Saudi King REJECTS Visit From BUSH - Because He Wants To Cooperate With Dems (Juan Cole)

According to one Iraqi newspaper, the Dems are getting an unexpected ally. Saudi King Abdullah is said to prefer cooperating with the Democrats than with the White House on resolution of the Iraq crisis

"Al-Bayyinah al-Jadidah carries on the front page a 370-word report citing a senior Iraqi official source saying that the Saudi King has rejected an offer from President Bush to visit Saudi Arabia because the king wants to cooperate with US democrats.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/04/11-electricity-workers-killed-at.html

Absolutely astonishing.

Pelosi goes the Syria, Syria helps brrroker the release fo the 15 sailors, now in SA, whats she going to do as an encore?

Hey originalpckelly do you hang at the NASA/space forums?

that is huge.

I guess taking Cheney out to the woodshed didn't work, eh?

on edit, I can only imagine how the BushDaddy is taking this. He must be goinf effin nuts! His best pals turning on sonny boy? But, the question is, who will he support? Georgie or the King. My money is on the King. Because money is thicker than oil which is thicker than his blue blood.

The Saudis clearly had a plan post-9/11 and Cheney and company got greedy and out of control power mad and fucked it up. The Saudi daddies aren't happy.

DEMOCRATS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PAR-TY? Un freakin' heard of!

are the one's that have to. Who would want to talk to a fucking lunatic about international matters and peaceful solutions. A total and gargantuan embarrassment to the United States. Of course, the Saudi King wants to talk to dems because he knows a dem will be in the white house for at least the next eight years.

World leaders are running out the clock now, waiting for Bush to leave office so they can deal with Dems.

(Bandar Bush -- lol) to SA, when? ...two years ago?

the world... Apparently he believes the Democrats will be retaining power in this country.. Bush is on his way out one way, or the other....

Corrected info: A party has only won 3 pres. elections in a row once in 100 years. And I don't think Bush's Republican party and Roosevelt's National Progressive parties are analogous.

ahem, that said, this is still huge, given the long standing Bush family ties to the House of bin Ladin and the House of Saud

A party winning three (or more) presidential elections in a row has happened three times that I can think of in the last 100 years.

Republicans 1980-84-88
Democrats 1932-36-40-44-48 (even if you think Dewey defeated Truman, it was still four in a row)
Republicans 1920-24-28

The Republicans also had a long pre-Wilson streak, the last victory coming in 1908, but that streak began more than 100 years ago.

Of course, there've also been plenty of elections in which the unpopularity of the ruling party resulted in a change in White House control!

The amusing thing in 2008 will be seeing the Republican candidates trying to deal with The Bush Problem. They can't outright denounce him, or the base will turn against them and give the nomination to someone else. On the other hand, they all know that being seen as a Bushbot will be fatal in the general election. Their current flip-flopping is just a warmup for the duplicity that we'll see down the road.

He's been in office long enough for everyone to know which side of his bread the butter is on. All to often it's the wrong side for the rest of the world.

SMACK! Stay home Bushie, but send those nice Dems over. We'll talk to them instead.

If this isn't an indication that the party is over for Bush, I don't know what is.

someone here had a GREAT graphic on that very theme.

Their lies
Their Republic party's

Tie
Tan
Hic

:hi:

SoCalDem posted this in another thread:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=569954&mesg_id=570102

He's a new guy, he wasn't the most orthodox of the family when he came in, he had strong opinions, he wanted to address the Islamic trouble at home without seemingly sacrificing everything for the sacred relationship with the US (or at the very least, being SEEN to be sacrificing everything for that)... people just assumed that once he gained the throne that he just morphed into everyone's image of a Saudi king and packed his brain away forever and ever.

Having said that, it's highly unlikely that the Iraqi source is correct that this is about cooperating with the Democrats. This is about pique and spite with Bush for being a dumbass. That's simple logic. The Democrats are not in power in the US. It's not the Democrats that are the constituency the king is worried about; it's Sunni Arabs. (Well, Sunni non-Arabs too if you take it far enough.)

it helps him domestically, AND it gets the attention of DaddyBush, Big OIl and other important groups. Lets them know he ain't pleased with boy George, so deal with him.

he's a certifiable nutcase. There's no dealing with him.

