Redstate

that there are extremists in theDem ranks. And in the GOP ranks.

Is it your opinion that there are more in one party than in the other?

I believe the extremists (communists/socialists/conspiracy theorists vs. Christianity as law/gays burn in hell) are about the same size and generally located in their respective colored states.  However, the mainstream democrats have started accepting the extreme left's arguments and talking points.  Micheal Moore's embrace by Daschle and other leading Dems as opposed to the distance they kept before is the most emblatic example.  And Kos has its daily fill of conspiracy theories usually centered on Karl Rove.

  In fact, the disappearance of the moderate left (and thus the boos for New Democrat Lieberman) is the main reason I was forced back towards Bush.  I would have supported Lieberman just as I voted for Gore, but instead someone had the idea that Kerry was more "electable."

I would think the more apt analogy would be Michael Moore to Rush Limbaugh.  In which case the two blowhards moot each other.

I especially like the one with support the Iraqi resistance. So let me get this straight ... this person loves our troops and wants them to come home. But if they don't then lets support the people who are killing them ... Its nice to see that the Democratic Party can still draw the same collection of folks they did when they supported Ho Chi Mihn killing Americans.

The Kerry voters above are not mere objects of mockery here: they are warnings of a future that creeps a bit closer with the ascent of John Kerry to the White House.

I wonder if Mr. and Mrs. America might not get a bit more nervous about a Kerry presidency if they were constantly reminded of the types who support him, especially the now-mainstream leftists who used to represent the lunatic fringe.

Pictures like these are an allegory - Republicans = adults and Democrats = eternal teen-agers.

I don't listen to Rush so maybe I'm wrong but my impression was that he was just really conservative.  I haven't heard of him pushing conspiracy theories or directing terrorists to kill members of the other party.  Moore post 9-11 comment is what makes it astonishing to me that mainstream party officials associate with him:

"Many families have been devastated tonight.  This just is not right.  They did not deserve to die.  If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him!  Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"

Moreover, my post isn't about the fringe (democratic underground or free republic).  I'm talking about the more mainstream Repubs and Dems(let's say Kos vs. Redstate).  I don't see Rush being quoted a lot around here, but I see Moore's talking points spreading to the whole of the Democratic party.  It's obviously just an observation with no statistics or data.  But the Moorization of the the Dems has really pushed me off the swing voter list and made me more partisan.

I don't know whether Limbaugh is quoted a lot around here, but I do know his caustic, name calling ideas have had a great deal of influence on the conservative movement.  His radio address used to start off with "America Held Hostage...X number of days of the Clinton Presidency."  The idea was Clinton didn't get a majority of votes if you assumed the Perot votes were Bush I's.  Oh, for simpler times....

Anyway, in recognition of the fair constraints the administrators have placed on overly ideological lefties, I won't itemize Rush's extremism for fear of offending someone.  I do think if you look closely at the two, they may differ in medium, but they share much in common for obnoxious, poorly researched ideological blather.  I just hope Moore doesn't spin clones off like Limbaugh did, but given the nature of this country's idea of political discourse, he probably will.

Spin-off ideologues from extremists on both sides aren't good for public discourse.  Agreed.

the people represented in these photos are still pretty much the fringe, I'd say.  The far left thinks of Kerry as "conservative", "pro-war", "Bush Lite", etc.  ANSWER, who had a presence at the protests, believes that the two parties are part of the same War Machine.  It's disingenous at best to present them as part of the Democratic "base", and similarly disingenuous to present them as a representative sample of the hundreds of thousands marching.

There are alot of people who just don't like the constraints of society, including the constraints of the two-party system.  To fit them on the ideological spectrum, you'd have to add dimensions for weirdness and incoherence.  I'm sure there were alot of the same people protesting at the Democratic convention as well.

where this is all taking place. New York City. Home to a lot of really nice people, I'm sure, and also home to a whole lot of very strange people (seen from the perspective of just about anywhere else in the country except maybe Hollywood Blvd and a few other hotspots). But for sheer concentration of numbers, NYC has got to take the prize, not even counting the migration in for the festivities.

So relax and enjoy the show, because the circus is in town. Remember, for the most part, excluding the really whacked violent fringe, this is just what our veterans defended. What makes this country great (one thing, anyhow) is that every citizen is entitled to proclaim any damfool opinion they happen to hold (as long as it does not tromp on the rights of others) and here, concentrated in a small geographical area, we get to witness a bunch of those citizens, advancing their opinions (some of which absolutely fit the category of 'damfool').

