Today's NY Times includes an article (linked below) about the growing "impatience" of the Bush Administration with our "friends" in Saudi Arabia, whose Sunni preferences make them uncomfortable with our Shiite puppet government in Iraq. DUH!!!!! Anyone who has read Greg Palast's book, "Armend Madhouse," which provides chilling detail on the decades of Bush family infatuation with the Saudis, has to be amazed at the level of cognitive dissonance if not downright schizophrenia in a "Bush" administration which has pursued a war and a foreign policy that virtually guarantees a Shiite hegemony between Iraq and Iran. Never mind that all but one or two of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, nor that bin Ladin himself is the scion of one of Saudi Arabia's wealthiest and most influential famillies, etc. etc.
I have had a similar letter printed in both the SF Chronicle and US News and World Report, which suggessts that "moderate" Moslems who want to prove their peaceful intent must begin by regaining control of their holiest site.Mecca, from Wahabi (Sunni) Fundamentalists who are the principal sponsors of madrassas (schools) determined to create an endless supply of jihadists and suicide bombers against anyone who does not agree with their fanatical beliefs, Wahabi's who would welcome bin Ladin and his ilk as conquering heroes if they decided to go on the hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca.
I am by no means the only person who sees this dichotomy in our National policy. Nice to see that the NY Times, which originally cooperated outrageously in promoting the Neocon Crusade against Islam, is finally beginning to see the light.
Here is the link to today's article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27saudi.html?th&emc=th
Looks like this medium won't provide an easy link (I'm still getting used to the territory), but those who have an on-line connection to the Times can click on it there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment