Jump to content

Saudis Get a Gift From Monkey Boy


Manscape
 Share

Recommended Posts

BUSH BIZARRO WORLD.............where peace is war, life is death and terror is what we are told it is!! :)

(BTW, sorry about the "left wing" wacko news source for this nugget)

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print...2257659301.html

Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?

By EDWARD J. MARKEY

June 10, 2008; Page A15 in the Wall Street Journel

Here's a quick geopolitical quiz: What country is three times the size of Texas and has more than 300 days of blazing sun a year? What country has the world's largest oil reserves resting below miles upon miles of sand? And what country is being given nuclear power, not solar, by President George W. Bush, even when the mere assumption of nuclear possession in its region has been known to provoke pre-emptive air strikes, even wars?

If you answered Saudi Arabia to all of these questions, you're right.

Last month, while the American people were becoming the personal ATMs of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Saudi Arabia signing away an even more valuable gift: nuclear technology. In a ceremony little-noticed in this country, Ms. Rice volunteered the U.S. to assist Saudi Arabia in developing nuclear reactors, training nuclear engineers, and constructing nuclear infrastructure. While oil breaks records at $130 per barrel or more, the American consumer is footing the bill for Saudi Arabia's nuclear ambitions.

Saudi Arabia has poured money into developing its vast reserves of natural gas for domestic electricity production. It continues to invest in a national gas transportation pipeline and stepped-up exploration, building a solid foundation for domestic energy production that could meet its electricity needs for many decades. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, would require enormous investments in new infrastructure by a country with zero expertise in this complex technology.

Have Ms. Rice, Mr. Bush or Saudi leaders looked skyward? The Saudi desert is under almost constant sunshine. If Mr. Bush wanted to help his friends in Riyadh diversify their energy portfolio, he should have offered solar panels, not nuclear plants.

Saudi Arabia's interest in nuclear technology can only be explained by the dangerous politics of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, a champion and kingpin of the Sunni Arab world, is deeply threatened by the rise of Shiite-ruled Iran.

The two countries watch each other warily over the waters of the Persian Gulf, buying arms and waging war by proxy in Lebanon and Iraq. An Iranian nuclear weapon would radically alter the region's balance of power, and could prove to be the match that lights the tinderbox. By signing this agreement with the U.S., Saudi Arabia is warning Iran that two can play the nuclear game.

In 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "[iran is] already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. No one can figure why they need nuclear, as well, to generate energy." Mr. Cheney got it right about Iran. But a potential Saudi nuclear program is just as suspicious. For a country with so much oil, gas and solar potential, importing expensive and dangerous nuclear power makes no economic sense.

The Bush administration argues that Saudi Arabia can not be compared to Iran, because Riyadh said it won't develop uranium enrichment or spent-fuel reprocessing, the two most dangerous nuclear technologies. At a recent hearing before my Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman shrugged off concerns about potential Saudi misuse of nuclear assistance for a weapons program, saying simply: "I presume that the president has a good deal of confidence in the King and in the leadership of Saudi Arabia."

That's not good enough. We would do well to remember that it was the U.S. who provided the original nuclear assistance to Iran under the Atoms for Peace program, before Iran's monarch was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Such an uprising in Saudi Arabia today could be at least as damaging to U.S. security.

We've long known that America's addiction to oil pays for the spread of extremism. If this Bush nuclear deal moves forward, Saudi Arabia's petrodollars could flow to the dangerous expansion of nuclear technologies in the most volatile region of the world.

While the scorching Saudi Arabian sun heats sand dunes instead of powering photovoltaic panels, millions of Americans will fork over $4 a gallon without realizing that their gas tank is fueling a nascent nuclear arms race.

Rep. Markey (D., Mass.) is chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUSH BIZARRO WORLD.............where peace is war, life is death and terror is what we are told it is!! :huh:

(BTW, sorry about the "left wing" wacko news source for this nugget)

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print...2257659301.html

Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?