While I've checked a number of web sites looking for pictures like you have here, I wonder how representative of the whole they are.

Certainly, the pictures that make the news are those of the more bizarre element.  I feel like I'm visiting a freak show at the circus.

But are the freaks really representative of the much larger crowds?  I've seen numbers that range between 100 and 500 thousand marchers.  Most of these people have to be "regular" people:  teachers, ministers, receptionists, nurses, truck drivers, accountants, etc.  And close-up pictures of them are not making the news.

Republicans are really fortunate there weren't large protests in Boston, complete with the right-wing nutjobs who claimed 9/11 was God's punishment on our nation for its sins.

As or equivalents on the wings.

Let's say the KKK, Christian Identity, "Fags must Die" screamers represents the totalitarian wing of the spectrum that starts with conservatives. For the sake of argument.

ANSWER, the Free Mumia crowd, the Bush = Hitler crowd represent their mirror image, in my opinion. They are totalitarians.

Now, how many conservatives march in protests organized by the first group?

Versus liberals marching with the second?

As for Rush, you must also look at what he's arguing for -- Freedom, individuality, a strong defense.

What is Michael Moore arguing for? American weakness and surrender to our enemies.

And Michael Moore lies with impunity. Read Rush's writings -- they're no different that most mainstream conservative columnists, just a bit more pungeant.

I'm familiar with this moral equivalency argument, and I reject it. It's too facile -- and wrong.

Too much food in my keyboard, too little preview.

From my limited first-hand knowledge of these types of things, I'd say the first 100-200 people at a protest are nearly 100% freaks in one form or another.  Any attendees beyond that are pretty normal.  The freaks are good at getting attention, though.

Hey, I don't like Bush and even I think some of these people are too much! Please don't lump all the Kerry supporters in with this crowd. I'm sure there are alot of cristian fundies the repubs aren't espeically proud of either.

Besides, I don't think Kerry will be nominating any of them for his cabinet! ;)

"Republicans are really fortunate there weren't large protests in Boston, complete with the right-wing nutjobs who claimed 9/11 was God's punishment on our nation for its sins."

I suggest that there were more reasons for the above than mere happenstance.  Yes, some of those reasons are non-ideological, but it wasn't just "fortune" that Republicans weren't embarrassed by masses of whack-job protestors in Boston outside the Democratic National Convention.

Kind of a crude post, but the last line was quite funny.

to see those folks at the DNC, you would have had to have penetrated behind the barricades and barbed wire (or was it chain-link?).

I am amazed and pretty pleased at the difference. In Boston, the number of protesters was limited and they were virtually imprisoned. In NYC, they are required to follow the city ordinances regarding public demonstrations, and there are plenty of law enforcement people standing by, to handle the possibility of fringe violence. Other than that, it's just another day for the American political process.

And this is supposed to be bad news for Bush? Smells like democracy to me.

Read Rush's writings -- they're no different that most mainstream conservative columnists, just a bit more pungeant.

One thing about Rush is that he is very careful about his writing.  However, he is not careful on his show.  He's relied for years on the fact that he doesn't keep transcripts of his show, so it used to be difficult for his critics to get exact quotes of what he said.  On those occasions when he has been confronted with things he's said on his show, he says he's an entertainer and he was just joking.  But Rush is very dishonest and misleading in his broadcasts.  I don't expect you to take my word on it.  Approach it like a scientist approaches a problem.  Seek out proof that Limbaugh is dishonest.  If you can find it, then you will have to admit to yourself that he is.  If you look hard and can find nothing, then that's pretty good proof that he is an honest commentator.  The trick is too seek out info. that would show yourself to be incorrect.  It's easy enough.  Twenty minutes on Google ought to cover it.

As far as qualitative differences between Moore and Limbaugh, that's always going to be for the individual to decide.  But you might be a more discerning consumer of info. if you take up this Limbaugh challenge.

Or you might just conclude I'm a jerk.  Either way.

...but I'm sure it wasn't intentional.  Limbaugh often disabused listeners of the idea that Perot votes would have gone to GHWBush in 1992.

The unofficial summary of his show for November 9, 1993 is one such example.

Limbaugh's "America Held Hostage" opener, a take-off on the count used by Nightline during the Iranian hostage crisis, lampooned the liberals at the Clinton Inauguration festivities, who were behaving as though they were slaves who had just been set free by Clinton's election.  Ironically, one of those liberals was actor Ron Silver, who is endorsing GWB's re-election as I write this.

