|
November 23, 2003OUR HONEST FRIENDS, THE SAUDISCASSIO: You advise me well. William Shakespeare, Othello: Act ll, Scene lll President Bush once famously looked into the soul of Vladimir Putin and found an honest man he thought he could trust, only to learn to his sorrow that the former KGB man could practice well the art of treachery. Now he has apparently gazed into the soul of Saudi Prince Abdullah and again found a trustworthy friend: "In an exclusive interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, a sister publication of Arab News, Bush said Crown Prince Abdullah, deputy premier and commander of the National Guard, “is an honest man... He has told me that we are joined in fighting off the terrorist organizations which threatened the Kingdom and...the United States, and he’s delivering. He has also told me that he’s going to work on reform, and I believe him.” The weekend before this interview, however, "Crown Prince Abdullah and a group of more than 40 Saudi scholars gathered in Mecca for discussions on mediation between the government and al-Qaida. The meeting included a mentor of Osama bin Laden, Muslim theologian Safar al-Hawali, who denies claims that the recent Riyadh bombing could be considered jihad. ''Our problem as Muslims is with those who seek to destroy us and our religion – and they are well known – not with the Arab and Islamic governments in our countries,'' al-Hawali was quoted as saying..." As Horsefeathers has noted, the clear headed, realist, President Bush is in conflict with the utopian minded, and sometimes credulous President, who wants to believe in the goodness of all. It's time to release the classified 28 pages on the Saudi role in 9-11, even if that means acknowledging some harsh truths about our so-called friends like Abdullah. Human nature being what it is, there were Abdullahs in Shakespeare's time, and Hamlet knew it when he remarked: "...villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!...meet it is I set it down, That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." Posted at 10:07 AM by
 
|
He's mad that trusts in the tameness of a wolf, a horse's health, a boy's love, or a whore's oath.
Lear's Fool (Act III, Scene vi)
Posted by: Bernard on November 23, 2003 11:00 AMTempting. Tempting. Very tempting.
In my heart, "Nuke Riyadh."
But we must live in the "world of the possible."
I suspect that Bush & his advisers understand the reality of the Saudis more than their public utterances let on.
Posted by: The Commissar on November 23, 2003 01:55 PMSteve, you know from our emails that I'm pretty suspicious of the Saudis, too... But the missing 28 pages doesn't explain Bush's attitude: He can see them any time he wants. Unless his advisors filter everything...
Posted by: Frank on November 23, 2003 02:31 PMFrank,
Posted by: Stephen on November 23, 2003 02:48 PMI assume he has seen it, but as I suggest, is internally divided. The "three pillars" speech in London courageously acknowledged the failed policy of cozying up to Middle Eastern dictators. The Saudi tyrants have been "our" tyrants--and they control our lifeblood-oil. To let evidence of their duplicity emerge would also call into question the extent to which they bought off our diplomats and other govt. officials. The President's father could be compromised by the full truth. Then there's a large segment of our state dept. that still wants to appease the Saudis. I think the truth is slowly emerging, despite the massive PR efforts of the House of Saud. I just wish the President and his advisers would trust the public to be able to handle the truth.
Truth be told, the possibility of a Saudi connection and our dependence on foreign oil is one of the reasons why some are upset about the inattention to fuel standards and tax breaks for businesses owning SUVs. (I imagine gas taxes don't take into consideration the real cost in terms of homeland security.)
I agree with you, Bush probably has seen the 28 pages; either they're not really enlightening/conclusive, or they've had little effect on his attitude. (Remember, unfounded accusations get suppressed all the time; there was a lot which the Senate Judiciary committee saw about Clarence Thomas which was withheld from the public, precisely because the info was considered unreliable.)
Posted by: Frank on November 24, 2003 07:18 AM