Dean,

I'm gonna have to call you on the way you describe our alliance with the Saudis and our love affair with Arafat. You say

"War often puts you into bed with evil people. It also makes you put up with things you normally wouldn't."

You seem to be implying an analogous situation -- US alliance with Stalin during WWII.

Problem is this: Stalin was not actively engaged in the funding of, or killing and oppression of, US citizens during the War.

So could we please stop saying there is any excuse for the way the State Department cozies up to these despots?

We are doing exactly the right thing with Arafat right now, and are in no way "cozying up" to him. In fact, the Bush administration never cozied up to him, as the administration's recent actions have made abundantly clear.

As for the Saudi despots: unless and until we declare war on them, they are our allies, just as they have been throughout numerous administrations. We are in a delicate strategic situation right now, and it's all too easy for armchair generals to type furiously from behind the keyboard when they know damn well they won't be put on the front lines when the shooting starts, or called to task by history for provoking an unnecessary war with the Saudis when smarter moves could save lives. We are not at war with the House of Saud just yet, and these women's plights are only now getting the attention from the people upstairs who can demand changes. I expect that to take a little time and so should you.

I see no reason, however, now that the situation is understood at the top, that we cannot either demand that adult American citizens be allowed to leave freely, or simply instruct the embassy in Riyadh to take these people in and get them out of the country. While the Saudis won't like it, I can't see them making a huge issue of it, and I doubt that it would threaten strategic plans.

Re: Arafat
See the latest issue of Newsweek --- it contains the latest account of Powell's idea to make Arafat a President with no power. Doesn't Powell understand the President when he says Arafat has to go? Or maybe the President is not really meaning that? I would have fired Powell long ago except I guess he's more popular than Bush. Or maybe Bush thinks that.

Re: House of Saud --
Bush could have effected the release of the Americans in SA months ago. It would have been the opening (or closing) demand of the CP when he came to Crawford, for example. The fact that it hasn't happened speaks volumes about what Bush thinks is right and wrong.

C'mon! Bush is a guy who is famous for believing black is black and white is white. And we love him for that.

This should have been a softball that he hit out of the park.

Why the mushy waffling?

Up until the OpinionJournal article, the only thing I believe anyone much heard about was the fact that there were "custody disputes" involving children of American women and Saudi men. It has only recently come to light that in some cases these "children" are adults who are being treated as children by the Saudi regime. It is in no way apparent that the President or Powell were fully aware of what was going until very recently.

In fact, I'll go further: I think it's naive to believe that administration higher-ups had any real idea of the events.

Regarding trying to sideline Arafat into a post with no actual power: strikes me as brilliant, and better than any alternative I've heard you or anyone else propose. What do you want? Declaration of war? Go in there and assassinate him? Put him on trial? What's your idea? The proposal strikes me as completely in keeping with what Bush and Powell and everyone else in the administration have been saying.

I think using this as another opportunity to bash a President you don't like is just cheap.

Re: Arafat --

Sharansky had the best implementation I've seen so far for achieving a democratic Palestinian state, something we all want desperately.

I excerpted it here at Postmodern Politics.

I disagree with him in only one aspect. He says:

Just as Germany and Japan had to undergo a process of rehabilitation in order to rejoin the international community following World War II, so today Palestinian society must undergo a transformation.

For Japan and Germany, that transformation began with their unconditional surrender to the Allies.

Powell's current fixation with Arafat seems to ignore that historical precedent, to say the least.

Sharansky seems to be addressing Powell and the rest of the appeasers when he says:

I hope that we will not be sidetracked once again by accepting Arafat’s phony promises of reform...This will only serve to perpetuate dictatorial rule that will preclude the possibility of peace.

Does that clear up any confusion about where I stand...?

P.S. Please don't go on and on about how I "loath" Bush or want to "bash him" at every opportunity. It's free country. If I disagree with the President, that shouldn't make me appear to be an irrational lunatic....

:^)

....no matter what Ann Coulter says.

Powell has no "fixation" on Arafat that I'm able to detect. It is the same as the rest of the Bush administration's: Arafat must be removed from power. Period. Sharansky praises this administration. Why can't you?

I find it sickening that people would use the plight of women like this as just another opportunity to take cheap pot-shots at the administration. But it is inevitable, and I guess if it helps garner more attention to these women who've slipped through the cracks, then it's a net positive.