Looking at the broader picture, Moore has supported the Baathist terrorists in Iraq.  In contrast, Limbaugh condemned the OKC bombing (though President Clinton tried to hang some of the blame for it on Limbaugh, a charge even the Establishment Media would not buy).  In short, Limbaugh simply does not occupy the mirror spot on the ideological spectrum from Moore.

Being somewhat of a moderate,I never thought I'd see the day that I'd agree with Pat Robertson.  

It always cracks me up when liberals think they've got the monopoly on opposing the Iraq war and that any one who supported it must be "super right wing"; there are valid conservative arguments against the war and many, such as Mr. Roberston, express them strongly, as seen on the O'Reilly Factor tonight.

Anyone who watched the parade play out live on C-SPAN knows the answer (no pun intended) is "yes."

Watching the news today, I saw Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia -- and no member of the VRWC -- give the same answer.

Are they representative of the Democrats' base as a whole?  No, insofar as most average Dems aren't running around the public streets naked, setting things on fire, planning on ways to disrupt bomb-sniffing dogs, etc.  But many Democrats, while appearing normal, enjoyed Fahrenheit 9/11 and saw no problem with its bizzare conspiracy theories, even after being debunked by the 9/11 Commission and even liberal press outlets like Newsweek.  And they see no problem with Sen. Kennedy standing before the Dem Convo to say that the only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush (as opposed to say, terror groups).  Even the New York Times just ran a piece acknowledging that Bush-hatred is more virulent than the Clinton-hatred ever was.  Sadly, there seems to be far too many cases where you can scratch a Democrat and find a Moonbat.

at something I wrote?  If so, please let me know.  If not, then feel free to ignore this post.

Some of the most strident debates I've had with people about the Iraq war have been from "America First" isolationist Republicans and Libertarians(best exemplified by Ron Paul).  And while I've generally understood their arguments better than the "no blood for oil" colonial/imperial tripe from the left-wing they are just as obstinate.

leads you out of the convention, only to mistake the freakshow of NYC street protest for "the Kerry base." Ever seen the Halloween Parade? Y'all just pulled the circus about 20 blocks north and 2 months early, is all.

I have two uncles, both Vietnam vets. One, a sharpshooter turned forest ranger, is a diehard Republican, huge Rush Limbaugh fan (huge in both senses, like much of my burly family). At a reunion once he came up to me to ask a question that had obviously been plaguing him since he'd heard I was coming to NYC grad school. "Are you gonna become one a them gottd-mn librul professors?!" he hollered. I told him I prefered mad bomberism and moved on. He's kind of a hothead, angry with a lot of what he sees going on in this country. He's the Bush base.

My other uncle was I believe army corps of engineers, now does heavy construction. Also a big, loud guy with an endless supply of obscene slash bizarre stories. He's much more likely to start shouting about good ol' boy revolving door networks that mangage to forklift tons of tax revenue into the coffers of giant defense & energy contractors. He's kind of a hothead, angry with a lot of what he sees going on in this country. He's the Kerry base.

I don't know what lesson to draw from this parable, other than the really obvious one: most voters don't march.

I've had much more fun reading the left-wing conspiracy theories(especially those involving the Bohemian Grove...Kissinger in a gay romp...tha horror) than I did with those emanating from the right.

in Boston?

Their absence said a lot about their allegiance. They are part of the Democratic base. No dis-ingenuity necessary.

the House of Saud has an undue, and disturbing, financial influence over American politics. This relationship needs to be seriously reexamined in a post 9-11 world, and the Bush family's well-known political and financial ties to the Sauds could potentially compromise that effort.

Am I raving?

But only slightly. It was the bit at the end that made it raving. Everything else, we're on the same page.

(potentially), but the actual politicians are innocent? Politicians with the most to lose financially are the last to deserve suspicion? That thinking doesn't seem too lucid to me.

repaying his friends in the House of Saud.  If all of Bush's goals are met in Iraq it's the death knell for the two power centers in Saudi Arabia--the royal family and the Ulema.  But I'm sure even if you accept the obvious you can still say "well, Bush knew he was going to fail in Iraq so his Saudi puppet masters let him do it."

That must be the problem.

Look, let's not play games: Either Bush has the chance to be wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice (and for whatever reason didn't do that by marrying wealthy widows) and is not merely dumb, but actually possessed of less reasoning capacity than a sponge; or this is utter silliness.

