Oooo, a quiz!

1. E (Lie to their faces until we bring the middle east domino down on their asses.)

2. C sounds good but the real answer is E, set up a prince with a hooker in a video taped hotel room, make one million copies of the tapes. Sprinkle liberally over the middle-east. (Hah! 25 with the hyphen, booya!)

2: D sounds really really good. C is too unemotional--he really needs to understand that we have utter contempt for them. But the realy answer is: E) Smile with the mouth (but not with the eyes--those remain ice-cold steel), and say vague and empty platitudes.

1: Take him for a life-fire demonstration of our military's newest toys. At the finale, Bush would say, "Watch this drive" as a nearby mountaintop gets transformed into a wide expanse of dust and pebbles.

Here's what President Bush should say to Colin Powell:

"Mr. Secretary, you are more knowledgeable on this than me, but it would seem that the State Department needs to begin doing that kabuki-style dance that signals EXTREME annoyance and displeasure, beyond the normal course of events.

"Mr. Secretary we need to signal our displeasure. We need to do it in a way that will draw diplomatic and media attention.

"We need to do something that will move us one significant step in a new direction. But that direction cannot be to a point of no return.

"However, it must be a signal that our displeasure is not just business as usual...

"We are not having a lover's spat...

"We need to do more than just kiss and make up.

"Mr. Secretary, we do not need to specifically state what happens next, after that first step. The step alone must be significant enough that it sends a clear signal that we mean business.

"Perhaps closing the embassy is a 5-step process; if so, maybe we need to take that first step, now.

"Or perhaps expelling the Saudi ambassador is a 5-step process; if so, maybe we need to take the first step, now.

"Please get back to me. You've probably been watching me and Rummy and Condi down in Crawford; if so, you know stuff is happening.

"Please get back to me ASAP with specific options.

"Yours Truly,
"George W. Bush"

Vis-a-vis The Bonus Question:

Here's what George W. Bush should say:

"Mr. Protocol Droid, please make sure that there are NO photographs of me meeting with Prince Bandar. Bring him in the side door. Bring him in thru a secret tunnel. If there is NO secret tunnel, dig one, now.

"I do NOT want to see photos of me smiling and shaking this guy's hand because every time I do this, it shows up on that SOB Ara Rubyan's blog.

"It's an embarrassent.

"...and I figure sooner or later, the DNC is going to use the photos in TV ads during the next Presidential election cycle.

"Now watch this drive."

The first question:

E. Stop insisting decisions are black or white and that people are evildoers or valued allies.

As long as Mr. Bush continues to paint people as evildoers and good guys, some of us will continue to point out that our "good guys" are up to some pretty evil stuff.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Dear Dubya:

If you're going to claim to be fighting against regimes that finance terrorism, then you're going to have to fight against the Saudis. They're no different than Iraq in that area.

PS: Thank you for having lunch and smiling on camera with the dude that flew all of Osama Bin Laden's relatives out of Pakistan after September 11th for their protection. That was really cool.

Dear Chari,
Why don't you answer the questions? The whining just makes you look childish.

Basically what all of you want is to be rude or ruder to the Saudi's...It will make you feel better, maybe.

I for one want my diplomats to be,well, diplomatic. If you want your diplomats rude, childish, full of empty-threats & crybabies then you should have worked harder for Al Gore's campaign.

Btw, calling some country our valued ally is not the same thing as calling them a good guy...

Remember WWII - Stalin (USSR) not a good guy but definitely a valued ally.

"As long as Mr. Bush continues to paint people as evildoers and good guys, some of us will continue to point out that our "good guys" are up to some pretty evil stuff."

As long as Mr. Bush continues to be president some of you will nit pick every chance you get. Here's a hanky - now seriously- get over it.

Good points, Rosemary.

Hey Rosemary:

Stalin was a butcher. Surely you must know that. I'm surprised that you would accuse someone of whining about that fact?

Also: At the time of WWII, Stalin hadn't contributed to the murder of 3,000 of our own citizens. On our soil.

Not something that we can say of our valued ally, Saudi Arabia, during THIS war.

And when it was all over, staunch anti-Communists pursued certain government officials for, ahem, being friendly towards the Stalinist regime in the 30s and 40s. Remember the blacklist?

So here's a question for you:

When can we expect certain Republican officials to be hounded from office this time around...?

Oh and another thing:

Just for the record: I'm with you on regime change in Iraq. Saddam should have been taken down a long time ago.

That said....

If we are serious about regime change in Iraq, we should fish or cut bait.

for example:

Why are we accepting "no" for answer when we kindly asked the Saudis for the ability to use OUR OWN BASES there for a staging area?

Why don't we just, er, go in and TAKE THEM BACK?

It should be pretty easy....the Saudis are soft indeed. They don't even have a real army: they hire surrogates to fight for them -- like us!

