[spny]

This is certainly troubling information, but Bush hasn't taken any sort of hard line against the Saudis. Why not? I suspect the answer lies beneath the Saudi desert. And it's likely the same reason Clinton never pressed the issue, not b/c he the intelligence minister was an old college buddy.

Instead of asking why Clinton coddled the Saudis prior to 9/11, shouldn't we be asking why Bush is doing the same post-9/11? Am I wrong to expect more from Bush and to hold him to a HIGHER standard?

[r9etb]

This is certainly troubling information, but Bush hasn't taken any sort of hard line against the Saudis. Why not? I suspect the answer lies beneath the Saudi desert.

That's certainly part of it. However, there are obvious military reasons for being interested in the surface of the desert, too -- advantages that would disappear should we ever decide to kick the Saudis in the chops.

It's a tightrope walk, for sure. But I think we've still got the upper hand, because the precarious position of the Saudi royalty would become untenable if they simply kicked us out. Saudi support for terrorism is probably less a matter of sympathy, than it is a matter of bribing the mullahs to leave them alone.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Bush has a lot of reasons for attacking China, Vietnam, North Korea, Iran, Albania, Lybia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Pakistan. Come to think of it, most countries in the UN want to indict our soldiers take away our gun rights, and make Mothers Day illegal. So, perhaps we should attack most of the world, starting with Britain.

In other words, I'd be happy if we just attacked Iraq. Sad freegards....