Seeing No Evil: Bush And The Saudis
	found on IHT written by NH4, edited by Humberto (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sun 1 Dec 1:30pm
		"Prince Bandar, the glamorous dean of the Washington diplomatic corps, tosses glittery parties with celebrity entertainment at his sumptuous mansions in Aspen and England's Wychwood, hunts birds in Spain with his friends, George Bush Sr. and Norman Schwarzkopf, entertains the current President Bush's sister, Doro, at his Virginia farm, and pals around on the Washington social circuit with Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, George Tenet, Brent Scowcroft and Bob Woodward. He's so tight with the Bush family that he has been nicknamed "Bandar Bush"," writes NH4. "But if Bandar bin Sultan is Gatsby, his wife, Princess Haifa, must be like the careless Daisy: Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas have been drawing fresh tracks between 'charitable' checks Haifa wrote and two of the Saudi hijackers responsible for the 9/11 attacks, men who were on the CIA's list of persons barred from entering the U.S. The princess says she feels as if a bomb had been dropped on her head, but powerful and sympathetic friends like Barbara Bush and Alma Powell have been calling to buck her up -- even as the case has inflamed public suspicion that the Saudi government is more involved than it admits, and that the Bush Administration is less than zealous about getting to the bottom of the Saudi role than they should be."

	"Noncommittal on the future, and uncooperative on the past, the Saudis have been stingy about helping the FBI with Sept. 11. The administration has helped the Saudis be evasive, with Dick Cheney stonewalling congressional investigators. >What accounts for Saudi Arabia's immunity from close scrutiny by the U.S. intelligence community? Have the FBI and CIA been blocked from pursuing potential leads in their investigation of where Al Qaeda's cash originated? When the FBI and Justice Department claim that "disclosing even a possible Saudi link to the terrorists would further damage U.S.-Saudi relations," are they more concerned about America's national interests or the Bush family's personal connections to its good friends in Saudi Arabia?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 42 commentsbest: 10 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Preferred Position of the Saudis   by quackus       at Sun 1 Dec 2:29pm score of 2.5 astute     At the moment, Saudi Arabia is one of the few nations in the Middle East that is at least officially sympathetic to the foreign policy of the US. Though the populace, as a whole, remains devoutly Wahabbist and, therefore, hostile to American intervention, the monarchy generally is supportive of US initiatives (i.e. they seem willing to compromise on Israel, etc.). Additionally, Saudi Arabia is one of the more powerful members of OPEC. Thereby, the Saudi government maintains an enormous influence on the price of oil. Hence, offending the Saudis is something that the current administration wants to avoid at all costs. If we drive the current regime into the arms of the rest of the Middle East, we deprive ourselves of both convenient military bases and influence over the supply of oil. This would not help the economy, to say the least. Thus, if we in any way can avoid condemning influential Saudis (i.e. "they didn't know where their money was going."), we will do so. All my money is tied up in change. - George   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  When friends betray you...   by Rampant Raven       at Sun 1 Dec 2:30pm score of 2 astute     Sometimes it's hard to retaliate. It's not only Bush, but the royal family itself that should be outraged. After all, the goal of Al-Queda is to overthrow the Saudi monarchy. Unless Al-Queda was lying about their objectives, the Saudi royalty should be trying this rogue princess as a traitor. But they will forgive her, because she is family. It's not just affection that compels people to be suckers for their traitorous friends, it's also money and power. If the Royal family starts falling apart, their position will be weakened. If Bush retaliates for betrayal it will hurt him financially. But Bush is compromising the US security for his own friendships and wallet. More Americans will may die because terrorists are sheltering under this sphere of immunity known as the Saudi Royal Family. The royal family is digging its own grave. While they give money to those who want to give them the Bolshevik-Tzar treatment, citizens of Arabia will come to hate them even more, and Americans will become increasingly hateful of Saudi Arabia in general. If the shit hits the fan, both Saudi Royal power and the Arabian petroleum supply will fall into the hands of America-haters; Bush and Bandar will both lose what they were trying to preserve with thier deceitful ways. It's really better to punish the traitors before they have a chance to do even more harm. Narokath Pargon Santak Pargon Xel'lotath   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Despite the obvious writeup bias...   by Eli1021       at Sun 1 Dec 3:10pm score of 1     ...this has been going on for a long time. The writeup makes it sound like Osama himself was cavorting at the Bush ranch but in reality Bush is merely the latest in a long line of presidents who have been willing to put principles aside in the nature of 'national interests'.