Saturday, July 28, 2007

Many Happy Returns

Recall if you will. It was a bright, warm day in September, and the clocks were striking thirteen. In the busy East of the country, trains, planes, and automobiles disgorge lines of still-sleepy workers. Across the Great Plains and into the Rockies, men and women wake slowly to their coffee. Out West, children yet dream of three-picture deals as the moon wanes over MGM. 19 Saudis fly three jets into three buildings.

Now, in a warm, humid July six years later, "The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq." (That's not actually the biggest cut of the côte du boeuf either. It's over $30 billion to Israel. But that's another post, another day.)

I seem to recall a conservative adage that you can't fix a problem by throwing money at it, but like so many others, that maxim went out a convenient window as soon as the money was theirs to throw. Plus ça change.

Anyway, this all falls under my own maxim: Don't listen to what they say; look at what they do. In this case, category Say is "prevent a wider regional war" and category Do is "pour billions of dollars worth of arms into the fragile, quarrelsome, precarious neighbors of an escalating civil war ever percolating under an American occupation. The Congresscrats make oppositional noises on this one, but like their howler monkey counterparts, they're much smaller than their voices. Never dangerous. Timid. Easily spooked.

15 comments:

Gsnorgathon said...

The "problem" for conservatism is "conserving" power, wealth, and privilege for the powerful, wealthy, and privileged. That's a problem they'll always throw money at. As much as possible, as long as it's someone else's money.

dave in boca said...

This mush is rather incoherent and as mean-spirited as most lib-leper offerings, though with a patina of literacy lacking on almost all other leftard posts.

Basic question: do you actually think the Saudi government had anything to do with 9/11? And are you aware that almost all the so-called "Saudi" participants were of Yemeni heritage? And what that means, given UbL's own Yemeni heritage?

Follow-up question: If we do take some sort of notional "high road" and not sell the Saudis the arms in question, do we simply lose money, or do we also lose some influence & leverage on a country key to the Middle East and Islamic world in general?

And finally: Do you actually labor under the misapprehension that a Democrat administration would NOT do exactly the same transaction with the Saudis, though perhaps with different US defense companies that were more generous to the campaign coffers of the Dhimmi-crat Party?

IOZ said...

Holy moses, Dave. Did you buy that ressentiment wholesale?

William said...

*whoooosh*

upyernoz said...

i believe either 14 or 15 of the hijackers were saudi, not all 19 (one was egyptian, one was lebanese, 2 were from the UAE, i'm not sure about the other one--if there was another non-saudi)

as for dave, yes, several of the hijackers had ties to the saudi government (hell, even bin laden did at one time).

and although bin laden's family originally came from yemen, none of the saudi hijackers were of yemeni descent. also, bin laden's family came from yemen to SA before osama was born. using that to call osama himself, and by extension all saudis working for him, yemeni is really a stretch. by that logic, i'm romanian (and so is my secretary at work) even though neither of us have even been to that country.

Jim said...

I love the patina of literacy here.

upyernoz said...

oh and as for the "dhimmi-crat" thing, i view that as a mark of stupidity. i realize it's an attempt at a pun, but it actually doesn't work.

see "dhimmi" isn't pronounced like "dimmi". if "dhimmi" were an english word it would actually be spelled "thimmi". see, in english there are two different sounds that get written as "th". the softer "th" like in "three" and the one that has almost a buzzy sound like in "these". arabic also has both sounds but unlike in english, they have completely different letters in the arabic alphabet and you have to distinguish between the two if you're gonna be clear which word is which.

so when arabic gets transliterated into latin characters the "tha" (which makes the sound like in "three") gets written with a "th" and the "dhaal" (which makes the sound like in "these") gets written with a "dh".

by using the word "dhimmi-crat" all you're doing is highlighting your own ignorance. and the fact that the term has caught on in right blogistan is just another testament to how stupidy and ignorance reigns supreme over there.

the_system said...

"And finally: Do you actually labor under the misapprehension that a Democrat administration would NOT do exactly the same transaction with the Saudis..."

Hee hee. Someone apparently hasn't been paying attention.

Plus ça change, indeed.

johnny phenothiazine said...

Hey Saudi-loving Dave: As the Saudi monarchy, after 9/11/01, fulfilled bin Laden's principal demand and ejected Americans from the big air base we built in Saudi Arabia, can you tell us any particular reason why we should reward them for this by selling them our top-of-the-line military hardware?

Anonymous said...

Love your site, IOZ. I'm pretty much a (Dem-leaning) democratic socialist myself, but empire's the biggest public malignancy now, and "my" Democratic Party seems to be doing fuck-all to perform the necessary -ectomies. Anyway, terrific prose and fearless insight are always welcome, even if they are from a libertarian.

With that out of the way, gotta say that there is a certain consistency in dave's Saudi love. I mean, when it comes to *serious* conservatism, as in, Everything's gone to hell since the manor and monastery closed up shop and the serfs got uppity, Saudi Arabia's the place to be.
-- sglover

IOZ said...

The fewer than 19 is correct - I guess I am a dhimmicrat. Hello, new people!

Will Divide said...

My first thought was that the weaponry is mainly intended for use by one set of Saudis, being the rulers and their loyalists, against another set of Saudis - and here, since those folks hold very little regard for the House of Saud, maybe we should call them something else.

As their oil production slips futher into the depletion zone, the Bush Saudis (now that has a ring to it) are going to need all the muscle they can buy.

mr.fundamental said...

is it possible to register as a communist? I mean, at least they're honest about what they want. this shit is just taxing...it is exhausting being a nihilist! fuck, I need a Lebowski fix.

I don't think this is republicanism by any standard.

put ctuhlhu back up! I can't believe people didn't get it. what a bunch of maroons!

AlanSmithee said...

I thought it was more of a literacy glaze...

IOZ said...

A literary demi-glace, Alan. Bam! Kick it up a notch.