PDA

View Full Version : Cheney in the house of Saud?



Mrleft8
11-26-2006, 09:14 AM
So what was the sneaky bastad up to over there? I'm betting that oil will suddenly become more expensive as soon as the new congress is in session....

LeeG
11-26-2006, 09:25 AM
Two years ago GW was telling the prince we need more oil, the prince told GW the Israeli/palestinian issue has to be resolved. They communicated and neither did anything.

I think the task now is to somehow seek Saudi assistance regarding Iraq,,not sure what kind. Saudi/Iraqi jihadists must be a worry to the Saudis but the whole idea of whacking the low lying fruit in Iraq was to shoot a round off the bow of our allies where 9/11 came from.

Who the heck knows, it's Cheney at work. Ours is not to question.

JimD
11-26-2006, 09:29 AM
So what was the sneaky bastad up to over there? ..

About the same as these sneaky bastads:

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/n29/n147159.jpg

LeeG
11-26-2006, 09:41 AM
here it tiz:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-11-26T034351Z_01_N22216331_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-CHENEY.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2

SHANNON (Reuters)- Vice President Dick Cheney met on Saturday with Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, who expressed concern about the security situation in the Middle East, but neither side gave specifics about their discussions.

The two men were together for about three hours during Cheney's brief visit to the Saudi capital Riyadh.

Cheney made no comment after the meeting before boarding his plane and flying back to the United States, stopping over briefly in Ireland.

"They covered a range of regional issues," said Cheney's spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride. "It was a good visit with someone the vice president has known for going on 17 years and is a great friend and ally of the United States."

Cheney and the Saudi monarch put in an appearance for reporters before their private session. "Now truly the security situation is really becoming very serious," King Abdullah said through a translator.

ishmael
11-26-2006, 09:45 AM
There are nefarious connections, but believe it or not powerful people meet and make decisions that are well intentioned.

I think this generation is heavily colored by the American assassinations of the sixties. A new documentary by the BBC shows high-level CIA operatives in the hotel with RFK when he was gunned down. That assassination, JFKs, MLKs have always had a stink about them. Opening those cans of worms would be a good thing for the psyche of the west, at this point, it seems to me.

We've got a sort of faux faith in ourselves, and it's time we found the real again.

LeeG
11-26-2006, 09:46 AM
A review of Cheneys position on vice,er,presidential power. See, you guys were asking the wrong questions when it came to proof of WMD and getting inspections back in Iraq.

YOU DON"T NEED TO KNOW JACK SH*T, THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE CONGRESS. GET AN EFFING CLUE.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/11/26/hail_to_the_chief/?page=1

A close look at key moments in Cheney's career -- from his political apprenticeship in the Nixon and Ford administrations to his decade in Congress and his tenure as secretary of defense under the first President Bush -- suggests that the newly empowered Democrats in Congress should not expect the White House to cooperate when they demand classified information or attempt to exert oversight in areas such as domestic surveillance or the treatment of terrorism suspects.

Peter Shane, an Ohio State University law professor, predicted that Cheney's long career of consistently pushing against restrictions on presidential power is likely to culminate in a series of uncompromising battles with Congress.

skuthorp
11-26-2006, 03:06 PM
Well, the Saudi's owe pres Cheney heaps for not invading them after 9/11, so he probably got a good reception. BTW does Bush make a good baby sitter when the boss is away?

eleseus
11-26-2006, 04:50 PM
A review of Cheneys position on vice,er,presidential power. See, you guys were asking the wrong questions when it came to proof of WMD and getting inspections back in Iraq.

YOU DON"T NEED TO KNOW JACK SH*T, THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE CONGRESS. GET AN EFFING CLUE.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/11/26/hail_to_the_chief/?page=1

A close look at key moments in Cheney's career -- from his political apprenticeship in the Nixon and Ford administrations to his decade in Congress and his tenure as secretary of defense under the first President Bush -- suggests that the newly empowered Democrats in Congress should not expect the White House to cooperate when they demand classified information or attempt to exert oversight in areas such as domestic surveillance or the treatment of terrorism suspects.

Peter Shane, an Ohio State University law professor, predicted that Cheney's long career of consistently pushing against restrictions on presidential power is likely to culminate in a series of uncompromising battles with Congress.