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Re: Despite the obvious writeup bias...   by NH4       at Sun 1 Dec 8:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     The write-up "bias" derived from the IHT/New York Times article itself, Eli1021. All I did was quote liberally from the article.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Despite the obvious writeup bias...   by monobrau!       at Mon 2 Dec 12:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     "Bush is merely the latest in a long line of presidents who have been willing to put principles aside in the nature of 'national interests'. " Did you hit submit before you finished, or is that all you have to say? Just a shrug of the shoulders, "nothing to see here", etc? We aren't talking about a long line of presidents, we're talking about today. And the one we have today is the one who was in charge when the worst attack on U.S. soil was carried out. I'd say that's a wake-up call to review business as usual and locate, capture and in some cases kill those responsible. I don't care who it is. If we have an administration that is selling out our national interest to the same people who attacked us, then every citizen of this country is obliged to remove that administration by any means necessary.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  OMG!   by Violator       at Sun 1 Dec 3:15pm score of 2 incoherent     Strike me down! Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi nob and well-to-do international business tycoon cum terrorist alumni of the CIA, has links with the Saudi royal family, who support him and hush over his bank accounts, whereabouts and send his minions welfare checks? No! It's no big surprise at all to see Bush and Osama in bed indirectly. The guy had CIA training. If that wasn't a mistake, nothing is. True, the CIA may not have been able to see it coming, but you get that by fiddling with other people's affairs. In order to do business anywhere in Saudi Arabia, I'm sure you can't scratch your arse without having to deal with a Saudi Royal. Bandar is just one of many, and not the richest. The guy put up a $200 million office tower in his own honour, I'm sure he can afford to slip a few million under the carpet to his long-lost and misdirected brother Osama and stay in bed with Bush. Moral juggling acts are probably second nature to the guy. On the Bush side of the equation I'm sure they see that double-dealing Saudi royals are a necessary evil. They politely nod and smile when Ms Saudi death princess expresses shock and mortification that she 'unwittingly' paid the suicide monkeys and keep the precious oil flowing. They ignore the calumny of Bandar because he owns a significant stake in many American corporations, and a large share in a chunk of oil. After all, Osama is a 'crackpot', a loose cannon. In some ways, its like sex. Both parties are wet with the oil of their union, and the relationship is pregnant upon continued detente between them. If either withdraws, they'll need a large towel. Its much better to have soft pillow talk and murmurs and hope to abort the wayward child Osama rather than get in a big argument. I don't think that US national interests weigh in upon anyone in US politics at the moment. To me, most seem to be dynastic political families, surrogate royals (Kennedy, Bush...). And we all know how the royals of old intermingled and played with each other even when at war. Consistently modded down for being an asshole since 2003   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Now I have to poke out my mind's eye . . . .   by irritablbowelboy       at Sun 1 Dec 7:55pm score of 1.5 witty   in reply to comment 4     It's no big surprise at all to see Bush and Osama in bed indirectly . . . .In some ways, its like sex . . . . Thank you for a totally gawdawful metaphor . . . . I may never experience sexuality in any healthy manner ever again. America is strongest when we act in accordance with our ideals.