Saturday, October 24, 2009

What's a little tyranny among friends? . . .

I don't know -- call me krazee or warped -- especially considering my publicly stated anti-war beliefs -- but I'm still convinced to this day that America attacked the wrong country after 9/11.

This story is reason enough to make me feel that way, but perhaps it also has something to do with the fact that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and that has always made me ponder the possibility that maybe -- just maybe -- Rumsfeldian shock and awe should have been visited upon the Saudi Arabia Royal compounds instead of a defanged and defenseless Iraq.

I suppose I'm being much too unrealistic though, especially knowing that the Bush Family and the Saudi Royal Family were basically one big crude (as in oil) Family. Hell, the Bushies had even virtually adopted one of the Saudi Royals into their clan and had proudly bestowed upon him the lovely nickname of "Prince Bandar Bush".

If I recall, after Iraq had been invaded and the dreaded Weapons of Mass Destruction turned out to be the neo-con's and Dick Cheney's collective wet dream, the justification for the invasion by the Bushistas instantly morphed into the noble, American flag-draped cause of saving the beloved Iraqi people from the oppressive terror of the evil borg tyrant Saddam. The grateful Iraqis would throw flowers at us and kiss our dusty combat boots! Remember that?

Of course, that crock of pseudo-patriotic bullshit went over quite well with the Fox Noize bozos and their rube viewers along with the rest of the media lapdogs who cheered on the Bushies as they marched into Baghdad and choreographed that cute little skit of toppling Saddam's statue. Yet, any C+ student of mid-east history could have told you that the Iraqi people under Saddam had a better quality of life and more freedoms than Saudi citizens any hour of the day and any day of the week and by and large were fairly content with the way the admittedly brutal Saddam was keeping the Shiites and the Sunnis from each other's throats.

Alas, there was no shock and awe fire-bombing and invasion to free the Saudi people. That charming honor was reserved solely for the Iraqis.

The bottom line is -- as the article about the woman reporter being sentenced to 60 lashes referenced above connotes, the Saudis run just as brutal and arguably a more brutal and oppressive regime than Saddam could ever dream of. The nationality of the majority of the 9/11 hijackers was Saudi. Those facts are only in dispute from ignorant know-nothings who get their news from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Can somebody, anybody, please coherently explain to me why the Saudi government is still considered an American "ally?" Perhaps the CEO's and shareholders of Exxon-Mobil, Texaco, ConocoPhilips, Shell/BP and Chevron can answer that question for us?

What kind of Kafkaesque argument can be mounted in defense of a government that thinks this is an appropriate method of dealing with those citizens who dare question the validity of their state-sponsored superstition?:

[Saudi state ordered beheading of an "infidel"]

I'm not trying to be difficult here -- well, maybe I am, but it's what I do. I just want someone to rationally explain to me why it is that Iraq was worth expending 5000 American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, looting the American taxpayer's treasury, and irreparably damaging America's national honor and world image on. Yet Saudi Arabia goes merrily on it's tyrannical way. What's wrong with that picture?


No comments: