The Sultan Of Stink!

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is a hypocrite and a joke. Yesterday he blasted America’s involvement in Iraq as an “illegitimate foreign occupation.”

This is the same guy who runs the most corrupt country in the Middle East, who harbors the fanatical Wahhabi sect, and from where most of the terrorist money has come from this last decade.

This guy is a fraud, and I will tell you why....

Most of the terror hijackers were Saudi. Osama Bil Laden is Saudi. The fanatical Wahhabi sect which has inflamed the entire Middle East, the creator of terror...all emanate from this country.

Back in '01, when the president was deciding on the invasion, this guy was practically kissing the president's ass begging him to do so. His intelligence agency, along with those from Egypt, Russia, Israel, Great Britain, and our own CIA buttressed the issue of WMDs in Iraq...making the president's decision moot...either he had to invade or else be criminally negligent if he failed to do so.

Abdullah is owned lock stock and (oil) barrel by American interests...has been that way for decades.

Who is he kidding?

This hypocrite has allowed one of the Pillars Of Islam....the giving of alms to the poor... to be used as a convenient loop-hole for turning a blind eye for decades as "believers' in Saudi Arabia wire money to practically every terrorist bank account in the world.

Not only that, his schools brainwash the young and teach them to hate Israel and the infidel....continuing the cycle.

As an Arab, he should have been the first to understand the ramifications on the president's decision.

Now what does he do? He hears the footsteps of Pelosi, Murtha,and their crew of abandonment down the line. He realizes that Iran will have a nuke pretty soon and he has nothing but camel dung to throw back in return.

He is now doing what most Arab leaders have done for a thousand years...turning like a weather vane. Switching sides, not for principled reasons, rather for self-gain.

Kerry a flip flopper? This guy is the Sultan Of Flip-Floppers....the standard on which we must now compare future flip-floppers.

Who is he playing to? The Arab world? The Democrats?

The answer is both. Now, the Democrats will point to this guy and use it as ammunition in the next election. I can see it now..."See? Even the Saudis know the Republicans were wrong."

What a cheap, transparent piece of Arabic malarkey!

Yes, this guy is a skunk.....an Arab version of Stinky La Pew.

If you believe what he says from now on, then I have a bridge in my trunk that I want to sell you!!

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at March 30, 2007 10:00 AM
Comments
Comment #214404

Eagle,

As a Bush loyalist, you must cease speaking out against the Saudi’s and begin blaming terrorism and what the saudi leader is doing on Saddam immediately.
Have you forgotten the Bush loyalist bylaws?
1) Ignore, or hold hands with those reponsible for 9/11.
2) Blame Saddam for everything.
3) Pretend this administration cares about anything other than oil, No-bid contracts, deception, cronyism and power.
4) Make excuses.
5) Admit “mistakes have been made.”
6) Cover up above mentioned mistakes.
7) Place head in a$$ and wait for more mistakes and prepare to cover them up.
You are one of the few people who can get a s#!t sandwich fed to you by your own government and still remain focused on the s#!t sandwich the Saudi’s are serving to King Bush and the GOP.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 30, 2007 10:45 AM
Comment #214406

SE,

Perhaps you missed the fact that he also castigated his fellow Middle Eastern compatriots for not doing more to contain Saddam themselves.

Do you truly think that if Bush hadn’t screwed this whole thing up so badly, that our “former” allies wouldn’t fleeing like rats.

BTW, who the hell is Stinky la Pew?
Surely you don’t mean Pepe Le Pew, the erstwhile lover of feminine charm.
He was, after all, a good guy.

Posted by: Rocky at March 30, 2007 10:53 AM
Comment #214409

question for you dems, do you even consider the terrorists as an enemy or are your enemies Bush and the other 50% of the country that doesnt share your way of thinking?

Posted by: dolan at March 30, 2007 11:14 AM
Comment #214418

dolan,

do you even consider the terrorists as an enemy or are your enemies Bush and the other 50% of the country that doesnt share your way of thinking?

As it’s obviously exclusive. Pfff.

Plus, there is now less than 50% of americans who are actually happy about Bush policies.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 30, 2007 11:57 AM
Comment #214419

dolan,

“question for you dems, do you even consider the terrorists as an enemy or are your enemies Bush and the other 50% of the country that doesnt share your way of thinking?”

While I don’t claim to be a “Dem” I believe that the “terrorists” are criminals that should be brought to justice.
That said I will not blindly follow any leader, Republican or Democrat off a cliff.

How much support would Clinton have had if he invaded Iraq?

Mr. Bush’s “my way or the highway”, “go it alone” attitude has pissed away most of the worldwide support America had after Sept, 11th because of our adventure in Iraq.
America has taken it’s collective eye off the ball here.
I cannot sit by and let the “my country right or wrong” crowd insult my intelligence with platitudes that are undeserved.

