U.S.-Saudi joint bid doubted [I'm not a cat's-paw]

Miami Herald Online ^ | BY WARREN P. STROBEL

[JohnHuang2]

Quote of the Day by veronica

[JohnHuang2]

Gotta run -- see y'all later.

[Miss Marple]

I still say the source for that story was Bill Kristol, especially since he was ready with a column that neatly dovetailed into Tyler's article.

[section9]

My issue with your post is that it ignores Safire's central thesis: a crisis within the Saudi heirarchy. I don't see that Safire is criticizing Tyler at all, least of all by implication. Rather, I see him emphasizing the latter possibility (I read the column as well) of division in the throne room, or tent, as it were.

What this leads to, and what Safire doesn't address, is that what is going on here is a legitimacy crisis within the al-Saud family. What Bush has done, quite well I might add, is to have given the Saudis a decisive "role" in Mideast diplomacy. This gives Abdullah something to show his more ultramontaine relatives in the Family, and increases his prestige and honor relative to Mubarak and the despised King Abdullah the Hashemite, "Boy King" of Jordan.

It's a bone, of course. Bush is keeping his eyes on the prize: the Thief of Baghdad. The signals are coming out of Washington with increasing frequency that things are about to start ramping up around Iraq. Everything depends on undoing the Hussein regime. The installation of a constitutionally based federal republic in Iraq would be a cancer to the rest of the Arab dictatorships. And I think that this is something Bush knows that his father never understood.

Giving the Saudis a role gives them a stake in American diplomacy and American strategic aims. They just don't see that those strategic aims are at variance with their own.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Cincinatus' Wife]

New York Times, get a bird cage bottom to cover.

[eureka!]

Bump. I guess the Clymer Friedman's article today is a real hoot too...

[MeekOneGOP]

bump!
Mornin', John! :O)

[carton253]

On Meet the Press Sunday, Benjamin Netanyahu had this to say about the Saudi threat:

Do you believe that he (Prince Abdullah) said that? Do you believe he acutally threatened the United States? I mean, that's a new definition of chutzpah. These gusy have been -- this regime has been funding Islamic militancy worldwide, from the Phillipines to the West Coast of the United States. They've funded the Taliban. They funded Osama Bin Laden. He'd never had have gotten to the proportions that he got without Saudi funding. And they have the temerity to tell the US that they will face great danger if they support, assist a democracy facing the terrorism they've been sponsoring? That's ridiculous. I mean, I think that the Saudis should be exposed for what they are. They should be taken not with a grain of salt, but with a grain of acid, because they are really responsible for a good part of the madness that has proliferated here. And by the way, the idea of ventilating societies, maybe we ought to start with Saudi Arabia, which is one of the most backward, cloistered dictatorships in the world.

I think Netanyahu is right. The Saudis are playing both sides against the middle. Sooner or later, US foreign policy is going to have to recognize that when it comes to terrorism, the Saudis are just as involved as the Saddam.

[flamefront]

Safire sits with rest of them on the sinking ship of declining newspaper circulation. Safire has been struggling for a story ever since dropping the ball on the ChiComs and your handles namesake.

Chris, above, is right. The Saudis are fragile.

[maica]

Chris, above, is right. The Saudis are fragile.

Agreed! Aren't they just two generations away from riding camels across sand dunes. If their oil stays in the ground, they will have to get back on the camels.

[Howlin]

No doubt about it!

[jwfiv]

I'm beginning to be less annoyed and more amused by the two-step being done by the media in response to Dubya's game of high stakes poker. He's been holding a good hand full of Aces, and just drew the King of Camels. It'll be time to lay 'em on the table soon, and watch a few other players fold, or go boom and lose all their chips.

As far as Safire, he uses to many words to think clearly. Any 'conservative' who endorsed x42 in '92 is one of the fog bound. I have great affection for Safire, always perk up when he's on the tube, but since I don't watch ABC Sunday any more, I don't see him much. He did come around to render a rather harsh judgement of Hil and Bill as those eight years of blight wore one, and is one of my fave pundits

[Victoria Delsoul]

This is gonzo language.

Translation: My associate is a storyteller, a fibber. I don't buy his cock-and-bull tale, not for a minute; that's why I'm tempted -- oh-so-tempted -- to grill him, cross-examine him......get him to cough up that phony "source" of his, just to prove my point.

You got that right! LOL!!!

[terilyn]

My B.S. meter goes off every time Matthews opens his mouth, (and I ain't talking 'bout Barbara Streisand)! ;^)

Thanks for another great read John.

[RightWhale]

the House of Saud was threatening war on the United States

That's a weak metaphoric use of the word for which we can blame LBJ. Holocaust, genocide, jihad, all used in exaggeration, usually in attempted demagogism.

[Snow Bunny]

Thank you for the ping.

[JohnHuang2]

You may be on to something, my friend.

[JohnHuang2]

Re: #5 - indeed, Cincy.

[JohnHuang2]

Thanks for bumping =^)

[JohnHuang2]

hehehe