted an article that claimed that pro-Saudi/Wahabi propaganda expenditures world wide have been tremendous. Does anyone remember the article or have further details with reliable sources?

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

The President has claimed that the war in Iraq is justified, if not by WMDs, then by the prosecution of terrorists and the countries that harbor and fund them. No argument from me about that!

Some of the post State of the Union democrat spinners were asking why, then, are we not at war with Saudi Arabia. Though clearly an attempt to undermine the president, I believe that they have a good point.

[freeangel]

They were only self delusional because they thought their complicity in aiding aq and terrorists would help protect their kingdom. My money is on them knowing the camps were there the whole time.

[LibFreeUSA]

-"Some of the post State of the Union democrat spinners were asking why, then, are we not at war with Saudi Arabia. Though clearly an attempt to undermine the president, I believe that they have a good point.

because, it's not smart (yet) to isolate them and directly take them on by labelling them publicly as an enemy. There are still forces there that do not support BinLaden, and trying to help them now is the best way to go.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Yes, help the anti-Wahabbi's quietly at first. And then louder. And, if necessary, much louder.

[Savage Beast]

This is no time to entrust America--and the world--to a bunch of loose-cannon, screwball Democrat "activists".

George W. Bush MUST be re-elected President!

[DTA]

>>>>And, if necessary, much louder<<<<

Establish Mecca Glassworks Corp.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

It would make it easier to see the oil, under the glass. :)

[DTA]

>>>>>>>-"Some of the post State of the Union democrat spinners were asking why, then, are we not at war with Saudi Arabia. Though clearly an attempt to undermine the president, I believe that they have a good point.<<<<<<

When dealing with forrest fire, a belt is cut through the woods around fire to stop the fire spreading. Iraq is such a belt, between Saudi and Iran. Bush has to be re-elected- there is no time to teach Dems ABCs of strategy.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

there is no time to teach Dems ABCs of strategy

strategery

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Some of the post State of the Union democrat spinners were asking why, then, are we not at war with Saudi Arabia. Though clearly an attempt to undermine the president, I believe that they have a good point."

I believe the answer to your question can be found in a small town in the Alaskan wilderness called Anwar.

The President said last night that there should be less dependence on foreign energy sources. Remove the dependency on Saudi oil will force the Saudis to take a more serious stance on terrorism.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

ANWAR is not a small town in Alaska, but is an acronym for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I agree with your concept, however. The dems are nothing if not two-faced. Their "logic" goes something like this:

1. Agree that we are too dependent upon foreign oil, particularly from Saudi Arabia.
2. Vote down a proposal to drill in Alaska, where huge oil deposits have been confirmed.
3. Base your refusal on some obscure environmental reasons. This serves the dual purpose of pandering to your environmental-whacko constituency, while allowing you to thwart a republican energy proposal.
4. Complain that we are still dependent upon foreign oil, particularly from Saudi Arabia?
5. Question the President's truthfulness. Why is he willing to go into Iraq, which harbors and supports terrorists, but not Saudi Arabia. The President, therefore, is inconsistent.

Of course, if we can't drill in ANWAR and don't get to import Saudi Oil, our economy will be devastated, people will freeze their butts off, and general calamity will reign. Then the dems would ask how the President could have allowed such a situation to evolve.

[DoctorMichael]

Arnaud de Borchgrave Bump.

[Chi-Town Lady]

"Well concealed from prying Western eyes, the ruling family is in the throes of its worst crisis in its 71 years. "

For some reason this sentence puts a smile on my face.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Thank you on correcting me on Anwar. Always thought it had something to do with the location of Anwar Saddats summer home. /relax, kidding.

Well, we don't get the environmentalist vote anyway, so after this election, when there are 60 Rep senators, we open ANWAR to drilling and tell the tree huggers to shut up and sing.

[swarthyguy]

>>>The inner workings of the House of Saud are more opaque than the Kremlin during the Cold War.

Another detailed take here.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faessay83105/michael-scott-doran/the-saudi-paradox.html

And an excellent analysis of the article by freeper AE.

http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_regnumcrucis_archive.html#107293457515824710