By EDWARD J. MARKEY

June 10, 2008; Page A15 in the Wall Street Journel

Here's a quick geopolitical quiz: What country is three times the size of Texas and has more than 300 days of blazing sun a year? What country has the world's largest oil reserves resting below miles upon miles of sand? And what country is being given nuclear power, not solar, by President George W. Bush, even when the mere assumption of nuclear possession in its region has been known to provoke pre-emptive air strikes, even wars?

If you answered Saudi Arabia to all of these questions, you're right.

Last month, while the American people were becoming the personal ATMs of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Saudi Arabia signing away an even more valuable gift: nuclear technology. In a ceremony little-noticed in this country, Ms. Rice volunteered the U.S. to assist Saudi Arabia in developing nuclear reactors, training nuclear engineers, and constructing nuclear infrastructure. While oil breaks records at $130 per barrel or more, the American consumer is footing the bill for Saudi Arabia's nuclear ambitions.

Saudi Arabia has poured money into developing its vast reserves of natural gas for domestic electricity production. It continues to invest in a national gas transportation pipeline and stepped-up exploration, building a solid foundation for domestic energy production that could meet its electricity needs for many decades. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, would require enormous investments in new infrastructure by a country with zero expertise in this complex technology.

Have Ms. Rice, Mr. Bush or Saudi leaders looked skyward? The Saudi desert is under almost constant sunshine. If Mr. Bush wanted to help his friends in Riyadh diversify their energy portfolio, he should have offered solar panels, not nuclear plants.

Saudi Arabia's interest in nuclear technology can only be explained by the dangerous politics of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, a champion and kingpin of the Sunni Arab world, is deeply threatened by the rise of Shiite-ruled Iran.

The two countries watch each other warily over the waters of the Persian Gulf, buying arms and waging war by proxy in Lebanon and Iraq. An Iranian nuclear weapon would radically alter the region's balance of power, and could prove to be the match that lights the tinderbox. By signing this agreement with the U.S., Saudi Arabia is warning Iran that two can play the nuclear game.

In 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "[iran is] already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. No one can figure why they need nuclear, as well, to generate energy." Mr. Cheney got it right about Iran. But a potential Saudi nuclear program is just as suspicious. For a country with so much oil, gas and solar potential, importing expensive and dangerous nuclear power makes no economic sense.

The Bush administration argues that Saudi Arabia can not be compared to Iran, because Riyadh said it won't develop uranium enrichment or spent-fuel reprocessing, the two most dangerous nuclear technologies. At a recent hearing before my Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman shrugged off concerns about potential Saudi misuse of nuclear assistance for a weapons program, saying simply: "I presume that the president has a good deal of confidence in the King and in the leadership of Saudi Arabia."

That's not good enough. We would do well to remember that it was the U.S. who provided the original nuclear assistance to Iran under the Atoms for Peace program, before Iran's monarch was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Such an uprising in Saudi Arabia today could be at least as damaging to U.S. security.

We've long known that America's addiction to oil pays for the spread of extremism. If this Bush nuclear deal moves forward, Saudi Arabia's petrodollars could flow to the dangerous expansion of nuclear technologies in the most volatile region of the world.

While the scorching Saudi Arabian sun heats sand dunes instead of powering photovoltaic panels, millions of Americans will fork over $4 a gallon without realizing that their gas tank is fueling a nascent nuclear arms race.

Rep. Markey (D., Mass.) is chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Was'nt it Carter who screwed up the 1979 Iran hostage rescue and was'nt it Clinton who let the chief Saudi Terrorist OBL slip through his fingers. Were'nt they both Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
Was'nt it Carter who screwed up the 1979 Iran hostage rescue and was'nt it Clinton who let the chief Saudi Terrorist OBL slip through his fingers. Were'nt they both Democrats.

Yes they were both Defeatocrats but it was still Bush's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Was'nt it Carter who screwed up the 1979 Iran hostage rescue and was'nt it Clinton who let the chief Saudi Terrorist OBL slip through his fingers. Were'nt they both Democrats.

