Bush meets with Saudi prince

[cerulean]

Saudi Prince Bluntly Tells Bush to Temper Support for Israel
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/25/politics/25CND-PREX.html

The US is being threatened and not very indirectly, as I see it.

[cerulean]

I read an analysis the other day that energy-saving measures on the part of Americans will not help that much. If these are implemented, demand for oil will go down and some domestic production sites (like in Texas) will no longer be cost-effective. Thus, those will be shut down, thus increasing the demand on Saudi and other Arab oil.

The deficiency in this analysis, the way I see it, is that the true cost of Arab oil is not reflected in what the average American (or European) consumer pays for it. Take the total cost of 9/11 (including the Afghan war) for starters, or the cost of the Gulf War. Consider the cost of military defenses and covert intelligence to fight off the threat that is paid for by oil dollars. This cost is in no way reflected at the gas pump.

If Arab oil were priced according to what it really costs the consumer, demand would drop sharply and there would be much greater impetus to develop greater energy-efficient products and alternatives to petroleum. Domestic production would not be affected. Call it the "Terror Tax" or the "9-11" tax.

Back to Bush and the Saudi prince, a scenario where oil prices drop and certain domestic sites become infeasible would likely mean a great pecuniary loss for Bush Jr. and Sr., not to mention Cheney.

[cerulean]

From
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/04/25/bush.saudi.meeting/index.html

"Our two nations share a vision of two states -- Israel and Palestine -- living side-by-side in peace and security," Bush said. "I reiterated that all parties have responsibilities to help achieve that vision. The Palestinian Authority must do more to stop terror. Israel must finish its withdrawal, including resolutions of standoffs in Ramallah and Bethlehem -- in a nonviolent way."

Thus, we see that the Leader of the Free World (tm) indicates a strong parallel and affinity between the United States and Saudi Arabia in terms of their vision for Israel. Saudi Arabia, a country in which Jews cannot even live, the country from which 15 out of the 19 9/11 hijackers came, the country which is holding a terror-sponsoring telethon, the country whose mainstream papers publish stories about Jewish pastries using children's blood, etc.!

[ibrodsky]

Cerulean, don't be naive.

Why do you simply accept the media's version of a meeting that took place in private? The Saudis have "leaked" that they intended to deliver a tough message and the media obediently reported that this is what happened. For all we know, the President and his staff spent five hours explaining to the "Prince" that if Saudi Arabia doesn't stop supporting terrorism, it will pay a high price.

Your theory about energy efficiency is silly, because the Bush administration's policy is to reduce US dependence on Middle East oil (read: Arab & Iranian oil) by developing other energy sources, such as oil in Alaska, offshore drilling, etc.

Your comments about Bush Jr and Sr and Cheney are just left-wing nonsense. Do you imagine that Bush and Cheney support Israel simply because they want to provoke an Arab oil boycott?

Sure, Bush probably told the "Prince" that he will pressure Israel to withdraw and sees a Palestinian state as part of the ultimate solution. He also no doubt told him that the terrorist attacks have to stop, and that the US also recognizes Israel's right to self-defense.

Pressuring the Saudi "Prince" to go along with the US vision -- end terrorism and negotiate a settlement for a Palestinian state -- is not giving into terrorism. Privately, I'm sure Bush told the "Prince" that US support for Saudi Arabia is rapidly declining thanks to their failure to really oppose terrorism.

People who think that the US is afraid of the Arab states, even if they could unite militarily (which is very doubtful), are deluded. The White House's stance vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia is a sign of US strength. The "Prince" was not invited to Crawford just so he could deliver a stern lecture. I'm sure he is being reminded who supplies and trains the Saudi military, who saved SA from Iraq, and who buys the SA's oil.

[thrud]

I think because SA has so much influence in the world as an oil supplier, the US and the EU should persue renewable energy resources so we do not have to worry about a bunch of ignorant zealots who really hate every one who does not bow to Mecca (they are like the Chinese who think most of the world is in deep arrears in tribute payments, but will pay eventually with interest).

Solar energy is great, riding bikes more often is healthy, wind energy is limitless, and who grows as much wheat as the US (does SA have Uranium reserves? We could all be pro-nuclear energy). The best part of all this is that it lowers the worlds dependence on a bunch of hateful bigots and two-bit dictators.

[Mediocrates]

But the WH still has a scizoid message when it comes to Israel. It changes day by day. "We support you" "Withdraw" "We oppose terrorism" "Withdraw now" "Arafat is running out of time" "Sharon must listen". That very vacilliation is seen as an exploitable weakness by the Saudis. I'm afraid the the USs relationship with the Saudis is one of those things that's long passed from logic and reason into mythology.

