Posted on 04/26/2002 2:25:05 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:05:59 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The article was garbage, yet everyone from Chris Matthews to Alan Keyes to John Podhoretz will not shut up about it.
People!! IT WAS AN UNNAMED SOURCE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES!!! Can anyone remember a time when one of these proved accurate??
The steady stream of media reports might lead one to think the meeting Thursday in Crawford, Texas between President Bush and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was solely over the Israeli-Arab crisis; more specifically, salvaging the so-called Middle East "peace" process, with Abdullah's proposal as catalyst. The Saudi initiative calls for Arab recognition of the Jewish state provided Israel retreats to indefensible (pre-'67) borders and allows the creation of a "Palestinian" state.Iraq, to hear the newsies tell it, has fallen off the radar screen. Saddam Hussein, for all intents and purposes, is off the hook. U.S. plans to oust Hussein -- for months the center of panic-button media speculation -- have now been shelved or scrubbed altogether, casualty of roused tensions in the Mideast. (Naturally, the Jew-hating western "news" media blames Israel -- not "Palestinians" -- for the renewed crisis.)
President Bush's War on Terror, in short, has been upstaged, overshadowed completely by unforeseen events in the Mideast, a tinderbox which shows no signs of defusing any time soon -- so says the commentariat, barely able to contain its glee. From here on, attention, focus and energy in this administration will, to the exclusion of everything else, center on resuscitating the Oslo Accords, now largely discredited by Arafat's intransigence and renewed terror against the Jewish state.
The fiercely pro-Arafat New York Times went even further, prospectively depicting the meeting in Crawford in grimmest terms, with Abdullah taking wimpy, namby-pamby paintywaste Bush to the woodshed over U.S. 'reluctance' to rein in Sharon. There was even "talk within the Saudi royal family...of using the 'oil weapon' against the United States", wrote Times "reporter" Patrick E. Tyler in his hit piece, Saudi to Warn Bush of Rupture Over Israeli Policy.
Blackmail, in other words. His source? "A person familiar with the Saudi's thinking...". Oh, I see. Question: How credible are stories like these, as a general rule, where the best writers can offer are anonymous "sources" -- especially in the New York Times? To be charitable, I wouldn't bet the farm on 'em. (For the record, Saudi foreign affairs advisor Adel Al-Jubeir yesterday flatly denied there was any discussion in Crawford of using oil as a weapon or booting U.S. troops from Saudi military bases as 'punishment' for continuing U.S. support of Israel -- the thrust in Mr. Tyler's story.)
Were quotes manufactured out of whole cloth? Perhaps, perhaps not -- that's not the point. The upshot is Big Media is waging an all-out campaign to discredit the Bush administration and thwart U.S. plans to topple Hussein. Frustrating U.S. coalition-building with 'moderate' regimes in the region, where possible, is part-and-parcel of this media push.
But there's an itsy-bitsy problem with Big Media's sleazy little gameplan: It's laughingly gauzy. And flimsy. It's jerry-built on a bogus premise, the notion of Bush the doltish, brainless, simple-minded half-wit; the fratboy who's way out of his league -- in the Mideast, particularly.
No, it wasn't Crown Prince Abdullah reading Bush the riot act -- au contraire: Abdullah came to Bush's Crawford ranch as supplicant -- begging the President to do more to stop Sharon.
No one threatens, no one blackmails, no one bullyrags this President -- for any reason.
Bush's reply? Abdullah, sorry Charlie -- no shift in U.S. policy towards Israel.
The truth is, the Saudis need the U.S., not the other way around. They need our money, while Russia, as the world's largest oil producer, can negate the fallout from Arab oil embargos.
Moreover, Bush is no fool: He knows that, for the Saudis, Saddam Hussein's regime means greater U.S. dependency on Saudi oil.
The nitty-gritty: Saddam equals greater Saudi oil profits.
Moreover, the notion the U.S. needs Saudi cooperation to oust Hussein is laughable on its face: Military analysts see Turkey -- not the House of Saud -- as the linchpin of any such operation, along with U.S. bases in Diego Garcia.
So what's the bottom line? Politics. With midterm elections looming, Democrats and their media lackeys are worried sick -- climbing the walls over the grim -- but very real -- possibility of war on Iraq before November. That's Gephardt's and Daschle's nightmare scenario: The War on Terror retaking center-stage, the chance of U.S. military victory over Saddam before election day. The customary 'rally-around-the-flag' effect, alone, could easily catapult Bush's already dizzying polls (in the mid-70s, currently) into the low-to-mid-90s, a horrifying prospect for Democrats who've done their damnedest to drive those numbers in the opposite direction.
A "Patients' Bill of Rights", ficticious 'Lockboxes', Social Security, Mediscare, deficit-spending -- these are the issues Democrats naturally prefer to take to the voters this fall; national defense, the War on Terror be damned.
I suggest they re-read Bush's January State Of The Union Address:
"We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while danger gathers. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."Neither the Saudis nor elections in November will keep this Commander-In-Chief from doing his job. Period.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
The thing that really pisses me off is the number of conservatives who have gently taken the hands of their left-wing brothers and helped to undermine the entire Bush Mid-East approach. It's disgusting.
That's My Quarters Worth.
CRAWFORD, Texas, April 25 (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia is not considering supporting an Iraqi suspension of oil exports to the United States, a Saudi Embassy spokesman said, dismissing reports in the New York Times that the country could consider such a move in protest of U.S. Middle East policy.
That means John did no research, asked no questions and read no other coverage. Amazing.
Bull's-eye, Deb.
Abdullah was the supplicant here, he's the one who came to Crawford, Bush did not go to Saudi Arabia.
For all the media and Rat BS about President Bush being over his head and the everlasting crap about the charisma of x42, it is Bush who gets things done, it is Bush who has the real charisma and leadership ability.
You can bet it is Abdullah that is sh!tt!ing nickles on the flight home. If the slob ever defecates at all (it doesn't look it).
It pays better to be an alarmist. There's no big dough in blue skys and sunshine.
__________________________
The bald dude.... With the Tommy Daschle voice!
You can bet it is Abdullah that is sh!tt!ing nickles on the flight home. If the slob ever defecates at all (it doesn't look it).
hehehe...so true.
1- rode bicycles for short hops
2- parked the van with its V-8 and drove the Jeep with its flathead-4
3- converted the furnace from oil to gas
4- used gasahol every time we filled up
5- etc., etc.
It was more a nuisance to my family than a "crisis...."
JH2 also gets to the crux of things:
Moreover, the notion the U.S. needs Saudi cooperation to oust Hussein is laughable on its face: Military analysts see Turkey -- not the House of Saud -- as the linchpin of any such operation, along with U.S. bases in Diego Garcia. So what's the bottom line? Politics. With midterm elections looming, Democrats and their media lackeys are worried sick -- climbing the walls over the grim -- but very real -- possibility of war on Iraq before November...
And there is so much more that the Jackal Pack Press "just doesn't talk about, for fear you will start asking rude questions"-- for example,
One thing they skirt around is how utterly dependent all those rag-tag rabbles of shiekdoms and monarchies and dictatorships over in the Middle East are on both our money and the goods they buy from us.
They cannot keep their people oppressed and distracted without the constant flow of money and goods and food from the West. As soon as they lose that, they will start to topple.
One other thing- if Nixon had not been crippled by Watergate, we might have just gone over there and taken their bloody oil fields away from them- I sure heard enough angry talk about doing that very thing at the time.
Exactly -- that point can't be emphasized enough.
It seems to me that a nation should have full rights to decide with whom they wish to trade.
BUMP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.