Do you ever STFU? You are really like a broken record! I have yet to ever see you post something constructive--always reductive, if that's a word. We don't need more whining about "Mr. Halliburton Cheney" , "Chimpy/Bu****ler"--anyone with a quarter of a brain knows about all of their shortcomings already. So, instead of cut and pasting crap from a Cockburn site or Kos, think for yourself and begin to explain what we must do to correct a situation which EVERYONE KNEW LONG AGO WAS A DISASTER!

LeeG
11-26-2006, 08:12 PM
Elesues, first off if you have a first name I'd appreciate you giving it before presuming to use profanity with me, otherwise you're in the league of Dutch/Dryerlint.

Constructive? Cheney is dangerous to our democracy, his remaining tenure has to be restrained. I have never made allusions between GW and hitler or simplistic associations between Halliburton and Cheney as some kind of touch stone explaining the administrations foreign policy.

You are quite wrong that EVERYONE KNEW A LONG TIME AGO the situation in Iraq was a disaster.

Correct the situation? Stop digging. Congressional oversight is a good beginning.

"Elesus", what is your opinion about Cheneys visit? The topic of this thread being Cheney.

With regards to what I can actually correct it's bs that is expressed as common knowledge "the media is at fault", etc.

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
11-26-2006, 08:41 PM
http://www.buckfush.com/images/Cheney_Saudi_King_Abdullah.jpg

Osborne Russell
11-26-2006, 09:40 PM
We don't need more whining about "Mr. Halliburton Cheney" , "Chimpy/Bu****ler"--anyone with a quarter of a brain knows about all of their shortcomings already. So, instead of cut and pasting crap from a Cockburn site or Kos, think for yourself and begin to explain what we must do to correct a situation which EVERYONE KNEW LONG AGO WAS A DISASTER!

As if !

Meerkat
11-26-2006, 10:33 PM
How do you correct a disaster? Eleseus, if you have some constructive ideas, by all means post them. Better yet, if you think they're that good, send them on to your congressional reps.

eleseus
11-26-2006, 10:46 PM
Elesues, first off if you have a first name I'd appreciate you giving it before presuming to use profanity with me, otherwise you're in the league of Dutch/Dryerlint.

Constructive? Cheney is dangerous to our democracy, his remaining tenure has to be restrained. I have never made allusions between GW and hitler or simplistic associations between Halliburton and Cheney as some kind of touch stone explaining the administrations foreign policy.

You are quite wrong that EVERYONE KNEW A LONG TIME AGO the situation in Iraq was a disaster.

Correct the situation? Stop digging. Congressional oversight is a good beginning.

"Elesus", what is your opinion about Cheneys visit? The topic of this thread being Cheney.

With regards to what I can actually correct it's bs that is expressed as common knowledge "the media is at fault", etc.

First off I see no reason to be named any more than "Eleseus"--When you can spell that correctly maybe I'll consider you worthy of knowing more about me.

And what is this about "congressional oversight"? They have failed even worse than the executive branch, the Democrats very much included--no thanks to their noble counter weight to Bush's retarded Iraq plan, we are there now. They sold their fucking souls for a re-election bid. Thanks, guys!

And I would add my humble analysis of the what's and why's of Cheney's visit need I not place such remarks in a thread so pleased with its "tsk, tsk. Bad Boy, Mr. Evil" retardedly cheap high-school lefty rhetoric. So, take a leap into thinking and analysis and start a thread that honestly asks a question for discussion, not for cheap Cheney-bashing points--my 3 year old nephew can even do that, and doing so is about as rewarding as what my nephew does in his pants.

LeeG
11-26-2006, 10:55 PM
sounds like a chatty Donn

Ed Harrow
11-26-2006, 11:00 PM
It's amazing what a simple 'ing' will do for one's expression.

eleseus
11-26-2006, 11:01 PM
http://www.buckfush.com/images/Cheney_Saudi_King_Abdullah.jpg

The subtext of this impossibly insipid, Michael Moore-ish photo-caption idiocy is that A)the savages responsible for 9/11 were working for an interest somehow controlled by us, the USA, and this deed is repeatable with one word by Cheney(it is from buckfush.com, where prob. 75% of readers think Bush orchestrated 9/11)
B)that you imagine that 9/11 has passed long enough ago that you find it funny to use it for cheap bashing of people you don't like
C)that you imagine that this is actually clever enough to post somewhere else other than where it originated
D)that, because you and buckfushies have no brains or interest in asking questions about geopolitics, you try to pass off your mush-for-a-brain by ending all reasonable discussion about the real interests at stake at this meeting and what they really talked about. Do you care that little about a serious situation that you post something as stupid as this, Mr. Moore?

