after talking to a young egyptian the other night about the middle east problems and the us news versus the rest of the world news reporting it came to me that the only person the arabs and the rest of the world could trust in obama. he`s the best spokesperson we have for the rebuilding america`s standing in the world especially with the 20-40 yr old people around the world. he would`t have to hide behind barbed wire and demand the world bow to his wish`s. he would restore confidence that america is ready to lead the world again in the future of this planet...of course he cannot do this alone. his selection of his government is key and i have no doubt that he would pick those who will follow and implement his vision. funny i thought last week he would`t be a good candidate now but i do now. interesting that a conversation with someone from another country about this country could change my mind...but that`s why i`m a democrat.
now for the saudi remark. the reality is that they have our money and for better or worse we have a mutual risk and reward in this arrangement. this is not going to change overnight and will be in the future a policy within the government. the saudi`s are really pissed off at bush and his clowns for upsetting the balance in the middle east by starting the war and failing to find a balance after saddam`s fall. i can see obama as a salvation for their worries mainly along the lines of why i think he should be our president. they may see him as a moderating force that on one hand could restore order by defusing the fundamental influences on the 20-40 years old in the middle east and calming the waters around the rest of the world. he could be that person who could pull it off.
i tend not to tin foil by speculate on the events and the players involved and form a half way intelligent opinion.i doubt any of this will come true but i can hope..
Okay, tossing tinfoilhat and donning armchair-analyst-specs here...Sometimes, it's as much what they don't say more than what they grandstand about. Remember, watch what they DO and NOT what they SAY.
There is ALOT going on right now that is under the public's radar, but not the political radar. Bush is desperate to save his butt right now and it certainly sounds like there's some un-reported shuttle diplomacy negotiations going on. We also still haven't heard details of the Iraq/Iran agreement that Iraq's President announced a couple of weeks ago.
7. The Saudis may think that Turki simply couldn't get through to jr.
Bandar is a great schmoozer and knows how to spend money. The Saudis are obviously extremely upset--witness King Abdullah's summons to Cheney and related leaks.
This may also be another move in the Bush vs. Bush wars.
Poppy is very close to the Saudis and was virtually crying about his son in his recent visit to Saudi Arabia.
Poppy's proxy, Baker, with his compatriots at the Iraq Study Group, isn't getting the message to Jr.
Poppy's crew may not be waiting to see if the removal of Rumsfeld changes things.
Poppy may have suggested both the Cheney and Bandar moves to his buddies, the Saudis, in order to keep his son from completely destroying the Bush legacy and fortune.
It is even possible that Poppy and his buddies are getting old and seeing things differently, in which I mean that they see the damage that they've done and are trying to make amends. I've seen this happen with older folks.
It might also explain Laura's remarks about Condi and the Presidency. Condi was on Sr.'s team and she may not be totally loyal to Jr. at this point. If she's pressing Jr. to take the ISG seriously, Laura may not be happy.
8. Are you referring to that article in "Cloak and Dagger" article?
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 12:12 PM by amandabeech
Basically, the thrust is that Turki was involved in getting money to the Bushes to bribe Florida officials in 2000 and was also involved in precipitating 9/11.
The article also states that Michelle Obama, Barack's wife, is a lobbyist for LaSalle Bank in Chicago which was involved in the money shuffling. Actually, I think that Michelle works for one of the big hospital/health care conglomerates in Chicago.
13. Hmmm... Not surprising, I guess. There may be some internal conflict going on in the House of Saud.
And damn if I can remember where I read this, but yesterday while I was reading a bunch of different sites concerning the Middle East (following links within links -- you know how it goes), I came upon a long and complex article detailing a possible split between a Bandar faction and a Turki al Faisal (sp?) faction in the Royal family.
The gist of it was, that the Bandar faction is pushing for war on Iran and the Turki faction was against it. This is an oversimplification, of course, and I'll see if I can retrace my steps and find that piece to post here.
If I'm remembering this correctly, and if the author of that piece was correct, then the exit of Turki and the return of Bandar may signal something even more sinister than just a boot up Junior's ass.
Sorry I don't have a link (yet). I'll go now and see if I can find it.
16. So bizarre, we just can't say House of Saud and know who we
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 01:11 PM by higher class
mean - both Ambassadors are from the House of Saud.
It would make sense that Saudi Arabia is concerned about the Sunni in Iraq. Either way they go means a lot of death. If they choose war against Iran, doesn't it also mean Syria.
Let's see if there are any peacemakers in Saudi Arabia. War is sick. War is about profit and domination. What could be more sick? Too many Christians approve war, seek war, accept war. call for war. Not so Chrisian, imo.
Is all this in or out of the PNAC plan? Sure seems like Iraq was supposed to be a speedy land war and Iran a speedy air war. Who knows about Syria and Lebanon. Oh that's right - Lebanon was mostly air bombs.
December 14, 2006 Prince Bandar Allegedly Advocating Military Response Against Iran
The escalating tension between Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the current Saudi National Security Advisor and former Saudi Ambassador to the United States, and Prince Turki al-Faisal, who only this this week resigned his position as Saudi Ambassador in Washington, is taking some new and disturbing turns.
While reports of how far Bandar has gone in supporting Cheney's desire for military action vary, insiders report that Bandar has "essentially assured" the Vice President that Saudi Arabia could be moved to accept and possibly support American military action against Iran. Another source reports to TWN that Bandar himself strongly supports Cheney's views of a military response to Iran.
This is the core of the deep divide between Prince Turki and Bandar -- which is also a divide between Foreign Minister Saud and Bandar as well.
The tension is about Iran and how to contain Iran. While Bandar and Rihab Massoud allegedly have affirmed Cheney's views and are perceived to be Bush administration sycophants, Turki was charting a more realist course for Saudi interests and advising the White House to develop more serious, constructive strategies toward the region that would produce stability and not lead to "a terrorist super-highway stretching from Iran through Iraq and rushing through Syria and Jordan to the edge of Israel" -- as one source stated to TWN.
There's more interesting stuff about Turki and Bandar et al in the previous posts as well.
24. And in the back of their mind these multi-tasking criminals also
have the destruction and/or containment of Democrats at the forefront of their plans. They will try to combine everything they want to do in one package, including diverting attention away from investigations. And.... they are probably saying 'if only we had more soldiers'. We should keep two things in mind - watch what they try to do to Democrats - they took the losses too casually - and - make sure you use military staffing issues whenever anyone raises that old claim that Clinton did not support the military and cut it back - drawbacks were made with the approval of all the top heads and included St. Warner.
Who knew there concept of winning would fail along with the lives of many.
25. I suppose I must disappoint you, but I see most Democrats as enablers in regard to the
I don't see this in partisan terms at all. What this is about is the shared mythology of American Exceptionalism, which is bought into equally by Repugs and Dems alike.
After all, it was under the Dem president Truman that the National Security State came into being -- and it was the Republican president Eisenhower that warned us against the Military-Industrial-Complex.
Those who are in power, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, have ALWAYS (since WWII at least) worked for U.S. global hegemony. There's no party line division on that score. There may be differences in the means, but no differences at all in the ends.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.