Bush is a sinner, as we all are; I'd never claim he's innocent in a vague sense. But what's not lucid is to suggest that just because Bush's dad has always been chummy with the House of Saud (so was FDR -- clearly, he was in the tank), Bush is taking his marching orders from them; or, if you prefer, that he's been soft on them because of that (not because of pressing geopolitical concerns, domestic stability, and a host of other concerns of various degrees of validity).

C'mon. That's like saying Clinton let heavy PLA donations to his 1996 campaign influence the way he dealt with the ChiComs -- even I'll grant his muscle-flexing in the Taiwan Straits.

it's a question of simple conflict of interest. I never said "marching orders." Try to refute what I say, not what I don't say.

You said:

This relationship needs to be seriously reexamined in a post 9-11 world, and the Bush family's well-known political and financial ties to the Sauds could potentially compromise that effort.

Admittedly, worded vaguely enough that it could mean many things; the implication seemed clear.

So, let me try it this way: Either your sentence is innocent of conspiracy theory, and facially nonsensical; or you're implying something and dancing around it.

Insofar as those are false choices, please explain what you meant. Believe it or not, I'm open to correction.

as the next clown. ;) But in this case I meant exactly what I said. Politics isn't jurisprudence, but some of the same rules apply. Conflict of interest obtains when personal interests broadly defined conflict with official duties broadly defined. In politics you generally want to avoid even the appearance of conflict. Remember "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion"?

I think a lot of the electorate, were they to understand the full extent of Saudi investment in a) leveraging oil markets to purchase influence in washington and b) funding radical wahabbist anti-Americanism around the world, would be struck with fear and outrage. That hammer when it falls will fall hardest on those figures closest to the Saudis.

I don't remember if Moore's film actually stated the claim that Bush takes orders from King Fahd, or just implied it with ham-fisted cross fades. I might have missed it - my eyes spent a lot of the film rolling skyward.

Insofar as I misunderstood, my apologies.

I'm not sure anyone cares how deeply pols of both parties are in hock to the Sauds, so long as someone does something about it. George H.W. Bush isn't George W. Bush's wife; whatever his chumminess with Saud, I don't think it's perceived as rubbing off on the current Bush except among fairly dedicated partisans.

Difference of opinion, perhaps.

acknowledged. Neither the "Bandar Bush" chumminess, nor the wider influence of Saudi clout in Washington. It could, should, and hopefully will become newsworthy fairly soon. Not that nobody cares, but that nobody dares bring up the question, yet.

You speculated that House of Saud influence might impede rational political decisions.  I'll quote your post in its entirety if you don't like my summation:

"the House of Saud has an undue, and disturbing, financial influence over American politics. This relationship needs to be seriously reexamined in a post 9-11 world, and the Bush family's well-known political and financial ties to the Sauds could potentially compromise that effort.

I posted about the "domino" theory and that it was detrimental to the same group you seem to think Bush is beholden to.  Now maybe your dictionary is different than mine but I don't see how that qualifies as a straw man.

But how about another argument from the opposite direction?  You didn't like what I posted about how success in Iraq would ultimately harm the HoS so what about if it's an abject failure?  If turmoil in Iraq were to spill over the border it might bolster the HoS because of sectarian/nationalistic furvor but it would utterly wreck their economy.  Aramco went into panic mode when foreigners were targeted by terrorists a few months ago because the oil(and almost every other industry, by the way) in the land of Saud requires expats and visiting foreign workers.  The only thing that has allowed the HoS to pay off the Ulema the last 30+ years is petrodollars.  Without that the royal family would splinter with Abdullah, backed by the National Guard, and Sultan, backed by the Ulema, fighting for control*.  So this extreme is also a Bad Thing for the HoS.

I just don't see how you can square your concerns with what's happening in the region.  Maybe I'd be more amenable to your theory if it were 9/12/01 but I just don't see it today.

*You could really get into some conspiracy theories here since Sultan and his son Bandar are buddy-buddy with Bush while the SANG is largely trained by U.S. forces.

This site is full of trolls or something. I can't recall seeing "Republicans" bash the GOP and various supporters to this extent anywhere else.

Go to DKos. See if they complain about the communists (which probably make up 10% of the DNC... then again, a lot of them are communists). See if they even complain about the moderates in their party, whose views they disavow.

Honestly, this is like a Democratic get together. Bash Rush, can't tell the difference between Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson, whine about the non-existent KKK while defending anti-capitalists... pitiful.

Yeah, they're totally Kerry supporters.  Because they don't have their own parties or anything.