"Not support the Saudis? - Um-possible, we've ALWAYS done that, they're our friends - - - " And so it passes without thought or reflection or change. It just is.

They say oil is not a weapon - but doesn't saying that make it so?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
They say oil is not a weapon - but doesn't saying that make it so?
Of course it has been used as a weapon by the Arabs to blackmail the civilized world into supporting the Jihad-genocide of the Jews. That is the sum total of Arab influence on the world.

Except for oil, the Arab countries are nothing but third-world desert dictatorships, feeding off a primitive, racist culture of violence, hatred, poverty, ignorance and corruption.

A lot of the ambiguous messages coming out of the WH is a result of a disagreement between Bush and Powell. Bush privately understands that Islamic terrorism must be eliminated by military means. Powell will gladly proceed along the lines of business as usual with the Saudis even though 15 out of the 19 terrorists of 9-11 are Saudis and even though Saudi Arabia uses US petro-dollars to train and finane anti-US terrorist groups.

Lately, it has been suggested by political commentators that Bush should fire Powell if the two cannot agree on foreign policy. I would be glad to see that outcome, because Powell's policy of Jihad appeasement is a huge mistake for the US -- and one which might cost the lives of many innocent Americans.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Cerulean, don't be naive.
Why do you simply accept the media's version of a meeting that took place in private? The Saudis have "leaked" that they intended to deliver a tough message and the media obediently reported that this is what happened. For all we know, the President and his staff spent five hours explaining to the "Prince" that if Saudi Arabia doesn't stop supporting terrorism, it will pay a high price.


You're substituting a very speculative version for what the media version is. It's possible you are correct, but if I want to substitute my own speculation for what the article reported, I could come up with something else also. In other words, there's no reason to think your speculation is valid. Unless Bush is somehow conveying a secret message to Europe and all of America's "allies," it looks to all the world like what I discussed above happened.



Originally posted by ibrodsky
Your theory about energy efficiency is silly, because the Bush administration's policy is to reduce US dependence on Middle East oil (read: Arab & Iranian oil) by developing other energy sources, such as oil in Alaska, offshore drilling, etc.
[/B]

Oil in Alaska and offshore drilling are very expensive. Saudi oil is cheaper. So long as cheaper Arab oil is not available, domestic sources will not be exploited fully. I'm not sure which part of the theory is silly.



Originally posted by ibrodsky
Your comments about Bush Jr and Sr and Cheney are just left-wing nonsense. Do you imagine that Bush and Cheney support Israel simply because they want to provoke an Arab oil boycott?
[/B]


Did I say that? In fact I didn't. If it is not clear, I meant that Bush and Cheney support high US oil consumption. This serves the dual purpose of keeping relatively more expensive domestic sites producing and it also keeps the price of oil high.


Originally posted by ibrodsky
Sure, Bush probably told the "Prince" that he will pressure Israel to withdraw and sees a Palestinian state as part of the ultimate solution. He also no doubt told him that the terrorist attacks have to stop, and that the US also recognizes Israel's right to self-defense.
[/B]

Somehow I suspect that Saudi Arabia is only interested in part I of your version of Bush's speculative statement.


Originally posted by ibrodsky
Pressuring the Saudi "Prince" to go along with the US vision -- end terrorism and negotiate a settlement for a Palestinian state -- is not giving into terrorism. Privately, I'm sure Bush told the "Prince" that US support for Saudi Arabia is rapidly declining thanks to their failure to really oppose terrorism.
[/B]

I hope he said this. Again it's speculative. How will we ever know? Is there any sign that Saudi Arabia is "improving?"


Originally posted by ibrodsky
People who think that the US is afraid of the Arab states, even if they could unite militarily (which is very doubtful), are deluded. The White House's stance vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia is a sign of US strength. The "Prince" was not invited to Crawford just so he could deliver a stern lecture. I'm sure he is being reminded who supplies and trains the Saudi military, who saved SA from Iraq, and who buys the SA's oil. [/B]

There's zero reason to be afraid from a military standpoint. There's a lot of reason to be afraid from a terrorism standpoint. There's a lot of reason to be afraid of dirty nukes, poisoned water, airline terrorism, food supply interference, and various other evil schemes.

Again, you're using some sort of telepathy that I don't claim to have in order to tell us what Bush really said.

