Quickhits - Something to read if you come by.
(AP) Putin makes a rousing election speech warning of foreign influenced "jackals."
The NYTimes makes the revelation that the foreign fighters in Iraq are primarily Saudi. (No! It couldn't be..... At least somebody's covering it, I guess.)
(AP) Hamid Karzai said that "that his government has had increasing contact with Taliban insurgents this year."
And, the Saudis (Reuters) and Syrians (AP) are dancing around the Annapolis mideast peace talks.
The NYTimes makes the revelation that the foreign fighters in Iraq are primarily Saudi. (No! It couldn't be..... At least somebody's covering it, I guess.)
(AP) Hamid Karzai said that "that his government has had increasing contact with Taliban insurgents this year."
And, the Saudis (Reuters) and Syrians (AP) are dancing around the Annapolis mideast peace talks.
posted by mikevotes at
6:44 AM
8 Comments:
The Saudi's are our allies, right? Explain to me again what ally means...
I suppose in their own defense Bush is like toxic waste in a golden barrel. The gold is nice, but you've got to be real careful about that toxic waste... Do the Saudi's share in our vision for the Middle East? I think not. Except that we provide cover for them from foreign agitators and legitimacy to the House of Saud.
By
-epm, at 7:31 AM
I've adopted the convention of using quotation marks for both the Saudis and Pakistanis. (ie our "allies" the Saudis.)
As a broad overview response to your second point, with the dissolution of the cold war, the Russians are no longer trapped in the communist rhetoric, so they can now support someone like the Sauds, and the rising Chinese can as well.
When the Russians were a threat to back overthrow, the Saud family needed the US far more than they do now.
They're in a slow process of delinking from the US to a more "market basket" position.
(And, I'm guessing you're a person of habit as well. wake up, have the cofee, do the news, eh?)
By
mikevotes, at 8:00 AM
"Saudi officials have said the kingdom will attend if there is an agenda that deals clearly with core issues involved in setting up a Palestinian state alongside Israel."
That doesn't sound unreasonable.
By
Anonymous, at 10:14 AM
No, it doesn't.
And, as of yesterday, there was no agenda for the meeting.
By
mikevotes, at 12:22 PM
Because the Israelis don't want one. It will be interesting to see how they blame the Palestinians/Arabs if this meeting falls through.
By
Anonymous, at 2:06 PM
I'll spin you the outcome of the Annapolis Conference:
"The poor, victimised Israelis wanted peace so bad, but the evil and violent Arabs didn't want to put aside their schemes to wipe Israel off the map."
Bush keeps thinking that the Arab states will fold, or at least that the Saudi royals will keep the rest in line. It could very well be that the big 'development' from the conference will turn out to be that the Saudis have stopped reading the Bush script. Rice's "legacy" might end up being losing the Arab states.
Bush already owes the Saudis for squelching any OPEC discussions about moving away from the dollar. It's pathetic that, despite handing the Israelis $12 million each day as a gift, Bush has no pull with them. If anything, it's the other way around.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 10:37 AM
I don't really have a sense, except that no one but the Bush administration really wants this right now.
Olmert is a desperately weak PM who can't afford to give anything away.
Fatah can't give anything away.
By
mikevotes, at 11:23 AM
I'm assuming, of course, that the Saudis actually show up.
Egypt's FM is now saying that Bush has a vision for "an independent Palestinian state within the next year and before the end of Bush's term." This apparently is creating optimism in quarters whose recollection of Bush's vision for Iraq is dim.
It's bizzare that China is going to Annapolis, but that this late in the game so many Arab states haven't said they will make it.
Even if Abbas is willing to bend over and drop his pants, he doesn't even control his own government. He speaks for no one anymore, and he's proven it time and time again.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 2:18 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home