August 2002 Archives

Been another interesting week in the blogosphere -- debate about the friendliness of the Saudis has reached a fever pitch.

I've been taking a stand against further coddling of the House of Saud; as a result, Dean Esmay & Associates have, er, popped their corks once and for all. Sorry about that.

As a result, I've been called, hmmm, let's see...

• treasonous
• twit
• ludicrous
• Bush-basher (for suggesting I'd vote against him in 2004)
• damn fool
• intellectual coward
• intellectual weakling
• butthead
• disloyal
• unpatriotic
• whiner
• whatever-it-is-that-is-the-opposite-of-a-grownup (childish, that's the ticket)
• Bush-basher again (for defending the Bush Doctrine)
• pathetic
• and did I say treasonous? Right.

And that was the tame stuff.

Paging Ann Coulter!

Just exactly what did I say that was so inflammatory? I entered a "contest" that asked for a 25-word essay on what President Bush should do re: the Saudis. Here's what I said:

[POTUS speaking here]: "Mr. Secretary, you are more knowledgeable on this than me, but it would seem that the State Department needs to begin doing that kabuki-style dance that signals EXTREME annoyance and displeasure, beyond the normal course of events.

"Mr. Secretary we need to signal our displeasure. We need to do it in a way that will draw diplomatic and media attention.

"We need to do something that will move us one significant step in a new direction. But that direction cannot be to a point of no return.

"However, it must be a signal that our displeasure is not just business as usual...

"We are not having a lover's spat...

"We need to do more than just kiss and make up.

"Mr. Secretary, we do not need to specifically state what happens next, after that first step. The step alone must be significant enough that it sends a clear signal that we mean business.

"Perhaps closing the embassy is a 5-step process; if so, maybe we need to take that first step, now.

"Or perhaps expelling the Saudi ambassador is a 5-step process; if so, maybe we need to take the first step, now.

"Please get back to me. You've probably been watching me and Rummy and Condi down in Crawford; if so, you know stuff is happening.

"Please get back to me ASAP with specific options.

"Yours Truly,
"George W. Bush"

Well. The stuff hit the fan at that point.

The brigade of Saudi defenders rode up in their Hummers and on horseback, M-16's at the ready, and with scimitars drawn:

I openly question your loyalty and your patriotism.

Not because you question the President's policy, or criticize the President. But because you slander and whine without saying exactly what you want his policy to be.

Gosh, I thought I was pretty specific. I guessed wrong.

So I wrote back, trying to further simplify and clarify my point about what we should do next with the Saudis:

...if you are still unsure of how to handle the Saudis, I'll make it simple for you:

Follow the Bush Doctrine.

Why am I the only one who bothers to mention it and defend it? If we followed the Bush Doctrine, our attitude toward the Saudis would be different.

Someone once said most people don't have a memory that stretches back beyond this morning's breakfast. Is that what's going on here?

Make no mistake: Saddam must be crushed; but we don't need the Bush Doctrine for that.

But if the Bush Doctrine is still valid...

...if President Bush meant what he said on Sept 20, 2001...

...in front of a joint sesssion of the US Congress...

...in front of the American people...

...and before the eyes of the entire world...

...if the Bush Doctrine means anything at all, then our attitude to the Saudis should be pretty clear.

Is that so hard to understand?

There you have it: I'm defending the Bush Doctrine and Esmay is defending Bush. That was pretty much the main bout.

In the "under-card" fight, certain Saudi apologists felt it was incumbent upon themselves to point out a historical parallel that justified coddling the Saudis. Their number one defense witness for the Saudis was....(drum roll please)....Joe Stalin!

Right. I'd like to hear the communique that mentions his name in the same sentence as CP Abdullah.

That said, there ensued a lengthy recitiation as to whether or not Stalin worked with us or against us during WWII. What. Ever.

The point is this: when all else was said and done, at least Stalin was overtly engaged in the killing of Nazis.

The Saudis? Covertly engaged in the killing of Jews.

Hey, I call it the way I see it. The response from Esmay & Co.?:

I am not defending Bush, and you are not defending the Bush Doctrine. I am explaining the realities of war. You are bashing our leader while steadfastly refusing to specify what exactly you want our leader to do.

Tediously repeating the phrase "Bush Doctrine" is not an answer. It is not even half an answer.

I have read your messages again. They contain nothing but the same generalities and ideological blatherings that I've been complaining about.