Good intentions don’t mean squat if you get distracted from the original goal, and allow the folks that executed Sept 11th to continue to roam free.

Why isn’t Bin Laden in Gitmo?

Posted by: Rocky at March 30, 2007 11:58 AM
Comment #214420
either he had to invade or else be criminally negligent if he failed to do so.

Bullshit.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 30, 2007 11:58 AM
Comment #214425

Sic. Eagle, he is a leader who must to some degree represent the mindset of his people. I know you don’t believe that is so important here in the U.S., but, it is a maxim for any leader who wishes to remain in power without having to become an Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 30, 2007 12:15 PM
Comment #214433

Andre

Now,now now, my friend…I have given up eating meat for Lent, as all Christians should do.

I suppose now that you will not admit that the Saudis didn’t prod Bush big time to invade? Bob Woodward’s book talked all about that, and I believ him.

As for the other stuff you mentioned, womanmarines’ post applie,I think.

Rocky

Stinky is that skunk guy, but I didn’t Google his name when I wrote the piece..sorry if I offended any Fan Club members. :)

As for screwing things up, what do you mean? Let’s see….Saddam’s neck is stretched,his 2 kids are pushing up daisys,the major henchmen are dead too, three elections were held,three governments have functioned,a constitutioon is operational, oil is being pumped and things are NOT imploding.

What has imploded is the will of 50% of mainstream Ameriica, about 15% of that number having been brainwashed by the media these last three years.

Peace is like making sausage…it takes time.

womanmariane

Welcome back. It’s been a while since you’ve slammed me. :)
Let’s see,where do I start? First, take the Eagle test for me and answer 2 questions. I need to figure out where you are politically. Do you dislike the president? If the answer is yes, you are a liberal. Do you hate the president? If the answer is yes, then you are a radicial liberal.Which is it?

David

You artfully dodged the thrust of the piece. Do you agree with his actions the?

Posted by: sicilian eagle at March 30, 2007 12:47 PM
Comment #214434
“King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is a hypocrite and a joke. Yesterday he blasted America’s involvement in Iraq as an “illegitimate foreign occupation.”

I guess like a broken clock being right twice a day, hypocrites and laughing stocks can occasionally utter truths. Shakespeare often put his most profound ideas in the mouths of his most corrupt and despicable characters.

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 30, 2007 12:55 PM
Comment #214435
Do you dislike the president? If the answer is yes, you are a liberal.

This is funny, considering how many conservatives I know that are disgusted with the current administration.

SE, losing credibility by the day.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 30, 2007 1:02 PM
Comment #214439

lawnboy

Not really. Look at the question. Republicans ,by and large, are disappointed in the president. Disliking is another thing. Most Republicans are disappointed in his performance. Democrats (liberals) downright either dislike ot hate the guy.

I am sure you can see the differance.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 30, 2007 1:37 PM
Comment #214440

SE,

I can see that you draw a difference in your head and invalidly project your feelings on the other 300 millions citizens of the country.

Is that what you meant?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 30, 2007 1:40 PM
Comment #214441

SE,

“What has imploded is the will of 50% of mainstream Ameriica, about 15% of that number having been brainwashed by the media these last three years.”

As one that has wanted more soldiers in Iraq from the first day of the invasion, I can hardly see the brainwashing angle.

“Let’s see….Saddam’s neck is stretched,”

Let me think, we were in such a hurry we couldn’t wait until after the Muslim holiday to stretch him?
Yep, we made a lot of friends with that one.

Power is on how many hours a day?
Yep that continues to garner us glowing support.

Just how big of a perimeter do we actually need to make the “Green Zone” secure?

Security has been a recurring theme since the day Baghdad fell into chaos. It doesn’t matter if we say the rest of Iraq is secure if the areas where most of the people actually live isn’t.
We invited the terrorists to come fight us in Iraq by not finishing the job in Afghanistan. I’m sure the Iraqis love us for that as well.

Are the Iraqis breaking down the doors to enlist in the “new” Iraqi army, and police force?

“three elections were held,three governments have functioned,a constitutioon is operational, oil is being pumped and things are NOT imploding.”

Elections do not a Democracy make. Just ask the folks that didn’t vote for Saddam.

If everything is so groovy in Iraq, why do we still feel the necessity to be there?