In fact, during the Gulf War, do you know what the Saudi National Anthem was?

"Onward Christian Soldiers!"

A Saudi invasion would be like knocking off Noriega in Panama during Bush 41.

You want to spread the democracy bug? Show em we mean business in SA.

C'mon you guys! -- Why are you so CONSISTENTLY apologizing for this kind of butt-kissing crap from the Bush administration?

I'll bend over backwards to see it your way, but I will NOT bend over forward...! And neither should you.

All this and more at E Pluribus Unum

If we're going after state-sponsored terrorism, we have to go after the Saudis. Period.

Just because they do theirs with telethons and slick color brochures doesn't make them any different than Iraq.

We would then have no problem using their bases to attack Iraq.

Ara, that has got to be the DUMBEST thing I've heard you (or anyone else) say on this blog!

Invade Saudi Arabia? The homeland of the most important city of Islam? Are you trying to start WWIII? Or do you just not understand the storm that would create?

Forget that Mecca is the Holy of Holies for every living Muslim. Forget that every power in the Mid-East (save Israel) would jump at the chance to defend it (and, maybe grab the city for themselves, but that's another story).

The Sauds have some decent ground forces, great air forces, and are fighting in their own front yard.

The US, on the other hand, would be at the end of a very long leash, or that the only likely ally would be Isreal. Never ignore home-field advantage; in this case the tremendous logistical edge that the Saudis would have.

Oh, those air bases aren't "ours"; they were built before the Kuwait War by the Saudis. And folks thought Noriega would be a pushover, but even then there was more resistance than expected.

So rein in on the Bull Moose-driven testosterone overload and think for a couple of minutes, ok?

No one here (I would be grateful for specifics) has ever apologized for/about the Sauds.

To be specific: Robin Goodfellow had it almost right. Taking out Hussein (the easier part)and establishing a stable & democratic system (the much harder part) would weaken every despot in the region, bar none. After that sit back and watch the ripe fruit fall...

And that's what almost everyone in the Mid-East and half of Europe is scared of...

Kiss the Saudis goodbye, forget Syria, the democratic currents in Iran get impatient and finally push out the radical conservatives, and so it goes.

About the only thing that concerns me is the definite possibility that Saudi Arabia destabilizes and the real Wahabis take over. Congratulations, now Al Quaeda has a real country to base in; one with oodles of hard cash.

And maybe, that's what bothers Dubya too.

Casey,
Excellent points. Why some people can't grasp the idea of fighting one enemy at a time is a real puzzle.

As mentioned in another thread, on the day that this photograph was taken:

Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt were quite aware of the fact that Stalin had broken promises and stabbed both nations in the back repeatedly. Both men were also fully aware that Stalin had been actively engaged in espionage and subversion on both U.S. and British soil all throughout the war.

Just to clear the record up.

I continue to await clear, unequivocal, twenty-five-word-or-less statements about what Bush should do differently about the Saudi situation.

I'd like Bush to do any of the following:

Destroy Al Quaeda before targeting other, apparently less immediate, threats. (10 words)

Be honest. (Or at least less transparently dishonest. I find it insulting he expects me to believe him.). (18 words. Or 2. Depending on how you want to count.)

Stop smirking. (2 words, but flip.)

I don't know what "be honest" means. State publicly that the Saudis are our enemies? Stop saying Saddam Hussein is a threat? This is too vague for my tastes.

But I do get the bit about Al Qaeda. "Don't invade Iraq or anyone else. Focus on Al Quaeda."

I still feel that this is like pulling teeth. Why can't you guys say exactly what you want, in a simple, straightforward fashion? Do or do not invade Iraq? Do or do not make war on Saudi Arabia. Be rude to them or don't be rude to them. Say a certain thing in public or don't say it. Why is this so hard?

Rosemary: As long as Mr. Bush continues to be president some of you will nit pick every chance you get. Here's a hanky - now seriously- get over it.

Nitpicking: Saying Mr. Bush should get a man's dog, like a rottweiler.
Not nitpicking: Saying the gulf between Mr. Bush's actions and his words is so mind-bogglingly vast that the world community is becoming concerned that an unstable man may be in charge of the world's largest weapons arsenal.

"Saying the gulf between Mr. Bush's actions and his words is so mind-bogglingly vast that the world community....."

... continues to bitch and moan that, even though they don't have any substantive suggestions--or the power to effectuate their ideas/suggestions-- whatever Bush is doing is the wrong thing to do. Whatever Bush does.

Nothwithstanding, of course, that there is no such thing as "the world community" or "world opinion".

"...the world community is becoming concerned that an unstable man may be in charge of the world's largest weapons arsenal."

1) Ah yes. Once again their idea of how to implement their suggestions is limited to "frown in his general direction."

