Bush and the Saudis disagree about benchmarks for Iraq

As Bush threatens to veto any legislation that puts pressure on the Iraqi government to meet benchmarks, the Saudis are violating that very doctrine.  Saudi Arabia is refusing to relieve any Iraqi debt until the government meets benchmarks for economic stability:

Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who left Iraq in March after nearly twoyears as the top U.S. diplomat there, said that the Sunni-ruled Saudikingdom will not write off debt it estimates to be as much as $18billion until Iraq's Shiite and Kurd-led government makes the countrymore stable, united and fair for all factions.

"I think it's conditional, and it's conditional on the future ofrelations between Iraq and Saudi Arabia," Khalilzad said. "I believethe more there is progress in terms of reconciliation inside Iraq ...the more I think the Saudis would be forthcoming in terms of support."

Think of it this way:

• Mother Saud: No allowance until you do your homework and finish your chores.
• Mother Bush: Here's your allowance.  I'll do your homework and chores.

For the first time in awhile, the Saudis are setting a great example for Bush and the Congress.  Don't just ask for results from the Iraqi government -- demand them.

Even the Iraqi Parliament is a few steps ahead of Bush and the Congress.  Last week, the parliament passed a resolution that called for a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Comments

[granny]

"As Bush threatens to veto any legislation that puts pressure on the Iraqi government to meet benchmarks, the Saudis are violating that very doctrine."

I have a STRONG objection to the last sentence in this lead paragraph:

"...,the Saudis are VIOLATING this doctrine"

Who's "doctrine"? Not the Saudis doctrine.
Not really a doctrine at all. It's just the postion Bush has taken vis-a-vie his personal conduct of foriegn policy in Iraq right now (and "right now" ought to be emphasized).

The Saudis are taking a different direction in the conduct of their policy with Iraq. They are not in VIOLATION of anything. They don't even disagree with our way of doing our thing (or at least that's not the issue here). They are conducting their own business with Iraq.

Language is important. The conservatives have co-opted the use of language to set their agenda and insinuate their ideas & beliefs into the dialog, and into replacing reality.

WE need to do better at reading, and better at writing.

That sentence is just that kind of misdirecting of the thought process (and I do not for one minute mean to imply here - or think - that it was intentional) But that's where the reader is left: "the bad Saudis are VIOLATING"

Words matter.

I'll turn to this again and again. We need to use words well, and to decipher them carefully when they come at us.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

The words "violating that very doctrine" were meant as a kind of sarcasm. The Bush doctrine is to go it alone and never put pressure on the Iraqi government to hurry up. By the word doctrine, I meant an authoritative belief that is set in stone. Bush blames Democrats for going against his doctrine. The reason why I used sarcasm was because Bush would never talk bad about the Saudis. But Bush would put on display his public disgust of Democrats. So if Bush is going to criticize Democrats for violating his all and mighty "doctrine," then why doesn't he oppose what the Saudis are doing as well. The sarcasm was intended to prove the point that with Bush on Iraq it is all about the politics of spinning this war at his future presidential library, not about actually getting the job done.

[granny]

Re Todd's response:

I get it! And thank you for taking the time to give the explanation.

I'll stick with my position that things need to be clearer,though.

This, for example, in your explanation: "By the word doctrine, I meant an authoritative belief that is set in stone.", I'd take issue with that. Verbally that appears to acknowledge Bush's "authority to set in stone", such nonsensical and unapproved behaviors. I'd say he does not have that. He is unquestionably doctrinaire. He sets in stone his theories and beliefs, but they're not law. Maybe that's splitting hairs. But I'd select a different word.

I'm far from opposed to sarcasm, but it's got to be beyond misinterpretation.

I don't think I'm the dullest knife in the drawer, and I stumbled on this one.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

No problem, Granny. I'm glad you asked me to clarify, since maybe a few other people that don't usually comment were wondering the same thing. Oh, and about the phrase "authoritative belief that is set in stone," that was also sarcasm about what Bush invents in his mind -- which should not necessarily be equated with what is law.

[The Mexican]

It's never been about oil for this war, yet why didn't we further investigate where 14 or 15 of the 19 men that hijacked plans came from this country? And, we didn't investigate Bin Laden's family whilst they resided in areas we controlled? Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan; we just don't focus on the ball anymore; and yet, we have no qualms about targeting Iran. This kind of logic really hurts my rumination. Have there been any definitive answers for not investigating particular countries with greater scrutiny--whether from the left- or right-wing proponents, advocates, and polemicists?