Of course the President doesn't hear it. He's in business with the Saudis and the U.S. is exposed and made vulnerable because of it.

Posted by: DCWatson at April 12, 2005 8:08 AM

reflects the good relations and the will of cooperation between the two countries to serve Saudi interest first of all

Funny, I thought I heard democrats yesterday criticise John Bolton because he actually had the temerity to suggest that the UN should serve US interests.

Perhaps we should appoint Prince Bandar as our new UN ambassador.

Posted by: Charles Martel at April 12, 2005 8:27 AM

Thats such a crock, it's almost funny.
Seriously, we already know who the Saudi's represent except he forgot to include terrorism. The part about "Saudi interests first", is interesting. This cavalier statement was made almost like a "given". Was the Sultan just day dreaming out loud? Just BSing? Or does he have some reason to believe that this is a fact? The worse case senario for that is that dhimmitude has been established, and US sovereignty has been relenqished, at the highest levels. If thats true, it's worthy of storming the bastille. A better senario would be that Bush realizes the self serving attitude of the Saudi's and is just "shinning them on". One con man to another. On the ultimate levels thats what all these guys are "con men"...often refered to as "politicians". Lets hope that Bush is "out conning", the arrogant Saudi's and using their arrogance against them. HMMM is this just wishful thinking or what....

Posted by: duh_swami at April 12, 2005 11:15 AM

"The Saudi crown prince represents the Arab nation as well as the Muslim world and every move he makes is in the service of Islam and Muslims."
Good reason to kill him on the spot

Posted by: Jakester at April 12, 2005 12:02 PM

Mr. President, I am so-o-o disappointed in you. You aren't putting America first. You aren't protecting the borders. The next politician that occupies the Oval Office had better do so, or we're finished.

Posted by: epg at April 12, 2005 1:07 PM

Hmmm. I wonder if he'll use those exact words with the President. Is there anyone in the Administration listening to what the Saudis are actually saying?

Why bother asking questions like this, you already know that Prince Bandar, Abdullah and Turki are frequent quests at Crawford, have walk in access to the whitehouse, that Bandar is known to the family as Bandar Bush, and has slept 14 times in the Lincoln bedroom and it is DOCUMENTED that Bush helped 140 Saudi bin Ladens flee the US in the three days, after 9-11, that Bush daddy is an advisor to the Carlyle Group, which is business partners with the Bin Laden Saudis, that the Bush family law firm of Baker Botts represents also the Saudis and Exxon.

Funny, I thought I heard democrats yesterday criticise John Bolton because he actually had the temerity to suggest that the UN should serve US interests.

Perhaps we should appoint Prince Bandar as our new UN ambassador.
Posted by: Charles Martel

Totally irrelevant Charles,a mixed metaphor, a different subject entirely. Although I do agree with John Bolton, your introduction of him into the argument is irrelevant. Actually it is reactive tu quoque, a form of ad hominem, and a distraction. Maybe it is difficult for you to swallow that your President is in bed with the Saudis and thus by his own definition a terrorist.

Didn't he say that anyone who supports the terrorists is a terrorist? Well he is a friend and supporter of those who are friends and supporters of the terrorists, so that makes him a terrorist too.

Posted by: Giaour at April 12, 2005 3:26 PM

As always, both sides have their share of blame:

Clinton and islam:
http://www.blessedcause.org/proof/Clinton%20Islam%20Partnership.htm

Posted by: Gary at April 12, 2005 4:10 PM

Giaour

irrelevant,a mixed metaphor, a different subject entirely, reactive tu quoque, a form of ad hominem, and a distraction.

Don't forget "a horse of a different colour"!

Been visiting any interesting neo-Aryan web sites you'd care to link us to?

Posted by: Charles Martel at April 12, 2005 7:24 PM

Someone has been watching to much F911 and passing it off as truth, pull your head out of Noam Chomskys ass and do some research , there are only like 1000 websites dedicated to providing evidence "Bush helped 140 Saudi bin Ladens flee the US in the three days, after 9-11" is a bunch of crap not to mention every other moonbat argument.

Posted by: Pegcity at April 12, 2005 8:53 PM

I HEARTILY agree with all-

that we had better hope, for our rear ends' sakes and our families' sakes, that then NEXT occupant of the Oval Office has read the Koran & the Hadiths, and loves the Constitution and The Bill of Rights more than "My Sharona" on his i-pod.

Bush is like a guard dog with one tooth.

Better than the 'gummy' bears who opposed him, but a sorry showing in the 'War With Terrorism'.

('The War Against Islamic Fanaticism' when you stop the verbal pussyfooting).

I like Tom Tancredo's (R-Colo) stance on the borders. If a presidential candidate could get that strong about protecting the country in a campaign, we might be moving away from the slow social suicide that the left, right and middle politicos all seem to be abetting. For mere greed. Or ego. Or pimping to their svengalis in business.

Enough of their 'patriotic' sound bites.

Let's start really biting, by sinking our teeth in the Islamicists. Where it hurts.

Start by lining up and executing the terrorists at Guantanamo, now.

Before any more slip free.

This tip-toeing and playing nice and Marquise of Queensberry Rules crap will get us royally f*cked.

And "nucular"-ly fried.

We need a Charles the Hammer.

We have Georgie the Ballpeen.

Posted by: BigSleep at April 12, 2005 10:28 PM

Saudi Arabia is indeed BAD NEWS. And so is our getting mixed up with them for ANY reason...

But I personally feel that Islamic ideology is only part of the story here. Before Islamic indoctrination there IS a possibility that at least some Muslims could be NORMAL human beings. There is also a possibility that Muslims, though tethered to the most vicious ideology ever penned or adopted, do not in their hearts agree with islamic doctrines. They abide by Islam as it is a totalitarian political system-- and if they don't...

What I am saying here is that there is a possibility that some of these Arabs (even in the Saudi royal family) may actually have genuinely positive regard for some aspects of the United States and its people. However naive that nay seem I really do think that there are Saudis and other Islamic nationalities that might truly long in their hearts to be something besides muslim.

Remember it is Islamic ideology that HIJACKS terrorists. If it were not for Islamic ideology and its terrible totalitarianism, Saudi Arabia might be a very different place than the one we see today. And we might have a different perpsective on these people.

It is Islam I personally condemn--not Muslims. And this applies to Saudi Arabia as well.

p.s.-the F911 line about the White House assisting the Saudi Royal Family elcits a major yawn from me. 9-11 was engineered by mosque leaders across the globe, which the Saudi Royal family most definitely are NOT whatever else they might be. And for the record, the Saudi Royal family has been targeted by al-Qaeda for elimination anyway, so I really don't believe there is much connection there. The White House's aiding the Saudi Royal family probably had something to do with the US having a treaty with it in place since 1934, and there may have been the possibility of a coup d'etat staged by pro-bin Ladenists in Saudi Arabia (which if successful, like it or not, would have undermined the world's economy).

Posted by: pythagoras at April 12, 2005 11:11 PM