Monday, July 24, 2006

We’re Getting Only Half the Story

News reports about the meeting Sunday between the Saudis and the Bush administration are reporting that the Saudi’s asked Bush to push for a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah and that the United States said no. What is not appearing in lead paragraphs or in bold type is that last week the Bush administration said it was “in the beginning stages of a plan” to get Saudi Arabia and Egypt to “encourage” the Syrians to cut its ties to Hezbollah. The reason we have to go to the Saudis with this plan rather than going directly to the Syrians is that we don’t speak to Syria anymore so we need an intermediary. We are hearing that we said no to the Saudis about a cease-fire. But what did the Saudis say to us when we asked them to go to Syria on our behalf and tell the Syrians to turn against Hezbollah? We’re not hearing much about that. The New York Times reported this morning, “American officials had planned to ask the Saudis to press Syria to cut ties to Hezbollah and Iran, something they also planned to ask of other moderate Arab allies, including Egypt and Jordan. American officials would not comment on whether the United States had made progress on that score. Saudi officials played down the importance of the subject at the meeting. They have questioned how much leverage they truly have with Syria and are clearly uncomfortable being seen as a proxy for the United States.” Sounds like tit for tat. We said no to the Saudis and the Saudis said no to us. But the reasons for the rejections are different. We said no to a cease-fire because we are sending arms to Israel to aid their war in Lebanon and the last thing we want is for that war to end. The head of the Republican National Committee Ken Mehlman said recently at a Christians United For Israel dinner that Israel’s war is our war. The Saudis rejected our request because the last thing they want is to return to the Middle East looking like Bush administration gofers. Plus, Hezbollah makes the Saudis quake in their American-made boots. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday that it’s important for the United States to “empower” Lebanon to “control” its country (that means disarm Hezbollah). How do we do that? We’re sending arms to Israel. How do we empower Lebanon to boot out Hezbollah unless we send arms to Lebanon? I doubt Lebanon would consider a cheerleading speech from Ms Rice is an empowering act. I just had a funny thought. You don’t imagine that Condoleezza Rice thinks anyone in the Middle East takes her seriously do you? She does know what a terrible impression she makes, right? Like it’s three strikes: Strike One: Frightful example of a female. Strike Two: Clumsy diplomat. Strike Three: Inept foreign affairs adviser. If we need proof as to the extent of Rice’s bungling, it’s that VP Dick Cheney has been letting her pretend to be Secretary of State so that she can watch over George W. Bush while he pretends to be President and she’s even failed at being a nanny. A bunch of hairy scary Middle East terrorists are going to stop marauding and murdering because the fumbling ineffectual bogus US Secretary of State says, “Play nice”? Not unless Dick Cheney also offers nuclear weapons to Syria…and you know what? He might.


Barry Schwartz said...

No, I don’t think so. I think Dick Cheney wants American PNACis to have sole control of the Middle Eastern oil supply, and nuclear-armed Syria would threaten that.

Democracy Lover said...

I think Dick Cheney wants the Middle Eastern oil supply to slow down even further, and destabilizing the region is a great way to do that. High oil prices benefit Dick and his Texas buddies - no reason they want to bring peace and lower prices.

We are getting only half the story -- the Israeli half. Funny how one never hears the context of this story from a Palestinian or even an balanced perspective. It's always the crazy terrorists and the good, peace-loving Israelis. Hearing another perspective might help Americans understand why they hate us so much.