LeeG
11-26-2006, 11:55 PM
you tell 'em

LeeG
11-27-2006, 12:07 AM
the crack up is that Perle now criticizes the administration for unleashing the dogs of war when that was the plan all along

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Break

eleseus
11-27-2006, 12:56 AM
the crack up is that Perle now criticizes the administration for unleashing the dogs of war when that was the plan all along

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Break
Still nothing to add?

Cm'on, think! Why is Cheney there... what sect are the vast majority of Saudis and the House itself? Where can they project their power? Bush is going to Amman, Jordan for a huge meeting this week--The Hashemite Kingdom is of what sect? Syria just re-established diplomatic ties with Iraq; Are you getting this yet? Israel just pulled out of Gaza again, under a tentative peace... why? And how does this all relate to Iran? Think!!!

BrianW
11-27-2006, 01:02 AM
I'm sure it was so secret, they decided to meet in person rather than a secure phone line. You know, so we wouldn't know about it, because we don't know about it... right? :)

eleseus
11-27-2006, 01:25 AM
The choices have gotten bad in Iraq, but we still have some options, evidenced by Cheney's trip to The Kingdom of Wahab. The pressure pot is cooking and will, in my opinion, yield some interesting new recipes. All of my thinking here is premised upon the fact that the USA cannot walk away from Iraq and thereby cede its control to Iran--very simple. We cannot and will not do this. So the policy is going to shift to us relying on/shoring up our ties to the Sunni middle east, namely Jordan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and lesser entities. Cheney is there making deals with Abdullah to ensure that the King does everything in his power to reduce the Sunni insurgent violence--not all of this is under his control but much of it. The Saudis are also going to start their wall soon along their whole northern border with Iraq--costly, but they have the money and are under pressure, so they will. What all of this leads to is that the US will continue to talk via backchannels with Sunni insurgents, making the neccessary Devil's Deals, all at the expense of shifting policy toward doing the possible: Crush the Mahdi Army, the Badr Brigades, and al-Sadr, too. We are about to see the US engage an enemy it can beat--the Shia herds of "fighters".
The path of least resistance is to destroy the shia one militia at a time. The Mahdi Army is like cardboard, they've encountered them before in Najaf. The insurgency(Sunni), oh no, they are unbeatable (republican guards, fedayeen, etc..). They've been battling them for almost 4 years, and never won anything. Again, I re-iterate: the path of least resistance is to go after the shia.

Of course the secular insurgency is making back door deals to destroy the al-qaeda element, and that's what the US gets out of this. Very improbable that the US will take the side of the shia, and upset the saudis, jordanian, egyptians, and really risk a widening of the conflict. They would have to be insane to do that. But then again I said the same thing about the original invasion, so there you go.
On a more local level the US wants Maliki to get rid of the Shia militias, and he--Maliki-- keeps saying the threat is the insurgents. He's pissed off that the US is talking to the insurgents, and wanting Maliki to restore the Baathists. He tells the US that the militia are there because the shia do not trust the US. It's coming to a head, and Moqdata al-Sadr's head is on the chopping bloc. Moqdata knows it, and he's trying to prevent Maliki from meeting with Bush(in Jordan--Sadr has threatened to quit the government if they meet), where he will get the last warning, before the US troops destroy the Mahdi Army. They know they can do it, and they also know they can't destroy the sunni insurgency.
Viva realpolitik. Can't you smell Bakers hand?

Osborne Russell
11-27-2006, 02:39 AM
All of my thinking here is premised upon the fact that the USA cannot walk away from Iraq and thereby cede its control to Iran--very simple. We cannot and will not do this.


ATTENTION: There will be no withdrawal from Iraq.


----(signed) Project for the New American Century

LeeG
11-27-2006, 09:17 AM
visiting dignitaries is an option? ok
whether we stay or go isn't a switch that affects irans influence on Iraq. When Iran offers to rebuild an airport in Najaf our presence in irrelevant, when Iran offers to sell electricity across the borders our presence or lack is irrelevant.
We cannot cede control of Iraq to Iran because we don't have control of Iraq. This is the kind of self-delusion that makes the grand vision of bringing democracy via war machinery to fruition.
Work on that simple assumption, we do not control Iraq.
The path of least resistance is to allow what is happening to happen. Destroying the Shia through the militias sounds odd,,destroy the majority of Iraq in order to save it?
What makes you think Prince Abdullah can influence former Baathists and the Sunni part of the insurgency,,because they have the adjectival noun "Sunni" identifying them? That makes as much sense as saying we can influence Germanys internal politics because we have German Americans in the US.

LeeG
11-27-2006, 09:46 AM
Eleusus, Cheneys visit is part of a political effort to distance Whitehouse/US responsibility from Iraqs disintegration.

I understand you see the US as having the power and influence to make the best of a bad situation. That is a pleasing attitude.

Could you explain how our ability to talk with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Jordan dovetails with the FACT that the majority of Iraqis want the US out in a year, the majority of Iraqis think US soldiers are justified targets .

Here's a whitehouse official saying that reducing the militias is Iraqis responsibility,,but you say we're going to go in and battle them?

Your belief that the US military can destroy the Mahdi militia isn't supported by the facts to date. Moqtada Sadr and the Mahdi militia IS Iraq,,to think the US can battle Malikis constituents misses the forest for the trees severely.

"We are about to see the US engage an enemy it can beat--the Shia herds of "fighters"."


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/world/middleeast/27policy.html?hp&ex=1164690000&en=78302d7a4caf4f6d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

“Any disarming of the militias — in large part because there is such a political element to that — is most effectively carried out by the Iraqi security forces,” said Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor.

Keith Wilson
11-27-2006, 09:59 AM
Eleusus, somehow I don't see a this administration making a shift from the most grandiose idealism (we're going to remake the whole Middle East so that it's just like Wisconsin but warmer) to the most cynical and devious realpolitik (side with the Sunni insurgents against the Shia majority because the latter are an easier target). For years they deliberately ignored anyone who knew anything about the region, and now they're going to try some double-dealing that would impress a Byzantine emperor? Not likely. I think they're casting about desperately for a way to get the h*ll out of there before November 2008 without it looking like an unmitigated disaster until after the election. Too late, methinks.

LeeG
11-27-2006, 10:02 AM
Elesues, Speaking of smelling Bakers hand what can he do? He's another adhoc agency like the one that got us into Iraq. Visit his hand attempting to resolve Western Saharas conflict with Morrocco to open up off-shore exploration for oil. He worked hard but it didn't work out.
He's just a man,,cue the music, Helen Reddy.

"the choices have gotten bad in Iraq".....curious phrasing,,the choice and manner of going in started bad,,when were the choices good?

LeeG
11-27-2006, 10:14 AM
More on the topic,

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HK23Ak02.html

Iran's dilemma, however, is that a complete failure of the US in Iraq is not in Iran's interests either, given Iran's fear of terrorism, mass refugees and irredentism from behind its vast western borders with Iraq. Tehran and the occupying powers may have their own interests in mind, but their common fear of Iraq's collapse is what could ultimately heal their great divide.

PatCox
11-27-2006, 10:22 AM
Cheney and Bush and their advisors on foreign policy, as if anyone can tell them anything, and as if the advisors know anything, have as their last gasp fantasy the idea that they are going to throw the mess they created into the laps of Syria and Saudi Arabia.

It sounds vaguely positive, the idea that a local force from muslim countries could enforce order without provoking resentment and a major armed resistance movement.

Its also completely unworkable and delusional. The Saudi regime lives in fear of its own populace and would go a long way toward provoking its own overthrow if they were to take any kind of active role in carrying water for the US in Iraq.

As for Syria, well, why should they. Threats won't work, they know full well that between Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and being big losers, despite their insane belligerance, Cheney and Bush are powerless to start another war, and lack any support or credibility in the international community to do anything else.

Cheney is deluded. His sad effort in pursuit of this pathetic plan will accomplish absolutely nothing. Except gas prices will rise.

LeeG
11-27-2006, 10:34 AM
Speaking of delusion, Elisues idea that we only have to find the right nail to hit with our big hammer is one of the reasons we got into this mess. Now he believes hitting the Mahdi Militia will provide a solution.
This is more of the tar baby that started with conflating regime change with gettin' the terrists that brung us 9/11.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112601242.html

The Mahdi Army's response to the bombings suggests that diplomatic pressure alone will not be enough to dismantle the militias. As long as Iraq's security forces are ineffective and the government and its U.S. patrons are unable to provide basic services and jobs, Sadr and his army are vital to Shiites.

Sadr is widely believed to be modeling his movement after Lebanon's Shiite Muslim Hezbollah, which has both an armed and a political wing and provides social services to its followers.

"It has proved there is no need to disarm the Mahdi Army," Salim Faisal Abid, 36, a Sadr City resident, said Friday. "If they were not there yesterday, it would have been a disaster."