Posted by: Rocky at March 30, 2007 1:46 PM
Comment #214447

SE. I guess I am a radical Liberal by your definition.
Let me See.
1. I believe in a smaller government.
2. I strongly believe in the 1st and 2nd ammendments being individual rights!
3. I am a social liberal (that has nothing to do with our fed gov’t though)
4. I am a strong suporter of the Military as I have served and have family members in the military on my side and my wifes side.
I guess I am a radical on the right as well as the left.
Oh, yeah. I am a concervationist.
we should have more sustainable logging, wildlife management and make money off our federal lands not loose our colective …es.
A one question defenition for liberal or radical liberal fails on many fronts. I hated Bush before Iraq. He is a wimp, if he had any nuts we would have sent a strong message to China already and just maybe have disarmed N Korea.
However he has to keep his eyes focused on Iraq because he bought it lock stock and barrel.

Posted by: timesend at March 30, 2007 2:24 PM
Comment #214448

Oh yeah,
How is that Iran thing going also. Guess I was right 5 years ago when I said it was a bigger problem then Iraq.

Posted by: timesend at March 30, 2007 2:27 PM
Comment #214451

Eagle,

Should we be angry with everyone who thinks this war was run so incompetently by no-nothing draft dodgers and who wonder about what could have been?
There are many Republicans and Democrats and people throughout the world who have changed their mind about this war.
I was against it from the start but waited for some semblence of leadership from this administration to at least be successful, since popular was out of the question.It never happened.
If you were for the war early, you watch these idiots mismanage at every turn.
If you were against the invasion you watched them mismanage at every turn. What’s the difference?
Why not write about the events leading to yet another member of the coalition of the willing defecting or a long time friend criticizing Bush because because they think Bush is a dumbass.

I don’t like or dislike any President because I don’t know them. I like or dislike the job they do in office. I could have turned a pack chimps loose in the ovel office in 2000 and they could have done a better job than these guys.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 30, 2007 2:42 PM
Comment #214453

Oh yeah SE

If you believe what he says from now on, then I have a bridge in my trunk that I want to sell you!!Posted by Sicilian Eagle at March 30, 2007 10:00 AM
I have never believed straight out any of those f-face oil moguls from day one. That includes the f-face from Texas. In fact that pretty much applies to anyone in Washington actually. The only difference is that I used to assume that the f-face Texan oil mogul in the Oval office would do what was right for America first, not what was right for his power and re-election first.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 30, 2007 2:52 PM
Comment #214467

Wow! If this post isn’t an indictment of the current administrations ineptitude, corruption or a big heaping spoonful of both I’m not sure what is….Anyway whatever happens and has happened in the past is certainly some combination of Bill Clinton’s and Nancy Pelosi’s fault…eh and probably Kerry and Murtha’s too.

Posted by: muirgeo at March 30, 2007 5:24 PM
Comment #214468

sicilian eagle,
I supposed I must be a liberal as well. The problem with your test, SE, is there’s only one answer - “your way of the highway.”

As Andre pointed out, I’ve never actually met Bush, so I don’t know how I would feel about him - emotionally. As far as his policies are concerned, that’s easy - I don’t like them.

As you stated yourself:

Most of the terror hijackers were Saudi. Osama Bil Laden is Saudi. The fanatical Wahhabi sect which has inflamed the entire Middle East, the creator of terror…all emanate from this country.

Question back at you:

So why the heck are we in Iraq?

HUMMM…
SE - You just may have given me a clue to what the heck is happening in the Bush administration.
Just for the sake of argument:

Is it possible that Bush never wanted actually find the real terrorists at all? Perhaps Bush never actually intended to GO AFTER the TERRORISTS of 9\11!! I see a conspiracy coming!!!

At first when the idea hit me, I immediately tried to clear my thoughts - However, some things make sense now, under those conditions, that never mad sense before!!!

1. No attempt what so ever was made to go after the Saudi citizens involved in the 9/11.

2. Our rather sudden invasion of Iraq, without UN support, or most of the world’s for that matter.

3. Constant mis-management of the Operations in Iraq - enough so to keep people focused on Iraq, and not Saudi Arabia…

4. Putting more and more money into Iraq - only to watch it’s 3 elections fall by the way side - which in its own way helped to promote one group of Iraqis over the other, instigating the now messy Tri-Civil War among the Muslims. Which side would Saudi Arabia fall under anyway? Does anyone know?

5. Not keeping a watchful eye on Iran, and other countries which feed it, which allowed them to start the process needed for nuclear attainment.

It does sort of add up there, now doesn’t it…


Posted by: Linda H. at March 30, 2007 5:26 PM
Comment #214470

I dont know how people still believe that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror. No Iraqis were invoveled in the attacks on 9/11. just a ploy to contrl Iraqs oil.

Posted by: Earl at March 30, 2007 5:34 PM
Comment #214474

Sicilian Eagle. You say that this sultan can hear the footsteps of Murtha and Pelosi? What does that mean? w was the one holding hands with the guy not Murtha or Pelosi!!!