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Revisiting Iran   by NH4       at Sun 1 Dec 3:39pm score of 3.5 interesting     America stands firmly behind its close personal friends in the Royal Family, who in turn keep the mullahs paid off in the hope that it will defuse growing popular unrest within the country. Haven't we seen this pattern before? Last time, it was Iran that had a privileged position vis-a-vis American intelligence. Since all of our intelligence on Iran came from the Iranians themselves, the CIA was duly shocked and surprised by the Shah's overthrow. Will Saudi Arabia experience the same fate? All the warning signs are there: the main opposition to the regime comes from radical mullahs who hate the United States for keeping the Royals in power, human rights are for the most part non-existent, ordinary people think the regime is corrupt and probably wouldn't fight to save it, and no one is even suggesting democracy as a viable alternative. When Iran suddenly became an anti-American theocracy in 1979, the U.S. had no back-up plan, with predictable results: long lines for expensive gasoline and an inflationary recession. Did we learn anything from the experience? Apparently not: today, the U.S. has no back-up plan if the Saudi Royals fall and Arabia (it wouldn't be "Saudi" Arabia any more, would it?) cuts off oil exports to the U.S. to punish us for our "anti-Islamic" foreign policy. There was a good long-term argument for letting the Shah fall, which is what Carter did in 1979. After almost a quarter century as a terrorist-supporting theocracy, Iran may well be on the verge of a democratic revolution to oust the mullahs from power. Such a democracy would naturally gravitate toward the West, and might well serve as a powerful example to neighboring countries with Muslim majorities. But there wasn't a good argument for doing nothing to prepare for the eventuality of the Shah's departure from the Iranian stage. We should be acting NOW to reduce our dependence on Saudi oil, just in case we see a repeat of the Iranian experiment in Saudi Arabia, a possibility that can't be entirely discounted. If we continue to refuse to do so in deference to our Royal friends in Saudi Arabia, our country may well pay a high economic price for the lack of foresight of its leadership, just as we paid a high price for our lack of foresight in the late 1970s. Even now, it's not too late to act to insulate ourselves from the chaos of Middle Eastern politics. But if Bush continues to put his family's economic interests before American economic security, we may well have reason to compare his Presidency to Jimmy Carter's before long.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Re: Revisiting Iran   by brainowner       at Sun 1 Dec 4:22pm score of 2 intriguing   in reply to comment 5     Very nice post. One thought. You said: We should be acting NOW to reduce our dependence on Saudi oil, just in case we see a repeat of the Iranian experiment in Saudi Arabia, a possibility that can't be entirely discounted. Maybe that's why the administration is so eager to get going with this "regime change" in Iraq. It sure would be nice to have some new regime which is willing to provide oil at a reasonable price, and which is unlikely to go spend the profits on some radical form of Islam (as the Saudis have been doing). This could be a good reason to attack Iraq, i.e. the U.S. first needs somebody else for the oil, then they can drop the Saudis. However, my gut feeling is that the Bush and Saudi families are indeed close friends, and that the administration will choose to keep closing their eyes for what is the main source of islamic terrorist funding.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: Revisiting Iran   by NH4       at Sun 1 Dec 6:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 8     Perhaps Brainowner and Jbou (and Mr. Warmth and Christopher Hitchins and ...) are right that the Bush Administration's real motivation in threatening Iraq is to deal with the uncertainties with respect to Saudi Arabia. If so, it would be a foreign policy approach so cynical that we couldn't expect the Bush Administration to share the reasoning behind it with the American people, because in the process he would be sharing that reasoning with the rest of the world. In effect, Bush would be contemplating a war of aggression to secure American oil supplies, a course of action that would probably scare and alienate even most of America's allies. It would put the lie to those who claim that Weapons of Mass Destruction have anything to do with American policy: it would then be clear that it was all about oil and nothing else. It would be a public relations disaster, bound to turn the entire Muslim world against us. But maybe so. I imagine we'll find out one way or another in the next few months.