[tw]

From the Kalleej Times in Dubai of 2 Apr 2007:

Double or quits
On March 28, the venerable Saudi monarch King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz told the Arab summit in Riyadh that the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq was illegal. The damage that this has done to America's presence in Iraq, and its credibility in the region, is immense. ...

This public snub was probably the good news. The private snub was if anything worse. King Abdullah sent his national security adviser, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, to tell President George Bush that he was a bit tied up at the moment, and therefore could not fly over for a state dinner on April 17: maybe they could do dinner another time? When your best friend is not free for dinner, it is time to look in the mirror.

The White House chose to grin and deny that any invitation had been sent, but it was impossible to deny the contents of the Abdullah speech. The State Department asked Nicholas Burns, still looking depressed after his non-talks on the nuclear deal in Delhi, to explain on television that the American presence in Iraq had UN sanction as well as the invitation of the Iraqi government. Mr Burns did not dwell on the finer points of both: that the Security Council held another view before the war began, and that the Iraqi government whose invitation he so admires did not exist then. And now comes news that young King Abdullah of Jordan has no time for dinner either. Although the Jordan monarch is so often in America that he could qualify for a frequent flyer programme were he plebeian enough to fly on a commercial liner, he too has sent word that it might be wiser to postpone a planned state visit in September. Would 2008 do?

His exact words (boldface mine) were:

In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war.

That's right. It is an occupation - not liberation. This from a closest George Jr friend?

From the Jerusalem Post of 2 Apr 2007:

Analysis: Are the Saudis seeking peace?
... if Israel thought Rice's optimistic diplomacy earlier in the week was based on some well-established US-Saudi coordination, it came as a total surprise when Jim Hoagland disclosed in The Washington Post yesterday that Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah canceled a mid-April gala dinner with President George W. Bush in the White House.

Hoagland heard from administration sources that Riyadh had decided for now to seek common ground with Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah. It now becomes understandable why the Saudis chose to strengthen Hamas, with the Mecca Agreement, at the expense of Mahmoud Abbas, who just became politically even more sidelined.

If Saudi Arabia has decided to distance itself from the US at this time, then how could Washington expect that now the time was ripe for a Saudi-Israeli rapprochement under an American umbrella?

... What is shaping Saudi Arabia's new diplomatic activism is the rapidly expanding Iranian threat and the weakness of the Western response.

Clear is an entire region rejecting (apparently as irrelevant) George Jr and his wacko extremists. Jordan and Saudi Arabia, considered America's closest Arab allies, have literally backhandedly slapped George Jr's face - and done so publicly so that you know it. Kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan both cancel dinners? No way around it. That is a direct snub of the scumbag president who has zero credibility in the world.

But it gets worse. Up in Poland, a very pro-American defense minister Radek Sikorski has lost his job. From the Economist of 31 Mar 2007:

Iraq explains why 51% of Poles opposed the missile-defence plan in one recent survey, says Radek Silorksi, an Atlanticist Pole who recently lost his job as defense minister amid a row over hot exactly to negotiate with the United States over missile defences.

... says Mr Sikorski: "This is blowback from Iraq. We used to take things on trust from the United States in the security field" - but that is no longer the case.

George Jr policy was to 'not do as Clinton'. Clinton's Arab/Israeli shuttle diplomacy, et al were condemned, as George Jr people repeatedly said, because Clinton did it. Suddenly Rice is trying to rescue concepts once called the Oslo Accords by doing what? Shuttle diplomacy. Suddenly talks with N Korea are being conducted just as Clinton did ten years earlier - a new treaty almost exactly like one originally negotiated by Carter and vocally rejected by neocons from Project for a New American Century. Suddenly what Clinton was doing is now acceptable?

Too little too late. From the Associated Press of 1 Apr 2007:

Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, will convey a message to Syria from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, that Israel is interested in peace if Damascus stops supporting terrorism, an Israeli official said Sunday.

Pelosi met Olmert Sunday during the Israel part of her Mideast tour, which has drawn
criticism from the White House because of her planned stop in Syria.

"Pelosi is conveying that Israel is willing to talk if they (Syria) would openly take steps to stop supporting terrorism," Olmert spokeswoman Miri Eisin said.

Why is Pelosi doing Shuttle diplomacy? Israel also has little faith in what Rice had to say. The region was ripe for peace when 'big dics' decided to fix things with preemption. Never forget what a Norwegian foreign minister predicted in the first months of the George Jr administration: George Jr would undermine the Oslo Accords. And, of course, that is exactly what the mental midget did.

Why use Pelosi as the negotiator? She is the closest thing Israel can find to an American honest broker; someone who wants peace? Why couldn't Olmert have done same with Condi Rice who was just there last week? George Jr would not know peace if it bit him in the nose he once used for cocaine.

What is the White House response? White House mental midgets tell Pelosi to not convey any message from Israel to Syria. Why is the White House so fearful of peace?

Do not expect anything good to come of events here. A message about 'stopping terrorism' is only a message of 'maybe we can talk'. Nothing more. But the backhanded face slaps of George Jr by Arab leaders is long overdue. Both King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah II of Jordan canceled visits with one of America's greatest 'worst president'.

Meanwhile, 15 British hostages are now caught up in America's 'big dic' threats - war games conducted in the Persian Gulf off Iran's coast. As Martha Raddatz of ABC News noted:

U.S. naval officials in Bahrain told ABC News that the operation was hastily planned after the 15 Britons were seized Friday, yet the Bush administration would not say publicly that this is the case.

Military operations intentionally created upon White House orders - as if a classic 'big dic' response would solve anything. Military threats made it more difficult for moderate Iranians to gain the upper hand and end an undesirable hostage standoff.

What has now arrived in the Gulf? More US Navy ships including aircraft carriers USS Bataan (of New Orleans / Katrina fame) and her sister ship USS Boxer. Why Marine assault ships and so many mine sweepers? 'Big dic' neocons believe in preemption rather than intelligent negotiation. Even Poland - once most trusting and supportive of any thing American now say Americans cannot be trusted. But you cannot tell that even to 'big dic' advocates in the Cellar. Their response is akin to something about jealousy of Americans or some hidden agenda. The only thing hidden is intelligence among George Jr supporters. When only Pelosi is trusted enough to deliver a message? When even Kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia are *publicly* too busy for a state dinner?