Life imitates art!! Amid Tensions, Saudi Envoy Meets Bush Father, Cheney Wed Aug 27, 8:34 PM ET Add Politics to My Yahoo! By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid serious strains in U.S.-Saudi relations, the Saudi ambassador to Washington met former President George Bush on Wednesday and will meet Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) on Thursday, U.S. officials said. The meetings coincide with efforts by Saudi Arabia, long a close U.S. ally and major oil supplier, to halt a slide in relations amid American concerns about links between some Saudis and attacks on the United States. Prince Bandar bin Sultan had lunch with Bush -- father and close confidant of the current president -- in Kennebunkport, Maine, where the family has long had a vacation home. Bush spokeswoman Jean Becker confirmed the meeting but said it was private, declining to provide further details. The former president has had a long relationship with Bandar, the veteran envoy in Washington, and worked closely with Saudi Arabia when he presided over the U.S.-led 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). Cheney's spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise said Bandar would meet the vice president on Thursday in Wyoming. She gave no further details. Relations between the United States and the desert kingdom have been battered since the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (news - web sites) that killed 3,000 people. Most of the hijackers of the planes that were used in the attacks were Saudi born as was Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), head of the al Qaeda Islamic militant group that was blamed for that and other anti-U.S. operations. LINKS WITH AL QAEDA Recently, lawmakers from both U.S. political parties have voiced concerns the Bush administration may be seeking to shield the United States' No. 1 crude oil supplier from sanctions, despite accusations the Saudi Arabian government has turned a blind eye to Saudi wealth underwriting al Qaeda and other militant organizations around the world. The U.S. Treasury has refused to give the U.S. Congress details about Saudi organizations and individuals that have been investigated as possible terrorism financiers. Last week, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said in a television interview some of the people attacking U.S. forces now occupying Iraq (news - web sites) were slipping across the border from Saudi Arabia. U.S. soldiers have faced daily guerrilla ambushes since the end of the war that ousted Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in April. U.S. officials have long suspected some militants have come through Iran and Syria and has warned both against interference in Iraq but have not previously singled out Saudi Arabia. However, Riyadh's cooperation on fighting terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States has left some U.S. officials disappointed. A State Department official said on Wednesday that Armitage's comment about Saudi Arabia was "overplayed" and that the deputy secretary "wasn't trying to lump Saudi Arabia in the same category as Iran." In an effort to try and assuage some of the damage done to the relationship, the United States and Saudi Arabia this week launched a joint task force in Riyadh to tackle the funding of terrorism.
I disagree. We had a bombing in the states and Clinton bombed the people the CIA told him were responsible. The only reason it resembled "Wag the Dog" is because the Republicans didn't stop attacking him through his whole presidency, so any attacks or wars could have been construed as having been used to manipulate public opinion. And that makes it OK to attack Iraq how? Lindh was found in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Criticizing the administration for its missteps is not whining. I apologize if you don't like my language, but it is just a figure of speech. I guess I should have said "The media, politicians, and public gave Bush free reign to do what was necessary to combat the organization that attacked us on 9/11. In addition, there was virtually no negative commentary about the administration during the year following the 9/11 attacks." I did support the policy in Afghanistan. The Taliban was openly allowing the organization that attacked us to stay there unmolested. We went in there and kicked Taliban and Al-Quada a$$ to try to break up the organizational structure the terrorists had built. We went in and did a great job until we ignored rebuilding Afghanistan AGAIN in favor of attacking Iraq. Read it. Still not impressed due to several factors.
Giddy, I don't see the connection. There are several reasons why the two actions sre not at all similar. 1) The first, PH, was a direct conventional attack from a known and acknowledged sovereign power, Japan. Subsequent action, declaration of war on Japan, was an automatic and unquestionable response. Blame for the attack's success was ( unfairly, as it turns out) laid at the feet of the ACPNF stationed at PH for failing to be prepared. The second, 9-11, was an indirect attack from a terrorist organization, and as such it is difficult to discern attributable responsibility in the conventional sense. Subsequent action, invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, recieved global support proportional to the proven connection: Afghanistan was fairly connected, and the invasion recieved a lot of support, Iraq was shown to have virtually no connection, and as such the support was significantly lower, and the 'grilling' obvioulsy much higher. Blame for the success of the attack has never been assigned, unless the Patriot Laws assign the blame to our civil liberties. 2) The role of the media has altered siginificantly since 1940. VietNam, Watergate, JFK's assassination ( and subsequent Warren Commission findings), Iran-Contra, McCarthyism, etc. have all shown us the weakness in taking the word of the government at face value, and the press has altered it's relationship in kind. JFK had numerous affairs, some of a highly questionable nature, and the press, who knew, said nothing. Gary Hart might have had one fling, but his career was destroyed. The press has also grown substantially since Pearl Harbor, in both number and venue, and as such 'grilling' has an entirely different nature. 3) Partly due to no.2, perharps, but in any event factually different, is the reality that, in this event we have several recorded mistakes, misleading statements, lies, and obfuscations byt the administration regarding it's actions surrounding or stemming from 9-11. The effect of thse is that they show, with little doubt on either side of the debate, the fact that Bush et al felt that they wanted to do A ( invasion of Iraq, restriction on civil liberties, etc.) and did whatever they had to do to accomplish same. Forget whther or not you think they were right to do so, had ulterior motives, etc., and the fact is that most agree that this is what happened, at least to some degree. On the other hand FDR's stance on getting into WWII was well known, much more well known than Bush's position on Iraq pre-war, and yet he played within the rules; he did not lie, he did not make a series of 'accidental' erroneous statements which had the effect he desired, he did not drum up faulty intel to suggest that Germany was about to invade the US...in short, he did not supercede his mandate. That Bush did so, whether or not you agree with it, and the errors, etc. which lie in the wake of same have opened him up to grilling in a way that FDR's actions could and did not. 4) On 9-11 directly, I would suggest that Bush has recieved little actual 'grilling', and on the subsequent actions he has not recieved enough. Consider that virtually the entire rest of the planet disagreed with our invasion of Iraq, questioned our intel, wondered at our motives, objected to our haste, etc...and at home, alone, he initially basked in extreme and ( aggressively) unquestioning support. It is only now, when the rest of the world has been proven to have been more accurate in their assesment, that the US, media and populace, is falling into line with the opinion that the rest of the globe has long held. If anything Bush's use of the US tendancy to 'rally round' in war, assume that we know better than everyone else, and mistake honest objection for lack of patriotism garnered him a reprieve from the grilling his actions warrented.
<b>macbeth</b>: 1. Conventional vs. Unconventional Attack: is there any reason to be more unified than when the enemy is unknown and there whereabout are uncertain-- especially when some of them are likely to be internal? 2. Role of the Media: I'm not sure that we are better off for all the sound-bite diet that constitutes news today. There's always going to be an ugly side to leadership and governance. What do we gain with constant attention and attempts at revelation? That's what elections are for. 3. See #1. How much easier to demonize Japan and take them on than to ferret out this constantly changing roll of terrorists who secretly span the globe and seek finance and safety from who-knows-who and where. Yeah, GWB and I wish it were an easier enemy to identify and obliterate. 4. Well, the rest of the globe is envious of our success and power. Had they a serious problem, they would look to us as their most likely salvation. Again, leadership is a heavy burden to bear. You want squeaky clean, go to the movies!