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: Revisiting Iran   by Anonymous Idiot       at Mon 2 Dec 12:03am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 11     Perhaps Brainowner and Jbou (and Mr. Warmth and Christopher Hitchins and ...) are right that the Bush Administration's real motivation in threatening Iraq is to deal with the uncertainties with respect to Saudi Arabia. If so, it would be a foreign policy approach so cynical that we couldn't expect the Bush Administration to share the reasoning behind it with the American people, because in the process he would be sharing that reasoning with the rest of the world. In effect, Bush would be contemplating a war of aggression to secure American oil supplies, a course of action that would probably scare and alienate even most of America's allies. Not necessarily. The argument could go something like this: The US government has realized for some time now that Saudi Arabia is a hotbed of Islamic extremism - the majority of the Sept. 11th hijackers supposedly came from Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the US is acutely aware that our continued military presence in the Muslin Holy Land is a stick which every jihad-minded wacko can use to thump us over the head (much like our continued support of Israel). We've already heard over the past year lots of murmuring about removing US troops from Saudi Arabia and into some more "accommodating" Middle Eastern country. After all, there is little hope of the US "reforming" this corrupt, autocratic regime, a regime that has only been propped up by its sale of oil. The solution: the US can't make a case against directly attacking Saudi Arabia, but it can do the next best thing: starve it. Taking over Iraq would gives the US control, or at least access, to the second-largest oil deposits IN THE WORLD. - and why would any oil company (US or otherwise) deal with those nut-jobs in Riyadh when they can go directly to some compliant, "pro-Western" US-installed "democratic" government in Iraq? In this scenario, the US gets everything it wants: Saddam dead, cheap oil from Iraq, and, this is the crafty beauty of the whole thing, Saudi Arabia, the main sponsor of "Islamic terror" punished, via the inevitable internal convolutions that are likely to occur once the oil-money-spigot is turned off. In some strange way, this scenario almost presents a plausible justification for attacking Iraq, in the sense that the US government could make a case that since a) Saudi Arabia, home of Bin Laden, is the true center of the "Axis of Evil" and b) the US cannot be beholden to such an anti-Western, anti-democratic, misogynist, repressive regime, it follows that c) the US has to do whatever it takes to rid ourselves of this dependence. One may find this kind of justification morally repugnant and/or politically suicidal, but it's been used, with some success, before: The reason why we will shortly have to go to war with Iraq is not to free Kuwait, though that is to be desired, or to defend Saudi Arabia, though that is important. It is because President Saddam is a menace to vital Western interests in the Gulf, above all the free flow of oil at market prices, which is essential to the West's prosperity. Sunday Times(12 August 1990) PS: the above argument requires a willingness to cede a certain amount of duplicitous, deep-thought machinations to the current administration. Conspiracy theorists might note that most of the attacks directed at the Saudis over the current fracas are coming from the Democrats, while the administration is falling all over itself to proclaim their faith in the Saudis. Plausible deniability?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Revisiting Iran   by chatsubo       at Mon 2 Dec 3:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     but would it really be that cynical to cut the ties of dependence to such a shabby, brutal and cruel regime? A democratic Iraq combined with an American refusal to give the Saudi thugs a blank cheque, could be one of the best things to happen to the Middle East. Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Revisiting Iran   by rEvolution inAction       at Mon 2 Dec 9:03am score of 1   in reply to comment 19     As nice as a democratic Iraq would be, who says they'll be pro-american? Sure the opposition to Hussein's rule has said they would prefer to sell oil to American interests, but after they've received the US support they need to overthrow the present regime, they still have to deal with the populace at large. The average Iraqi has been bombarded with propaganda since sanctions were imposed back in the 90's and won't have such a positive view of an american backed government, therefore this new regime may have to take a tough stance against what the people could see as american imperialism. Of course, this is all conjecture, and Iraq could end up supplying the US with cheap oil (although there is still the question of French, Russian, and Chinese interested in Iraqi oil, and it's naive to think that the states doesn't already have some partition agreement with those other countries, as well as Britain), but somehow I doubt it; chances are Hussein will capitulate and give us a complete list of all WMD by December 8th as required by the UN. He's to used to power, and as good he is at deception, I don't think he'll take the chance. Tipping