2) They are wrong. Stupidly wrong. Why should we pay any attention to the opinion of people who have such absurd opinions?

Hey Ara,

"Stalin was a butcher. Surely you must know that. I'm surprised that you would accuse someone of whining about that fact? "

What exactly gives the impression that I didn't know that or that I am accusing someone of whining about that fact?

Did you not read what I said???

I'm suggesting that you can be a nasty fucker and still be a valued ally.

So, what's your point again?????

Seriously Dude Keep Up!

Ara,

Why is it that you think reasonable explainations that we give are "CONSISTENTLY apologizing for this kind of butt-kissing crap from the Bush administration?"

I'm shocked that a man who takes EVERY opportunity he can to defend the PRESIDENT WHO INVITED YASSAR ARAFAT TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR PHOTO-OPS will continue to BASH and nit-pick the best ally Israel has ever seen.

By the way most of your suggestions will get Israel flattened and the US in some deep shit. If Bush took your advice...we'd LOSE and he'd never get re-elected.

I begin to believe Rosemary and Fred are correct. In fact, I begin to suspect it's worse than that.

I mean, the question is quite simple:

Declare the Sauds enemies and attack?

Declare the Sauds enemies and don't attack?

Don't declare them enemies, but insult them?

Make demands of them that we will not back up with force?

Other (please specify. Be specific and succinct).

They cannot or will not answer. I increasingly believe this must be because these folks actually want us to lose the war. If I'm wrong about that, why won't they answer the question?

Dean,
You are not wrong. I believe that most of the people that have a problem with Bush would have a problem no matter what course of action he took. Our President is in a lose-lose situation with these people. Thank God they represent a small minority of people.

President Bush is a SMART man despite what some people would like us to believe. He has also PROVEN himself to be a REALLY GOOD if not great leader. I believe that because of him WE will prevail. It may not be on Ara or John's timetable. Tough shit. It will happen.

Bush, like Reagan, will be one of the Presidents we look back on as Great! (No, I'm not kidding)

You all can quote me on it. I stand by that.

In the real world Bush can't and won't wage war on the Saudis. He can't even get support at home or abroad for a war against Iraq, and the Saudis are far better allied.

He might be smart (I doubt it), but more importantly he has ideological blinders on, and can't come up with creative solutions to this or any other problem the USA faces.

He is not a great man or a hero. He beat the Taliban, but that is no big military feat. He has failed to capture the real perps of 9/11. In the end he will probably only be remembered as a curiosity in American politics: one of the few presidents who got there because of a technicality in the US election laws.

I can't come up with a president who became president without winning the Electoral College. That's not a technicality - its the only way to win an election. Bush won via the Electoral College. Recount after recount hasn't disproved that fact.

Rosemary:

I think Adam's referring to the 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court; a vote that, as far as I know, is not mandated by any strict interpretation of the US Constitution.

But let's not go there, OK?

:^)

Let's all try and remember who started this shit in the first place. Remember the guy who didn't have the class required to concede his defeat.

Since all the recounts since then have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush won Florida...making him the winner of the Electoral College and true POTUS...the 5-4 Supreme Court decision proves only one thing: They were right - stop being sore losers already.

Gore would have lost without SCOTUS intervention. That was revealed in the media recount that was heralded for nearly a year by Gore's supporters. Gore's response was to point out once again that he lost. Move on already.

The comments on invading Saudi I believe are correct the risks involved around Mecca are formidable. The real problem is to find ways of finding similarities in our race , religiops and culture The God of Christianity is the same as that refered to by Allah and also the god of the Jews/Old Testament.E ven Jesus when asked how we should pray said 'Our Father Who Art In Heaven'
So if we pray to the same god have the same colour blood etc surely we should promote our similarities, Saddam is evil and i believe does have biological weapons etc making attacking him seem moraly ok .BUT this is just an excuse to get the Oil, as to me its very obvious America will quite likely be denied Saudi oil within the next few years if the saudi royals are overthrown

1) E: support a popular revolution against the House of Saud if they refuse to reform and allow the development of democratic institutions, liberty and human rights.

2) E: send an ambassador in his place.

"Dance, towel-head, dance!" is a slur against all Arabs. I am not an Arab myself, but I am a human being who stands up for human rights and respect.

How is it that in 1991 the U.S. under poppy Bush, we had to go to war to defend the house of Saud. Now under sonny Bush you want to nuke the house of Saud. What has changed in the past dozen years? The Saudi's are the same corrupt 5th century thinking cutthroats they've always been. The Jews are the same money grubbing backstabbing SOB's they've always been. The Americans are the same stupid egocentric energy hogs you've always have been. So my question still stands. If you are man enough to answer it honestly, that is. Just what the FUCK changed??