Finally

I don't blame them. I wouldn't want to talk to those fkers either.

Barney's loyalty is questionable!

:rofl:

too bad W and his cabal doesn't know that? chew on that Cheney and Bush!! Ha. right in your faces.

Let the grown ups handle this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that little war that the saudi`s told little george to stop backing and reign in the Israeli government? what did georgie do? nothing? that was the beginning of the end for the bush whitehouse.

of course the saudi`s are going with the democrats ..they have to protect their investments

bush loves war so much he hid out from Texas National AirGuard in Alabama.

I'm not nearly as eloquent in writing about such things as many of you here, so I won't try.

Here's my question: The Saudis have been the "bad guys" though have gotten a free pass due to their longstanding relationship with the Bush family and neocon oil ties.

I see it's a new king, not as orthodox as previous Saudi kings, but unless some mea culpa is proclaimed on their part, how can his embracing the dems (for whatever reason) be a positive other than it being a slap in the face to King George?

Don't get me wrong - I applaud Pelosi and others' attempts at diplomacy, including with those not fans of the US. But the Saudis are such a sticky subject - more and more Americans see their culpability in so many negative things yet it's rarely vocalized.

I'm just concerned the neocons will, like everything, spin this somehow in their favor. Finally saying the Saudis are the enemy and Pelosi is siding with the enemy or something like that.

the "dark side" has mastered the art of 10-second soundbites to get their talking points across and that's what dominates the news.

The dems have serious, thoughtful plans for this country, but that can rarely be reduced to these brief soundbites, so their message is squelched.

I desperately want the message 70% of the country is receptive to finally make headway over the 30%-ers' messages.

I'm just frustrated...as are many here, no doubt.

If we've learned anything about ME politics over the past 35 years, it's that we ought to be neutral observers on the sidelines. Start making the tough domestic decisions to wean ourselves off of ME oil for our energy and national security. The more we develop alternative/renewable/conservation strategies at home, the less affected we are on the unstable political alliances in the ME. A clean break on ME oil would require domestic investment (jobs!) and ultimately begin to reduce the crippling economic effects of a military budget out of control (we ought to dial in the costs of funding this defense budget at the gas pump....that might drive some serious change in our energy decisions).

Since the 70's, Republicans have built their political/economic base on Saudi Arabia/Big Oil and we are living with the results of that alliance today. Time to create a new Democratic vision built on domestic needs and a strong decentralized energy policy that provides jobs, helps the environment, and de-escalates our military corporate welfare system.

be created if we actually had a government that set conservation, protection of the environment, and renewable energy as attainable goals!

Instead we just plow money into the War Machine. The companies like General Dynamics need to change their focus...someone like a FDR is needed who tells these War Boys: 'I welcome your hatred.'

Some think the DEMs will win the White House in '08, and stay there for the fore see able future. (20 yrs).

What would you do?

sounds like the mid-east is cozying up to the Dem's and for good reason, they realize the "brush man" is nothing but a pariah.

bush took reign. plus let the repigs spew off their mixed messages slogan.

As long as we don't get too cozy.

:wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

they can begin with an open and honest assessment of the state of Saudi oil reserves, instead of the bogus assurances of abundant crude for the next fifty years.

Shrub practically destroyed Queen Elizabeth's gardens, and that's just a minor inconvenience. My guess is that the difficult task is preparing/assuring security for the most hated man in the world.

:rofl:

warmonger. VERY telling indeed.

For years, I've all comers to our side of the barricades when each crosses to defy the American tyrant, but an Arab tyrant gives me pause.

Nevertheless, this is the most striking example of Bush alienating allies. For better or worse, the House of Saud was a US ally in general and a Bush family ally in particular.

My, what a difference one little arrogant incompetent can make.

It suck to be that loser.

...............


...................

Dowd ..... Saudis ...... Next?

I just don't buy this personally.

But hasn't Juan Cole been reliable in the past?

I would think that the Sauds and Bush have such dirt on each other that they would be loathe to start a "war of words" in the press.

I know the Likudnicks don't like him, but what i've read on his blogs before haven't come back to be discredited, afaik

i can easily believe it.

:bounce:

and as such, too dangerous. Bush has no credibility, honor, nor dignity...no value....I cannot blame the King if this is true...