Sacred Cows   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Revisiting Iran   by furryape       at Mon 2 Dec 9:57am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     In some strange way, this scenario almost presents a plausible justification for attacking Iraq Only if you think that the ends justify the means. There are really only two logically consistant ways of thinking. The first is the rule of law. The UN ruled against Iraq, and enforced it's ruling through the collition. Therefore the UN should make a decision about weapons inspectors, and if it's not happy then a UN backed force should enforce the UN's rulings. On the other hand, if the UN is happy, then the US has no justification for attacking Iraq. The second logical thinking is that strong nations have the right to attack weaker nations. Under this thinking, Iraq was right to attack Kuwait, but the collition was right to attack Iraq back, because Iraq's actions interfered with the goals of the rest of the world. Under this thinking, the US has the right to attack Iraq at any time. Both ways of thinking justify the past events, but which way you think will affect how you belive future events should go. I personally much prefer the first way of thinking. Looking back at the past 100 years, the majority of times that a strong nation has invaded a weak nation, there have been refugees, terrorism/freedom fighers, and generations of repercussions. EG, Western Sahara, Austria, Czeckslovakia, Poland, Bosnia, Cyprus, etc.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Revisiting Iran   by NH4       at Mon 2 Dec 10:37pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 19     I don't think it would be "cynical to cut the ties of dependence to such a shabby, brutal and cruel regime" at all, Chatsubo. I think it would be cynical to cut our ties with Saudi Arabia by invading, conquering, and imposing an imperial administration on Iraq while telling the world we were doing so because the Iraqis are developing weapons of mass destruction. We could just as easily cut our ties to Saudi Arabian oil by, e.g., (a) subsidizing oil exploration and pipeline construction in the Caspian, or (b) reanimating the American oil and gas industry (which would, incidentally, create hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs for Americans), or (c) picking up where Jimmy Carter left off, working on developing shale oil (or even extraction of oil from the Athabasca tar sands in Canada), or (d) start a Manhattan Project-style crash program to develop alternate energy sources. None of these course of action would be even remotely cynical.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: Revisiting Iran   by NH4       at Mon 2 Dec 10:46pm score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 18     I'll cede President Bush all the duplicity you like, A.I., but whatever else we may say about the President, he doesn't screw his buddies. Ante a bunch of money to his campaign (or pump up his or his family's private fortune) and he'll come through for you. Need new rules so that you can pollute as much as you like? No problem. Need special protection so that you can get away with using mercury in your vaccines? Consider it done. Feeling the heat from foreign steel competition in a Republican-voting state like Indiana or Ohio? Stiff tariffs get imposed. I strongly doubt Bush has any intention of screwing Bandar Bush or any of his father's clients in Saudi Arabia. I think they are right to trust him. I think he's going after Iraq partly to assure Middle Eastern oil continues to flow west, but partly because he's still pissed at Saddam for trying to off Poppy even after Poppy allowed him to remain in office at the end of the Gulf War. You don't screw the Bushes: they play to win.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Iraq??   by jbou       at Sun 1 Dec 4:24pm score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 5     the U.S. has no back-up plan if the Saudi Royals fall and Arabia (it wouldn't be "Saudi" Arabia any more, would it?) cuts off oil exports to the U.S. to punish us for our "anti-Islamic" foreign policy. Sounds like a good reason to take down Iraq as quick as possible? Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Revisiting Iran   by Mad Ogger       at Sun 1 Dec 4:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 5     Good post. We don't give a shizzat about Saudi oil, though. At least I don't. If they stop selling us their oil prices will go up but we can handle it and that just means more cheap oil in the future. The real problem is terror. If the House of Saud falls, it will be replaced by the kind of people that cheer bin Laden, and they'll give even more money to terrorists. Unfortunately, the future looks dim for the monarchy. Unemployment is 30% and per capita income has dropped by 75% in the past 20 years. They're trying to build up their non-oil economy but who knows if they'll be able to make it work. And if they do succeed, then the oil money that is their source of power will not be so important, so they might be out after all. Crony capitalism is probably their best bet for the middle term, but that doesn't last.