C'mon, you're usually less disingenuous than this.  Will you be better after the election, or have you given up on doing anything other than throwing red meat to uninformed fellow travelers?

My point is that no matter if they are fringe or mainstream, will the average "swing voter" be able to tell the difference?

The anarchists who are planning to protest are clearly not a Kerry constituency.  But will Mr. and Mrs. America see them as Kerry supporters in spite of this fact because of the circumstances of their protest?

My feeling is that the days when large political protests are valuable for the opposition may have gone the way of the rotary-dial telephone if they are not conducted in a totally peaceful and non-threatening way.

"The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International."

"The Democratic Socialists of America Political Action Committee (DSAPAC) released a statement today urging its members to work for the election of John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election." -- July 23, 2004.

Yeah, they're totally Kerry supporters.

You are aware that there are several Socialist Parties, not PACs, and that these Parties regularly receive votes for their Presidential candidates, yes?

It reflects badly on you.  Don't say "we shouldn't tar John Kerry" like this while you're in the process of doing that very thing.  None of us are that stupid.

....that many of you are fairly stupid.  Albeit, based on prior conversations, not you, being a fellow Marylander and all.

However, I would suggest that I may well mean precisely what I write.  A notion dismissed by the more paranoiac Dems -- which is to say, most of them online -- but true nonetheless.

I never thought you were that stupid; I suspect that many of your fellows are.

I just posted a longish comment at another blog sticking up for you, so keep that in mind as I offer the following criticism of this particular post:

The point you're trying to make here is flat-out wrong.

I attended one night of the Democratic convention, and I did see an aging hippie type in a headscarf holding an "End the Occupation" poster. She snuck in, tried to shout down Teresa, and was quietly escorted out.

These are not the Kerry base. These are people whose opposition to Bush may put them in Kerry's camp electorally. But do you really think, in a Kerry administration, that people wearing kaffiyehs and Socialist Workers muckety-mucks will be cruising the corridors of power? Will even somebody as "moderate" as Nader have the sort of access provided to, say, Dr. James Dobson?

The GOP isn't just Ken Lay and people who shoot abortion doctors, either, and I'll criticize people who would say that, too. I'll acknowledge that this sort of radicalism is real and irritating, but it's not particularly reflective of the Democratic Party. I've dealt with a lot of these folks, and they have a sneering contempt for Democrats - even ones as far left as I am - as unwitting tools of a greater machine.

(if you're still reading this thread) that my claim was Bush is somehow taking orders from HoS. "repaying his friends," etc. I didn't say there's a quid pro quo, or that Bush exchanges illegal favors or takes marching orders. You're refuting a claim I haven't made - straw man.

As to your objection that the invasion of Iraq is bad for the HoS. Have you read Woodward's book? There's the little talking point that Bandar Bush evidently knew of the invasion days before SoS Powell did. Be that as it may, it is very clear from the book at least that King Fahd and Bandar were both extremely keen to see the invasion take place. There are dozens of reasons why the Saudis would've wanted the invasion and, as you point out, several collateral risks for them as well. Mainly they wanted U.S. troops out of the kingdom. This is a GOP talking point supporting the war, so you must know this. Saddam was a real menace to them, a potential petrodollar (or even petrofranc) competitor, and yet it would be very difficult for them to move directly against him. Bush and Cheney's rush to invasion thus removed several headaches for the Saudis.

These are facts for ground. As for the "domino theory" and the death knell for the Ulema and the monarchy well, those things remain very much in a hortatory mode.

I made no assumption about Bush taking orders from al Saud.  I responded directly to what you posted.  You claimed that the HoS' influence could compromise a reevaluation of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.  I pointed out that, far worse(from the Saudi POV), Bush set into action a course of events threatening the very existence of the HoS.  If you're picking on the snarky comment I made about further rationalizing Bush's actions then ignore it.  It adds nothing to the my point.

No, I haven't read Woodward's book and don't plan on it.  Regardless Bandar was one of the most important Saudis during the runup to Desert Storm.  The runup to OIF necessarily required the same networking with regional leaders.  I wouldn't be surprised if some Kuwaiti or Qatari royals got a heads up as well.

Having not read the book why were Fahd and Bandar "extremely keen" to see OIF?  

There were subsequent combined military operations in Saudi Arabia and a buildup of tens of thousands of troops in 2003.  And even now with bases dotting Iraq, a replacement for Prince Sultan AB in Qatar, and staging areas in Kuwait U.S. troops still remain to assist the Saudi Air Force.  Not to mention SANG.  Maybe in a year or five no U.S. troops will remain but they do so today.