As I’ve said in earlier posts we should fully understand that we have purchased many time over the who, the what and the why of the Middle East and will continue to do so. When you pull into a gas station with your 14 MPG SUV, fill it up and hand your money to the cashier, where do you think that money ends up????

Posted by: charles Ross at March 30, 2007 5:55 PM
Comment #214511

Why single out for criticism the odious King Abdullah? How do his remarks differ from, say, the remarks of certain members of Congress?

Abdullah says what he does to curry favor and retain influence in the Islamic world—those who’ll kill him if he doesn’t toe the line, while politicians here say almost the same things to curry favor in… well, San Francisco or the editorial offfices of the New York Times.

We could play a game where we guessed who is responsible for anti-American quotes. Could be fun. Was it the Islamic ruler of a despotic regime? A commentator on Al Jazeera? A Democratic politician? Who can tell anymore?

Bin Laden hates or he hated (because he’s most likely dead, considering his long silence) the Saudi Royal Family more than he hates anybody.

American policy toward Saudi Arabia has long been that old mafia axiom that you keep your friends close and your enemies closer, something I don’t like at all even if it does conform to the Democratic party’s idea of diplomacy above all else.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 31, 2007 12:05 AM
Comment #214527

LO

Abdullah and his henchmen hammered Bush to invade Iraq. The Saudis know where terror money comes from, yet once once in a while do they do anything about it. Kinda like a drug lord letting a specific cargo get busted.All in all,he has the power to shut down the Sunni insurgency by strangling the money flow….now this…

CR
Well, Pelosi seems to be this Congress’ version of Chamberlian now,doesn’t she? This week she if off to Syria.Will she return with a signed peace document saying peace is at hand? Guys like Abdullah, knowing what side their bread is buttered,now are reaching out to the anti-Bush crowd and parroting what they say….in the middle of a war.

Earl.
The residents og Gettysburg said the said thing,I think. Both are battlefields. In Iraq,the reason was strategic. Bush believed that Saddam had wmds and for strategic purposes in the overall war on terror had to be taken out. Yes, he was wrong about the wmds, but the reasoning for the invasion…that Saddam might possible aid theenemy…was a second complelling reason too.Now, Iraq is the trap that catches all the rats from the Middle East who was to wage jihad.

Linda.
I agree with you in parts.

After 9/11, the entire Bin Laden family should have been assassinated…the extended family . Actually, it’s still not too late. Same with the Jordianian guy. His village in Jordan has most of his extended family too. They should have been assissanated. Same with the Egyptian guy, and every other senior operative.

Medieval? Yes, definately. However, ruthless violess in necessary…actually it has been …but we as a society lack the will to do that. Jack-boot violence is the only thing that the uneducated there understand. The rule of the despot…and this will continue until an entire generation is re-educated. Really ,to win the war against terror is a two step process: Kill everyone who has an inkling of jihad in their bones or make them submit, while simueltaneouly re-educating (read: brainwashing) the younger generation. Of course, this will never happen,as we want to win the hearts and minds of people.

Yes, the war was mismanaged…from the inception. Rummy (I like that guy,by the way) wanted to minimize American casualties by the blitz methds that he used, but his fatal error was the Iraq masses,hopelessly brainwashed by Shia, Sunni and Kurd attachments,never were won over. The second error was Bremer’s….kicking out all the mid-level officer corps. Now, the experienced guys make IEDs.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 31, 2007 7:10 AM
Comment #214531

It should be considered that control of the throne of Saudi Arabia and Mecca may well be the primary goal of Bin Laden and company. If not it is a secondary goal. The US involvement in maintaining the Sauds makes us a target.Certainly they do not have territorial aims in the US and they do not hate Madonna enough to plunge into global war. They want the holy places.

Posted by: BillS at March 31, 2007 9:39 AM
Comment #214538

“Really ,to win the war against terror is a two step process: Kill everyone who has an inkling of jihad in their bones or make them submit, while simueltaneouly re-educating (read: brainwashing) the younger generation.”


SE, you are no different than the radical Islamist terrorist who wants to kill Americans. You’re just on the other side.

Posted by: Tim in NY at March 31, 2007 11:12 AM
Comment #214552

Tim

“To defeat the enemy, you must become him” Sun Tzu

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 31, 2007 2:11 PM
Comment #214667

sic,

That’s an excuse to be vile and absolutly not the actual advice that was intended. My understanding is that that’s a mistranslation related to:

Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time
In any case, I would say our enemies have found the right opponent according to this sun-tzu quote:
He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.
Whereas, Bush seems to have not taken this advice:
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
When will you people admit you screwed up, backed the idiot, and now it’s time to go with someone who has a chance of winning the conflict?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 2, 2007 10:24 AM
Post a comment