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: Revisiting Iran   by NH4       at Sun 1 Dec 6:17pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 10     Terror turned out to be the main problem when Iran turned into a theocracy, too, Mad Ogger: the dislocations associated with the oil embargo were relatively temporary. But such dislocations most certainly did occur, and they would occur again if the Saudi monarchy collapsed. The Saudi monarchy has failed in dramatic fashion, as your link well illustrates. The citizens of the kingdom have ample reason to be extremely angry. Unfortunately, America has concentrated on propping up this failing regime to the exclusion of promoting the democratic and capitalist values that our country ostensibly stands for. If we have to pay a price for linking our economic future to that of a 14th century monarchy, we will ultimately be paying for betraying ourselves.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Shake the bush family tree   by strumbucket       at Sun 1 Dec 3:41pm score of 3 helpful     and traitors fall out. Prescott Bush, for example. Face it, the country is run by big oil's quislings. There is no other guiding principle to this administration than preserving the interests of their masters. got bodybags?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Re: Shake the bush family tree   by eduardo       at Sun 1 Dec 10:58pm score of 2 funny   in reply to comment 6     what industry should run the nation? IT support? J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: Shake the bush family tree   by Mighty Ponygirl       at Mon 2 Dec 7:33am score of 1.5 witty   in reply to comment 16     That would be bad... very bad. We'd lose it halfway through our first term and start screaming at the American public for being so damned stupid. ...But then, it might do them some good. ;)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: Shake the bush family tree   by 4d3r37h       at Mon 2 Dec 8:06am score of 2 clever   in reply to comment 16     what industry should run the nation? IT support? You're begging the question. Why does an industry need to be running the nation?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Which industry is best?   by Rampant Raven       at Mon 2 Dec 11:41am score of 1   in reply to comment 16     what industry should run the nation? IT support? The computer business is dominated by civilized countries. Even violence-prone IT powers such as Israel and India are far more civilized than Saudi Arabia. Also, IT talent is something that can be developed, while petroleum reserves seem to be placed at Allah's whim. Even civilized oil-producers are profiting mostly from luck. A dollar for IT pays for education and technological advancement, a dollar for oil pays for pollution and the blind luck of those who own the right land. Many of the revolutionary energy technologies stem from the desire to power portable gadgets, not from any innovations in the oil industry, which profits from wastefulness. Did 'Evil' Microsoft ever support terrorism, like Aramco did? Narokath Pargon Santak Pargon Xel'lotath   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: Shake the bush family tree   by rEvolution inAction       at Mon 2 Dec 9:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 23     You expect politicians going to survive on a piddly $150,000 per year? Somebody has to line their pockets, otherwise something might get done for the people. Tipping Sacred Cows   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: Which industry is best?   by eduardo       at Mon 2 Dec 9:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 32     Why can't i make a dumb comment for shits and giggles w/o everyone commenting all educated-like.. But also, I work in the IT (not support, anymore) field, and guess what - I can't get to work without petrol. Actually may be I can. I drove like 50 miles today with the needle being under empty. May be the whole "cars need gas" mantra is just bullshit the Bushies pulled on us to keep support for bombing Iraqi children. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Which industry is best?   by Rampant Raven       at Mon 2 Dec 9:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 34     While its the unbeatable truth that any product requires energy to produce, the energy spent for technological advancement upgrades civilization. The energy wasted because fat-cat energy companies have bought subsidies with political funds to make the oil cheap and easy to waste, goes up in smoke. It's almost impossible to prevent some of your money from falling into Saudi hands, but we must all strive to minimize that percentage as much as we can. I walk to work. I figure the landlord that I pay high downtown rent to is not as destructive as excess energy use. Narokath Pargon Santak Pargon Xel'lotath   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Which industry is best?   by eduardo       at Mon 2 Dec 9:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 36     It's almost impossible to prevent some of your money from falling into Saudi hands, but we must all strive to minimize that percentage as much as we can. Actually what we need to do is bomb Iraq, take their oil, stop giving a fuck about the Saudis, let the monarchy get overthrown by a mob of anti-Western zealots, bomb them, take THEIR oil. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Disintermediation   by Rampant Raven       at Mon 2 Dec 9:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 37     It would be easier to cut the middleman and just attack Saudi Arabia directly. But the most peaceful approach is to quit favoring them, and don't bother to attack Iraq unless the inspectors find something or are stonewalled by the Iraqis. No matter who has the oil, they need to sell it to have money, and the Saudis will keep selling it to us regardless of whether we suck up to them or not. Of course, I'm sure that Haliburton and Exxon would have fewer contracts in Arabia, but that's only of concern to leaders who shouldn't be putting their personal gain in front of national security. If Opec wants to jack up prices again, fine, it will just make people less wasteful, and hopefully permanently cut demand for Petroleum. After all, the oil glut that plunged Opec into squalor and disarray was the consequence of a recession and conservation related falloff in energy use; the recession was caused, in part, by the last oil shock. Narokath Pargon Santak Pargon Xel'lotath   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Disintermediation   by eduardo       at Mon 2 Dec 10:11pm score of 1   in reply to comment 38     If Opec wants to jack up prices again, fine, it will just make people less wasteful, and hopefully permanently cut demand for Petroleum job a: 10 miles away, 2x a week. job b: 40 miles away, 2x a week. 20+80=100. 400 miles a month, divided by 23 miles per galon. 17.3. At $1.60 a gallon, that's 28 bucks a month. Actually thats not so bad, but somehow I always pay more. But anyway, shush. Gas=good. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Dead, Oily Meat   by Norman108       at Tue 3 Dec 1:04am score of 1   in reply to comment 37     "Actually what we need to do is bomb Iraq, take their oil, stop giving a fuck about the Saudis, let the monarchy get overthrown by a mob of anti-Western zealots, bomb them, take THEIR oil". Wow that was quick! Too bad it's so much easier killing it on line, than killing it in the flesh. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Lesson to the Saudis.   by MAYORBOB       at Sun 1 Dec 4:19pm score of 1.5 astute     If you really insist on playing both sides of the street, at least have the wits not to get caught going the wrong way in traffic. Sadly, it looks like the same set of wrong assumptions about whom we should trust to give us intelligence, like our failings to listen to anyone other than the Shah, has been made. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  The Saudis..   by StratKat       at Sun 1 Dec 9:48pm score of 1     ...are a snaky bunch. They have strict laws and punish criminals accordingly. Of course if you're a member of the Royal Family that's a different matter entirely. They are a class removed from the rest of their country. Their country would be better off if that class were removed permanently, I believe. ...Unless some Mullahs took over. Then we'd be fucked, and it would get ugly. .....Aaah..The Saudis ain't that bad. You take the slide rule, I'll take the bottleneck....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  hmm   by eduardo       at Sun 1 Dec 11:07pm score of 2.5 brilliant     Princess Haifa A clever name for a Mossad Agent. It's all the Jews' fault. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  Re: hmm   by Bucky Katt       at Mon 2 Dec 8:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     That's not funny. It just isn't. Aloof.. bizarre...sarcastic... volatile... He is a CAT, after all.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: hmm   by eduardo       at Mon 2 Dec 9:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 22     I wasn't being funny, I AM TRYING TO SPREAD THE WORD!!!!! Actually I am trying to be funny. Where's the Bong? J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: hmm   by Mighty Ponygirl       at Tue 3 Dec 6:48am score of 1   in reply to comment 35     Cooks... didn't you get the memo? From now on, Plastic is to be composed of nothing but 100% sincere, objective truth. Honestly, buddy--you really need to keep up on this stuff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Run with the rabbits or hunt with the foxes?   