Saudi to Warn Bush of Rupture Over Israel Policy

The New York Times ^ | 04/25/2002 | PATRICK E. TYLER

[Arkinsaw]

Hopefully Bush realizes that the Saudis knuckled under to Iran a few years ago and are in the back pocket of the terror coalition. They made their choice then and are just now bringing it into public view.

[lawdude]

Well, Princie Poo, we will just let Saddamm have at your sorry despotic ass and when the dust clears, we will come in, clean house on both you clowns, take over your friggin oil fields and enjoy the action. What say, towel head?

s/ DubYah

[uncbob]

Bush ought to tell this slug that it would be a shame if something happened to his oil wells like SEIZURE

But he won't

[Recovering_Democrat]

...and President Bush should look the Prince right back in the eye and say, "Abdullah, we saved your oil fields 10 years ago. We've spent untold billions of dollars to invigorate your bank accounts. Now it is time for you to step up to the plate. Don't come and threaten me. With one Executive Order, this nation could become energy independent without your permission.

You need us, that much is clear, to survive the beast called Saddam. We need you to be a team player. If you want to be off the team, that is your choice. But I'm not Bill Clinton--I won't beg and cajole and pretend we're friends. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. Make your choice.

Now, would you like to go for a ride in my truck?"

[July 4th]

Saudi to Warn Bush of Rupture Over Israel Policy

Bush to Warn Saudi of becoming 51st state

[larryjohnson]

Saudi whines to the NYT.

[Miss Marple]

— Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is expected to tell President Bush in stark terms at their meeting on Thursday that the strategic relationship between their two countries will be threatened if Mr. Bush does not moderate his support for Israel's military policies, a person familiar with the Saudi's thinking said today.

You know, as far as I am concerned this doesn't even qualify as news. He is "expected" to tell Bush this? By WHOM? Note that there is the usual unnamed source.

I think I will start making up my own news, just like the Times.

Ediitors were expected to tell Patrick Tyler that his services as a reporter were sadly lalcking and no longer required, a person familiar with the New York Times's management said today.

[xzins]

What the crown prince fails to see is that this isn't about mid-east policy. It's about killing terrorists who killed 3000+ of our citizens a few short months ago.

This is about a real live, honest to God war on terrorism. Yasir Afafat and Sharonare not the issue.

[hchutch]

I hope so, but they are emboldened by the failure to get ANWR drilling passed in the Senate.

[rintense]

Dubya to the Prince:

Ooooooh, I'm shaking...

[Fabozz]

"In a bleak assessment, he said there was talk within the Saudi royal family and in Arab capitals of using the 'oil weapon' against the United States, and demanding that the United States leave strategic military bases in the region."

Sigh. If only this were true...

[Cicero]

I didn't realize that the NY Times liked the Saudis so much. They never expressed that attitude before, that I can remember. In fact, their usual contemptuous attitude has been that Bush, a "Texas oilman," is too close to the Saudis. So what gives? Are their noses out of joint because he isn't taking their foreign policy advice?

[marron]

there was talk within the Saudi royal family and in Arab capitals of using the "oil weapon" against the United States

Repeat after me. There is no oil weapon.

Except for the Gulf States, every OPEC member is bankrupt, including Saudi Arabia. They need to sell the oil more than we need to buy it. The most they can do is schedule maintenance forward, to simulate a cut in production, or symbolically refuse to sell directly to the US, while selling to brokers and third countries who re-sell to the US.

Keep in mind, of course, that the US only gets a small percentage of its oil from the Saudis. And keep in mind that every oil producer in the world, OPEC and non-OPEC alike, is trying mightily to increase production by any means possible (except the US). Keep in mind that the largest undeveloped oil deposits in the world are in non-OPEC countries, so that every barrel of oil not pumped by the Saudis is a barrel of market share lost to the Russians, or the Mexicans, or the Kazakhs...

[Howlin]

LOL!

[Howlin]

LOL!

[Miss Marple]

Ha! Let them slap an oil embargo on us, and you will see ANWR drilling pass 100-0 (well, maybe 98-2). Can you imagine? The dems can only pull this stuff as long as the Saudis DON'T embargo.

Besides, they already said they wouldn't do it.

I personally think this is the NYT's effort to derail talks. Or it is disinformation from the Saudi's to cover the real reason for the meeting. I don't think they had to go all the way to Crawford to tell us that we might have a rupture in relations. I don't think Rumsfeld's presence or Cheney's would have been necessary, either.

All is not what it seems. Rather than getting angry at the Saudis prematurely, one could ask what the Times is up to with this story, and who planted it. That is more interesting and mught be the key to the puzzle.

[Thud]

Can you think of a bigger threat to our strategic relationship with the Saud clan? Or a bigger debacle for the Saud clan?

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

Saudi to Warn Bush of Rupture Over Israel Policy

bush to warn saudi prince that he wouldnt like not being prince

[concerned about politics]

In a bleak assessment, he said there was talk within the Saudi royal family and in Arab capitals of using the "oil weapon" against the United States, and demanding that the United States leave strategic military bases in the region

Boy, that sure makes a great argument for drilling our own oil. I hope Bush gets right on that! Looks like the way things are going, we're going to need it!