It is incumbent upon you to say what actions you think would be in keeping with the doctrine you claim to support--and, more importantly, you need to specify which ones you would support.

I'm tired of this game. It's pathetic. Clearly, no answer is forthcoming, except childlike chanting and meandering rambles with no specific suggestions. Except, apparently, "Bush shouldn't be seen in public with the Sauds" and "Powell needs to make the State Department act a little meaner."

Pathetic. But until I get an answer to his question, I will be responding to no more of you messages, nor will I be reading you site any longer.

Well.

I guess Dean won't see this then...he'll have to wait for the book, then the movie.

Funny thing is, I like the guy; he's a great writer and his positions are usually well-thought out and finely nuanced. But for some reason, he's got a tin-ear on this one. [And I'm not even going to go there when he lectures me about the "realities of war."]

No, I think he developed that strange ringing in his ears right around the time I started questioning POTUS' retreat on the Bush Doctrine.

See you in the funny papers, pal.

"The church must be reminded that it is not the master of the state or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state."

---Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dean Esmay likes to refer to your faithful narrator as a "reliable Bush-basher."

What. Ever.
Recently, and in response to the upcoming visit of Prince Bandar to POTUS' ranch in Crawford, he posted the following question on E Pluribus Unum:

When it comes to meetings with a Saudi ambassador or member of the Saudi Royal Family, President Bush should:

A) Refuse to meet with him.
B) Meet with him, but not smile.
C) Meet with him, but poke him in the eye, sock him in the gut, then bonk him on the head with a monkey wrench.
D) Meet with him, but pull out a gun, shoot at his feet, and scream, "Dance, towel-head, dance!"
E) Other.

Once again, if you choose E), you must explain, in twenty-five words or less, what "other" consists of.

Well, it's more than 25 words, but here's what George W. Bush should say:

"Mr. Protocol Droid, please make sure that there are NO photographs of me meeting with Prince Bandar. Bring him in the side door. Bring him in thru a secret tunnel. If there is NO secret tunnel, dig one, now.

"I do NOT want to see photos of me smiling and shaking this guy's hand, or any other Saudi, because every time I do this, it shows up on that SOB Ara Rubyan's blog.

"It's an embarrassment.

"...and I figure sooner or later, the DNC is going to use the photos in TV ads during the next Presidential election cycle.

"Now watch this drive."

Well. That appararently isn't enough because Mr. Esmay, ever the reliable Bush apologist, has now posed a follow-up question:

What should President Bush do:

A) Declare war on the House of Saud.
B) Close the US Embassy in Riyadh, expel the Saudi ambassador, and state that the House of Saud is our enemy, but not make war on them.
C) Make demands, but not back the demands up with any threat of force or retaliation.
D) Declare the House of Saud our enemy and do nothing else.
E) Other

If you choose E) you must explain, IN TWENTY-FIVE WORDS OR LESS, what the other option is.

I suggest that if you cannot forthrightly answer this question, directly and without evasion, you are nothing but a kvetching, irrational child, and should shut the hell up and let the grownups get on with fighting the war. "Kvetching, irrational child...?" He makes it sound like a bad thing.

That said, here's what POTUS should say to Colin Powell:

"Mr. Secretary, you are more knowledgeable on this than me, but it would seem that the State Department needs to begin doing that kabuki-style dance that signals EXTREME annoyance and displeasure, beyond the normal course of events.

"Mr. Secretary we need to signal our displeasure. We need to do it in a way that will draw diplomatic and media attention.

"We need to do something that will move us one significant step in a new direction. But that direction cannot be to a point of no return.

"However, it must be a signal that our displeasure is not just business as usual...

"We are not having a lover's spat...

"We need to do more than just kiss and make up.

"Mr. Secretary, we do not need to specifically state what happens next, after that first step. The step alone must be significant enough that it sends a clear signal that we mean business.

"Perhaps closing the embassy is a 5-step process; if so, maybe we need to take that first step, now.

"Or perhaps expelling the Saudi ambassador is a 5-step process; if so, maybe we need to take the first step, now.

"Please get back to me. You've probably been watching me and Rummy and Condi down in Crawford; if so, you know stuff is happening.

"Please get back to me ASAP with specific options.

