John Kerry & Saudia Arabia

we3luvdisney

<font color=blue>I admit it. I am a <font color=pu
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
2,017
Has he lost his mind? He hasn't been voted President and he's already alienating other countries! If he's going to piss off Saudia Arabia, why not include Nigeria, Venezuela, Canada and Mexico? Based upon the Energy Information Administration these countries are also main suppliers.

Year to Date (January - May 2004) Thousand Barrels/Day

Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer that we should reduce our oil reliance in other countries. However, the United States should incorporate a plan, execute the plan and then start reducing our reliance on these countries. I believe our government should give tax breaks to U.S. citizens to help reduce the burden of these alternative energy sources.

Saudis Criticize Kerry for 'Bashing' Kingdom

By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia on Friday criticized Democratic presidential challenger Sen. John Kerry for "bashing" the kingdom when he called on the United States to cut its dependence on the Middle East nation's oil.

"Saudi bashing is not an energy policy," an official with the Saudi Embassy in Washington said.

In his nomination acceptance speech Thursday night, Kerry said he wants America to use technology to become energy independent and end its reliance on Saudi oil.

"I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation -- not the Saudi royal family," he said. The personal and financial ties between the Saudi royal family and President Bush and his family have been criticized in books and in Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Saudi Arabia has one-fourth of the world's proven crude oil reserves and is the largest foreign oil supplier to the United States -- providing 17 percent of U.S. crude imports.

The Saudi embassy official said Saudi Arabia has been a reliable supplier of oil to the U.S. market for decades and expects to continue in that role whether or not Kerry becomes president.

"This an election year ... and unfortunately Saudi bashing in expected," he said.

The Saudi government does not plan to send an official response to Kerry, but the kingdom has expressed displeasure over past anti-Saudi comments by U.S. politicians, and the Kerry campaign is aware of them, he said.

The United States itself is to blame for its dependence on foreign oil imports to meet more than half its petroleum demand, the Saudi official said.

He pointed out that the kingdom has urged the United States to produce vehicles with better gasoline mileage, but U.S. consumers keep buying gas-guzzling SUVs.

"We're not making them (SUVs)," he said.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

The Democratic Party platform calls for the United States to end its dependence on Middle East oil and develop crude supplies from countries such as Russia and Canada which are outside the OPEC cartel.

Kerry also wants to develop alternative energy sources and boost the fuel efficiency of U.S. cars and trucks to reduce oil and gasoline demand.

"In the Bush administration, energy independence doesn't get a thought. Their energy policy is simple: Government by big oil, of big oil and for big oil," reads the platform presented this week at the Democratic convention in Boston.

Democrats have also accused the Bush administration of developing a nation energy plan, under the direction of Vice President Dick Cheney, behind closed doors and with undue influence by the energy industry.

The Bush administration has implemented much of the plan on its own but the Democrats in Congress are blocking other parts of it. Time is running out to pass a final package this year.

"The attacks are backward," Energy Secretary Spencer Abrah said earlier this week. "We've done as much as we can."

Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, have missed major votes this year on the energy bill. "Instead of spending as much time on the campaign trail, maybe they should be spending a bit more time helping get an energy bill passed," Abraham added.

Democrats oppose legal protections in the bill for oil companies that make a water-polluting fuel additive. Democrats are also against some proposed tax breaks for the oil industry.

The Senate already defeated Bush's plan to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
 
You are forgetting that Prince Bandahr and the Bush family
are the best of friends. George Sr. calls Bandahr, "Bandahr Bush"
and the Prince's wife has referred to George and Barbara as
her "second parents." Bandar went against OPEC to lower the
oil prices from SA and said he'd do anything to get W elected.
Don't worry, when John is president, the Saudis will line up for
a great diplomatic relationship.

Oh yeah, and 14 of the 19 airplane terrorists of 9/11/01 were
Saudi nationals.
 
Originally posted by shortbun
Don't worry, when John is president, the Saudis will line up for
a great diplomatic relationship.

Oh yeah, and 14 of the 19 airplane terrorists of 9/11/01 were
Saudi nationals.

If he's ever elected, I'm sure the flip-flopping will begin.

I found this quote, which is not the one I wanted, but I'll continue my search:

Moore’s film suggests that [President] Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family – principally through [President] Bush’s father’s relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president’s father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family – who own one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms – had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton’s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group ‘gained’ from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore’s movie: the firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)

“There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal: George Soros. But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire [Soros] has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11”

Let's not forget the individuals that blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma were Americans.
 

Good lord, yet another mis-use of the term bashing. :rolleyes: He didn't say "The Saudi's are big bad meanies!" he said he'd like to decrease dependence on the Saudi royal family (or, in other words, Saudi Arabia) for our nation's oil.
 
Actually, I kind of like the idea of "pissing off" the Saudi royal family. It beats the hell out of being in bed with them and turning a blind eye to their connections to terrorists and the anti-American propaganda they teach their children in school while professing to be our "friends".

