(at least) 3 more Friedmans

Apparently Bush has promised the Saudis that he’ll never withdraw from Iraq. David Ignatius writes today in the Washington Post :

The ferment in the region is driven partly by the perception that U.S. troops are on the way out, no matter what the Bush administration says. To dampen such speculation, Bush is said to have told the Saudis that America will not withdraw from Iraq during his presidency. “That gives us 18 months to plan,” said one Saudi source.

Earlier in his column, however, Ignatius reports that the Saudis have “deep misgivings” about the U.S. strategy in Iraq. It seems that King Abdullah thinks Mr. Bush’s excellent adventure has gone way off track. The King even called the occupation “illegitimate” the other day. According to Ignatius, the Saudis have gotten so nervous they’ve started pushing us to dump our guy Maliki in favor of their guy Allawi. The situation is so bad, Cheney had to go over there to straighten things out. Still, you have to wonder: If the Saudis think the surge is such a bust, how reassuring can it be to be told that it will continue for three more Friedmans?

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike co.mments Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Feed Me Links Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Hugg Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn LinksMarker Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace MyWeb

Netvouz Newsvine oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Rojo Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Sphere

Sphinn Spurl Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Worlds Movies Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

Copy HTML: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

4 Responses to “(at least) 3 more Friedmans”

1. 1
   DallasNE Says:
   

   I have wondered for some time if the Saudi’s are financing the Sunni tribal leaders that have been fighting against al Qaeda in Iraq. Many of these fighters are probably former members of Saddam’s army. If this is correct it means that Saddam loyalists are bailing Bush out in Anbar. Now, how is that for irony!

   May 11th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
2. 2
   biteoftheweek Says:
   

   Abdullah is King of Jordan, not SA>

   I know you know that, but it doesn’t read that way

   May 11th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
3. 3
   Eric Brewer Says:
   

   Dallas: Maybe so, but as Sy Hersh has emphasized recently, the Saudis are primarily worried about Iran and a Shiite take-over of Iraq, and they’ve never had qualms about supporting Sunni jihadists (most notoriously al-Qaeda in Afghanistan back in the ’80s) when it served their purposes. Hersh says that the Saudi ruling family is “gambling that they will not be overthrown as long as they continue to support religious schools and charities linked to the extremists.” So the Saudis may be more involved in supporting the anti-Shiite activity in Iraq.

   bite: Thanks for stopping by. I was talking about this King Abdullah.

   May 13th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
4. 4
   DallasNE Says:
   

   Thanks for the reply Eric. The Sy Hersch article in many ways supports what I said. I know, it is reading between the lines, but what else can we make of Hersch’s statement that “The Saudis and some in the Administration have been arguing that the biggest threat is Iran and the Sunni radicals are the lesser enemies. This is a victory for the Saudi line.” Hersch goes on to say that the “Saudi’s are starting to use their leverage–money”.

   Is it that much of s stretch to claim that Hersch’s “Sunni radicals” are the same people I call “tribal leaders” formerly beholden to Saddam and that they are being financed by Saudi Arabia. To me, it fits.

   I did have the correct King Abdullah in mind when I made my first post.

   May 14th, 2007 at 6:28 pm

Leave a Reply