Get real.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/1...lumn.billpress/

The guy who let Bin Laden slip through his fingers was the guy who diverted money from the hunt in Afghanistan to prep for the illegal war in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Was'nt it Carter who screwed up the 1979 Iran hostage rescue and was'nt it Clinton who let the chief Saudi Terrorist OBL slip through his fingers. Were'nt they both Democrats.

It's someone obviously unfamiliar with the FACTS that believes Clinton let OBL slip anywhere.

Sudan offered to place OBL in Saudi custody, they declined. There was insufficient evidence to harge him here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's someone obviously unfamiliar with the FACTS that believes Clinton let OBL slip anywhere.

Sudan offered to place OBL in Saudi custody, they declined. There was insufficient evidence to harge him here.

Typical Democrat apologist. If the Saudi's would'nt take him, then we should have demanded the right to come to Sudan and seize him dead or alive. Boohoo the Saudi's won't take him so we'll let him go and he can kill 3000 People on 9/11. How does it feel to have the blood of 3000 on your hands democrats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
Was'nt it Carter who screwed up the 1979 Iran hostage rescue and was'nt it Clinton who let the chief Saudi Terrorist OBL slip through his fingers. Were'nt they both Democrats.

Exactly right. Clinton was busy getting BJ's when Osama bombed the WTC the first time and he was busy getting BJ's when Osama was bombing

the USS Cole. Thereafter the Sudanese apprehended Osama and offered him to Clinton on a silver platter. Clinton declined saying "we didn't have

enough evidence to hold him". Do you think Bush would have taken him? You bet your ass Bush would have had him in Gitmo before you can say

waterboarding. And 9/11 would never have happened if Clinton had grabbed him. Clinton is directly responsible for 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith
Typical Democrat apologist. If the Saudi's would'nt take him, then we should have demanded the right to come to Sudan and seize him dead or alive. Boohoo the Saudi's won't take him so we'll let him go and he can kill 3000 People on 9/11. How does it feel to have the blood of 3000 on your hands democrats

So by your logic the Repulicans are directly responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands innocent Iraqi's who never did anything to us,Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Exactly right. Clinton was busy getting BJ's when Osama bombed the WTC the first time and he was busy getting BJ's when Osama was bombing

the USS Cole. Thereafter the Sudanese apprehended Osama and offered him to Clinton on a silver platter. Clinton declined saying "we didn't have

enough evidence to hold him". Do you think Bush would have taken him? You bet your ass Bush would have had him in Gitmo before you can say

waterboarding. And 9/11 would never have happened if Clinton had grabbed him. Clinton is directly responsible for 9/11.

And just what was keeping the Shrub busy on 9/11??????????

A search for the liquor cabinet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Typical Democrat apologist. If the Saudi's would'nt take him, then we should have demanded the right to come to Sudan and seize him dead or alive. Boohoo the Saudi's won't take him so we'll let him go and he can kill 3000 People on 9/11. How does it feel to have the blood of 3000 on your hands democrats

Typical Bushista apologist who conveniently ignores the FACT that the little cowboy ignored warniongs and it was HIM in office on 9/11.

Typical Bushista apologist who conveniently ignores the FACT that instead of pursuing those who attacked us your little Shrub chose instead to pursue an agenda he'd decided on long before 9/11.

If you'd open your blind eyes and deaf ears you'd KNOW it's George Walker 'Dumbya' Bush that has the blood of 9/11 victims as well as Iraq War victimes on HIS hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheoryCat
Typical Democrat apologist. If the Saudi's would'nt take him, then we should have demanded the right to come to Sudan and seize him dead or alive. Boohoo the Saudi's won't take him so we'll let him go and he can kill 3000 People on 9/11. How does it feel to have the blood of 3000 on your hands democrats

It is people like you who are poisoning our national discourse. Please continue as you are-you only drive reasonable people away from your position. My husband never voted Democratic in his life until the Rush Limbaugh wingnuts took over his party and the party of fiscal conservatism turned into the party of spend like mad and pass the bill to our children.

Congratulations-you've joined the ranks of such great thinkers as 2Smart4u and Patriot. We can now see one of your posts, translate into "blah, blah, Democrats evil, Republicans good" and ignore you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...