by plutocracywatch       at Mon 2 Dec 7:26am score of 1     For an even harsher assessment go to www.spectator.co.uk - Mark Steyn's article about Bush and the Saudis. Fifth columnists within at the highest levels of our government. An analogy is to Edward's working relationship to the Nazis in the late 30's. Churchill forced him out. Is our President our Edward? Who will play our Churchill? Is Iraq a means to the end of defeating Saudi Arabia or a diversion to save the Saudi royal house? Why does the State Department continue to grant visas to Saudis before completing background checks? Why have our borders still open after 9/11? Why have our immigration policies not been reformed? To whom does Bush and his gang owe their allegiance? This smells of conspiracy, duplicity, and betrayal. Dare it be said: Impeach Bush! Kissinger - No Cover-up! read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

25.  Steyn   by Brian Jones       at Mon 2 Dec 8:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 20     Right here, if you were looking for the link. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  Somebody please slap the Democrats awake   by Brian Jones       at Mon 2 Dec 8:10am score of 2 compelling     When even a right-wing site like Newsmax is grousing about the Bush-Saud relationship, there is a huge amount of ground to be gained by the Democrats. Sorry to bust out a sports analogy here, but...imagine you're watching a football game where the defense has overpursued the ball, leaving a receiver wide open on the other side. The closest member of the other team to the receiver is a 62-year-old coach up in the press box, ferchrissakes. The offensive line has taken care of the pass rushers nicely. Now, all the quarterback has to do for an easy touchdown is THROW THE GODDAM BALL someplace in the general direction of the receiver, who is jumping up and down and waving his hands at the oblivious quarterback. Thousands of fans at home can see all this, and have jumped up from their couches, spraying snacks everywhere, and are yelling HE'S WIDE FUCKING OPEN! THROW IT! And yet the party's leaders stand there like Vinny Testaverde, looking for yet another safe 5-yard dump-off pass on third-and-8. Then the Democrats punt again. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  Who Says We're Not?   by mrwarmth       at Mon 2 Dec 9:17am score of 1.5 astute     I think we have all the intelligence on Saudi Arabia that we need. And we have already acted on it, and are continuing to do so. The war on terror, as I have pointed out before, is a proxy war against Saudi Arabia. Recall the Taliban were a Saudi creation, and turning Afghanistan into another Wahabbi state was their pet project. The US destroyed this before their very eyes. I think they got that message. The Saudis also realize that the invasion of Iraq is really aimed at them. The Bush administration has decided the Saudis are unreliable, and that is why they want to oust Saddam Husein: to create a new client state in the Gulf that can supply us with oil. Once Iraq opens up the spiggots full blast again, this will also hurt the Saudis economically, as it will lower the price of oil. The Saudis know this. And the Bush administration knows the Saudis know this. But everyone is playing nice and air kissing each other at parties because there's nothing to be gained on either side by making any of this public. The Saudi royal family is, I believe, now trying to digest this shift in American policy and determine how best to respond to it. This is why you now have the pro-Washington and anti-Washington factions battling it out in the royal family. Since the new antipathy towards them by the US is fodder for both points of view. The Saudis are not being let off the hook. In fact, they are in a stranglehold made of smiles aircraft carriers. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  Re: Who Says We're Not?   by plutocracywatch       at Mon 2 Dec 10:54am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 28     We don't know what is said behind closed doors. We do know that the Saudis most fear Saddam Hussein who we are threatening to go to war with. We do know that we continue to trade with the Saudis, treat their citizens to this country with special privileges, and wine and dine their leadership. The analogy to 1938 would have been if we overthrew Franco's Spain to teach Hitler a lesson then threatened war on the USSR. read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  From Bandar to George Jessel   by Anonymous Idiot       at Mon 2 Dec 11:36am score of 1 funny     Hey, who was that Terrorist sponsor I saw you with last night? That was no terrorist sponsor. That was my wife! (badump bash!)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]