It's hilarious that a Bush supporter is complaining about alienating foreign countries!:rotfl:

He pointed out that the kingdom has urged the United States to produce vehicles with better gasoline mileage, but U.S. consumers keep buying gas-guzzling SUVs.

That's the best incentive I've had in a while to buy an SUV. Somehow the idea of the "kingdom" urging me to do anything is infuriating.
 
Originally posted by shortbun
You are forgetting that Prince Bandahr and the Bush family
are the best of friends. George Sr. calls Bandahr, "Bandahr Bush"
and the Prince's wife has referred to George and Barbara as
her "second parents."

The link I've posted has a wonderful article, written by Elsa Walsh. It's very long, but please take the time to read the entire article.

SAUDI-US RELATIONS INFORMATION SERVICE

As for the "second parents," here's a quote:

But a smaller moment may have cemented the bond between the elder Bush and Bandar. When George and Barbara Bush visited the troops in Saudi Arabia during the Thanksgiving holiday in 1990, Bush called Bandar, who was in Saudi Arabia at the time. Bandar went to the private quarters in the royal palace where the Bushes were staying. Bush had tears in his eyes, and Bandar, worried, asked what had happened. Bush explained that Dorothy, their recently divorced daughter, was alone at the White House with her children. They had called her from the airplane and learned that Bandar's wife, Haifa, had invited Doro and her children to spend Thanksgiving with her. ("I don't have parents now," Haifa told me. "The Bushes are like my mother and father. I know if ever I needed anything I could go to them.")
 
Right. Just like the mis-use of the word "attack". When you point out someone's record in a TV commercial, it's an attack. Right.
 
Originally posted by peachgirl
It's hilarious that a Bush supporter is complaining about alienating foreign countries!

Have you forgotten that Kerry has said President Bush has alienated the U.S. with other countries? :confused: :confused: So, it's not okay for President Bush to alienate other countries, but it's okay for Kerry to start?:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Let the flip-flopping begin:p ::yes:: ::yes:: :p
 
Originally posted by peachgirl
It's hilarious that a Bush supporter is complaining about alienating foreign countries!:rotfl:

You picked up on this too Peachgirl! ::yes::

Very funny indeed!
 
Please, take the time to read the link (Saudi-US Relations Information Service) link I provided. It has some wonderful information, like this:

Bush also wanted it known that he was serious about Iraq. He asked Bandar what had happened with the Clinton Administration, and Bandar described how, in October of 1994, King Fahd had told Clinton that neither country could afford to have Saddam Hussein remain in power, from a military, political, or economic point of view. Fahd, Bandar said, suggested that Saudi Arabia and the United States spend as much on covert operations to get Saddam as they had in Afghanistan to oust the Soviets-about a billion dollars each. The Saudis, in fact, were willing to spend more. Fahd told Clinton that he had rounded up support for the plan from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and even Iran. They shook hands on it, Bandar told Bush, but nothing came of it. "For six years, we've been given the runaround," he said. "Therefore everybody here"-in Saudi Arabia-"adjusted to cover their rear ends."
 
Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Have you forgotten that Kerry has said President Bush has alienated the U.S. with other countries? :confused: :confused: So, it's not okay for President Bush to alienate other countries, but it's okay for Kerry to start?:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Let the flip-flopping begin:p ::yes:: ::yes:: :p


No one ever said that we had to do whatever it takes not to alienate a foreign country. The problem is Bush is doing it to our true allies for all the wrong reasons. Alienating a country by not being dependent on them for oil is fine by me.

The fact that John Kerry wants us to reduce our dependency on Saudi oil may very well piss off the Saudi's and understandably so. However, that's pretty much too bad.

Seems to me we are well within our rights to want to curb our dependency on them and if it alienates them, so be it. I'm not quite sure what we lose if the Saudi's don't like us.
 
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia on Friday criticized Democratic presidential challenger Sen. John Kerry for "bashing" the kingdom when he called on the United States to cut its dependence on the Middle East nation's oil.

Calling for the US to cut its dependance on Saudi oil is Saudi bashing????? Are you serious? Are you suggesting we kiss up to the same saudis that spawned osama and most of the suicide hijackers. the same saudis that had a telethon to raise money for a terrorist fundraiser.

How on earth can saying "I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation -- not the Saudi royal family,'' http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-campaign-saudi-kerry.html be called Sauudi bashing?
 
Well, glad to see that Bandar Bush has such input in w's administration!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Wonder if that's where we got the faulty intelligence pertaining to Iraq. No, no... That wouldn't make any sense. Why would Saudi Arabia want Iraq out of the picture? :tongue:
 
Originally posted by peachgirl
It's hilarious that a Bush supporter is complaining about alienating foreign countries!:rotfl:

Well, I actually think it's sad... but not surprising. :sad2:
 
How about this article?

JOHN KERRY: THE ARAB HOPE?
by Amir Taheri
New York Post
March 28, 2004

IF elected president, will John Kerry offer the Arabs a better deal? This is the question raised in the Arab media these days.