"Yours Truly,
"George W. Bush"

Marwan Barghouti, the head of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, has been indicted on murder charges for allegedly orchestrating more than three-dozen terror attacks. Barghouti's lawyers say he wants to draw attention to Israel's actions as an occupying power. The judge in the case has said he will not permit the defense to "turn this court into a political stage.'' As he was led into the courtroom Wednesday morning, Barghouti shouted in Hebrew that "the uprising will be victorious.'' When he was asked how he felt, Barghouti replied in Hebrew, "Baruch Hashem,'' or "God be praised,'' an expression commonly used by observant Jews. And if that isn't mortifying enough, I have to tell you about NPR's latest puff piece romanticizing alleged criminals like Barghouti. In its report on the indictiment, the NPR story began with the following sentence:

One of the most visible and charismatic leaders of the Palestinian uprising was indicted in an Israeli civilian court today ...

...and explained how Barghouti's popularity had soared among those on the Arab street. It then proceeded to end the report using the following word:

"hero"

Was that really necessary? But wait...it gets worse. Here's what Serge Schmemann wrote in the New York Times:

"The accused, a Ramallah resident, heads the West Bank terror organization," the indictment declared. "The accused was subordinate to Yasir Arafat, who heads the terrorist organization." What the indictment did not note was that Mr. Barghouti, 42, is also the second most popular figure among the Palestinians, after Mr. Arafat, and a man often cited as a potential successor to Mr. Arafat.

...or as James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal puts it:

What O.J. Simpson's indictment did not note is that he won a Heisman Trophy in 1968.

BTW, did you know that Nelson Mandela said this recently?:

"What is happening to Barghouti is exactly the same as what happened to me. The government tried to de-legitimise the African National Congress and its armed struggle by putting me on trial."

Some of my conservative friends are urging me to re-assess my sympathies to the Democratic Party in light of their rather lackluster support for Israel. Dean Esmay says:

Dunno where you've been, Ara. Bush is polling higher in the Jewish community than any Republican president in at least a generation. And why not? He's the most pro-Israel, anti-Arafat President in history. Not to mention the fact that most of the anti-Israeli crowd is in the Democratic caucus in Congress. There's been quite a wave of Jews changing their registrations to Republican this summer. There have been a number of stories about this trend, and I'm surprised if you've missed them. How deep or lasting is it? Hard to say.

I'm familiar with the phenomenon. I'm Jewish. And ideologically, I am really disappointed in the liberals' weasly stance of "moral equivalency." Nothing makes my blood boil faster than to hear someone say that "we have to hear both sides" or we have to be "an honest broker." But my problem with Bush is slightly different; in my opinion, he hasn't gone far enough. For example, when Bush leaves it to Powell, Powell screws it up. Or when the military command (6000 miles away in Florida!) trusts the Northern Alliance to slam the front door on al-Qaeda, but they let them escape out the back exit...well, I'm mighty disappointed indeed. So you might say, on selected days, I'm to the right of this administration in assessing the war on terror. I know, I know, conservatives keep telling me that Bush is 90% of the way there.... ...but understand that Israel has NO margin for error. One mistake, and they are wiped off the map. So if there is a 10% chance for a mistake, then dead still means dead. Hence my hard-line demands on BOTH sides.

This just in:

Iraq's military -- is "ready to rise up" against Saddam Hussein, an Iraqi opposition leader told reporters today after speaking with top U.S. officials. Hussein "is very weak," said Sharif Ali Bin AlHussein, of the Constitutional Monarchy Movement.

Excuse me for being skeptical, but I'd like to read a teensy bit more about these Iraqi dissident leaders. For example, just what exactly do they plan to do once they take over? Besides fight amongst each other, which is probably a done deal, right? Beyond that, what kinds of policies do they espouse? Can we find out some more about them before we hand them the keys to the kingdom?

Here's Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the DNC at the Summer Meeting General Session in Las Vegas:

We've...built a 21st century technological infrastructure. So we're no longer stuck in the horse-and-buggy era while Republicans use space age technology to peddle their Stone Age ideas.

Cliche alert! Cliche alert! Please walk, do not run, to the nearest exit!

Eighteen months ago, we didn't have enough e-mail addresses to fill a modern football stadium. Today, we can, with the push of a button, send information instantly to one million Democratic activists.

Ecch! The push of a button? What the hell...? What button is he pushing? I hope it's a mouse button and not the reset button. Has this guy ever used a computer? But wait it gets worse:

So the investments have been made and the machinery is in place. Now it's time to crank it up.

Crank up the machinery? He sounds like he's talking about a Model T! Like Bugs Bunny says: What a maroon!