How exactly is Iraq under sanctions limiting output to 2mbpd worse than an Iraq with no limits possibly pumping twice that?  I'm sure the Saudis were astute enough to know sanctions would never be lifted after Kamel's defection/testimony.

Not being a member of the GOP I tend to miss the talking points.  Especially considering I didn't vote for either Bush.  

Removed one external headache that was highly isolated and marginalized and replaced it with quite a few internal headaches.  

Facts on the ground?  You mean D.C. ground?  Because I haven't seen you say one thing about that other ground, you know, in Saudi Arabia.

It's certainly may be hortatory in the two Times but, what can I say, my reading habits don't include either Woodward or the coastal papers.  But even if there is no spread of democracy in the region, Saudi Arabia will still have to deal with a Shi'a-majority Iraq and their own Shi'a in the eastern provinces.

Would you be kind enough to list the "dozens of reasons" why OIF was a Good Thing for the HoS because for the last two years I've been at a loss to find any.  

The DSA is the largest splinter of the old Debs Socialist Party.  The DSA PAC speaks for the DSA, as shown not only by the fact that both of my links are links to the official DSA site, but also from the fact that a PAC reflects the view of its sponsor.  The DSA is where any political scientist would start in looking at American Socialists.

In contrast, your link is to the Yahoo! directory for political parties, which says nothing about which candidate(s) they may support, let alone who voters who identify as socialists will support.

The socialist parties are

unable to make the ballot in all but maybe a dozen states, and garner very few votes where they do qualify.  I suspect they will do far worse this time, as I credit socialist voters with being a bit more politically pragmatic than their parties.  They know that a vote for Brown in '04 will be like a vote for Nader in '00, i.e., a vote for Bush.

Indeed, the nation's highest-ranking elected socialist, Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, is supporting Kerry.

I expect that other socialists will be as pragmatic as their comrades at the Communist Party USA.  On the one hand, the CPUSA's internet department states that the party endorses no candidate in the 2004 election, while noting its number one priority is defeating Bush.  On the other hand, party chair Sam Webb is clearly supporting Kerry on the very same site.  Typical newspeak from CPUSA, but the message is pretty clear.

Of course, you may disagree with this analysis.  You may believe that the socialists (other than Rep. Sanders) are entirely out of touch with political reality.  That would explain why their number one goal is ousting Bush, but it wouldn't advance your point much.

I had to dig for the thread myself. Fast-moving blog.

My basic and strongest point is just that the Saudis wanted Saddam taken out. That's in Woodward's book and plenty of corroborating sources. Are they making a mistake, or do they know what they're doing? Were their motives being able to say American troops are leaving, or oil control, or perhaps political control in the U.S., a combination, or other reasons? We can speculate about these strategic details to the best of our ability. But the fact on the ground that matters is the Saudis wanted the war, and made their position abundantly clear to the administration well in advance of the invasion. Your argument basically crumbles on that foundation alone. Bush was acting in consonance with Saudi interests in launching the invasion, however badly those plans may have gone awry now.

Catch you on a fresher thread I suppose. I'm on a 24-hour blog cycle atm, not nearly quick enough to stay caught up here.

user info in the left bar.  It lists all your recent posts.

Well, I'd never read a Woodward book(nothing against Woodward...I just prefer historians to journalists) but I did read transcripts of him on Larry King and Russert.  All I've seen is that Bandar was told that the decision was already made and after some reassurances was fine with it.  I'd hardly equate acceptance with support.  And they didn't want the war "well in advance" of the actual decision to go to war.  Significant point.  In 2002 and early 2003 they repeatedly said flat out no war without international approval.

Troop numbers in Saudi Arabia went up prior to the invasion and some still remain today.  They've been there for 30 years and will probably be there for atleast 30 more.

Again, Saddam's Iraq had limited oil output.  A free Iraq has unlimited.

Maybe the other half of the quid pro quo comes in the future but like I've already said things look bleak for the HoS.  Even more so than the 5-6 years post-GWI.

You can't say "Bush was acting in consonance with Saudi interests".  For all either of us know Bandar was saving face knowing full well there was nothing he could do.  Until I know of atleast one definite benefit to the HoS there's no way I'll believe they were happy about OIF.

modernization is moving faster than I thought.

I'd meant to go quotehunting in Woodward's book, but don't have the time to spare. Blogging requires sacrifice ;)