Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:42:00
Who’s got a Saudi hand up their butt this week?
Baker: “We must sit down and discuss things over tea with terrorists and like, Syria and stuff”
Bush - “No way Jose. The Yoo-nighted States of Umerr-ika don’t negotiate with turrurusts!”
I’m confused. On the one hand, the Bush family seems hell-bent on proving they are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Saudi royal family. On the other hand, the blogosphere seems to take it as a given that James Baker and company are also mere puppets of the House of Saud.
Err…
Anyone else notice that these two entities are speaking in opposites? Baker and Bush are not seeing eye-to-eye on anything these days, and are in fact articulating positions that are quite opposed to each other. This is especially true when it comes to talking to terrorists and terror-sponsoring regimes.
Two camps, both purported to be controlled by the same puppet-master, but advocating opposing courses of action. Are the Saudis really fighting themselves here? Are we giving too much credence to the idea that Saudi Arabia pulls the strings? Or is this some ploy by the Saudis to create strife for a larger purpose? Is my tinfoil hat on too tight?
What the hell is going on here? How can both sides be so against each other if they’re both controlled by one puppet-master?
Posted by JimK at 05:42 PM on December 21, 2006
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend |
Categories:
Tags:
Technorati: politics Saudi Arabia Baker Bush terrorism
Comments:
#2 Posted by ErikTheRed 
on 12/22 at 04:31 AM -
You’re assuming one is or both are smart enough to read their lines properly.
#3 Posted by JimK on 12/22 at 09:04 PM -
Buzzion - That’s what I’m saying - Baker and the Saudis seem to be on the same page this week, but in the recent past Bush made it pretty clear (through actions) that he’s also in bed with the Saudis.
Just this week, for example, I’ve seen Lee and others talk at length about Baker’s being a Saudi puppet, but Bill Quick has been banging the “Bush = Saudi Prince” drum for ages and reiterated that point this week.
I guess what confuses me is how everyone can be right - and I suspect they are all right, that Baker AND Bush & Co. are at least partially owned by the House of Saud. My real question is what the frig are the Saudis up to, or, is it possible that we’re reading too much into their involvement?
Is it a hedging your bet kind of thing? If Baker, who is essentially putting forth the Democrat position, comes out on top, the Saudis have an in. if Bush’s clique wins the tug of war, the Saudis have an in?
RSS (Subscribe)
Tip jars (Donate today!)
#1 Posted by Buzzion
on 12/21 at 08:58 PM -
Didn’t Lee recently post on the saudi position that did mirror Baker’s postion?