[cerulean]

He's referred to in this article as "a prominent government official cleric." He was one host of the terror-supporting telethon on Saudi TV.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/document/document042602.asp
He is quoted as saying:
"Muslim Brothers in Palestine, do not have any mercy neither compassion on the Jews, their blood, their money, their flesh. Their women are yours to take, legitimately. God made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women? Why don't you wage jihad? Why don't you pillage them?"


Of course he is only quoting from the Koran, so it's not his own original idea.

[ibrodsky]

Cerulean & Newsguy,

I didn't mean to suggest I somehow know what was really said in private. My point was simply that the Saudi version is suspect.

Some things to consider:

* Malcomb Hoenlein, who is involved with Honest Reporting, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc. claims that this is the most pro-Israel administration ever.

* The Bush admin clearly believes that public and behind-the-scenes diplomacy are two different things.

* Bush has called for Israel to withdraw several times, but Israel hasn't completely withdrawn, and there is no threat of any action from the US. Bush also said today that the US will not let Israel be crushed. So I think the real message is that the US is supporting Israel but -- just like Israel -- is trying to lead the Arab states to recognizing Israel and ending the conflict.

Clearly, driving Saddam Hussein out of power would be a big boost for Israel, because it would not only remove a very evil enemy, it would further demoralize those who dream of destroying Israel. So of course the Bush admin, as promised, is trying to line up Arab allies in this cause.

But if the Arabs stand united behind Saddam, will the US simply give up on driving him from power? I don't think so. Reports suggest that planning and military build up are well underway, and one contingency plan is for defeating Iraq without Arab support.

Well, we shall see. Given that Israel has pretty much crushed the PA on the WB, I think we will see a further Israeli pullback, and Bush will again say that Israel has done what was demanded.

It will be interesting, however, when Israel begins stage II: crush the PA in Gaza.

[Mediocrates]

Saudi Arabia's importance is not so much about how much the US imports from there but instead their (SA's) ability to set the price. Remember that however weakened since the 1970's, OPEC is a cartel. Cartels are oligopolies - that's what they do, they price fix and limit quantities.

Whatever the long term change to the US economy it brings, it would be vastly unpopular in a mid term election year to bump the price of motion lotion for the SUVs up a third or more - no matter how many oil patch Congressmen in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, California and Alaska stand to benefit personally.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by ibrodsky The "Prince" was not invited to Crawford just so he could deliver a stern lecture. I'm sure he is being reminded who supplies and trains the Saudi military, who saved SA from Iraq, and who buys the SA's oil. Key point here. The Prince did not demand a meeting, he was invited. The meeting was held in TX, not Washington, thus giving it an air of being an informal and social event.

Secondly, to believe everything printed or broadcast by the media is to show yourself a fool. They are proven liars, some even self admitted liars.

Bush and the Prince parted amicably. There will be no major change in either sides politics or behavior.

[cerulean]

Daniel Pipes sees Saudi Arabia as neither a friend or foe, but as a "rival." Pipes puts France (?!), Russia, and China in the same category.

I think this view might be a pragmatic way of looking at the world. America cannot really count on "friends" to help. The best one can hope for is strategic alliances.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/47843.htm

[cerulean]

According to this article, the Saudi prince is quoted as saying he had to brief Bush on the conditions of the Palestinian people, that Bush reads only a few lines a day about the Middle East, and that Bush was deeply moved when he was provided with the briefing which included pictures and videos.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1988000/1988765.stm

Obviously the prince is going to spin things his way. One can only hope Bush gets sufficient information from the other side to make up for it.

I do agree that the condition of the Palestinian people is deplorable. It's just highly doubtful that the Saudi prince has anything that will improve it.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by cerulean
According to this article, the Saudi prince is quoted as saying he had to brief Bush on the conditions of the Palestinian people, that Bush reads only a few lines a day about the Middle East, and that Bush was deeply moved when he was provided with the briefing which included pictures and videos. If the Prince knew what our intelligence was capable of he might have saved himself the trip. Bush could have as easily given him pictures of things that would make his skin crawl. It wasn't about the exchange of intelligence.
Maybe the Prince just can't get good barbeque in his country. :D

[Mediocrates]

Max Boot is the author of "The Savage Wars of Peace" which covers US military policy over the last 200 years in the context of low intensity 'small wars'. Here is a great interview with him in Salon:

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2002/05/16/boot/index.html


If you go over to National Review Online (nationalreview.com) you can search for a review of the book by Victor Davis Hanson. also a great piece.


The crux of the book is that the US has always successfully engaged in low intensity wars that fly in the face of the Powell doctrine and that we have not needed an exit strategy or a 'big' war to be effective.