E Pluribus Unum

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.

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"

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.

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?

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.

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.