Many different answers are given, but a consensus seems to be emerging that a Kerry presidency will lift what the Arab elite regards as its worst nightmare during the presidency of George W Bush.

The Kerry debate was kicked off by the Saudi daily Al-Jazeera, which published a front-page photo of the Massachusetts senator with Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud, the Saudi ambassador in Washington. Several other Saudi papers later ran the "friendship photo" "the history of a long and close friendship between Sen. Kerry and the Saudi kingdom."

The pan-Arab daily Asharq Alawsat, for example, claimed that Kerry's recent promise to end America's dependence on Saudi oil is merely an electoral tactic. The paper also claimed that Kerry was introduced to the Saudi ambassador by Edward Kennedy, the senior Massachusetts senator, in 1990. The two "worked hard" to organize an exhibition in Boston to introduce "Saudi culture and civilization" to Americans.

The Saudi media also cite "official documents" that testify to the "close friendship" Kerry ostensibly developed with Riyadh for more than a decade.

Kennedy's "Arab connection" is even older. In 1976, he toured several Arab capitals - including Baghdad, where he met Saddam Hussein, then Vice-President of Iraq. "Kennedy understands the Arabs because he has visited the region and developed relations with Arab leaders," says a Saudi official. "As the senior figure of the Democratic Party, Kennedy will help put a Kerry administration on the right track with regard to relations with the Arabs."

Beyond Saudi Arabia, the assumption in Arab media and political circles is that Kerry as president will abandon Bush's "dreams of change" in the Middle East and restore Washington's traditional policy of support for the status quo in the Arab world.

"We are certain that a Democratic administration will be more realistic," says a senior advisor to Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak. "Bush's talk of imposing democracy can only de-stabilize the region and produce catastrophe for all concerned."

Arab chancelleries are doing all they can to freeze all issues pending the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. But some Arab politicians reject this "wait and see" position. "For decades, we have geared Arab politics to the rhythm of American presidential elections," says Lebanese politician Walid Jumbalat. "Each time, we deluded ourselves into believing that a change at the White House would lead to a change in our favor."

Jumbalat is right. The deus ex machina of American elections has seldom helped save the Arab from a tight spot.

Many Arab leaders also fail to understand the sea-change that 9/11 has produced in the average American's view of the world. What Bush has tried to do is to reflect that change - which, incidentally, goes against his original inclination to keep the United States as clear of international affairs as possible.

Today, it is safe to say that no one can get elected president of the United States on an anti-war platform. The rise and rapid fall of Howard Dean, the anti-war populist, was a sure sign of that. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the most ardent of the anti-war hopefuls, has failed to rise above the 1 percent level in Democrat primaries.

The Arabs should not delude themselves into believing that a Democratic administration will be able to abandon the War on Terror or ignore its root cause, which is the absence of democracy and human rights in countries where religious fascism has established itself as the key challenger to often corrupt and despotic ruling cliques.

The Arabs are not alone in deluding themselves that a Democrat at the White House will let them do as they please. Kerry's claim that several foreign leaders told him they need him to beat Bush is not as fanciful as the Republicans pretend. Some "old Europe" politicians, including France's President Jacques Chirac, also hope a President Kerry will dance to their tune - not only on Iraq, but also on issues such as the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court.

Dominique de Villepin, France's foreign minister, makes no secret of his belief that the Bush presidency has been an "aberration" and that a Democratic president will "lift the fog of war."

What the outside world must understand is that most Americans now believe that they are threatened by enemies who can strike in the very heart of the United States. But the average American's reaction is quite different from that of the Spaniards who changed their votes because of the 3/11 terrorist attacks on Madrid. Few Americans are prepared to turn the other cheek for Osama bin Laden and societies that have helped breed, raise and finance him. Nor would they share the "old Europe" illusion that one can change the nature of a man-eater by feeding him vegetables and cuddling him.

Sens. Kerry and Kennedy may be "sincere friends of the Arabs," as the Saudi media suggest. It is also quite possible that de Villepin told Kerry "you've got to beat Bush for all of us." But the problem that Arabs and some in the "old Europe" have is that they do not yet understand that, for a majority of Americans, the War on Terror is a real war - not a pose that can be altered with a change of administration.
 
We3lovedisney I think you're contradicting yourself more than usual. First you post an article critical of what Kerry said because you fear it may "alienate" the Saudi Royal family and now you're posting an article suggesting that Kerry has ties that are too close to the same entity??? Which is it???

And to even suggest that Kerry may be more cozy with SA than the shrub is laughable in itself! Run from that record! Run!!!
 
With sources like Al Jazeera and a Saudi publication, I don't put much stock in your article. Btw, do you have a link for that story?

It does have that ring of the "vote for Bush or die" theory though.:rolleyes:

Other than that, I'm not at all sure what point you think that article proves. Are you suggesting that we dare not try and wean ourselves off of Saudi oil for fear of making them angry with us????
 












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE











DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top Bottom