Step two is what the Iraqi prime minister ask of Syria today:
Iraq's prime minister called on Syria (search) on Thursday to block the infiltration of foreign fighters trying to start a civil war.
Obviously an important step, but best done after step one:
Who are the suicide bombers of Iraq? By the radicals' account, they are an internationalist brigade of Arabs, with the largest share in the online lists from Saudi Arabia and a significant minority from other countries on Iraq's borders, such as Syria and Kuwait.
Saudi Arabia's role in the so-called "insurgency" in Iraq is major. And it continues, for the most part, to be tacitly ignored. Most of the bomb fodder for the terrorists comes right from the Kingdom of Saud.
In a paper published in March, Reuven Paz, an Israeli expert on terrorism, analyzed the lists of jihadi dead. He found 154 Arabs killed over the previous six months in Iraq, 61 percent of them from Saudi Arabia, with Syrians, Iraqis and Kuwaitis together accounting for another 25 percent. He also found that 70 percent of the suicide bombers named by the Web sites were Saudi.
So maybe, instead of holding hands with the King of Saudi Arabia, a little application of Texas boot leather to the appropriate area of that robed anatomy would be more appropriate, Mr. President.
Iraq can ask Syria's assistance all day long to help control the border, but then there's a longer one down south. And that one borders the country where most of the homicide bombers infecting Iraq come from. How effective will Syria's cooperation be, even if they can get it, if Saudi Arabia maintains its business (boom) as usual attitude and hears nary a cross word from the US?
9/11? Saudis. Iraq suicide bombers? Saudis. Bush buddies? Saudis.
Time and again on this site I have bitched about this problem. And time and again the apologists for the Bush administration have attempted to minimize or justify the current administration’s coddling of the Saudi regime. (Remember, this is the same President who said you are with us or against us in the War on Terror.) At least Kerry had the guts to call the Bushies on this issue. And in the process of doing so, he got accused of being a traitor.
And don’t even try to argue the royal family is a moderating source. The royal family does not give a sh** about anyone other than themselves. They will intimidate and bribe the terrorists in order to retain power. But they will never - repeat never - crack down on them or attempt in any meaningful way to limit their reach. To do so would be their suicide.
And the Bushies have no plan to deal with this problem. To the contrary, the Bushies seem somehow pleased and satisfied with the status quo in Arabia.
At least Bush could not hold hands. Wouldn’t that be a start?
Imagine for a moment that a Democratic President had as close of ties with the Saudis that Bush has. The Articles of Impeachment would already be gathering dust.
There was a time in this country when people got outraged about things that actually mattered. Now, all they care about is gay marriage and Republican appointed judges who aren’t extreme enough.
If there was one reason to not vote for Bush, it was that he was hand-holding friends with and appeasers of the coddlers of the terrorists who brought down the Trade Towers.
History will judge Chamberlin - er Bush - very harshly.
Time and again on this site I have bitched about this problem. And time and again the apologists for the Bush administration have attempted to minimize or justify the current administration’s coddling of the Saudi regime.
The problem isn’t that we like Saudi Arabia, MK, it’s that we don’t have a hell of a lot of good choices. You have some suggestions?
Remember, this is the same President who said you are with us or against us in the War on Terror
Yeah, well, that’s a problem. Some of the Saudi Royal Family are with us, some are against us, and some are opportunists. You know which are which? And if you persecute those who are with us, guess who takes over? No, really, guess.
In any event, more recently, Bin Laden has been effectively declaring war on the regime in Saudi Arabia, so they’re not exactly coddling those enemies.
Imagine for a moment that a Democratic President had as close of ties with the Saudis that Bush has.
That rant is typical of Lefty inch-deep, mile-wide, fever-pitch criticism. How can you allow yourself to be outraged by holding hands with an old man and never even question why it might be happening?
It is so much simpler to decide someone’s evil or stupid than it is to actually confront an uncomfortable reality. We want to cast Arab politics in the same mold as Western democracies and then whine and stomp when it doesn’t fit.
I can understand screaming in feigned outrage to rile up the idiots the Left counts on for support, but to make an ass of yourself on a weblog where people actually understand the issue seems to me counterproductive. Why would I, or anybody else, take seriously the concerns of someone who hasn’t even bothered to think the issue through?