On Thursday afternoon, bombs in six parked cars began detonating at 15-minute intervals in three sections of Sadr City, including the crowded Jamila Market. Mahdi Army militiamen quickly spread out around the vast slum, residents said.

They helped the injured into cars and carted the dead to funeral homes, where the corpses would be cleansed according to Muslim rituals. Some donated blood and helped fire fighters douse flames. Other militiamen, some clutching AK-47 assault rifles or rocket-propelled grenades, searched for the perpetrators of the bombings. They found one more car, filled with explosives, and took the driver into custody.

LeeG
11-27-2006, 10:51 AM
This expatriate is addressing a fundamental problem that Elesue sees as problem solving.

http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/

We all know there's a need to change course in Iraq, but the new course will not be any better if it is based on more unilateral decisions. The U.S. should learn from Israel's failed unilateral approaches to its conflicts with the Lebanese and the Palestinians. The only way out of Iraq will not be through more military and political unilateral solutions; it will be through giving Iraqis the time and space they need to rule their own country by themselves, and to take their own decisions when it comes to keeping their country's unity and sovereignty.

eleseus
11-27-2006, 04:56 PM
LeeG
visiting dignitaries is an option? ok
whether we stay or go isn't a switch that affects irans influence on Iraq.

Of course it is! Our being there is almost all of the leverage we have left...We are not wanted there--that is huge leverage. But on the other hand, we are NEEDED there(to continue rebuilding their totally incompetant army and police forces)--this is huge leverage.


We cannot cede control of Iraq to Iran because we don't have control of Iraq. This is the kind of self-delusion that makes the grand vision of bringing democracy via war machinery to fruition.
While I certainly don't dream we have much control, we do have some--140,000 heavily armed/highly trained soldiers is a whole lot of power. We will use this control--largely external control via our Sunni allies, to get at least something from this mess. We will plot a middle course-- use the secular Sunni insurgents against the religious Sunni nutters, and gather and apply as much pressure to the Iranian-influenced Shia bloc as possible--probably with military power.

Destroying the Shia through the militias sounds odd,,destroy the majority of Iraq in order to save it?
I did not say "all Shia". I said the Sadr controlled bloc which is a minority.

What makes you think Prince Abdullah can influence former Baathists and the Sunni part of the insurgency,,because they have the adjectival noun "Sunni" identifying them?
Because he can! He is a very powerful man!

Osborne Russell
11-27-2006, 05:47 PM
While I certainly don't dream we have much control, we do have some--140,000 heavily armed/highly trained soldiers is a whole lot of power.


We had "a lot of power" in Viet Nam. The Soviets had "a lot of power" in Afghanistan.

eleseus
11-27-2006, 06:28 PM
We had "a lot of power" in Viet Nam. The Soviets had "a lot of power" in Afghanistan.

And the Soviets were backing the VC, and the USA backing the Mujahideen--two super-powers with unlimited resources--a far cry from Iran, who is the punch behind much of the havoc now in Iraq.

We seem to be shifting our favor to the Sunni Arab world, to contain Iran's influence in Iraq (and to prevent them from claiming victory in Iraq), in specific, and in Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria in general. The Syria case is interesting: Syria has already recognized Iraq, and set up a full service embassy. That happened in the last 3 weeks, when Muallem went to Baghdad for the first time. Baker had a deal with Syria, and is cashing in now. This move aims to take Syria a bit out of an Iranian sphere--that is what they are betting, anyhow. The US has been puting pressure on Saudi and Egypt to pull Syria away from Iran. They'll succeed to some degree, the peace process will be re-started, and the Golan heights returned to Syria, a Palestinian State will be declared in the next 12 months. Israel is in agreement with all this. They recognize that Iran is a serious threat bent of re-claiming Jerusalem, if they are to have any credibility in the ME. The USof A don't have to attack Iran. They'll be stripping Iran of any causes in the arab world, and that's plenty containment. The Lebanon card is developing into something--the Shia and "the rest" are becoming polarized from eachother, and will probably devolve into civil war, with the Shia losing if this Iran containment idea works. These are just some possibilities--this is my thinking about what could be happening. But I do think that the US has decided that that the path of least resistance is to destroy the shia militia, and in the process discredit Maliki, whom they'll accuse of being too weak, and too incompetent. They've been negotiating with the insurgency, whom they know is the path of maximum and unbeatable resistance. Hopefully our leaders are setting their sights on these points...